RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Atheistoclast Discussion, Discussion of Bizarre Info Theory notion< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
RBH



Posts: 49
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,09:37   

This is the place to continue the PT thread on Atheistoclast's strange notions of information theory and evolution.

--------------
"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3354
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:00   

I'll start with a few comments that need to be addressed by 'clast.

What is the difference in complexity between a designed thing and a non-designed thing?

How does one measure complexity (values, units, and process)?

What values in 2 indicate design? Why?

What values in 2 indicate non-design? Why?

And don't forget 'clast that information =/= meaning.  It has been explained to you many times... that ship has sailed.  Don't do it again.

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

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

   
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:03   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:00)
And don't forget 'clast that information =/= meaning.  It has been explained to you many times... that ship has sailed.  Don't do it again.


Pfft.  There's no slowing down OCD.

  
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:05   

Still waiting for a response as to why hox genes don't represent an example of gene duplication, divergence and new function.  Still waiting for the atheist to read even the first three papers on hox genes.  Still waiting for him, to come up with some excuse why this doesn't count as something or other.  

Still waiting for him to demonstrate why mutation and selection cannot produce information.  

Still waiting for him to say where the information comes from.  

So basically, I'm still waiting for him to answer anything.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:18   

Do ya'll get a bit annoyed when you hear the term "information" being bandied around these days?  It's been so thoroughly used to generate bafflegab that it immediately suggests somebody's up to no good.  These days I find that "functionality" works better for evosci discussions.

Pity, it used to be a perfectly good word.  Alas, much the same could be said for "complexity".

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3354
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:23   

Yeah, it's the same with "academic freedom".  Just a code-word for creationism.  Of course, the don't want academic freedom, they want academic freedom for themselves.

But that's another topic.

I bet myself a chocolate milkshake that 'clast never shows.

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

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

   
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:25   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:23)
I bet myself a chocolate milkshake that 'clast never shows.

I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3354
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:44   

Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,10:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:23)
I bet myself a chocolate milkshake that 'clast never shows.

I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.

either way I win.

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

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

   
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:00   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,10:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:23)
I bet myself a chocolate milkshake that 'clast never shows.

I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.

either way I win.

Yea, kind of like the argument the atheist guy makes:  If no new gene is produced, I win.  If a new gene is produced, I win, just because.  No matter what example is provided, there is always some reason why it isn't good enough.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:15   

mrg said:
...the point is that evolution works by the “incremental change” model, not the creationist “clean sheet of paper” model.

Newton was RIGHT!

Why don't creationists believe in Calculus?

  
KCdgw



Posts: 369
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:20   

Quote (DSDS @ Jan. 25 2011,12:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:44)
Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,10:25)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:23)
I bet myself a chocolate milkshake that 'clast never shows.

I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.

either way I win.

Yea, kind of like the argument the atheist guy makes:  If no new gene is produced, I win.  If a new gene is produced, I win, just because.  No matter what example is provided, there is always some reason why it isn't good enough.

T-URF13 reduced him to stalling for time.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:35   

Say, how does one get permission to start threads on this board?  It would be nice to set up threads for various nuisances that show up on PT.  At the very least, it makes trolls antsy to be referred to ATBC ... if they refuse, they find it hard to deny they're trolling.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3354
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:41   

Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,12:35)
Say, how does one get permission to start threads on this board?  It would be nice to set up threads for various nuisances that show up on PT.  At the very least, it makes trolls antsy to be referred to ATBC ... if they refuse, they find it hard to deny they're trolling.

I think you have to actually ask for it.

I have specifically avoided asking for that and editing privileges.  I know Wes likes to keep this as clean as possible (i.e. thousands of 2 post threads).

I like not being able to edit my posts (though I do get some grief for spelling when I'm using IE) because no one can accuse me of changing a comment after a response has been made.

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

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

   
Shebardigan



Posts: 3
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,15:03   

Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,10:18)
Do ya'll get a bit annoyed when you hear the term "information" being bandied around these days?  It's been so thoroughly used to generate bafflegab that it immediately suggests somebody's up to no good.  These days I find that "functionality" works better for evosci discussions.

Pity, it used to be a perfectly good word.  Alas, much the same could be said for "complexity".

Quote
Do ya'll get a bit annoyed when you hear the term "information" being bandied around these days?


Performing meaningectomy on important words is a core process in any propaganda/disinformation campaign.  cf "patriotic" or "liberal" or "freedom".

FWIW, a block of instruction on control systems  a long while back propounded this hierarchy:

data (raw):       Analog-to-Digital Channel 6 value is now 776
data (cooked):  Temp sensor channel 6:  325 degrees F.

data + context -> information:
   Oven 3 chamber temperature is now 325 F.

information + context -> knowledge:
   Oven 3 is within band (320 - 330).

knowledge + history -> understanding:
   Oven 3 is within band but temp is dropping
   at 0.2 degrees per minute.


understanding + experience may beget wisdom:
   fuel flow to Oven 3 should be increased by 2.5%.

None of the definitions are canonical outside of that context, but they are reasonably coherent.

--------------
You are not only insisting that "I poked a badger with a spoon" would  be a good example of "an original sin", you're arguing it with  an archbishop.
     -- seebs to atheistoclast

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,15:13   

"data + context -> information:
  Oven 3 chamber temperature is now 325 F.

information + context -> knowledge:
  Oven 3 is within band (320 - 330)."


I love how knowledge is less precise than information!

DURRRRRRRRRR. He's good at making stuff up, though.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
KCdgw



Posts: 369
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,15:29   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,15:13)
"data + context -> information:
  Oven 3 chamber temperature is now 325 F.

information + context -> knowledge:
  Oven 3 is within band (320 - 330)."


I love how knowledge is less precise than information!

DURRRRRRRRRR. He's good at making stuff up, though.

This reminds me of something I wrote up oN ARN once to show how duplication and recombination could result in an increase of information:

Consider a partial grocery list for a 4th of July Picnic:

1 gallon bottle spring water

2 1-Liter Bottles Orange Crush

1 pound sliced Virginia ham

1 pound sliced Provolone Cheese

1 melon




Now consider a duplication occurring for the word "water", and a recombination of "water" and "melon" to produce this:

1 gallon bottle spring water

2 1-Liter Bottles Orange Crush

1 pound Virginia ham

1 pound sliced Provolone Cheese

1 watermelon

The second list has additional, novel, specified (oh how the creationists love specified information!) information ("watermelon" is more specific than just "melon"), and this specified information was produced by duplicating and recombining information that already existed.

There is also a decrease in uncertainty.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
Shebardigan



Posts: 3
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,16:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,15:13)
I love how knowledge is less precise than information!

Nearly always.  If you don't discard most of the details from the previous layer of abstraction, the system likely comes to a gooey halt.

--------------
You are not only insisting that "I poked a badger with a spoon" would  be a good example of "an original sin", you're arguing it with  an archbishop.
     -- seebs to atheistoclast

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,16:12   

Quote (Shebardigan @ Jan. 25 2011,16:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2011,15:13)
I love how knowledge is less precise than information!

Nearly always.  If you don't discard most of the details from the previous layer of abstraction, the system likely comes to a gooey halt.

You did dun some bad equivocation on knowledge der.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:01   

The problem with spinning ad-hoc "information theories" is that it's only too easy to spin them to prove any point desired, including points that contradict each other.

  
Shebardigan



Posts: 3
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:17   

Quote (mrg @ Jan. 25 2011,17:01)
The problem with spinning ad-hoc "information theories" is that it's only too easy to spin them to prove any point desired, including points that contradict each other.

This particular instructor had a number of .. um .. novel idea systems, but from our standpoint, when you applied his stuff, it worked, at least in the design of complex nonlinear control systems.  

He never claimed to be proving any points, other than the general rule "In any exam situation, the correct answer is the one the Instructor wants".

--------------
You are not only insisting that "I poked a badger with a spoon" would  be a good example of "an original sin", you're arguing it with  an archbishop.
     -- seebs to atheistoclast

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:37   

Quote (Shebardigan @ Jan. 25 2011,17:17)
He never claimed to be proving any points, other than the general rule "In any exam situation, the correct answer is the one the Instructor wants".

I was thinking in general of arguments based on "information".  They are not always wrong or useless, but alas the playing field has been tainted with disrepute by abuse -- inviting suspicion of all the players.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,18:28   

Did you read the rejection letter Atheistoclast received from Evolutionary Biology on Panda's Thumb?

No wonder he is so bitter.  He is reduced to arguing his 'points' on Internet fora, instead of in peer-reviewed journals.  Why?  Because his 'points' won't pass peer-reviewed muster.

His arguments are just like his thesis: "No New Information!"

His argument/point/thesis adds "no new information" to the discussion of Evolution, Science, or anything.

Irony, no?

Pathetic, yes.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,18:50   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 25 2011,18:28)
Did you read the rejection letter Atheistoclast received from Evolutionary Biology on Panda's Thumb?

Yeah.  I really felt for the editors.  I mean, the guy was calling them up and leaving irate messages on their voicemail.  
Being stalked by an unbalanced individual who might be capable of almost anything would be a bit ... unsettling.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,19:15   

I find that the profound stupidity of Atheistoclast just makes him yet another "scientific" Creationist loon. Look at how he responded to me:

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-246700

Quote
 
Quote

You are even dumber than I thought. LOL! Ever heard of mudskippers?

Yeah…they have fins and not legs. Indeed, I would contend that the mudskipper shows the impossibility of the fin to pod transition because it needs its fins when it returns to water. They also need their fins with which to “skip” on land. As I say, I haven’t seen any evidence that there ever existed half fin - half pod structures that would not have been useful at all. I suppose you are also going to bring up the “lungfish” next time round?

Quote

Try googling “Oliver the ‘Humanzee’”, you idiot! He was actually an ordinary chimp that happened to be able to walk upright, just as our pre-human ancestors would have done. Yet he was a perfectly functioning animal in all other respects.

Trust you to bring up a circus trick animal. Shows how much you know or care about science.

Chimpanzees cannot walk upright as we do - they cannot lock their knees in place. Bonobos can typically walk upright for a short distance before they get tired and have to return to knuckle-walking.

deo-06a.html]http://www.arkive.org/bonobo/pan-pa[…]deo-06a.html

They don’t have the pelvis, spine, inner ear, humeral-femural index, feet and many other features that make obligate bipedalism possible. So, we are *obligate* bipeds whereas chimps and bonobos can only do so for short periods of time. They prefer to knuckle-walk and brachiate.
Quote


All genes (and protiens) are made from parts of DNA (and amino acids), which are in turn made from atoms.

You don’t say? Where did the *specific* arrangement of amino acids in these molecules come from? Trial and error?

Quote

Look who’s talking! You haven’t made a credible argument here yet, and we have just been laughing at you like hyenas.

Yes…I bet you sound just like a hyena.


--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,08:50   

Well it looks like the "maverick" has run away.  I guess all he wanted was attention after all.  Imagine that, someone so desperate for attention they will try to pretend they are a real scientist and try to publish in real journals, just so they can argue with people.

If he really had a clue he would have been desperate to discuss hox genes.  The fact that he avoided the topic for days shows he never really understood anything he was talking about.  All of his misconceptions were maintained only through willful ignorance.

Oh well, at least he proved one thing.  There is never any increase in information in the brain of a creationist.  Maybe that should be the law of conservation of information.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,10:33   

for RBH.  Just curioius about your response to that.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,11:06   

shorter Casey  "were you there?  maths are hard"

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10326
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,12:33   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,11:06)
shorter Casey  "were you there?  maths are hard"

He's such an ignorant weasel.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,16:26   

Quote (DSDS @ Jan. 27 2011,08:50)
...

Oh well, at least he proved one thing.  There is never any increase in information in the brain of a creationist.  Maybe that should be the law of conservation of information.

The Second Law of Creationist Dynamics (from the Creationist perspective): “The correctness of Creationists cannot decrease. It can only remain constant or increase.”

(And it can never go below zero, but that's another 'law'.)

The Second Law of Creationist Dynamics (from the mainstream science perspective): “The idiocy of Creationists cannot decrease. It can only remain constant or increase.”

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2011,16:55   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,10:06)
shorter Casey  "were you there?  maths are hard"

And when the square root of -1 is involved, the math can be very complex.

  
  32 replies since Jan. 25 2011,09:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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