hopefuldivider said:
It seems to me that you are being a bit cynical on this point. I am a creationist, a young earth creationist at that matter (though I am not dogmatic on this point), and I would never do such a thing deliberately. On the other hand, I am always making mistakes.
I am cynical, and that's because of my experience with this subject. I've seen the exchanges between scientists and creationists (the ones who work at creationist organizations) and seen how the creationists respond to being corrected on extremely simple things. From this experience, there's no doubt in my mind about these professional creationists.
You will have to do a little better then a simple conclusion. How do you reach this conclusion?
If, as you say, nucleotide pairs constitute "genetic information", then the creationist argument that evolution cannot created "genetic information" is demonstrably wrong. Not only that, but the fundamental argument of "information only comes from intelligence" is equally wrong. The observation of evolution generating new nucleotide sequences is so common, it's a regular BIO 101 undergrad experiment.
I must disagree. Existence does not equate to information. Information, at it's root, implies that the act of informing is going on, thus the integral aspect of communication. Now this does not inherently imply intelligence. Take for example the bright colors of certain South American frogs. This communicates to predators that the frog is to be avoided. Communication takes place all the time in nature, without intelligence.
Then you disagree with Meyer and the other creationists who absolutely insist that without intelligence, there cannot be information.
The question is whether very complex information can exist without intelligence or not and at what point we can call it very complex.
In order to text that claim, creationists would have to define the terms and identify the point you speak of. Until they do that, they have no argument.
I point back to my earlier comment , I will need a bit more information.
If, as you say, amount = complexity, then once again we have falsified another creationist argument. Since they insist that evolution can't increase the amount of "genetic information", if nucleotide pairs = genetic information, and greater amounts of information/nucleotide pairs = complexity, then the argument is easily demonstrated to be false by simple lab experiments (as well as observations in nature).
I would like to point out my use of the words "for all practical purposes". Is it possible that I will be mauled by a rabid dog if I leave my home tomorrow? Of course, and yet I will walk out. The chances are so remote that "for all practical purposes" it isn't going to happen. I never meant to imply a real impossibility. In science there is no real impossibilities, only probabilities.
And saying "that's too improbable to have happened" isn't scientific.
I would also point out that your opponents would argue that this situation is in fact impossible aside from intelligent intervention. I wouldn't put it that way, but many would.
They
have to, they have no choice. That's why creationism isn't scientific...it is beholden to a pre-determined set of conclusions that cannot ever be changed. That is the
opposite of science.
I am sorry, I misunderstood your comments. I assume then that you claim that such calculations are not provided anywhere in this book? If this is the case then this book does indeed have shortcomings. As I am unfamiliar with his works I cannot enter into a discussion of their merits.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but he may have included some calculations in there. I seem to recall something about amino acid sequences and such. But what I do remember is laughing at this argument because, as I said, he's evaluating a straw man of science. He bases his entire argument on things occurring "by random chance", which as I pointed out, isn't how things happen. For example, if we take a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and spark it, we get mostly water. We can repeat this countless times and we'll always get the same result...mostly water. Is that the result of "random chance"? No, it's the result of the inherent properties of the atoms that makes them interact in entirely non-random ways.
Also, I must once again protest your use of inappropriate comments. Name calling, even if deserved, is not conducive to an open and frank discussion of any topic and only serves to unwarrantedly bias participants or inflame them. I would hope that we could all avoid such language.
Fair enough.
I am, as of yet, not convinced that the chemical properties of the elements would significantly increase the odds in this situation, so I do not see what the big difference is here. Like Meyer and his calculations, here you need to provide something to support your claim.
See above. I mean, the entire field of synthetic chemistry is based on the knowledge that atoms and molecules don't behave randomly, but behave in predicable, non-random ways.
You may well be very familiar with this material, but I am not and I cannot simply take your word for it. This would truly be blind faith, something that does not sit well with me.
Then if you're interested, I urge you to study the subject from both sides and be sure to get your science from actual scientists rather than from creationist organizations.
Far from it. I am talking about the probability of any of these things actually happening. Mind you, I am not up on the latest in the fields of chemistry and physics, but based on my limited knowledge, the probability of these events (as well as others) are so small that "for all practical purposes" the house of cards that depends on them is impossible.
That
is the argument from ignorance. "I don't know much about it, but it seems impossible to me."
By your last remark, nothing can ever be discounted in science, because all of science is based on probabilities. The flat earth, the hollow earth, the geocentric universe and so much more must all be viable hypotheses in your world.
We evaluate such things by going out and looking and collecting data. We don't determine the validity of a flat earth by calculating its probability.
And yet we safely say that a geocentric universe is not a possibility and a liquid core of the earth is not possible. Science is not based on certainties but probabilities.
Again, we don't determine the makeup of the earth's core via probability calculations. We collect data, form hypotheses, and then evaluate them against the data. The hypothesis that best explains the data wins.
The question is, at what point does the probability become so small that the possibility is dismissed. This is a very complex question, made worse by the fact that even people that depend so heavily on precise numbers and calculation, very rarely answer this question quantitatively, or for that matter consciously.
Honestly, it's not something we really do in the natural sciences.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wormwood: "
Meyer goes into great detail to explain types of information and how we assess what "information" is and how it can be classified as "complex." He goes into great detail into "information theory" and the work by MIT engineer Claude Shannon. He goes into great detail explaining how mathematicians differentiate "specified information" or "functional information" from "information-carrying capacity." Charles Thaxton said that the treatment of DNA and English text is "mathematically identical." Hubert Yockey said, "The genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found...in modern communication and computer codes."
Right, he spends a lot of the book going on and on about "information", but he never once defines "genetic information" or provides a means to measure it. If you think he did, then post it. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss.
WW: "
Im not going to go through the intricacies of his argument because you clearly despise the man and I know it will make no difference with you anyway. However, if you want to compare a rockslide with binary programming or the words I am writing you currently, go ahead. Nevertheless, mathematicians have elaborated on ways by which information can be distinguished and qualified by both amount of information and "complexity" of information. If you are unaware of such notions, I suggest you do some more reading on the subject before you start accusing people of misrepresenting their position. Just because I don't go into the intricacies to explain the finer details of every adjective I use does not mean they are baseless. Why don't you ask a question before claiming my comments are misrepresentative?"
I'm quite aware that there is all sorts of work on "information". That's not the issue here. The issue is, creationists like Meyer make all sorts of claims about evolution and "genetic information", yet none of them have managed to provide a definition for the term or a means to measure it. We've been over this and none of the creationists here could find one either (and I'm sure you all tried).
What amazes me is how that doesn't seem to strike you as problematic. Here you guys have hitched your wagon to these creationists to the point where you've internalized their arguments and repeat them in forums like this. But all it takes is one simple question....what is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it...to throw you into a tizzy. If that were me, it would set off very loud alarm bells and tell me "something's wrong here". But it doesn't seem to even phase you at all. Go figure.
WW: "
Actually you are making grand assumptions again without any knowledge of the source I was quoting. Meyer goes into great detail about the work of Wistar scientists, the work of biochemist Robert Sauer, physicist Bret Van de Sande, computer scientist Seth Lloyd, and his own personal work with a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, William Dembski."
So? Does that mean he's automatically correct or something? Did he just dazzle you with names?
WW: "
But by all means, lets just label the guy a liar and exaggerator who throws meaningless numbers around to mislead his readers. You are really something. For someone who is always arguing for reason and against blind allegiance to a presupposition, you sure don't practice what you preach."
Notice anything lacking in your post?
Any sort of response to the actual scientific questions at hand! Where's the definition of "genetic information" and the means to measure it? Why is Meyer calculating the odds of things happening by "random chance" when neither chemistry nor evolution operates that way?
Seems to me like you're the one focused entirely on the personal aspects of the issue, while completely ignoring the core scientific questions.
