Creationist argument about DNA and information

[hecd2]

Here's one of the problems. Daniel has a single non-negotiable definition of science which excludes all sciences that do not rely on laboratory testing. In other words, Daniel's definition, with which he tries to browbeat us, excludes from the field of science, inter alia: astronomy, cosmology, planetary sciences, solar sciences, geology, palaeo-biology, palaeontology, palaeo-oceanography and palaeo-climatology, and evolutionary biology. It is obvious that his definition is entirely self-serving.

The problem he has is that his is a private definition, which, while describing one process by which science can be done, excludes many other methods that fall quite properly into science. The tens of thousands of scientists working in the relevant departments of hundreds of science faculties, including in the most influential and prestigious institutions in the world, would disagree with his overly narrow definition. The definition of science in the dictionaries disagree with his overly narrow definition. The organisations that fund scientific endeavour do not agree with his overly narrow definition. In fact, everyone who matters, disagrees with the scope of his definition and no-one who matters is now or in the future going to take a blind bit of notice of Daniel's crackpot YEC notion that the perfectly legitimate fields of science listed above are not in fact science.

What Daniel has to do (and what he won't do) to be taken seriously, is to justify in an adult manner using reasonable arguments, why his private definition should trump the widely accepted definition, which latter includes those branches of science that he seeks to exclude.

While Daniel continues to use a definition of science that improperly limits its scope, there is no hope of sensible dialogue with him (even if his style was not as it is).

 

[Son of Inigo]

That's not true. It's known, for instance, that the Bristlecone Pine (one of the most longest-lived species of tree) has both double rings and missing rings in different years.

Here's a random website discussing the issue and ways to address it:
http://www.conifers.org/topics/oldest.htm

Ahh, but did you personally observe that?

Seriously, thank you for that information and for keeping the 'E' in ISF!

I am going to pull the "that I am aware of" card I played in my previous post.

But even given this new information, I can still reliably scientifically date the tree in question to approximately 200 years old, can I not? Radio carbon dating or other methods can confirm this approximation, right?

This is precisely why I read these forums, to learn.

 

[hecd2]

But even given this new information, I can still reliably scientifically date the tree in question to approximately 200 years old, can I not? Radio carbon dating or other methods can confirm this approximation, right?

This is precisely why I read these forums, to learn.

Actually, I think carbon dating is calibrated using tree-ring counts (amongst other methods).

 

[AdamSK]

But even given this new information, I can still reliably scientifically date the tree in question to approximately 200 years old, can I not? Radio carbon dating or other methods can confirm this approximation, right?

My layman's understanding is that double-rings can be detected by microanalysis, and that missing rings occur less than 5% of the time. So, yes, I presume these issues only represent a plus or minus five percent error.

EDIT: Ideally, they cross-reference the ring patterns with trees that don't appear to have these same phenomena.

 

[Daniel]

Here's one of the problems.

Here's your biggest problem EXPOSED on these threads...

You wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Don't fret though, your cohorts provide you plenty of company.

You bastardize "Science", use it as a "Punch-Line", and clumsily staple it to "a priori" adherence's to ludicrous fairytales as some sorta pseudo-justification to prop up those disheveled myths.
And then walk around and shout from the rooftops inane buffoonery.

That ends here!! Which I'm sure you've noticed

regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

Danbiel:
So, you require scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, fail to comprehend the massive evidence presented to you -- but then naïvely accept "scripture" as truth.
Do you believe in The Vedas? If not, why not? How about the Tao Te Ching?
What process did you undertake to decide on the particular "scriptures" you have chosen? Was it scientific? Did you study them all and decide on the most compelling in some emotional or intellectual manner?
Rejecting evolution because it does not resonate with your idiosyncratic emotional needs, but then accepting "scripture" (as you have indicated here) is both illogical and intellectually dishonest. How do you defend this patently absurd position?

 

[Daniel]

Danbiel:
So, you require scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, fail to comprehend the massive evidence presented to you -- but then naïvely accept "scripture" as truth.

You done sawing through this yet ?? : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11157752&postcount=364

regards

 

[Perpetual Student]

You done sawing through this yet ?? : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11157752&postcount=364

regards

Scripture itself is outside of Science's Purview. Errr, I never claimed otherwise

That's your response? Really? Is "scripture" also outside the purview of logic? How do you defend your acceptance of scripture? How did you choose your "scripture" among those available?

 

[Son of Inigo]

Daniel,

You do know that science, and by science, I mean the real science practiced by those people trained to use or teach it, not 'Daniel' science, can only be concerned with that which is real, right? In other words, science will and can only describe those things that are observable and real.

Science, the real kind, not the 'Daniel' kind, cannot and will not have anything to say about the nature of unicorns. Or fairies. Or Bigfoot. Or gods. Those are not real entities, so science cannot be used to learn anything about or from them. Anything reportedly being used to describe or quantify any of those things, cannot be called science.

Contrary to your multiple statements in this, and other threads on this board, we, those who oppose your view point, do know what science is. And it ain't 'Daniel' science.

And please, answer my questions above, about how 'Daniel' science progresses in the face of new information. Is it dismissed outright, since it is not historically documented? Do you believe the sun circles the earth? If not, why not? Do you believe that the earth is flat? If not, why not? Germ theory, do you accept germ theory? If not, why not? Notice in all of those examples, I am using 'Daniel' science. Historical documentation.

And what is your proof that the bible is indeed a historical document? Any finding in real science can be independently verified, outside the person(s) making the claim. What independent verification can you show to corroborate this history?

Daniel, my former fellow traveler. If you are just regurgitating what your Christian upbringing feed you, you are not doing science. Again, I know, I got the same 'science' education you did. Ignoring evidence is not science, it is the exact opposite of science.

Irratatingly, I remain yours, ect, ect.......

 

[Perpetual Student]

Daniel,

You do know that science, and by science, I mean the real science practiced by those people trained to use or teach it, not 'Daniel' science, can only be concerned with that which is real, right? In other words, science will and can only describe those things that are observable and real.

Science, the real kind, not the 'Daniel' kind, cannot and will not have anything to say about the nature of unicorns. Or fairies. Or Bigfoot. Or gods. Those are not real entities, so science cannot be used to learn anything about or from them. Anything reportedly being used to describe or quantify any of those things, cannot be called science.

Contrary to your multiple statements in this, and other threads on this board, we, those who oppose your view point, do know what science is. And it ain't 'Daniel' science.

And please, answer my questions above, about how 'Daniel' science progresses in the face of new information. Is it dismissed outright, since it is not historically documented? Do you believe the sun circles the earth? If not, why not? Do you believe that the earth is flat? If not, why not? Germ theory, do you accept germ theory? If not, why not? Notice in all of those examples, I am using 'Daniel' science. Historical documentation.

And what is your proof that the bible is indeed a historical document? Any finding in real science can be independently verified, outside the person(s) making the claim. What independent verification can you show to corroborate this history?

Daniel, my former fellow traveler. If you are just regurgitating what your Christian upbringing feed you, you are not doing science. Again, I know, I got the same 'science' education you did. Ignoring evidence is not science, it is the exact opposite of science.

Irratatingly, I remain yours, ect, ect.......

Mr. Daniel has put himself in an untenable position. While vainly trying to find flaws in the most thoroughly corroborated theory in science, he has simply accepted "scripture" (his particular brand) with not an iota of critical thought. "It's outside the purview of science" he asserts with no further defense or support.
The lack of logic boggles the mind!

 

[Darwin123]

I don't know all the big words in this, but isn't it true that "functions" (whatever they may be, eyes, skin color, etc) are lost all the time, although not necessarily "lost", just not expressed?

Function is the survival and reproduction advantage conferred by a structure or behavior. It is not the structure itself, but the statistical advantage in having such a structure. Furthermore, the function would not be the genes necessary to build such a structure. As you point out, a gene can be inherited but not be expressed.

An example would be registering images in an eye. For many species of animal, being able to distinguish an image greatly increases the likelihood of survival compared to a similar creature without an eye. The function of the eye would be distinguishing an image. It would not be the eye structure itself, nor the alleles that have to be expressed to form the eye.

The function is more abstract than either the alleles that it requires or the structure that performs it. It is the physiological state that improves the chances of survival. One structure can have more than one function.

So I think that your claim should be logically turned around. Functions often disappear or change over time. However, the general structure that performs the function can remain in a slightly altered state long after the function as been discontinued.

Skin can be used both for protection and for respiration. Amphibians and scale less fish use skin for both protection and respiration. Skin keeps bacteria and fungi out of the body. However, it can also be used for respiration. Oxygen can enter through the skin and carbon dioxide leave. Vertebrates other than amphibians and scale less fish don't use their skins for respiration. However, these same vertebrates do use their skin to keep bacteria out.

Lungs in vertebrates have the function of respiration. Even amphibians have lungs for respiration in addition to their skins. Lungs can also be used to make sounds. So there is some redundancy. Not all amphibians have working lungs.

Reptiles have scales that prevent their skins from being used for respiration. Reptiles generally use their scales to keep water in their bodies. However, their lungs do all the respiration. The TOE is that reptiles evolved from amphibian-like animals without scales. Their skin lost the function of respiration.

Structures automatically don't disappear when they are not used. Natural selection allows both the structure and the genes to last a long time as long as the structure does not provide a disadvantage. A de nova mutation seldom makes the structure disappear. However, a de nova mutation can cause a small change that makes the structure useless in terms of the original function. In fact, a de nova mutation can result in one structure being used for an entirely different function.

 

[Son of Inigo]

Mr. Daniel has put himself in an untenable position. While vainly trying to find flaws in the most thoroughly corroborated theory in science, he has simply accepted "scripture" (his particular brand) with not an iota of critical thought. "It's outside the purview of science" he asserts with no further defense or support.
The lack of logic boggles the mind!

I know that, you know that, and I suspect most people not posting as Daniel know that.

What I am trying to do, probably unsuccessfully, is to highlight why it is untenable. Not necessarily for Daniel's sake, but for any of his (and my now former) fellow travelers.

It was discussions like this one, on forums like this one, that planted that little seed that eventually grew big enough that I had to reject my previous world view, and adopt a rational, science based world view. I lurked on the old JREF forums among others for years. Never registered, but read them. I, and one other person on the Darwin Awards forum a decade ago were the only confessed Christians. It was while arguing the age of the earth (I was then pro 6,000 years max) that I got my butt handed to me so bad, I had to go learn some more about science. I just knew if I learned enough, I could go back and show that uppity science adherent just how he was wrong and I was right.

15 years later I am registered here, arguing the other side. I got educated, and found that the reason my butt got handed to me so bad back then was because I was totally ignorant of science, what it was, how it was done, and why it mattered. I was just regurgitating the crap that was being spewed in church approved literature. Now, though my efforts may be poor, I am trying to use rational science as my arguments. And trying to plant that same seed in my former fellow travelers.

Respectively yours,

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
While Daniel continues to use a definition of science that improperly limits its scope, there is no hope of sensible dialogue with him (even if his style was not as it is).

We could just adopt his definition. I don't mind. Sometimes, when I meet someone who doesn't speak my language well, I try to speak their language to be polite.

What happens if we accept that the ToE isn't a Scientific Theory_daniel?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I know that, you know that, and I suspect most people not posting as Daniel know that.

What I am trying to do, probably unsuccessfully, is to highlight why it is untenable. Not necessarily for Daniel's sake, but for any of his (and my now former) fellow travelers.

It was discussions like this one, on forums like this one, that planted that little seed that eventually grew big enough that I had to reject my previous world view, and adopt a rational, science based world view. I lurked on the old JREF forums among others for years. Never registered, but read them. I, and one other person on the Darwin Awards forum a decade ago were the only confessed Christians. It was while arguing the age of the earth (I was then pro 6,000 years max) that I got my butt handed to me so bad, I had to go learn some more about science. I just knew if I learned enough, I could go back and show that uppity science adherent just how he was wrong and I was right.

15 years later I am registered here, arguing the other side. I got educated, and found that the reason my butt got handed to me so bad back then was because I was totally ignorant of science, what it was, how it was done, and why it mattered. I was just regurgitating the crap that was being spewed in church approved literature. Now, though my efforts may be poor, I am trying to use rational science as my arguments. And trying to plant that same seed in my former fellow travelers.

Respectively yours,

Well done!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here's your biggest problem EXPOSED on these threads...

You wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Harsh words (and untrue) especially form one who manifestly does not understand the contents of his own "scritures"[sic.

<snip of a bit of uncivil posturing>[/QUOTE]

 

[Slowvehicle]

We could just adopt his definition. I don't mind. Sometimes, when I meet someone who doesn't speak my language well, I try to speak their language to be polite.

What happens if we accept that the ToE isn't a Scientific Theory_daniel?

For one thing, we would still have to explain why living things are observed to evolve; and why the world looks as if all living things have evolved...

 

[Daniel]

Daniel,

You do know that science, and by science, I mean the real science practiced by those people trained to use or teach it, not 'Daniel' science

You would be mistaken, they are one and the same. It's been kinda 'Stamp on The Forehead' obvious ever since my first post.

can only be concerned with that which is real, right?

Begging the Question Fallacy: where'd you get real/Reality?? Start here...

According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :
Independent of Observation/Measurement/'A Knower"... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation/"A Knower" but as a Wave of Potentialities.

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." ---
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize, Physics)

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

The act of a Conscious Observer/Measurement, collapses the Wave Function and creates the existence of physical objects and the properties they entail....INSTANTLY!! ...

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." ---
Pascual Jordan (Particle Physicist)

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."---
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics....

"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {Emphasis Mine}
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74

"The observer in quantum theory does more that just read the recordings. He also CHOOSES WHICH QUESTION will be put to nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer the`The Heisenberg Choice', to contrast it with the `Dirac Choice', which is the random choice on the part of Nature that Dirac emphasized.
According to quantum theory, the Dirac Choice is a choice between alternatives that are specified by the Heisenberg Choice: THE OBSERVER MUST FIRST specify what aspect of the system he intends to measure or probe, and then put in place an instrument that will probe that aspect. In quantum theory it is THE OBSERVER who Both poses the QUESTION, and RECOGNIZES THE ANSWER. Without some way of specifying WHAT THE QUESTION IS, the QUANTUM RULES will NOT WORK: the QUANTUM PROCESS GRINDS TO A HALT." {emphasis mine}
Stapp, H; Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics; 1999, p. 21

"Who deserves to trust their intuition more than Einstein; and Einstein's intuition told him, like everyone's intuition tells them, that things are really there when you're not looking at them. Well, he was Wrong! That intuition is Incorrect."
Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering MIT

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". {Emphasis Mine}
SEE: Landmark Parent Paper...
Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677. AND,

Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1885th Time) here: Merali, Z: Quantum "Spookiness" Passes Toughest Test Yet; Nature, 28 August 2015

"Quantum Theory thus denies the physically real world INDEPENDENT OF IT'S OBSERVATION". {Emphasis Mine}
Rosenblum B., Kuttner, F: The Quantum Enigma; Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 7

Ergo..."WHO" collapsed the Wave Function INITIALLY via Observation/"Knower" of the Path Information to CREATE REALITY... "Matter"?
Better still, WHO created "The Wave Function" so as to able to "COLLAPSE IT"....??

"REAL" Science hasn't disproved GOD....it has " REVEALED HIM ", and buried/IMPLODED Materialism.


"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."---
Martin Rees, Astrophysicist

I'm praying he proffered this "Tongue in Cheek".

** Kinda Ironic how this dovetails with DNA..."Information". Because for "Information" (The Consequent) to exist, there MUST BE (The Antecedent)........."A KNOWER".

Your fairytales and World-View are in Checkmate 6 ways from Sunday. Perhaps it's time to consider "RE-considering" your position?? OR...

continue to let Cognitive Dissonance Rule the Roost and be in Direct Violation of @ least 5 Scientific Laws and literally thousands of Experiments, Without EXCEPTION!


regards

 

[marplots]

For one thing, we would still have to explain why living things are observed to evolve; and why the world looks as if all living things have evolved...

That's what I mean. I don't see the harm. Evolution is an explanation I believe. I am not an expert on it, but so what? I believe plenty of things that do not meet the strict conceptual definition of Scientific Theory_daniel.

 

[RussDill]

Hold on a sec, let's slow down here. Maybe Daniel is correct. We weren't there to observe it, maybe 1000's of years ago, trees didn't form rings every year, snow and ice didn't form layers every year, etc.

Of course, that means that holy books could have written themselves, atoms could have created Gods, and pretty much anything else that contradicts the laws of physics and logic could have taken place.

 

[Perpetual Student]

We could just adopt his definition. I don't mind. Sometimes, when I meet someone who doesn't speak my language well, I try to speak their language to be polite.

What happens if we accept that the ToE isn't a Scientific Theory_daniel?

This is exactly the inevitable question. If it isn't scientific, is it some other kind of theory, like a creation myth? What is the alternative to the theory of evolution -- one of the many Stone Age and Bronze Age creation stories? Alien visitations? Something else?
Daniel has made it clear that he embraces "scripture" with no further definition or information.
I believe his reticence to define it further indicates the poverty of his position.