Darwinism Evolution News

Do zoologists own evolution? Should they?

Spread the love

2016-04-17-1460907495-5806724-GeoffreyWestSantaFeInstitutePortrait.jpgPhysicist Geoffrey West in an Suzan Mazur at Huffington Post:

Suzan Mazur: Do zoologists own the evolution discussion?

Geoffrey West: To a large extent the answer is yes they do own it, and they have to some extent cornered the market. They believe, perhaps rightly so, that they have all of the expertise. But clearly, other areas of biology, and also other sciences such as physics, chemistry and computer science should be an integral part of the conversation. The upcoming Royal Society meeting on evolution that you’ve been writing about, which has eminent biologists and philosophers represented, basically has almost no scientists from the hard sciences, which is where some of the important answers and insights are potentially going to come from.

A major conceptual challenge is the question of the origins of complexity in the universe that we need to understand before we can truly understand the origins and laws of life:

How does something so simple as the laws of physics produce something so complex? How does that happen? What are the mechanisms that give rise to that?

Most importantly, what are the underlying principles that augment, whether you believe in it or not, the principle of natural selection? Those are questions where having a dialogue with physicists — especially physicists who have thought about complex adaptive systems — could be quite productive.

Suzan Mazur: Do you have any plans to attend the Royal Society evolution meeting?

Geoffrey West: I don’t. And I haven’t seen the official list of speakers, but I’m disappointed that physicists, or chemists and computer scientists, aren’t represented. I like the idea that there are philosophers speaking though because hopefully they would have thought deeply about some of the questions of evolution. More.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Of course, one difficulty is that in order to understand the origin and development of life over time we need to understand the origin of information.

Information, which principally differentiates life from non-life, is not matter or energy. What is it? How does it relate to matter and energy?

The reigning theory among zoologists is that such a discussion is unnecessary. Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation generates huge levels of information, not noise). That clearly isn’t tenable and is fuelled mainly by zeal. So, if zoologists dominate, the Royal Society meet will just be an expensive waste of time.

It all reminds one of sociologist Steve Fuller’s comment that Darwinism is now in the same mess that floored astrology.

Not only isn’t current theory correct, but apparently no useful work can take place under its dominance. Pity. Someone someday will need to do that work.

Here’s Part 1 of the series.

Suzan Mazur is author of The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing “the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

38 Replies to “Do zoologists own evolution? Should they?

  1. 1
    Indiana Effigy says:

    But clearly, other areas of biology, and also other sciences such as physics, chemistry and computer science should be an integral part of the conversation.”

    And they do. Gould was not a zoologist. Moran is not a zoologist. Do I really have to provide a list?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    I think there is a good reason why Darwinists don’t want mathematicians in particular to be ‘part of the conversation’ on evolution:

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    What Does “Life’s Conservation Law” Actually Say? – Winston Ewert – December 3, 2015
    Excerpt: All information must eventually derive from a source external to the universe,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....01331.html

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Moran is not a zoologist.

    But he does run a zoo.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    Biology is not physics or chemistry to any REAL degree! Why do they think it is?
    Yes gravity controls biological entities in moving about but so what!
    ZOOlogists??
    Figuring things out about biology or anything can be done by anyone who has studied the matter. A smarter then average mechanic could apply free time to these subjects and trump a degree-ed evo biologist.
    Its just people(tailless primates for some) putting their minds to things.
    I insist its very small circles that now or ever made conclusions about bio origins and they were not the sharpest chips off the block.
    Interested normal people can do better.
    Case in point is evolutionism.

    In short mankind owns intelligence and accuracy in investigating nature.
    Its easy to understand these subjects and not hard to improve on them.

  5. 5
    Indiana Effigy says:

    BA77: “I think there is a good reason why Darwinists don’t want mathematicians…”

    R. A. Fisher. Co- founder of the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) was a mathematician. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

  6. 6
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Mung is not an idiot, but he plays one at UD:)

  7. 7
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Sorry Mung. That was uncalled for but “the devil made me do it”

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    I.E.

    And can you point me to the exact mathematical equation that will produce the complete works of Shakespeare when I plug the equation into a computer?

    And seeing as it is completely ludicrous for someone believe that a mathematical equation could ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare why do you insist on believing against all reason that there can ever be a mathematical formulation as to how the far more sophisticated language of the 3 billion letters in our DNA came to be?

    As my Mom might of said, “you are a few fries short of a happy meal” to believe as such!

    Infinite monkey theorem
    Excerpt: “One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[24]
    A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

    RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d…”
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

    John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw

    “Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music.”
    Robert Marks

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
    And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
    In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
    Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
    -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.

    Intelligent design: Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process? – Stephen Meyer – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

  9. 9
    Indiana Effigy says:

    BA77: “And can you point me to the exact mathematical equation that will produce the complete works of Shakespeare when I plug the equation into a computer?”

    And can you point me to the single working neuron in your head?

    You made a claim that “Darwinists” don’t want mathematicians. An extremely stupid statement if you knew anything about the history of evolution and modern statistics. Are there any IDists who have come close to Fisher in their contribution to math? Or anything?

  10. 10
    Me_Think says:

    We do need interdisciplinary research. Many processes are governed by bio-mechanical, bio-chemical and even QM. Lack of understanding of these mechanisms is what weakens evolution as a theory. It is time experts from other fields weigh in. Philosophers can stay out. They are not needed in any field.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    I.E. There is NO RIGID mathematical foundation to Darwinism that can be tested against Period!

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

    You are the one who is stupid if you believe there is mathematical foundation to Darwinian evolution that can be rigorously tested against. You have been sold a complete bill of goods, and to make it worse, you desperately want that steaming pile of crap you have been sold to be true no matter what is shown to you to the contrary. i.e. wilful blindness! You are a complete idiot for selling your birthright as a child of God for such lunacy as is in Darwinian evolution!

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    The following video provides a detailed refutation of Fisher’s work, from the 1930’s, in population genetics:

    Biological Information – Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    also of interest

    Genetic Entropy – references
    http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

  13. 13
    Indiana Effigy says:

    BA77: “I.E. There is NO RIGID mathematical foundation to Darwinism that can be tested against Period!”

    But that wasn’t your original claim. Your original claim was that Darwinists don’t want mathematicians. Which doesn’t jive with the fact that one of the fathers of statistics was also one of the fathers of a do-Darwinism.

  14. 14
    earthsinterface says:

    Mung quoting Effie – #Moran is not a zoologist.#

    “But he does run a zoo.”

    Actually his Sandwalk comments forum looks more like that Alien Bar in the original Star wars movie

  15. 15
    Me_Think says:

    bornagain77 @ 8
    quoting without reading:

    “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?

    I wonder how the audience can keep a straight face! When data is written on computer disks – actually Compact Disk (CD), the laser chips off material from CD so the CD which has information will weigh less . You just have to weigh it on a Picogram machine.
    A 32 GB SD card weighs more than a 256 GB Micro SD card – that doesn’t mean 32 GB card has more information than a 256 GB Micro SD card!

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Me Don’t think,

    Information is not a ‘measurable phenomena’ with any direct relation to the material substrate on which it is encoded since both the adding of weight, for example ink, or the removal of weight, i.e. pit engravings, can represent exactly the same amount of information.

    Meyer’s claim is that information weighs nothing. To refute his claim you cannot point to a process that can both add and subtract mass to represent the same amount of information as a proof that information must weigh something.

    It is a very simplistic mistake you made. You should apologize for such a simple mistake. But being a Darwinist you will simply double down on your mistake and continue in your gross error. Pity!

    Further note:

    A hard drive, contrary to a CD, has the maximum weight gain being found for the hard drive when the hard drive is all ones instead of when it is all zeros (of note: no information is said to be present if either a hard drive or CD is all ones or all zeros despite the weight differences being the greatest at both extremes of all ones or all zeros for both devices):

    SI{-5}{J} if every domain is aligned in the same direction (that’s like a drive containing all zeros) or SI{5}{J} if the domains are antialigned. Dividing the difference by c^2 we get an effective “mass” difference around 10^{-14} grams. Given that a full hard drive weighs on the order of a kilogram, we’re talking about one part in 10^{17}
    http://www.ellipsix.net/blog/2.....weigh.html

    Then there is the whole issue of quantum information of which classical information is merely a subset.

    Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011
    Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all. Instead, the cost of erasure can be paid in terms of another conserved quantity, such as spin angular momentum.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

  17. 17
    Me_Think says:

    BA77 @ 16

    It is a very simplistic mistake you made. You should apologize for such a simple mistake. But being a Darwinist you will simply double down on your mistake and continue in your gross error. Pity!

    It is a simplistic mistake made by Myer, not me! As I said, you don’t read what you cut and paste. This is what Meyer says:

    One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None!

    and your ‘Further note’ is irrelevant to CD example and the SD card example. As I said, you don’t…… ha, I think you got it.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Me don’t Think, as I said, “But being a Darwinist you will simply double down on your mistake and continue in your gross error. Pity!”

    and alas that is exactly what you have done.

    of note:

    Recognising Top-Down Causation – George Ellis
    Excerpt: page 5: A:
    Causal Efficacy of Non Physical entities:
    Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored.
    The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.
    Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.
    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-con.....s_2012.pdf

  19. 19
    Me_Think says:

    bornagain77 @ 18
    Alas, you miss the point! Meyer purports to show how clever he is by comparing two CDs, but his example fails miserably – which is what I pointed out. I (and other non-IDist) never claim information has mass. I pointed out the absurdity of Meyers demonstration by giving the example of SD Card.
    You have posted more nothingness (I sense another flood of copy paste on ‘Nothing’ coming from you)

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    I.E. you apparently concede that Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical foundation to test against:

    BA77: “I.E. There is NO RIGID mathematical foundation to Darwinism that can be tested against Period!”

    But that wasn’t your original claim. Your original claim was that Darwinists don’t want mathematicians.

    Whatever I.E. You apparently fail to realize that since Darwinian evolution has NO rigid mathematical basis to test against experimentally in order to potentially falsify it as a ‘scientific’ theory, then it does not even qualify as a real science in the first place but, (since it has no falsification/demarcation criteria), is more realistically classified as a pseudo-science along the lines of tea leaf reading, astrology, and astral projection.

    Karl Popper’s Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Confusing Fantasy with Science – Kirk Durston – August 3, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, a return to the scientific method. As Silk and Ellis put it:
    “In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98221.html

    Of note: unlike Darwinian evolution, ID has a rigid mathematical basis and ID is easily falsifiable by experiment (although it has NEVER been falsified by experiment). As noted previously, the conservation of information math has been worked out by Dembski and Marks. And the experimental approach to potentially falsify ID would look something like this:

    It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

    “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
    Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
    I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.”
    – Dr Michael Behe

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Me don’t Think, I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can readily discern who is full of it and who is dealing forthrightly.

  22. 22
    GBDixon says:

    Please stop arguing the weight of a ‘1’. It should be obvious the choice of what represents a one or a zero on a CD or hard drive is arbitrary. Indeed, modern hard drives scramble data before writing so there are a roughly even mix of ones and zeros.
    You are being silly, splitting hairs like this.

  23. 23
    Me_Think says:

    bornagain77 @ 21
    congrats! You made it without cut paste!

  24. 24
    Zachriel says:

    News: Do zoologists own evolution?

    What of the botanists? The bacteriologists? The paleontologists? The geneticists? The virologists? The experimental biologists? The microbiologists? The developmental biologists?

    What of the cirripedologists?!

  25. 25
    mike1962 says:

    Me_Think quoting Meyers, “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks.”

    Did Meyers say CDs? Did he hold up a CD? Or did he just say “disks”?

    I didn’t read the whole thing, so I don’t know, but perhaps he was referring to floppy disks or any magnetic disk, in which case he would have be perfectly correct.

  26. 26
    Me_Think says:

    mike1962 @ 25

    Did Meyers say CDs? Did he hold up a CD? Or did he just say “disks”?
    I didn’t read the whole thing, so I don’t know, but perhaps he was referring to floppy disks or any magnetic disk, in which case he would have be perfectly correct.

    I don’t have a video. Meyer said “Computer Disk”. He would have said “Floppy Disk” if he was holding a Floppy. He was referring to software in the Disk.I can’t imagine what kind of software in 2007 would fit in a 1.44 MB floppy.

  27. 27
    mike1962 says:

    Me_Think: I can’t imagine what kind of software in 2007 would fit in a 1.44 MB floppy.

    Here’s some:

    http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Floppy/

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Kangaroo and Human Genomes (are unexpectedly very similar) 1-30-2016 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtmG2QzqJEA

  29. 29
    PaV says:

    Me-Think:

    The laser “burns” the CD. There is a pattern of ‘burns’ and ‘non-burns.’ What is the difference in weight of ‘white noise’ and Beethoven’s Fifth?

  30. 30
    Me_Think says:

    PaV @ 29

    What is the difference in weight of ‘white noise’ and Beethoven’s Fifth?

    No idea, but both would weigh several picograms less than empty CD.

  31. 31
    Me_Think says:

    BA77,
    Going over earlier posts, I feel the ‘cut-paste’ snark was uncalled-for. I apologize for it.

  32. 32
    PaV says:

    Me_Think:

    So, information doesn’t have anything to do with the “mass,” but with the configuration of particles; just as in nucleotide bases.

    I think that’s Meyer’s point when he says:
    And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?

    Of course, information, if it exists in this world, must involve material entities, such as, again, nucleotide bases since even our thoughts are not disconnected from material reality (i.e., our brain).

    P.S. BTW, anyone who is courageous enough to apologize for something they’ve written is certainly welcome here at UD.

  33. 33
    Me_Think says:

    Pav @ 32

    So, information doesn’t have anything to do with the “mass,”

    Of course not. Information has no property called mass. My comment was on the method used by Meyer to demonstrate this concept. A loaded CD will weigh less than an empty CD; and a SD card will weigh more, even if it has less capacity than a Micro SD card
    The weight of the medium (be it CD or SD card) has got nothing to do with information stored in it, so the use of CD to demonstrate that information is “massless” is moot.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Me Think, no problem. I second PaV’s comment “anyone who is courageous enough to apologize for something they’ve written is certainly welcome here at UD”. Such a sparkle of humanity coming from you gives me hope.

    Rihanna – Diamonds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA2pjMjpBs

    as to the Theistic implications of ‘mass-less’ information being found in molecular biology on a massive scale (in every DNA and Protein molecule), here are a few notes:

    Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater

    Molecular Biology – 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater

  35. 35
    PaV says:

    Me_Think:

    The next step, though, is this: to ask the question, “What physical basis is there to information?”

    Information is “meta”-physical. Now where have I heard that term before?

  36. 36
    mike1962 says:

    Me_Think: My comment was on the method used by Meyer to demonstrate this concept. A loaded CD will weigh less than an empty CD

    You have not demonstrated that Meyer was referring to a CD and not a magnetic disk. Not that it really matters. But you keep repeating this undemonstrated assumption.

  37. 37
    Roy says:

    R. A. Fisher. Co- founder of the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) was a mathematician. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

    Also GH Hardy, co-developer of the Hardy-Weinberg principle.

  38. 38
    Roy says:

    I wonder how the audience can keep a straight face! When data is written on computer disks – actually Compact Disk (CD), the laser chips off material from CD so the CD which has information will weigh less

    I wonder if Meyer ever tried that with punch cards or paper tape?

Leave a Reply