Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Sideroxylon]

So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?

If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...

1. "Look Out, there's a Tiger Behind You!"....?

2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first then continue, Thanks)

3. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp


regards

Information is complexity that can only be explained by resorting to an intelligent agent.

 

[JeanTate]

So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?

Yes (well, as "information" is used in physics and information theory)

Quite a few times actually.

I suggest that you use the Search function, and carefully read the posts in which such a definition (or definitions) were posted.

If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...

The units of information are Joule per Kelvin, shannon, nat, or hartley (depends on the exact definition).

(to be continued)

 

[steenkh]

How on Earth can a Cell "Qualify", when you can't even get ONE "Functional" Protein "Naturally", spontaneously?

You asked for an example of a self-replicating entity. My apologies if you meant the first self-replicating entity. That is something we shall probably never know. First of all, it probably did not look anything like the proteins we know today, and secondly, if we come up with a possible natural pathway, we shall not know if this was the actual pathway taken, because there is probably several.

So your rebuttal is "Na'ahh"??

No, my rebuttal was that you committed a logical fallacy. Your argument rests on the mistaken idea that self-replicating proteins can only be formed through DNA, and that is mistaken.

Riveting! You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

You also might need some reading comprehension brush ups...

Thanks for the color commentary.

"The 20 amino acids that are found within proteins convey a vast array of chemical versatility. The precise amino acid content, and the sequence of those amino acids, of a specific protein, is determined by the sequence of the bases in the gene that encodes that protein. The chemical properties of the amino acids of proteins determine the biological activity of the protein. Proteins not only catalyze all (or most) of the reactions in living cells, they control virtually all cellular process."
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/bioch...ets/aa/aa.html

This quote describes how proteins are formed in cells. It says nowhere that proteins cannot be formed in any other way, so the quote is irrelevant for your argument.

Huh?

I can understand your astonishment that you also got it wrong the second time around.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (You need some more??)

Wrong answer. The 2nd LoT is not broken as long as the Earth is getting plenty of energy from the Sun. And no, Solar energy is not just destroying. Many chemical reactions are facilitated by heat. Besides heat can also be generated geothermically.

Also read everything following: "Can you show that first "Functional Protein" spontaneously for us?? Ya know, to SUPPORT your appeal...", HERE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11194961&postcount=1437

This may be a surprise for you, but abiogenesis research has not go so far as to present a fully fledged theory. We note however, that there is no other way life could have started without invoking supernatural beings, so, you know, Occam's Razor and all that, this is the most promising line of inquiry ...

Really?? What exactly do they claim...Non-Life Life?

No, they find it very likely that the first self-replicating molecules did not look anything like life as we know it. Is that so difficult?

Start an "Irreducible Complexity 'hogwash'" Thread...and when I get a moment, I'll stop by and Bludgeon it Senseless. I sure hope your arguments are a little better than Kenneth Miller's (lol, btw)

You can start one yourself. If you are going to bludgeon is as senseless as you are bludgeoning this thread, then we have nothing to worry about.

 

[steenkh]

So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?

Why should we? You already presented a perfectly good article from Merriam-Webster, remember? It even mentioned DNA in its second clause. Do you want to reread it?

 

[JeanTate]

Rather than edit what I wrote earlier, I'll quote it, and add the "continued"

So has anyone conjured up a Definition for Information yet?

Yes (well, as "information" is used in physics and information theory)

Quite a few times actually.

I suggest that you use the Search function, and carefully read the posts in which such a definition (or definitions) were posted.

If your position is that Information is Physical, Matter/Energy...then, can you please post the Chemical Formula/meV's, Dimensions (L/W/H), Location/Position for...

The units of information are Joule per Kelvin, shannon, nat, or hartley (depends on the exact definition).

(to be continued)

Astute readers (which may well include Daniel) will notice that I introduced a fundamental aspect of Danielscience into my reply to Daniel.

1. "Look Out, there's a Tiger Behind You!"....?

2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first then continue, Thanks)

3. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Once you have (re-?) acquainted yourself with the (relevant) definition(s) of information, I'm sure you can derive the information content of those three text strings, in the appropriate units.

To show us all that you have, indeed, understood the definitions, please post your answers here.

A BIG "Caveat": I do not know what the "Definition of Information" is, in Danielscience.

Or, more accurately, I've read quite a few definitions Daniel has posted, but most are not equivalent, and some seem mutually contradictory.

 

[RussDill]

The OP is about DNA and information. We now have an upper bound on the minimum amount of information needed to make a living organism - about half a Megabyte.

Not everything is about you.

I think the interesting thing is that we still don't know what 1/3rd of those genes do. As a programmer, I'm very familiar with making minimum test cases to make something easier to examine. This would be a very exciting time to be a geneticist.

 

[RussDill]

Anyone who cares to examine the subject can see that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. It is the daftest thing young earth creationists are forced to swallow and will rarely attempt to argue. That and the recent global extinction event and all land life respawning at a point centred in the Middle East. Rendered absurd by easy to understand observations.

Start that thread if you dare, Daniel.

They can only do so by claiming a similar thing to danielscience. Rejecting any events that happened when someone wasn't there to witness them. I noticed that Daniel das avoided addressing the issue that the independent variables in a experiment need not be manipulated by an experimenter, they only need to vary. Such an admission would by his own admission of how science works open up any and all past events to science.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first then continue, Thanks)

<snip>

As I noted in an earlier post, I applied science to these seemingly random character strings, and concluded that they are written in a secret language.

In that secret language, the string above, translated literally, is even less appropriate for this forum than the one I translated earlier!

However, a rather loose translation is something like "My name is Ozymandias Daniel, king of kings spamtrolls: Look on my works, ye Mighty [expletive] "ATHEISTS", and despair!!!!"

That about right, Daniel?

 

[Daniel]

You asked for an example of a self-replicating entity.

Yes, the Specific Claim was "Self-Replicating Objects".

That is something we shall probably never know. First of all, it probably did not look anything like the proteins we know today...

So a Textbook Argument from Ignorance Fallacy...

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

and secondly, if we come up with a possible natural pathway, we shall not know if this was the actual pathway taken, because there is probably several.

Argument to The Future Fallacy with a Cherry on Top Hypothetical wrapped in another Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: "we shall not know".

No, my rebuttal was that you committed a logical fallacy. Your argument rests on the mistaken idea that self-replicating proteins can only be formed through DNA, and that is mistaken.

1. Which Specific Fallacy is that??

2. Please SUPPORT "Your" mistaken Baseless Assertion Fallacy..."that self-replicating proteins can only be formed through DNA, and that is mistaken."

SHOW...??? Show a "Functional" Protein wickering itself together from AA's "Naturally" Spontaneously...? THEN, show it 'Replicating' ...?

This quote describes how proteins are formed in cells. It says nowhere that proteins cannot be formed in any other way, so the quote is irrelevant for your argument.

And Again....

SHOW...??? Show a "Functional" Protein wickering itself together from AA's "Naturally" Spontaneously...?

Wrong answer. The 2nd LoT is not broken as long as the Earth is getting plenty of energy from the Sun.

So "Na'ahh" is your retort? Riveting! How Scientific of you.

Do you understand the Concept of SUPPORTING what you say by chance?

So the Sun, eh? Ok, you conduct this Experiment and Validate your claim...

Wait till summer and take a trip to Majorca Spain . Stop eating for 1 week, you may drink water we don't want you to Vapor Lock . Lay out in the Sun (without 'Sun Block') in skivvies from 9am-5pm each day. At the end of the week, have you (and your skin) increased or decreased in Entropy?

After your stay @ a Local Medical Facility, report back with your results.

This may be a surprise for you, but abiogenesis research has not go so far as to present a fully fledged theory.

Ya don't say?

I'd like to see a Scientific Theory without a wisp of a prayer even formulating an actual Formal Scientific Hypothesis Let alone TESTING it!

It would be tantamount to showing Married Bachelors.

We note however, that there is no other way life could have started without invoking supernatural beings, so, you know, Occam's Razor and all that,

Well Occam's Razor violations speak to multiplying entitIES beyond necessity. ONE is NECESSARY in this specific instance.

No, they find it very likely that the first self-replicating molecules did not look anything like life as we know it. Is that so difficult?

1. Who?? Find it....Found what?

2. Argument from Ignorance Fallacy (SEE: 'many' above)

3. I think I see the problem. You're having difficulty with discerning between "Science" and "Just So" Stories; allow me to assist, it's all in the 'Method'...

Science --- 'Method': The Scientific Method

"Just So" Stories --- 'Method': Imagination.

You can start one yourself.

I'm a Counter-Puncher by trade, I'll wait


regards

 

[stanfr]

...

2. "eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd" (Please identify the Information for us first then continue, Thanks)

regards

That's it! The answer is found in "Lord of the Flies!"

 

[Minoosh]

Prions are self-replicating proteins without DNA. One article talked about proteins mutating - I had not been aware that this language applies to non-living matter.

Sunlight? Plants need it, therefore animals need it ... the energy can be destructive but it is also converted to nutrients. Don't know why sunlight would kill the primordial goop. In fact, couldn't it promote mutations that would give some self-replicating molecules an edge over other self-replicating molecules?

I can't order any USP Primordial Goop, subject it to controlled levels of UV radiation and observe the results over a half-billion years. We do know there are some pretty old bones around, and some rocks that look like they were laid down in layers over a long period. It can't have been more than a few thousand years though, if we accept a priori that Genesis is a literal account of a six-day creation, followed by a lot of incest to begin the begetting.

Which we should do ... why?

 

[annnnoid]

Prions are self-replicating proteins without DNA. One article talked about proteins mutating - I had not been aware that this language applies to non-living matter.

Sunlight? Plants need it, therefore animals need it ... the energy can be destructive but it is also converted to nutrients. Don't know why sunlight would kill the primordial goop. In fact, couldn't it promote mutations that would give some self-replicating molecules an edge over other self-replicating molecules?

I can't order any USP Primordial Goop, subject it to controlled levels of UV radiation and observe the results over a half-billion years. We do know there are some pretty old bones around, and some rocks that look like they were laid down in layers over a long period. It can't have been more than a few thousand years though, if we accept a priori that Genesis is a literal account of a six-day creation, followed by a lot of incest to begin the begetting.

Which we should do ... why?

….who cares when the big bang happened! Who cares how old the earth is! Who cares how it all came about! Who cares cares cares cares cares….(…who does)?

…what matters, is what’s up right now.

Right now…what’s up… is that you all somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics, the laws of nature, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them-it-?????) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

That’s…what’s…up!

…and if we’re talking about ALL the laws of physics…whatever ‘intelligence’ it is that is involved easily gets elevated to the status of whatever a God is…by definition.

What is…actually, not funny…but just plain embarrassing…is watching you folks try and pluck the most non-existent of twigs to cling to in your vain attempts to mitigate this overwhelming conclusion.

…like…trying to locate somewhere (anywhere…anyhow) where the laws as we know them are not valid (which would so destroy any claim that the laws have universal application [not]).

…so far you’ve managed to come up with that which occurred before time (when / if - ever that even is) and occurs outside the known universe (where / if -ever that even is).

"But there is no evidence that 'laws' exist!"

…we derive these laws from our observations of reality, we confirm these laws by testing them against reality, and we confirm them further by predicting how reality will behave based on the application of the laws.

…but somehow some of you still manage to insist…that there is nothing about reality that remotely suggests that these laws somehow occur as a part of reality itself.

I think…’duh’ would be an insult to ‘duh’ in this situation.

And then there's this feebleness: The laws etc. that we come up with are just models.

….just!?!?!?!

Except they apply [for all intents and purposes], from here to eternity (a...metaphor)! Not to mention that there are probably something on the order of a couple of billion pieces of technology that are a direct [and…I might add…very successful] consequence of the application of these same laws (on a skeptic forum it should simply NOT be necessary to point this out!). Including every single piece of technology used in the exploration and application of science itself (think…LHC). At least some of you should have some comprehension of the range of skills and degree of precision involved...which are themselves a direct reflection of how robust and substantial are the laws and theories that are being utilized.

...so they're not 'just' anything!

"…but they’re just models…and don’t ya know we’ve got some way to go and there is obviously still much to be learned and studied."

Which means what…precisely. Oh yeah, another stupid strawman. Like…because we haven’t got everything figured out…then…then…then…what? They’re NOT valid?

…nope, they are. Just means that there’s still more to learn. What we have works. What we don’t have will work better.

I mean…are you actually expecting to come across some new law that will establish that all the laws we’ve so far come up with…don’t work?

So (with certain minimally reasonable qualifications)…everything we observe confirms the laws as we know them. Everything we predict confirms the laws as we know them. Everything we understand confirms the laws as we know them.

…the ONLY thing we don’t know…is where they freakin well come from…and why they work so damn well.

…but according to all of you…it’s all just some gigantic coincidence. Until we rub your noses in the facts that you yourselves never stop spouting.

Then we get truly classic cases of denial.

…it’s not a river in Egypt.

So…a reminder of the basic flaw in all your positions:

You all somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics, the laws of nature, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them-it-?????) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

The simple unavoidable fact is…everything about reality implicates intelligence!

...and when it comes to intelligence on that kind of scale it useful to ponder the words of Wendell Barry.

"We cannot comprehend what comprehends us." ...sounds kind of like the words of a certain mathematician.

Lots of straw here, which I'd like to capture, before you make any other edits, annnnoid.

I'm reminded of an episode of The Big Bang Theory, the TV show. In it Sheldon and Amy have an argument over whose intellect is greater, a physicist's (laws of physics explain everything) or a neurobiologist's (model can capture/reproduce the physicist's thinking) (I'm paraphrasing, of course). It was great fun, but bad Philosophy, and not remotely science.

Yeah Jean Tate…that was one hell of a discussion. Everything relevant is unilaterally off-the-table or simply ignored (but don’t miss an opportunity to throw the same thing at anyone else)…but let’s make a real big issue out of a blatant strawman (aka: the finer points of what variety of cognitive activity is, or is not, an explicit expression of neural activity).

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

Right now…what’s up… is that you all somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics, the laws of nature, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them-it-?????) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

A careful reading tells me I don't disagree with this. It's just that I don't think any of it was created. That's the bit where we want to see your work.

ETA: Just to be clear, it all can't be created without intelligence, but no more so than a snowflake - a "created" snowflake needs an intelligent agent, an author, a creator. A naturally arising snowflake does not.

 

[annnnoid]

A careful reading tells me I don't disagree with this. It's just that I don't think any of it was created. That's the bit where we want to see your work.

ETA: Just to be clear, it all can't be created without intelligence, but no more so than a snowflake - a "created" snowflake needs an intelligent agent, an author, a creator. A naturally arising snowflake does not.

There is no work to do (and 'natural' is just a matter of perspective). Confirmation is, I think, beyond what anyone (just about) is conventionally capable of. I mean…why should we be so arrogant as to assume that what intelligence we possess is as much intelligence as can occur (especially when we are so demonstrably ignorant of what intelligence we even possess…and especially when there are so many examples of alternate paradigms). It’s merely a conclusion using the best available skills based on the best available evidence. How anyone understands the conclusion has got absolutely zero to do with science (so far at least)…and everything to do with all that stuff that works so well without it.

If you don’t feel a creator works for you…then no creator required. Creators are for those who can handle them. But then again…for anyone who’s inclined to actively diss the whole idea, it might be worth thinking twice.

To the degree that whatever this intelligence is has some kind of existence (it may even be aware of these very words [it may even be these words]…how cool would that be?...actually, I have no idea) then I would imagine its primary prerogative would be to encourage each of us to decide how to respond to the facts with as much integrity as possible (seeing as integrity seems to have some kind of fundamental phenomenology). Something about free will I think.

Not to rub your nose in it…but I’d say you do a great job.

Here’s an interesting idea to consider. It was something ‘observed’ by a boy who was regarded as a savant. He said: “God has all our dreams in mind.”…and “destruction is finding being in matter.”

…I think he was five or six years old when he made these observations.

If those statements are true (and for what it’s worth, I think they are)…what would it mean (keep Wendell Barry in mind…but might as well wonder [in between visits to the hydraulic press youtube channel])?

 

[marplots]

Here’s an interesting idea to consider. It was something ‘observed’ by a boy who was regarded as a savant. He said: “God has all our dreams in mind.”…and “destruction is finding being in matter.”

I don't know what to make of it, so I'll have to let it percolate a bit.

 

[MikeG]

........If you don’t feel a creator works for you…then no creator required. Creators are for those who can handle them........

This is ...............odd.

Whatever anyone thinks, you, me, anyone......what happened is what happened. There either was a creator, or there wasn't. I have seen zero evidence ever even offered for a creator, let alone tested, so you can guess what my views are. That doesn't mean I can't handle the idea a creator, if there were indisputable evidence ever proffered.

 

[MikeG]

....... at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics, the laws of nature, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them-it-?????) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm)..........

This is where you go wrong. It's nonsense.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You are seriously confused, you're conflating two different topics....

Ya see, BOTH "Sand Dunes" and "Sand Castles" are made "FROM" sand...there's no Argument here.

The Argument is: what/who "FORMED" the derivative/consequent (sand dune vs sand castle) out of it (sand).

Please define 'sand dune' and 'sand castle'. Once you've done that, please go back to my original point about assuming that something is manmade.

Now, if you wanna travel down the other incoherent road and make your case for Who/What made the Sand; I got you checkmated there also , SEE: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

regards

Parrot Fish.

Parrot Fish made the sand.

http://europe.newsweek.com/many-white-sand-beaches-are-basically-fish-poop-332642?rm=eu


How do Parrot Fish violate the 1st. Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
If you don’t feel a creator works for you…then no creator required. Creators are for those who can handle them. But then again…for anyone who’s inclined to actively diss the whole idea, it might be worth thinking twice.
...

.
.

You say that...
If I...
Stumbled on a watch I'd assume it had a watchmaker,
That a muffin presupposes a baker,
So you must agree sooner or later,
That this proves that there's a creator.

So if I put my foot in a stinker,
You'd assume the existence of a sphincter,
Thus you don't need to be a great thinker
To conclude that God's a bum,

Which negates the words of Genesis 1
Which made Him out to be so much fun...

 

[jimbob]

I think the interesting thing is that we still don't know what 1/3rd of those genes do. As a programmer, I'm very familiar with making minimum test cases to make something easier to examine. This would be a very exciting time to be a geneticist.

Indeed it would be...

I have started a thread about this paper:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305156