Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lee Spetner on evolution and information

Categories
Evolution
Information
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Lee Spetner, author of The Evolution Revolution at True Origin:

Many years ago I published a paper that pointed out that the evolutionary process can be characterized as a transmission of information from the environment to the genome (Spetner 1964). Somewhat later I wrote that there is no known random mutation that adds information to the genome (Spetner 1997). This statement in one form or another has found its way into the debate on evolution versus creation. Evolutionists have distorted the statement to attack it, as in Claim CB102, where Isaak has written his target for attack as, ‘Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.’ Perhaps something like this statement was indeed made in an argument by someone, but Isaak has distorted its meaning. For his ‘refutation’ he writes the following 4 points (the references are his citations): More.

See also: Lee Spetner answers his critics

Comments
Dick:
you have provided no references that say that Shannon information is the same when there is duplication.
Of course I have. See comments 43 and 47. NEW information, Dick. The argument pertains to NEW information.ET
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Joe @ 67 – you...
lolMung
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
gpuccio:
Is one “dun” redundant?
Good one! :)Mung
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Joe @ 67 - you have provided no references that say that Shannon information is the same when there is duplication. If you're going to provide references that support your claim, then it helps if they support your claim. Where, for example, does the wikipedia page on redundancy say that Shannon information is the same under duplication? If anything, it say that duplication does change the information: otherwise the redundancy would be 0 (assuming a single copy had no redundancy).Bob O'H
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Again for the learning impaired: Dr Spetner uses "information" as it is used in information theory. That much is clear in his book "Not By Chance".
You’re clearly not using Shannon-Weaver information: mathematically duplication has to increase the Shannon-Weaver information (because each term in the summation is non-negative, and duplication increases the number of terms).
That is false. Redundancy does not add new information and a duplicate copy is a form of redundancy. I even provided two references to support my claim. Bob O'H hasn't provided any references to support his. Dr Spetner was talking about adding NEW information via genetic accidents, ie random mutation, and there still isn't any evidence that gene duplication is a random mutation.ET
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: I was looking around on the net for Spetner's idea of information. In a Wikipedia article on Spetner, it mentions "genetic information." If you click on this linked phrase, you get: "nucleic acid sequence." So, why not use that as Spetner's definition of information: nucleic acid sequence. Wikipedia is our authoritative source on this.PaV
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 61 - fair enough, if you want to use "functional information" rather than "information". But ET didn't think that was needed, and Spetner didn't define information at all. PaV @ 62 - I was specifically interested in how Spetner defined information: that's why I wrote "I don’t understand what Spetner means by information". If you had read my comment at 27 - you know, the bit you quoted - then you would know that I am aware of methods to quantify information, in particular Shannon's approach.Bob O'H
August 4, 2017
August
08
Aug
4
04
2017
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
From Wikiwand: "Species Problem" Does this completely undermine, and invalidate, evolutionary science?PaV
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Darwin wrote Origin of Species. What is Darwin's definition of "species"?PaV
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Mung @ 27 – Shannon information is – sum p log p. So if you create a duplicate copy, you double the number of terms. So the information is – 2 sum p log p.
Bob: Shannon 'information'has to do with "communication." If I have to transmit two copies of the same letter over an electronic device, that's twice as much 'information' that has to be communicated. That is, Shannon Information, or, if you prefer, Shannon Weaver Information, is a defective definition when it comes to what the human mind understands as 'information.' So, let's not pretend to not understand the distinction involved here
I don’t understand what Spetner means by information – he doesn’t explain it, and your explanations don’t make any sense, as I’ve explained. It’s possible that you don’t understand what he writes either, which would explain why your explanation doesn’t seem to make sense.
Bob, are you looking for a definition of information, or, are you looking to foil ID's effort to identify information? I'm curious. What if I told you that there is such a thing as a "quantitative measure of information"? What if I told you that it comes from someone who worked for Bell Labs in the 1920's? Does that pique your interest? Do you think that would resolve the impasses surrounding this topic?PaV
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Then I would say that duplication adds no functional information to the system. Functional information is the real thing in ID theory. Of course, it is not completely true, even so. A duplication where both genes are translated can add or subtract to the functionality of the system: indeed, duplications are often deleterious, but in rare cases they could be of help. The important point is that duplication is a rather simple transition (not completely simple, but certainly simpler than finding a new long functional sequence. So, a duplication that influences the existing sequence could be considered as a not too complex event of tweaking of that function (in a negative or positive sense).gpuccio
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Mung: "Neither does “redundundancy.”" Is one "dun" redundant? You are a genius in self-reference! :)gpuccio
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Dionisio: "Somehow the name Kolmogorov seems to come to mind, doesn’t it?" Absolutely! :)gpuccio
August 3, 2017
August
08
Aug
3
03
2017
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Umm, information in information theory doesn't care about meaning, ie information in colloquial use, because the equipment used to send, receive and store it doesn't care. If meaning were relevant then encrypted messages could never be sent until you somehow convinced the transmitter of the meaning of the message.ET
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
"Information" in "information theory" does not carry the same meaning as "information" in colloquial use. Neither does "redundundancy."Mung
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
I thought we were discussing Shannon information here.
We are. Clearly you don't have any idea what information theory says. Redundancy does not add NEW information under information theory. Google is your friend. Search on "information theory and redundancy"ET
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
gpuccio @48:
[...] wouldn’t it be enough to send the content of the novel, and just add “repeated 1000 times”?
Somehow the name Kolmogorov seems to come to mind, doesn't it? :)Dionisio
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
ET @ 45 - I thought we were discussing Shannon information here. If you are using some other definition of 'information', can you please tell me what sort you are using. gpuccio @ 48 - In essence, using Shannon information, then yes. You would transmit the same information 1000 times so the information is the information in one novel times 1000. What you are describing (send it once followed by "times 1000") is closer to Rissanen's idea of Minimum Description Length.Bob O'H
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
ET: "That would all depend on the painting, who and how it was copied." Correct. How complex is information theory... No wonder darwinists do not understand it! :)gpuccio
August 2, 2017
August
08
Aug
2
02
2017
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
That would all depend on the painting, who and how it was copied.ET
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Mung: "I have a theory of information decrease in which information decreases when it is copied." Well, the value of a painting certainly decreases when it is copied.gpuccio
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Mung:
So there is more information in a zygote than in an adult, because of all the copying that goes on.
They would be the same. The zygote would have more information than any one adult cell but the adult, being a sum of the zygote's information and an aggregate of many cells, should have the same amount of information as the zygote. Mung doesn't even understand his own theory :razz: :cool:ET
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Bob O’H: Let me understand. Are you saying that if you print 1000 copies of a novel, the information is multiplied by 1000?
We have no way to measure that sort of information. So we cannot say whether it would be multiplied by 1000 times. I have a theory of information decrease in which information decreases when it is copied. ;) So there is more information in a zygote than in an adult, because of all the copying that goes on.Mung
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: Let me understand. Are you saying that if you print 1000 copies of a novel, the information is multiplied by 1000? But, if you want to transmit that information (Shannon scenario), wouldn't it be enough to send the content of the novel, and just add "repeated 1000 times"? Just to understand your point.gpuccio
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
There's this: Redundancy (information theory)ET
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
And the proof is in the FACT that the SAME information is in the duplicate.
We have no way to measure that.Mung
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
NEW information, Bob. Do TRY to keep up. And the proof is in the FACT that the SAME information is in the duplicate. Do tell, Bob, where is the NEW information in a duplicate copy?ET
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
And now can you give give a reference that gives the proof? Oh, and my apologies - I thought you were using "redundency" as being synonymous with duplication. I'd like to see a proof that duplication doesn't add information (as in information-theoretic information, of course).Bob O'H
August 1, 2017
August
08
Aug
1
01
2017
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
Google is your friend: Information Theory Notes: Redundancy does not give new information but is essential to communicationET
July 31, 2017
July
07
Jul
31
31
2017
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
ET @ 41 - Do you have a reference for the proof of that?Bob O'H
July 31, 2017
July
07
Jul
31
31
2017
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply