Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Atheistoclast Discussion started by RBH


Posted by: RBH on Jan. 25 2011,09:37

This is the place to continue the PT thread on Atheistoclast's strange notions of information theory and evolution.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: mrg on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pfft.  There's no slowing down OCD.
Posted by: DSDS on 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.
Posted by: mrg on 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".
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: mrg on Jan. 25 2011,10:25

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


I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


either way I win.
Posted by: DSDS on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


either way I win.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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?
Posted by: KCdgw on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno.  The guy just can't shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


either way I win.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


T-URF13 reduced him to stalling for time.
Posted by: mrg on 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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Shebardigan on 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-------------------




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



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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: KCdgw on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Shebardigan on Jan. 25 2011,16:06

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


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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You did dun some bad equivocation on knowledge der.
Posted by: mrg on 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.
Posted by: Shebardigan on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
Posted by: mrg on 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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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.
Posted by: mrg on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes…I bet you sound just like a hyena.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DSDS on 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.
Posted by: Ftk on Jan. 27 2011,10:33

< for RBH >.  Just curioius about your response to that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,11:06

shorter Casey  "were you there?  maths are hard"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 27 2011,12:33

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


He's such an ignorant weasel.
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.”
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 27 2011,16:55

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


And when the square root of -1 is involved, the math can be very complex.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 27 2011,17:31

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,10:33)
< for RBH >.  Just curioius about your response to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please explain to us why Casey Luskin's deliberate refusal to understand basic science is supposed to simultaneously magically disprove the totality of Evolutionary Biology, as well as present evidence of God magically poofing genes into existence using magic.

He failed to explain that in his blog article.
Posted by: Calilasseia on Nov. 27 2013,19:03

Since this thread is about 'Clast, a little "heads up" for those unaware of the finer points of his history ...

[1] Over at the now-defunct RDF, he erected over 90 sock puppets to try and circumvent the ban he earned there as a result of multiple instances of discoursive criminality in violation of the FUA there;

[2] He repeated this pattern of behaviour (though with considerably lower fecundity) over at Rational Skepticism;

[3] He has certain traits that can be searched for with respect to his post content, which immediately make seasoned veterans of combat with him smell the odour of socks, if another unheralded user suddenly starts deploying similar post mannerisms.

He also possesses a truly enormous ego. But then, so does Dembski.

Given this previous aetiology, it's worth watching out for this over at other places such as PT.
Posted by: KevinB on Nov. 28 2013,11:17

Quote (Calilasseia @ Nov. 27 2013,19:03)
Since this thread is about 'Clast, a little "heads up" for those unaware of the finer points of his history ...

[1] Over at the now-defunct RDF, he erected over 90 sock puppets to try and circumvent the ban he earned there as a result of multiple instances of discoursive criminality in violation of the FUA there;

[2] He repeated this pattern of behaviour (though with considerably lower fecundity) over at Rational Skepticism;

[3] He has certain traits that can be searched for with respect to his post content, which immediately make seasoned veterans of combat with him smell the odour of socks, if another unheralded user suddenly starts deploying similar post mannerisms.

He also possesses a truly enormous ego. But then, so does Dembski.

Given this previous aetiology, it's worth watching out for this over at other places such as PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're trying to teach a < Dasypeltis scabra > to suck eggs.

The readers at PT are eternally vigilant (or, at least, suspicious) and when Atheistoclast turns up it's never very long before he hears "Tritt, tritt, trott" on his bridge.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.