Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by EnPassant


You cannot compare the "lines of code" required to render a 3D model and then use that to dispute genetics and evolution. Not only are they completely unrelated but the comparison is naive and, well, silly.

Not only is it a silly comparison but it's one that's easily refuted by using the example of procedural generated 3D images that can produce effectively infinite size, shape and detail using very few "lines of code". So not only is your analogy (and subsequent argument) wrong, it's also easily refuted using the very same logic you employ.

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

You cannot compare the "lines of code" required to render a 3D model and then use that to dispute genetics and evolution. Not only are they completely unrelated but the comparison is naive and, well, silly.

Not only is it a silly comparison but it's one that's easily refuted by using the example of procedural generated 3D images that can produce effectively infinite size, shape and detail using very few "lines of code". So not only is your analogy (and subsequent argument) wrong, it's also easily refuted using the very same logic you employ.

You are just plain wrong. In information theory there is the idea of compressability. It is not possible to compress information beyond a certain point without losing information. These rules apply no matter what physical structure you are talking about. A physical form requires a minimal number of bits of information to describe it in 3D no matter if it is a 3D model in a computer or an actual item in physical space. There is a well defined limit to how minimal the information can be. This is where the expression 'lossy compression' comes from. If you create a low quality jpeg image information is lost because it is sacrificed for compression and storage space. The mathematics that determine these things is quite general and applies across the board.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I'm talking about strictly quantifiable amounts of information. See my last post. (yes, I do program)


Edit; pi is not a compressable piece of information. Only pi defines pi. Any attempt to compress it will lose some of the information.

22/7 is a compression of pi but information is lost-

22/7 = 3.142857143 to 9 decimal places

pi = 3.141592653 to 9 places

information starts to get lost at the third decimal place

EnPassant
You are just plain wrong. In information theory there is the idea of compressability. It is not possible to compress information beyond a certain point without losing information. These rules apply no matter what physical structure you are talking about.

What does this have to do with a) genetics and evolution and b) procedurally generated content? I suggest you actually try and educate yourself on both topics before you continue making the same silly and incorrect arguments.

A physical form requires a minimal number of bits of information to describe it in 3D no matter if it is a 3D model in a computer or an actual item in physical space.

What does any of this have to do with genetics and evolution? You are comparing 2 starkly different concepts and in your ignorance declaring one of them "impossible". It's absurd.

There is a well defined limit to how minimal the information can be. This is where the expression 'lossy compression' comes from. If you create a low quality jpeg image information is lost because it is sacrificed for compression and storage space. The mathematics that determine these things is quite general and applies across the board.

Again, what does this have to do with a) genetics and evolution and b) procedurally generated content? I suggest you actually try and educate yourself on both topics before you continue making the same silly and incorrect arguments. Yet again you are getting confused and tripping yourself up on terminology and concepts you clearly don't understand in a rather desperate bid to dismiss another concept you clearly don't understand.

Your argument is not only logically wrong but even using the logic you employ can be easily refuted. Not only that but you have further gone on to demonstrate your poor grasps of the topics discussed. So, again, even if we were to assume that your incorrect premises were true (they're not), explain how the staggering detail and complexity of procedurally generated content generated by tiny amount of code doesn't refute your premise. No need to bring in information theory, no need to mention lossy or lossless compression, just get to the point. You can't say "it's not possible" because it clearly is.

What does any of this have to do with genetics and evolution? You are comparing 2 starkly different concepts and in your ignorance declaring one of them "impossible".

They are not starkly different in terms of information. Information is information, whether it is contained in the genome or on a hard drive. The same mathematical principles apply.

reply to post by EnPassant


Show me a single scientific source that applies information theory to genetics and refutes evolution. Not your ignorant inference, an actual scientific source.

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Show me a single scientific source that applies information theory to genetics and refutes evolution. Not your ignorant inference, an actual scientific source.

I am not talking about things in this general sense. I am talking about how much information the genome can store and comparing that to how much information is required to describe an entire human body. The figure being discussed is 750 Mb. My question is; Is this enough information?

EnPassant
They are not starkly different in terms of information. Information is information, whether it is contained in the genome or on a hard drive. The same mathematical principles apply.

The way the systems use the information is different. You can't compare the two. Well, you can but it is a mistake.

EnPassant

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Show me a single scientific source that applies information theory to genetics and refutes evolution. Not your ignorant inference, an actual scientific source.

I am not talking about things in this general sense. I am talking about how much information the genome can store and comparing that to how much information is required to describe an entire human body. The figure being discussed is 750 Mb. My question is; Is this enough information?

I asked a pretty straight forward question and I specifically said I didn't want your ignorant inference. Why are we going back to the same fundamentally flawed analogy? You are making the claim, back it up with science, not your personal ignorance or incredulity.

daskakik

EnPassant
They are not starkly different in terms of information. Information is information, whether it is contained in the genome or on a hard drive. The same mathematical principles apply.

The way the systems use the information is different. You can't compare the two. Well, you can but it is a mistake

This link makes the comparison between the genome and storing information on a cd. The figure given for a single genome is 786 Mb

edit: wrong post!

reply to post by EnPassant

Seen it before and it doesn't change the fact that the systems are different and that just looking at the size of the information is misleading.

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

One last time:

Show me a single scientific source that applies information theory to genetics and refutes evolution. Not your ignorant inference, an actual scientific source.

You are still missing the point. I am not trying to apply information theory to genetics. I am talking about the amount of information the genome can store. These are not the same thing, and I have already given links.

reply to post by EnPassant


Yet this hi-def 1080p video was made using less than 4Kb of code and data. That includes everything... visuals, music, hi def, the lot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFAIaclLrKE[/youtube]

As was this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcbj7ksqwE[/youtube]

See here for more: awards.scene.org...

So even using your flawed example, you are still wrong.

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Yet this hi-def 1080p video was made using less than 4Kb of code and data. That includes everything... visuals, music, hi def, the lot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFAIaclLrKE[/youtube]

As was this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcbj7ksqwE[/youtube]

See here for more: awards.scene.org...

So even using your flawed example, you are still wrong.

Bad example. These are not 3D and they are using the same basic patterns with slight variations. I've done the same myself with simple animation. Human bones and organs are not repeating patterns. A femur, for example, varies in its shape over small distances and cannot be defined using self-similar algorithms or repeating patterns. Get yourself a 3D image of a human skull...

EnPassant
Bad example.

No yours is a bad comparison. Human skulls are not representations on digital equipment.

reply to post by EnPassant


Er... yes, they are 3D. Let's look at another 4Kb demo just to really hit the point home: www.youtube.com...

Whenever someone refutes your points (even when using your own flawed logic) you revert back to pulling more made up nonsense from a certain orifice. Instead of pulling arguments out of you know where, present actual scientific evidence to support your position. All you are doing is showing how little you understand of the concepts you try and argue for and against.

Evolution is a religion. It cant' be observed and it can't be reproduced through experimentation. Therefore by definition it is not science at all (unless you call it a hypothesis).

It is just like all of the other false religions. It sounds right until you give it some thought.

begoodbees
Evolution is a religion. It cant' be observed and it can't be reproduced through experimentation. Therefore by definition it is not science at all (unless you call it a hypothesis).

It is just like all of the other false religions. It sounds right until you give it some thought.

Please stop with false statements like this.

Evolution is both, being observed in field from fossils, as well being proven correct with many experiments in the labs around the globe. Only someone who never did any research or did not want to burst his ego could make false and ignorant statement like that.

Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution more then hypothesis back in 1996.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

Wonder what new Pope will do to make it more 'compatible' as huge amount of data shows that if humans were created in image of God, as suggested in religious books and those in favor of ID, then how come image has changed so many times over curse of 3-5 million of years.

Belief in ID is ignorance of all science and progress man has made trough time. I am well aware that there are some that will never get education and are happy with folklore tale and fiction stories about creation, but statements without any backing and made without use of brain, I will never understand.

Fine, believe all you want, but please stay away from labs, science and kids. (this specially) It seems that trough thousands of years ignorance is contagious trough holy books and organized religions.

GetHyped
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Er... yes, they are 3D. Let's look at another 4Kb demo just to really hit the point home: www.youtube.com...

Whenever someone refutes your points (even when using your own flawed logic) you revert back to pulling more made up nonsense from a certain orifice. Instead of pulling arguments out of you know where, present actual scientific evidence to support your position. All you are doing is showing how little you understand of the concepts you try and argue for and against.

edit on 4-1-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

Ok that's 3D but it is self similar, basic patterns being repeated, which means repeating the same code. What you need is a 3D human skull that can be rotated in any direction on screen.

I'm getting 48 Mb for a high quality one Here