Why male and female?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, not until the computer actually runs it. According to your definition, a computer program on a CD that is not in the computer, is not information.

Okay, but just like a book of words written by an intelligent being to communicate something is information to both the writer and the reader, the computer program is information written by the intelligent programmer in a language that can provide instructions when the program is read. So even though the computer program has not actually been run does not disqualify it from being information, because it is designed to be information.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, but just like a book of words written by an intelligent being to communicate something is information to both the writer and the reader, the computer program is information written by the intelligent programmer in a language that can provide instructions when the program is read. So even though the computer program has not actually been run does not disqualify it from being information, because it is designed to be information.

The Instructor

So when I threw letters on the floor, they were not information until I read them, but if I intended them to be information then they would be? Would they be information even if they didn't spell any English words, but I still intended them to be information?

It sounds to me that you are defining information in such a way that the original claim is true by definition. The only problem with claims that are true by definition is that they are not in fact claims, but trivial observations about a definition.
For example if I say 'grooks' are any animal that is brown. Then I claim that 'grooks' cannot be green, I am making a trivial observation.

The problem is however as KazetNagorra observed, your trivial observation tells us nothing about evolution. New genes can, and do arise in life due to random mutations and whether or not you choose to call them 'information' just because nobody intended them to be interpreted by the cell is irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you haven't yet given a definition, nor answered my questions asking for clarification. Do you agree with RJHinds' answers? Do you realise he is contradicting himself?
Do you also realise that he is contradicting your claims? After all you said information cannot arise by itself in inorganic matter, yet RJ clearly states that a piece of toast can transmit information when a person looks at it.

Well, it seems you are seeing contradictions I'm not seeing. And I'll wager RJ doesn't see them either. Therefore, you are smarter than we are... I'll bet you won't argue with that.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I just don't get your point. Of course you're free to use whatever definition you like - it's just that the laymen's definition is irrelevant to evolution.

At this point there is no point in explaining my point. I don't intend to stay on this merry-go-round for another turn.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I just don't get your point. Of course you're free to use whatever definition you like - it's just that the laymen's definition is irrelevant to evolution.

Most branches of science and history are interdependent and interdisciplinary. For example, chemistry is related to physics. History is related to archeology. A principle that applies to physics cannot be ignored by chemistry.

What is the laymen's definition of exclusion?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, it seems you are seeing contradictions I'm not seeing. And I'll wager RJ doesn't see them either. Therefore, you are smarter than we are... I'll bet you won't argue with that.

I pointed out the contradictions.
So, are you willing to answer my questions about what constitutes information? You wish to carry on a conversation about something but not willing to say what you mean by it. Why is that?
If a gene exists in a cell but is not used by it, is it information?
If a mutation occurs in a gene, is the new gene information?
When my computer predicts the weather, how does it do it without using information? Or does it use information? What information is it that it uses? Did that information it uses arise from inorganic matter?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Most branches of science and history are interdependent and interdisciplinary. For example, chemistry is related to physics. History is related to archeology. A principle that applies to physics cannot be ignored by chemistry.

What is the laymen's definition of exclusion?

If you have a point to make, please do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If evolution is giving advantages to what works better why would a huge
amount of life require two different sexes to evolve at the same time so
they work with one another? It seems to me getting the next generation to
show up would be a lot easier if that wasn't required. Not a loaded question
it just hit me so I thought I'd ask you guys.
Kelly

A trick of nature to keep the gene pool as a whole of a species to mix. For humans it is a guarantee that someone will want to have sex with other races now that transportation has thrown us all together. Kind of a genetic melting pot. I don't know that there is a why, but apparently it is advantageous to a species to have male- female reproduction.

Originally posted by joe beyser
A trick of nature to keep the gene pool as a whole of a species to mix. For humans it is a guarantee that someone will want to have sex with other races now that transportation has thrown us all together. Kind of a genetic melting pot. I don't know that there is a why, but apparently it is advantageous to a species to have male- female reproduction.

Look at this list of human racially described genetic diseases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health

If one race has X genetic problem, making kids with another race is going to make X gene less of a problem. It's as simple as that. Inter-racial marriages makes the human race stronger, not weaker. My family is about as multi-racial as you can get, Swedish daughter in law, Mexican daughter in law, Son in Law from India, Latino adopted children, Hawaiian adopted child, wife is 1/4 Pottowatamie indian, she married a full Hawaiian in her first marriage and has 4 half Hawaiian kids and I am pretty much full blooded Irish. Go figure. It is interesting my wife has an IQ of 155 and one of her daughters from her first husband who is Hawaiian has an IQ of 170 and almost all the rest of the kids have IQ's north of 120. It sure looks like multi-racial kids are superior in my family at least.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I pointed out the contradictions.
So, are you willing to answer my questions about what constitutes information? You wish to carry on a conversation about something but not willing to say what you mean by it. Why is that?
If a gene exists in a cell but is not used by it, is it information?
If a mutation occurs in a gene, is the new gene information?
W ...[text shortened]... ? What information is it that it uses? Did that information it uses arise from inorganic matter?

No, you pointed out what YOU see as contradictions. Redefining what someone else is saying and then pointing out the contradictions is not the same as finding contradictions in what they've said.

When you said, "So when I threw letters on the floor, they were not information until I read them, but if I intended them to be information then they would be?", I don't see what that has to do with information in DNA. So if DNA is only information if I intend it to be information, then it would be information? What does that mean?

What would you think if I had asked you, "Can the coded information in DNA be information even if it doesn't spell any English words, but I still intended it to be information?" Does it make sense to compare DNA to letters being thrown on the floor?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you have a point to make, please do.

It's in the environment.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, you pointed out what YOU see as contradictions. Redefining what someone else is saying and then pointing out the contradictions is not the same as finding contradictions in what they've said.

When you said, "So when I threw letters on the floor, they were not information until I read them, but if I intended them to be information then they would be ...[text shortened]... be information?" Does it make sense to compare DNA to letters being thrown on the floor?

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

Example

(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false.

This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth.


The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when I threw letters on the floor, they were not information until I read them, but if I intended them to be information then they would be? Would they be information even if they didn't spell any English words, but I still intended them to be information?

It sounds to me that you are defining information in such a way that the original claim is tru ...[text shortened]... formation' just because nobody intended them to be interpreted by the cell is irrelevant.

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

Example

(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.
Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false.

This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't see what that has to do with information in DNA.

I am trying to determine what your definition of 'information' is.

So if DNA is only information if I intend it to be information, then it would be information? What does that mean?
Its RJ's definition, that you claim has no contradictions in, yet you don't understand it? You say that I didn't point out contradictions, yet you apparently didn't understand what either I or RJ said?

Originally posted by lemon lime
What would you think if I had asked you, "Can the coded information in DNA be information even if it doesn't spell any English words, but I still intended it to be information?" Does it make sense to compare DNA to letters being thrown on the floor?

Remember that it is you and RJ that seem to have weird definitions for 'information'. I would define information as including DNA whether it spelled anything useful or not, so yes, I would compare it to letters being thrown on the floor.
I believe DNA mutates and via selection, results in new useful DNA. You have claimed that this is not the case (although you are going against the whole field of biology when you make your claim).
You have also claimed something to do with 'information theory' although it is extremely unclear what your actual claim is, since you seem reluctant to actually explain what you mean by 'information'.