This is one of the most fascinating things about the creation/evolution
debate, at least to me. Far too often people refuse to go look at data,
yet continue to be dazzled by the truth of their own opinion. I really am
quite fascinated by this phenomenon which occurs quite often in the C/E
debate.
Brad wrote:
>> >A DNA sequence of AAAAATAAAA will output this each and every
>> >time eg: AAAAATAAAA AAAAATAAAA AAAAATAAAA
>>
I replied:
>> If I take the above statement as being sequential then it is an assertion
>> that DNA is repeated segments of
>> AAAAATAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAATAAAA..., which is clearly nonsense and
>> observationally wrong. But if placed in a generational axis, the above
>> statement makes sense. I was merely trying to give you the benefit of the
>> doubt.
>>
>
Brad wrote:
>You are correct, that would be nonsense.
Thank you. At least we can agree on one item.
>But modeling DNA as a source is
>nonsense anyway so whats the difference? No finite sequence of symbols is a
>source.
But I must strenuously disagree with the above. If NO FINITE sequence of
symbols is a source, then, my good 3rd year student friend, there are NO
SOURCES IN THIS UNIVERSE. Everything in the universe is finite and since no
finite sequence can be a source, therefore there must not be any sources.
By the way, there are only 10^80 particles in the universe so no sequence
is longer than that and 10^80, while large is exceptionally finite!
>
>by sequential I was considering the proteins that are created by the DNA, ie
>DNA specifies proteins and does so repeatedly. If this does not happen or I
>am totally on the wrong track then I apologise, I am no biology expert as I
>have said.
Learning is what everyone must do on earth.
>
>I am here to debate information theory and your comments regarding the
>creation of information. I disagree that "information can be created by
>random mutations" independent of the biological mechanisms.
Greg cited Shannon, Greg cited your own professor, I have cited Yockey. I
don't think much will convince you. Tell your professor that he has been
teaching incorrect things.
>
>If Yockey has relevant points then I assume you will bring them out.
What do you think the quotations are. I type them in because I beleive
them to be relevant, not because I like typing.
>I am
>looking for Yockey's book but it is not readily available.
It is through interlibrary loan. Everything is available through
interlibrary loan.
>I am not sure what this proves.
>
>I agree that information theory does not have to know the meaning. It sure
>helps knowing that there is meaning though.
No it doesn't. You mentioned that you could compress a seqeunce better if
you knew it had meaning. This famous sentence by the linguist Chomsky has
no meaning but is a perfectly good english sentence.
'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
>
>
>>
>>
>> [of DNA brad wrote]
>> >I thought the error rate was pretty small, around 10E-9 if I remember
>> >correctly, that is easily small enough to compare to a CD.
>>
>> the error rate only applies to the generational axis. There is NO error
>> rate in the sequential axis of a non-reproducing DNA sequence.
>
>if there is no error rate then there is nothing to discuss on the sequential
>axis as far as information creation is concerned.
>
>We are discussing the information created by random mutations, if there are
>no mutations then there can be no information created. Read quote below:
>
>***********************************************************************
>>But in our original notes on information theory, both Brian and I were
>>talking about the Sequence axis. Information is measured along the
>>sequence axis, not per se the generational axis.
>
>>Thus when I pointed out that the sequence AAAAAAAAAA had zero information
>>content, and the mutation to AAAAATAAAA represented an increase in
>>information it does because we are not talking about the generation axis.
>>But even putting it into your terminology, the output(generational axis) of
>>the DNA sequence AAAAAAAAAA is not always AAAAAAAAAA but occasionally is
>>AACAAAAAAA or AAAAATAAAA. There is a Generational markov matrix that is
>>something like:
> --Glenn, 28/06/98
>
>**************************************************************************
>
>So you are directly contradicting yourself here. This is why I have
>previously (and still do) ask for you to clarify your position.
No, I don't think I was contradicting myself. That discussion was
concerning how to calculate the information content of a given sequence.
We measure information along the seqeunce axis NOT the generational axis.
And at that time I was understanding you to say that information was
measured along the generational axis. That aside, the change in information
content from AAAAAAAAAA to AAAAATAAAA is the same regardless of whether or
not these two sequences are in a generational axis or not. Infact one
doesn't even need to use the same symbols ********** and CCCCCTCCCC have
the same information content as the two A sequences above.
>>
>> >
>> >ANY information storage device IS a channel. Do not make the mistake of
>> >thinking anything that has an output is a source. This is not correct.
>> >
>>
>> I think there is some difference in terminology as noted above.
>
>I think not
And when you do this with Greg,Brian and myself, this is why no progress
can be made.
>I agree, Information does not have to be english language or anything else
>like that. In fact information can be almost anything that is created to
>convey some kind of meaning. Random noise is not information.
It is interesting that we keep quoting text books to you and you keep
saying 'wrong' without quoting any texts to back up your position. I had 3
or 4 Yockey quotations backing up what I said in this post alone. You
never cite any authority except your authority.
>
>
>>
>> "For this reason we will call H the message enropy of the ensemble of
>> messages. It is also called the information content since the number of
>> messages of length N is 2^NH. Each message can be assigned a meaning or
>> specificity and thus carries *information*[italicized to differentiate it
>> from the previous use of information--grm], knwoledge or intelligence. H
>> reflects the character of the probability distribution P[i]. A broad
>> distribution provides a maximum choice at the source or uncertainty at the
>> receiver. H is a maximum if all p[i]=1/n." ~H. P. Yockey, "An Application
>> of Information Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis,"
>> Journal of Theoretical Biology 46(1974):369-406, p. 373
>>
>> I repeat the last sentence.
>>
>> " H is a maximum if all p[i]=1/n" This means that the probabilities of the
>> characters are RANDOM, RANDOM RANDOM. H is maximum if the
>> sequence is RANDOM.
>
>NO NO NO.
Maybe you should be the editor at Cambridge University Press. They thought
YES, YES, YES.
>> >> That is why you can't tell whether I am writing real mandarin
>> >> chinese (pinyin) below or real gibberish.
>> >>
>> >> Ni xue yao xuexi hen duo!
>> >
>> >No I cannot tell, but with a bit of investigation I could.
>>
>> Do it without consulting a chinese student or a chinese textbook.
>> Go ahead?
>
>Why on earth would I do it without consulting a textbook?!?
Because on Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:19:49 +0800 you wrote:
>No. Information theory is concerned with transmitting the MEANING in as
>efficient a manner as possible, therefore it would treat the word
>differently depending on what language and context it was used it.
If information theory treats a word differently depending on what language
and context was used, this strongly implies that you must be able to tell
that there is meaning in a sentence. If you can't do that, then you can't
treat the sequence differently.
And on 1:19 PM 6/30/98 you wrote:
>No I cannot tell, but with a bit of investigation I could. Once I know which
>one it is I would be able to find the true information content.
The seqeunce "Ni xue yao xuexi hen duo!" in English means nothing. In
Mandarin chinese, means "You need to study much more"
>
>> Zhe ge mao you mao.
this translates as 'That cat has a hat'
>>
>> xi gong zuo chi xiao xue.
This is gibberish. If you as an engineer were to try to transmit the two
sentences, you would have to treat them the same because you were not privy
to the mandarin meaning. This is why meaning is irrelevant in information
theory.
>> If information theory is about meaning tell me the bad word!
>> lao wu gui
>>
>> hen xiao chun
>>
>> jiu dian zhong
for the record lao wu gui means 'old turtle' and it is a terrible insult!
>> I wrote:
>> >> you didn't know ...
>> >> using mathematics for a non-degenerate code;
>> >
>> >I know that the code is not important in the maths I used.
>>
>> I cite Yockey again. "The third term in equation (7) is one of the aspects
>> of information theory in biology which differes from infomration theory in
>> elelctrical engineering. This is because there is no degeneracy in the
>> codes used in communications." ~H. P. Yockey, "An Application of
>> Information Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis,"
>> Journal of Theoretical Biology 46(1974):369-406, p. 37
>>
>> Can you cite the 3rd term in equation 7 from electrical engineering texts?
>
>umm, what are you talking about here? what is the "3rd term in equation 7"?
Precisely my point. You haven't taken the time and trouble to familiarize
yourself with the mathematical differences between info theory in EE and
info theory applied to biology. If you don't know this, then you don't
know the field. Period!!!!
>I believe you misunderstand the textbook and are confusing the use of
>mathematical models with the actual information source.
Me, Greg, Brian, Yockey, Shannon, and now your own professor.
>
>
>>
>>
>> But if you can tell me which of the chinese statements are meaningful, I
>> will tell you their meaning. I don't expect to hear from you on this.
>> glenn
>
>
> I'm not going to bother because it is not relevant. I never stated that I
>could tell information from gibberish from the message alone. I stated that
>I could investigate the source to tell is it is information. Big differences
>here.
OK, investigate the source (me). What is interesting is that your statement
above about needing a chinese textbook to determine the meaning, requires
that you step OUTSIDE of information theory to determine meaning. That is
an implicit admission on your part that information theory is unable to
determine a meaningful sentence from gibberish. This is also an example of
why meaning plays no role in information theory. I am the source of the
sequence below.
Without stepping outside of information theory tell me if this has meaning?
@85y975 w53008ht 975w8e3 9r 8hr94jq589h 5y3946 53oo j3 8r 5y8w yqw j3qh8ht'
Brad, you can have the last word in this. I will not post again on this
topic with you because there is no point in boring our readers with a 'sez
so- sez not' exchange. The only thing I will answer is the puzzle in the
above paragraph. You seem to think that as a 3rd year student you are
correct when even your professor says that a random sequence has the most
information. This is a serious problem on your part. But you get the last
word as far as I am concerned.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm