Calculating Information Entropy

[random_guy]

Yes mutations can in few cases decrease entropy yet over all , random mutation cause entropy of information to increase. This is the same with a factory that entropy decease to build a product but over all (the big picture) entropy increase is greater than the decease in entropy ... thus this is the whole point of 2nd LoT. 2nd Lot doesn't state that entropy can't decrease in an area but there is a greater cost elsewhere. So information applies the same as heat.

Please define information when it comes to biology. Which has more information, humans or rice (rice has twice as many genes)? Which has more information, humans or hedgehogs (hedgehogs have more DNA)? Which has more information, hedgehogs or rice? How do you apply the 2nd Law to any of these creatures? How do you apply the 2nd Law to different breed of dogs?

Anti-evolutionists can never answer these questions. Science requires strong definitions, not handwaves of terms like "complexity" with no way of measuring it. That's why attacks using the 2nd Law or Information Theory will always fail until it is formalized for biological evolution.

 

[Deamiter]

Please define information when it comes to biology. Which has more information, humans or rice (rice has twice as many genes)? Which has more information, humans or hedgehogs (hedgehogs have more DNA)? Which has more information, hedgehogs or rice? How do you apply the 2nd Law to any of these creatures? How do you apply the 2nd Law to different breed of dogs?

Anti-evolutionists can never answer these questions. Science requires strong definitions, not handwaves of terms like "complexity" with no way of measuring it. That's why attacks using the 2nd Law or Information Theory will always fail until it is formalized for biological evolution.

Indeed. Entropy in thermodynamics and information entropy in information theory are utterly unrelated (much like evolution of populations and evolution of a system of government are utterly unrelated). It is perhaps unfortunate that different areas of science use the same terms, but perhaps it is inevitable as there are a limited number of words.

There is no equivalent of the 2LoT in information theory. There is no "law" that requires that information cannot increase.

I just don't know how else to say it. I'm not lying to you. Information entropy is not bound by the 2LoT. It's just not. I'm sorry that the term stands for two different things, but just because it's confusing doesn't mean you can ignore that "entropy" is used differently in different areas of study.

 

[artybloke]

with post-modernism's assertion that there is NO objective Truth, or if such Truth exists we are incapable of ever knowing it leaving most unsatisfied.

Post-modernism asserts nothing of the sort.

 

[FallingWaters]

Informational entropy is calculated as the CHANGE from an ideal message, not as the arrangement of physical bits.

Yay! Something I understand! I admire the intelligence of you all, and excuse me for barging in, but I am thankful when people explain things at a level that my apparently inferior mind can grasp.

I have been lately reading medical records hand written by doctors and nurses, so I know all about "the CHANGE from an ideal message" LOL!!

Perhaps had I an appreciation of modern art I could believe in macroevolution and the powers of randomness, but to me, even before belief in Christ, both modern art and macroevolution seemed like a scam. The fact that very, very intelligent people spend millions of dollars and gawk appreciatevely, (dare I say with religious awe?) at both modern art and macroevolution dosen't impress me. I have always chosen to believe my own reason than the madding crowd.

JR

I SO know how you feel about Modern Art!!

 

[Deamiter]

Yay! Something I understand! I admire the intelligence of you all, and excuse me for barging in, but I am thankful when people explain things at a level that my apparently inferior mind can grasp.

I have been lately reading medical records hand written by doctors and nurses, so I know all about "the CHANGE from an ideal message" LOL!!

I SO know how you feel about Modern Art!!

You must be very careful about this definition. This assumes that there is an ideal message, something that does not exist in DNA.

Every person has a number of mutations that make their DNA different from their parents'. These mutations can produce the huge lung capacity of Lance Armstrong, or the faster leg structure of many long-distance runners of African descent. Often a mutation only causes a particular bone to grow a tiny bit more or slightly changed muscle function.

If you assume that every single person's DNA is ideal, than yes, any mutation is a loss of data. But this definition of information was designed for computers where ANY change is corruption. In populations, mutations are NECESSARY to allow populations to adapt and without a large genetic base, you start to see the negative effects of inbreeding.

In short, this analogy is PERFECT if you're talking about computers. In biology, as each organism has a unique genetic code, there is no ideal code, and indeed the ideal population is one with MANY different mutations that allows for easy adaptation (to scientists this is the basis of evolution).

 

[FallingWaters]

You must be very careful about this definition. This assumes that there is an ideal message, something that does not exist in DNA.

Every person has a number of mutations that make their DNA different from their parents'. These mutations can produce the huge lung capacity of Lance Armstrong, or the faster leg structure of many long-distance runners of African descent. Often a mutation only causes a particular bone to grow a tiny bit more or slightly changed muscle function.

If you assume that every single person's DNA is ideal, than yes, any mutation is a loss of data. But this definition of information was designed for computers where ANY change is corruption. In populations, mutations are NECESSARY to allow populations to adapt and without a large genetic base, you start to see the negative effects of inbreeding.

In short, this analogy is PERFECT if you're talking about computers. In biology, as each organism has a unique genetic code, there is no ideal code, and indeed the ideal population is one with MANY different mutations that allows for easy adaptation (to scientists this is the basis of evolution).

Yes, I read what you wrote about it earlier.

I get the impression that your definition of a mutation is different from mine. Your descriptions of how mutations function sounds like my understanding of how "natural selection" works.

In my understanding, a mutation is a change that is not beneficial to the organism that experienced it, but rather, detrimental, such as a birth defect would be.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, I read what you wrote about it earlier.

I get the impression that your definition of a mutation is different from mine. Your descriptions of how mutations function sounds like my understanding of how "natural selection" works.

In my understanding, a mutation is a change that is not beneficial to the organism that experienced it, but rather, detrimental, such as a birth defect would be.

that is problematic since the by the scientific definition of mutation, most mutations are neutral. the second problem is that mutations are benefical/detrimental/neutral with respect to their current environment. there really isn't (except maybe lethal mutations) any mutations that are strictly in themselves good or bad, but rather beneficial or detrimental given how they interact with their environment, whether they help their carrier to leave fertile offspring or not.

 

[random_guy]

Yes, I read what you wrote about it earlier.

I get the impression that your definition of a mutation is different from mine. Your descriptions of how mutations function sounds like my understanding of how "natural selection" works.

In my understanding, a mutation is a change that is not beneficial to the organism that experienced it, but rather, detrimental, such as a birth defect would be.

From what I understand from my genetic engineering class, a mutation is any change in the DNA with respect to the original DNA. So even a beneficial mutation is still a mutation.

 

[Mallon]

From what I understand from my genetic engineering class, a mutation is any change in the DNA with respect to the original DNA. So even a beneficial mutation is still a mutation.

I'll second that, since it's right. Sorry to say that your understanding of what a mutation is is mistaken, FallingWaters. A mutation is simply a change to an organism's DNA, be it beneficial, neutral, or detrimental with regards to the surrounding environment.

 

[Deamiter]

In my understanding, a mutation is a change that is not beneficial to the organism that experienced it, but rather, detrimental, such as a birth defect would be.

In the spirit of the forums, I'll repeat what others have said. Your definition is of "detrimental mutations." ANY change in the DNA is considered a mutation.

It's kinda a basic definition -- if you read any biology textbook (even creationist ones!) or go to any definition website you will find that mutations are NEVER limited to only the detrimental ones.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Call me an ignoramus but I think that the coherency of information is dependant on information entropy. As you already stated, coherency is not the same as entropy. Take the following strings:

aaaaa -> low information entropy, no meaning

palpe -> higher information entropy, no meaning

apple -> nearly the same level of information entropy, but it now has meaning.

My point? If 2LoT can cause change in information entropy, it can also change coherency.

 

[random_guy]

Call me an ignoramus but I think that the coherency of information is dependant on information entropy. As you already stated, coherency is not the same as entropy. Take the following strings:

aaaaa -> low information entropy, no meaning

palpe -> higher information entropy, no meaning

apple -> nearly the same level of information entropy, but it now has meaning.

My point? If 2LoT can cause change in information entropy, it can also change coherency.

The problem is what does coherency mean? How does one measure coherency in terms of biology? With respect to what environment? What species? What organism? These are important issues that must be addressed if Creationists plan to use information theory to attack evolution. To this date, no Creationist has addressed these issues with scientific rigor.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I think this argument is totally bogus. The whole concept of "information entropy" has NOTHING to do with entropy in thermodynamics. The concepts cannot be related like this!

It's like saying, "since gravity pulls down, heat must flow down." You're applying a concept in one specific area of physics (the flow of heat or energy) to something totally unrelated (information theory). I agree with the conclusion, but the argument is crap.

The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with "information." There is no law that says that information must decay over time. There is nothing that prevents an open system (like the Earth) from becoming more complex. NOTHING. And applying entropy to the "information" contained in DNA is a complete perversion of a theory where it does not apply.

Thermodynamic entropy affects information processed by thermodynamic systems. Information doesn't exist apart from physical mediums. If thermodynamic entropy affects the particles within a thermodynamic system, and those particles make up the bits in information, information can be affected.

 

[Sojourner<><]

The problem is what does coherency mean? How does one measure coherency in terms of biology? With respect to what environment? What species? What organism? These are important issues that must be addressed if Creationists plan to use information theory to attack evolution. To this date, no Creationist has addressed these issues with scientific rigor.

Sure. But that is assuming that evolution needs to be attacked. It is one of many theories on the origin of the species. For myself, I need more than a sheer mass of seemingly vague forensic evidence to be convinced since I see the amount of evidence to be congruous with its popularity in the scientific community. Where is the smoking gun?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Thermodynamic entropy affects information processed by thermodynamic systems. Information doesn't exist apart from physical mediums. If thermodynamic entropy affects the particles within a thermodynamic system, and those particles make up the bits in information, information can be affected.

Note that this is not to say that the possibility of a specific pattern of information will ever decay.

 

[Deamiter]

Yay! Something I understand! I admire the intelligence of you all, and excuse me for barging in, but I am thankful when people explain things at a level that my apparently inferior mind can grasp.

I have been lately reading medical records hand written by doctors and nurses, so I know all about "the CHANGE from an ideal message" LOL!!

I SO know how you feel about Modern Art!!

Thermodynamic entropy affects information processed by thermodynamic systems. Information doesn't exist apart from physical mediums. If thermodynamic entropy affects the particles within a thermodynamic system, and those particles make up the bits in information, information can be affected.

Very true. But for the same reason that your computer can "gain information," DNA can gain information. In both cases, sufficient energy is input into the system to allow for a decrease in the system's entropy. Since this is the basis of the 2LoT argument against evolution, the fact that DNA is not a closed system refutes the argument.

Of course you're right that if DNA were a closed system, it'd decay along with everything else. Good thing that we have the sun then!

 

[shernren]

Thermodynamic entropy affects information processed by thermodynamic systems. Information doesn't exist apart from physical mediums. If thermodynamic entropy affects the particles within a thermodynamic system, and those particles make up the bits in information, information can be affected.

Change in physical information media which increase their entropy, can still cause an increase in "information content" whichever way you define it. When I write data to a computer's hard disk, it is a process that increases entropy (or else 2LoT would forbid it). And yet this increase in entropy can cause an "empty" hard disk to be full of data; and by whatever definition you use the full disk certainly has more information in it.

The beef here is nothing to do with 2LoT, it's an argument from incredulity against the spontaneous formation of order (as anthropocentrically observed) from disorder (ditto). 2LoT arguments are terrifying because refuting a non-sequitur is almost always more work than it's worth.

 

[Deamiter]

Sure. But that is assuming that evolution needs to be attacked. It is one of many theories on the origin of the species. For myself, I need more than a sheer mass of seemingly vague forensic evidence to be convinced since I see the amount of evidence to be congruous with its popularity in the scientific community. Where is the smoking gun?

To move further, we still haven't defined information as it applies to biology. In computers, a sequence loses information if it is changed even slightly. But in organisms, mutations are VITAL to the continued survival of a species. People who work in agriculture know that if the genetic basis of a population gets too low, the population will inbreed and become increasingly weaker.

In DNA, if there is a mutation it does not necessarily degrade the organism. In fact it is most likely to be neutral, and could possibly be helpful or harmful to the organism. Since an organism does not become less functional in the majority of mutations, you can't say that (as with bit-based algorithms) any change is a degredation.

That is why information entropy (as applied to computers) does not apply to biology. Quite simpy the definition of information is necessarily different so the definition of degredation must also be different.

Oh, and I'd strongly disagree that the evidence is either vague or purely forensic (ERVs are particularly convincing to me) but to stay on topic, I'll leave it to you to start a new thread on that topic if you wish.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Very true. But for the same reason that your computer can "gain information," DNA can gain information. In both cases, sufficient energy is input into the system to allow for a decrease in the system's entropy. Since this is the basis of the 2LoT argument against evolution, the fact that DNA is not a closed system refutes the argument.

Of course you're right that if DNA were a closed system, it'd decay along with everything else. Good thing that we have the sun then!

But if it didn't apply to DNA then it would never break down and we wouldn't have to worry about wrinkle cream...

 

[Sojourner<><]

But if it didn't apply to DNA then it would never break down and we wouldn't have to worry about wrinkle cream...

Unless of course we only die because of a genetically programmed instruction... But aren't there alternatives to that theory like radiation, etc.?