Creationist argument about DNA and information

[jimbob]

Daniel,

Your copious cutting and pasting is browbeating, in my opinion. I don't know what else to call it. I'm writing to you, person to person, and I don't counter with long slabs of boilerplate, which I interpret as being quite rude. I say I can't access an article and you just double down on the claim that I don't have to read the article; your quote says it all. Good manners, IMO, would be to provide a live link to the article, not to keep repeating the same sentence.

So you say the earth's age hasn't been proven as science - fine. Neither has Genesis. If you think the bible proves it, fine. Not everyone believes it in this literal a way. Please don't respond by continuing to post more and more typographical assaults. I mean, OK, that's your right. It's just not terribly persuasive.

I find you personal style of argument mind numbing, so I guess that makes me doubly mind-numbed now.

ETA: Triply numbed, since another poster has begun arguing in your confrontational style of prose.

Do you think that my response to your question about this thread was accurate?

"sophistry and word games "

"and insults."

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think I'm beginning to see the type of experiment that would convince Daniel

When someone, from a loose collection of atoms, recreates all 4.5 billion years of earth's formation, the emergence of complexer molecules, self replicators, life and more complex lifeforms, all WITHOUT using any equipment, then he will be convinced.
Though even then it will probably be 'Where did you get the atoms??', so maybe better to start with quantum foam and work from there.

Because any smaller experiment, no matter how much it disproves his central tenets, just get handwaved away. Something any bible literalist has to have a LOT of experience with to get trough life.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I think I'm beginning to see the type of experiment that would convince Daniel

When someone, from a loose collection of atoms, recreates all 4.5 billion years of earth's formation, the emergence of complexer molecules, self replicators, life and more complex lifeforms, all WITHOUT using any equipment, then he will be convinced.
Though even then it will probably be 'Where did you get the atoms??', so maybe better to start with quantum foam and work from there.

Because any smaller experiment, no matter how much it disproves his central tenets, just get handwaved away. Something any bible literalist has to have a LOT of experience with to get trough life.

It's like asking for a crocoduck. Same old goalpost manufacturing.

Creationist arguments and questions are slogans. Nothing more. Any refutation will simply be ignored tomorrow. They will bring up the same question at their next debate.

"Why are there still monkeys" has been clearly answered countless times, yet it lives on, as a persistent slogan.

 

[steenkh]

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

How on earth are you going to support that claim?

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !

Oh I see, an argument from incredulity. How boring.

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

And if we do not know now what reactions could do it, then you conclude that it is impossible?

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

You think that just by defining DNA as software, then you have proved that there is a god? Why not simply conclude that DNA is not software, because there is nowhere a hint of a god?

 

[TheAdversary]

'DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the
first creatures'

Shannon Information Theory tells us that Information and Entropy are really just two sides of the same coin. Information is absence of Uncertainty, and Uncertainty is absence
of Information. So this 'information never comes about by chance' is deeply confused and confusing. They probably mean to ask how it is possible for a Universe that seems
to prefer disorder to bring forth orderly things. That's a good question, but then they say it must come from a 'mind'. And how did that 'mind' arise in a Universe
that prefers disorder? You'll end up with exactly the same problem all over again. Unless you insist that this 'mind' is already the Mind of God. But that's just an
a priori assumption; They already have to assume that the Mind of God did it, in their 'proof' that God did it. So, it's circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion.
But it's confusing enough to give everyone a headache trying to figure out what _exactly_ is wrong with it.

 

[hecd2]

Really?? Provide the mathematical formula for Natural Selection....?

Daniel has demonstrated his inability to engage in rational discourse, so this isn't so much for him as for others who might be reading this thread.

The mathematical basis for the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology is not nearly as well known as it should be. A great deal of discussion about the Theory of Evolution focuses on its qualitative features, and ignores the complex mathematical foundation for its various aspects such as the statistics of allele frequency, the fixation of alleles, the wave dynamics of the spread of beneficial alleles, kin selection, fitness costs and benefits, genetic drift, linkage disequilibrium and so on. The relevant branch of evolutionary biology is known as Population Genetics.

The foundations of much of this analysis was laid between the 1918 and the 1960s by some of the key figures of the Modern Synthesis, for example R A Fisher, Sewall Wright and, later on, Bill Hamilton. There were of course many others who contributed to this work. Ronald Fisher developed the field of quantitative genetics by showing how continuously varying traits could depend on discrete changes in genes (R A Fisher, The correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance, Phil Tran Roy Soc Edinburgh 52, 399 - 433). Amongst many, many other mathematically based papers on evolution, he showed how natural selection is a powerful force in natural populations. W D Hamilton developed the mathematical basis for the evolution of altruism, inclusive fitness and kin selection, two of his key papers being The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II, J Theoret Biol 7, 1 - 52, available here.

The field is vast and complex, but if any basic equation can be called the equation of natural selection it is the partial differential equation developed by R A Fisher (known as Fisher's equation) in the seminal paper The Wave of Advance of Advantageous Genes, Ann Eug 7, 355-369 available here. The equation is eqn 1 of that paper. The rest of the paper develops solutions and implications for population genetics of that partial differential equation.

There are several textbooks on population genetics from simple introductions to more advanced postgrad texts. Just google "population genetics textbook". There are also elementary introductions to some of the principles in more general undergraduate textbooks on Evolutionary Biology such as Douglas Futuyama's "Evolutionary Biology" or Mark Ridley's "Evolution".

 

[steenkh]

They probably mean to ask how it is possible for a Universe that seems to prefer disorder to bring forth orderly things. That's a good question [..]

In general I agree with your line of reasoning, but in this quote it seems that you make the same mistake as the creationists and think that it is difficult to explain how order arises.

In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only valid for closed systems, which means that they do not get input from outside. The Earth is continually getting energy from the Sun, and this is used to generate more order, but at the cost of massive increase in entropy in the Sun, so overall the universe moves towards more entropy.

This point is lost on creationists who think that the 2nd LofD prevents life from forming without God.

 

[TheAdversary]

It's not difficult to understand how low Entropy arises using the age-old, but entirely correct, Earth and Sun argument. And then ending up with the conclusion that
Entropy still always increases even though it decreases locally, since the Earth is not a closed system. I'm not making that mistake. But the mystery isn't solved yet;
The question then becomes how low Entropy states can exist at all. Isn't the Universe a closed system? This will lead to Black Hole Thermodynamics, Information Theory etc.
This is unsolved, it's one of the frontiers of Physics.

 

[AdamSK]

The question then becomes how low Entropy states can exist at all. Isn't the Universe a closed system?

State of locally-low entropy exist because they increase the total entropy of the system. Crystalization processes, for example, give off heat, which adds more entropy to the surrounding environment than is reduced in the crystal itself. The result is still an increase in entropy and reduction in free energy, just as we would expect for spontaneous thermodynamic processes.

 

[TheAdversary]

So the Universe has found a way to allow states of low entropy without violating the requirement of ever increasing disorder. This is why in Black Hole Thermodynamics
a Black Hole, or the Big Bang Singularity, is seen as having _highest_ possible Entropy, just like the Heat Death state, also a maximum of disorder, to resolve this conundrum.
But a complete theory requires Quantum Gravity, which no one has ever been able to successfully formulate without it starting to predict anything at all (trivialism).

 

[Daniel]

Daniel,

Your copious cutting and pasting is browbeating, in my opinion.

Your appeal to the nonsensical is a "Screaming Tell" that Cognitive Dissonance is ruling the roost...

Copy and Paste, eh? Can you share the rationale of What on Earth does Copy and Paste have to do with the Veracity of the Message? Would it be better if I typed everything out each time?
Define Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)..?

What if a Professor wrote up a lesson plan, then wrote on the board: "Protein Secondary Structure is crucial for functionality and is conferred by Functional Sequence Complexity (Primary Structure), and Hydrogen Bonding".
Then later that evening, decided to email the class the exact same text...but didn't feel like writing it out again....so merely "Copy and Pasted" from the lesson plan to the email.
Is the message in the email now COMPROMISED..because it was Copy and Pasted??
You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?
Would the students dismiss it out of hand due to lack of credibility?
I understand though, you have no coherent SUPPORT for any position, so you're reduced to feebly conjuring inane improprieties, right?

This is Tantamount to saying: Your Case is Refuted because you: wrote it in German, submitted it on Legal Paper (wrong Stationary), used 'Word Pad" instead of "Microsoft Word", it's in Blue Ink rather than Black, used the wrong Font, Folded it, ad nauseam.

I mean, R-Ya-Kiddin me love ??

So you say the earth's age hasn't been proven as science - fine. Neither has Genesis.

1. I never said Genesis was Science. Nobody (that has a clue what SCIENCE is) has ever claimed it was Science. In Fact, didn't I explicitly say it wasn't Science? However, those you spoke of masquerade as "Science" and are NOT. Big Difference.

2. I not only SAY Age can't be proven/Validated by the Scientific Method ("Science"), I SHOW WHY, Big Difference.

It's just not terribly persuasive.

Well...as soon as I surmise the obvious, My mission here switches @ Light Speed from "persuading" to EXPOSING and to PUMMELING all arguments against the TRUTH. (SEE Mandates: Ephesians 5:11 and 2 Corinthians 10:5)

I find you personal style of argument mind numbing, so I guess that makes me doubly mind-numbed now.

Well everyone has an "Opinion". Not many have cogent "Substantive" SUPPORT for what they say.


regards

 

[abaddon]

Oh, hello Daniel.

Fancy answering my question?

"What caused your god?"

Odd how you keep avoiding that.

 

[Daniel]

so maybe better to start with quantum foam and work from there.

Where'd you get the Quantum Vacuum? Then WHO collapsed The Wave-Function...? ...

"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


regards

 

[The Greater Fool]

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. All of this is designed to demonstrate the inevitability of the ideas we currently hold, so that if students reject what we say, they are declaring themselves to be unreasoning and illogical, unworthy of being considered as modern, thinking people.
Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity. I have good reasons for employing propaganda techniques to achieve belief." ....
"So I, like all my colleagues, teach the way I do because I have little choice. But it is brainwashing nonetheless. When the dust settles, what I am asking my students to do is to accept what I say because I, as an accredited representative of my discipline, profession, and academia, say it. All the reason, logic, and evidence that I use simply disguise the fact that the students are not yet in a position to sift and weigh the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions."
Singham, Mano: "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54
[URL="https://donpartridge.wordpress.com/n...-w-propaganda/"]https://donpartridge.wordpress.com/n...-w-propaganda/[/URL]

Every quote you've posted, I've read the source article (when I can find it) for context. Generally, they say the opposite what you present them as saying.

In this case, the author is describing how Introductory Physics classes, which are often the only Physics classes the students take, are unable to go into the details and experiments of the subject matter. At the level of introduction to the subject matter, the author can only summarize current thinking. The author states that even if he could go into more detail, the students, not being Physics majors, wouldn't understand the experiments, let alone have the tools necessary to duplicate experiments.

So, the author is not criticizing Physics, not Physics education generally, but rather the Introductory Physics classes and their limitations.

Additionally, the Author claims personal experience extends to all instructors in Physics, which obviously is not supported.

 

[JeanTate]

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

How on earth are you going to support that claim?

<snip>

I asked Daniel about the "Physically IMPOSSIBLE" part earlier.

His response?

"Gibbs Free Energy" (yep, in caps).

Like me, you may wonder how Gibbs free energy makes the natural, "spontaneous" (I have no idea what special meaning Daniel attaches to this word), etc formation of functional DNA/RNA/Proteins "physically IMPOSSIBLE", and you may have better luck getting a coherent response from him than I did, when I asked for a meatier, details-filled response.

I suspect, however, that Daniel does not understand what Gibbs free energy is, and even if he does, cannot explain, in detail, how it makes the formation of certain organic molecules physically impossible.

 

[abaddon]

Where'd you get the Quantum Vacuum? Then WHO collapsed The Wave-Function...? ...

"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


regards

Dishonest cherry-picking again, Daniel? Say it ain't so.

What else does your cited article say?

All of physics is based on quantum theory. It’s the most battle-tested theory in all of science. And one-third of our economy involves products designed with it. Quantum theory works for fundamental science and for practical applications.

And...

The experimental facts basic to the quantum enigma are undisputed.

You wouldn't selectively quote out of context, would you?

 

[Daniel]

How on earth are you going to support that claim?

Easy, I just did. The Proof is the Absence of it. To refute, SHOW IT.

Oh I see, an argument from incredulity. How boring.

How on Earth is this an Argument from Ignorance...

Daniel: "To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !" ??

, your conjured appeal is inane.

And if we do not know now what reactions could do it, then you conclude that it is impossible?

No. It's I do know that there are NO reactions that will produce it "Naturally" and Spontaneously...I must have posted the reasons why @ least 25 times on this thread alone. And that's just for the "Physical Molecules" (Hardware) not even speaking to the "Software"....INFORMATION.

You think that just by defining DNA as software, then you have proved that there is a god?

I don't define it that way, That's what INFORMATION IS, for goodness sakes.

And Yea.

Why not simply conclude that DNA is not software, because there is nowhere a hint of a god?

Because it's not, and I'm not a liar.


regards

 

[abaddon]

Come on Daniel, answer the question...

"What caused your god?" for the seventh time of asking.

Also, your cherry-picking of quotations demonstrates your dishonesty. This is not open to question, nor is it an ad hominem. It is right here in this thread for all to see.

 

[JeanTate]

'DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the
first creatures'

Shannon Information Theory tells us that Information and Entropy are really just two sides of the same coin. Information is absence of Uncertainty, and Uncertainty is absence
of Information. So this 'information never comes about by chance' is deeply confused and confusing. They probably mean to ask how it is possible for a Universe that seems
to prefer disorder to bring forth orderly things. That's a good question, but then they say it must come from a 'mind'. And how did that 'mind' arise in a Universe
that prefers disorder? You'll end up with exactly the same problem all over again. Unless you insist that this 'mind' is already the Mind of God. But that's just an
a priori assumption; They already have to assume that the Mind of God did it, in their 'proof' that God did it. So, it's circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion.
But it's confusing enough to give everyone a headache trying to figure out what _exactly_ is wrong with it.

Yeah.

There's also the added confusion of Daniel either not knowing what entropy is, or misunderstanding/misrepresenting how it and information are related. Not to mention that he also seems to have a highly idiosyncratic, personal definition of "information", one that seems to be only coincidentally related to the ones you'll find in standard textbooks.

Then there's this: what is the entropy/information content of a 'mind'?

Oh, and despite his repeated use of 'logical fallacy' (or 'Logical Fallacies') in his attempts to respond to what others have posted, Daniel's own posts are replete with them. Some almost good enough to consider adding to your teaching material.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Hey, Daniel: I asked a question isn't the other thread. Any chance you could pop over and answer it?