Your IP address is 220.127.116.11
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'RumraketR%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #6
|Date: 2012/11/20 14:32:41, Link|
is 1.5 Gigabytes more than 500 bits? Then why would we want to go any further than this as you already have the answer before you start.
ANY organism will be over 500 bits.[/quote]
Hello everyone, I've been a lurker here for a few years now and I just have to respond because this could be historical stuff.
I want to make sure I understand you correctly here, Jerry Don Bauer, because according to what I have quoted, you seem to be saying that the quantity of information in a string of symbols is equal to the length of the string divided by the number of possible symbols at each locus? As in the information content is measured in bits and is thus proportional to the length of the sequence?
You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):
6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!
In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.
Am I correct in my understanding here?
|Date: 2012/11/20 16:18:41, Link|
Okay, fair enough, I think I understand. But just to be sure, you agree the quantity of information in the genome there is 1.5 gigabytes? Not CSI, not Entropy, just 1.5 gigabytes of information, and 1.5 gigabytes is more than 500 bits(and 500 bits would be the bound above with the quantity of information would qualify as being CSI). Right?
If my understanding is not correct, could you clarify:
A): How to calculate the quantity of information in an arbitrary string of DNA, for example?
You can use any stretch of DNA you want, like a real world promoter sequence(or mRNA transcript or whatever you like), or just use a small random string for the purpose, like the one I supplied. Anything is fine with me, I just want to make sure that we agree on how to calculate the quantity of information in a string of symbols, like DNA, in bytes.
I understand that the quantity itself is not what makes it Complex or Specified. I just want to make sure we agree on how to calculate the quantity.
That's absolutely fine with me, we don't have to delve into entropy or anything. I just want to reach an agreement on the basics, like how to calculate information quantity in stretches of DNA.
That's why I brought up the example you quoted earlier, because you seemed to be using a method that corresponded to length of string divided by number of symbols and reporting the result in bytes.
If this is not how you would calculate information content in a string of symbols, how else? Give an example and I would be most grateful.
Thanks again for your time :)
|Date: 2014/09/12 05:19:28, Link|
|Why is Joe so angry anyway? I can practically feel the spittle here on the other side of the atlantic.|
|Date: 2016/01/21 02:15:02, Link|
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.
See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).
He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.
|Date: 2016/01/22 03:59:11, Link|
Did he seriously just write this bafflegab? Somebody tell me I'm being trolled. :p
|Date: 2016/01/22 04:05:33, Link|
The whole thing. He does not know what a phylogenetic relationship is. He does not know how one is constructed. He does not know about the logic involved, he has never looked into the inferences. He has zero skill or education in even rudimentary logic or reasoning. He does not understand what a prediction is, he does not understand how falsification happens or what it means. He does not understand why it is even important for something to be falsifiable, or to make predictions. All of these concepts are totally foreign to him.
He thinks scientists are like priests, they just read stuff and believe it really hard, then make up rationalizations after the fact to "save" their worldview from disproof.
After all, that is what he does himself and how he thinks his own authority figures work. But he also believes his own authority figures are "more right" and "more trustworthy" than secular/nonbelieving authority figures, because "his" authority figures are infallibly inspired by an omnipotent god.
|Date: 2016/03/04 07:29:15, Link|
I can. The whole community of evolutionary biology understands it.
It is an observational fact that irreducibly complex systems routinely evolve.
If there were no irreducibly complex systems in existence, then the theory of evolution would be false, because they are unambigously predicted to result from the evolutionary process. We even know HOW IC systems evolve. They start by NOT being indispensible, but become gradually incorporated into systems and structures that were themselves ALSO once upon a time, dispensible, but have since become indispensible by the same process.
This is actually false as Larry Moran PROVED to you on this blog with references.
Topoisomerases originated before genomes were so large that DNA winding was a lethal problem, and gradually co-evolved with the expansion of the winding stretches of the genome.
Impossibility is a binary property. Something is either impossible or it is not. There is no degree of impossibility. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that abiogenesis is impossible and in fact there is evidence from physics that abiogenesis IS possible. According to statistical mechanics, living organisms are just another unlikely microstate of matter. Which means that, statistically speaking, they are still possible, just very very unlikely to arise spontaneously.
But unlikely =/= (that sign means "does not equal") impossible.
I'll repeat for the benefit of your subnormal encephalization:
Unlikely =/= impossible
Unlikely does not equal impossible
Unlikely is not equal to impossible
What is unlikely is not impossible
Abiogenesis by spontaneous generation is only unlikely, it is not impossible.
There are many options that are much much more likely than spontaneous generation. Likelihood depends on already occupied microstates. There could be a gradual progression of microstates from the unliving to the living states. This is strictly speaking also possible according to statistical mechanics.
All of science refutes the assertion that the origin of life is impossible. The origin of life is NOT impossible, the origin of life is possible.
I would like for there to be a god. I really wish God existed, because I don't want to die. I also want to meet again, long lost and much loved family members. I do not believe in God because I don't want to, I do not believe in God becuase the intellectual and evidential case for the existence of God is too weak to be believed rationally.
But you have not brought any evidence. All your arguments suffer form fundamental logical flaws and fallacies. The reason your are failing to produce God-belief in any of us is that your arguments and your evidence is insufficient to justify rational belief.
|Date: 2016/03/04 07:35:13, Link|
I don't believe that "nothing" did anything. As such, there is a serious issue with you asking us to demonstrate "nothing" doing anything, because you are asking us to evidentially support a proposition none of us hold.
You should learn logic before you engage in debate.
|Date: 2016/03/04 07:36:08, Link|
They evolved gradually.
|Date: 2016/03/18 07:54:15, Link|
The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.
It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.
No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.
Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?
|Date: 2016/05/04 06:36:02, Link|
Larry Moran on this gibberish
Otangelo: Always wrong all the time.
|Date: 2016/05/04 07:10:09, Link|
That is possibly the dumbest post on the internet. Quite literally.
What amazing bluffoonery. Improbable does not equal impossible.
Improbable directly translates into 'unlikely'. Which is just less likely than 'likely'. Which just means it doesn't happen often, but instead infrequently. But it still happens.
If something happens 1 in 10 times, then it happens one out of ten times. If it happens a million times less often, it happens one in ten million times. If it happens a trillion trillion trillion trillion times less often, it happens once in every 10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion times. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS.
If it happens one in a quattuorvigintillion googolplex times, then it still happens. Once in every quattuorvigintillion googolplex times.
If it is impossible, then it NEVER happens. It CANNOT happen. In any way.
|Date: 2016/12/30 14:17:37, Link|
|I agree, I don't expect much interesting intellectual output from any of them. But there's still a difference between the complete and utter volitional braindamage one is disposed to receive from phoodoo, fmm and frankie, versus what can on rare occasion at least approach the form of a question borne out of a tiny hint of genuine curiosity from Mung, Sal and... well I think that's it.|