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 >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,12:33   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
 
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?
6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?
7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know.  
Thanks for all your help!
Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:
1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.
2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot?
3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.
4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

If you can do a signature line at the bottom of each of your posts, then do something like this:

"Can you provide the same level of detail about your notion that you demand for science?"

Seriously, at the end of every post, ask them what their position is and list all the evidence that they have for it.  They won't answer, they can't answer and it really hammers home the fact that they are basing their notions on nothing.

Here's the deal with information... it is a verifiable, mathematical quantity.  It can be measured, observed, and worked with.

If they cannot provide a method for determining information (however that they wish to define it), then they are just making stuff up.  You can read about Shannon information on wikipedia.

They probably keep saying something like 'evolution can't add information'.  Ask them why.  By what basis do they make this claim?  What they are basically saying is that nothing can ever be inserted into a strand of DNA... which is demonstrably false.  

Remind them that information does not equal meaning.  Remind them to answer the question, which has more information 30 minutes of a churchill speech or 30 minutes of white noise.  

For all of their claims, they should be able to provide a demonstration of the concepts and be able to explain it to anyone.  If they cannot, then their ideas are pretty much useless.  Remind them that you have a battery of people ready to help you understand the mathematics.

You can also remind them that in any observation or determination of 'information content', that given a data set and a process, then everyone from an 8th grade student to a Muslim Ph.D. should get exactly the same result.  If only Christians get the correct result, then the process is biased and not valid.

Without an unbiased, repeatable test, then they are just babbling and trying to confuse the issue.  Do not let them off.

If there are people who are asking questions, then encourage them to read up on information and things like insertion mutations.

Take the claims of the creationist to the next level.  One thing that creationists really don't do well is think about the logical consequences of what they say.  Much like the example I gave above... if information in DNA cannot increase, then insertion mutations cannot happen... since insertion mutations do happen, then information increases.

I hope that helps.

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

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  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]