For the benefit of Jorge: Information theory for dummies, take 2

[SteveF]

ahem.

[SteveF]

Mr resident information expert, you have questions to answer.

[flipper]

Apparently even no information can be information.

[FreezBee]

Apparently even no information can be information.

By definition (see the OP), no information is the maximum information - but in Jorge's case this might mean something else than it might for most others

- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

My questions again. I have made them a nice pretty colour, so they are harder to ignore:

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Bumpedi bumpedi bump - Jorge's back in town.

Could you please answer the above questions, sir, while you are here?


- FreezBee

[SteveF]

Indeedy.

In fact, lets make it abundantly clear what questions we'd love to see answers for:

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Come on now Jorge, answer my little questions. Surely they aren't too hard.

[SteveF]

Buuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmpppppppppppppppppppppp

[Jorge]

Indeedy.

In fact, lets make it abundantly clear what questions we'd love to see answers for:

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

It's not "my working group". I merely contribute when I can. I pretty much work on my own.

No, I do not have a completed definition and neither does anyone else on planet Earth.

Also, it depends on whether you are asking for a working definition or a comprehensive definition. There are several working definitions.

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Common sense combined with some maths and observations.

Also, your question yet again misses the point -- if we speak of 'information' at its most elementary level (statistical) then natural causes alone may lead to an increase in 'information'. But 'information' at this level is NOT the Information found in living creatures.

Get an education and get a life.

Come on now Jorge, answer my little questions. Surely they aren't too hard.

They're sophomoric, shallow and obtuse.

Jorge

[Barry Desborough]

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

It's not "my working group". I merely contribute when I can. I pretty much work on my own.

No, I do not have a completed definition and neither does anyone else on planet Earth.

Also, it depends on whether you are asking for a working definition or a comprehensive definition. There are several working definitions.

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Common sense combined with some maths and observations.

Also, your question yet again misses the point -- if we speak of 'information' at its most elementary level (statistical) then natural causes alone may lead to an increase in 'information'. But 'information' at this level is NOT the Information found in living creatures.

Get an education and get a life.

They're sophomoric, shallow and obtuse.

Jorge

And too hard.

[wattsr1]

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

It's not "my working group". I merely contribute when I can. I pretty much work on my own.

No, I do not have a completed definition and neither does anyone else on planet Earth.

Also, it depends on whether you are asking for a working definition or a comprehensive definition. There are several working definitions.

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Common sense combined with some maths and observations.

Also, your question yet again misses the point -- if we speak of 'information' at its most elementary level (statistical) then natural causes alone may lead to an increase in 'information'. But 'information' at this level is NOT the Information found in living creatures.

Get an education and get a life.

They're sophomoric, shallow and obtuse.

Jorge

You mean they are easy for you Jorge.

So why not answer them?

Regards, Roland

[SteveF]

1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

It's not "my working group". I merely contribute when I can. I pretty much work on my own.

No, I do not have a completed definition and neither does anyone else on planet Earth.

Also, it depends on whether you are asking for a working definition or a comprehensive definition. There are several working definitions.

If the answer is yes, please proceed to 2), if the answer is no, proceed to 3)

2) Could you demonstrate, using this definition of information, why evolution can not result in it's increase. A "real world" example is preferable.

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

Common sense combined with some maths and observations.

Also, your question yet again misses the point -- if we speak of 'information' at its most elementary level (statistical) then natural causes alone may lead to an increase in 'information'. But 'information' at this level is NOT the Information found in living creatures.

Get an education and get a life .

They're sophomoric, shallow and obtuse.

Jorge

It took you a couple of weeks to come up with that!?

I haven't missed your point about the additional element(s) to "information". The starting point is a simple enquiry about your definition of information - whether it is solely based on statistics or on statistics + little green men from Mars is beside the point (though obviously it becomes relevant if you were to ever answer question 2). An improvement in reading comprehension is obviously required.

Anyway, we appear to have a couple of points that could be pursued. The first is your admission that you have not yet got a completed definition of information. The second is that you are apparently able to use common sense, maths and observations to demonstrate your point. These two issues lead to two questions:

1) How is it possible to demonstrate conclusively that evolutionary processes can not increase "information" when you have not completed your definiton of "information"?

2) Using "common sense, maths and observations", demonstrate, using real world biological data, how you know "that evolution can not result in an increase in information."

The two can probably be incorporated into one by demonstrating not only that evolution can not increase "information" but also that an inadequate definition of "information" does not affect this conclusion.

[Viktor Scott]

2) Using "common sense, maths and observations", demonstrate, using real world biological data, how you know "that evolution can not result in an increase in information."

Well, therin lies the conundrum for the creationist.

If they actually try to use real world data, they know that they will fail. That is why, I suspect, Gitt talked over me and moved on to another questioner when I tried to ask him about a specific real world case when I attended his presentation last summer.

I'm sure we have all noticed that Jorge NEVER, NEVER discusses real data or real analyses. He ALWAYS uses analogies, insults, etc. Data is the creationists' enemy. And they at least know that.

Hence the 'those questions are dumb' dodge we alsways seem to get when asking simple, straightforward question s that an expert should be able to answer.

[Roy]

[COLOR=Blue]
1) Has your YEC working group (Gitt, yourself et al) fully completed your definition of information?

It's not "my working group". I merely contribute when I can. I pretty much work on my own.

No, I do not have a completed definition and neither does anyone else on planet Earth.

...

3) How do you know what evolution can not result in an increase in information.

[COLOR=Black]Common sense combined with some maths and observations.

Pathetic. That isn't an answer, it's a refusal to provide an answer.

And this:

Also, your question yet again misses the point -- if we speak of 'information' at its most elementary level (statistical) then natural causes alone may lead to an increase in 'information'. But 'information' at this level is NOT the Information found in living creatures.

is an equally pathetic attempt at attacking the questioner - because the question was explicitly about the information found in living things, as (not yet) defined by Gitt and you.

And Jorge knows this.

They're sophomoric, shallow and obtuse.

And you can't answer them. You don't even come close to trying to answer them. You fall short of shallowness.

Roy