Creationist argument about DNA and information

[MikeG]

.........Please Invalidate...

CODE contains information. (such as a Book, Morse Code, Instructions, they all contain information)
Information has authors. (which is ALWAYS the case)DNA is a CODE.
Therefore DNA has an Author.......

OK.

This bit is makey uppie nonsense to suit your argument. It is false. Therefore your conclusion is false.

 

[Perpetual Student]

CODE contains information. (such as a Book, Morse Code, Instructions, they all contain information)
Information has authors. (which is ALWAYS the case)
DNA is a CODE.
Therefore DNA has an Author.

The highlighted phrase above has been included without a shred of evidence. Your argument has been completely invalidated, unless you can demonstrate unambiguously that information always has authors. I await your evidence.

 

[ComfySlippers]

OK.



This bit is makey uppie nonsense to suit your argument. It is false. Therefore your conclusion is false.

He's a creationist. He believes Earth is 6000 years old.
Makey-Uppie Nonsense is all they have.

I like it when he says "Color Commentary Op-Ed" though.
I think he uses macros for his silly replies

 

[MikeG]

He's a creationist. He believes Earth is 6000 years old.
Makey-Uppie Nonsense is all they have.

No. They've got each other. The dwindling band of brothers and sisters cling together chanting "la-la-la I can't hear you" in unison, and it makes them feel like they belong.

I like it when he says "Color Commentary Op-Ed" though........

I haven't bothered asking about that. If he can twist the definition of everyday words so that they mean exactly what he wants them to mean, what's the point of asking him about the meanings of phrases you've never heard before?

 

[RussDill]

If he insists on sticking with this definition:

" the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence"

Then I ask him to kindly go here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

And tell us which definition above refers to DNA. For the lazy:

1 obsolete : cognizance
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
3 archaic : sexual intercourse
4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b archaic : a branch of learning

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
c : mental acuteness : shrewdness
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : angel
b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : comprehension
4 a : information, news
b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions

Daniel has once again painted himself into a corner of contradictions.

 

[ComfySlippers]

No. They've got each other. The dwindling band of brothers and sisters cling together chanting "la-la-la I can't hear you" in unison, and it makes them feel like they belong.

We should build design them all an Ark.

I haven't bothered asking about that. If he can twist the definition of everyday words so that they mean exactly what he wants them to mean, what's the point of asking him about the meanings of phrases you've never heard before?

I had to look it up:

A color commentator is a North American term for a sports commentator who assists the main commentator, often by filling in any time when play is not in progress. In other regions this role is variously referred to as an analyst or summariser.

Wiki

Why on earth would such terminology be useful to me?

 

[RussDill]

I haven't bothered asking about that. If he can twist the definition of everyday words so that they mean exactly what he wants them to mean, what's the point of asking him about the meanings of phrases you've never heard before?

It's a North American term regarding sports commentary:

"The color commentator provides expert analysis and background information"

 

[Border Reiver]

And you're dismissing the Quintessential Aspect of the Definition (Communication), and focusing on quibbling.

I am hardly dismissing the essential meaning of the word. I am looking at several of the definintions of the word - there is no "quintessential" aspect of the definition - there are several definitions all of which are equally valid.

Focussing on one definition to the exclusion of others without letting people know that that is your intent while expecting others to implicitly understand that is dishonest.

Yes: INFORMation...it INFORMS.

There are many ways information can be conveyed. Some requiring preknowledge, such as reading a written word, others requiring the ability to observe phenomena, such as flags moving with no visible force acting on them to determine that there is wind.

Woe woe woe, there. So you don't know/can't discern Information when you see it?
Then, pray tell, why are you even discussing the attributes of it?

If there is information contained in your keyboard mashing please convey it then to the class.

I am discussing this because I wish to. It is also not a pre-requisite of discussion to know all aspects of an issue before starting a discussion. I can glean from your responses information concerning the author.

Incorrect. They 'Represent' Information (Semiotics); however, they are merely 'The Medium'. Photons do not have the message EMBEDDED 'Physically' in them.

In this case, the medium conveyed the message. In the same way that photons emitted by your computer screen are conveying this message to whomever reads it.

Correct.

Paul 'assigned' the message to the lights, the Information was 'conveyed' to The Patriots as a result of a Pre-Arranged AGREEMENT between A and B (Paul and The Patriots).

Different people can interpret the same information without being privy to the code though.

Really? For instance....?

We can start with - there are two lanterns in that church steeple. (this being a reference to my assertion that people can gather information from a phenomena without being privy to the code prior.)

So.... a Guess "SOMETHING", eh?

The World's most powerful computers stacked on top of each other working for 50 Billion Years with computations each second couldn't have 'cracked' this CODE, without CONTEXT!!!!

1 light = 5 Beers
2 lights = 3 Giraffes

1 light = Hangnail
2 lights = Chicken Tenders

...ad infinitum

But a drunken British sergeant may have deduced that something was up, investigated and determined that some terrorists were passing on a message.

Learning how to interpret the information we receive is how we develop our knowledge.


You seem to be under the impression that information or knowledge is an all or nothing deal - if you don't know exactly what the intended message is supposed to be, then you can gain nothing from it.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel:

CODE contains information. (such as a Book, Morse Code, Instructions, they all contain information)
Information has authors. (which is ALWAYS the case)
DNA is a CODE.
Therefore DNA has an Author.


Perpetual Student: The highlighted phrase above has been included without a shred of evidence.

So your last phrase here: The highlighted phrase above has been included without a shred of evidence. ...

Is this Information?? Are you and Intelligent Agent (Author)??

I await your evidence.

Here's my Evidence: The Null Hypothesis...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create CODES.

"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."-- csun.edu
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc

If "YOU" can't falsify The Null Hypothesis; Then the case is settled.

Basically, you have to show Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints....?

 

[rwguinn]

Your "Null Hypothesis " is an article.of Faith, and not falsifiable, thus, it is not science. ..

 

[Daniel]

I am hardly dismissing the essential meaning of the word. I am looking at several of the definintions of the word - there is no "quintessential" aspect of the definition - there are several definitions all of which are equally valid.

Several Definitions, eh? That should have RED FLAGGED it for ya right there. Have you heard of Equivocation Fallacies, by chance? ...

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

This what they call in the industry: "a conundrum"

Focussing on one definition to the exclusion of others without letting people know that that is your intent while expecting others to implicitly understand that is dishonest.

SEE above: Equivocation Fallacy, IN TOTO.

There are many ways information can be conveyed. Some requiring preknowledge, such as reading a written word, others requiring the ability to observe phenomena, such as flags moving with no visible force acting on them to determine that there is wind.

What is the Message the Flags (Inanimate Objects) are sending you?? What's "The Medium"...?

I am discussing this because I wish to. It is also not a pre-requisite of discussion to know all aspects of an issue before starting a discussion.

I said discussing "THE ATTRIBUTES" of, not merely a vague discussion. If you can't distinguish between duccolslopelgerts and slopelgerts; THEN...why are you telling me Authoritatively that duccolslopelgerts are different from slopelgerts ?? It kinda doesn't follow.

In this case, the medium conveyed the message.

And what was the 'Necessary Condition' (Antecedent) for this scenario to transpire...?

In the same way that photons emitted by your computer screen are conveying this message to whomever reads it.

So are you saying the Photons created the Message?? Or was it the Display Pixels conspiring with a Keyboard @ the ROOT of your message?

Different people can interpret the same information without being privy to the code though.

Well go ahead Interpret it...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd ...????

We can start with - there are two lanterns in that church steeple.

That's fine.

But a drunken British sergeant may have deduced that something was up, investigated and determined that some terrorists were passing on a message.

So your argument is a conjured hypothetical, eh? Are you gonna get to the 'punchline' @ some point?

You seem to be under the impression that information or knowledge...

Information isn't knowledge, Knowledge is acquired from Information.


regards

 

[MikeG]

It's a North American term regarding sports commentary:

"The color commentator provides expert analysis and background information"

Thanks.

 

[MikeG]

.......Here's my Evidence: The Null Hypothesis...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create CODES.

"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."-- csun.edu
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc

If "YOU" can't falsify The Null Hypothesis; Then the case is settled. .......

Nope. Try again. See if you can do it properly this time. Bear in mind, you were asked to substantiate the claim that "all information always has an author". Your answer made no reference to this. That's called dodging the question.

 

[Daniel]

Your "Null Hypothesis " is an article.of Faith, and not falsifiable, thus, it is not science. ..

1. It is TESTABLE; Therefore Falsifiable.

2. Faith??

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {Emphasis Mine}
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Physics

False Dichotomy (Fallacy) Science vs Faith...

So either you haven't the First Clue what Faith or Science is, OR.... you're Right and Max Planck is Wrong. Guess which way I'm leaning ??


regards

 

[MikeG]

.......2. Faith??

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {Emphasis Mine}
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Physics.........

1932. A quote from a religious scientist. Utterly irrelevant.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So your last phrase here: The highlighted phrase above has been included without a shred of evidence. ...

Is this Information?? Are you and Intelligent Agent (Author)??

Here's my Evidence: The Null Hypothesis...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create CODES.

"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."-- csun.edu
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc

If "YOU" can't falsify The Null Hypothesis; Then the case is settled.

Basically, you have to show Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints....?

You made the assertion; I don't have to show anything. Where is your evidence that information always has authors? Connect the dots from the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. Make an intelligible statement.
Still waiting.

 

[RussDill]

Well go ahead Interpret it...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd ...????

The above sequence is clearly non-random.

10
2 1
3 1
4 2
a 4
b 1
d 9
e 8
f 9
g 3
h 2
i 2
j 3
k 5
l 4
m 3
n 3
o 3
p 1
r 4
s 5
t 4
v 4
w 1
y 4

More than half the letters typed appear in the home row of a qwerty keyboard. This is all information.

 

[RussDill]

1. Information: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.

Information isn't knowledge, Knowledge is acquired from Information.

Interesting...

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Skell (creationist and chemist) lies about biologists not using evolution

Missed a few of Daniel's citation of creationists lying about biology.
21 March 2016 Daniel: Skell (creationist and chemist) lies about evolution ("invoking Darwin") not being used by biologists (evolutionary developmental biology has been around since before Darwin !).

There is an extra creationist delusion in Skell's opinion piece - that biology stopped with Darwin. There should be biologists studying just the contributions of Darwin to the modern theory of evolution. But they would be outnumbered by the others using the additions to evolution, e.g. genetics and DNA!

21 March 2016 Daniel: Spetner (physicist and a creationist) repeat the creationist myth that mutations cause the loss of information (point mutations are neutral and a part of the mechanism for creating new information).

21 March 2016 Daniel[/B]: The creationist lie that "antibiotic resistance is not evolving".

 

[Reality Check]

First of all…I did not claim that nature requires intelligence to create it, I said there is very convincing evidence that implicates the existence of intelligence in / as reality....

One of the points that Daniel misses in another thread is that there is evidence that against "the existence of intelligence in / as reality". This is the non-causal quantum eraser experiment where the choice of measurement by the apparatus cannot be communicated to the detector. This is true even if the apparatus is an intelligence.
15 March 2016 Daniel: 'A non-causal quantum eraser' found that the choice of measurement even by an imaginary intelligent observer cannot be transmitted to the detector.

Just in case though: Can you cite the scientific literature that contains that very convincing evidence, annnnoid?