Creationist argument about DNA and information

Jodie · May 9, 2016

We must first figure out who the creator culprit is and ask them but if we self create through a trial and error approach then the answer is self explanatory.

acbytesla · May 9, 2016

Jodie said:
Creationism is just a mechanism to debunk Evolution because the supporters get hung up on the very first act of creation so attribute that to intelligent design. They never ask who created the creator, following their line of logic, they should.

This of course is the massive hole in their logic that they quietly ignore or loudly dismiss. They insist that the universe had to have a first cause but not the creator? That the airy fairy unobservable creator is and always is but not matter and energy? The matter and energy we learned cannot be destroyed, but only change form? (feel free to correct me if I got that wrong. I'm not scripturely tethered to errors)

Maybe it's just me but it seems much more likely that the matter and energy that we can and do observe always existed than a never observed "being" always existed.

MetalPig · May 9, 2016

Daniel said:
Can you liberate the "Information" from either please...? What is each Communicating To You ?

The first one tells me from which direction the wind was blowing, which is information. Does that make the wind an intelligent agent? Or the sand maybe?

Homo sapiens · May 10, 2016

Defining DNA as "information" is inappropriate because it is part of a game. While DNA has some attributes that might be considered "information" the intent of creationists who push that concept is not to advance knowledge but rather to play "gotcha" with respect to evolution by making a claim along the lines of: "Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."

Creationists try to get by with this claim the same way they try to misuse the word "kind." They leave the terms undefined and vague, and then shift the definition as suits them playing willfully ignorant all the way.

acbytesla · May 10, 2016

Homo sapiens said:
Defining DNA as "information" is inappropriate because it is part of a game. While DNA has some attributes that might be considered "information" the intent of creationists who push that concept is not to advance knowledge but rather to play "gotcha" with respect to evolution by making a claim along the lines of: "Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."

Creationists try to get by with this claim the same way they try to misuse the word "kind." They leave the terms undefined and vague, and then shift the definition as suits them playing willfully ignorant all the way.

There are whole lot of nuanced words that are misused to promote their agenda. "Information" and "code" are just two examples. The absurd attempts to shoehorn a creator into evolution and cosmology is not only deceptive it is stupid.

If one really wants an honest exploration of the mysteries of the universe, the aswers can't be another unexplainable mystery. How can that ever advance our understanding? God may be the path to salvation, but on the road to understanding the physical world God is a dead end.

Nonpareil · May 10, 2016

Homo sapiens said:
Defining DNA as "information" is inappropriate because it is part of a game. While DNA has some attributes that might be considered "information" the intent of creationists who push that concept is not to advance knowledge but rather to play "gotcha" with respect to evolution by making a claim along the lines of: "Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."

Creationists try to get by with this claim the same way they try to misuse the word "kind." They leave the terms undefined and vague, and then shift the definition as suits them playing willfully ignorant all the way.

Accurate, but calling it a game is a bit of a stretch. That would imply that they are consciously aware of how nonsensical their argument is.

Hanlon's razor has never been more applicable.

Homo sapiens · May 10, 2016

Nonpareil said:
Accurate, but calling it a game is a bit of a stretch. That would imply that they are consciously aware of how nonsensical their argument is.

Hanlon's razor has never been more applicable.

I give them the benefit of being just stupid or ignorant for the first round after which I have had an opportunity to reasonably present information and to falsify their claims. After that, I can only assume willful ignorance which is malicious. Granted their brains might be ringing from cognitive dissonance.

steenkh · May 10, 2016

Homo sapiens said:
I give them the benefit of being just stupid or ignorant for the first round after which I have had an opportunity to reasonably present information and to falsify their claims. After that, I can only assume willful ignorance which is malicious. Granted their brains might be ringing from cognitive dissonance.

The same happened with Daniel and his quotes. At first I took them for face value, and tried to understand what was going on, but then more and more of his quotes were proven to be misquotes taken out of context, and often twisted to mean the opposite of their intention. It seemed possible that Daniel was not aware of this, but then he continued bringing the same misquotes, so now we need have no doubt that he is doing this intentionally, and maliciously.

Homo sapiens · May 10, 2016

steenkh said:
The same happened with Daniel and his quotes. At first I took them for face value, and tried to understand what was going on, but then more and more of his quotes were proven to be misquotes taken out of context, and often twisted to mean the opposite of their intention. It seemed possible that Daniel was not aware of this, but then he continued bringing the same misquotes, so now we need have no doubt that he is doing this intentionally, and maliciously.

Its lie they say, ignorance is curable ... stupid is life long. So unfortunately is maliciousness.

RecoveringYuppy · May 10, 2016

steenkh said:
The same happened with Daniel and his quotes. At first I took them for face value, and tried to understand what was going on, but then more and more of his quotes were proven to be misquotes taken out of context, and often twisted to mean the opposite of their intention. It seemed possible that Daniel was not aware of this, but then he continued bringing the same misquotes, so now we need have no doubt that he is doing this intentionally, and maliciously.

And like I pointed out before, some of his authorities are huge liars. There is simply no way David Abels fraudulent claims about his institute and publishing house are honest mistakes. It's a long running fraud that required many deliberate steps to set up.

Homo sapiens said:
Its lie they say, ignorance is curable ... stupid is life long. So unfortunately is maliciousness.

Yep.

acbytesla · May 10, 2016

Homo sapiens said:
Its lie they say, ignorance is curable ... stupid is life long. So unfortunately is maliciousness.

They never see it that way. This is God's work to them and they are merely his instrument on this earth. Any thinking that deviates from the teaching of God's word is the work of the devil and must be opposed. The scripture is unerring even if every scientific test contradicts it.

Reality Check · May 10, 2016

Daniel said:
"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

It is called lying yet again about what you quote, Daniel: 17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 :jaw-dropp

!

Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question is all we have from Daniel since he started posting. 68 items in the list

!

steenkh · May 11, 2016

Reality Check said:
It is called lying yet again about what you quote, Daniel: 17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 !

Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question is all we have from Daniel since he started posting. 68 items in the list !

9 March 2016 Daniel: A lie by quote mining Mayr 1988: 162 (he provides his definition of evolution in the next sentence that you mined out)

27 April 2016 Daniel: A fantasy of abiogenesis = cancer biology where Daniel highlights the biology part of Paul Davies CV.

27 April 2016 Daniel: Cherry picks Paul Davies (again!) stating his opinion that artificial life can be created - just not by the bottom-up approach of organic chemistry.

8 March 2016: Tolls points out the actual subject of the Paul Davies article to Daniel which is a proposal to create life from the top-down.

28 April 2016 Daniel: Repeats a lie abut the theory of evolution not being defined or tested when he has been supplied with the definition and evidence many times in several threads.

28 April 2016 Daniel: Links to a deluded web site rather than science - the use of "Darwinism" is a hint!

28 April 2016 Daniel: An implied lie by linking to "First News" which has reposted a blog entry from an intelligent design idiot, thus hiding the ignorance behind the link.

28 April 2016 Daniel: The repeated (and insane since he has the answer) demand for a definition of the scientific theory of evolution dates from at least 28 September 2014 in another forum.

2 May 2016 Daniel: The stupidity of thinking that biology is chemistry, physics, or experiments by cherry picking quotes!

2 May 2016 Daniel: A lie about no support for abiogenesis.

2 May 2016 Daniel: Ignorance of or lying about the Law of Biogenesis!

2 May 2016 Daniel: A list of lies, fantasies and delusions about "the evidence for his creation fairy"!

2 May 2016 Daniel: A delusion about abiogenesis and spontaneous generation being synonymous

2 May 2016: Nonpareil points out a quote mine of Leonard Susskind in a YouTube video (fine tuning does not need a fine tuner!)

3 May 2016 Daniel: Functional sequence complexity is an extension of Shannon Information to include functionality as reading the abstract makes obvious!

barehl · May 11, 2016

Border Reiver said:
Daniel if you're not too busy in the quote mines perhaps you might get around to answering this question:

"If we are to believe in a creator, which of the hundreds of creator deities should we believe did it, and why should we believe that one in preference to all others?"

Not relevant to this thread. In fact, it isn't even relevant to this section of the forum.

barehl · May 11, 2016

Daniel said:
"The theory of knowledge is one of the most central areas of philosophy.'
https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/V500-8

2. We're not discussing Philosophy here, this is IRRELEVANT not only in this thread but in this Forum: Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology. Do you see Philosophy here??

You have the wrong theory. The knowledge theory that I'm referring to specifically concerns the way that knowledge is used by intelligent agents. It isn't a philosophy.

So back to the same refuted narrative, eh?

Well, okay, we can discuss that. What characteristics would a given subset of information be required to have in order to assist with decision making by an intelligent agent?

1. Empty appeal to feigned credulity.

2. Do you have Special Mind Powers? Let's TEST your Blind Conjecture Acumen ...what's my favorite color ?

We can do that conversation too.

Question: Do you know what an abstraction primitive is?
Daniel: No.

Question: Can you construct an abstraction tree?
Daniel: I have no idea what an abstraction tree is.

Question: How would you determine the relevance of a given abstraction tree to a given agent?
Daniel: I have no idea.

Question: What is the relationship between the position of an item on an abstraction tree and the cost of manipulation?
Daniel: I have no idea what you are talking about.

2. Sure, Information has no bearing on Information.

Your definition of information has no bearing on this thread. None. You are talking about an unrelated subject.

It's beyond absurd. Can you liberate the "Information" from either please...? What is each Communicating To You ?

Post the Convention and Medium please...? @ the same time, you may want to familiarize yourself with some ICD-10 Codes (F-99)

As I've pointed out several times, the example used Shannon's definition of information. You are using a completely different definition is more related to communication theory. The part that baffles me is that you think these two are related.

Border Reiver · May 11, 2016

barehl said:
Not relevant to this thread. In fact, it isn't even relevant to this section of the forum.

I disagree.

If we accept Daniel's assertions as being true then we need a "creator". Mythology gives us a rather large selection of possible creators, so we'd need to figure out how to trim the list.

Personally, I fall in with the idea that DNA is a series of proteins that control chemical reactions that control the development of single and multi-cellular life as we know it. And that this protein string has evolved and developed over a very long time without direction from a supernatural source.

I find many of the basic ideas that Daniel has put forth to be unconvincing and unsubstantiated, but lack the more sophisticated science background to properly articulate a response.

RussDill · May 12, 2016

It would be similar to claiming you had proof of abiogenesis without bothering to even guess at the molecular pathway.

acbytesla · May 12, 2016

Border Reiver said:
I disagree.

If we accept Daniel's assertions as being true then we need a "creator". Mythology gives us a rather large selection of possible creators, so we'd need to figure out how to trim the list.

Personally, I fall in with the idea that DNA is a series of proteins that control chemical reactions that control the development of single and multi-cellular life as we know it. And that this protein string has evolved and developed over a very long time without direction from a supernatural source.

I find many of the basic ideas that Daniel has put forth to be unconvincing and unsubstantiated, ~~but~~ lack the more sophisticated science background to properly articulate a response.

FIFY "And" would be the proper conjunction, not "but".

Whereas the question of why not any of the other gods as opposed to the Abrahamic god is a good question for Daniel to consider, I agree that it is irrelevant to the thread. A better question is how can anyone differentiate from a "created" world and "natural" world as we have no frame of reference?

We define EVERYTHING in relationship to other things and concepts. Without which any definition is impossible. How do we know what hot is without also knowing what cold is?
Our understanding of one concept improves out ability to understand and define other concepts.

For example, how do we measure and define the passage of time? We measure it in relationship to the earth's rotation or now the radiation oscillations of a cesium atom.

If God created everything than we can never know or understand what a spontaneous natural world or lifeform is. In contrast if it all occurred naturally than it is unrealistic to think we can identify a god world.

This is why GOD can NEVER be the answer in science. It offers us no insight. It is a panacea, catchall.

barehl · May 14, 2016

I watched several debates with Creationists to see what the actual arguments are. I assume this is where Daniel got his ideas from. As far as I can tell, the basic concept is that total DNA information was at a maximum right after the creation event. And, that since that time the total DNA information has been declining.

Looking at this, I can see how someone would combine that with the laws of thermodynamics and see a loss of information as a gain in entropy. This would also fit with Shannon. Therefore, someone could feel justified in claiming that total DNA information must be declining just as a hot rock would cool off or just as the total amount of hydrogen fuel must be declining as it is fused into heavier elements.

Okay, I can see where that argument came from. Someone who actually knows about information and entropy would of course argue that such a claim only works for the universe as whole. It doesn't work for the local environment of the Earth which constantly gains energy from the Sun. But I'm guessing that fact would be lost on someone who is only making a tenuous connection with ideas at best. The notion is familiar: clocks run down, metal rusts, cups of hot coffee cool off, so therefore DNA must also deteriorate in some fashion. This also fits with the idea that everything was perfect right after creation but that it is slowly declining. It becomes easier to suggest that a supposed moral decline is in combination with some other decline like running out of resources or increases in pollution. This is particularly attractive if your belief system is based on a catastrophic end of the world in the near future. Again, I can understand where the associations come from.

But there is a difference between a trivial, emotional association and something that actually stands up to scrutiny.

I used to detassel which is how you make hybrid seed corn. Basically, you remove the pollen producing tassels from most of the corn rows so that they can't self pollinate. That way, the seed plants get pollinated only by the variety of corn that you have selected. Once in awhile I would find corn plants where the corn cob was growing at the top, just under the tassel instead of down on the stalk. This was interesting to me because that's how it works with pretty much every grass there is. Barley, wheat, rye, oats, milo, millet, rice, etc. all have the seed bearing part at the top of the stem. However, corncobs are too heavy so it works better to have the seed bearing part down lower where the stalk is thicker. This is a mutation that allowed much greater seed production from corn. So, the configuration with the corncob on top would be the original pattern. And, presumably each corn plant would still have DNA for this even though it is not typically expressed. Of course, corn was bred by humans, an intelligent agent. However:

Snakes and whales have DNA for legs.
Horses have DNA for toes.
Birds have DNA for teeth.
Humans have DNA for tails.

I believe all of the above statements are right but I'm sure someone will correct me if I made a mistake. Since none of these characteristics were done by selective breeding by humans, there has been no change from an intelligent agent. Therefore, according to creationist theory, the DNA could not have been added after creation since that would have required the intervention of some intelligent agent. If the DNA base has deteriorated since a creation event then presumably the originally created whales and snakes had legs, birds had teeth, horses had toes, and humans had tails. And presumably these have been lost because of errors in the DNA. But this seems to be a problem because birds are mentioned in Genesis and there is nothing about teeth. There is also nothing about human tails.

I can't think of an explanation for the unused DNA that fits into the degenerate DNA model of creationists. I tried looking up this topic on Answers in genesis but they simply go to great length to assert that human tails are some kind of birth defect rather than addressing the actual DNA. As far as I can tell, answers in genesis simply pretends that the unused DNA in horses, birds, snakes, whales, and humans doesn't exist.

RussDill · May 15, 2016

The link between entropy and complexity is actually more complex. If you imagine a system with the lowest entropy possible, it can be described quite easily. Similarly, if you describe the heat death of the universe, it is also very easy to describe. It's in the middle that "interesting" things occur. Take a pot of water and food coloring. If you put three drops in, at that moment, entropy is at it's lowest and it isn't very interesting. If you come back in a few hours, it's a uniform color. But in the middle, you get all kinds of complex swirls.

There's an interesting post/talk here: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762

It's still an evolving field.

Creationist argument about DNA and information

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

New Blood

Penultimate Amazing

The Terrible Trivium

New Blood

Philosopher

New Blood

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Master Poster

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Philosopher