Jay, Since you violate net etiquette by making public a note which was
privatly sent to you (because you had sent the prior note privately to me),
I will reply publically.
You wrote on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:29 PM:
>I hesitate continuing to clutter up this list any more but,
>
The note you are replying to wasn't sent to the list thus there was no need
to reply to the list.
>Your statement:
>
>"One simply can't be intellectually honest and only listen to positive =
>things for ones' views..."
>
>describes your approach to pretty much everything I have said.
So are you saying that one can be intellectually honest and ONLY listen to
positive things for his side?
>
>You continually patronize me by claiming that "non-scientists" cannot =
>hope to fathom the depths of your scientific understanding.
>
I don't believe I ever said that. What I did say was:
"The sad thing is that creationists, who don't understand information theory
or entropy have convinced non-scientists like you that there is a conflict.
To answer that requires some knowledge of information theory but I will do
some simple things to show you what happens. First, lets define ordered.
Ordered sequences are things like:"
>
>You said:
>
>"Evolution is just the driving of sequences towards the random portion =
>of
>sequence space and that is where the information lies."
>
>What drives it? What information lies in the random portion of sequence =
>space? =20
For those who didn't get the chance to see my private note to you, they need
to see what we are speaking of.
I had written of random mutation:
The sad thing is that creationists, who don't understand information theory
or entropy have convinced non-scientists like you that there is a conflict.
To answer that requires some knowledge of information theory but I will do
some simple things to show you what happens. First, lets define ordered.
Ordered sequences are things like:
010101010101010....
That is like a crystal--highly ordered, but low in information content.
Information can be measured in one of two ways. First by the equation H = -K
sum(P(i)log(P(i)) where the P(i)'s are the probability for a character in a
sequence to appear. If you have a sequence like 0000000.... there is only
one character which has a probability of 1 of occurring next in sequence.
Since the log of 1 --log(1)-- equals zero, a single character sequence is
highly ordered but has no information. A random sequence the characters are
basically equally probable. So given 26 letters, a random sequence might
look like:
qb4qbe9jnw317hd3bj8ty5bo99ibo8i3P
A question: Does the above sequence have information? Does it have
meaning? It is not ordered, it is organized and looks random. It is
organized because it does have meaning. It is a Caesar cypher for "a random
sequence might look like:" A Caesar cypher is merely a shift of the fingers
on the keyboard. It looks random doesn't it? It isn't random, but it
illustrates that information and randomness are at the same end of the
spectrum for possible sequences.
The point is that as random mutation occurs in a sequence like 01010101010,
it transforms it into something that looks like
qb4qbe9jnw317hd3bj8ty5bo99ibo8i3P, which has lots of information. Thus,
random mutation creates information both in relation to the logarithmic
equation above as well as qualitatively.
Now to answer your question. What drives things to the information
containing part of sequence space? random mutation. Your question ">What
information lies in the random portion of sequence =
>space? =20" shows that you didn't understand what you read above. An
ordered sequence,
0000.... has zero information content. Shannon entropy is zero. Mutate it
to
0010.... and it now has more information than the sequence above. Mutate it
again to
0a1b.... and it has even more information content. Mathematically the more
random a sequence is, the more Shannon entropy (which is what is defined as
information in information theory) it has. Sequences of dna when analyzed
this way show that the higher organisms are more random.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>
>You said:
>
>"But it wouldn't have been a big bang and it won't have the same
>consequences. What reason did God have for making the galaxies (which we
>wouldn't discovery for millennia) all be moving away from us?"
>
>The coming into being of all the energy and matter in the universe would =
>not be a bang of universal proportions and sling stuff everywhere?
>
>To God all time is a created thing he sees all at once, like a table. =
>Everything that has ever and will ever be, matter, energy, space and =
>time as we know it, was created at once.
What I said, in context people here didn't see because it was a private
note, is that the creation of everything 7000 years ago, wouldn't be a big
bang. It would not entail expansion of the universe from an original density
anomaly. There would not be time for all matter to expand to the present
positions. No, it wouldn't be a big bang.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>
>You said:
>
>"Explain why those things I pointed you to aren't
>transitional forms?"
>
>Please restate your alleged transitional forms between any two genuses. =
>I do not recall you asking me that question.
This is what often happens with young-earth creationists. When one tries to
point them to data, they don't go and actually look at the data. I had
written:
In another note you said:
>I have yet to see empirical data or even a believable hypothetical model =
>for intermediary forms, or sudden survivable mutations creating one =
>genus from another genus.
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm for info on the
details of the fish/amphibian transition
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm for pictures of a
very smooth transitional sequence with foraminifera--down at the bottom of
that page. Tell me why you think this isn't a transitional sequence?
Take the time to actually look at the data before you say there aren't any
transitional forms.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>
>You said:
>
>"Why did God create the radioactive isotopes like He
>did?"=20
>
>Why not. Everything works into his plan. You assume that if man cannot =
>readily discern that plan it must not exist. =20
"Why not?" is a reason? God created the isotopes with the appearance that
they had gone through 4.50 billion years of decay time. There was no need
for God to not create the isotopes with that distribution. It makes the
world appear old, when supposedly God KNEW it wasn't old.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>
>You said:
>
>"Secondly, I have noticed a all too familiar trait in you. Young-earth
>creationists, when faced with problems never reply to a direct question
>about the problem."
>
>Same to you. If ever a trait appeared in evolutionary thought, that is =
>it. You completely avoided Wolfram's analysis.
You didn't present a 'wolfram analysis' You had written:
>Even Stephan Wolfram recognizes this basic problem. He thinks he has found
>the answer to this puzzle in his new book, A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE but his
>"cellular automata" postulate does not explain the origins of existing
>specific, systematic complexity.
You cited his book. I haven't read the book, you didn't describe much about
his books so there wasn't much to respond to. If you would describe in more
detail what Wolfram says, I would be delighted to respond.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>
>You said:
>
>"If all of this is true, Jay, how can you be sure that the Father of =
>Lies
>isn't making you think you read one thing on the pages of the Bible when =
>in
>fact the Bible says something entirely different? If Satan is so =
>powerful
>to deceive our senses, then what limits him from deceiving our senses =
>when
>we read about the plan of salvation?"
>
>Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 sums it up pretty well at "19If only for this =
>life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."=20
That doesn't answer the problem your view has. You said that Satan deceives
scientists and confuses us observationally. If Satan is that powerful, how
do you know he isn't deceiving you about what is actually on the written
page of the Bible? I don't think you can actually have satan deceive us
observationally and still have a basis for believing Christianity. Maybe
Satan deceived the disciples about Jesus arising from the dead.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>-------
>
>I said:
>
>"As long as we both believe Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and =
>that
>>we both need and accept his salvation, whether the gas ring was
>>there before
>>the supernova or not, or exactly how God operated in Genesis 1 is =
>simply
>>exciting mystery to investigate. I do not feel we will get it =
>completely
>>sorted out before Christ returns and fills in the blanks for us,"
>
>To which you said:
>
>"First one isn't investigating if one thinks he already has the answer."
>
>So you no longer Jesus was exactly who he said he was?
YOu misunderstand. I was speaking above about investigating nature, the
context wasn't about Jesus.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 12 2002 - 11:50:19 EDT