Jump to content


The Descent Of Man


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#81 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 25 June 2009 - 06:51 PM

Hi Bruce, are you making an argument from incredulity while soaring past the content of my post? Your post seems more like a standalone argument than a reply. As well, I see a lot complicated interactions symbolized interactions, but unless you define information, I can't say. In any event, it isn't language we're observing, and it isn't trying to be read by us. It is only possible for it to be information in the realm of chemistry, and there is it action and reaction. You act as though there is intent to this, but you have not demonstrated it. You presume to show that it is information because it is complicated, but that is not a requisite for information.

If I've misunderstood you, then I'm sorry.

#82 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 June 2009 - 06:55 PM

That's right, as soon as you come to a point where you can't, just can't, imagine how something happened, that would be a really good stopping point for your research.  That would be an excellent place to say, well, this is where we can't go any further, and therefore the only conclusion we can reach is . . . . wait for it . . . . God did it!

View Post

This is such a distortion. Why does believing God keep a person's curiosity down? Confusing mechanism and agency is a common distortion foisted on those that follow the evolutionary clergy. Curiosity hasn't stop for me. I love marveling at how God has done things. I guess these straw men are to be expected among evolutionists who really don't care to understand creationists.

#83 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 25 June 2009 - 07:09 PM

This is such a distortion. Why does believing God keep a person's curiosity down? Confusing mechanism and agency is a common distortion foisted on those that follow the evolutionary clergy. Curiosity hasn't stop for me. I love marveling at how God has done things. I guess these straw men are to be expected among evolutionists who really don't care to understand creationists.

View Post


Well, thank goodness you explained that! Now I can go back to believing that Zeus is the agency who hurls the lightening bolts down from the clouds, even though I know the mechanism he uses is plain old static electricity!

:P

#84 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 June 2009 - 07:26 PM

Well, thank goodness you explained that!  Now I can go back to believing that Zeus is the agency who hurls the lightening bolts down from the clouds, even though I know the mechanism he uses is plain old static electricity!

View Post

It's up to you how obtuse you want to be.

Do you remember this:

Dear Universe,

Please allow all human beings to have the courage to dig deeper, to see through lies, and to continue searching for what is real and true.

Amen.

View Post

I know the "Dear Universe" and the "Amen" part were just added sarcasm but is the rest equally just insincere too?

You gave up when people were challenging your ideas on the CSI thread but now you've turned to treating people here like second rate citizens and I can only presume you're doing it because they dared to disagree with you.

I would love to see your most serious thoughts here but I'm starting to get the feeling you have an abundance of sarcasm and not much substance. It would be nice to see some real understanding take place.

I don't agree with the evolutionists here but I've been impressed with the level of self control and a respect that you might expect face to face but not on a forum. People here have been showing candor, seriousness and some playful but respectful banter. Would you care to join us?

Why don't you share the thoughts of Ken Miller on a new thread for us and stretch your legs at showing us how his ideas work?

#85 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 25 June 2009 - 07:26 PM

Hi Ibex,

I am having trouble understanding this with what I think I know.  Do you have links that could help me understand your position a little better? TIA

Bruce

View Post


I googled around, but it didn't do much good. Got a few references for the universe being in a low-entropy state, but there is little to be explained about what I said. It stands to plain reason that all the energy in the universe was once in nearly the same place (if you accept the BB) and that it could not diffuse any more than it already had, which wasn't much, or any. It also stands to reason that if you inflate the universe faster than total equilibrium can be achieved, you gain a system that will start increasing in entropy from a lower state of it. The universe gains the ability to do thermodynamic work. You cannot maintain an infinite time = infinite entropy if the system changes faster than the entropy can be maintained. I can try explaining this better, but I don't think it's already been done in a grand way on the internet (and by grand, I mean affording more than two sentences). Put most simply, there is no reason to believe the universe didn't always exist prior to the BB, but I don't personally think it did (I'm a fan of m-theory, where the universe is the left-over resonance from two colliding branes in an infinite 11-dimensional sea of them, but I realize that must sound even more like magic, and the math is waaaay beyond me), but I was just giving you examples for how the BB didn't violate the laws.

#86 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2009 - 08:41 PM

Why does believing God keep a person's curiosity down?...I love marveling at how God has done things.

View Post


Well the short answer is "it doesn't". And I think it's wonderful that you marvel at all the amazing things on this earth and beyond.

The problem isn't that God restricts curiosity, it's that nothing can be explained with God in the mix.

Perhaps an example will help illustrate it better.
In times past churches used to (and probably still do) get struck by lightning. If fact, they were usually the building that got struck more often than others. At the time people thought it was God showing his wrath for an unfaithful flock. They believed the answer was "God did it".

Since then we've learned much more about electricity and we now know that lighting will strike the tallest building, or whatever object happens to be highest. People used to build their churches to be the tallest buildings in the town, probably as a sign of their faith. The reason churches used to get struck so frequently wasn't because of God's wrath, but because of how lightning works.

The issue was, because they didn't understand how lightning worked they attributed it to God, and it turns out they were wrong. It was only when someone questioned whether or not it was God that true science could be done.

This is the potential problem. When people attribute these worldly wonders to God it stops the true reason from being found.

I hope this helps you to understand the atheists stance on why God can't be deemed an appropriate answer to scientific questions.

Regards,

Arch.

#87 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 June 2009 - 09:55 PM

I googled around, but it didn't do much good.  Got a few references for the universe being in a low-entropy state, but there is little to be explained about what I said.  It stands to plain reason that all the energy in the universe was once in nearly the same place (if you accept the BB) and that it could not diffuse any more than it already had, which wasn't much, or any.  It also stands to reason that if you inflate the universe faster than total equilibrium can be achieved, you gain a system that will start increasing in entropy from a lower state of it.  The universe gains the ability to do thermodynamic work.  You cannot maintain an infinite time = infinite entropy if the system changes faster than the entropy can be maintained.  I can try explaining this better, but I don't think it's already been done in a grand way on the internet (and by grand, I mean affording more than two sentences).  Put most simply, there is no reason to believe the universe didn't always exist prior to the BB, but I don't personally think it did (I'm a fan of m-theory, where the universe is the left-over resonance from two colliding branes in an infinite 11-dimensional sea of them, but I realize that must sound even more like magic, and the math is waaaay beyond me), but I was just giving you examples for how the BB didn't violate the laws.

View Post

You yourself say "The universe gains the ability to do thermodynamic work." Which would mean prior to that, the laws of thermodynamics did not apply. You "prove" a point, and then claim to have proven just the opposite.

One might ask what kind of "work" the bang itself was, but I doubt your private bang theory would be an improvement over any of the rest.

You might have come a little closer if you'd read the link Bruce V provided.

Hi Ibex,

I will answer you questions one at a time when I have time. Most of the information came from this book

History of the Universe

View Post

The laws of physics as they are presently understood that make up the so-called "Standard Model" break down as quantum cosmologists try to make sense of what the universe was like at this time, which is known as the "Planck Epoch," in which the laws of quantum gravity (gravity at subatomic scales) should have dominated. Since there is not yet an intact theory of quantum gravity, very little is understood about this time period in the universe's distant past.

The stuff's nonsensical enough to put one off, I'll grant.

And some of it might be easy for the casual reader to miss

This is because all of the electrons were still too energetic - too hot - to be bound to nuclei, and therefore were able to roam freely about. This means that photons - particles of light - could not move about freely, for they kept being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons.

This requires a different definition of heat. Standard science considers heat to be the motion of atoms - not subatomic particles. The definition they need would play havoc with electric studies, since current would be equated with heat. I think it is much better for science if the two terms remain distinct.

#88 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:45 AM

You  yourself say "The universe gains the ability to do thermodynamic work." Which would mean prior to that, the laws of thermodynamics did not apply. You "prove" a point, and then claim to have proven just the opposite.

One might ask what kind of "work" the bang itself was, but I doubt your private bang theory would be an improvement over any of the rest.

You might have come a little closer if you'd read the link Bruce V provided.

This requires a different definition of heat. Standard science considers heat to be the motion of atoms - not subatomic particles. The definition they need would play havoc with electric studies, since current would be equated with heat. I think it is much better for science if the two terms remain distinct.

View Post

Apologies, I meant that the universe was either at equilibrium or that the energy diffusion was undefined (in the divide by zero sense, in the case of a true singularity). It's true that I muddled the terms a little bit, but current (which will decay to heat in any resistant material) or heat, you cannot do work (which is the ability to transfer force over a distance) at maximum entropy, and there could be no undiffused systems with perfect uniformity. I have explained why the universe would not necessarily be at maximum entropy today even if it was eternal, under the constraints of thermodynamics, which was the argument leveled. If you want to argue that thermodynamics does not apply to a system without heat, even if it will decay to one, then be my guest, you will be exempting it from violating those laws, throttling your own objection, even if I don't agree with it. I may be conflating terms, but my definition of heat is a little more broad. Specifically because energy in transit from a high temperature object (colliding branes in my "pet" theory, patronize me if you like, I think it holds promise, but I'll give it up when they find out it's wrong) to a lower temperature object (the expanding universe) is called for. The good news is that I don't think there's an upward limit on how long the transit can take. For the record, I wasn't saying that the law popped into being, quite the contrary, I'm surprised you missed this.

#89 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:25 PM

That's right, as soon as you come to a point where you can't, just can't, imagine how something happened, that would be a really good stopping point for your research.  That would be an excellent place to say, well, this is where we can't go any further, and therefore the only conclusion we can reach is . . . . wait for it . . . . God did it!

Not only that, but we should also take all legitimate research evidence that casts doubts on God doing it, and call the resulting theory a fairytale.

View Post



Hi Judy,

We have been studying evolution rigorously for over 100 years. Where do you think it is based on the Koons test below?


Stage 0:  Just a concept - no proof. (my addition)

Stage 1. An alternative mechanism is proposed, random variation culled by natural selection, and preliminary evidence in favor of the new hypothesis is gathered and systematized.

Stage 2. In several paradigmatic cases, hypothetical Darwinistic pathways leading to actual adaptive forms are described in sufficient detail and with sufficient understanding of the underlying genetic and developmental processes that it seems virtually certain that these pathways represent genuine possibilities. These pathways must be possible, not only in the sense of involving no violation of physical or chemical laws, but also in the sense that every step in the path can be assigned an estimated probability that is sufficiently high for the joint probability of the entire pathway to be consistent with a reasonable belief that such a thing might really have happened.

Stage 3. For a significant number of hypothetical pathways of the kind described in stage two, we are able to verify that the pathway was probably actualized in history. New evidence from fossils and homologies is found that conforms to our specific expectations, based on the hypothetical pathways, and few if any instances of evidence are found that cannot readily be explained in terms of these pathways. Each hypothetical pathway describes a large number of intermediate steps, leading from some known ancestral form lacking the adaptation in question to some known form possessing it. Each step should be fully described at both the genetic and the morphological level: that is we should be specific about what mutations, lateral gene transfers, or other processes have occurred, and how the new genotype is expressed in morphology. For each step a hypothetical environment needs to be specified, and the tools of population genetics employed to show that the hypothetical new genotype would in fact be selected over its rivals in the hypothetical environment.

Stage 4. If nearly every case of apparent design has been successfully explained in Darwinian terms, and in each case we have found an overwhelming body of specific, confirming evidence, we are justified in treating Darwinism as established beyond a reasonable doubt.


I typed it from the book "Uncommon Decent"


The point is evolution hasn't proved much and is running on a tread mill: exerting a lot of effort and going no where. IMO evolution needs to open its doors to information theory which can be studied and tested. Science should be searching for truth where ever it is found.

Bruce

#90 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:49 PM

Hi Judy,

We have been studying evolution rigorously for over 100 years.  Where do you think it is based on the Koons test below?
I typed it from the book "Uncommon Decent"
The point is evolution hasn't proved much and is running on a tread mill:  exerting a lot of effort and going no where.  IMO evolution needs to open its doors to information theory which can be studied and tested. Science should be searching for truth where ever it is found.

Bruce

View Post


I'm not sure why you think the ToE is supposed to "prove" anything.

I think you've got it backwards. The ToE doesn't prove things. Things prove it.

#91 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 04:40 PM

I'm not sure why you think the ToE is supposed to "prove" anything.

I think you've got it backwards.  The ToE doesn't prove things.  Things prove it.

View Post


:blink:

Judy,

Where is evolution on the Koons test? Can you really state the things prove ToE. Because based on any objective scale ToE hasn't explained much. It has a terrible track record of pointing Scientist where to look. Here is a list of Darwin's failed predictions.

Interesting article:

What's Wrong With Religion?

Evolutionists say their theory is a fact, just like gravity. This may seem strange since the theory of evolution has so many scientific problems. The science, however, is not what is driving the conclusion. Evolution is proclaimed to be a fact because it is mandated by religious beliefs. That is, a strictly naturalistic origins narrative is mandated by beliefs about what God would and would not do. Elliott Sober's new paper is helpful because it explains the power and structure of this reasoning (though the paper does not explore the religious assumptions that have penetrated science).

But what's wrong with religious reasoning? Actually, nothing. The problem is not the fact that evolution entails theological premises. The problem is that evolutionists are in denial about it. It is fascinating to see evolutionists rely on powerful arguments (and Sober's work explains why the arguments are powerful) which are religious, and then insist their theory is strictly scientific. Evolutionists have metaphysical certainty, but then claim it is based merely on the conservative and tentative methods of modern science. They step outside of science and claim their theory is a fact on par with gravity, and then retreat back to science as if to legitimize their claim.

Religion drives science, and it matters.


Bruce

#92 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:17 PM

Bruce, a book does consist of chemicals, but it's chemistry we manipulated to communicate a message that no natural mechanic could respond to.  Light might reflect off the page, but it would never respond to the content of the message; it cannot be commanded.  If true communication requires intent, then there is no intent to communicate with us to be found in DNA, there is no message.  We can "read" it and predict the phenotype from the genotype, but it is not language, lest any system in nature with a feedback loop that we can interpret become language.  We can predict the weather and the gravitational interactions between objects, and it is a verifiable fact that all the operations of a cell are ongoing chemistry.  DNA seems like it should be read because we express chemistry with letters, but if gravity had an analogue, you would see that the mass of of B and C at positions 40,801,63 and 9,706,45 would influence objects H, I, and J, bringing J into contact with K, at some other arbitrary point.  All of this could be read and you could watch the universe give an output for an input, cause and effect the whole time.  The whole universe is constantly interacting with a "language" and the feedback is far more complex than what is seen in chemistry. Tell me what information is and we'll see what qualifies.  The code in DNA is not even as deep as the code of climate.  Our ability to understand, especially the lay person's, is what spawns exclusionary definitions where we say what counts as information (human writings, machine code, DNA), but not what information is.  "Do you see what it's going to do?  I know what it's going to do! It's written in the sky!"  "Do you see what it's going to do?  I know what it's going to do!  It's written in the DNA!"


View Post

Tell me what information is and we'll see what qualifies.


The reason I didn't answer this post is that it really isn't debated whether DNA has information. link.

Genes correspond to regions within DNA, a molecule composed of a chain of four different types of nucleotides—the sequence of these nucleotides is the genetic information organisms inherit.


As far as a definition of language: link

A language is a system for encoding information.


If you want more detailed

So one way of looking at languages is to see that it is the transmission of information.

This is how DNA code specifies which amino acid is required.

Posted Image

For more information. wiki

This is how exacting this genetic information process is.
(Sorry I got sidetracked below and not all of it applies to your post)


Fidelity in protein synthesis

The flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein constitutes the basis for cellular life. DNA replication, transcription and translation, the processes through which information transfer occurs, are the result of millions of years of evolution during which they have achieved levels of accuracy and speed that make modern life possible. All three processes have base complementarity at the core of their mechanisms. DNA replication and transcription both depend on complementarity of the incoming nucleotide to the DNA template, whereas translation depends on the complementarity of the anticodon of the incoming transfer RNA (tRNA) to the codon in the template messenger RNA (mRNA). Fidelity of genetic information transfer thus relies heavily on discrimination between complementary, Watson-Crick (and in a few cases wobble) base pairs and non-complementary ones.


Side note: Didn't that little comment about to evolution just warm your bosom? More importantly, did it contribute one whit to this article? This is how they just assume evolution and insert evolution randomly in papers. No proof needed, after a while it becomes funny -LOL

While the accuracy of DNA replication and transcription depend only on cognate base pair selection, translation depends on an additional, base-pairing-independent reaction that must be carried out with high specificity.  Each tRNA must be covalently attached to a specific amino acid – aminoacylated – preserving an unambiguous codon-amino acid correspondence known as the genetic code.  This reaction is carried out by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases specific for each amino acid and a corresponding group of tRNAs (isoacceptors).  These enzymes must therefore recognize two substrates: first, a group of tRNAs which share a collection of ‘identity elements’ and second, an amino acid that may be distinguished by small differences in side-chain properties.


Having one language or code is proof enough of design, but possessing the ability to translate one into another requires a language convention – something never observed to be a product of chance or natural law, but always known to be the result of intelligence: whether with two intelligent beings communicating, or interacting programs that were produced by intelligent agents. This should be crystal clear, but look how these authors explain it by just waving the evolutionary magic wand. They are discussing how these machines can distinguish between very similar amino acids. Watch the hocus pocus:

How do synthetases deal with this?  The aminoacylation reaction, which takes place at a site of the enzyme called the synthetic site, occurs in two steps.  First the amino acid is activated by adenylation (consuming ATP) and then it is transferred to the tRNA (releasing AMP).  Steric exclusion of amino acids with larger side-chains and recognition of specific properties of each amino acid generally make this synthetic site specific enough so that only the correct amino acid can be activated and transferred.  But amino acids having similar properties to and a smaller size than the cognate amino acid can be misactivated at frequencies that are too high to maintain an unambiguous code.  As a consequence, enzymes facing this problem have evolved a second active site, distinct from the synthetic site, called the editing site, where misactivated amino acids or misacylated tRNAs are hydrolyzed.



Did you catch that? Hocus Pocus. Here we have extremely accurate machines, but since there was a “need” for an “unambiguous code,” and some amino acids were so similar that mistakes leaked through, well – we are told, no problem– evolution to the rescue: they just “evolved” an editing site with the ability not only to distinguish threonine from valine and serine, but to send the imposters to the recycle bin. LOL, This article only makes sense if you insert the words intelligent design everywhere you see the words evolution. Once you get that evolution isn't proven but assumed it becomes very funny. I laughed with tears running down my cheek reading this article.


This is from your posting

The whole universe is constantly interacting with a "language" and the feedback is far more complex than what is seen in chemistry.... The code in DNA is not even as deep as the code of climate.


I don't think so.

#93 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 26 June 2009 - 09:02 PM

This is a total hijack to this topic. It is just a cool illustration.

View the Milky Way at 10 million light years from the Earth. Then move through space towards the Earth in successive orders of magnitude until you reach a tall oak tree just outside the buildings of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. After that, begin to move from the actual size of a leaf into a microscopic world that reveals leaf cell walls, the cell nucleus, chromatin, DNA and finally, into the subatomic universe of electrons and protons.


Secret Worlds: The Universe Within

#94 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:47 AM

Bruce, I'm not trying to be deliberately dense, but I didn't ask if genes had ever been referred to as information, and indeed they may be described as such, but I asked for a non-exclusionary definition of information. I wasn't attempting to say genes carry no information, but to separate that information from intent to communicate, which is colloquially inferred by "information". The information in genes is what they're going to do. It is only manifestly information as a pattern, or human knowledge of that pattern. Without a definition that will identify new forms of information as they become apparent, I'm reluctant to say DNA is especially information. I read your links, including the one to Dembski's thoroughly eviscerated theory (PDF), but I never found a universally applicable definition of information. The problem is that creationists can presently equate any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns with a message, or instruction. English is a language that is sometimes too free. Not that a semantic argument between us will do much good if a natural system capable of producing life is found, demonstrating the type of information which you class DNA/RNA under does not require intent. The intent is the crux of your argument, as I understand it. All else being equal, and my poor ability to dissect your meaning aside, if you cannot demonstrate intent, with a supernatural explanation not being inductively preferred to a natural one, you will lose. And if you're right, the creator intended Ebola and intestinal worms, and if you argue that these are unintentional, I'm free to argue that human intelligence is as well. After all, how will you query the intent of the creator, and how will science follow?

I agree that the evolution comment was spurious, and unsupported by the quoted section of the article, but it does hold contextual relevance to those who accept the theory. I doubt this is uncommon to any other branch of science.

I'll get to the rest, later.

#95 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 27 June 2009 - 12:09 PM

Bruce, I'm not trying to be deliberately dense, but I didn't ask if genes had ever been referred to as information, and indeed they may be described as such, but I asked for a non-exclusionary definition of information.  I wasn't attempting to say genes carry no information, but to separate that information from intent to communicate, which is colloquially inferred by "information".  The information in genes is what they're going to do.  It is only manifestly information as a pattern, or human knowledge of that pattern.  Without a definition that will identify new forms of information as they become apparent, I'm reluctant to say DNA is especially information.  I read your links, including the one to Dembski's thoroughly eviscerated theory (PDF), but I never found a universally applicable definition of information.  The problem is that creationists can presently equate any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns with a message, or instruction.  English is a language that is sometimes too free.  Not that a semantic argument between us will do much good if a natural system capable of producing life is found, demonstrating the type of information which you class DNA/RNA under does not require intent.  The intent is the crux of your argument, as I understand it.  All else being equal, and my poor ability to dissect your meaning aside, if you cannot demonstrate intent, with a supernatural explanation not being inductively preferred to a natural one, you will lose.  And if you're right, the creator intended Ebola and intestinal worms, and if you argue that these are unintentional, I'm free to argue that human intelligence is as well.  After all, how will you query the intent of the creator, and how will science follow?

I agree that the evolution comment was spurious, and unsupported by the quoted section of the article, but it does hold contextual relevance to those who accept the theory.  I doubt this is uncommon to any other branch of science.

I'll get to the rest, later.

View Post


Hi Ibex,

The following is from the book Signature of the cell. Chapter 4. It was heavily redacted and changed by me. Also, it is great book which you should pick up.

What is information:

Webster’s first definition of information is:

1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence


Information equals knowledge. DNA stores the know-how for building molecules in the cell. Yet since neither DNA nor the cellular machinery that receives its instruction set is a conscious agent, equating biological information with knowledge in this way doesn’t seem to fit.

But the Webster’s second definition of information does:

: The attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.


This definition does not require a conscious mind. For example, software contains a kind of information.

Shannon’s Information Theory:

Shannon developed a theory that could quantify the amount of information stored in or conveyed across a communication channel. He did this first by linking the concepts of information and uncertainty and then by linking these concepts to measure of probability.

According to Shannon, the amount of information conveyed (and the amount of uncertainty reduced) is a series of symbols or characters is inversely proportional to the probability of a particular event, symbol or character occurring. In other words, the greater the improbability, of probability any one being actualized, increases the amount of information that is transmitted.


What Shannon’ Theory can’t say:


Shannon’s’ theory did not, and could not, distinguish merely improbable sequences of symbols from those that conveyed a message or “produced a specific effect”-as Webster’s second definition puts it.

Consider two sequences of characters:

“Four score and seven years ago”
“Nenoen ytawoi jll sn mexhdx nnx”

One says something the other doesn’t yet they both have the same quantifiable amount of information according to Shannon. The key is the first statement performs a specific function and the other does not. That’s the catch. Shannon’s theory cannot distinguish functional or message-bearing sequences from random or useless ones. In can only measure the improbability of the sequence as a whole. Shannon’s theorem measures “the “information-carrying capacity,” as opposed to the functionally specified information or “information content,” of a sequence of characters or symbols.

Specified Information


Specified information has information content rather than information-carrying capacity (Shannon’s information)

Complex sequences exhibit irregular, nonrepeating arrangement that defies expression by a general law or computer algorithm whose purpose is to accomplish a specific task or mathematical operation is “Specified Information”. The opposite is a complex, yet simple, sequence with many repeating characters. For example, abcabcabcabcabc…, is a highly ordered yet simple sequence. In short, this sequence is compressible by a simple algorithm and carries very little information and does not accomplish a "specific task".

DNA –information:

So what kind of information does DNA contain? It contains both Shannon and specified information. DNA also contains information in the sense of Webster’ second definition: it contains “alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect.” Although DNA does not convey information that is received, understood, or used by a conscious mind, it does have information that is received and used by the cell’s machinery to build the structures critical to the maintenance of life. DNA displays a property-functional specificity-that transcends the merely mathematical formalism of Shannon’s theory.

Interesting quote:

Leslie Orgel was an origin of life Scientist who observers: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity; Crystals…fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers failed to qualify because they lack specificity.

Enjoy,

Bruce

#96 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 June 2009 - 02:18 PM

Well, thank goodness you explained that!  Now I can go back to believing that Zeus is the agency who hurls the lightening bolts down from the clouds, even though I know the mechanism he uses is plain old static electricity!

View Post


Or you can go back to believing nothing did nothing, and “POOF” here you are!!! Now that takes a lot of faith :o



I'm not sure why you think the ToE is supposed to "prove" anything.

I think you've got it backwards.  The ToE doesn't prove things.  Things prove it.

View Post


Whew, that settles it then. Since nothing has yet proven the model of evolution, we can now put it to bed (or put out the garbage, so to speak).

Next up, we need to get that rot out of the school curriculum and quit poisoning the minds of so many with it's propaganda and evolutheistic (a word I found at this forum, and have come to enjoy) religiosity.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users