Rian wrote:Information theory - how we analyze something and decide if it came about by random processes (noise) or from intent (information-bearing signal).spongebob wrote:Forgive me, Rian, but I fail to see what signal analysis has to do with the biological sciences. And I happen to agree that the ID concept is an interesting one. I applaud any research that goes into it. But until any actual objective evidence is discovered, it will remain a pseudo-science and has no place in science classrooms, except to be an example of what is not science.You must feel that it needs a lot of defending!And can you please stop referring to macroevoloution in your peculiar way that suggests it is not well supported by evidnece. I feel the need to respond every time you do it and it's tiresome.
I seem to have to correct you a great deal, yes. I said nothing about defending.
So you know how to analyze information; that's a good skill. I still don't see the value for Evolutionary Biology, which doesn't deal in signal noise. It deals with lots of things that have observable, physical evidence. I understand the value of analyzing pure data and looking for patterns. I've used lots of systems and programs that do that very thing with vibration analysis and also network protocol analysis. However, when evaluating fossils and genetic code, neither my nor your signal analysis training seem to be relevant. Maybe you could explain how it is relevant over on the Evolution thread. It might me an interesting comparison of what we both know and if you can truly convince me, I'll give you credit.