Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 35
28
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
In science, there are things that are self evident. For example, an apple falling from a tree, rain, the seasons, snow or the sun shining.

Science can now tell you why the sun shines or why an apple falls to the ground.

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth. When we see it, we know it. When we see an airplane, television, car or computer monitor we know it was designed by intelligence. It's a self evident truth.


It is easy to know that an airplane or television was designed by beings because we can talk to the ones who designed these things, or at least the children or coworkers of the people who did.

It is also easy to know that the sun shines or the rain falls, simply because it does.

There is no need to analyze the machine to know that it was designed. We can simply ask.

But no one can ask God if he designed us, or the world. Not one can do this.

It is foolish and vain to think we understand why WE happen. We can understand many things, but when we claim to understand the cause of ourselves we are like little children.

So, we are ignorant. We do not know. No one knows if we where designed. If someone claims to know he is either a fool, a lunatic or a con man. Or perhaps someone knows, is inspired by God, but we cannot know that he is. And then God is a trickster, like Loki. And I believe he is, but again, we cannot know it, if it is so. This is the nature of things under this heaven that you all see.

The self-evident truth is the first truth you should question.


originally posted by: neoholographic
This also applies to DNA. The genetic code is a clear example of intelligent design.

What are the key components to a system that was designed by intelligence? There's 2 of them.

The first component is, you will find instructions. These instructions will be letters, numbers or symbols that are in a sequence that instructs the production of cars, DVD players and yes, proteins. Intelligence will give the sequence of these letters, numbers and symbols.


A sequence of letters is the first thing you will find. Letters are only a medium of truth. Letters themselves are not truth. Letters are the seeing-stick of a blind man. Letters are the walking-crutch of a lame man. Letters are the money of a rich man. (I'm sort of messing with you here, but only sort of).

These letters are symbols as you say, and still these letters are nothing, like grains of sand on a beach. They make your feet feel good, but not by themselves. You cannot take a single grain of sand and make a beach. And no man can take all the grains of sand, or even many.


Again, we see this in DNA, DVD players, cars and everything else designed by intelligence.

When DNA is in a regulatory sequence you get promoters and operators that regulate the production of proteins. You get sequences that produce proteins. You get transcription, translation, error correction and now a new discovery about a second hidden code gives us gene control through what's called duons.

For instance if I were to write aaccThehhhjMANhhiuACROSSnnmmTHEjddfSTREET. I would first have to give meaning to the sequence of the letters THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. I would then design machinery that can scan the letters and can pick out the sequence of letters that say THE MAN ACROSS THE STREET. This is what's happening with DNA. Sequences of DNA letters are being transcribed and translated. Even when a mistake occurs, it can be caught through error correction.

It doesn't get any clearer than this. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I agree with this.


What happened is, people looked at the phenotype and came up with a convoluted theory of evolution. This theory eventually ran into the instructions(DNA) and it has just gotten worse and worse for the convoluted theory of evolution.

Evolution is the end result of intelligent design. It's the end result of a sequence of DNA letters that instruct the regulation and production of proteins.

Nature can produce design. It can produce a mountainside or a snowflake. It can't produce a snowflake that will translate and transcribe regulatory sequences on another snowflake.

Also, why does "nature" exclude intelligence or consciousness? When people say this happened naturally why does naturally mean without God, intelligence or consciousness? Where's the evidence that nature excludes God, consciousness or intelligence? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Well, a snowflake programming another snowflake would sure be something. Still, I think an organism can have DNA that is transmitted to another organism, and the later organism can be slightly different. I don't see the problem with this.

"Nature can produce design. It can produce a mountainside or a snowflake. It can't produce a snowflake that will translate and transcribe regulatory sequences on another snowflake."

This seems to me to be a difference of degree.

Why can't nature do that? I'm pretty sure it already did?




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think any exposure the organism has in nature is part of the selection process. As I mentioned before, these are the variables and there's a lot of them including interactions and cooperation. I don't see interaction and cooperation and natural selection as being mutually exclusive. It's all part of the same process.

What allows a new species to become a new species?


About lazarus taxa, I don't see any hard evidence that species have the capability to rise again. It's a hypothesis, but is there any species that has died out and has come back in the same form? Not that I know of.

What hard evidence would you need other than having a species that went extinct show up again millions of years later? It's the whole point behind the lazarus taxa to begin with.


I disagree that species are equally equipped for survival. Mutations in the genome can be rapid and can be lethal. And they can be inheritable. So if an organism inherits a gene for something like Huntington's Chorea, that organism will not survive. We don't all have the same shot at survival - some are more "fit" than others.

We will have to agree to disagree then. You have the benefit of hindsight and dynamic environments to be able to say that species aren't all given the same shot. All species are designed to do the same thing, so in that regard, in a static environment, all living things would be on equal footing. Huntingtons could be lethal to an organism but not an entire species. Humans haven't been wiped out from it. Is a species even capable of emerging if it bears a lethal mutation at its onset?


As for disease. a disease is nothing more than some outside agent attacking the organism. It also can be an inheritable disease like Huntington's which I mentioned above. There's beneficial microorganism and lethal microorganisms - just depends on how it interacts with another species like humans (BTW, just a note - viruses are not "living" organisms - by definition a living organism has to be capable of reproduction. A virus hijacks the internal machinery of a living cell to reproduce - it has no capability of reproducing itself).

The world of mirco-organisms and the role the micro biome plays is essential to evolution. I don't believe we can assert that virus's are non-living entities. That's a debate that's been ongoing forever and it seems the lean is now towards them being alive. news.discovery.com...
But then again we don't have a concrete definition of what life is. Virus's walk the line between the two, so they say... But I'm inclined to call it life since they have their own genetic material. I'm not sure of any other non-living thing that has DNA. Like a rock for instance...


Your example of the frog is exactly my point. The predator whether it only sees one color or whatever, is part of the natural selection process. A species will not survive if it cannot defend itself. Maybe that's why a lot of reptiles change color!! Good example, thanks.

Yes the environment ultimately decides, but my point is that the green frog had the same chance as the red frog to survive before the predator for that species had been selected for. Perhaps it could have just as easily gone the other way for the frogs depending on how the environment selected their predator (in any number of ways). Which supports the idea that both had the same chance for survival (or extinction), at the onset of their existence. The only reason why a species gets to the point of being a species in the first place is because it was able to survive for a period of time until a factor that went against it was introduced. When given favorable environmental conditions a species will arise and survive, just like any other species can.
edit on 21-4-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you please distinguish the difference between classic Creation and Intelligent Design for me?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
Yesterday I went for Pho. A delicious bowl of soup, noodles and some rare beef. I bit into this tiny little red pepper. It was no longer than 1/2 inch and was 1/16 the size of a pencil. It blew my mouth off. Tears began flowing uncontrollably as my ears began to throb with a burning pain. My tongue swelled as I struggled to gulp down the remains of the sapid bowl of goodness.

And then like a drunken step-father, it hit me...

How did this little pepper ever know to defend itself against herbivores? Its reality consists of nothing more than, well, nothing. It grows, it receives sunlight, it soaks up the rain, then it dies. Its reality is rather boring and uneventful. It knows nothing of mouths and doesn't care about you or me. It can't see, touch, feel or apply any of our senses or those of an animal. It cares not of anything in particular except for some kind of "self-defense" so it may continue to survive. But survive from what? From mouths. What mouths?

How did this little eyeless red sprout ever discover a way to burn your mouth and make steam blow from your eyes and ears when bitten? It doesn't even know what anything is. Why did it adapt this way? My world and a red hot pepper's world are completely different. There is no viable connection that can bind the two worlds together to warrant such a dramatic self-defense mechanism. Other than...plants know they are eaten? They must. How can a plant KNOW anything? But clearly, this little bean carries a big stick.

Hmmm, that was some crazy Pho.


The simple answer is natural selection acting over billions of years.

Another great example is Coryanthes (aka The Bucket Orchid) . Each species of this orchid is reliant on a particular species of bee. If another species of bee, or some other insect tries to polynate this flower, the insect will become trapped and die in the liquid which fills the flower. Only the right species of bee will be allowed to escape the flower and live to polinate another flower.

I personally cultivated this species in my greenhouse (Coryanthes Speciosa). It also is reliant on a particular species of ant to fertilise it and to protect it. It is truly a great example of symbiosis within the natural world. ( And let me tell you, keeping this particular plant was a challenge in itself..).

Plant defence mechanisms are just another product of the same process. With all natural selection processes, some live, those with survival characteristics (such as 'burning' flesh in the case of peppers) live and pass on their genes to the next generation. Those who die, do not. Factor this by a million million and you have your answer
edit on RAmerica/Chicago30uWed, 23 Apr 2014 07:42:53 -05004-0500fCDT07 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Sigh... do I even need a reason?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

How many lines of code does it take to make Lara Croft? and that is just an image on screen...

Changed genes can change the body but that does not amount to evolutionary change in terms of growth and form.

What tells cells to differentiate? What tells them which kind of cell thay are to become?


Holy crap! Talk about the WORST analogy that I've ever read. Do you even program? If you did, you'd know that programming is based on transcribing binary string (1's and 0's) into readable text that will tell a computer what to do given a certain input. DNA isn't based in binary programming. It's possible that it has some basis in quantum computing and programming, but that may not even be true. Human decision making barely ever comes down to a simple yes/no answer. That goes for unconscious decisions you make as well. What you said is like saying that since it takes a boatload of paper to build a full size model car, making a real car is impossible. If you are going to make an analogy, it helps to understand the subject matter that you're making the analogy with.


You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?


Yes, any number of genes coded correctly could hold information for 100 Lara Crofts. You obviously don't understand programming. It's not about the number of lines in a code. It's about efficiency of the language.

You're still talking about "form", when "form" has been described, verified, cited, linked, explained about 100 times in this thread. It's amazing that you don't understand it by now.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think any exposure the organism has in nature is part of the selection process. As I mentioned before, these are the variables and there's a lot of them including interactions and cooperation. I don't see interaction and cooperation and natural selection as being mutually exclusive. It's all part of the same process.


What allows a new species to become a new species?

Why does a species have to be "allowed" to do anything? It's programmed by its DNA. Mutations occur, some permanent, some not permanent. The permanent ones are inheritable and change the organism to adapt to the environment. There's genetic drift, changes in morphology etc. I think a lot of people get "speciation" mixed up with the hierarchy of biological classifications. A "species" is at the bottom of the rank. Domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus - all are above species in taxonomic rank. So a new species is really not a big deal in nature. It happens all the time.
_________________


About lazarus taxa, I don't see any hard evidence that species have the capability to rise again. It's a hypothesis, but is there any species that has died out and has come back in the same form? Not that I know of.

What hard evidence would you need other than having a species that went extinct show up again millions of years later? It's the whole point behind the lazarus taxa to begin with.

So where is the hard evidence? I don't know of any organism which has gone extinct and then came back a million years later?
_________________________________



I disagree that species are equally equipped for survival. Mutations in the genome can be rapid and can be lethal. And they can be inheritable. So if an organism inherits a gene for something like Huntington's Chorea, that organism will not survive. We don't all have the same shot at survival - some are more "fit" than others.

We will have to agree to disagree then. You have the benefit of hindsight and dynamic environments to be able to say that species aren't all given the same shot. All species are designed to do the same thing, so in that regard, in a static environment, all living things would be on equal footing. Huntingtons could be lethal to an organism but not an entire species. Humans haven't been wiped out from it. Is a species even capable of emerging if it bears a lethal mutation at its onset?

I don't know why you say all species were designed to do the same thing. What does that mean? Humans could be wiped out by a number of things including viruses, cosmic radiation - a whole spectrum of things. The initial condition of an organism is unknown. So calculating how many mutations its gone through is impossible. All we know is what the fossil record tells us - that organisms on this planet have evolved over time and that their genetic code was altered in the process.

__________


As for disease. a disease is nothing more than some outside agent attacking the organism. It also can be an inheritable disease like Huntington's which I mentioned above. There's beneficial microorganism and lethal microorganisms - just depends on how it interacts with another species like humans (BTW, just a note - viruses are not "living" organisms - by definition a living organism has to be capable of reproduction. A virus hijacks the internal machinery of a living cell to reproduce - it has no capability of reproducing itself).

The world of mirco-organisms and the role the micro biome plays is essential to evolution. I don't believe we can assert that virus's are non-living entities. That's a debate that's been ongoing forever and it seems the lean is now towards them being alive. news.discovery.com...
But then again we don't have a concrete definition of what life is. Virus's walk the line between the two, so they say... But I'm inclined to call it life since they have their own genetic material. I'm not sure of any other non-living thing that has DNA. Like a rock for instance...


A biologist works from the premise that in order to be "alive", an organism must be able to reproduce. Viruses are not alive because they cannot reproduce. That doesn't mean that their genetic code isn't functional. It just means it can't reproduce. Having DNA/RNA doesn't necessarily mean you can reproduce. The organism has to have the ability to pass it on.

___________


Your example of the frog is exactly my point. The predator whether it only sees one color or whatever, is part of the natural selection process. A species will not survive if it cannot defend itself. Maybe that's why a lot of reptiles change color!! Good example, thanks.

Yes the environment ultimately decides, but my point is that the green frog had the same chance as the red frog to survive before the predator for that species had been selected for. Perhaps it could have just as easily gone the other way for the frogs depending on how the environment selected their predator (in any number of ways). Which supports the idea that both had the same chance for survival (or extinction), at the onset of their existence. The only reason why a species gets to the point of being a species in the first place is because it was able to survive for a period of time until a factor that went against it was introduced. When given favorable environmental conditions a species will arise and survive, just like any other species can.


The frog developed the color in RESPONSE to predators. Otherwise, why would it need different colors? It's an evolved defensive mechanism like a shell on a turtle. That's the whole point of evolution - evolution gives the organism the capability of changing to adapt to its environment. Without change in a dynamic world, nothing would live.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

Krazysh0t


Holy crap! Talk about the WORST analogy that I've ever read. Do you even program? If you did, you'd know that programming is based on transcribing binary string (1's and 0's) into readable text that will tell a computer what to do given a certain input. DNA isn't based in binary programming. It's possible that it has some basis in quantum computing and programming, but that may not even be true. Human decision making barely ever comes down to a simple yes/no answer. That goes for unconscious decisions you make as well. What you said is like saying that since it takes a boatload of paper to build a full size model car, making a real car is impossible. If you are going to make an analogy, it helps to understand the subject matter that you're making the analogy with.


You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?


Yes, any number of genes coded correctly could hold information for 100 Lara Crofts. You obviously don't understand programming. It's not about the number of lines in a code. It's about efficiency of the language.

You're still talking about "form", when "form" has been described, verified, cited, linked, explained about 100 times in this thread. It's amazing that you don't understand it by now.


It is about the information content of the object being described and about compressibility. There is a limit to how much information can be compressed. Nobody on this thread has shown that genes determine form.
edit on 25-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

That's not even remotely a like for like comparison and is infantile if you honestly think this is somehow an argument against genetics. Even if we accept your silly premise I can easily counter it with procedural generation of 3D models and scenes. An effectively endless amount of detail and complexity can be contained withing a few lines of code. So even using your own logic you're wrong.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant


You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?


Yes, any number of genes coded correctly could hold information for 100 Lara Crofts. You obviously don't understand programming. It's not about the number of lines in a code. It's about efficiency of the language.

You're still talking about "form", when "form" has been described, verified, cited, linked, explained about 100 times in this thread. It's amazing that you don't understand it by now.


It is about the information content of the object being described and about compressibility. There is a limit to how much information can be compressed. Nobody on this thread has shown that genes determine form.


This thread has multiple examples of how the genetic code programs for the COMPLETE organism, form and all.

You have not posted any evidence whatsoever - not even an explanation - of what your position is. It's just a lot of rhetoric with no content.
What is "compressibility"? And no, there is no limit as to how much information can be compressed. A black hole compresses a huge amount of information. So what are you talking about?????



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant
You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?


Yes, any number of genes coded correctly could hold information for 100 Lara Crofts. You obviously don't understand programming. It's not about the number of lines in a code. It's about efficiency of the language.

You're still talking about "form", when "form" has been described, verified, cited, linked, explained about 100 times in this thread. It's amazing that you don't understand it by now.


It is about the information content of the object being described and about compressibility. There is a limit to how much information can be compressed. Nobody on this thread has shown that genes determine form.


This thread has multiple examples of how the genetic code programs for the COMPLETE organism, form and all.

You have not posted any evidence whatsoever - not even an explanation - of what your position is. It's just a lot of rhetoric with no content.
What is "compressibility"? And no, there is no limit as to how much information can be compressed. A black hole compresses a huge amount of information. So what are you talking about?????


I have already explained. The compression of information involved a limit in terms of code. pi cannot be compressed because it is an irrational number. The only way to represent it is to write it in full. All other ways are only estimations of pi.

Any program has a limit to how concise it can be. It cannot be made shorter than a certain limit. That is compressibility.

My position is simple; the theory says growth and form are completely determined by genes. I am asking for evidence of this.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

That's not even remotely a like for like comparison and is infantile if you honestly think this is somehow an argument against genetics. Even if we accept your silly premise I can easily counter it with procedural generation of 3D models and scenes. An effectively endless amount of detail and complexity can be contained withing a few lines of code. So even using your own logic you're wrong.


An example of 'endless' 'complexity' was given earlier. All it is is a few lines of code repeated over and over again. This is not the kind of complexity we are talking about. You cannot define a human skull by repeating a few lines of code to make self similar patterns. An object like a human skull needs to be defined in detail. The example I gave earlier requires about 48mb if I remember correctly.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant
You are not following the conversation. The analogy with Lara Croft concerns how much information is required to describe form. Laura Croft is a 2-D form on a screen. It takes a great amount of information to describe her form. In three dimensions the question might be rephrased as 'How many bits (binary digits) of information does it take to describe a human skull in 3 dimensions?'

Information is information and the rules governing its compression and storage requirements are the same across the board. Could 23,000 genes hold all the information required to describe, in 3 dimensions, the entire skeleton, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, nerves and the functioning thereof, etc. etc.? How many bits of information can a genome store? Let me know...

Edit: 750 megabytes?


Yes, any number of genes coded correctly could hold information for 100 Lara Crofts. You obviously don't understand programming. It's not about the number of lines in a code. It's about efficiency of the language.

You're still talking about "form", when "form" has been described, verified, cited, linked, explained about 100 times in this thread. It's amazing that you don't understand it by now.


It is about the information content of the object being described and about compressibility. There is a limit to how much information can be compressed. Nobody on this thread has shown that genes determine form.


This thread has multiple examples of how the genetic code programs for the COMPLETE organism, form and all.

You have not posted any evidence whatsoever - not even an explanation - of what your position is. It's just a lot of rhetoric with no content.
What is "compressibility"? And no, there is no limit as to how much information can be compressed. A black hole compresses a huge amount of information. So what are you talking about?????


I have already explained. The compression of information involved a limit in terms of code. pi cannot be compressed because it is an irrational number. The only way to represent it is to write it in full. All other ways are only estimations of pi.

Any program has a limit to how concise it can be. It cannot be made shorter than a certain limit. That is compressibility.

My position is simple; the theory says growth and form are completely determined by genes. I am asking for evidence of this.


You're wrong. It's completely dependent on the programming language used. And Pi doesn't need to be compressed. It's an algorithm. Why would you compress it in the first place???

You have multiple examples of how the genetic code programs for the COMPLETE organism - including form. Those examples are hard evidence that the genetic code of an organism programs for the COMPLETE, ENTIRE, END PRODUCT of the organism. You have not presented any evidence that it does not.

You still have not given an example of how FORM is accomplished unilaterally without information from the genetic code. Still waiting for an explanation and an example.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

That's not even remotely a like for like comparison and is infantile if you honestly think this is somehow an argument against genetics. Even if we accept your silly premise I can easily counter it with procedural generation of 3D models and scenes. An effectively endless amount of detail and complexity can be contained withing a few lines of code. So even using your own logic you're wrong.


An example of 'endless' 'complexity' was given earlier. All it is is a few lines of code repeated over and over again. This is not the kind of complexity we are talking about. You cannot define a human skull by repeating a few lines of code to make self similar patterns. An object like a human skull needs to be defined in detail. The example I gave earlier requires about 48mb if I remember correctly.


Yes you can code the human skull in 3 D:

staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk...

You're way behind the curve.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

pi is not an algorithm. It is a number. I gave it as an example of incompressible information.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Phantom423

pi is not an algorithm. It is a number. I gave it as an example of incompressible information.


About Pi:

bellard.org...

And you have NOT given an example of incompressible information. If you have, post the link.
edit on 25-4-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Phantom423
pi is not an algorithm. It is a number. I gave it as an example of incompressible information.

About Pi:
bellard.org...
And you have NOT given an example of incompressible information. If you have, post the link.


These are algorithms for generating pi. That does not mean pi is an algorithm. Even these series are infinite and cannot be written explicitly with all their terms. pi is not compressible.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Phantom423
pi is not an algorithm. It is a number. I gave it as an example of incompressible information.

About Pi:
bellard.org...
And you have NOT given an example of incompressible information. If you have, post the link.


These are algorithms for generating pi. That does not mean pi is an algorithm. Even these series are infinite and cannot be written explicitly with all their terms. pi is not compressible.


Where are your examples off "compressibility"? Where is your hard evidence for your position?



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Phantom423
pi is not an algorithm. It is a number. I gave it as an example of incompressible information.

About Pi:
bellard.org...
And you have NOT given an example of incompressible information. If you have, post the link.


These are algorithms for generating pi. That does not mean pi is an algorithm. Even these series are infinite and cannot be written explicitly with all their terms. pi is not compressible.


Where are your examples off "compressibility"? Where is your hard evidence for your position?


Scroll to Non algorichmically compressible
edit on 26-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

That's not even remotely a like for like comparison and is infantile if you honestly think this is somehow an argument against genetics. Even if we accept your silly premise I can easily counter it with procedural generation of 3D models and scenes. An effectively endless amount of detail and complexity can be contained withing a few lines of code. So even using your own logic you're wrong.


An example of 'endless' 'complexity' was given earlier. All it is is a few lines of code repeated over and over again. This is not the kind of complexity we are talking about. You cannot define a human skull by repeating a few lines of code to make self similar patterns. An object like a human skull needs to be defined in detail. The example I gave earlier requires about 48mb if I remember correctly.


Yes you can code the human skull in 3 D:

staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk...

You're way behind the curve.
Though this whole argument is irrelevant to genetics. You are arguing the wrong point first hes right your link involves facial recognition not the creation of a human skull different animals. however the reason his argument makes no sense is its irrelevant complexity in no way means anything other than were dealing with a complex system.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

That's not even remotely a like for like comparison and is infantile if you honestly think this is somehow an argument against genetics. Even if we accept your silly premise I can easily counter it with procedural generation of 3D models and scenes. An effectively endless amount of detail and complexity can be contained withing a few lines of code. So even using your own logic you're wrong.


An example of 'endless' 'complexity' was given earlier. All it is is a few lines of code repeated over and over again. This is not the kind of complexity we are talking about. You cannot define a human skull by repeating a few lines of code to make self similar patterns. An object like a human skull needs to be defined in detail. The example I gave earlier requires about 48mb if I remember correctly.


Yes you can code the human skull in 3 D:

staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk...

You're way behind the curve.
Though this whole argument is irrelevant to genetics. You are arguing the wrong point first hes right your link involves facial recognition not the creation of a human skull different animals. however the reason his argument makes no sense is its irrelevant complexity in no way means anything other than were dealing with a complex system.


He's not talking about genetics - he was referring to a code that could contain the form of a unique human skull. And it's right there in the link.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join