PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Information
       What do creationists mean by it?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i dont think Expelled was intended to give a detailed argument against evolution or for ID. The only point it wanted to make was that there are teachers getting fired for saying that there might be another way to explain the origins of life. Stein was trying to point out the holes in the evolutionary theory (Darwin himself said that there is holes in his theoy), and that scientists are glossing over the massive problem of the fact that we have never been able to produce life from non-life. You cannot prove evolution or creationsim
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:45 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyway, if we're talking about something measurable, they lose. Gene duplication clearly adds to that information. Yes, Lester. If you repeat a piece of information you get extra information (if by "information" you mean anything measurable -i.e. real-).


Oh Wisp, I don't think you're unaware of what you're trying to slide past us here. Information does not amount to 'what is measurable' or 'what is real' and I believe that you are quite aware of that fact or else you are being 'wilfully blind' as evolutionist supporters are prone to being. If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information. It amounts to a small piece of information that tells you 'I can see.' and that is all.

Duplication is not new information and does not explain where the original information coding for body parts came from.

How did they measure that information loss?


When a protein that does a job changes via mutation and can no longer do the job it was designed to do properly, then information has been lost. In some cases, it may continue to do it's job despite an alteration but has no new function, then it is also a loss since the original design was doing a useful job already.

Many genetic point mutation syndromes testify to this state of affairs but there are none showing how new information or functional systems have arisen through random errors in DNA.

It's tough, but you're just going to have to face it.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:59 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, derwood. I only knew Expelled exposed (by name), and none of the others.

Welcome, fisher.
The only point it wanted to make was that there are teachers getting fired for saying that there might be another way to explain the origins of life.
Fine by me. ID is not an explanation but the ultimate lack of an explanation.

It means "We don't know how this could happen", plus "God did it".
Stein was trying to point out the holes in the evolutionary theory (Darwin himself said that there is holes in his theoy),
Holes? If i get you right (and you mean "limitations", any theory would have them.
and that scientists are glossing over the massive problem of the fact that we have never been able to produce life from non-life.
That would be a "problem" for abiogenesis, not for Evolution.

If Zeus made the first cell, everything would be fine with the ToE.

If Yahweh created life, everything would be fine with the ToE.
You cannot prove evolution or creationsim
You don't know what a proof is.

In Science we don't talk about proof. You only show your ignorance when you use that word.

Here, read this.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:02 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:59 AM on November 25, 2009 :

Oh Wisp, I don't think you're unaware of what you're trying to slide past us here. Information does not amount to 'what is measurable' or 'what is real' and I believe that you are quite aware of that fact or else you are being 'wilfully blind' as evolutionist supporters are prone to being. If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information. It amounts to a small piece of information that tells you 'I can see.' and that is all.


“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:38 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Anyway, if we're talking about something measurable, they lose. Gene duplication clearly adds to that information. Yes, Lester. If you repeat a piece of information you get extra information (if by "information" you mean anything measurable -i.e. real-).
Oh Wisp, I don't think you're unaware
Double negative...
of what you're trying to slide past us here.
Nothing. Please, catch it. Catch everything. Catch this too, please:
Anti-evolutionist thinks a rock has information on how to be a rock. Do you agree with your fellow creationist?
It slid right past you, didn't it?
Information does not amount to 'what is measurable' or 'what is real'
Excellent!

So Information isn't measurable or real.

So fucking stop mentioning it! Science IS about what's real. Science IS about measures.

By saying "Show us a mutation that adds information!" you're saying "Show us a mutation that makes an unreal unmeasurable thing increase!".
and I believe that you are quite aware of that fact or else you are being 'wilfully blind' as evolutionist supporters are prone to being.
What a waste of letters... You're not adding any information here, Lester.
If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information. It amounts to a small piece of information that tells you 'I can see.' and that is all.
That would add very little information in the objective measurable way, and no information to the subjective useful way (UNLESS we had a previous code that correlated different numbers to different meanings).
Duplication is not new information
In the measurable way, you lose. It adds information. In the subjective useful way, you lose. Apoapsis has shown you.

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:51 AM on July 18, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 01:55 AM on July 18, 2009 :
E coli K-12 has 4,639,221 base pairs.

Insert another and you have 4,639,222.  An increase in information.


Go ahead, deceive yourself.

   Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
   Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski

   Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

   Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

   Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.


By sticking with reality. . .

Corn had to undergo lots of duplications before being so tasty.

Try eating old original unmutated corn. Or bananas.
Duplication is not new information and does not explain where the original information coding for body parts came from.
Who was trying to explain that?

Focus, Lester.

How did they measure that information loss?
When a protein that does a job changes via mutation and can no longer do the job it was designed to do properly, then information has been lost.
Oh yeah? Well, then let me show you (again) the exact opposite:
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
What's your escape clause now?
Many genetic point mutation syndromes testify to this state of affairs but there are none showing how new information or functional systems have arisen through random errors in DNA.
Take a bunch of unfinished statues. Throw lots and lots of stones at them. Most hits won't be useful. But some are mathematically bound to be useful. Can't be helped. And in this case hits only take stuff away!
It's tough, but you're just going to have to face it.
Bwahahaha! xD



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:00 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fitness always comes at a cost as has been shown by Lenski's experiments. Adaptation to a novel environment never involves the addition of new information. If you have any examples where it does, please show me.

Just because the bacteria showed increased fitness in a particular environment in some cases does not mean that some new functional system evolved. Also 'beneficial mutations' are in the eye of the beholder. Who benefitted and if those bacteria were put back into the parent population, would they survive better or would they be worse off? In all cases I've ever read they are less fit when reintroduced to the parent population.

We require novel functional systems if reptiles are required to turn slowly (or otherwise) into birds, or land mammals are supposed to turn into whales. That requires new information -coding for flukes and fins and so on.

Duplication might produce something more tasty but it won't be more fit.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:42 AM on November 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fitness always comes at a cost as has been shown by Lenski's experiments.
To Hell with that. Don't shift the goalpost, don't change the subject. Stay focused. The subject is information.
Adaptation to a novel environment never involves the addition of new information.
Blah blah blah.

I'm tired of asking you what you mean by that, and you keep playing dumb. You don't define "information" so you can weasel out. You're dishonest, Lester.
If you have any examples where it does, please show me.
I just did.
Just because the bacteria showed increased fitness in a particular environment in some cases does not mean that some new functional system evolved.
To Hell with that. Don't change the subject. Stay focused. Don't try to weasel out.

The subject is information, not Evolution.
Also 'beneficial mutations' are in the eye of the beholder.
Then why do you ask for us to present that?

You're dishonest, Lester.

Anyway, it's not. The only objective parameter to determine if a mutation is beneficial is the differential fitness. Anything else is BS.
Who benefitted and if those bacteria were put back into the parent population, would they survive better or would they be worse off?
What do you care? You said it was in the eye of the beholder. NOW you're talking about something objective.

You don't even agree with yourself.

In all cases I've ever read they are less fit when reintroduced to the parent population.
Hum... That would be relevant, yeah. To me, not to you (since you say that beneficial mutations are in the eye of the beholder).
We require novel functional systems if reptiles are required to turn slowly (or otherwise) into birds, or land mammals are supposed to turn into whales.
That's not the subject here. Stop trying to weasel out.

The subject is information.

Tell us what it is, and how we can measure it, and we'll show you (we'll show you that we have already shown you).

Whatever definition you provide will fit some of the examples we already gave you. That's why you dishonestly refuse to give us a definition.
That requires new information -coding for flukes and fins and so on.
Yeah, it requires that thing you can't define.

Get real.

Duplication might produce something more tasty but it won't be more fit.
The corn WAS more fit: it reproduced more by appealing to hominid taste.

You lose.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:43 AM on November 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:59 AM on November 25, 2009 :
If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information.

According to Shannon, it does.  WHat do you know that he didn't?  Let me guess - you took classes on "information theory" for your science doctorate, right?


Duplication is not new information


Then the YEC cliams for the requirement of 'new information' is a red herring, as I have documented that a 'new gene' need not be formed to produce a selectable adaptation.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:26 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They can ultimately say that every "new" gene is nothing more than the "old" adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.

Besides they ask for a beneficial mutation that adds information, but Lester has clearly said
"Also 'beneficial mutations' are in the eye of the beholder."

They're scientifically illiterate, but they are so confident that they think they can make the rules.

You're right, derwood. The name dunningkrugerites suits them perfectly.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:26 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Adaptation to a novel environment never involves the addition of new information.

Wisp
Blah blah blah.

I'm tired of asking you what you mean by that, and you keep playing dumb.


I don’t play dumb Wisp. I attempt to answer your questions as best as I can.

Adaptation comes mostly from Mendelian variation, the mechanism that is responsible for most of the new varieties that arise from breeding experiments.

As for information, it’s the old paper and ink story that I have to have mentioned before. Ink and paper obey the laws of physics and chemistry but are not responsible for the information they carry. Information may depend on matter for its storage, transmission and retrieval but is not a property of it.
The information I am writing down comes from my mind but it being passed along via the computer and the internet just as written words are passed along with paper and ink. The same message can be carried via many different material media but is an independent entity that is weightless.
Living things carry information on biological molecules –the information is not a property of their chemistry, not a part of matter and the physical laws. Information results from the order, the way that the cell’s genetic alphabet is arranged. This order has to be imposed on the matter from outside their own properties. The base sequences spell out a genetic ‘blue-print’which determines the ultimate properties of the organism.
Biological variations are expressions of the variations in this information.
Genes can be likened to sentences written in DNA language.

So now compare the evolutionist’s understanding of life to the creationist. The evolutionist sees the simple cell as having a lot of genetic information but far less than the info in any one of its modern day descendant’s gene pools. So they propose that the sentence of the simple cell has given rise to encyclopaedias of meaningful useful genetic sentences. The evolutionist proposes that these additional sentences come from the source called mutation.

The info in a living creature’s genes is copied during reproduction and a mutation is a typing error. Most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless but evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival and reproduction.

If we look at the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, we can see that these are not the source of new sentences or information and thus why the evolutionist must resort to mutation as his source of such new information.

Mendelian variation is the mechanism that accounts for most of the new varieties which we see in breeding experiments. Sexual reproduction allows packets of information to be combined in different ways but does not produce new packets of information (or new sentences). In a mongrel dog certain packets of info are hidden but are nonetheless present. By selecting various traits, the packets of information are thinned out. So new varieties may arise independently of any new packets of information or of mutations.

This sort of variation can only occur if there is a storehouse of such sentences to choose from. Natural selection can explain survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest and that is the real question. Mendelian variation is thus not the sort of change required to demonstrate ‘upward’ evolution of the kind required by the theory of evolution.

In artificial selection or breeding, there is a thinning out of the information or alleles available for variation or a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation.

Try and breed a Chihuahua from a Great Dane population and you’ll find your population lacks the necessary genes or ‘sentences’ to carry out this breeding experiment since each new breed or variety carries genes that are not representative of the entire gene pool.

The point is that what appears to be a change with the appearance of entirely new traits, when analysed according to its genetic basis turns out to be downward
overall in informational terms. There are fewer alleles and less variety possible.

If you have long and short haired dogs (thus the alleles for both long and short hair are present in the group of dogs), and they are introduced into the North of Canada in the winter, it won’t take long for the short haired dogs to be removed from the population (unless they are looked after by humans.) You end up with alleles for long hair only and so there is an overall informational loss and less variation in the dogs is now possible.

Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased. Thus the ability to adapt to future changes in environmental conditions is lessened.

You're dishonest, Lester…..You’re dishonest Lester……and on and on infinitum


No Wisp, I’m not, but you’ve picked up Derwood’s nasty little habit of saying things like that repeatedly in order to impress whoever you’re trying to impress, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You’re surely not trying to impress me? Maybe you are trying to help me change my mind about myself? You’re going to have a long and difficult job ahead of you in that case.
In fact what I really need to tell you is that I’m starting to think that you are dishonest, Wisp.

Lester
We require novel functional systems if reptiles are required to turn slowly (or otherwise) into birds, or land mammals are supposed to turn into whales.
Wisp
That's not the subject here. Stop trying to weasel out.

The subject is information.


Yes, and that is the subject since the introduction of novel functional systems would be considered to be an increase in information. You still haven’t told me how this land mammal conversion to whale works. In fact nobody has.

The subject is information.

Tell us what it is, and how we can measure it, and we'll show you (we'll show you that we have already shown you).


You’ve shown me nothing of the sort and differential survival is no good if the thing is weaker when reintroduced into the initial population. That makes it a selective survivor. I will also survive better under certain conditions but am I more hardy just because I do well on the QE2 being served LM prawns and T-bone steaks?

Lester
Duplication might produce something more tasty but it won't be more fit.

Wisp
The corn WAS more fit: it reproduced more by appealing to hominid taste.

You lose.


The corn is a mutant and less fit. It needs humans to look after it or it dies! The wild variety is more adaptable and more fit and will still be there long after the mutant has succumbed. Deformed babies can also do well with a nurturing parent.

You lose.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:44 AM on November 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They can ultimately say that every "new" gene is nothing more than the "old" adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.


No, a new gene needs to be ordered to make a new functional protein to do a new job. So it is not just the old A,T,G,C. In fact it is a new arrangement of C,G,T,A such that it folds into a new and needed shape that can work in combination with those other proteins that it needs to work in combination with to produce a new functional system.

"Also 'beneficial mutations' are in the eye of the beholder."


What I mean by that, as I’m sure you really do understand, is that a beneficial mutation may be beneficial to humans or beneficial to the organism itself and its survival in general. Being beneficial to humans is not necessarily beneficial for the organism. This can be assessed once it is reintroduced to the original parent population and forced to compete.

They're scientifically illiterate, but they are so confident that they think they can make the rules.


In fact you are incorrect. It is the evolutionists that make up all the fiction stories and choose whatever they feel like believing.

The name dunningkrugerites suits them perfectly.


In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:22 AM on November 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
wisp
Lester
Adaptation to a novel environment never involves the addition of new information.
Blah blah blah.

I'm tired of asking you what you mean by that, and you keep playing dumb.
I don’t play dumb Wisp. I attempt to answer your questions as best as I can.
Ok, i'm glad that you posted here again. But in that large text you still didn't define "information" nor gave us any clue as to how to detect it.

Either we have already shown you the increase of "information", or the "information" doesn't exist.

Adaptation comes mostly from Mendelian variation, the mechanism that is responsible for most of the new varieties that arise from breeding experiments.
And the subject here is information.

What is it? How can you detect it?

As for information, it’s the old paper and ink story that I have to have mentioned before.
No stories, please. I don't need them. I just need a definition and a way to detect it, so i can show you an increase.

Ink and paper obey the laws of physics and chemistry but are not responsible for the information they carry.
What is that "information"? Define it and i'll show you an increase.
Information may depend on matter for its storage, transmission and retrieval but is not a property of it.
Don't tell me what it's not. Tell me what it IS, and how to detect it.

The information I am writing down comes from my mind but it being passed along via the computer and the internet just as written words are passed along with paper and ink.
Don't tell me where it comes from. Tell me what it is and how to detect it.

The same message can be carried via many different material media but is an independent entity that is weightless.
The subject here is not messages but information. If they are the same to you, say so.

Living things carry information on biological molecules
Don't tell me where they carry it. Tell me what it is and how to detect it.
–the information is not a property of their chemistry, not a part of matter and the physical laws.
Don't tell me what it's NOT. Tell me what it IS and how to detect it.

Information results from the order, the way that the cell’s genetic alphabet is arranged.
Don't tell me what it results from. Tell me what it is and how to detect it.

Are you saying that information IS the order?

This order has to be imposed on the matter from outside their own properties.
The subject here is not the order but information.

The base sequences spell out a genetic ‘blue-print’which determines the ultimate properties of the organism.
You go ahead and talk like you already gave me something.
Biological variations are expressions of the variations in this information.
"This" information? You haven't defined "this" information yet!!
Genes can be likened to sentences written in DNA language.
Doesn't sound like a smart thing to do, but anyway, you're deflecting. Tell me what information is, please.
So now compare the evolutionist’s understanding of life to the creationist.
Let the strawmen come.
The evolutionist sees the simple cell as having a lot of genetic information
Do we??? Woah... And without even knowing what it is!!

If you mean something objectively quantifiable (bits and bytes), yeah, we do "believe" that. We KNOW that. And we know thousands of cases of increase in that "information".

If you mean something else, FRIKKIN SAY SO!

What is "information"? How can we detect it?

but far less than the info in any one of its modern day descendant’s gene pools.
Descendant's? The single cell you mentioned was our ancestor?

I can show you an amoeba that has more than 200 times the amount of DNA we have. You would probably like to believe that it has less information.
How would you pull that trick? Could any of you demonstrate that we have more "information"?

You can't even define it!

So they propose that the sentence of the simple cell has given rise to encyclopaedias of meaningful useful genetic sentences.
We propose nothing of the sort.

The evolutionist proposes that these additional sentences come from the source called mutation.
Or better yet! We propose that there are NO sentences!

The info in a living creature’s genes is copied during reproduction and a mutation is a typing error.
1) ACTTGAGG
2) ACTGGAGG

What's the original? What's the mutation? What's the flawed one? Can you detect it in a larger string?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless
Most creationists are morons or have fingers.
but evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival and reproduction.
Are we even arguing that? You don't believe EVEN THAT?

This dog

Has a mutation that gave it short legs. It hunts in burrows far better than this dog:


Drop them in an environment where the only prey lives in burrows, and the shorty will thrive. They are selected just like the short and long hair alleles you mentioned.

It is a fact, Lester.

If we look at the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, we can see that these are not the source of new sentences or information and thus why the evolutionist must resort to mutation as his source of such new information.
You can?


I call your bluff. Show me.

Mendelian variation is the mechanism that accounts for most of the new varieties which we see in breeding experiments.
I don't care. Tell me what information is and how to detect it.
Sexual reproduction allows packets of information to be combined in different ways but does not produce new packets of information (or new sentences).
How can you know that without even knowing what information is and how to detect it?


In a mongrel dog certain packets of info are hidden but are nonetheless present.
I call your bluff. Show me.
By selecting various traits, the packets of information are thinned out.
You just go ahead and expound on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This goes on and on... I'll skip all that. You're avoiding the subject.

You're dishonest, Lester…..You’re dishonest Lester……and on and on infinitum
No Wisp, I’m not,
Yes, Lester, you are. You talk about knowledge and understanding you don't possess. When corrected, you never admit. You repeat your strawmen.

Repeated strawmen are more than enough to show your dishonesty.
but you’ve picked up Derwood’s nasty little habit of saying things like that repeatedly in order to impress whoever you’re trying to impress, that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Here, let me show you:
What is "information"? How can we detect it?

So new varieties may arise independently of any new packets of information or of mutations.
Blah blah blah. Everything you say using that word you have not yet defined (about some entity you can't detect) is nothing more than "blah blah blah".

Natural selection can explain survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest and that is the real question.
Haha! Good phrase! Very catchy!

Anyway, words is all you have. You can't attack any real part of the mechanism of Evolution. You just try to attack the whole, while avoiding the subject of this thread.

Information: What do creationists mean by it?

My conclusion is: nobody knows (and that includes them).

Mendelian variation is thus not the sort of change required to demonstrate ‘upward’ evolution of the kind required by the theory of evolution.
I don't care. The subject here is not evolution, but information. That thing you can't detect or define.

In artificial selection or breeding, there is a thinning out of the information or alleles available for variation or a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation.
If derwood shows you different strings of DNA, can you detect the "thinned" ones?

I don't even know if you're talking about individuals or populations.

In any case you inserted the word "information", so the whole phrase is nothing.

The point is that what appears to be a change with the appearance of entirely new traits, when analysed according to its genetic basis turns out to be downward overall in informational terms. There are fewer alleles and less variety possible.
Man, you don't want to go there.

Each diploid individual can carry up to two alleles for the same locus. The ark event would have caused a very clear and negative impact on biodiversity. There's no sign of it.

If you have long and short haired dogs (thus the alleles for both long and short hair are present in the group of dogs), and they are introduced into the North of Canada in the winter, it won’t take long for the short haired dogs to be removed from the population (unless they are looked after by humans.)
The process with the mutation that gives the dachshund short legs is exactly the same.

You lose.

You end up with alleles for long hair only and so there is an overall informational loss and less variation in the dogs is now possible.
If you can't define or detect "information", your words are empty.
Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.
Stop deflecting. The subject is information. You can't define or detect it. It's over, Lester.

In fact what I really need to tell you is that I’m starting to think that you are dishonest, Wisp.
I don't believe you.

wisp
Lester
We require novel functional systems if reptiles are required to turn slowly (or otherwise) into birds, or land mammals are supposed to turn into whales
That's not the subject here. Stop trying to weasel out.

The subject is information.
Yes, and that is the subject since the introduction of novel functional systems would be considered to be an increase in information.
They "would be considered"? By whom?


You still haven’t told me how this land mammal conversion to whale works. In fact nobody has.
I told you to start a thread. I don't even know what you're asking. State it clearly in a specific thread.

And stop deflecting.

The subject is information.

Tell us what it is, and how we can measure it, and we'll show you (we'll show you that we have already shown you).
You’ve shown me nothing of the sort
Of WHAT sort??? That's the issue here! We don't know the sort of things you're talking about!

You don't either. You just don't realize.

and differential survival is no good if the thing is weaker when reintroduced into the initial population.
Huh?
I don't know what you're talking about.

wisp
Lester
Duplication might produce something more tasty but it won't be more fit.
The corn WAS more fit: it reproduced more by appealing to hominid taste.

You lose.
The corn is a mutant and less fit.
Says who? You?
By the way, you're a mutant too. We all are.

I think the average person carries about 50-100 mutations, or something like that.
It needs humans to look after it or it dies!
You need a heart or you die. Does that make the amoeba fitter than us (vertebrates)?
The wild variety is more adaptable and more fit and will still be there long after the mutant has succumbed.
You don't know that. You just like to talk and play with words.

There are species that have only survived because of their symbiosis with humans.

Just like the fungus ants grow in their farms. Is it less fit than other fungi?

Needing stuff doesn't mean that the organism is less fit. Survival/reproduction is the only objective parameter. The ant's fungus survives just like the human's corn.
Deformed babies can also do well with a nurturing parent.

You lose.
xDDDD
I don't think they have a better survival rate. In any case they don't have a better reproductive rate.

You lose.

They can ultimately say that every "new" gene is nothing more than the "old" adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.
No, a new gene needs to be ordered to make a new functional protein to do a new job.
So?
It's still made from the same old CGAT.
So it is not just the old A,T,G,C.
You don't like it to be.
In fact
Stop saying "in fact" and "actually". It doesn't add anything when you say it.
it is a new arrangement of C,G,T,A
Yeah, a new arrangement of the OLD CGAT.
such that it folds into a new and needed shape that can work in combination with those other proteins that it needs to work in combination with to produce a new functional system.
Nah. You're exaggerating. No new system is required. Just that the new gene helps. That's all.

Where do you get your ideas from??? Clearly not from Science.

Lester
Lester
Also 'beneficial mutations' are in the eye of the beholder.
What I mean by that, as I’m sure you really do understand,
I understand you better than you do. You're easy to understand. But when i show you that you make no sense you generally choose to believe that i don't understand you. And NOW you're implying that i'm being dishonest.
is that a beneficial mutation may be beneficial to humans or beneficial to the organism itself and its survival in general.
Nah. I would only call it beneficial if it has a positive impact on the reproductive/survival rates. That's objective. I understand you, and you're wrong.
Being beneficial to humans is not necessarily beneficial for the organism.
Then the mutation is not beneficial. Period.
This can be assessed once it is reintroduced to the original parent population and forced to compete.
No. You don't get to decide the rules.

We can rule out humans and every one of his domesticated species if you like. We can avoid them. Now the "beneficial mutation" is absolutely objective (even if it's technically not clear or easy to determine).

They're scientifically illiterate, but they are so confident that they think they can make the rules.
In fact you are incorrect.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Man, stop it!

You say "in fact" and "actually" with no trace of shame... You're amazing.
It is the evolutionists that make up all the fiction stories and choose whatever they feel like believing.
In fact you're changing the subject.

I say you're scientifically illiterate and you try to make the rules. You say it's US who make up stories.

Do you read yourself?

The name dunningkrugerites suits them perfectly.
In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists
W... What?

What makes you think they're evolutionists?

Yeah, they're smart but... Is that enough for you to consider them evolutionists?
inventing stories
What stories?

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

As usual, you won't recognize it.
and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves
How is believing in unicorns and giants "pragmatic"?
point out the absurdity of their fantasies,
What fantasies?
and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.
Practical? xDDD

What's the smallest piece of DNA that can carry information?

Lester, what is "information" and how can you detect it?

AC <<< Any information there?
ACTTAG <<< What about there?

Show me "practical".


(Edited by wisp 11/27/2009 at 12:36 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 PM on November 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information.


Utter nonsense!

I know nothing about information theory.  But trying to apply a language analogy to chemistry is meaningless.  Atoms and molecules are NOT like letters that you use in language - I'm sure even Lester will agree with that.  Just because we use letters to identify the nucleotide in a DNA strand, that does not mean that nucleotides can be treated like letters!  They are molecules, not letters.  Molecules have chemical and physical properties, letters do not.

As for gene duplication, this of course does occur and can clearly be seen in the evolution process - do a search of 'gene duplication' on PubMed and you will see thousands of examples on the topic.

PubMed Search on "gene duplication"
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:05 PM on November 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But he says that gene duplication doesn't add NEW information...

...which doesn't matter because he doesn't know what he's talking about when he says that.

Crystal clear.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:23 PM on November 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

But he says that gene duplication doesn't add NEW information...


Bah! What does he know.

Watch this and learn!  Some of these examples have been pointed out elsewhere on this forum.

How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information - Part 1
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:01 PM on November 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice vid!

Specially the definition of "information"!!!!


For the sake of argument and simplicity, let's define information in DNA as a sequence that tells us something about the environment.

It's perfect!!

What gets selected informs you about the environmental pressures...

There's real beauty in that simple definition.

Lester has a poor connection, so i'll try to make it an image for him...

Edit: Presto!


(Edited by wisp 11/27/2009 at 6:25 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:21 PM on November 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you have ever tried to send information to anyone then you should agree that this describes it appropriately:

An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

Now read this little story:

by Dave Mateer

Consider the following riddle:
A man starts a business selling widgets.  It costs $15 to produce each widget, and he sells them for $13.  The man receives no income other than the proceeds from the business.  Yet, after ten years of running the business, the man becomes a millionaire.  How is this possible?
The answer: Before starting the business, the man was a billionaire.
There are striking similarities between this man’s business and the idea of molecules-to-man evolution.  Evolutionists postulate that over millions of years, simple organisms containing minimal information evolved into increasingly complicated creatures.  This uphill progression requires a continual net increase in the amount of genetic information.  The problem is that the currently popular mechanisms of evolution (natural selection and mutation) result in an increase of information only in the imaginations of evolutionists.  Observational science has demonstrated repeatedly that these processes reduce information or at best shuffle existing information.1
As information scientist Dr Werner Gitt has observed,
‘There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’2
The reason that the riddle of the widgets is difficult is because of a critical piece of information that is deliberately withheld.  If we had started the riddle by saying, ‘There was a certain billionaire who decided to start a business,’ then the mystery of the riddle is removed.
We can clearly see around us that the world is full of design, information and diversity—it is a ‘millionaire’ world.  Because evolutionists are committed to a naturalistic explanation, they conclude, ‘Isn’t evolution amazing?  Look at what it has created!’  Yet common sense and observational science tell us that the very processes in which the evolutionist trusts are going the wrong way—losing information.  Thus, it’s a mystery, and many resign themselves to, ‘Well, given enough time, anything is possible.’  This is not a solution, merely a cop-out.
The Bible provides the critical information that the world suppresses.  It is true that the world we see today is a ‘millionaire’ world, but God originally created a ‘billionaire’ world.  We read that after the sixth day, God declared everything ‘very good.’  There was no death, disease, or suffering.  Today, as a result of sin, the world is cursed, although we see a remnant of the original beauty.  The world and all its creatures are suffering—we are on the way down, not on the way up.  What we read in God’s Word agrees with what we see in God’s world.  When we start with the Bible’s revelation about creation, the ‘riddle’ is solved.

Information is 'a sequence that tells us something about the environment '-what kind of a definition is that? It tells you nothing.

I'll be back.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:58 AM on November 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:58 AM on November 28, 2009 :
Information is 'a sequence that tells us something about the environment '-what kind of a definition is that? It tells you nothing.


That's why science requires a method to numerically measure information, word descriptions are useless.  When you have a number you can unambiguously compare it to another number.

I'll be back.


Good, hopefully you will have a real definition and not just fluff and hand-waving.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:08 AM on November 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Adaptation comes mostly from Mendelian variation, the mechanism that is responsible for most of the new varieties that arise from breeding experiments.

Wisp
And the subject here is information.


Ok, variation comes from Mendelian reshuffling, not from added information

No stories, please. I don't need them. I just need a definition and a way to detect it, so i can show you an increase.

So in my last post I gave you a definition. Now show me an increase.
Are you saying that information IS the order?

The information is in the order of the components as is the information in a written message.
The evolutionist sees the simple cell as having a lot of genetic information
If you mean something objectively quantifiable (bits and bytes), yeah, we do "believe" that. We KNOW that. And we know thousands of cases of increase in that "information".


Well I’d like to see them then.

but far less than the info in any one of its modern day descendant’s gene pools.
Descendant's? The single cell you mentioned was our ancestor?


According to the evolutionist,yes.

I can show you an amoeba that has more than 200 times the amount of DNA we have. You would probably like to believe that it has less information.


Many evolutionists have argued that this ‘extra’ DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on. The ‘extra copy’ is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original.
If this process had been an important factor in the ‘evolution’ of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the ‘Tree of Life’. The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA, and complex organisms like man should have the most.
This amoeba isn’t playing your game.

So they propose that the sentence of the simple cell has given rise to encyclopaedias of meaningful useful genetic sentences.
We propose nothing of the sort.


Oh well that’s a surprise. I was under the impression that evolutionist’s believed that organisms ‘evolved’ and thus became more complex. What am I missing here?

Or better yet! We propose that there are NO sentences!


Meaning? Is it all just random arrangement, no coding, no meaning, no information at all….? And all of this hurled together into a meaningless whole.

Most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless
Most creationists are morons or have fingers.


So do you agree about the meaningless or harmful nature of most mutations?

but evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival and reproduction.
Are we even arguing that? You don't believe EVEN THAT?


Oh so you don’t believe that there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation? What you don’t EVEN BELIEVE, your friends out there in the world of evolution do - so maybe you have your own plan?

Drop them in an environment where the only prey lives in burrows, and the shorty will thrive. They are selected just like the short and long hair alleles you mentioned.
It is a fact, Lester.


Yes, ‘survival of the fittest’ works, but like I said that doesn’t explain ‘arrival of the fittest’. Genes for short and long legs were already in the dog variety, the alleles for both already existed and so short legs were selected for. That means those alleles for short legs were already there, they didn’t evolve.

If we look at the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, we can see that these are not the source of new sentences or information and thus why the evolutionist must resort to mutation as his source of such new information.
You can?


The genetic information for short or long legs was already there. You can’t explain via naturalism why it was already there so you need to rely on mutation to supply these genes.

Mendelian variation is the mechanism that accounts for most of the new varieties which we see in breeding experiments.
I don't care.


You should care. It’s an important part of the story.

In a mongrel dog certain packets of info are hidden but are nonetheless present.
Show me.


Mendel showed this during Darwin’s time and you surely know about it. Genetic variation involves the shuffling or recombination of already existing information.

By selecting various traits, the packets of information are thinned out.
You just go ahead and expound on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This goes on and on... I'll skip all that. You're avoiding the subject.


No I’m not, you’re avoiding the subject. I’m showing you how selection thins out the available information so the train is going in the wrong direction for uphill evolution via natural selection.

Yes, Lester, you are. You talk about knowledge and understanding you don't possess. When corrected, you never admit.


You might just as well be talking about yourself Wisp –you know that old ‘projection’ you love to mention as if I’m projecting and you are not. You only ever admit to little minor points to give yourself the appearance of humility. You have a far bigger purpose when you do that.Of course you wouldn’t know what that purpose would be.

The subject here is not evolution, but information.


The two are irrevocably linked.

In artificial selection or breeding, there is a thinning out of the information or alleles available for variation or a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation.
If derwood shows you different strings of DNA, can you detect the "thinned" ones?


If you try to breed short legged dogs, you select out all the tall legged mutts until such time as the alleles for leg length only exist in the short variety. That’s how it works.You have then thinned out the information available for adaptation.You no longer possess the same amount of variability.Your gene pool is depleted. Do you understand?

. The ark event would have caused a very clear and negative impact on biodiversity. There's no sign of it.


How do you know how much original information was present? I’m sure it did have a negative impact on biodiversity but a billionaire might become a millionaire under adverse circumstances. You start with the incorrect assumption, you get the incorrect answer.


If you have long and short haired dogs (thus the alleles for both long and short hair are present in the group of dogs), and they are introduced into the North of Canada in the winter, it won’t take long for the short haired dogs to be removed from the population (unless they are looked after by humans.)

The process with the mutation that gives the dachshund short legs is exactly the same. You lose.


A mutation can do that as well but mostly mutations are not required for variation as Mendel showed. A short legged dog may survive in a protected environment but it will lose in a race with a predator - so once again the mutation is not beneficial in real terms.

Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.
Stop deflecting. The subject is information. You can't define or detect it. It's over, Lester.


I repeat now that you have your definition.
Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.

You still haven’t told me how this land mammal conversion to whale works. In fact nobody has.  


I told you to start a thread. I don't even know what you're asking. State it clearly in a specific thread.


I’ve stated it so clearly so often in so many different threads, I don’t think you want to answer. In fact I’m sure you’re avoiding answering – along with all your friends. Once again you’re being dishonest. What difference would one more thread make if none of my other questions were answered?

And stop deflecting.


Like I said, projection.


and differential survival is no good if the thing is weaker when reintroduced into the initial population.

Huh?
I don't know what you're talking about.


If a particular bacteria survives in a hospital environment, you think it has evolved that ability to survive and is thus stronger than all the other bacteria.

It isn’t true.

It only appears to be stronger in that particular environment. Those alleles that could survive the hospital antibiotics survived and thus certain bacteria seemed to be hardier BUT take those same bacteria and leave the hospital and they will die as they lose out in competition with the wild types of bacteria that exist outside the hospital environment. In the absence of those antibiotics killing off the competition, those bacteria turn out to be the weaklings. That’s why they prefer to send people home if they can’t throw off an infection acquired in the hospital.

Needing stuff doesn't mean that the organism is less fit.


It could mean that it was designed for a symbiotic relationship.

No, a new gene needs to be ordered to make a new functional protein to do a new job.
So?
It's still made from the same old CGAT.


But not just in any old order. That is where information comes into the picture.

So it is not just the old A,T,G,C.
You don't like it to be.


You wish it was.

such that it folds into a new and needed shape that can work in combination with those other proteins that it needs to work in combination with to produce a new functional system.
Nah. You're exaggerating. No new system is required. Just that the new gene helps. That's all.


Any old arrangement won’t produce a functional protein. Many arrangements will produce nothing useful.

Where do you get your ideas from??? Clearly not from Science.


Science and logic. Yours come from evolutionists.

This can be assessed once it is reintroduced to the original parent population and forced to compete.
No. You don't get to decide the rules.


You can’t protect the weakling from the outside world and real competition and then tell me it’s stronger just because it had a better differential survival rate in a particular specialized environment. That’s like putting a 10 year old into a kindergarten play ground and noting that for the first time it doesn’t come home battered and bruised and then erroneously concluding that it has become stronger.

I say you're scientifically illiterate and you try to make the rules. You say it's US who make up stories.


I’m thinking of the one where the hippo- like mammal (or was it the hyena or the cat-like mammal) turns into a whale over a LOOONG period of time and the other one about the reptile that learned to fly and then fortuitously evolved wings and hollow bones. Those sorts of entertaining stories.

What's the smallest piece of DNA that can carry information?


The one that is long enough to code for a functional protein that has a purpose?



 












 










 










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:20 AM on November 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
If you have ever tried to send information to anyone then you should agree that this describes it appropriately:
You can only utter that "if" when you have already defined "information".
Answers in Genesis (gotcha!):
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
Ok, finally a definition. It took you some time to find a "safe" one in AiG. But it's not safe.

What does the DNA symbolize?
Successful frameshift mutations don't carry any of what you define. And yet one of them allowed a bacteria to eat nylon.

So we have two options here:
1) Your definition is crap.
2) No "information" is needed.

Now read this little story:
Now stop digressing.
Information is 'a sequence that tells us something about the environment '-what kind of a definition is that? It tells you nothing.
"It" what? The definition or the sequence?

This definition doesn't describe a clear quantifiable entity. And i love it anyway.
Unlike yours, it describes something that IS detectable and demonstrable. It's hard, but they do it everyday.

Here's the reason why it's not quantifiable: It depends on previous knowledge from the reader of the information.
The more knowledge the reader has, the more information the DNA contains.
That's why it's subjective.

If a football coach teaches different strategies by name, he can name them during the game. Each player will interpret the word as a different set of instructions. So the information in that word is subjective, and appeals to previous knowledge in the reader.

It's like minesweeper.

The numbers carry information. Sometimes you get stuck no matter what you do. Then you can check the counter and see how many mines are left. A piece of data from outside the board renders the board more informative.

If we see, in a population, a proliferation of genetic instructions to produce sickle cell, we know something about the environment. WE KNOW!
It took us some time to know, but now it's clear to us. The information was always there in a way, and we learned how to read it.

Simple depiction: Things that get selected tell us that the environment selects them.

Simple enough, Lester?

If you want a description of a measurable and objective information, no problem. I can put in image the next video.

Apoapsis
That's why science requires a method to numerically measure information,
I beg to disagree.
I mean, it does, but not always.

Don't you agree that the DNA tells you things about the environment? That the data is there is objective and undeniable (right?). How much of it is there is subjective and sometimes unmeasurable, but still.
When you have a number you can unambiguously compare it to another number.
True, but without a number you can still unambiguously say that you have detected information.
You can put that to the test by making predictions.

Ok, i'll be working on the image rendering of the second video...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:25 AM on November 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:20 AM on November 28, 2009 :

I repeat now that you have your definition.
Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.


Your definition is a worthless collection of words that you twist to whatever definition you want.  How do you measure it with numbers?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:45 AM on November 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
wisp
Lester
Adaptation comes mostly from Mendelian variation, the mechanism that is responsible for most of the new varieties that arise from breeding experiments.
And the subject here is information.
Ok, variation comes from Mendelian reshuffling, not from added information
Are you trying to tell us something about information by numbering stuff that don't come from its increase?

You think that was clear?

No stories, please. I don't need them. I just need a definition and a way to detect it, so i can show you an increase.
So in my last post I gave you a definition.
True! Finally!
Now show me an increase.
Ahem... You're forgetting something... You have not given me a way to detect it.

In my opinion your definition doesn't describe anything detectable in the DNA.
If you believe otherwise, show me a way to detect it, and i'll change my mind.

The evolutionist sees the simple cell as having a lot of genetic information
If you mean something objectively quantifiable (bits and bytes), yeah, we do "believe" that. We KNOW that. And we know thousands of cases of increase in that "information".
Well I’d like to see them then.
No, you wouldn't, but here you go anyway:


I can show you an amoeba that has more than 200 times the amount of DNA we have. You would probably like to believe that it has less information.
Many evolutionists have argued that this ‘extra’ DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on.
I agree with many evolutionists. And i will reply to your lengthy dodge. But do you think the amoeba has less information than us?
The ‘extra copy’ is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original.
Yeap.
If this process had been an important factor in the ‘evolution’ of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the ‘Tree of Life’.
First: Not necessarily. If you think it is, demonstrate it.
Second: The vertical axis of the tree of life means time. Not awesomeness.
The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement.
"Evolutionary advancement"... There's another thing you will have a hard time defining/detecting/measuring.
Bacteria and other single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA, and complex organisms like man should have the most.
Hahaha! Random example, right?

No, i don't believe that. I have no reasons to. It's a strawman.
This amoeba isn’t playing your game.
You don't get to decide "our game". You don't even understand it.

So they propose that the sentence of the simple cell has given rise to encyclopaedias of meaningful useful genetic sentences.
We propose nothing of the sort.
Oh well that’s a surprise. I was under the impression that evolutionist’s believed that organisms ‘evolved’ and thus became more complex.
Yes, that's correct. And it's not what you said up there.
And the fact that complexity comes from Evolution doesn't mean Evolution means "growing complexity".
What am I missing here?
The difference between "
So they propose that the sentence of the simple cell has given rise to encyclopaedias of meaningful useful genetic sentences." and "I was under the impression that evolutionist’s believed that organisms ‘evolved’ and thus became more complex.", of course.

We don't talk about meaningful chemicals.

Or better yet! We propose that there are NO sentences!
Meaning?
That there are no sentences.
Is it all just random arrangement,
No, and you know it. Stop being dishonest.
no coding,
It depends on the definition of "coding".
no meaning,
It depends on the definition of "meaning", but the answer is "no" for reasonable definitions.
no information at all….?
Depends on the definition of "information".

I provided two that CAN be detected in the DNA.

You provided one that can't.

And all of this hurled together into a meaningless whole.
Pretty much, yeah. Depending on your definition of "meaningless", of course.

Most such changes are acknowledged to be harmful or meaningless
Most creationists are morons or have fingers.
So do you agree about the meaningless or harmful nature of most mutations?
Yes, i do.

Do you agree that most creationists are morons or have fingers?

but evolutionists propose that occasionally one is useful in a particular environmental context and hence its possessor has a better chance of survival and reproduction.
Are we even arguing that? You don't believe EVEN THAT?
Oh so you don’t believe that there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
You're not answering.

To answer your question: It depends on the definition of "beneficial mutation".

What you don’t EVEN BELIEVE, your friends out there in the world of evolution do - so maybe you have your own plan?
I don't know what you're talking about. I sounds like you didn't understand me.

Drop them in an environment where the only prey lives in burrows, and the shorty will thrive. They are selected just like the short and long hair alleles you mentioned.
It is a fact, Lester.
Yes,
Cool! We're all settled then.
‘survival of the fittest’ works,
Indeed.
but like I said that doesn’t explain ‘arrival of the fittest’.
So?

Stop deflecting. Stop moving the goalpost. We weren't talking about the arrival of the fittest but about information.

I don't think this is dishonesty. I think you're really not aware of what you're doing.

Genes for short and long legs were already in the dog variety,
When? When they were selected? Of course. But they were new to be selected.

Or are you saying that they were not produced by a mutation?
the alleles for both already existed and so short legs were selected for.
When?

Of course, you can only select what exists. So?

That doesn't imply that those genes did not appear or evolve.

That means those alleles for short legs were already there, they didn’t evolve.
What?? There were already there WHEN????

If you're saying that they were already there from the creation, demonstrate it. Will you present any evidence?

If we look at the informational basis for other mechanisms of biological variation, we can see that these are not the source of new sentences or information and thus why the evolutionist must resort to mutation as his source of such new information.
You can?
The genetic information for short or long legs was already there.
Not only you won't back that claim up: you're avoiding the question.

You can? How?
You can’t explain via naturalism why it was already there
Since when? Since it was there? Of course it was there since it was there.
What are you saying?

And yes, i can explain it. There was a mutation. There. That was easy.
so you need to rely on mutation to supply these genes.
It depends. Genes evolve. Mutations don't.
Genes can be tweaked via mutation and natural selection, yeah. We see it.

It's observed.

Mendelian variation is the mechanism that accounts for most of the new varieties which we see in breeding experiments.
I don't care.
You should care.
Not in this thread. This one is about information. That thing you can't detect and try to avoid.

In a mongrel dog certain packets of info are hidden but are nonetheless present.
Show me.
Mendel showed this during Darwin’s time and you surely know about it.
I don't remember anything about "packets of info", no.

And i don't think that your definition of "info" was in anyone's mind at that time.

Genetic variation involves the shuffling or recombination of already existing information.
That thing you can't detect or measure?

By selecting various traits, the packets of information are thinned out.
You just go ahead and expound on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This goes on and on... I'll skip all that. You're avoiding the subject.
No I’m not, you’re avoiding the subject.
Hahaha! Man! You're hilarious! My kid talks like that and he's 3!

Ok, ok, he'll be 4 in a couple of months, i grant you that...
I’m showing you how selection thins out the available information
No. You haven't shown me any piece of information that would be in accord with your own definition.
so the train is going in the wrong direction for uphill evolution via natural selection.
I don't care about that in this thread. This one is about information. That thing you can't detect or measure.

Yes, Lester, you are. You talk about knowledge and understanding you don't possess. When corrected, you never admit.
You might just as well be talking about yourself Wisp
Hahaha! Man! Stop it! xD

Apart from you, i don't recall anyone accusing me of that.

But now that you have said it, support it.

When have i claimed to have knowledge or understanding that i don't possess and didn't admit it when corrected?
–you know that old ‘projection’ you love to mention as if I’m projecting and you are not.
That's right. You're projecting, and i'm not.
You only ever admit to little minor points
Then you take it back? You implied that i never did.
to give yourself the appearance of humility.
I hate fake humbleness. I try to never appear more humble than i am.
You're the worst judge of character ever. You don't understand yourself or anyone else.
You have a far bigger purpose when you do that.Of course you wouldn’t know what that purpose would be.
Blah blah blah.

The subject here is not evolution, but information.
The two are irrevocably linked.
Yeah. That's why we treat them in the same forum. But this thread is still about information. That thing you can't detect or measure.

In artificial selection or breeding, there is a thinning out of the information or alleles available for variation or a reduction in the genetic potential for further variation.
If derwood shows you different strings of DNA, can you detect the "thinned" ones?
If you try to breed short legged dogs,
Here comes the dodge...
you select out all the tall legged mutts until such time as the alleles for leg length only exist in the short variety. That’s how it works.
You're now talking about a population, not about a strand of DNA.

When did you switch???

You have then thinned out the information available for adaptation.
That thing you can't detect or measure?
You no longer possess the same amount of variability.Your gene pool is depleted. Do you understand?
Of course.
What i don't understand is what does that have to do with your definition of "information". I do understand that you're trying to avoid any reference to a way to detect or measure it.

The ark event would have caused a very clear and negative impact on biodiversity. There's no sign of it.
How do you know how much original information was present?
I know exactly the limits: four alleles-per-locus for each unclean kind (tops), fourteen alleles-per-locus for each clean one (tops).

Sounds like an easy way to distinguish clean from unclean kinds.
Why don't your creation "scientists" check that out?

This is valid, unless you try to tell us that the original kinds were not diploids.
Do you????

I’m sure it did have a negative impact on biodiversity
With no evidence.
but a billionaire might become a millionaire under adverse circumstances. You start with the incorrect assumption, you get the incorrect answer.
You're sure. Why don't you suggest that line of investigation to your fellow creationist PhDs?

They will suspect you're an evolutionist in disguise if you try to make them do some real research.

If you have long and short haired dogs (thus the alleles for both long and short hair are present in the group of dogs), and they are introduced into the North of Canada in the winter, it won’t take long for the short haired dogs to be removed from the population (unless they are looked after by humans.)
The process with the mutation that gives the dachshund short legs is exactly the same. You lose.
A mutation can do that as well
There. It's over then. Because that's all it takes. An advantage that improves the rates of survival/reproduction. That's really all there is to it.
but mostly mutations are not required for variation as Mendel showed.
Indeed. I have no problem with that.

Can you imagine any?
If you can, say so in a new thread.

A short legged dog may survive in a protected environment
Another thing to define: "Protected environment"...

Lester, you're saying nothing. You're lost in your world of stretchy concepts. You refuse to look at reality.
but it will lose in a race with a predator - so once again the mutation is not beneficial in real terms.
Ok, i take that back (partially) then... You're talking about something real: a race with a predator.

But if there's no such predators in a certain environment your "real terms" are not real.

Reproduction/survival rates. That's real.

Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.
Stop deflecting. The subject is information. You can't define or detect it. It's over, Lester.
I repeat now that you have your definition.
No need to repeat it. I got you the first time.

I repeat that you can't detect it.
Extrapolation of this process forwards does not lead to upwards evolution, it ultimately leads to extinction, as the potential for variation is decreased.
We're not trying to demonstrate Evolution in this thread, Lester. Stop deflecting. It's about information. That thing you can't detect or measure.

You still haven’t told me how this land mammal conversion to whale works. In fact nobody has.
I told you to start a thread. I don't even know what you're asking. State it clearly in a specific thread.
I’ve stated it so clearly
NOT!
so often in so many different threads,
Exactly my point. You don't like order, because it exposes you.
I don’t think you want to answer.
I don't even know the question. And if you don't start a specific thread about it, i don't care to know either. Because when you're shown you can easily play dumb.

I'm not even claiming that i'm able to show you what you demand. I'm claiming that i won't even do the effort unless there's some hint that it will matter.

In fact I’m sure you’re avoiding answering – along with all your friends.
Yes, i am. I'm avoiding to answer to your obscure questions in unrelated threads.

Are we clear?

Once again you’re being dishonest.
Support that claim, or take it back.
What difference would one more thread make if none of my other questions were answered?
I'll tell you:
If we're able to answer to your questions (i'm not saying we are), it will be best registered.

I've seen you weaseling out of lots of answers already. They get lost in the disorder, and you can avoid them forever.

And stop deflecting.
Like I said, projection.
Yes, you say many things. The difference is that i can back them up.

Between you and me, i'm the one talking about information (that thing you can't detect or measure). You're the one projecting projection.

and differential survival is no good if the thing is weaker when reintroduced into the initial population.
Huh?
I don't know what you're talking about.
If a particular bacteria survives in a hospital environment, you think it has evolved that ability to survive
...in that environment. Yes, of course.
and is thus stronger than all the other bacteria.
I never said that. I don't talk about "stronger". I talk about differential survival/reproduction rates.
It isn’t true.
I don't even know what you mean by "strong". In any case you're trying to put forward yet another strawman.

I'm correcting you. I never said that. Do you admit that you were wrong?

It only appears to be stronger in that particular environment.
I don't care about "stronger". I care about real things. Like genes and differential survival/reproduction rates.

I'm skipping the rest of that.

Needing stuff doesn't mean that the organism is less fit.
It could mean that it was designed for a symbiotic relationship.
You lost me. I don't know what the subject is anymore.

No, a new gene needs to be ordered to make a new functional protein to do a new job.
So?
It's still made from the same old CGAT.
But not just in any old order.
So?
It's still made from the same old CGAT.
That is where information comes into the picture.
Information? That thing you can't detect or measure?

So it is not just the old A,T,G,C.
You don't like it to be.
You wish it was.
If you say there's something else, go ahead and show us how to detect it.

Otherwise, shut up.

such that it folds into a new and needed shape that can work in combination with those other proteins that it needs to work in combination with to produce a new functional system.
Nah. You're exaggerating. No new system is required. Just that the new gene helps. That's all.
Any old arrangement won’t produce a functional protein.
I guess you tried to say "NEW" arrangement.

However, let's try to talk about information instead of meaningful/functional/purposeful proteins.

If you want to talk about that, start a thread. Don't mess up this one.

Many arrangements will produce nothing useful.
Yeah... Many. Many many many.

If you think that's a problem (somehow), start a thread and we'll discuss it.

Where do you get your ideas from??? Clearly not from Science.
Science and logic.
You said "it is a new arrangement of C,G,T,A such that it folds into a new and needed shape that can work in combination with those other proteins that it needs to work in combination with to produce a new functional system." That's an error. It doesn't come from any branch of Science. It comes from your scientifically illiterate mind.
Yours come from evolutionists.
I thought it up all by myself. If the only way for a mutation to get selected was to produce an "entirely new functional and needed system", Evolution couldn't happen.

If you think that's the way things are, start a thread and demonstrate it. Otherwise, shut up and stop deflecting.

This can be assessed once it is reintroduced to the original parent population and forced to compete.
No. You don't get to decide the rules.
You can’t protect the weakling from the outside world and real competition and then tell me it’s stronger just because it had a better differential survival rate in a particular specialized environment.
I will say nothing of the sort. Let those who don't understand the basics of Evolution talk about "strong".

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

Don't you get ashamed every time we catch your strawmen?

You're busted every time, Lester!

I'll skip all those silly things about kids getting "stronger"...

They're scientifically illiterate, but they are so confident that they think they can make the rules.
In fact blah blah blah blah.
It is the evolutionists that make up all the fiction stories and choose whatever they feel like believing.
I say you're scientifically illiterate and you try to make the rules. You say it's US who make up stories.
I’m thinking of the one where the hippo- like mammal (or was it the hyena or the cat-like mammal) turns into a whale over a LOOONG period of time and blah blah blah blah blah
And you still don't get it...

Let me show you:
-You're changing the subject!
-In fact you're incorrect. It's you who farted.


What's the smallest piece of DNA that can carry information?
The one that is long enough to code for a functional protein that has a purpose?
I call your bluff. Show me.

You left out many things. Like this:
AC <<< Any information there?
ACTTAG <<< What about there?

Show me "practical".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:59 PM on November 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Your definition is a worthless collection of words that you twist to whatever definition you want.  How do you measure it with numbers?
There's something more revealing and important than measure: detection.

If you take ANY animal you want you can make deductions about its environment. It carries that information in its morphology (for instance), and its morphology is mainly determined by its genes.

You CAN detect that sort of information, even when it's pretty difficult to quantify.

Don't you agree?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:06 PM on November 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:06 PM on November 28, 2009 :

You CAN detect that sort of information, even when it's pretty difficult to quantify.


Cladistics is all about making numerical measurements of morphology, putting them into a computer and letting it sort out the most likely relationship tree.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:07 PM on November 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, but by "information" i mean what you can deduct about the environment where that organism lives.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:24 PM on November 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
When you have a number you can unambiguously compare it to another number.


Though of course, you may have arrived at the allocation of those numbers via unprovable assumptions about what might have happened in the past. The conclusions reached by the comparison of the numbers will then reflect those assumptions.In any case it seems strange that you guys want numbers when you feel like it, but when it comes to things like probabilities, you don’t like numbers at all.  

Good, hopefully you will have a real definition and not just fluff and hand-waving.


I gave you a real definition and it is not just fluff and handwaving.It’s strange to me that your definition of information is so disparate from information in a general sense.
You would hardly define a grocery list, which is information, as ‘a sequence that tells you something about the environment’ but to define it as ‘An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose’ would be most appropriate. It seems to me you are trying to avoid the obvious connotations behind information and that is the concept of purpose.

Our definition works for information wherever you find it and is more apt.


Wisp
Answers in Genesis (gotcha!):
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
Ok, finally a definition. It took you some time to find a "safe" one in AiG. But it's not safe.


Well first of all, if AIG comes up with a reasonable definition of information, I’m happy to use it, but I got this definition from Werner Gitt, the information specialist so possibly they are happy to use his definition. Do your information specialists say that this definition isn’t appropriate? I’ll bet they’d have to admit that it is.

What does the DNA symbolize?


The instructions to build an organism –a plan with a purpose.

Successful frameshift mutations don't carry any of what you define. And yet one of them allowed a bacteria to eat nylon.


Yes, and rats and mice have adapted to eat just about anything, I don't
see them evolving into monkeys though. In any case, Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days. The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

Unlike yours, it describes something that IS detectable and demonstrable.


What are you talking about? My definition is detectable and demonstrable. A grocery list has an expected action and intended purpose –you can detect it and demonstrate it. The only thing the grocery list tells me about the environment is that something I need can be found somewhere in the environment or I wouldn’t be writing a list. That is not nearly specific enough. As for DNA, it’s purpose is detectable and demonstrable –it makes protein for a purpose and the purpose is the normal functioning of an organism.
Your description suits the evo mindset, it’s vague enough to fit it to whatever they want. We luckily don’t need to have cognitive dissonance between our definition for normal information in the world around us compared to biological information.

It depends on previous knowledge from the reader of the information.


Yes, and that is how we say it works because it is coded information that needs to be translated by a mechanism that has a knowledge of the meaning of the  individual units.

If a football coach teaches different strategies by name, he can name them during the game. Each player will interpret the word as a different set of instructions. So the information in that word is subjective, and appeals to previous knowledge in the reader.


Well DNA  is information that the decoding apparatus understands.

The numbers carry information. Sometimes you get stuck no matter what you do. Then you can check the counter and see how many mines are left. A piece of data from outside the board renders the board more informative.


You appear to be assuming that the DNA requires environmental cues in order to mean anything. I’m not quite sure what your point is here.

Simple depiction: Things that get selected tell us that the environment selects them.


Well there we go with selection. You’re explaining survival but not arrival.
Information is responsible for arrival and survival depends on environmental pressures and to a certain extent good luck.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:37 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Your definition is a worthless collection of words that you twist to whatever definition you want.  How do you measure it with numbers?


Smaller and smaller numbers equates to fewer and fewer allele choices. Heading for extinction, like I said.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:53 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fisher at 01:45 AM on November 25, 2009 :
i dont think Expeldled was intended to give a detailed argument against evolution or for ID. The only point it wanted to make was that there are teachers getting fired for saying that there might be another way to explain the origins of life. Stein was trying to point out the holes in the evolutionary theory (Darwin himself said that there is holes in his theoy), and that scientists are glossing over the massive problem of the fact that we have never been able to produce life from non-life. You cannot prove evolution or creationsim


Expelled was an exceptionally dishonest bit of work from start to finish.  

expelledexposed.com





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:10 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:22 AM on November 27, 2009 :
They can ultimately say that every "new" gene is nothing more than the "old" adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.


No, a new gene needs to be ordered to make a new functional protein to do a new job.

Have you ever heard the term "protein family"?  It seems not.


The name dunningkrugerites suits them perfectly.


In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.


Amazing.

A simple google search - or perhaps even just reading the links that have been provided re: the Dunning-Kruger effect, would have shown you that Dunning and Kruger are psychologists whose research had nothinng to do with evolution.  

Of note, please pay special attention to the first couple of sentences in the abstract:

---

J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34.

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
Kruger J, Dunning D.

Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.edu

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
---




They simply documented the phenomenon whereby people who are not good at certain tasks rate themselves higher on those tasks because they lack the wherewithal to see how poorly they perform.
I.e., they documented the phenomenon of inflated self-assessments.  And what is more, they found that people who DO actually do things well tend to rate themselves lower than is warranted - i.e., people who are good at things tend to underestimate their performace.  The polar opposite of what we see in YECs on the internet.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:19 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:44 AM on November 27, 2009 :


I don’t play dumb Wisp.



Reminds me of that M*A*S*H episode in which Hawkeye told Frank to stop acting like an ass and Frank screamed "I'm not acting!"


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:25 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:25 AM on November 29, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:44 AM on November 27, 2009 :


I don’t play dumb Wisp.



Reminds me of that M*A*S*H episode in which Hawkeye told Frank to stop acting like an ass and Frank screamed "I'm not acting!"


That's hilarious!

My wife likened George W Bush to Frank Burns.

Dunning-Kruger:  Notice that they do leave a shred of hope open for people like Lester and Timbrx:


Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


But apparently they haven't reached that point yet.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:58 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




Lester
Answers in Genesis (gotcha!):
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

Wisp
Ok, finally a definition. It took you some time to find a "safe" one in AiG. But it's not safe.


Well first of all, if AIG comes up with a reasonable definition of information, I’m happy to use it, but I got this definition from Werner Gitt, the information specialist so possibly they are happy to use his definition. Do your information specialists say that this definition isn’t appropriate? I’ll bet they’d have to admit that it is.


I'm no mathematician.  But Gitt suffers from the same problems that Dembski does - his work is riddled with errors and flaws.  A brief search shows that Gitt's peers don't think much of his ideas on information theory.

Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt


Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions.

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:21 PM on November 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:37 AM on November 29, 2009 :
... but I got this definition from Werner Gitt, the information specialist so possibly they are happy to use his definition.


Gitt is an information specialist, is he?

Please explain.


You know, I saw Gitt in person 3 or 4 years ago.  A small venue - there were only about 15 of us there. He was invited by a local fundy church, apparently one of the members of the church had done some illustrations for him once.

The title of his talk implied that it was going to be a scieince talk.  However, the first 1/3 of the talk was more like a revivial - opened with a prayer, then he rambled on about how amazing DNA was - tossed about a bunch of big numbers that were clearly designed to 'awe' the layfolk in the audience - which it did.
Then he spent the next 1/3 on his definitions, then the last third he made a series of unwarranted and unsupported assertions and analogies and ended up with another prayer.

During the Q&A, I asked him if information can increase at the statistical level - he agreed that it could.  In genetics, accoding to Gitt (who has no biology background) , styatistical informaiton is the purview of DNA, so, you add a nucleotide, by Gitt's own definition, you add information.

So, I then asked how it was that the upper levels of information cannot increase despite the fact that they are dependant upon the statistical level.  

He had no answer.

He is selling snake oil.

And YECs buy it at any price.

(Edited by derwood 11/29/2009 at 6:15 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:14 PM on November 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

So, I then asked how it was that the upper levels of information cannot increase despite the fact that they are dependant upon the statistical level.  


What do you mean by this?  What is an example of 'upper levels of information'?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:33 PM on November 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ORION
But apparently they haven't reached that point yet.


Perhaps we never will. Unless of course, you are incorrect, in which case we are already there and the question of whether you will reach that point is still hanging.

But Gitt suffers from the same problems that Dembski does - his work is riddled with errors and flaws.  


The question is, are they errors and flaws or is it the basic difference of opinion on fundamental truths that is at issue here? Creationist bashing is a sport. We don’t expect it to be easy but we carry on regardless because we believe that we are right and that your basic philosophical presuppositions are wrong.

The errors and flaws are in the eye of the beholder. The truth of who’s argument is flawed will come out in due course.

A brief search shows that Gitt's peers don't think much of his ideas on information theory.


You mean his evolutionist opposition or evolutionist peers. I’m sure there are more than enough creationists that agree with him. As I’ve said we (evolutionists and creationists) have a fundamental difference of opinion on every evolution-related topic. You think we don’t know what we’re talking about. We think the same of you. We have our ‘qualified’ experts, you have yours.

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided).


In other words, Shannon avoided the problem of meaning because he probably doesn’t think there is any such thing (in proper evo style) and Gitt is sure there is meaning which is why he tackles it.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.


Precisely what the evolutionist does. Everything that can be considered to be information goes back to an intelligent source. Even NASA knows what to expect in the way of signals if they receive such a thing from alien intelligence.They know the difference between order and specified complexity. But apparently the evolutionist cannot imagine what information is, in a biological sense. Incredible.

Information always has an intelligent source. Specified complexity is an indicator of information and thus intelligence. The problem with the evolutionist is that he repeatedly fails to acknowledge intelligence in biology according to his philosophical presuppositions and predisposition.  

Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there.


Evolutionists define out of existence an intelligent source and in typical circular reasoning style, fail to recognize the genome as intelligently designed.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information.


Nor can we a priori assume it is not. What is the usual source of specified complexity?

We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source.


Nor can we know a priori that it did not.

We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.


Nor can we exclude the possibility simply because we prefer it to be that way.







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:13 AM on November 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gitt is an information specialist, is he?

Please explain.


Simply search and you will find:
Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology.

The title of his talk implied that it was going to be a scieince talk.  However, the first 1/3 of the talk was more like a revivial


That must have annoyed you. How can anyone be revived if God doesn’t even exist, huh?

opened with a prayer


Oh dear, talking to himself you probably thought.

then he rambled on about how amazing DNA was - tossed about a bunch of big numbers that were clearly designed to 'awe' the layfolk in the audience


Just because you refuse to be awed by the awesomeness of DNA is no reason to think that anyone that is awed is a moron. Of course, it’s pointless saying that; anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a moron by definition.

Then he spent the next 1/3 on his definitions


Good, I hope you wrote it all down. You normally like definitions, don’t you?

then the last third he made a series of unwarranted and unsupported assertions and analogies


Obviously they didn’t sit well with your evolutionist assumptions.

and ended up with another prayer.


Well that’s one way to get you to a prayer meeting. May many more science talks cause you to find yourself in a place of prayer. There might be hope for you yet.

so, you add a nucleotide, by Gitt's own definition, you add information.


If you add a random letter ‘c’ to a perfectly sound message, would you call it information? It would have to fulfil more criteria than just being an addition surely, in order to constitute new information?

He had no answer.


Maybe God told him that you didn’t really want to understand and were better ignored at that point. People that talk to God usually hear from him too, so it’s possible. I don’t think your objection was altogether intelligent, more like splitting hairs in an attempt to be cleverer than everybody else. Whenever you are tempted to ask such a question like that again, run it through your own head first and say to yourself, “Derwood, before you ask that question, think - have you really thought about whether there is any point to it?”

He is selling snake oil.

And YECs buy it at any price.


YEC’s notice that he is making sense and I’ve never had to pay for anything he has ever said. The information about information is freely available.

Have a good day!  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:17 AM on November 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:33 PM on November 29, 2009 :
Derwood

So, I then asked how it was that the upper levels of information cannot increase despite the fact that they are dependant upon the statistical level.  


What do you mean by this?  What is an example of 'upper levels of information'?



Ah - I cribbed this from a blog that went on to demolish Gitt's notions:

1.Statistics: This is what information theory refers to as information content, expressed in terms of an event sequence (as I said, he's following Dembski); so we're looking at a series of events, each of which is receiving a character of a message, and the information added by each event is how surprising that event was. That's why he calls it statistical.

2. Syntax: The structure of the language encoded by the message. At this level, it is assumed that every message is written in a code; you can distinguish between "valid" and "invalid" messages by checking whether they are valid strings of characters for the given code.

3. Semantics: What the message means.
4. Pragmatics: The primitive intention of the transmitter of the message; the specific events/actions that the transmitter wanted to occur as a result of sending the message.
5. Apobetics: The purpose of the message.

They are big on #5.  But as I said, levels 2-5 are DEPENDANT upon level 1 in this set-up.  And since level 1 is the nucleotide sequence, and the nucleotide sequence can change naturalistically and increase its information, the 'upper' levels MUST also be able to increase naturalistically.

But asking the 'information expert' about it only got me some pacing, staring at the floor, and a blow-off (when I reiterated my question he went on to someone else).



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:17 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:17 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Gitt is an information specialist, is he?

Please explain.


Simply search and you will find:
Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology.


Interesting - information technology is "includes business solutions, sensor networks, network security, software design, mobility applications,
and:
• elegant, robust, and agile concepts that advance the battle against software bugs and give designers immediate feedback
using automated tools to find flaws
• powerful techniques for scheduling network resources
• the coming-of-age of artificial intelligence in visual object recognition, spoken language, manual dexterity, social understanding,
and self-configuring robots
• strategic management of IT makes a more significant contribution to faster corporate growth and profitability
• using sensor networks to capture patterns in human interaction and reinvent organizations and management
• insights into the design of the Internet of the future"
according to the Information Technology Association of America.

In other words, he's a glorified computer technician.  Which is fine, but lets not engage in embellishment, shall we?  

By the way - I KNOW all about Gitt, and have for many years.  I've seen his claims DEMOLISHED on many occasions.  I was just going to see how you depicted him.

Of course, we can now all see that you can google for informaitonon Gitt, but decided not to even follow links provided re: Dunning-Kruger and you instead did what you always do - made uninformed, unwarranted leaps premised on your biased assumptions.


The title of his talk implied that it was going to be a scieince talk.  However, the first 1/3 of the talk was more like a revivial


That must have annoyed you. How can anyone be revived if God doesn’t even exist, huh?


It did annoy me, since the talk was supposed to be about science and information.  I don't care if someone believes in a god, but I do care when they engage in false advertizing.

then he rambled on about how amazing DNA was - tossed about a bunch of big numbers that were clearly designed to 'awe' the layfolk in the audience


Just because you refuse to be awed by the awesomeness of DNA is no reason to think that anyone that is awed is a moron.


I am awed by the awesomeness of nature, but I don't emply that awe AS AN ARGUMENT, which is what your ilk does.  

His talk was essentially a rehash of his AiG article on the subject - this is the sort of thing he talked about:

The highest information density known to us is that of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules of living cells. This chemical storage medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM helix pitch (see Figure 1). This results in a volume of 10.68×10-21 cm3 per spiral. Each spiral contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting in a volumetric information density of 0.94×1021 letters/cm3. In the genetic alphabet, the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is, adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such a letter is 2 bits/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density is 1.88×1021 bits/cm3.


In fact, I think he had those very numbers on a series of slides.

It worked - the pew warmers were giddy in their awe.

Of course, it’s pointless saying that; anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a moron by definition.

I think you are projecting.

Many people disagree with me.  I do not think they are morons.  And I am not nor have I ever said that I am right about everything - can you say the same? Not judging by your history here.  You have presented yourself as the ultimate authority on all science, your position can never be wrong almost by definition.  Your pride and hubris is nearly limitless.  And you simply project that onto me since I began exposing your ignorance and dishonesty on so many issues.


Then he spent the next 1/3 on his definitions


Good, I hope you wrote it all down. You normally like definitions, don’t you?

I do, when I can get them.  Creationists typically prefer not to divulge their definitions so that they are free to alter their criteria later on, even when doing so contradicts what they declared before.  Like how you behaved when discussing transitionals.

then the last third he made a series of unwarranted and unsupported assertions and analogies


Obviously they didn’t sit well with your evolutionist assumptions.

No, they didn't sit well with logic, consistency, or reason.

so, you add a nucleotide, by Gitt's own definition, you add information.


If you add a random letter ‘c’ to a perfectly sound message, would you call it information?

Nucleotides are not letters.  I suspect that people like you insist on employing language analogies when discussing genetics because you either truly have that limited of an understanding of the subject or because you realize that discussing actual genetics will not serve your cause as well.
Which is it for you?

It would have to fulfil more criteria than just being an addition surely, in order to constitute new information?

Not according to Shannon - which Gitt in part based his definitions on.  INdeed, when I asked him about it, he agreed that adding nucleotides is increasing the informaiton at the statistical level.


He had no answer.


Maybe God told him that you didn’t really want to understand and were better ignored at that point.

Actually, the problem is that I do understand, and he was looking for an out. In fact, the person sitting next to me was the advisor for the Campu Crusade for Christ, and after Gitt blew me off, we exchanged glances and he whispered "He couldn't answer" to me.

I don’t think your objection was altogether intelligent, more like splitting hairs in an attempt to be cleverer than everybody else.

You - the person who claims a science doctorate, yet did not understand that 'phenotype' covers more than gross morphology, thinking that my question to the religious computer tech was not intelligent - is that supposed to be an insult of some sort?



Whenever you are tempted to ask such a question like that again, run it through your own head first and say to yourself, “Derwood, before you ask that question, think - have you really thought about whether there is any point to it?”


If it were such an unintelligent, simplistic question, one should wonder why Gitt did not simply explain it to me.

But, seeing as how you think you understand it all, maybe YOU can explain it -

Why, if naturalistic increases in information are possible at the statistical level, and in genetics, the upper levels of information are DEPENDANT upon the statistical level, can the upper levels of information, say, apobetics, not also increase naturalistically?

[psst - I already know the Gitt/creationist answer, let's see if you do]


He is selling snake oil.

And YECs buy it at any price.


YEC’s notice that he is making sense and I’ve never had to pay for anything he has ever said. The information about information is freely available.
 

No, YECs are just easily awed by big number arguments - especially if they are interlaced with religious pandering.


A mathematician (linked above) looks at Gitt's claims - I liked this bit on Gitt's definitions:


How do we conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the representation of information? We just assert it. Worse, how do we conclude that only things that are based on a code represent information? Again, just an assertion - but an incredibly strong one. He is asserting that nothing without a structured encoding is information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument: information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent process.

Despite the fact that he claims to be completing Shannon theory, there is nothing to do with math in the rest of this article. It's all words. "Theorems" like the ones quoted above, but becoming progressively more outrageous and unjustified.




(Edited by derwood 11/30/2009 at 3:00 PM).

(Edited by derwood 12/1/2009 at 11:24 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:42 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

By the way - I KNOW all about Gitt, and have for many years.  I've seen his claims DEMOLISHED on many occasions.  I was just going to see how you depicted him.


Interesting website (Good Math, Bad Math).  Seems similar to the Phil Plait's 'Bad Astronomy' website.  In both cases the authors set out to debunk incompetent notions and misunderstanding of issues in  their respective fields.  I see Mark Chu-Carroll shares our low regard for AiG.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:17 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like Lester has returned to discuss information again.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:30 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Les?

You up to it, or are you content to abandon issues that YOU bring up, showing all your level of education and sophistication?


Quote from Lester10 at 07:17 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Gitt is an information specialist, is he?

Please explain.


Simply search and you will find:
Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology.


Interesting - information technology is "includes business solutions, sensor networks, network security, software design, mobility applications,
and:
• elegant, robust, and agile concepts that advance the battle against software bugs and give designers immediate feedback
using automated tools to find flaws
• powerful techniques for scheduling network resources
• the coming-of-age of artificial intelligence in visual object recognition, spoken language, manual dexterity, social understanding,
and self-configuring robots
• strategic management of IT makes a more significant contribution to faster corporate growth and profitability
• using sensor networks to capture patterns in human interaction and reinvent organizations and management
• insights into the design of the Internet of the future"
according to the Information Technology Association of America.

In other words, he's a glorified computer technician.  Which is fine, but lets not engage in embellishment, shall we?  

By the way - I KNOW all about Gitt, and have for many years.  I've seen his claims DEMOLISHED on many occasions.  I was just going to see how you depicted him.

Of course, we can now all see that you can google for informaitonon Gitt, but decided not to even follow links provided re: Dunning-Kruger and you instead did what you always do - made uninformed, unwarranted leaps premised on your biased assumptions.


The title of his talk implied that it was going to be a scieince talk.  However, the first 1/3 of the talk was more like a revivial


That must have annoyed you. How can anyone be revived if God doesn’t even exist, huh?


It did annoy me, since the talk was supposed to be about science and information.  I don't care if someone believes in a god, but I do care when they engage in false advertizing.

then he rambled on about how amazing DNA was - tossed about a bunch of big numbers that were clearly designed to 'awe' the layfolk in the audience


Just because you refuse to be awed by the awesomeness of DNA is no reason to think that anyone that is awed is a moron.


I am awed by the awesomeness of nature, but I don't emply that awe AS AN ARGUMENT, which is what your ilk does.  

His talk was essentially a rehash of his AiG article on the subject - this is the sort of thing he talked about:

The highest information density known to us is that of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules of living cells. This chemical storage medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM helix pitch (see Figure 1). This results in a volume of 10.68×10-21 cm3 per spiral. Each spiral contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting in a volumetric information density of 0.94×1021 letters/cm3. In the genetic alphabet, the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is, adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such a letter is 2 bits/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density is 1.88×1021 bits/cm3.


In fact, I think he had those very numbers on a series of slides.

It worked - the pew warmers were giddy in their awe.

Of course, it’s pointless saying that; anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a moron by definition.

I think you are projecting.

Many people disagree with me.  I do not think they are morons.  And I am not nor have I ever said that I am right about everything - can you say the same? Not judging by your history here.  You have presented yourself as the ultimate authority on all science, your position can never be wrong almost by definition.  Your pride and hubris is nearly limitless.  And you simply project that onto me since I began exposing your ignorance and dishonesty on so many issues.


Then he spent the next 1/3 on his definitions


Good, I hope you wrote it all down. You normally like definitions, don’t you?

I do, when I can get them.  Creationists typically prefer not to divulge their definitions so that they are free to alter their criteria later on, even when doing so contradicts what they declared before.  Like how you behaved when discussing transitionals.

then the last third he made a series of unwarranted and unsupported assertions and analogies


Obviously they didn’t sit well with your evolutionist assumptions.

No, they didn't sit well with logic, consistency, or reason.

so, you add a nucleotide, by Gitt's own definition, you add information.


If you add a random letter ‘c’ to a perfectly sound message, would you call it information?

Nucleotides are not letters.  I suspect that people like you insist on employing language analogies when discussing genetics because you either truly have that limited of an understanding of the subject or because you realize that discussing actual genetics will not serve your cause as well.
Which is it for you?

It would have to fulfil more criteria than just being an addition surely, in order to constitute new information?

Not according to Shannon - which Gitt in part based his definitions on.  INdeed, when I asked him about it, he agreed that adding nucleotides is increasing the informaiton at the statistical level.


He had no answer.


Maybe God told him that you didn’t really want to understand and were better ignored at that point.

Actually, the problem is that I do understand, and he was looking for an out. In fact, the person sitting next to me was the advisor for the Campu Crusade for Christ, and after Gitt blew me off, we exchanged glances and he whispered "He couldn't answer" to me.

I don’t think your objection was altogether intelligent, more like splitting hairs in an attempt to be cleverer than everybody else.

You - the person who claims a science doctorate, yet did not understand that 'phenotype' covers more than gross morphology, thinking that my question to the religious computer tech was not intelligent - is that supposed to be an insult of some sort?



Whenever you are tempted to ask such a question like that again, run it through your own head first and say to yourself, “Derwood, before you ask that question, think - have you really thought about whether there is any point to it?”


If it were such an unintelligent, simplistic question, one should wonder why Gitt did not simply explain it to me.

But, seeing as how you think you understand it all, maybe YOU can explain it -

Why, if naturalistic increases in information are possible at the statistical level, and in genetics, the upper levels of information are DEPENDANT upon the statistical level, can the upper levels of information, say, apobetics, not also increase naturalistically?

[psst - I already know the Gitt/creationist answer, let's see if you do]


He is selling snake oil.

And YECs buy it at any price.


YEC’s notice that he is making sense and I’ve never had to pay for anything he has ever said. The information about information is freely available.
 

No, YECs are just easily awed by big number arguments - especially if they are interlaced with religious pandering.


A mathematician (linked above) looks at Gitt's claims - I liked this bit on Gitt's definitions:


How do we conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the representation of information? We just assert it. Worse, how do we conclude that only things that are based on a code represent information? Again, just an assertion - but an incredibly strong one. He is asserting that nothing without a structured encoding is information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument: information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent process.

Despite the fact that he claims to be completing Shannon theory, there is nothing to do with math in the rest of this article. It's all words. "Theorems" like the ones quoted above, but becoming progressively more outrageous and unjustified.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:56 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:22 AM on November 27, 2009 :


In my head I see Dunning and Kruger as two pompous self-inflated evolutionists inventing stories and then throwing a tantrum when people more pragmatic than themselves point out the absurdity of their fantasies, and lamenting the ridiculousness of the practical objections of those less ‘qualified’ than themselves.





In my head, I see Dunning and Kruger as two Cornell psychologists who studied people in a variety of situations to assess the accuracy of their self-assessments and they found that people who knew the least/performed the worst actually considered themselves among the smartest/best.

How about that?

Oh, and it looks like every time we try to 'discuss' Information with YECs like Doctor Lester, we get shifting goalposts, copy and pastes and paraphrases, double standards, and silly shenanigans.

Typical YEC Dunning-Krugerite stuff.


(Edited by derwood 4/19/2010 at 11:24 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:04 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:54 AM on April 19, 2010 in the thread EXPELLED!:
Lester
As for a spider web, the thought of whether it contains information doesn’t really interest me.
It's not about interest. It's about knowing and understanding. If you knew what you're talking about when you say "information" i think you shouldn't have any problems deciding if a spiderweb contains any or not. Or at least devising a way to detect it. Some experiment.
Perhaps information was required for the existence of the spider in the first place and that information in the form of intelligence along with the spider’s chemicals provided by intelligence is what caused the web to exist.
Yeah... Well, that's not my question.

You say the DNA DOES contain information. My question is clear: does a spiderweb contain it too?
And my answer is clear-
Yes, that you're not interested in it.
I don’t know whether the web could contain information since I have never studied spiders webs.
My bet is that you have never studied DNA either.

Anyway, how can we test for information in a spider web? You think it's detectable in the DNA. Is it possible to do the same with a spiderweb?


And NO, you had not answered that you didn't know. This is so rare that i would have remembered.
However information was required for the existence of the spider otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
Can you say the same thing about a stone?

How 'bout a snowflake?


Does your house contain information if someone with intelligence built it?
I'm not qualified to answer questions about what YOU understand by "information".
Oh so neither of us know whether a house contains information.
Oh, so we're in the same situation, aren't we?

Neither of us know what the Hell you mean by "information".

Shame on us.

However once again I do know that the builder had to have information in order to build it and that had to come from someone’s mind –the source of all information.
I see... So in order to see if something comes from a mind, you have to look for information. In order to know if something has information you have to know if it comes from a mind.

Meyer
Meyer:
p. 396: "As noted previously, as I present the evidence for intelligent design, critics do not typically try to dispute my specific empirical claims. They do not dispute that DNA contains specified information, or that this type of information always comes from a mind..."
That's the very thing you're trying to demonstrate, whatever that "type" of information might be.

Try again, but no circular reasoning this time.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:56 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Meyer
Meyer:
p. 396: "As noted previously, as I present the evidence for intelligent design, critics do not typically try to dispute my specific empirical claims. They do not dispute that DNA contains specified information, or that this type of information always comes from a mind..."



What a load of horseshit.

Meyer simply lies by omission and his sycophants gobble it up without question.

NOBODY except creationsits agree with Meyer's definitions or his "empirical claims'.

How can you argue with arguments via definition when the one you are criticizing refuses to acknowledge that hsi definitions are wrong?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:27 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's exactly right. Which is why Meyer included the escape clause "type", when he says "this type of information", which i bet will be forever vague.

If we show them an increase of information, he can say it's not the same "type". Until he defines (as something really detectable and measureble) we can't say that it doesn't exist.

It's actually a better trick than Lester's innuendo that he and i are in the same situation since none of us knows if a house contains what he vaguely calls "information".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:03 PM on April 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, on May 4, 2010 in the thread Logical fallacies in Evolution
I say that with all our knowledge of how a cell works and what it is comprised of, we put everything together with loads of human intelligence and we can’t seem to get past the alphabet soup. How did the information get there? What decides how everything fits together and what proteins get made in what quantities? It’s not just the hardware (the molecules) that we need, it’s the organization of the parts that requires intelligent input. Natural law cannot make information.
I'm sorry... Did you say "information"?

What do you mean by that?

This is the thread to talk about information. You have abandoned.
Why would you have something to say about it in unrelated threads and not in this one?

Show us a way to detect and measure this "information" thingy.

How can i find out if a spiderweb contains information?

How can i find out if a house contains information?

Start clarifying, or stop talking.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:50 AM on May 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:59 AM on November 25, 2009 :
Anyway, if we're talking about something measurable, they lose. Gene duplication clearly adds to that information. Yes, Lester. If you repeat a piece of information you get extra information (if by "information" you mean anything measurable -i.e. real-).


Oh Wisp, I don't think you're unaware of what you're trying to slide past us here. Information does not amount to 'what is measurable' or 'what is real' and I believe that you are quite aware of that fact or else you are being 'wilfully blind' as evolutionist supporters are prone to being.


Right, "information" is NOT measurable or real, yet you want us to believe that it cannot increase via natural means and had ot have come from a mind.

Do you have any idea how idiotic you appear sometimes?

If I write "I can see" over and over again on ten pages of paper, it does not amount to ten pages of information. It amounts to a small piece of information that tells you 'I can see.' and that is all.

And if a gene expresses 10 times what is normally does, do you think there is no functional consequence?

This why YEC/ID "informaiton" arguments are naive garbage - you people truly do think genomes operate just like the english language or computer code or something.

Incredible...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:43 PM on May 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I had forgotten that. One of Lester's golden moments. The very thing whose increase he demands from us isn't measurable or real.

Priceless.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:39 PM on May 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:07 AM on May 20, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if a gene expresses 10 times what is normally does, do you think there is no functional consequence?


Functional consequence perhaps –but no new information.

This why YEC/ID "informaiton" arguments are naive garbage - you people truly do think genomes operate just like the english language or computer code or something.


Yes we do believe that. It is called complex specified information and it is not only creationists that have recognized it so don’t use that as your excuse to avoid it



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:18 AM on May 20, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.