Creationist argument about DNA and information

Perpetual Student said:
Begging for a semantic argument? I think most posters here are on to you.
The word "information" is not confined to the narrow anthropomorphic usage you hawk in a vain attempt to win debating points. Most people here are into the actual science, not semantic gamesmanship.
Click to expand...


:confused:...

What's the Definition of Information....? You forgot to post it :rolleyes:


regards
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
You have posted nothing but personal definitions and creationist anti-science spam. Your insults, especially about understanding science, only serve to expose both your lack of knowledge and lack of a decent upbringing. Your parents must be proud (do they even know you're posing as a grown-up on the interwebz?).

You don't even realize that the folks here are just toying with you until someone with actual reasoning abilities comes along.

You are a misguided pawn in a political game. No more.
Click to expand...


And The Definition of Information is....? :rolleyes:

The topic is NOT: Color Commentary Op-Ed's, Baseless Assertions, Conjured Divination's et al...it is: DNA and Information.

Go ahead....?
 
TheAdversary said:
I personally love Shannon's definition, and that the concept of Entropy therein is exactly (Except for Bolzmann's constant, but that's just to make the units
work out.) the same as the definition from Physics. So Matrix-like, if you catch my drift ...
Click to expand...


And Again, Shannon Information (and Kolmogorov Complexity) speak nothing WHATSOEVER to the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity of the Information in DNA/Biologic Systems...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

btw, that's Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize, Physiology) up in there. (Please try and restrain yourself from traveling down the Red Herring Fallacy path of Fairytale Cell Membranes wickering themselves together.
If you wish, you may create a new topic discussing them... and I roll up in there an Bludgeon them Senseless @ my earliest convenience.)

Thanks
 
Daniel said:
And Again, Shannon Information (and Kolmogorov Complexity) speak nothing WHATSOEVER to the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity of the Information in DNA/Biologic Systems...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

btw, that's Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize, Physiology) up in there. (Please try and restrain yourself from traveling down the Red Herring Fallacy path of Fairytale Cell Membranes wickering themselves together.
If you wish, you may create a new topic discussing them... and I roll up in there an Bludgeon them Senseless @ my earliest convenience.)

Thanks
Click to expand...
See? This is all you have -- semantic dribble! Never any science. Is there a scientific point here?
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
"Information" isn't an easy thing to get one's head around. Here are some of the nuances in the word: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/
Click to expand...


That's Concise, rotflol. Can you Extract some semblance of a coherent definition from the Volumes??

We know what it isn't...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

regards

ps. Question: if Information is nether Matter or Energy and you're a Materialist/Realist... who by the quintessential tenet of your World View, believe that Matter and Energy is all that there is...THEN ahhh, you have a what they call in the Industry: A PARADOX!! i.e.,

How can you believe INFORMATION even EXISTS ?? Pray Tell....? :confused:
 
RussDill said:
Sad that you can't even come up with new ad hominems and simply copy and paste old ones. Of course, the funny thing is, you don't even believe that all 5th grade science even exists.
Click to expand...


Can you highlight the Definition of Information in there and extract then post it...? You know, so we can stay on topic. :thumbsup:

thanks in advance
 
Daniel said:
That's Concise, rotflol. Can you Extract some semblance of a coherent definition from the Volumes??

We know what it isn't...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

regards

ps. Question: if Information is nether Matter or Energy and you're a Materialist/Realist... who by the quintessential tenet of your World View, believe that Matter and Energy is all that there is...THEN ahhh, you have a what they call in the Industry: A PARADOX!! i.e.,

How can you believe INFORMATION even EXISTS ?? Pray Tell....? :confused:
Click to expand...
Just as expected -- semantic dribble and no substantive scientific comment.
 
Perpetual Student said:
How about going with "contextual data" and make your scientific points -- assuming you have any.
Click to expand...


OK, please extract the Information in this "Contextual" 'data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsxrefd qzofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.

??
 
Daniel said:
That's Concise, rotflol. Can you Extract some semblance of a coherent definition from the Volumes??

We know what it isn't...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

regards

ps. Question: if Information is nether Matter or Energy and you're a Materialist/Realist... who by the quintessential tenet of your World View, believe that Matter and Energy is all that there is...THEN ahhh, you have a what they call in the Industry: A PARADOX!! i.e.,

How can you believe INFORMATION even EXISTS ?? Pray Tell....? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think your young earth and global flood world view bears less scrutiny.
 
Daniel said:
Can you highlight the Definition of Information in there and extract then post it...? You know, so we can stay on topic. :thumbsup:



thanks in advance
Click to expand...


WhY don't yOu Look uP the Information oN Information via the InformaTion SupeRhighway?

(Avoid copying the Creationist claptrap though, it just makes you look silly and uneducated).

Rotlflotlolroflwizlol
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Just as expected -- semantic dribble and no substantive scientific comment.
Click to expand...


Didn't we already go over the Topic Heading: DNA and Information??

What is Information....?

If you like to discuss: Baseless Assertions, Color Commentaries, et al then you are free to create another topic or find an appropriate thread to discover their mysteries. You have many SME's on those 2 Topics that will be more than happy to assist you on your Journey.

thanks in advance.
 
Daniel said:
Can you highlight the Definition of Information in there and extract then post it...? You know, so we can stay on topic. :thumbsup:

thanks in advance
Click to expand...

One thing that I've found that really helps things to stay on topic is to avoid insulting other forum members.
 
Daniel said:
And Again, Shannon Information (and Kolmogorov Complexity) speak nothing WHATSOEVER to the Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity of the Information in DNA/Biologic Systems...

"As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2, 3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]"
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)

btw, that's Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize, Physiology) up in there. (Please try and restrain yourself from traveling down the Red Herring Fallacy path of Fairytale Cell Membranes wickering themselves together.
If you wish, you may create a new topic discussing them... and I roll up in there an Bludgeon them Senseless @ my earliest convenience.)

Thanks
Click to expand...

Daniel, my dear friend. By now, a rational individual should be picking up on the fact that we will actually check the sources for your mined quotes. And, surprise, I did.

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

Ah yes a “ground breaking” paper that is cited many times, but mostly by the authors (Especially Mr Abel), and has failed to be of interest to anybody else.
There’s no reference to ID theory anywhere in this paper, nor is there any reference to the terminology used in ID.

The paper does not actually support ID in any way at all, it simply describes a method to measure the functional sequence complexity. – Fail
Click to expand...

Bolding mine

http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/claims-peer-review-intelligent-design-examined/

And the paper by Szostak that is referenced in your quote? It is

Functional information: Molecular messages

Here is the abstract from the Szostak paper. Again, I don't think it says what you think it does, and in fact, lookie there, it talks about information as well.

In this age of genome sequencing, the idea that biopolymer sequences are a type of molecularly coded information is well established. We are all familiar with the idea that it is the sequence of the nucleotides or amino acids that make up DNA, RNA or protein molecules that determine their structure and function.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423689a.html

The article is pay-walled, but I am pretty sure that the abstract is enough to destroy its use to disprove TOE.

And here is the home page of the Szostak Lab, where it states:

We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution. Our view of what such a chemical system would look like centers on a model of a primitive cell, or protocell, that consists of two main components: a self-replicating genetic polymer and a self-replicating membrane boundary. The job of the genetic polymer is to carry information in a way that allows for both replication and variation, so that new sequences that encode useful functions can be inherited and can further evolve. The role of the protocell membrane is to keep these informational polymers localized, so that the functions they encode lead to an advantage in terms of their own replication or survival. Such a system should, given time and the right environment, begin to evolve in a Darwinian fashion, potentially leading to the spontaneous emergence of genomically encoded catalysts and structural molecules.

We hope that our explorations of the chemistry and physics behind the emergence of Darwinian evolution will lead to explanations for some of the universal properties of modern cells, as well as explanations of how modern cells arose from their simpler ancestors. As we explore these fundamental questions we are also on the lookout for chemical or physical phenomena that might have practical utility in biomedical research.
Click to expand...

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

Looks like the lab with his name on it is actively researching TOE. Why would that be the case, if the Nobel prize winning scientist founder does not think the TOE is a viable scientific theory?
 
RussDill said:
One thing that I've found that really helps things to stay on topic is to avoid insulting other forum members.
Click to expand...


Really?? Would you like a list of the Baseless Insults I received in the past 6 days?? I'd crash the servers. :eye-poppi

And, ahhh...Be careful if it's this scenario:

A candidate for a Neurosurgical Position stating in the middle of an Interview with the Chief of Neurosurgery.... "What's a Cerebellum??"; THEN...heading down to Resource Management and filing a Harassment Complaint after he was Physically thrown out of the Office and Laughed at.

Be sure you're not that Neurosurgical Candidate...otherwise you have NO CASE and you're gonna get the SAME treatment from Resource Management. :thumbsup:
(Like you have over and over again here and on the QM thread) ;)

Now, Back to the Topic....

Define Information...?

regards
 
Daniel said:
OK, please extract the Information in this "Contextual" 'data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evtrsxrefd qzofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd.

??
Click to expand...

Clearly these are letters of a Western European alphabet clustered in various sized groupings numbering eleven. They do not appear to have any linguistic meaning but may be some code for anther purpose. On the other hand, they could be senseless clustering of letters in an attempt to make some meaningless semantic argument.
In any case, I am still waiting for you to make some scientific point. Do you have one or is it all semantics?
And -- what are the theological implications of all this?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom