cypress

Because I don't see how presence or absence of conservation of information and its parallel to conservation of energy has any bearing on probability theory in this discussion of information theory. Perhaps you or Capt'n or Swansont can describe the relevance. Until then I see no reason to address it. I am sorry that you have difficulty recognizing that it was Capt'n who brought in this red herring he calls conservation of information without demonstrating relevance. If you would be so kind as to demonstrate the relevance I will address the question.

How would the presumed absence of a conservation of information law lead us to conclude that information theory is not constrained by probability considerations alone to conform to the laws of probability theory as expressed by entropy (an application of probability)? Without an answer to this, does your point have any merit? How so?

Yes, I am speaking of entropy and the laws derived from probability theory. Conservation of energy does not figure into this discussion, so I see no need to address it. Yes seems incapable in the same sense that physical processes seem incapable of drivinng thermodynamic energy states to less propable configurations without an imported source of material that is currently in a low probability state.

I see several ways this could arise. One is that temperature data contains measurement and compilation uncertainties, another is that as the researchers note, there is considerable uncertainty in the data used to estimate total sun energy flux reaching earth, a third is that there is coupling between the ocean oscillation effects and sun effects though the two data and results sets for the studies seem to indicate it is minimal since the two don't seem to have any strong correlation. yes it could be negative feedbacks as well. There is active research going on in this area.

It's an 11 year old article and overly optimistic quote that is incorrect about the mechanism and impact of altering high level developmental controls. It is generally not a good approach to use incorrect information to argue your point. One would generally not investigate static systems in order to try to explain change. Experiments indicate that mutative adaptations occur quickly when environmental change is introduced but while these adaptive changes seem to work to alter present function, they don't seem to act on the molecular systems that are precursors to novel function. The single exception being one and two step mutations to single protein systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functional components are multiple molecular protein systems of ten to hundreds of coordinated, coherent well fitted parts, and controls to manage construction, function and maintenance. But you have not offered a real example of accumulated mutations (of four or greater steps) leading to new function Another example of mutations to enzymes. But I have granted these. Can you show that mutations to single component systems scale to the multistep mutations required for the vast majority of functional molecular systems at the cell level? One does not show that a particular tree is a cherry tree by pointing to the apples growing on it. I'm still investigating this article and will comment later. Not excellent at producing new functional enzymes. The enzymes produced are generally very inefficient by comparison to most others. Functional enzymes are required for adaptation to changing environments as one of their functions is to break down chemicals that could otherwise be toxic. It is a weak argument to describe this as novel function in the sense I mean as all enzymes have the same basic function to act as catalysts. Yes, tis has been a known problem for 30 or more years now. Not due to the complexity of the task, but because in molecular biological experimentation, it simply does not happen by the known evolutionary processes. Other processes should be investigated as a means to fix this weakness. In the case of salmonella bacterium investigated it appears that all mutations were unfavorable. If it turns out that all adaptations to environment are at face value, unfavorable, then evolution should require an ever changing environment to lead the process of evolution. The environment does not seem to be ever changing though instead it seems to be cyclical indicating that evolution should oscillate but return to the same place over and over. Observations indicate this is the case. The current scientific process has blind spots that guarantee certain lines of investigations won't occur. I don't think that is "best". Evolutionary theory does not seem to have much technological use. Modern medicine exclusively proceeds on the assumption that all biological systems have functional purpose and these systems are deconstructed through reverse engineering. the evolutionary narrative is a gloss that not particularly useful in this process. It indicates that design is capable of generating the complex structures from scratch also. Soon Genetic engineers will demonstrate novel complex structures from scratch. Design is outpacing the evolution narrative by miles and miles and I suspect that if evolutionary biologists don't throw in the towel and begin to look for more capable processes, the race will soon be so lopsided, funding for the search may shift to design.

In my previous post, half of the 0.8 C apparent warming since 1850 was attributed to natural oscillations in ocean patterns likely due to solar system influencers. This article estimates the range of natural warming due to sun influences from 1850-2000 between 0.20 and 0.58 degrees C. If we take the low value, I now have even the low end (most aggressive) of my claim covered. If I take the mid range I have all 0.8 in apparent warming since 1850 accounted for by natural causes. Scafetta, N., 2009. Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 1916-1923.

Just as probability theory predicts that systems undergoing influence from physical only processes will over time migrate to a state with the highest probability distribution, so too would information under the influence of physical only processes. Thus thermodynamic systems relying on physical processes to transfer energy seem incapable of reducing the total system probability distribution to a state that is significantly less probable. Likewise physical systems seem incapable of generating significant amounts of new information. Edtharan's appeal to influences beyond the boundary of earth to import low probability states does not apply to my example unless he is able to identify the external source humans use to import information from beyond this planet or beyond ones mind for that matter. Perhaps you can offer an example of a physical system without use of a mind and without import of information that is observed generating new information beyond what is predicted by probability and information theory. Standards for science apply equally to all branches. The theory must make reference to observable processes currently in operation. The processes must be demonstrated repeatably to be capable of generating the results claimed by the theory and not some watered down set of results that don't scale up. Since you admit that creationist ideology is and has influenced science for some time, it is quite clear that my metaphor is correct (all sides bring their bias into science). Beginning in the 1600's and then accelerating in the 1800's and 1900's, the materialists have added their creation narrative and it too has been heavily influencing science. More honest materialists even admit this. Here is what geneticist Richard Lewontin said about this: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen" Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 More recently, social tinkerers, primarily in the early 1900's and continuing today, also influence science to promote political and social policy. By making this claim you seem to be contradicting swansont's observation that physical law is amoral.

You should go back and read context I was responding. Bascule was responding to my complaint that GCM's are inaccurate, contain known errors and significant relevant omissions and except for the data sets that were used to train the models, don't reproduce historical trends. When I called out the issue that climate scientists are unable to produce a balanced energy budget he made the ridiculous statement that it was " Simplified models contain intentional simplifications by definition. Errors are incorrect results attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention. GCM's are erroneous. They produce incorrect results except on the data runs they trained on. Those who claim that these models only produce good output when anthropogenic GHG forcing is included fail to point out that it is only over the trained data that they do so. They do not produce good results over historical periods of similar global temperature changes with or without the forcing correlations indicating that the model is missing causal inputs. When they remove a factor with correlated effects (like GHG feedbacks) but fail to retrain the model with more significant causal factors (like long term ocean oscillations and cloud cover feedbacks) it produces poor results over the trained data as expected. To suggest this is significant insults thinking people. Here is a summary of problems associated with over-reliance on climate models. I will be more inclined to take GCM's seriously if known causal factors were included and the models reproduced good results over any usable historical data set. Here is an article that puts our current temperature trend into better perspective. A sample paragraph: "During the Ice Ages the average temperatures were 8-10oC lower than the current ones, the sea levels were 120-130 m lower and much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by an ice pack up to 4 km thick, down to the 40oN parallel (the latitude of nowadays New York). During the interglacials the average temperatures reached 4-6oC and the sea levels 3-6 m above the current ones. Our own interglacial the Holocene, which started 11,500-11,700 years ago, had average temperatures up to 4oC and sea levels up to 3 m above the current ones between 5,000-6,000 years ago (Middle Holocene)." When these models are able to explain the variations described by this article I will agree they have merit.

Historical temperature proxies indicate that in the previous 200,000 years global temperatures have been 6 C warmer and 10 C colder than today. Do these reconstructions using anthropogenic forcing give a successful reconstruction of these variations? Why not? How about the little Ice age of the 1600's? Actually it is known as conformational bias. Yes models again..... I use models in engineering work daily. Simplified models approximate reality but are valid. Models that contain errors produce incorrect results and are invalid and not useful. There is a difference between being incomplete and being wrong. When I run a validated engineering model over historical data, it reproduces the trend with similar accuracy regardless of the age of the data or patterns. Running climate models over periods of historically large variations in climatic temperatures break the models. I call those kinds of models invalid. Can you identify any significant funding for development of GCM's by scientists skeptical of AGW? I can't. Also your generalization is false, I work for a large multinational oil company that does takes the viewpoint that GHG's are a threat to the environment. But if you simply reproduce the short historical record that the model were used to train on you have simply deluded yourself. Reproducing the trends from 1890-1945 and 1975 to 2000 and very little else is not particularly impressive. Let's see how they do with 900-1800. I have, and I find nothing to suggest there is a case for anything more than about 0.2C of warming unaccounted for.

Introspection indicates that morals are not invented but are instead inherent properties. That humans are able to generate a large quantity of information seems to be an exception to laws of information entropy. biological diversity currently lacks a validated explanation. Design though is a process currently in operation that does explain many more aspects of what it would take to generate diversity. Unfortunately this ship of ideological bias sailed prior to the 20th century.

If humans and human behavior are the result of physical law then human behavior would necessarily be amoral. It is inability to provide a validated causally adequate coherent explanation and not a commitment to materialism that disallows magic. Computers and their function have full causally adequate explanations including design and front loaded functional, specified information that are not reducible to only material causes and physical law. I suspect it is because most people prefer explanations that are causally adequate and logically coherent. Transcending entities would transcend (go beyond) our natural world which I take to be the universe. Those who speak of materialism and methodological naturalism speak of our material world. It makes more sense to me that a transcending agent that causes an effect in our universe would be detectable from within our universe when and after the effect occurs. If it is not detectable then we would not be able to tell the difference between it and an uncaused event or an event that occurred from nothing or a quantum event. It is according to many who use and defend the term methodological naturalism who seem to exclude potential transcending causes. If you argue observable effects and causes not originating in this universe are not excluded by your way of thinking, I can accept that. I see the term transcendence as a very clear term. A hypothesis is falsified for example by invalidating predictions. If one shows that an event that is hypothesized to have a transcending cause actually has another cause then quite clearly the hypothesis is invalid. Clearer examples would require illustration of such a hypothesis. I currently don't hold to any such hypotheses but I do not reject the possibility of one. It seems from your previous statement that any transcending agent that causes an event in this universe whereby the cause was observable then a hypothesis covering the event and observable cause should be falsifiable.

I said it was the concept that was failing not the analogy.

It's an example but it seems incorrect because it presupposes that something or some effect that enters into our universe must be catagorized as part of our universe. This does not make sense. When I enter my automobile I do not become part of my car and yet I am detectable from within it. Nonsense swansont. You are not the arbitrator of what Hitler meant by his words. You asked if Darwinian evolution was mentioned in Hitlers writing and it is. Whether or not Hitler's interpretation of Darwinian evolution 80 years ago matches your current viewpoint of it is not relevant. I provided as a reference an entire book that addresses this topic far more thoroughly than your opinion of what you think Hitler said. I did so to prevent this claim of yours that I dodge your trick questions. I even answered the single relevant part of your computer question which is that computers do not run on magic instead they function because designers planned built and programmed them to function.

Evolutionary processes adequately explain adaptation of existing form and function. This is established. It seems to be incomplete on how new form and function arose. I believe there must be other more capable processes involve in generation of new functional systems. Few people are interested in discussing alternatives for long. It seems to be a short discussion because it is hard to debate with yourself. I find it more interesting and fruitful to correct misconceptions and accurately describe popular theories primarily because there is no shortage of people overselling popular ideas.

That would be rather foolish. I am correcting those who improperly claim it is a fact that evolution accounts for observed diversity. Do you have an validated example or is this imagination? Every attempt thus far to generate new form by this method has failed. I asked for an observed example and you offered speculation. It seems the author was overly optimistic. The references I provided describe the reality of where this field has (not) progressed eight years later. No it is not enough for just one slight mutation. New form requires multiple coordinated slight mutations, an uninterrupted stepwise evolutionary pathway of many mutations to be exact. In 80 plus years of looking for these pathways we have thousands of single step mutations, a small handful of two step mutations, fewer than five probable three step and zero greater than three steps. Perhaps you know of an observed multistep pathway greater than three steps. If evolution accounts for all observed diversity, we should by now be aware of thousands of examples of these multistep pathways in order for evolution to proceed in the allotted geologic time. Sickle cell trait is an advantage in an environment with Malaria so it is an example of how selection selects advantage even if the adaptation involves partial damage. It is an excellent example of how mutation which seems to damage function can provide adaptations to existing function. This is not an example of evolution leading to new function. Mutation and selection seem quite proficient at damaging function to defeat threats. These are adaptations of existing function that are examples of the single and double step mutations I previously spoke of that seem to go nowhere further than adapting existing function to environmental influences. I'll have a another look at this article and perhaps comment later. I find that researcher are also guilty of overselling their ideas and offering misguided conclusions. The paper on evolutionary development seems to be a good example of that. I've seen statistical analysis of peer reviewed and published research papers that indicate over 50% of the papers reach incorrect conclusions. To be precise, I am saying that experimental molecular biology indicates that adaptations to existing function are observed and validated but there are no observed cases of multistep evolutionary pathways to precursors required to produce new forms and new functions outside the rare cases of one or two mutations acting on single component systems such as enzymes. The vast majority of cell functions involve multiple components usually more than ten parts plus a host of control components. We should be forthright about what is validated and what is not. Many on this site treat speculation about their favored explanations as fact just as you did with the researchers quote above. Some biologists may chose to explore material explanations while others may chose to explore other explanations. Why should we begrudge them of that? Many scientists are not open to alternative theories. Many on this site are close minded as well. Gaps are gaps. You can't fill gaps with analogies and models. Rather than trying to fill them with just so stories, it would be better to admit they are weaknesses in the theory so that the readers will have an accurate view of where the theory is strong and where it is weak. I have noted that genetic engineers are progressing and are now far ahead of evolution in terms of explanatory power for observed diversity but I do not advocate that design is anything other than a rational alternative explanation with its own set of difficulties and weaknesses. I complain about speculation on the part of the evolutionary biologist so it would be silly for me to speculate about alternatives. I am happy to speak about what is known.

No. The references I offered answers your questions. Science is not the pursuit of validated facts about our world? The capability for known evolutionary processes to account for all biological diversity has not been observed. The capability of known evolutionary processes to generate known molecular precursors to new cell molecular function and new biological forms had not been observed. Only limited adaptation of existing function has been observed and I suspect this is not what you intend when you speak of evolution. Planned for a role, purpose, or effect. Just because you are unable to conceive of a test for a probable cause does not mean it cannot now be or ever be validated. Should we eliminate causes that may occur to slowly to validate also, or should we look for alternative methods to validate them? I'm not sure this is true. Do you reject as unscientific the idea that something can be generated from nothing? Surely "nothingness" must transcend this universe since this universe is everywhere something. Do you reject the idea of multiple universes? How about multiverses? String Theory? QM uncertainty allows for the possibility of something from a quantum field. How would you discern spontaneous appearance of matter as caused by a quantum field verses a transcending cause? If one can't why should we accept one but reject the other? In the case of a claim for a transcendent cause for this universe one would falsify it by validating an alternate.

Adaptations such as fur color and beak length are established based on observation. Not sure why you would Extend this to wholesale devlopment of an entire optical system like the eye. It is unconfirmed speculation and the scientific method does not accept speculation. I say this because experiments confirm that at the molecular level in cells, novel function of complex multipart systems like the optical system requires a mutitude new binding sites, protein shapes, expression controls, regulation controls, cell process controls, developmental controls and these functions are codependent. Thus far, experimental work has not been observed any instance of these precursor components being derived. In fact there are exactly zero examples of observed evolutionary pathways greater than 4 contiguous (uninterupted) steps involving mutations that lead to these precursor molecules.

Follow on studies of evolutionary development indicate that while mutations of these kinds dramatically alter development of the organism, the result is either normal unaltered organisms, weakened and severely deformed organisms or dead organisms but never a changed functional organism. Here is a previous discussion of this issue I don't see how. Please point to where the link does so and describe it for me. Neutral mutations seem irrelevant since they offer no selection advantage. I don't see where I ignored any valid points. The word "most" was selected by the writer of the article. The research paper seems to indicate that all mutations investigated had a negative impact that was statistically equivalent. I don't see how the balance of your points are relevant. Please explain and show how natural selection would select mutations that are detrimental, as this is contrary to the premise. Please offer an example of a stepwise evolutionary pathway of 4 or more steps that proceeds as you described. In the 80 years that organisms have been observed in the process of adapting to environmental stress there should be countless examples, if what you describe is correct. I don't make this claim. I'm not looking for loopholes, I am attempting to accurately portray the state of knowledge in this area. These are weaknesses in the theory and if we are discussing the merits of a theory we should also discuss the shortcomings. Why sugar coat it? Evolution nicely describes how organisms acquire adaptations but does not explain how novel form and function arises. Those who advocate for evolution as the explanation for how all observed diversity arose are bringing in a mountain of faith. It is absolutely not supported by available evidence. Noting similarities in organisms does not explain how the differences occurred and it is the differences that need to be explained.

The article does not reveal the degree and amount of information that was inserted into this program that allowed it to optimize antenna performance. The article also does not mention that without the information front loaded into the algorithm by the designers the system does not find an optimum. The human designers were responsible for the success of this system. Some of the many kinds of information provided were clues to aid the algorithm in performing educated next steps. The elaborations in my previous posts where I objected to the analogy describes why the analogy was not only weak but why the concept is failing to live up to the predictions made of it.

The book provides quotes of Hitler's that add to and build on the quotes I previously offered establishing his commitment to evolution and Darwinian theory. If providing a source for the material you seek is not adequate, I am sorry to disappoint you. No I agreed Methodological naturalism can include intentional contingency and design. Science done correctly is a search for objective truth through citation to causally adequate explanations that can be validated. I believe that limiting explanation to methodological naturalism creates a potential blind spot whereby some truths may never be discovered. Causes that transcend this universe but act on this universe should be discoverable and if so should be able to be validated. This universe seems to have a cause that transcends it. Alternatives to materialism includes allowing for teleological processes. I see no harm in allowing for these possibilities. The advantage is that it eliminates this blind spot.

I believe I addressed this question in similar questions posed by others. Extending the observed processes the lead to adaptation today in organisms to say that these same processes account for all observed diversity when these processes are known to lack causal adequate explanatory power for the result that is being claimed requires a prior commitment. I'm not sure why many scientists exclude intentional contingency and design from the list of allowable modes of natural explanation. Those who exclude them from the list of possible explanations for biological diversity, instead claim evolution is a fact and that the only question is precisely how it proceeded. there are several poster here with this viewpoint. I tend to agree. Perhaps one of those posters I mentioned before can explain this behavior better. The fact that many do is why I characterized this as having a prior commitment to materialism and avoided using methodological naturalism.

Is attempting to be accurate about what is known, what is conjecture, and what is wild speculation creationist? A very god option would be not to jump to conclusions when the evidence is not there. One can certainly study and determine causality regardless of the source. We see populations adapt to scarcity of materials available in their environment as a necessity of the constraints imposed. Speculation is an optimization mechanism designed to effectively capitalize on the opportunities of abundance of choice not the necessity of limitations. Specialization does not seem to be an observable outcome of mutation and natural selection operating today. Neither, a sewer plant is an example of the kind of design you falsely claimed designers would not employ. This is the point I am making.

That a better and more accurate analogy is not offered that does not make use of teleology demonstrates the weakness of of the power of natural process to generate efficient search routines. The elaborations contained in my previous post address this.

If humans are nothing more than overachieving worms then what difference does it make that one organism uses teeth and claws to effect selection and another uses brains? Evolutionary theory holds that all observed diversity is accounted for within the theory and by this model, the actions of humans are part and parcel of observed diversity. Hitler does address Darwinian theory, evolution, and the application of eugenics which was promoted by Darwin's followers. This book does a thorough job addressing your issue. Nonsense, unless you begin with the prior commitment to materialism I articulated in my first response in this post. The search for intelligent life, and forensic science both admit intentional contingency and intelligent cause. Materialism I believe admits deterministic and random cause. My computer of course works because of the functional intelligence applied to designing, constructing, and programming it.

Actually it was you who failed to understand the rhetorical nature of the question intended to illustrate that the speculations being bantered about here make certain assumptions about the power of natural selection to accomplish particular fantastic feats but then ignore failure to accomplish other similar feats including the one raised in my question. Right they can't apparently because evolutionary processes does not generate those function in one organism even though it quite clearly does in others, yet some people here wildly speculate about all kinds of functions evolution does generate whenever one feels in need of an explanation. It is very clever. Unless I misunderstand you, I think that is what I meant. I do mean that physical laws do not explain and determine everything. Behavior, and functional information also are not reducible to particles.