Do the ID interpretations of NFL theorems imply the creationist Genetic Entropy hypothesis?

_{Salvador Cordova

July 5, 2013

Darwinism, specified complexity}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The ID interpretation of No Free Lunch theorems argues that Darwinian processes on average will not do better than chance processes for the emergence of biological complexity. As has been debated at UD, it’s not merely a question of what is possible, but what we should reasonably expect. For example, see: The Law of Large Numbers vs. KeithS, Eigenstate, and my other TSZ critics.

The Genetic Entropy hypothesis by creationist John Sanford argues that biological complexity is gradually going out of the human genome and possibly the entire biosphere. I provided cursory analysis that lends credence to both the ID interpretation of No Free Lunch theorems and the Genetic Entropy thesis here: The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism.

I think if random chance tends to degrade and eliminate biological complexity, and if the No Free Lunch implies Darwinian evolution will do no better than random chance, then the ID interpretation of the No Free Lunch theorem mandates the Genetic Entropy thesis. That is, if complexity on average cannot go up, at best it can be maintained, and will probably go down, hence NFL effectively predicts Genetic Entropy.

I don’t see any way around it. I welcome reader comments if they think this is correct.

[posted by scordova to assist the News desk for 1 week with content and commentary]

Comments

@Joe:
Just because someone can fabricate an alleged bijective function doesn’t mean it is right.
What do you mean by "right"? Is the function f(x)=a "right" or "wrong"?
How can one set contain all of the elements of another set and have members the other does not and still have the same cardinality?
I told you the condition for two sets having the same cardinality. What exactly do you not understand? Are you by any chance confusing cardinality with JOEC (your invention)?JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

JW, if you aren't going to read my responses then just leave it be. Just because someone can fabricate an alleged bijective function doesn’t mean it is right. And I do mean fabricate- as in it is just a figment of one’s imagination. and How can one set contain all of the elements of another set and have members the other does not and still have the same cardinality? It’s as if you believe infinity is some sort of magical equalizer. It isn’t… Deal with that or don't bother because all you are doing is repeating what I am disputing. And just repeating that says you have no clue.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

We might have a communication problem.
And what makes your math book correct?
What do you mean by "correct"? What are you testing it against??JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

@Joe
How can one set contain all of the elements of another set and have members the other does not and still have the same cardinality?
Wiki provides you with an answer, as does any math book:
Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, that is, an injective and surjective function, from A to B. Such sets are said to be equipotent, equipollent, or equinumerous. (Wiki)
My math book actually explicitly states that if A is a proper subset of B, then the cardinality of A can be equal to cardinality of B.JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

And what makes your math book correct? Why is it that you are not dealing with what I said? How can one set contain all of the elements of another set and have members the other does not and still have the same cardinality? It's as if you believe infinity is some sort of magical equalizer. It isn't...Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

My math book provides an equivalent definition. So Wiki seems to be correct. Do you have any evidence that cardinality is defined differently in literature?JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

JW what makes wiki correct? Just because someone can fabricate an alleged bijective function doesn't mean it is right. And I do mean fabricate- as in it is just a figment of one's imagination.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

@Joe: A has cardinality strictly greater than the cardinality of B if there is an injective function, but no bijective function, from B to A. (Wiki) You ve claimed theres an error. Where is the error?JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

JW, it's like this: Given two sets, A & B, such that set A has all the members of set B PLUS has members set B does not, set A's cardinality has to be greater than set B's. That is unless you think that infinity is some sort of magical equalizer.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

@Joe: Do you have a link to the specific post?JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

On my blog JW.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

I disagree with Cantor and I have explained why he is wrong.
Where did you explain that?JWTruthInLove_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

You are my tag line DiEB. You and all the moronic evoTARDs. And mathematicians don't seem to be able to appraise what i have said. They are all just stuck on Cantor and the think just repeating his tripe will convince me. What's up with that? Why is it that not one mathematician can tell us the utility of saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. Look, you chumps can continue to believe that infinity is some sort of magical equalizer. That reflects on you, not me.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

natural scientistsDiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

I disagree with Cantor and I have explained why he is wrong. Joe, could you please make this your tag line? It would save mathematicians and natural so much time when they have to appraise a point you make...DiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

LoL! Just say that you can't do it, DiEB. So infinity only exists in our minds. It is a mental construct only.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Joe: "Can you show me infinity in the real world, DiEB? Are there an infinite number of atoms in the universe? Are there an infinite number of events in the universe?"
When we model the world, we make some assumptions: one of the most important is that we often assume that things are continuous or even smooth - think of Newtonian mechanics. Why? Because it works! So, in modeling the world we introduce analysis, a branch of mathematics loaded with all kinds of infinite things....DiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

DiEB spews:
More precisely: you struggle with Cantor’s concept, but you don’t have any problems with your concept.
Nice spewage. I disagree with Cantor and I have explained why he is wrong. Just because you morons are too stupid to grasp that you have to lie about me. And I am making OBSERVATIONS not invectives.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Joe: "I don’t have any struggles with infinity, you do." More precisely: you struggle with Cantor's concept, but you don't have any problems with your concept. For mathematicians in general it's the other way around. BTW: what is it with all these invectives? I never thought that insults would be helpful when discussing mathematics!DiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

DiEB:
I’m speaking about infinity in a purely mathematical sense without any atheistic or religious implications: for those, you should look for Nikolaus von Kues…
You speak of infinity yet you cannot demonstrate its existence outside of our minds. Infinity is a mental construct only. It does not exist in biology. It does not exist as a search space. And DiEB's cowardly refusal to answer my questions proves that he is not interested in any discussion.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Earth to the lying keiths- I don't have any struggles with infinity, you do. But now I see your desperation has you lying through your teeeth, as usual.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

DiEB:
I don’t see how any discussion of the mathematical theory of the No Free Lunch theorems can be carried out with you on such premises.
LoL! Cantor's thouhts have nothing to do with NFL. Nothing at all. That you would even drag him into it shows your desperation.Joe_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Hmm, seems that our Darwinian faithful want to claim ‘infinity’ as a concept that belongs in their atheistic province.
I'm speaking about infinity in a purely mathematical sense without any atheistic or religious implications: for those, you should look for Nikolaus von Kues...DiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

As for the other topic here, it seems pretty obvious to me that the "search space" in biology is not one of potentially infinite functions on a set of elements. The actual "space" being "searched" is just the physically realizable configurations of biological creatures. Only actual concrete organisms are "selected," not abstract functions about those organisms. I also don't see how, even in a hypothetical search of an infinite space, it wouldn't still hold that an evolutionary algorithm doesn't outperform chance in arriving at particular goals without being given any information about the those goals, which is the part of the NFL theorems that the ID folks use in their argumentation.Deuce_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Hmm, seems that our Darwinian faithful want to claim 'infinity' as a concept that belongs in their atheistic province. I really don't think they want to go down that route: This following video on 'infinity' is very interesting for revealing how difficult it was for mathematicians to actually 'prove' that mathematics was even true in the first place:
Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 entire video: BBC-Dangerous Knowledge - Part 1 https://vimeo.com/30482156 Part 2 https://vimeo.com/30641992
Kurt Godel's part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821
As you can see, somewhat from the preceding 'Dangerous Knowledge' video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest transcendent infinity which Godel, and even Cantor, held to be God.
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation# The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
bornagain77_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Hi Sal: I think if random chance tends to degrade and eliminate biological complexity, and if the No Free Lunch implies Darwinian evolution will do no better than random chance, then the ID interpretation of the No Free Lunch theorem mandates the Genetic Entropy thesis. It wouldn't be biological complexity per se that would be expected to go down or stay the same, right, but rather specified complexity in particular? That seems like the right prediction, but I think it would be tough to measure.Deuce_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

DiEb, For more on Joe's struggles with infinity, see this thread.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Not only that but followers of Cantor don’t seem to be able to deal with infinite sets. I don't see how any discussion of the mathematical theory of the No Free Lunch theorems can be carried out with you on such premises.DiEb_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

The ID interpretation of No Free Lunch theorems argues that Darwinian processes on average will not do better than chance processes for the emergence of biological complexity.
On explanation for why "Darwinian processes" do not perform any better than a blind search is that "Darwinian processes" are in fact blind searches. Not just a blind watchmaker. No watchmaker at all.Mung_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Can you show me infinity in the real world, DiEB? Are there an infinite number of atoms in the universe? Are there an infinite number of events in the universe? What part of taht quote refutes what I said?Joe_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply