Total Posts:274|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution--the science says no.

JSK
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:23:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

1) How could an independent observer know if information were not produced by an intelligent mind?
2) By your argument, what produces the information inside an intelligent mind, which causes the mind to be intelligent rather than stupid? Another intelligent mind?
3) Please cite the peer reviewed scientific paper showing the mechanism by which intelligence produces information, and the experiments showing it impossible to produce any other way.
4) Finally, to show that you understand what information is and are not talking out of your hat, please cite a best-practice scientific definition of information, and explain to us whether science holds information to be semantic (i.e. meaningful) or only syntactic (i.e. structured.)

Please do not post another assertion on this topic unless and until you have answered these questions thoroughly. Because if there are questions here you can't answer, you are in fact talking unscientific tosh.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:46:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality,

Natural selection selects the random mutations that are positive and removes the ones that are negative from the gene pool. So evolution is not completely random.

since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

How do you know this? We have seen bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:47:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 9:23:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

1) How could an independent observer know if information were not produced by an intelligent mind?
2) By your argument, what produces the information inside an intelligent mind, which causes the mind to be intelligent rather than stupid? Another intelligent mind?
3) Please cite the peer reviewed scientific paper showing the mechanism by which intelligence produces information, and the experiments showing it impossible to produce any other way.

Please cite an experiment that shows *anything* is impossible to produce any other way. Please cite the experiment that shows gravity cannot be produced without mass, for instance.

I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence. That's what information is. Don't know how many times I've pointed this out to you evos (I guess half the fun is watching certain people be congenitally unable/unwilling to grasp a concept) - the evolution argument has to be that DNA only has the appearance of information, just as life has the appearance of design. The basic argument of the evolutionist is (and Dawkins has admitted as much), "You gonna believe me, or your own two eyes?"
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:47:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 9:23:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

1) How could an independent observer know if information were not produced by an intelligent mind?
2) By your argument, what produces the information inside an intelligent mind, which causes the mind to be intelligent rather than stupid? Another intelligent mind?
3) Please cite the peer reviewed scientific paper showing the mechanism by which intelligence produces information, and the experiments showing it impossible to produce any other way.

Please cite an experiment that shows *anything* is impossible to produce any other way.
That's correct, V. That one was a rhetorical question. My implication is that saying something can only be achieved in one way and not some other as-yet unobserved way isn't very scientific to start with.

But all my questions made this point in various ways. Our Original Poster has made the arguments of an arm-waving ignoramus, and ought not to post opinion on this topic, but rather should post questions about what science, information and intelligence are.

Please cite the experiment that shows gravity cannot be produced without mass, for instance.
Indeed. We are agreed on this point, if not necessarily on its import.

I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
Defined where, when, by whom? Produced how, verified how? Citation please.

We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year, and has worked largely unchanged in all STEM disciplines across that period, including all the information processing used in astronomy, , geoscience, acoustics like sonar and ultrasound, cryptography, cybernetics, and modern music and theatrical production.

But that's not it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:47:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 9:23:12 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

1) How could an independent observer know if information were not produced by an intelligent mind?
2) By your argument, what produces the information inside an intelligent mind, which causes the mind to be intelligent rather than stupid? Another intelligent mind?
3) Please cite the peer reviewed scientific paper showing the mechanism by which intelligence produces information, and the experiments showing it impossible to produce any other way.

Please cite an experiment that shows *anything* is impossible to produce any other way. Please cite the experiment that shows gravity cannot be produced without mass, for instance.

I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence. That's what information is. Don't know how many times I've pointed this out to you evos (I guess half the fun is watching certain people be congenitally unable/unwilling to grasp a concept) - the evolution argument has to be that DNA only has the appearance of information, just as life has the appearance of design. The basic argument of the evolutionist is (and Dawkins has admitted as much), "You gonna believe me, or your own two eyes?"

Firstly, the OP stated information can only come from intelligence; so I think Ruv is just asking for data to support that claim. I"m very glad that you completely agree with that sentiment, even though you"ve repeatedly contradicted it in other threads when talking about information.

Secondly, you are free to define information as "something created by intelligence" as one of it"s defining properties. However, what this means you have to do, is on order to show ANYTHING contains "information", you have to show that it was created by intelligence.

That, however, is only your definition; one of the many definitions you use interchangeably.

Importantly, though, the most important point is that if you can"t show DNA was created by intelligence, then you cannot show it has the defining property of information and so therefore, you CANNOT make the claim DNA contains information by your definition.

What you can do, is use your definition to setup your premise; and then show that DNA contains "regular" information, which does not have the requirement of being created by intelligence. This is just equivocation between two definitions, and the only thing it shows, is a failure of basic logic.

I've got a question that will stump you; while it's nice for you to add another item to things that "Things V3nesel asserts that evolution definitely cannot do"; it would be nice to actually have a "why" to back it up, rather than just because you say so.

Whatever flaky and changing definition of "information" you have, what is pretty clear is that two clearly different animals differ primarily only in the combination and patterns of the genetic bases in their DNA. That"s what makes two animals different.

Some of these differences are functional, e.g: one animal has a combination of genetic bases that performs a new biological function or produces a new protein, others are regulatory, in that they modify when a biological function occurs, or when a protein is produced. Some do absolutely nothing.

Importantly, when DNA copies itself, it can duplicate AND modify sections of DNA.

So, given this please tell me:

1.) Why a system that duplicates AND modifies DNA cannot possibly end up producing a duplicate/modified section of DNA or an existing protein that performs a function within an organism that it did not perform before.

2.) Why such a process operating over millions of generations of creatures, driven by natural selection and genetic drift couldn"t cumulatively produce two groups of organisms with DNA differences akin to what we see between two groups of animals today.

3.) How can you distinguish between the genetic differences between two distinct types of real organisms, and the genetic differences that could be accounted for by (1) and (2).
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:27:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
Defined where, when, by whom? Produced how, verified how? Citation please.


You don't verify a definition. Definitions are right, by definition. You define them.

We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year,

What are you referring to? Are you thinking of "information theory", perhaps, which does not attempt to actually define information. Part of the genius of information theory is that it gives us tools to measure information without knowing what it is.

The concept of information, and the word, have been around for far longer than 48 years, obviously. This seems to be one of the nasty side effects of evolutionary thinking - people lose the ability to think broadly, to work at the abstract level.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:42:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:27:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
Defined where, when, by whom? Produced how, verified how? Citation please.


You don't verify a definition. Definitions are right, by definition. You define them.

We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year,

What are you referring to? Are you thinking of "information theory", perhaps, which does not attempt to actually define information. Part of the genius of information theory is that it gives us tools to measure information without knowing what it is.

The concept of information, and the word, have been around for far longer than 48 years, obviously. This seems to be one of the nasty side effects of evolutionary thinking - people lose the ability to think broadly, to work at the abstract level.

V3nesls uncertainty principle:

It is impossible to both define what his "information" is AND logically demonstrate that DNA contains "information" using that same definition at the same time.

Or Perhaps V3nesls cat: DNA both has and hasn't got information in it, depending on which definition of information he uses at various places in his post!

Come on V; why don't you actually talk specifics for a change.

DNA produces function based on the arrangement of base pairs. If you have a sequence of DNA that has a particular function, and then over multiple generations, through a combination of duplication and mutation events that change that sequence of base pairs and it now has a different function:

a) is that new "information"?

b) if it not new information; if this process is repeated over multiple millions of generations to the point where you have substantially different and new functions between the start and stop genomes; do you even need new information to be produced?
Truthfuls
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:27:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
Defined where, when, by whom? Produced how, verified how? Citation please.
You don't verify a definition. Definitions are right, by definition. You define them.
What a pity you don't understand how science does definitions then, and the kind of validation that goes into their acceptance.

We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year,
Are you thinking of "information theory", perhaps, which does not attempt to actually define information.
Truly? So, if Shannon's information theory defined information as an ordered sequence of symbols (i.e patterns of repeated signals) from an alphabet (a catalogue of repeated patterns) received over a channel (i.e. a medium that orders its signals), is that:
a) not a true definition, because linguistic heritage trumps scientific precision;
b) accidental, because you believe Shannon didn't mean to say that;
c) irrelevant, because information theory only applies to human communications, and not (for example) to the spectral frequencies of stars; or
d) invalid for unspecified reasons, because it doesn't appeal to your prejudices?

Part of the genius of information theory is that it gives us tools to measure information without knowing what it is.
Perhaps you're conflating information (a syntax of patterns) with semantics (possible meanings that may be ascribed.)

By 'perhaps', I'm not saying perhaps you're doing it, because unquestionably you are. My 'perhaps' is more meant to mean 'perhaps you'll cease your dishonesty and admit that your conflation was deliberate.'

The concept of information, and the word, have been around for far longer than 48 years, obviously.
Perhaps you'll acknowledge that a linguistic definition of anything is irrelevant to a scientific definition, and admit you knew this when you posted your nonsense about information being 'defined' (under some irrelevant and uncited linguistic tradition) to be the product of an intelligent mind.

This seems to be one of the nasty side effects of evolutionary thinking - people lose the ability to think broadly, to work at the abstract level.
A nasty side-effect of being a technician rather than a scientist is that technicians are trained to use whatever tools they have to produce whatever they're told to, but not to evaluate their bias or ignorance.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:49:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch.

Another creationist oaf into the fray. In a sense every fossil is a transitional form since evolution is a continuous process. That said, I guess this list must be a figment of my imagination. Lol

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

You are entitled to your own ignorant opinions but not to your own facts.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:11:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:27:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
Defined where, when, by whom? Produced how, verified how? Citation please.
You don't verify a definition. Definitions are right, by definition. You define them.
What a pity you don't understand how science does definitions then, and the kind of validation that goes into their acceptance.

We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year,
Are you thinking of "information theory", perhaps, which does not attempt to actually define information.
Truly? So, if Shannon's information theory defined information as an ordered sequence of symbols (i.e patterns of repeated signals) from an alphabet (a catalogue of repeated patterns) received over a channel (i.e. a medium that orders its signals), is that:
a) not a true definition, because linguistic heritage trumps scientific precision;
b) accidental, because you believe Shannon didn't mean to say that;
c) irrelevant, because information theory only applies to human communications, and not (for example) to the spectral frequencies of stars; or
d) invalid for unspecified reasons, because it doesn't appeal to your prejudices?

Part of the genius of information theory is that it gives us tools to measure information without knowing what it is.
Perhaps you're conflating information (a syntax of patterns) with semantics (possible meanings that may be ascribed.)

By 'perhaps', I'm not saying perhaps you're doing it, because unquestionably you are. My 'perhaps' is more meant to mean 'perhaps you'll cease your dishonesty and admit that your conflation was deliberate.'

The concept of information, and the word, have been around for far longer than 48 years, obviously.
Perhaps you'll acknowledge that a linguistic definition of anything is irrelevant to a scientific definition, and admit you knew this when you posted your nonsense about information being 'defined' (under some irrelevant and uncited linguistic tradition) to be the product of an intelligent mind.

This seems to be one of the nasty side effects of evolutionary thinking - people lose the ability to think broadly, to work at the abstract level.
A nasty side-effect of being a technician rather than a scientist is that technicians are trained to use whatever tools they have to produce whatever they're told to, but not to evaluate their bias or ignorance.

As an example of Shannon's definition of information, consider the words "house" and "wxjkz". Store each as a plain text file on your computer, and each file will be 5 bytes. From an information-theoretical point of view, both words have the same information content: 5 bytes. The fact that one word has meaning to intelligent beings and the other does not plays no role whatsoever.

If you want to define information in some other way, some way that accounts for meaning, then good luck coming up with a rigorous mathematical measure of meaning. Claude Shannon wisely avoided tackling the issue. Many others have tried and failed.

Creationists who argue from a flawed conception of information will often go on to argue that information increase violates the second law of thermodynamics, as if Shannon entropy were the same as thermodynamic entropy. They are two completely different metrics.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:40:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 5:11:58 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:27:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:45:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I guess I should go ahead and point out now, since this is guaranteed to be a non-intelligent thread - information is defined as the product of intelligence.
We have a very good definition of information, V. It's forty-eight years old this year,
Are you thinking of "information theory", perhaps, which does not attempt to actually define information.
Shannon's information theory defined information as an ordered sequence of symbols (i.e patterns of repeated signals) from an alphabet (a catalogue of repeated patterns) received over a channel

Part of the genius of information theory is that it gives us tools to measure information without knowing what it is.
Perhaps you're conflating information (a syntax of patterns) with semantics (possible meanings that may be ascribed.)

The concept of information, and the word, have been around for far longer than 48 years, obviously.
Perhaps you'll acknowledge that a linguistic definition of anything is irrelevant to a scientific definition.

As an example of Shannon's definition of information, consider the words "house" and "wxjkz". Store each as a plain text file on your computer, and each file will be 5 bytes. From an information-theoretical point of view, both words have the same information content: 5 bytes. The fact that one word has meaning to intelligent beings and the other does not plays no role whatsoever.
Exactly, Stronn. The ascription of meaning is a whole separate matter, but still isn't necessarily the product of intelligence at source.

Consider a spectrographic analysis of a star, for example. Unquestionably, the frequency distributions have meaning to an astronomical observer -- they reflect spectral signatures of the elements in the star, but it'd be a brave philosopher (and no credible scientist) who'd argue that the star was 'trying to tell them what it was made of'.

Or consider astrologers, constantly seeking to ascribe meaning from 'star signs' construed culturally from 'constellations' -- all of which have only subjective meaning in the first place.

In one case we have objective meaning construed at destination but not at source. In another, we meaning construed only at destination, and subjective to boot.

I'd love to see a creationist deal with the whole question of information and intelligence, and not just their cherry-picked, appeal-to-linguistic-authority slice of rhetorical souffle.

But that would -- ahem -- require more intelligence than such information normally sees at source.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:03:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
A nasty side-effect of being a technician rather than a scientist is that technicians are trained to use whatever tools they have to produce whatever they're told to, but not to evaluate their bias or ignorance.

I'm not a technician, but I get it - I challenged your manhood now you challenge mine. I'm trying to learn to be more diplomatic, maybe I'll try again with you sometime on another thread.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 5:11:58 AM, Stronn wrote:
...

If you want to define information in some other way, some way that accounts for meaning, then good luck coming up with a rigorous mathematical measure of meaning. Claude Shannon wisely avoided tackling the issue.

But Ruv seems to think he did define it. You two want to wrassle that out?

Many others have tried and failed.


And yet information is a concept that can be grasped by grammar school children, though, like time, they have no idea just how tricky it actually is. But information is one of those things, we all know what it is at an abstract level, if we're not in the midst of trying to argue universal common descent at the time.

Creationists who argue from a flawed conception of information

Our concept is the simple and common understanding of information. You guys only find it difficult because you're trying to find a way to prove it isn't information but just walks, talks, and squawks like information. And when you try to deny information while still keeping the term - that can cause a mind to blow a gasket.

...will often go on to argue that information increase violates the second law of thermodynamics, as if Shannon entropy were the same as thermodynamic entropy. They are two completely different metrics.

You've never actually heard anybody make that argument, have you? And they are not really completely different - Shannon's definition is a deliberate irony - the irremovable usefulness that is put there on purpose vs the irremovable, unusable garbage heat of the cosmos.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:19:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:56:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/15/2016 5:11:58 AM, Stronn wrote:
...

If you want to define information in some other way, some way that accounts for meaning, then good luck coming up with a rigorous mathematical measure of meaning. Claude Shannon wisely avoided tackling the issue.

But Ruv seems to think he did define it. You two want to wrassle that out?

Many others have tried and failed.


And yet information is a concept that can be grasped by grammar school children, though, like time, they have no idea just how tricky it actually is. But information is one of those things, we all know what it is at an abstract level, if we're not in the midst of trying to argue universal common descent at the time.

DNA produces function based on the arrangement of base pairs. If you have a sequence of DNA that has a particular function, and then over multiple generations, through a combination of duplication and mutation events that change that sequence of base pairs and it now has a different function:

a) is that new "information"?

b) if it not new information; if this process is repeated over multiple millions of generations to the point where you have substantially different and new functions between the start and stop genomes; do you even need new information to be produced?

c) What part of that sequence of base pairs or it's output is "information"?

d) Why does having a sequence of base pairs that produces a function require "intelligence", what property does it have that cannot be produced naturally?

Yes; information is an abstract term. You never go so far as to actually explain why information requires intelligence, you just define it so and don't actually provide a logical argument as to why DNA actually contains it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:04:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:03:26 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
A nasty side-effect of being a technician rather than a scientist is that technicians are trained to use whatever tools they have to produce whatever they're told to, but not to evaluate their bias or ignorance.

I'm not a technician, but I get it - I challenged your manhood now you challenge mine.
No, regrettably I was serious.

In case, you're not aware, V: you entered this thread not understanding that scientific definitions aren't arbitrary and do see validation; offered a scientifically invalid definition of information based on an unrelated linguistic tradition; inferred an intelligent source from meaningful information when that can be disproved trivially; and relegated a slew of stiff rebuttals to a contest of egos instead of acknowledging the errors that were being rebutted.

So, bias and ignorance are what I gleaned from that.

I'm trying to learn to be more diplomatic,
It may help in forums in general, but is there a diplomatic way to tell scientific falsehoods, sneer at well-tested scientific results, and insult scientists for their supposed dishonesty, ignorance and error, while never admitting one's own?

If not, then polite language won't hide flagrant disrespect, V. That's what might be called 'putting lipstick on a pig'. :)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:05:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 2:04:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...

I'm trying to learn to be more diplomatic,
It may help in forums in general, but is there a diplomatic way to tell scientific falsehoods, sneer at well-tested scientific results, and insult scientists for their supposed dishonesty, ignorance and error, while never admitting one's own?


I'm not doing that. Dude, you're not clear on some basic concepts of logic. You're confusing the arbitrary definition of a term with the concept the term is defined to represent.

Information is an abstract concept. It's an intelligence concept. It belongs only to the world of the sentient. Of late we often use the term as a shorthand for the means of encoding information, but information itself remains what it has always been.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 1:08:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:03:26 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:50:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
A nasty side-effect of being a technician rather than a scientist is that technicians are trained to use whatever tools they have to produce whatever they're told to, but not to evaluate their bias or ignorance.

I'm not a technician, but I get it - I challenged your manhood now you challenge mine.

LOL. Real men don't need to deny facts with ignorance and bias as their tools.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:48:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information. This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Lets pretend that it is an established fact that order can only be created by intelligence.

How does that disprove evolution? The assumption seems to be that if there is a creative force in the universe, that it automatically proves <insert your religion here> is true.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:57:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils found for your perusal:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 11:56:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 6:57:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils found for your perusal:


If transitional fossils prove evolution, then by the same logic, information in the DNA proves design. Same logic: assume your interpretation of data as a starting point and then draw a conclusion from your assumption.

So, quite the conundrum, eh? The data proves two different things by your logic.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:33:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 11:56:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/16/2016 6:57:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils found for your perusal:


If transitional fossils prove evolution, then by the same logic, information in the DNA proves design. Same logic: assume your interpretation of data as a starting point and then draw a conclusion from your assumption.

So, quite the conundrum, eh? The data proves two different things by your logic.

Well, considering you define information as requiring intelligence, then say DNA has information so obviously is formed by intelligence, even though you never show it actually has your information, and when asked specific questions about the nature of the information with DNA you ignore it and simply assert that it's obvious; as if such banal insanity is either intelligent or scientific: the information argument is wholly circular.

Transitional forms, are a prediction of evolution; that life must progress through stages unlike they are now, and MUST have specific collections of traits, and sometimes even the specific times they were found. Considering there is no logical or practical reason why one should find a part dinosaur part bird, half fish, half amphibian, a whale with a blow hole halfway up its skull, or a collection of ever more human like species other than descent; and given that the specific prediction was made before any such forms were found ; and such species must have existed if evolution were true; it's clear which of the two of us are assuming our own conclusion...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:58:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 12:33:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/18/2016 11:56:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/16/2016 6:57:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils found for your perusal:


If transitional fossils prove evolution, then by the same logic, information in the DNA proves design. Same logic: assume your interpretation of data as a starting point and then draw a conclusion from your assumption.

So, quite the conundrum, eh? The data proves two different things by your logic.

Well, considering you define information as requiring intelligence, then say DNA has information so obviously is formed by intelligence, even though you never show it actually has your information, and when asked specific questions about the nature of the information with DNA you ignore it and simply assert that it's obvious; as if such banal insanity is either intelligent or scientific: the information argument is wholly circular.

Transitional forms, are a prediction of evolution; that life must progress through stages unlike they are now, and MUST have specific collections of traits, and sometimes even the specific times they were found. Considering there is no logical or practical reason why one should find a part dinosaur part bird, half fish, half amphibian, a whale with a blow hole halfway up its skull, or a collection of ever more human like species other than descent; and given that the specific prediction was made before any such forms were found ; and such species must have existed if evolution were true; it's clear which of the two of us are assuming our own conclusion...

You know what's kind of interesting? Your first paragraph, where you say the information model is circular - it's a pretty coherent paragraph. One can read it easily and get the point.

But then when you attempt to say that transitional fossils are somehow not the exact same circular logic, your blather mode is on full display. I have some idea what you mean, but only from having sported with you for so long. For your own sake, you ought to try and make that 2nd paragraph into a clear statement of some sort. Write the kind of paragraph that wouldn't make your English composition teacher pine for retirement. See if your jumble of thoughts actually can be reduced to clear logic.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:58:56 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/18/2016 12:33:13 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/18/2016 11:56:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/16/2016 6:57:32 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:40:27 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:53:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:18:51 AM, JSK wrote:
Evolution says that random noise can become coherent information.

Does it really? Lol.

This contradicts reality, since information can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Nice assertion. Do you have any more?

Evolution is ridiculous and pure drivel. If the TOE were true, then we would see a lot of transitional fossils. This is not the case; in the fossil record, we find none of them--zip, nada, zilch. Your laughing at this creationist doesn't change that fact.

Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils found for your perusal:


If transitional fossils prove evolution, then by the same logic, information in the DNA proves design. Same logic: assume your interpretation of data as a starting point and then draw a conclusion from your assumption.

So, quite the conundrum, eh? The data proves two different things by your logic.

Well, considering you define information as requiring intelligence, then say DNA has information so obviously is formed by intelligence, even though you never show it actually has your information, and when asked specific questions about the nature of the information with DNA you ignore it and simply assert that it's obvious; as if such banal insanity is either intelligent or scientific: the information argument is wholly circular.

Transitional forms, are a prediction of evolution; that life must progress through stages unlike they are now, and MUST have specific collections of traits, and sometimes even the specific times they were found. Considering there is no logical or practical reason why one should find a part dinosaur part bird, half fish, half amphibian, a whale with a blow hole halfway up its skull, or a collection of ever more human like species other than descent; and given that the specific prediction was made before any such forms were found ; and such species must have existed if evolution were true; it's clear which of the two of us are assuming our own conclusion...

You know what's kind of interesting? Your first paragraph, where you say the information model is circular - it's a pretty coherent paragraph. One can read it easily and get the point.

But then when you attempt to say that transitional fossils are somehow not the exact same circular logic, your blather mode is on full display. I have some idea what you mean, but only from having sported with you for so long. For your own sake, you ought to try and make that 2nd paragraph into a clear statement of some sort. Write the kind of paragraph that wouldn't make your English composition teacher pine for retirement. See if your jumble of thoughts actually can be reduced to clear logic.

Okay, so rather than deal with anything I said, you just tell me it's rambling! Nice to see the intellectually honest to a fault guy is staying true to form and ignoring the point. Although I am glad you seem to acknowledge your position is indeed circular.

Let's rephrase.

Darwin made a specific prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and made a specific claim of what would be found; a bird with infused wing fingers. Also for evolution to be true, it predicts there must have been very specific forms that interconnect disparate lineages must exist that bridge those gaps.

We've found hundreds that meet that criteria. And there is no reason to expect any such forms to exist other than descent, and certainly not to discover composite forms matching descendant patterns.

Why is that circular?

It's theory->prediction->validation.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 5:12:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:51:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
....

Okay, so rather than deal with anything I said, you just tell me it's rambling! Nice to see the intellectually honest to a fault guy is staying true to form and ignoring the point. Although I am glad you seem to acknowledge your position is indeed circular.


The statement I made in that post is circular. My position is, of course, a beacon of clear thinking, one that less egotistical and insecure men might learn from.

Let's rephrase.

Darwin made a specific prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and made a specific claim of what would be found; a bird with infused wing fingers. Also for evolution to be true, it predicts there must have been very specific forms that interconnect disparate lineages must exist that bridge those gaps.


Yes, how many times have I refuted this, Ram? If Zeus pulls the sun across the sky, and Zeus is a very meticulous god, then I predict that we will have the same amount of daylight tomorrow as today. And tomorrow - voila! I am a genius. My completely false explanation of the sun is nevertheless predictive. And then you'll note that Zeus gets a little faster as the summer wears on, the days get shorter, and then it gets cold. You watch this fall, if I'm not right on in that prediction.

Merely finding that a pattern can be extrapolated beyond the original data does next to nothing to demonstrate that your explanation of the pattern is the one and only valid one.

... And there is no reason to expect any such forms to exist other than descent, and certainly not to discover composite forms matching descendant patterns.


Pure bs. Of course a spectrum of forms is fully compatible with system level adaptation. Make a wide variety of forms and let the ones that fit best survive as the environment changes.

Why is that circular?

It's theory->prediction->validation.

Because you forgot the first step, the original observation. (and it's not 'validation', either, but merely observation, as below) If you only have the following, you don't have the scientific method:

observation -> hypothesis -> prediction -> confirming observation

What you're not understanding is that Darwin made his hypothesis based on observation of the fossil record and the "same only different" that runs throughout the extant ecosystem. What is needed is way to test for evolution proper - namely, random mutation + selection. You have to show that these two things can indeed produce entirely new things. And that, of course, has not been done. Nothing remotely close to a shadow of a beginning of showing that has been done. But veritable mountains of observable and repeatable experiment show how the DNA preserves the gross form of a species while allowing for statistically bounded variation.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:32:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
What are the statistical bounds, and what stops them accumulating to produce any arbitrary amount of difference over many generations?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:39:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:32:29 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the statistical bounds, and what stops them accumulating to produce any arbitrary amount of difference over many generations?

Do you know what 'statistically bounded' means? It means there are no hard limits, but outliers get ever more rare. So think of the bell curve of IQ as an example. The crucial point here is that the center, the average IQ, does not change very much.

When it comes to DNA, what prevents 'any arbitrary amount of difference' is death, sterility, or extinction. If you have too many mutations, or just one of the wrong type, you'll be still born. Other mutations will prevent you from reproducing, either directly or indirectly. And, of course, whole species can go extinct. Just think real world here - any system can tolerate a certain amount of disruption, but too much and the system fails. The train goes off the rails. And yes, life is on rails. The rails are called 'DNA'.

This system failure is observed, and in abundance. That's the hard data that we actually have. The idea of small changes accumulating to produce entirely new things - that is 100% speculation.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:38:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:39:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/18/2016 9:32:29 PM, keithprosser wrote:
What are the statistical bounds, and what stops them accumulating to produce any arbitrary amount of difference over many generations?

Do you know what 'statistically bounded' means? It means there are no hard limits, but outliers get ever more rare. So think of the bell curve of IQ as an example. The crucial point here is that the center, the average IQ, does not change very much.

When it comes to DNA, what prevents 'any arbitrary amount of difference' is death, sterility, or extinction. If you have too many mutations, or just one of the wrong type, you'll be still born. Other mutations will prevent you from reproducing, either directly or indirectly. And, of course, whole species can go extinct. Just think real world here - any system can tolerate a certain amount of disruption, but too much and the system fails. The train goes off the rails. And yes, life is on rails. The rails are called 'DNA'.

This system failure is observed, and in abundance. That's the hard data that we actually have. The idea of small changes accumulating to produce entirely new things - that is 100% speculation.

Cool. Which means this question should be easy to answer; How many silent mutations is too many, and starts causing this failure you speak of?