Let's semantically derail a conversation about informatics.

[shernren]

I was quite intrigued by what I came across in Creationism the other day:

The first dodge is to try to derail the discussion into semantics. "What do you mean by the term information?" There is a whole discipline called information theory that can answer that question in depth -- far more depth than I have dealt with personally. But the basic meaning is clear. Far too clear for most evolutionists.

Well, I guess if "the basic meaning" of information is clear, then pops or any of the other creationists shouldn't have any problem answering this question:

Of the two pictures below, which has more information, and which is more likely to have been produced by random processes?

This:

or this:

 

[laptoppop]

Wikipedia has a decent introductory article on information theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

 

[laptoppop]

In terms of the two images, it is important to stay objective and to analyze the actual artifacts, not what they represent. In other words, think of them only as JPEG images, not as the mona lisa and something related to insulin.

As such, the size of the images and the efficacy of JPEG compression make it clear that the second, larger image contains more information. It requires more bandwidth to transmit and reproduce accurately.

 

[Sphinx777]

Informatics is the science of information, the practice of information processing, and the engineering of information systems. Informatics studies the structure, algorithms, behavior, and interactions of natural and artificial systems that store, process, access and communicate information. It also develops its own conceptual and theoretical foundations and utilizes foundations developed in other fields. Since the advent of computers, individuals and organizations increasingly process information digitally. This has led to the study of informatics that has computational, cognitive and social aspects, including study of the social impact of information technologies.

In some situations, information science and informatics are used interchangeably. However, some consider information science to be a subarea of the more general field of informatics.

Used as a compound, in conjunction with the name of a discipline, as in medical informatics, bioinformatics, etc., it denotes the specialization of informatics to the management and processing of data, information and knowledge in the named discipline, and the incorporation of informatic concepts and theories to enrich the other discipline; it has a similar relationship to library science.

 

[lemmings]

As such, the size of the images and the efficacy of JPEG compression make it clear that the second, larger image contains more information. It requires more bandwidth to transmit and reproduce accurately.

There are only about 2,000 characters on the second image; to procedurally generate it would only take 2kB in the ASCII format. If you stored it in binary, it would take a mere .5kB to generate. Just because the image is larger than the other doesn’t mean that Mona Lisa is simpler.

 

[laptoppop]

Ahhh yes -- but that's not what the OP said. The OP referenced them as pictures -- which means pixels, not data. This includes all the "extra" info that is included in a picture - the lines, the colors, etc.

 

[lemmings]

Ahhh yes -- but that's not what the OP said. The OP referenced them as pictures -- which means pixels, not data. This includes all the "extra" info that is included in a picture - the lines, the colors, etc.

The pixels are merely a means of conveying the information to humans. If you where counting the number of pixels to display an image, wouldn’t a white image measuring 1000 X 1000 pixels be more complex and carry more information than either of those two?

By stretching that analogue even farther, DNA is a polymer and so are plastics, isn’t wouldn’t a plastic be more complex and carry more information than DNA if it contains more monomers?

 

[laptoppop]

To measure relative complexity between entities using information theory, one must be consistent. For example, in the case of these two images, JPEG compression is used as the transmission media. JPEG would compress your example of a blank white image pretty well. The GIF format would compress it better, but you'd be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[shernren]

And as for the second question ...

 

[laptoppop]

Both images have more information than I would expect to find from random processes.

 

[Mallon]

Both images have more information than I would expect to find from random processes.

How much information would you expect from a random process?

 

[laptoppop]

Good question. I should probably have said too much ORDERED information for a random process. Random processes can certainly create a lot of junk that require lots of bits to transmit -- i.e. information by that part of information theory, but not information that implies design.

More relevant to evolution/creation discussion is some of the work that has been done regarding DNA and information theory. Google is your friend. While I appreciate the work that is being done, it doesn't interest me much.

 

[shernren]

Suppose I had a penny and a quarter. I flip both coins simultaneously. If both are heads I write "A"; if both are tails I write "G"; if the penny turns up heads and the quarter tails I write "C"; if the penny turns up tails and the quarter heads I write "T".

Wouldn't I expect to create the kind of information you see in the second picture? And wouldn't I have created it by a random process?

How would you determine from the sequence of letters in a string whether it was designed or not? (I'm expecting you to say you can't, but I'm curious to hear what you actually think.)

 

[Mallon]

GI should probably have said too much ORDERED information for a random process.

But does evolution posit only random processes at work, pop?

 

[laptoppop]

How would you determine from the sequence of letters in a string whether it was designed or not? (I'm expecting you to say you can't, but I'm curious to hear what you actually think.)

In a non-rigorous fashion, my answer would be that if something accomplished a purpose, I would see it as more likely to be designed. In other words, the pile of watch parts strewn across the floor does not show design to the degree that the assembled, functioning watch does.

 

[laptoppop]

But does evolution posit only random processes at work, pop?

You tell me -- I'm the YEC!

As I understand it, there are lots of different shades of thought within evolutionary circles. For example, there are the truly THEISTIC evolutionists, such as Behe, who would say that the random mutational aspects are not able to account for evolution, so it must be God-directed.

I believe secular evolutionary theory posits a combination of random and non-random processes. Certainly natural selection would not be considered a random process, but a selective one. The problem, of course, is that natural selection only works on variations already extant in the population. If the random mutations cannot generate enough positive variation, the result is mutational load, not progress.

 

[Mallon]

You tell me -- I'm the YEC!

Aye. But this issue has been addressed here countless times before. I want to see if you're listening.

As I understand it, there are lots of different shades of thought within evolutionary circles. For example, there are the truly THEISTIC evolutionists, such as Behe, who would say that the random mutational aspects are not able to account for evolution, so it must be God-directed.

I would count that god-of-the-gaps type thinking as deism, but whatever.

I believe secular evolutionary theory posits a combination of random and non-random processes. Certainly natural selection would not be considered a random process, but a selective one. The problem, of course, is that natural selection only works on variations already extant in the population. If the random mutations cannot generate enough positive variation, the result is mutational load, not progress.

Hmmm... you use a lot of undefined terms here. "Positive variation"? "Mutational load"? What do these terms mean? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
(P.S., evolution doesn't "progress". That's an outdated way of thinking about evolution that was abandoned with the Synthesis.)

 

[laptoppop]

Hmmm... you use a lot of undefined terms here. "Positive variation"? "Mutational load"? What do these terms mean? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

Enough. You know what these terms mean and what I'm saying. Please -- honest discourse not verbal sparring.

positive variation -- the mythical mutations that confer unambiguous positive benefits on the organism which can be passed on and spread in the population so that natural selection can prefer it over other members of the population.

mutational load (one type of genetic load) http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mutational_load.asp

 

[Mallon]

Enough. You know what these terms mean and what I'm saying. Please -- honest discourse not verbal sparring.

positive variation -- the mythical mutations that confer unambiguous positive benefits on the organism which can be passed on and spread in the population so that natural selection can prefer it over other members of the population.

mutational load (one type of genetic load) http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Mutational_load.asp

Thanks for defining those terms, pop. I think I get it now. Rest assured that when I say I don't understand what you're saying, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to spar with you.
I still don't see the problem you have with natural selection acting on existing mutation, though. Sure, mutations can build up over time without being selected against. But why do you think that's a problem for the evolutionary theory?

 

[laptoppop]

The problem I see for evolutionary theory is that there are too many harmful mutations leading to mutational load and too few (if any) unambiguously positive mutations to provide a population with the right kind of variation for natural selection to work upon.