tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post5391476875501668486..comments2023-05-02T19:43:32.436+10:00Comments on Kelosophy: There's a monkey sitting at a typewriterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-27206838036654156292008-12-17T09:03:00.000+11:002008-12-17T09:03:00.000+11:00After reading some of Richard Dawkin's books, I wa...After reading some of Richard Dawkin's books, I was concerned about that same problem. I wrote a MATLAB code that tries to evolve an eye by generating random variants starting from a flat plate and evaluating how well they would focus light rays from different directions. I posted my code, and starting posting results on my blog, but haven't looked back at it in a while.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-11100479359094645002008-12-10T17:35:00.000+11:002008-12-10T17:35:00.000+11:00Randy, you twit, you know Nothing about informatio...Randy, you twit, you know Nothing about information. Information is anything and everything. It does not rely on intelligence! Obviously, because if it did, you wouldn't generate ANY! <BR/><BR/>Quantum mechanics deals explicitly with information at ALL TIMES, and yet, none of it is intelligently designed. The information merely exists.<BR/><BR/>Second, you meant message. Sentences have messagesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-61722270446783031892008-12-05T11:59:00.000+11:002008-12-05T11:59:00.000+11:00DNA is more a cypher than a code, it's not specifi...<A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html" REL="nofollow">DNA is more a cypher than a code</A>, it's not specified information in the way that language is. Remember that the ACTG that are the 4 characters in DNA are us imposing language onto it. It's four nucleotide substances that evidentially can occur naturally. Adenine was able to be synthesised in an experiment in 1961. <BR/>Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-37294487549660387742008-12-05T11:08:00.000+11:002008-12-05T11:08:00.000+11:00We agree on one thing:"... when we see a code or i...We agree on one thing:<BR/><BR/><I>"... when we see a code or information we know there's intelligence behind it."</I><BR/><BR/>DNA is a code and it is a type of information. You can hardly equate it with rings on a tree or the pattern of a snowflake. The sequence below is a pattern.<BR/><BR/>abcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabcabc<BR/><BR/>This sentence is information. Note the difference.Randy Stimpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626444950916244368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-85449582537798808902008-11-25T14:50:00.000+11:002008-11-25T14:50:00.000+11:00Exactly, Dawkins even points that out in The Blind...Exactly, Dawkins even points that out in <I>The Blind Watchmaker</I>. <BR/><BR/>The last two algorithms do have a point, they are to show that cumulative processes are to be distinguished from blind chance. It's an analogy, not a descriptor.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-8797719028605468772008-11-25T11:00:00.000+11:002008-11-25T11:00:00.000+11:00Kel,Your last two algorithms are pointless. They b...Kel,<BR/><BR/>Your last two algorithms are pointless. They both rely on <I>specified information</I>. Your last two algorithms and Dawkin’s Weasel program suffer from the same fallacies.Randy Stimpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626444950916244368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-21051620579849979642008-11-15T14:21:00.000+11:002008-11-15T14:21:00.000+11:00This method does not work in the way evolution doe...This method does not work in the way evolution does, that was the point of the entire post. Language and DNA are simply not comparable. The whole point was to show how we can recognise specified information because it can't be generated any other way.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-51981680051100790542008-11-15T13:26:00.000+11:002008-11-15T13:26:00.000+11:00One of the problems I see with your approach is th...One of the problems I see with your approach is that you lock in small changes that match part of the pattern you are trying match.<BR/><BR/>A much larger pattern would have to emerge before you could lock it in. Consider that the average length of a gene is 2510bp. Also consider that multiple genes need to be working together to create a trait that could be selected for. If a significant change Randy Stimpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626444950916244368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-13235036017566098902008-10-31T16:33:00.000+11:002008-10-31T16:33:00.000+11:00Yes, selection doesn't work like this. But this wa...Yes, selection doesn't work like this. But this wasn't about evolution, it was about information theory and how we can determine what is and what isn't a product of an intelligent agent - something important to distinguish when tackling the subject of DNA. There are some who say "DNA is a code, and all codes are a product of intelligence", and this along with a future post are to address that Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-31483510057268715702008-10-31T14:44:00.000+11:002008-10-31T14:44:00.000+11:00But...Selection in biological organisms doesn't wo...But...<BR/><BR/>Selection in biological organisms doesn't work very much like the example (I've always wanted to ask Dawkins about this).<BR/><BR/>Rather, often several changes have to be made in order for the change to increase fitness. Thus, keeping every letter that matches the target creates a fitness landscape where, say, only 1e-9 and 1 exist for each site, and in which the total fitness isAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com