Symposium on Biological Information at Cornell

[Jorge]

Questions, anyone?

I must state this up front : I will not be able to answer all questions on account of the
most disturbing (and disgusting!) thing that I learned at this conference.

That said, I will answer whatever I am able.

The Symposium was, in a word, outstanding! Superb science being carried out
with results that, sadly (hehe) do nothing to promote Darwinism. One of the
presenters (name withheld upon request) is a Darwinist and even he admitted this.
I was surprised that he didn't convert right then and there but I guess that would
have been too much to ask -- akin to Tiggy becoming a Biblical Creationist.

To start things off: one of the papers was by a graduate student in Evolutionary
Biology. He used the program Avida to see if he could get a net gain in information
using every realistic combination of parameters that he could construct. He began
his presentation by noting that the ONLY way to get any information "gain" was
by using biologically unrealistic parameter settings, in particular with regard to
the "selection" settings. His conclusion was that under any biologically relevant
conditions, there will always be a net loss of genetic information. He compared
Avida with Mendel's Accountant under the same parameter settings and obtained
essentially the same results.

The Proceedings (including his paper) should be published in 2-4 months.
The publisher is highly reputable and secular [I will let you know in due time].

To me this work / paper only provided further confirmation of something that I
have long known. It was, nonetheless, excellently done.

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, we figured out pretty quickly that the "biologically realistic" parameters of Mendel's Accountant weren't really biologically realistic. Do you have a paper of this presentation concerning Avdia that we could look over?

--Sam

ETA: Ah, 2-4 months. Sorry, my browser skipped below that paragraph. Well, can you give us a summary of the presentation, in that case?

[Ansgar Seraph]

As a more pointed question, I would like some clarification concerning Universal Information. Under Gitt's system, Universal Information requires that the "message" be presented in abstract code, meaning that the code shares no inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented." Gitt claims that information contained in pulsars, for example, does not meet the requirements for UI, whereas information contained in DNA does. What is the distinction? Does not DNA share an "inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented?" It seems that there is a confusion between the reality of an organism and the reality of the DNA. Gitt seems to treat DNA like computer code that outputs the image of a person, where in reality (at least physical reality), the DNA has an "inherent resemblance to the reality represented."

Also, why can Gitt claim that pulsars are not UI when it's just as conceivable that an intelligent "sender" is manipulating a specific set of pulsars in order to send a meaningful message that intends a response for a purpose? In other words, it seems difficult to specify a domain for Universal Information, despite claims to narrow the field. If one cannot quantify semantics, pragmatics and purpose, how can one defend a narrow interpretation?

[Tiggy]

Questions, anyone?

I must state this up front : I will not be able to answer all questions on account of the
most disturbing (and disgusting!) thing that I learned at this conference.

That said, I will answer whatever I am able.

The Symposium was, in a word, outstanding! Superb science being carried out
with results that, sadly (hehe) do nothing to promote Darwinism. One of the
presenters (name withheld upon request) is a Darwinist and even he admitted this.
I was surprised that he didn't convert right then and there but I guess that would
have been too much to ask -- akin to Tiggy becoming a Biblical Creationist.

You mean a handful of IDiots rented some hall space at Cornell (which did not sponsor or endorse the meeting) and sat around stroking each others' fragile egos.

I liked this write up from Creation Evolution Headlines

Here’s something that should make you mad. One of the organizers had invited Cornell professors, some known to be Darwin skeptics, but they all declined. In addition, he had tried to interest area churches in participating, either by sending people to hear the talks or assist with volunteer help, and they all declined, too. Some of them did not even answer the emails. There is still fear among many scientists toward being associated with a controversy like intelligent design. And, sad to say, many churches these days are more concerned about looking good to the world than dealing with matters of truth.

...

Because of potential harm to careers of some participants, names of all are being withheld from this review.

What if they gave an ID Symposium and nobody came?

To start things off: one of the papers was by a graduate student in Evolutionary Biology. He used the program Avida to see if he could get a net gain in information using every realistic combination of parameters that he could construct. He began his presentation by noting that the ONLY way to get any information "gain" was by using biologically unrealistic parameter settings, in particular with regard to the "selection" settings. His conclusion was that under any biologically relevant conditions, there will always be a net loss of genetic information. He compared Avida with Mendel's Accountant under the same parameter settings and obtained essentially the same results.

Pity you still haven't defined 'biological information' in any relevant terms.

The Proceedings (including his paper) should be published in 2-4 months.
The publisher is highly reputable and secular [I will let you know in due time].

Just like you let us know the source of your 'doctorate' in due time, right? Can't wait to see your papers in Reader's Digest.

Jorge

Shouldn't that be Doctor Jorge? I mean, you paid good money for that phony doctorate, you might as well get some mileage from it.

- T

[wattsr1]

Questions, anyone?

I must state this up front : I will not be able to answer all questions on account of the
most disturbing (and disgusting!) thing that I learned at this conference.

That said, I will answer whatever I am able.

The Symposium was, in a word, outstanding! Superb science being carried out
with results that, sadly (hehe) do nothing to promote Darwinism. One of the
presenters (name withheld upon request) is a Darwinist and even he admitted this.
I was surprised that he didn't convert right then and there but I guess that would
have been too much to ask -- akin to Tiggy becoming a Biblical Creationist.

To start things off: one of the papers was by a graduate student in Evolutionary
Biology. He used the program Avida to see if he could get a net gain in information
using every realistic combination of parameters that he could construct. He began
his presentation by noting that the ONLY way to get any information "gain" was
by using biologically unrealistic parameter settings, in particular with regard to
the "selection" settings. His conclusion was that under any biologically relevant
conditions, there will always be a net loss of genetic information. He compared
Avida with Mendel's Accountant under the same parameter settings and obtained
essentially the same results.

The Proceedings (including his paper) should be published in 2-4 months.
The publisher is highly reputable and secular [I will let you know in due time].

To me this work / paper only provided further confirmation of something that I
have long known. It was, nonetheless, excellently done.

Jorge

I'm surprised (not really) that you are so secretive about this Jorge. Given your proclaimed expertise on evolution (including Avida), you should easily be able to argue the case the paper made, without any problems.

Hinting that there are these huge problems, and that one day soon we are going to see them does not mean a thing. Recently we were told that the rapture was going to happen too. We are still here. I'll guess that your little secret performs no better.



Regards, Roland

[Catholicity]

Just two questions then I'll go away....
Did you learn anything new? and


Did the Llamas get you?

[phank]

The last example of this I'm familar with was at SMU. At that "conference", they rented space the school rents out to non-school-related events of all kinds. And like Jorge here, they were careful to say the event was held AT SMU, with the implication that it was held BY SMU. So it should be noted that neither SMU nor Cornell has sponsored these events, the school didn't invite anyone, the school does not endorse anything anyone says. They only rented out an auditorium.

Next, at SMU, they advertised the fact that numerous evolutionary biologists were invited to give presentations. They carefully didn't mention that none of them showed up. Then they implied that actual published (or accepted to be published) research papers were presented by these noted scientists. But of course, it was only creationists preaching at one another and trying to do all they could to create the false impression that SMU's reputation was somehow at stake.

Now, one of the purposes of REAL scientific conferences (there are several purposes) is for lesser-known researchers to make names for themselves by presenting interesting work. The very LAST thing they would do would be to request that their name be withheld.

Moving right along, "biological information" remains undefined. And this is essential to the creationist approach, because one can ponitificate about not finding something, without somehow remembering to mention that what wasn't found isn't defined. What we have here is the quintessential foregone conclusion. And sometimes it takes a careful eye to notice that this "graduate student in evolutionary biology" is not named, nor is the school where he is presumably studying. What interesting omissions. So we don't know the names of the presenters, we don't know where they are going to school, we can't track any of them down, we can't read their papers, and we deliberately are not told where we might someday find them, nor when exactly. At real science conferences, each attendee is handed as many copies of each paper as he wants. These are explicitly public documents.

But of course, the purpose of this "conference" wasn't to DO science, or PRESENT science, or DEBATE RESULTS. It was to to create the false impression that ID is a healthy field of research recognized as such by Cornell (and SMU). An impression being created by unnamed people, investigating undefined terms, in unavailable papers. I wonder how many times the creationists will try this before they decide the return per PR dollar isn't quite enough anymore.

[wattsr1]

As a more pointed question, I would like some clarification concerning Universal Information. Under Gitt's system, Universal Information requires that the "message" be presented in abstract code, meaning that the code shares no inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented." Gitt claims that information contained in pulsars, for example, does not meet the requirements for UI, whereas information contained in DNA does. What is the distinction? Does not DNA share an "inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented?" It seems that there is a confusion between the reality of an organism and the reality of the DNA. Gitt seems to treat DNA like computer code that outputs the image of a person, where in reality (at least physical reality), the DNA has an "inherent resemblance to the reality represented."

Also, why can Gitt claim that pulsars are not UI when it's just as conceivable that an intelligent "sender" is manipulating a specific set of pulsars in order to send a meaningful message that intends a response for a purpose? In other words, it seems difficult to specify a domain for Universal Information, despite claims to narrow the field. If one cannot quantify semantics, pragmatics and purpose, how can one defend a narrow interpretation?

I wonder if Jorge is getting all excited over this:-

Chou et al., Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1190-1192, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203799.

Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway. The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds. These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

Here is the creationist take:-

http://crev.info/content/110605-gene...ropy_confirmed



Regards, Roland

[phank]

Oops, dupe.

[phank]

Here is the creationist take:-

You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

OK, for anyone who wants the thumbnail version, it has long been observed that as organisms in new environments become increasingly suited for that environment, the rate at which adaptation to that new environment occurs slows down. And the astounding discovery of the reason for this is, essentially, that the more nearly optimally an organism fits its environment, the less likely any mutation is to be particularly beneficial. Increasingly small improvements face increasingly less need to be adopted. Change the environment, and once again adaptation occurs rapidly.

And the creationist take is, this proves evolution doesn't happen naturally! Of course, this was the creationist doctrine before the study as well. Isn't that amazing?

[Tiggy]

But of course, the purpose of this "conference" wasn't to DO science, or PRESENT science, or DEBATE RESULTS. It was to to create the false impression that ID is a healthy field of research recognized as such by Cornell (and SMU). An impression being created by unnamed people, investigating undefined terms, in unavailable papers. I wonder how many times the creationists will try this before they decide the return per PR dollar isn't quite enough anymore.

I've posted this quote many times, but the observation continues to be 100% accurate:

"In all of these efforts (to push Creationism), the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must. "

- William J. Bennetta, The Textbook Letter, 1995

- T

[phaedrus]

Doctor Gilgamesh will see you now

Jorge is a funny chap
Who over-estimates his worth
And that of so called 'study' done
On the origin of Earth
By people who have sworn an oath
To disregard all evidence
In the name of fragile faith.
(They haven't got a lick of sense!)

Instead they have a conference
To pat each other on the back
For 'research' done by graduates
With expertise they clearly lack.
They make sure that nobody stirs
The calm composure of their day
By pointing out the glaring flaws
In what they do and what they say.

Jorge bought a PhD
To add prestige I guess he thought
While hawking his unwieldy tome
But, what a shame, his ruse was caught.
It turns out that his poor degree
Was bought from a Diploma Mill
Because any self respecting school
Would find his views distinctly ill.

He insults and he bullies
Even other Christian folk
And this, more than creationism
Reveals his faith to be a joke.
For faith must be transforming
And prefers humility
In short our good old doctor
Should be a little more like me.

[Jorge]

Well, we figured out pretty quickly that the "biologically realistic" parameters of Mendel's Accountant weren't really biologically realistic. Do you have a paper of this presentation concerning Avdia that we could look over?

--Sam

ETA: Ah, 2-4 months. Sorry, my browser skipped below that paragraph. Well, can you give us a summary of the presentation, in that case?

***********************************************************************

I did give a summary. You will have to wait for the details. I guess I can add the following (from abstract) : both Avida and Mendel's Accountant establish the existence of three potentially prohibitive barriers to the evolution of novel genetic information: (1) the selection threshold and resultant genetic entropy; (2) irreducible complexity or the waiting time to beneficial mutations; (3) the pressure of reductive evolution.

In short, when this young scientist was done, so was Avida and all of its pretentious claims.

Jorge

[Jorge]

As a more pointed question, I would like some clarification concerning Universal Information. Under Gitt's system, Universal Information requires that the "message" be presented in abstract code, meaning that the code shares no inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented." Gitt claims that information contained in pulsars, for example, does not meet the requirements for UI, whereas information contained in DNA does.

Correct.

What is the distinction? Does not DNA share an "inherent relationship or resemblance to the reality represented?" It seems that there is a confusion between the reality of an organism and the reality of the DNA. Gitt seems to treat DNA like computer code that outputs the image of a person, where in reality (at least physical reality), the DNA has an "inherent resemblance to the reality represented."

No, it does not. Let me offer an example: consider the word 'cat'. You have three letters c-a-t.
Do those three letters resemble in any way a mammal that purrs and meows and everything else
that people love and hate about cats? Nope - not in any way. If you spoke and read ONLY
Hebrew and saw CAT you would not in any way "see" a cat. Yet, if I showed you a picture of a
cat then in ANY language you would "see" a cat because the image resembles the actual entity.

That is what we mean by an abstract code -- the code does not resemble the entity being represented.
We identify another type of information (not UI) that we call MII - Mental Image Information.
MII does not have an explicit code and syntax (cosyntics) as does UI. Anyway, lots more ...

Also, why can Gitt claim that pulsars are not UI when it's just as conceivable that an intelligent "sender" is manipulating a specific set of pulsars in order to send a meaningful message that intends a response for a purpose? In other words, it seems difficult to specify a domain for Universal Information, despite claims to narrow the field.

You are confusing things. A naturally-occurring electrical pulse is not UI but we can certainly
manipulate this pulse in such a way as to encode it in, say, Morse Code - now it would be UI.

The electromagnetic radiation that we receive from a star (or a pulsar) is just EM radiation - period.
But this same radiation could be manipulated into UI. There is no issue here.

If one cannot quantify semantics, pragmatics and purpose, how can one defend a narrow interpretation?

In the book we actually propose (a rough) approach to quantifying semantics, pragmatics
and apobetics. I expressed mixed feelings about this - it's not an easy issue. For one
thing, NOT everything that is real is necessarily quantifiable. To wit: how many "units" of
love do you have for your spouse or children? Yet, would you deny that this love is real?

There is also a subjective element. I'm not giving up just yet but there do seem to be
aspects here that are beyond mere superficial quantification.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Just two questions then I'll go away....

Is that a promise?

Did you learn anything new? and

LOTS! And it was all NOT good for your evolutionary beliefs.

Did the Llamas get you?

No one "got me" as I am still here.

Now, let's see you "go away" ......

Jorge