RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,12:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08)

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:

Methods of measuring information can be found here:

He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments:

I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff...


So it's basically a non-answer.  About what I suspected.  They are refusing to define the concepts in any way that can actually be challenged.

This quote is from the first link
There is no consensus about the status of these ideas, and the result has been a growing foundational discussion within biology and the philosophy of biology. Some have hailed the employment of informational concepts as a crucial advance (Williams 1992). Others have seen almost every biological application of informational concepts as a serious error, one that distorts our understanding and contributes to lingering genetic determinism (Francis 2003).

There are at least four methods of thinking about information in biological organisms listed in this same article.

You're best bet is to reply thus:

"So, you have no concrete standards for applying or using information systems in biological systems.  Until you do so, then the entire conversation is a moot point.

Information has a variety of very specific definitions and related equations depending on what you are doing.  Until you define exactly what information is being measured, how it is being measured, and how it can be utilized, then there can be no further discussion on this topic."

A really fun game you can play on them was given here by Eric.  Ask them which of the following contains more information: A) a 30 minute speech by Winston Churchill or B) 30 minutes of white noise.

If they are truly conversant in information theory, then they will answer B.  If they answer A, then they are confusing 'information' with the 'meaning' given by that information.  The two are NOT the same thing and this can be easily shown.  For example, if you type in a snippet of machine code, they can easily break it down into information (it's just hexidecimal letters and numbers), but they must know how to translate that into meaning to understand what it is.  The information content is completely separate from the meaning.  This is the purpose of cryptology, to hide the meaning and still be able to send the information.

Anyway, I predict that they will complain that you aren't really interested in hearing about it or that it is too difficult to follow unless you have studied information theory (which none of them have either).

I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.  

BTW: I just remembered, here's a challenge I put on my blog for the information detailed creationists...

Edit to add: Here are some good questions that no ID/creationist has ever answered:

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]