Creationist argument about DNA and information

Daniel: How do the pyramids display the biological concept of FSC

Daniel said:
No particular reason, I could have chosen any number of examples that display Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.
Click to expand...
23 March 2016 Daniel: How do the pyramids display the biological concept of Functional Sequence Complexity, e.g. used in analyzing proteins?

23 March 2016 Daniel: How do the pyramids display the pseudoscience of Demksi's debunked concept of Specified Complexity?
What is the Specified Complexity of the Step Pyramid of Djoser?
What is the Specified Complexity of the Pyramid of Menkaure?

And why pyramids: What is the Specified Complexity of the Empire State Building :D?

For that matter:
23 March 2016 Daniel: Can you list any actual examples of calculations from Demksi's debunked concept of Specified Complexity?


regards.
 
Daniel: A null hypothesis is not a random fantasy that is always true

Daniel said:
Here's my Evidence: The Null Hypothesis...
Click to expand...
Ignorance about what a null hypothesis is not good, Daniel.
In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.[1]
Click to expand...
The null hypothesis is used in a test against an alternative hypothesis. You have no alternative hypothesis. You have no test. A null hypothesis is not falsified because evidence is not presented against the null hypothesis. It is rejected because a statistical test reaches an accepted level of significance.
A null hypothesis is generally that what you are observing is not real, e.g. noise created the result, or a hypothesis with evidence for it.

23 March 2016 Daniel: A null hypothesis is not a random fantasy that you assume to be true :p!

Here is someone using your fallacy:
  1. Here's the Evidence: The Null Hypothesis... The sky is red
  2. They ignorantly state that the null hypothesis is always true.
  3. Thus the sky is red :jaw-dropp!
Daniel: Is the sky red?

Falsifying this "Null Hypothesis" would be the observation (not statistical test) that the sky is not red.
Rejecting this "Null Hypothesis" would be a statistical test against an Alternative Hypothesis.

An example of using a null hypothesis in physics. We collect lots of data at the Large Hadron Collider. We see an interesting peak. The null hypothesis is that this peak is a statistical fluke from noise in the data. The alternative hypothesis is that it is a real signal in the data. We do a statistical test and see that the chances of noise duplicating that peak are 5 sigma (if the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then we would expect 1 peak from noise). This is the particle physics criteria for treating a peak as significant. Thus we reject the null hypothesis.
That is how the Higgs boson was discovered.
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
"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
Click to expand...
Do you think that scientists cannot have religious beliefs or express themselves using religious language, Daniel?
Read the theological works of Newton!
Read Albert Einstein who was brought up as a non-observant Ashkenazi Jew and that influenced his language.

Also read as dictionary where FAITH need not be religious:
strong belief or trust in someone or something
belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
a system of religious beliefs
Click to expand...
For example, I have a nonreligious, evidence-based FAITH that we will probably see another post showing ignorance about the null hypothesis from you, Daniel :p.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Ignorance about what a null hypothesis is not good, Daniel.

The null hypothesis is used in a test against an alternative hypothesis. You have no alternative hypothesis. You have no test. A null hypothesis is not falsified because evidence is not presented against the null hypothesis. It is rejected because a statistical test reaches an accepted level of significance.
A null hypothesis is generally that what you are observing is not real, e.g. noise created the result, or a hypothesis with evidence for it.

23 March 2016 Daniel: A null hypothesis is not a random fantasy that you assume to be true :p!

Here is someone using your fallacy:
  1. Here's the Evidence: The Null Hypothesis... The sky is red
  2. They ignorantly state that the null hypothesis is always true.
  3. Thus the sky is red :jaw-dropp!
Daniel: Is the sky red?

Falsifying this "Null Hypothesis" would be the observation (not statistical test) that the sky is not red.
Rejecting this "Null Hypothesis" would be a statistical test against an alternative hypotheses.

An example of using a null hypothesis in physics. We collect lots of data at the Large Hadron Collider. We see an interesting peak. The null hypothesis is that this peak is a statistical fluke from noise in the data. The alternative hypothesis is that it is a real signal in the data. We do a statistical test and see that the chances of noise duplicating that peak are 5 sigma (if the experiment was repeated experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then we would expect 1 peak from noise). This is the particle physics criteria for treating a peak as significant. Thus we reject the null hypothesis.
That is how the Higgs boson was discovered.
Click to expand...
:popcorn1
 
Daniel said:
And you did the same (Pot meet Kettle)...
Click to expand...
Where? I dare you to give an example!

Please read definition " 1 " more carefully.
Click to expand...
Yes, what of it? That was the definition you quoted, and you conveniently forgot to mention that information can also mean 2, 3 and 4. And I did include the entire definition in my quote.

Ohh, HE Exists alright.
Click to expand...
A claim with no evidence for it.

Well if the Definition of Science SEE: "The Scientific Method", excludes 'most sciences'; THEN Logically.... the 'most sciences' weren't 'Sciences' to begin with. :cool:
Click to expand...
Yes, when you use a useless definition of the word science, you get a useless logical result, bravo!

We all have Presuppositions, the key is....Do They Make SENSE! ;)
Click to expand...
Perhaps you think it makes sense to assume what you want to prove, but you will have some difficulty when you are not preaching to the believers ...

They are.
Click to expand...
Is that you all you are left with? A child's response?

Really?? Please Invalidate...
Click to expand...
Simple, we shall not use use the word information in the useless sense that you have assigned to it, so we just invent a new word, let us say noitamrofni that only has meaning of definition 2 of Merriam Webster. Since noitamrofni can be used to describe DNA adequately, your argument that an intelligence is needed for DNA is invalidated.

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.

Go ahead....?
Click to expand...
You are a laugh: Code contains noitamrofni (such as a Book, Morse Code, Instructions and DNA, they all contain noitamrofni.
Noitamrofni needs no authors (Se Merriam-Webster)
DNA has code.
Therefore DNA does not need an author.
 
ComfySlippers said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

Apparently it is a US term of endearment for sports commentators...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_commentator

I had to look it up.

This indicates to me that our friend Daniel is unaware that 95% of humanity lives outside the US. And believes all manner of other things. Up to and including nothing at all.
 
RussDill said:
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.
Click to expand...
And clearly indicates right handedness.

Daniel has been avoiding this.

I wonder why that might be?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Why choose the Pyramids as the example? Why aren't Harry and Sally looking at the sand and rocks around the Pyramids and asking who built them?
Click to expand...

You know, that's a good question. After all, the analogy (essentially Paley's Watchmaker) only works because the Pyramids are differentiated from the sand and rocks. But if, as creationists believe, it's all created, then the perceived difference is made irrelevant and proves nothing. And even more so if the whole universe is an artifact of creation, like all its parts, including life- what's the basis for comparison when you have a sample size of only one (universe)?
 
abaddon said:
Apparently it is a US term of endearment for sports commentators...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_commentator

I had to look it up.

This indicates to me that our friend Daniel is unaware that 95% of humanity lives outside the US. And believes all manner of other things. Up to and including nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Including the over-arching and necessary belief that the things he believes are not beliefs at all, but stone fact. It's what makes him so impervious to the need for actual evidence.
 
Daniel said:
No particular reason, I could have chosen any number of examples that display Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.






Well they already know that, since the Laws of Quantum Mechanics and the 1st/2nd Law of Thermodynamics state WHAT Didn't.


regards
Click to expand...

Splitting the two questions and considering them separately dodges the point of the questions. I'm hoping you weren't aware of that.
To clarify:
Why choose the Pyramids as an example, when Pyramids ( or watches, to quote the original "argument" you are paraphrasing) are man-made objects? Why not choose a non-manmade object, such as a grain of sand or a rock?
Answer: because of you pick up a rock and ask "Who built this, and how was it built?", it would be a stupid question. Your example only works if you choose a manmade artefact, which stands out from its natural surroundings because it is manmade.
It is therefore a silly, and rather dishonest argument.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Splitting the two questions and considering them separately dodges the point of the questions. I'm hoping you weren't aware of that.
To clarify:
Why choose the Pyramids as an example, when Pyramids ( or watches, to quote the original "argument" you are paraphrasing) are man-made objects? Why not choose a non-manmade object, such as a grain of sand or a rock?
Answer: because of you pick up a rock and ask "Who built this, and how was it built?", it would be a stupid question. Your example only works if you choose a manmade artefact, which stands out from its natural surroundings because it is manmade.
It is therefore a silly, and rather dishonest argument.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point. Grain of sand, rock, snowflake…makes not the slightest difference. The argument always ends up being the same.

What it simply comes down to …is that many of you 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) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

IOW…We derive them (the laws of physics) from the reality of neural / cognitive activity (which itself can be regarded as a direct function of them). Everything (to the degree that we can adjudicate everything) follows them. Everything can be described by them. Everything can be predicted by them.

It is thus reasonable to conclude that ‘they’ somehow exist in /as reality (the skeptic consensus is that they are ‘discovered’). And…since the ONLY thing we know of with the capacity to generate / comprehend a ‘law of physics’ (let alone all of them) is something called ‘intelligence’…therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that ‘intelligence’ is itself somehow instantiated in reality.

…and I’m afraid if we’re talking about ALL the laws of physics…whatever ‘intelligence’ that is involved easily gets elevated to the status of whatever a God is…by definition.
 
annnnoid said:
What it simply comes down to …is that many of you 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) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of conventional paradigms in which the laws of physics exist without being created and without any sort of intelligence. Why do you insist otherwise?
 
annnnoid said:
I think you're missing the point. Grain of sand, rock, snowflake…makes not the slightest difference. The argument always ends up being the same.

What it simply comes down to …is that many of you 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) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

IOW…We derive them (the laws of physics) from the reality of neural / cognitive activity (which itself can be regarded as a direct function of them). Everything (to the degree that we can adjudicate everything) follows them. Everything can be described by them. Everything can be predicted by them.

<snip>
Click to expand...
(my bold)

The bolded part is a "lies to children", and I'm a bit surprised to see you repeating it, annnnoid.

It is far more accurate to say something like "every observation we intelligent beings have made so far is consistent with the best models we have" and "the subset of every tested prediction we have made, so far, based on these models is consistent with the models".

(whether the models are "created", "developed", "discovered", or whatever is irrelevant ... to the actual doing of science.

Your gloss goes well beyond science; perhaps it might be more meaningfully discussed in the Philosophy section of ISF?
 
annnnoid said:
IOW…We derive them (the laws of physics) from the reality of neural / cognitive activity (which itself can be regarded as a direct function of them). Everything (to the degree that we can adjudicate everything) follows them. Everything can be described by them. Everything can be predicted by them.

It is thus reasonable to conclude that ‘they’ somehow exist in /as reality (the skeptic consensus is that they are ‘discovered’). And…since the ONLY thing we know of with the capacity to generate / comprehend a ‘law of physics’ (let alone all of them) is something called ‘intelligence’…therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that ‘intelligence’ is itself somehow instantiated in reality.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up ‘laws of nature’ with ‘laws of science’. ‘Laws of nature’ are ‘physically reproducible facts’ that are hypothetically independent of any observer. ‘Laws of science’ are the written representations of ‘laws of nature’. By their very nature, laws of science are abstractions that do require an observer whereas ‘laws of nature’ are the reality that abstractions are meant to simulate.

‘Laws of science’ are very roughly analogous to ‘laws of society’. ‘Laws of nature’ are roughly analogous to ‘actual practice in a society’. The ‘actual practice’ is actually more abstract than the ‘laws’ because some people in the society usually break the law. There used to be a federal law banning the use of marijuana. I dare say most people obeyed that law. However, in actual practice many people were smoking marijuana. So in actual practice, some people were smoking marijuana.

‘Laws of physics’ are a type of ‘laws of science’. Yes, you need an observer to write down or say the ‘laws of physics’. ‘Laws of the physical universe’ are analogous to ‘the laws of nature’. Hypothetically, no intelligent observer is needed for the ‘laws of the physical universe’ being practiced.

John Earman is a philosopher of science who has analyzed this semantic but important distinction.


Link to preprint that has no citation or paywall.
https://core.ac.uk/download/files/425/11920478.pdf
‘Symmetries and laws: laws of nature vs. laws of science’

Link to an article that has a citation and a paywall.


http://philpapers.org/rec/EARLSA
John Earman,, Laws, symmetry, and symmetry breaking: Invariance, conservation principles, and objectivity,’ Philosophy of Science 71 (5), 1227-1241 (1941).

I am presenting this not only because Earman is an ‘authority’ on the philosophy of science. To be honest, he just writes far better than me! :o
 
Daniel said:
<snip>

Well go ahead Interpret it...

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

<snip>
Click to expand...

After some careful analyses - using software, computers, code, DNA, an intelligent agent, and more - I have discovered that that character string is the written form of a message written in a secret language.

A literal translation is not appropriate for this forum, but a loose translation into English might be something like this: "I, Daniel, am smarter than all you un-smart people, and my logic is both UNDISPUTABLE and worthy of a Nobel Prize". ;) :D

Got any more, Daniel?
 
AdamSK said:
There are plenty of conventional paradigms in which the laws of physics exist without being created and without any sort of intelligence.
Click to expand...


What on Earth?? :boggled:

Scientific Laws "Natural Laws" are Immaterial Descriptions of WHAT we Observe/Experience; they are often expressed Mathematically. (Read: ABSTRACT)

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

How on Earth can you have Scientific Laws "Natural Laws" without the Ones Describing them?? :boggled:

"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are -- they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality -- the laws of physics -- only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science."
Paul Davies: "Taking Science on Faith", November 24 2007

Moreover...

Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics, by chance? C'mon over to the thread and explain how in the world you can have a Universe "MATTER" without the 'Necessary Condition' (Antecedent) ---- Observers !!

This motif...

"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

YIKES!!

regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom