[geocentrism] Re: Werner Gitt
- From: "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:11:09 +0100
Jack wrote:
"> "[re: messages in DNA] This is just a little patronising. You seem to
lack an understanding of information theory. "
I've got a reasonably competent understanding of information theory,
thank you. I studied Shannon's theory as part of my degree and I work
with software for a living.
"As a taster, here are Gitt's defining empirical principles."
I'd like to know what evidence he offers to support each of these.
Shannon backed up his Information Theory with mathematical rigour.
" (1) No information can exist without a code. "
(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. "
" (4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes. "
Point 4 is a direct contradiction of Shannon's Information theory.
Shannon purposely modelled information sources as providing random
sequences of symbols, and analyzed them mathematically. What evidence
has Gitt to support his contrary (and to me, arbitrary) assertion?
" (6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that
is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
(8) No information can exist without a will. "
So, Gitt in his founding principles, states that there can be no such
thing as non-intelligently derived information. And yet random
mutations, directed and filtered through a process of selection, whether
natural, sexual or artificial selection, will do just that. How does
Gitt support his principles? Why is it not supported by the vast body of
research into information theory.
"Here, syntax means an established convention for formatting data (Gitt
insists it must be consciously established); "
By asserting that data must have a conscious, intelligent source, and
then by stating that genome sequences are information fitting his
definition, Gitt is defining into existence an intelligent source for
the genome without actually going to the trouble of checking if one is
in fact there. He starts by disallowing anything other than intelligent
design, then (I presume) in the book he goes on to demonstrate
intelligent design must be the only cause that fits. That is circular
reasoning.
"If you think syntax can be unconsciously established, an explanation
would be useful. However I will bear in mind that you are likely to
dismiss this out of hand. "
To me this whole argument reads as a new version of 'Paley's watch', or
the eyeball argument much beloved by creationists. 'I can't see how it
can arise naturally, therefore it must be created'. No more
sophisticated then that, and just as wrong. This paper here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
includes a good example of information being introduced by the action,
in tandem, of mutation plus selection. The information flow in this
example is from the environment the organism is immersed in, into the
genetic code for the organism itself.
Rob.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Other related posts:
