Comments on Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology

This is important because it is a discussion of what FI really is.

How would you state in the form of a scientific hypothesis a cause of large amounts of new FI appearing at key points in evolutionary history?

Easily, starting with a specific “when.”

What is the cause of 1.7 million bits of new functional information that we are observing in vertebrates?

When are you hypothesizing it was added, Bill?

How do you arrive at a figure for “functional information”? How is the calculation done and what with?

about 400 million years ago.

The method is described here in the scholars discussion with gpuccio.

I think your little robots are simply developing motor skills like infants and toddlers. Neurological pathways always involve electrical impulses. Why are you equating this to evolution?

“About” appears to be weaseling with the purpose of avoiding advancing a testable hypothesis.

When, Bill? It doesn’t have to be in years. It can be a branch point in the phylogeny.

The transition to vertebrates.

Not specific enough. What is, in your mind, transitioning? Name the closest existing species on each side of the transition.

Did you intend to include a link?

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gpuccio-functional-information-methodology/7549/66

|Cnidaria|
|Cephalopoda|
|Deuterostomia (non vertebrates)

Transition

|Cartilaginous fish|
|Bony fish|

Those aren’t species. You’re nonspecific by 4 or 5 taxonomic levels. Why?

Fair comment. This was listed in his paper but in order to align specie type was required.

That makes no sense. I’m asking YOU.

The evolutionary algorithm has certainly generated functional information. Since that information is used in a Turing machine, it is by definition a sequence.

Best,
Chris

The evolved information is the input into a Turing machine. By definition, the input into a Turing machine is sequential.