Forums | MacLife

Buy my book, says Jan Kåhre, but my wallet says no... But here is what I have been able to glean from his site:

Question: What is the role of the Law of Diminishing Information in biology? (M.B.)

Answer: Evolution is based on elimination. If all the middle forms between species would live today (instead of being scantly recorded as fossils), zoology would be a mess. Quoting my recent birthday gift from my wife: "Why is nature not all confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? ... Why is life so lumpy?" (Darwin's Ghost by Steve Jones).

Mathematically, evolution is the result of two opposite forces: divergence by random mutations, convergence by natural selection. Both obliterates information about the past.

source

This also seems relevant...

Question: Is there more to The Law of Diminishing Information than the game of telephone or post office? (W. Small Jr.)

Answer: Sure, there is more to it. The telephone represents a homogenous chain in the sense that we can expect the transmitted information to decrease if one more player is added anywhere in the chain. This is a trivial special case of the Law of Diminishing Information: noise is never beneficial. Nothing much can be proved based on that. For a chain A-[1]-B-[2]-C where we compare inf(B@A) and inf(C@A), the second block (or channel) -[2]- is critical.

As with any measurement, we want to have the meter as good as possible. The best information meter is the ideal receiver: "If you understand a message, you probably get more information out of it, than if you don't understand it". An ideal receiver can be defined as a receiver that cannot be improved upon by adding a block before it. If inf(C@A) would be better than inf(B@C), then the receiver of B cannot be an ideal receiver because we can replace it by a better receiver -[2]-C.

The output of a block (or channel) is a transformation (deterministic or probabilistic) of the input. We can interpret such a block in different ways:

1. A block is interpreted as a Translator: Think of A as a message in Finnish, and -[2]- as a computer programmed for Finnish-to-English translation. An Englishman receiving B tells there is zero information (gibberish!), but receiving C he gets useful information. Then, he is not an ideal receiver, because his performance can be improved by adding a block before him. No translator can be of help to an ideal receiver.

2. A block is interpreted as Noise. Think of B as a light signal received by a photocell. Then adding a disturbance (chopper or random noise) -[2]- before the photocell, its performance is improved. Then the photocell by itself cannot be an ideal receiver as the combination of disturbance and photocell forms a better receiver. Noise can be beneficial, but not to an ideal receiver.

But I don't think res believes in Plate Tectonics or the Heliocentric solar system.....

Chickenhawk wrote:

But I don't think res believes in Plate Tectonics or the Heliocentric solar system.....

Plate tectonics - no.
Heliocentric solar system - I haven't a clue. There are other models of cosmology that also fit the data, and I really don't have a clue about.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was void and without form. That is before the six days of creation are spelled out.

Perhaps Genesis 1:1 is an introduction and the rest specifies how it was done.
Perhaps Genesis 1:1 took place long before the six days of creation. I have no way of knowing.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

But I don't think res believes in Plate Tectonics or the Heliocentric solar system.....

Plate tectonics - no.
Heliocentric solar system - I haven't a clue. There are other models of cosmology that also fit the data, and I really don't have a clue about.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was void and without form. That is before the six days of creation are spelled out.

Perhaps Genesis 1:1 is an introduction and the rest specifies how it was done.
Perhaps Genesis 1:1 took place long before the six days of creation. I have no way of knowing.

Heliocentric solar system and you havn't a clue? YOU HAVN'T A smurf CLUE!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU.

Ive seen you say some incredibly ignorant, stupid and just plain rediculous things before, but this takes the bloody cake.

There are other models of cosmology that fit the data? You made this up. Right here right now you made that up. Want to know how I know? For one thing cosmology only studies extremely large systems, we're talking the overall structure of the universe here.

But thats just semantics. Other models? There are none. Period. You give me your other model. The model that would go against Copernicus, Kepler, Gallileo, Newton, Einstien. Against every thing we know about physics. Against what we can smurfing see with the myriad of telescopes and sattelites and probes we have. You show me your model you braindead moron. The drivel you constantly post is a joke, but now I'm actually angry that you make your claims based on "science", when its religious dogma, and nothing more.

This is all very interesting, but as a non-scientist the most interesting part of all this, to my mind, is the conspiracy theory angle. The fact that to subscribe to creationism, you have to believe that evolutionary theory, and perhaps science itself, is all part of a vast plot to dethrone God.

There's no alternative; you must believe that. It's the only way any of it makes sense.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

This is all very interesting, but as a non-scientist the most interesting part of all this, to my mind, is the conspiracy theory angle. The fact that to subscribe to creationism, you have to believe that evolutionary theory, and perhaps science itself, is all part of a vast plot to dethrone God.

There's no alternative; you must believe that. It's the only way any of it makes sense.

Mel Gibson... Passion of the Christ... Conspiracy Theory... I smell a pattern.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

But I don't think res believes in Plate Tectonics or the Heliocentric solar system.....

Plate tectonics - no.
Heliocentric solar system - I haven't a clue. There are other models of cosmology that also fit the data, and I really don't have a clue about.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was void and without form. That is before the six days of creation are spelled out.

Perhaps Genesis 1:1 is an introduction and the rest specifies how it was done.
Perhaps Genesis 1:1 took place long before the six days of creation. I have no way of knowing.

A heliocentric solar system is one in which the sun resides at the center, with the planets revolving around it.

I can't believe it's actually come down to this. How can there be any other model for  a solar system? How can there not be Plate Tectonics? This thread literally just went back to the 13th century right before my eyes. Someone help me out here. The Earth is round, right?

Here's one

Plate tectonics is about fifty years old in the current form it is in now, but the basis for it goes back to the twenties. It isn't that new. It also makes alot more sense than many of its comptemporary theories in other fields (quantum mechanics, particle physics).

No, but it sure as hell is not recent.

Isn't it interesting that res hasn't posted anything to defend his saying that he doesn't know if a heliocentric solar system is correct?

Chickenhawk wrote:

Isn't it interesting that res hasn't posted anything to defend his saying that he doesn't know if a heliocentric solar system is correct?

This is the first time I've visited this thread since that post.
To be honest, I'm getting a little tired of the personal attacks - I've decided that if you guys don't want to discuss the topic without personal attacks, then maybe I shouldn't be involved - because sometimes I don't respond very well to personal attacks, which is extremely detrimental to my christian witness (such as the incident where I told Schnicky to smurf off). So until I can handle my temper, I think I need to stay away from situations of continual personal attack.

I am surprised that there arn't more people trying to defend ID. It's no fun when there isn't any one else out there.