Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Creationists and DNA

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 19
 [ 376 posts ] 
Creationists and DNA
Author Message
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

That is your claim, the onus is on you to prove it.


I already did, as I said before all known replicating are complex. It is your job to prove that things were different in the past

No - you claimed, "And obviously this is not only supported by direct observation" immediately before my above statement.

It is for you to provide evidence for your claims that it can't happen and of "direct observation" with cited sources.


As I said, we know from observation and experience that replication is a complex system and that complex stuff can only come from a mind, if you what to impose that theory that contradicts observations you most present testable evidence

The point I'm making is that if those chemical reactions were not possible in Nature (according to the laws of chemistry), we could not make it at all - whether in the laboratory or anywhere else.


Sure, and all you need to make a pyramid are rocks and energy, both can come from natural sources, therefore nature can create pyramids, is that your logic? Honestly don’t you think it´s a good time to admit that your logic is flawed?


At what point do you claim that the laws of chemistry fail and require a mind to achieve any molecule in the above sequence of chemical reactions
?

If a chemical reaction can be created naturally, then you don´t need a mind. As I said before if you provide an example of a chemical reaction that would create a self-replicating agent my argument would be falsified. you say that such reaction is describen in the article so please copy paste the portion that describes such reaction.


* Yet more evidence that you don't read linked sources provided to you - it's not a "article", it's a slide-show.

Kindest regards,


My apologies if I was wrong, the link was broken (and still is) I tryied to google you source and found this
http://www.colbud.hu/apc-aa/img_upload/ ... ry1998.pdf
I thought you were referring to this paper
Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:12 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:That is your claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

I already did, as I said before all known replicating are complex. It is your job to prove that things were different in the past

No, you haven't - that's the problem. Merely claiming that "all known replicating [sic] are complex" doesn't prove it.

Cite the papers that prove this to be true.

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:No - you claimed, "And obviously this is not only supported by direct observation" immediately before my above statement.

It is for you to provide evidence for your claims that it can't happen and of "direct observation" with cited sources.

As I said, we know from observation and experience that replication is a complex system and that complex stuff can only come from a mind, if you what to impose that theory that contradicts observations you most present testable evidence

Again, you make the statement that "complex stuff can only come from a mind" yet fail to provide any papers to prove this to be true.

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The point I'm making is that if those chemical reactions were not possible in Nature (according to the laws of chemistry), we could not make it at all - whether in the laboratory or anywhere else.

Sure, and all you need to make a pyramid are rocks and energy, both can come from natural sources, therefore nature can create pyramids, is that your logic? Honestly don’t you think it´s a good time to admit that your logic is flawed?

You now switch from the level of chemical reactions in Nature to the level of multi-tonne blocks of stone forming pyramids through natural forces.

You're attempting to equate my argument for chemical reactions forming complex molecules with the unlikelihood of massive blocks of stone forming pyramids naturally.

This is a false analogy and a straw-man argument.

DNA is the result of chemical reactions - nothing more.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about:

Magnetic nanocubes self-assemble into helical superstructures

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:At what point do you claim that the laws of chemistry fail and require a mind to achieve any molecule in the above sequence of chemical reactions?

If a chemical reaction can be created naturally, then you don´t need a mind. As I said before if you provide an example of a chemical reaction that would create a self-replicating agent my argument would be falsified. you say that such reaction is describen in the article so please copy paste the portion that describes such reaction.

I and others have done this already - you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:* Yet more evidence that you don't read linked sources provided to you - it's not a "article", it's a slide-show.

Kindest regards,

My apologies if I was wrong, the link was broken (and still is) I tryied to google you source and found this
http://www.colbud.hu/apc-aa/img_upload/ ... ry1998.pdf
I thought you were referring to this paper

No, but the fact that you're asking me to quote from this other article makes me wonder if you've read any of it. Have you?

The slide-show to which I'd linked has a slide which shows how hexadeoxynucleotide is formed from two other molecules.

The sequence of chemicals I listed, which lead to hexadeoxynucleotide, does not need a mind.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where in that sequence mere chemistry breaks down and a mind is needed.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:36 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

Incidentally, the slide-show link works fine for me.
http://www.slideshare.net/bfrezza/selfr ... on#btnNext
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3479Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:As I said, we know from observation and experience that replication is a complex system and that complex stuff can only come from a mind, ...


(Emphesis added)

he_who_is_nobody wrote: :facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:See the boxcar evolution game.




You keep repeating this debunked claim. What is the point of repeating something that has been shown to be wrong?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:Honestly you are an idiot, I am sick of you posting random articles that do nothing to falsify my arguments, you have done this dozens of times in the past.


Now that it is obvious that you do not have me on ignore (you were simply just refusing to respond to me), can you please given an example of this ever being the case?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:If we are talking about the origin of replication, then you obviously can´t provide an example of a replicator coming from another preexisting replicator as evidence for the idea that replicators originated naturally.


We were talking about the origin of replication? I thought you were still trying to claim your first premise was correct. Could you please link to where exactly this discussion shifted from us disproving your first premise and moved into the discussion of the origin of replication?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:However atoms can´t form self-replicating molecules naturally that is my point

And obviously this is not only supported by direct observation, there is a mathematical reason, ...


Let us see the math, dandan. Twice, you have made similar claims and twice your math skills were shown to be very poor. Will this third time be the charm?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:58 pm
YIM WWW
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

Let's see a demonstration of DNA form itself naturally.Like I've said if both sides come down to faith God wins everytime.It is funny that you people find it easier to believe that DNA with all of its complexity can just form on its own naturally and you criticize those of us who believe God designed it? It is much easier to believe God created that complex DNA to tell the cells what to produce.Don't you realize how much of a pipe dream it is to believe what you do? Do you really think a scientists will stand there and show DNA arising naturally? I don't have the faith of an atheist.

This is something I noticed with Hitchens he was quite willing to put his faith in science and kick the can down the road hoping one day a scientist will demonstrate his naturalistic beliefs.There is no reason to do that when it is much easier to believe God created it.Yes "God did it" and I'm not ashamed to say it at all for it is much much easier to believe than what naturalists believe.There is no reason to doubt Jesus Christ and John chapter 1 it is a lot easier to believe than what "naturalists" believe with their science fiction they put their faith in.All of the bible and miracles in it are much easier to believe too.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:04 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

abelcainsbrother wrote:Let's see a demonstration of DNA form itself naturally.

Your request is silly and childish, you should admit that we can have good reasons to believing certain things without being there to directly witness it ourselves. For example, I was not there when the trees outside my apartment initially took root and sprouted from their acorns and seeds. Nevertheless, I can be perfectly reasonable in believing that this happened without having witness it myself.

We can't directly demonstrate every thing we know happened in the past. If this is your criterion for accepting propositions, you must not believe that your parents were born, after all, you were not there to see it for yourself. Particularly you as a christian creationist must admit that this is true. After all, you believe in Adam and Eve, the creation of the entire universe in an instant, a talking snake, magical fruit, a global flood, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and so on, without ever having witnessed any of these events yourself. So you must agree that some things can believed rationally without direct demonstration, even if we don't agree on what those things are that we should believe. So your demand to see direct demonstration of the evolution of DNA is hypocritical. According to your own holy book, your demand to see a direct demonstration makes you guilty of the sin of hypocricy. Did you think about that?

In the case of DNA, we have powerful biochemical and genetic evidence that DNA evolved from a period in life when the genomes of then extant organisms were based on RNA instead. This evidence is enough to rationally justify belief that DNA evolved, we don't have to directly witness this transition ourselves.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:56 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:As I said, we know from observation and experience that replication is a complex system and that complex stuff can only come from a mind, if you what to impose that theory that contradicts observations you most present testable evidence

Define "complex".
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:58 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:No I am not presenting that kind of argument,
If you change premise 1 for “only cars have air conditioning” then the argument would look like mine. But of course I would disagree with premise 1 and I could falsify it by providing an example of something that has air conditioning that is not a car.
If you what to disprove my argument you can do something similar, just provide an example of information that did not come from a mind


Trivial.

Information?

From sand dunes, we can learn about prevailing wind directions over time and, in many cases, the underlying terrain just from the shape and direction.

Image

Information?

Theropod wrote:Dogshit. The dogshit can tell us what the dog ate, how much of it ate, how big the dogs anus is, how long ago the dog shat on your lawn, the digestive health of the dog, whether there are parasite eggs in the shit and contain traces of the dog's DNA we can sequence to identify the individual dog. Seems like a lot of information to me. It also seems like more than enough information is present to shoot your assertion down


Image

Information?

DNA is information in the sense that it informs us about the system, not that it contains a message. It is not a code, more something akin to a cipher, in which the chemical bases are treated as the letters of the language. There is nobody trying to tell us anything here, and yet we can be informed by it.

Image

Information (actually, I just decided that this is my new favourite example, because it is so informative)?

ABout 1% of the interference pattern on an off-channel television screen is caused by the cosmic microwave background.

Image

Information?

This is information in the sense that the squiggles represent more data than would be contained on a blank piece of paper, although even a blank piece of paper is information. In this example, information is defined as the number of bits it would take to represent it in a storage system. This is pure kolmogorov information.

Image

Information?

Of all the information sources in this post, this is the only one that actually contains a message or requires a mind to produce. It's also the only one to which Shannon information theory can be applied, as it is the only one that could actually decrease in terms of signal intergity.

Image

Which of the above are information?

Answer: All of them. They are just different kinds of information. ;)

Here, we require a definition of information that is robust. Now, there are two robust formulations of information theory, and both of them need to be considered. The first is that of Claude Shannon and, while this is the formulation that most of them will cite, largely due to apologist screeds erecting various claims about information having to contain some sort of message and therefore requiring somebody to formulate the message, it doesn't robustly apply to DNA, because it's the wrong treatment of information. Indeed, when dealing with complexity in information, you MUST use Kolmogorov, because that's the one that deals with complexity.

So just what is information? Well, in Shannon theory, information can be defined as 'reduction in uncertainty'. Shannon theory deals with fidelity in signal transmission and reception, since Shannon worked in communications. Now, given this, we have a maximum information content, defined as the lowest possible uncertainty. Now, if we have a signal, say a TV station, and your TV is perfectly tuned, and there is no noise added between transmission and reception of the TV signal, then you receive the channel cleanly and the information content is maximal. If, however, the TV is tuned slightly off the channel, or your reception is in some other respect less than brilliant, you get noise in the channel. The older ones of you will remember pre-digital television in which this was manifest in the form of 'bees' in the picture, and crackling and noise in the audio. Nowadays, you tend to get breaks in the audio, and pixelated blocks in the picture. They amount to the same thing, namely noise, or 'an increase in uncertainty'. It tells us that any deviation from the maximal information content, which is a fixed quantity, constitutes degradation of the information source, or 'Shannon entropy' (Shannon actually chose this term because the equation describing his 'information entropy' is almost identical to the Boltzmann equation for statistical entropy, as used in statistical mechanics. (AW did a cracking good post covering some of this material.)

This seems to gel well with the creationist claims, and is the source of all their nonsense about 'no new information in DNA'. Of course, there are several major failings in this treatment.

The first comes from Shannon himself, from the book that he wrote with Warren Weaver on the topic:

Shannon & Weaver wrote:The semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects


And

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information
must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.


So we see that Shannon himself doesn't actually agree with this treatment of information relied on so heavily by the creationists.

The second is that Shannon's is not the only rigorous formulation of information theory. The other comes from Andrey Kolmogorov, whose theory deals with information storage. The information content in Kolmogorov theory is a feature of complexity or, better still, can be defined as the amount of compression that can be applied to it. This latter can be formulated in terms of the shortest algorithm that can be written to represent the information.

Returning to our TV channel, we see a certain incongruence between the two formulations, because in Kolmogorov theory, the noise that you encounter when the TV is slightly off-station actually represents an increase in information, where in Shannon theory, it represents a decrease! How is this so? Well, it can be quite easily summed up, and the summation highlights the distinction between the two theories, both of which are perfectly robust and valid.

Let's take an example of a message, say a string of 100 1s. In it's basic form, that would look like this:

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Now, there are many ways we could compress this. The first has already been given above, namely 'a string of 100 1s'.

Now, if we make a change in that string,

1111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110

We now have a string of 9 1s followed by a zero, repeated 9 times. We now clearly have an increase in information content, even though the number of digits is exactly the same. However, there is a periodicity to it, so a simple compression algorithm can still be applied.

Let's try a different one:

1110011110001111110111110001111111111100110011001111000111111111110111110000111111000111111110011101

Now, clearly, we have something that approaches an entirely random pattern. The more random a pattern is, the longer the algorithm required to describe it, and the higher the information content.

Returning once again to our TV station, the further you get away from the station, the more random the pattern becomes, and the longer the algorithm required to reproduce it, until you reach a point in which the shortest representation of the signal is the thing itself. In other words, no compression can be applied.

This is actually how compression works when you compress images for storage in your computer using the algorithms that pertain to Jpeg, etc. The uncompressed bitmap is the uncompressed file, while the Jpeg compression algorithm, roughly, stores it as '100 pixels of x shade of blue followed by 300 pixels of black', etc. Thus, the more complicated an image is in terms of periodicity and pattern, the less it can be compressed and the larger the output file will be.

What the above does is comprehensively demolish any and all creationist claims concerning information.

So, just what is information? It is that which informs us, nothing more.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:39 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Can you please explain why is my definition of independent circular and presupposes the conclusion?


It doesn't just presuppose the conclusion, the conclusion is right there in plain English in your premises. You've defined information as something that can only come from a mind, and then DNA as information. It begs the question that information can only come from a mind, which is not only circular, it's factually incorrect as well, as my previous post demonstrates nicely.

I am not defining independent as “something that came from a mind” for example the pattern caused by wind erosion in mountains is “independent” but I obviously don´t conclude that such pattern came from a mind.


The pattern caused by wind erosion is also information, and requires, as you say, no mind. Well done. You just debunked your own argument.

Then please provide an example of a natural occurring polymer that fits my definition of information,


All of them. Look above at how information is actually defined in the sciences that deal with information and you'll see why. Information is simply the observational data with respect to a system of interest.

But we know that intelligent mind can be the cause for information, agree?


Certainly.

And you can´t say the same thing about nature agree?


Not remotely. Nature IS information, and requires no mind.

If an astronaut finds “information” in an other planet, he would be justified in concluding that such information came from a mind even if he doesn´t provide additional evidence for the existence of Aliens…agree?


Absolutely, categorically not. You really need to get your head around what information is, because you're assuming your conclusion in every sentence.

The astronaut would have not been required to explain where did the Alien come from, or who the Alien is. Agree?


We haven't got anywhere near the requirement for an alien yet, because there are information sources that don't require a mind. See above.

Why can we use the same logic with genetic information, it seems as if you are rejecting the argument simply because you don´t like the theological implications, you simply don´t feel comfortable in accepting a “God did it” answer.


I'm certainly not doing that. I'm rejecting the argument because it's rooted in an erroneous understanding of what constitutes information.

If the current evidence doesn´t convince you, then what would convince you that DNA came form a mind?


Tool marks in the chromosomes.

I don´t think you ever answered to this.


To be fair, the question is beneath deserving of a response.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:47 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:1 you are asking me to prove a negative that is a logical fallacy.


Actually, wrong on two counts. Proving a negative is actually trivial. What he's actually asking you to do is to prove a non-existence postulate, which is also, as it happens, trivial, as long as the entity in question is sufficiently well-defined. In this case, the entity is certainly sufficiently well-defined, to the extent that we know what that entity is, namely a process involving chemistry, self-replicators and evolution.

No known natural mechanism can create genetic information,


Yes it can. The only reason you think it can't is because you have no fucking idea of what information is.

if you what to say that it was created by an unknown mechanism then you are holding an untestable position


It's created by a known mechanism, namely imperfect replication.

You are not answering to the question; What evidence would you accept in support of the existence of such creator?


Tool marks in the chromosomes. Or something that unequivocally points to a creator (that's kind of what the word 'evidence' means). Pointing to your ignorance and incredulity does not constitute the provision of evidence, not least because we have evidence that no such entity is required.

In order to form self-replicating proteins you need to organize amino acids in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.


A particular order? I smell the fallacy of one true sequence here.

For example as an analogy in order to form a book with meaning you need to organize ink in a particular order, this order is independent from the laws of nature.


Faulty analogy, and the fallacy of one true sequence writ large.

If you mean the bonds (carbon-hydrogen bonds for example) then such pattern would not be independent. There is a natural law that states that Carbon most be bonded with 4 hydrogen atoms.


Errr, what? Natural laws don't prescribe, they describe, not to mention that this is fatuously incorrect. Carbon can bond with pretty much anything, which is why it's so good at forming complex chains.

If you find a law that states that amino acids will tend to form in such order that they would create self-replicating proteins under given circumstances you would prove that DNA is not independent, therefore it would not be information (my definition) and my argument would be wrong.


You don't know what information is, so how can you make such a judgement? You also don't seem to understand what a natural law is. Natural laws are simply descriptions of the relationships between quantities as observed. They aren't prescriptive.

An astronaut would be capable of identifying a complex, independent and specified pattern, (what I call information) and he would conclude design even if he doesn’t explain where did the Aliens come from agree?


Not if he had more than two functioning neurons, he wouldn't. Who's doing the specifying here? I smell the arch-fuckwit Dumbski in your thinking.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:58 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Yes erosion in mountains is independent, for example this pattern is independent
Image
Erosion is “complex” and “independent” but it´s not an organiced (or specified) pattern this is why erosion is not information, remember in order to call it information it most have all tree attributes in order to call it information, if 1 attribute is missing you can´t call it information.


No, to be called information, all it has to do is to reduce uncertainty. It needs to inform us (big fucking clue there).

Is organiced (specified), because there are many possible combinations of letters but only one or few combinations would produce a text with meaning


Then you'll have no problem explaining the millions of books that have been written using different combinations of the same letters.

An Ice crystal: (the hexagonal pattern)
It is complex because it has many parts
It is ordered because there are many possible combinations but only 1 combination would create a unanimous hexagonal pattern


Errr, no. Of all the many billions of snowflakes that have ever formed, no two have ever been alike. This is fractal wrongness.

It is not independent, because there is a law that states that H2O most form an hexagonal pattern when frozen.


The law states no such thing. It states that we observe that this is what it does, not what it must do.

LRN2SCIENCE.

A cloud that looks more less like a dragon
Image
It´s complex and independent, but it is not very ordered. There are many possible combinations that would create something that looks like something familiar (ether a dragon, a human, an animal etc.) however if you see a dragon that looks identical to shenlong (from dragon ball) then you can conclude intelligent design, even if you don´t know who the designer is.


Total bollocks. I see clouds that look like very specific people, and indeed the numerous instances of people seeing your magic Jewish maggot-buffet are well documented (despite the fact that Jeebus pretty much definitely didn't look anything like that, were he to have existed).

So before I continue, do you understand what I mean with information? Do you understand what I mean with independent, ordered and complex? Do you agree that DNA has all these 3 attributes? Do you agree that only an intelligent mind can create something with these 3 patterns?


I understand what you mean with all those things, but I disagree that any of them are robust definitions, or that DNA has these characteristics. DNA is a code in precisely the same way that London is a map.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:05 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:
It's not the term, it's the definition. You should use the definitions scientists use, which is the definitions for shannon or kolmogorov information. I quoted an expert in information theory define them. Use that.


As I said before, I agree my definition of information doesn’t corresponds to Shannon’s definition. But let me repeat my question, what term should I use instead of “information” what term would correspond to my definition.


Message. Only problem is, of course, that DNA contains no message.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:06 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:I am just accepting your absurd definition of car for the sake of the argument, if you what to claim that somethings have air conditioner and what to invent a term like “car” to describe them it´s ok with me and irrelevant,


And you're asking people to accept your absurd definition of information for the same purpose.

You are simply making word games, there is no infallible definition for information


Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. I've given one above, namely that used in information theory. Information is simply reduction in uncertainty.

it doesn´t matter how do you define information you will always find a exceptions and fallacies,


You won't find any information that doesn't fall under the rubric of the definition I've given above.

and the same is true with “human” “dog” “chair” “computer” and the vast majority of words.


Err, no. You're playing fast and loose with concepts you clearly have no understanding of.

Unlike your invented pattern, DNA has an objective pattern, DNA objectively codes for proteins with objective functions


DNA does no such thing. DNA is simply chemical molecules interacting via universal processes based on local conditions. It isn't coding for anything.

Ultimately, this entire thread rests on the idea that, because scientists use convenient language as analogy, that language should be taken literally. This is not the case. It's precisely the same as saying that DNA is a code. It isn't. It's analogous to a code (actually, it's analogous to a cipher, in which the individual chemicals are replaced IN OUR TREATMENT THEREOF by symbols signifying said chemicals).

I often use a favourite example to show how analogies work, and this is the best example to employ it on.

Picture yourself in a city you've never been in before. London, say. If you had a map of London that was perfect in every respect, it would be of no more use in navigating London than simply going there and wandering the streets. The map is a much simplified ANALOGY of London, and its value lies in its imperfection, namely the imperfection that it isn't the same scale, and doesn't have the same level of detail, as the real London.

Similarly, when we talk about DNA being a code, we're using shorthand, analogous terminology because it aids our understanding, not because DNA is actually a code. DNA is a code in precisely the same way that London is a map.

Similarly, scientists use terms like 'function', 'adaptation', 'design', 'blueprint', 'design', etc, because it is language that is easily understood, and which aids understanding, not because those terms actually apply, any more than 'code' really applies to DNA, or 'recipe' or 'blueprint' actually apply to organisms, but because they constitute a useful, easily understood shorthand.

In short, the map is not the terrain.

According to you why do stars meant the tree criteria that I established (complexity, order, independence)


Because they're composed of many interacting entities (complexity), are concentrated under gravity (order) and require no mind to produce them (independence).

This is why your definition fails, because the vast majority of sources of information fit these criteria, none of which are required under a robust definition of information as 'reduction in uncertainty'.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:14 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:If I understood your argument, this self-replicator would not be complex and therefore according to my definition it won´t be information


Complexity is not required for it to be information. Allow me to demonstrate:

1

That's 1 bit of information. You can tell it isn't complex, because complexity describes behaviour arising from the interaction of multiple entities, and there is only 1 bit, so it isn't complex, yet it is information.

Game over.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:19 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Ok, so change organized for ordered, or whatever, stop looking for holes in my semantics and try to address the actual argument


Ah, the semantics canard.

Semantics deals with what we mean when we say a thing. As such it's the very heart of communication.

The vast majority of philosophy (of which science is a subset, albeit the only one that's ever provided substantive knowledge of the universe) is concerned with semantics (not least this entire thread, in which you've been attempting to support a fucking stupid argument on the basis of semantic confusion). Read any discourse on philosophy, and you'll find that a huge amount of the time is spent defining and justifying terms.

As such semantics is among the most important disciplines in philosophy. Dismissing an argument on the basis that 'it's just semantics' is, therefore, and to employ a favourite footballing analogy, the equivalent of diving in the penalty area. It's a cheat. A lazy cop-out indicating that you have neither the wherewithal to deal with your opponents argument nor the intellectual honesty to simply admit it. In other words, it's a spectacular breach of the 9th commandment.

Well done.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:20 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Ok I am glad you read the blind watch maker; so from know own we will use the term “complex” and we will use Dawkins definition. What Dawkins calls “complex” corresponds to what I call complex + specified ´+ independent but there is no need in clrafifing this because we both understand what Dawkins means with “complex”


You clearly don't, because the entire book is concerned with how complexity arises without a mind. Complexity is simply a descriptor for behaviour that arises from the interaction of multiple entities. At the risk of committing the etymological fallacy, if you break the word into its constituents, you can see this:

Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:1650s, "composed of parts," from French complexe "complicated, complex, intricate" (17c.), from Latin complexus "surrounding, encompassing," past participle of complecti "to encircle, embrace," in transferred use, "to hold fast, master, comprehend," from com- "with" (see com-) + plectere "to weave, braid, twine, entwine," from PIE *plek-to-, from root *plek- "to plait" (see ply (v.1)). The meaning "not easily analyzed" is first recorded 1715. Complex sentence is attested from 1881.


So my argument would be this:

Complex stuff can only come from a mind
DNA is complex
Therefore DNA came from a mind


You have to provide support for your first premise, not least because it's a factually incorrect, rectally extracted blind assertion. I've given examples in the previous posts of things that are complex that require no mind (stars, for example).

Dawkins would disagree with premise 1 because according to him complexity can be created with evolutionary algorithms (random mutations + natural selection) .........up to this point do you agree with everything in this post?


No, he'd disagree with premise 1 because you are operating on a definition of 'complex' that you think supports your argument, while a robust definition, as I've given, does not. Many natural things are complex, and that's long before we get to life.

Obviously as a creationist I would disagree with that idea, but for the sake of the argument let’s assume that evolution is true and that natural selection and mutations can create complexity.


We don't have to make any such assumptions, because, wait for it...

Evolution has been observed occurring, as have the processes that generate increased complexity.

However as I said before, weather if evolution is true or not is irrelevant because the origin of DNA predates evolution, or at least the origin of replicating agents predate evolution, you can´t have evolution without replication …….agree?

So even if evolution where true, an intelligent mind would still be the best explanation for replicators, (obviously at this point is where you would disagree)


Not only is not the best explanation, it isn't an explanation at all.

So let me provide a new argument

Premise 1: Complex stuff can only come from a mind (and maybe evolution)
Premise 2: Replication (reproduction) is complex.
Therefore Replication came from a mind


I disagree with premise 1, because it's a factually incorrect blind assertion.

Anticipating your answer, you obviously would disagree with premise 2, according to your model, self-replication was simple in the past, so please provide your evidence for such argument. ¿what testable and falsifiable evidence do you have that replication was simple in the past?


No, replication IS complex, because it requires the interaction of multiple entities. Indeed, the first replicators themselves were complex, as are ALL chemical interactions. That you don't understand what complexity is is neither here nor there.

As for my positive evidence for premise 2 I can appeal to direct observation, and experience, all known replicating agents are complex, and simple replicating agents have never been shown to be even theoretically possible. Based on what we know, replication requires multiple systems working properly in a specific time and place. But this argument is falsifiable, so please feel free to do so.


No need to, because I have no problem with P2. Perhaps you should try focussing on the objections people raise, not least because the critical thinkers here will raise much better objections than you can.

You might argue that things were different in the past; you might argue that there are unknown simple replicating system, but until you present testable and falsifiable evidence for the existence of such system I think I am justified to be skeptic about the existence for such mechanisms.


You're falsely juxtaposing complexity and simplicity as being on the same continuum. There are many simple things that are complex. A proton is an incredibly simple thing, yet it is composed of multiple interacting entities, and is thus complex.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:32 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Now I reject your premise 1


Of course you do, dear.

I don´t think


Must... resist...

natural mechanisms can create complexity,


Err, stars are complex, and require nothing other than gravity and fusion for their operation.

so if you provide one example you will win the discussion.


Excellent, then I've won.

And please don´t answer “snowflake”


Why not? Snowflakes are complex entities that are formed by natural mechanisms.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:35 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Yes I have read the blind watch maker, is there anything relevant you what to discuss about the book?


How about how the entire subject of the book is how complexity can arise from natural processes?

Would you name 1 example? Remember we are using Dawkins definition for complex so you can´t answer something stupid like snowflake or a geyser


Dawkins has a definition? his very own? Can you point to where in the book he delivers this definition? I have it open in front of me awaiting your response.

Either way, it doesn't much matter how he specifically defines it, because it has a robust definition, namely behaviour arising from the interaction of multiple entities (I should also note that there is an information-theoretic definition of complexity, which should be clear from the 'information' post above, and which gels quite nicely with the definition I've given.

According to you what is Dawkins definition, and why is that different from mine?


Hang on, you said you read the book and were operating on Dawkins' definiton. Do you suddenly not know what it is? I'm beginning to think that the goldfish pic was apt (except that it's a myth that goldfish have poor memories).

I don´t have direct evidence, but this is what we actually know


If you don't have direct evidence, how do you know? Sounds like a rectally extracted blind assertion to me.

However all known replicatiors are complex, and unless you prove the oppspsite only minds can create a complex pattern of units


I've already demonstrated that this is incorrect, by providing examples of naturally occurring complexity. The Earth/moon system is similarly complex, and requires no mind to produce it.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:48 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:I never said that nothing that occurs in the lab can happen naturally, you are just inventing lies, are you starting to understand why am I ignoring you?


Sometimes scientists simulate nature in lab sometimes they don´t. if you provide an example of a self replicating agent created in the lab simulating natural mechanism then you would disprove my argument.

My point was that just because something can happen in the lab, doesn’t necessarily imply that it can also happen in nature, I honestly thought that it was an uncontroversial statement, after all we all know that Diet Coke was created in a lab, but it obviously doesn’t mean that Diet Coke can also be created in nature.


Why not? It might be improbable for the relevant molecules to come together in the right proportions, but it isn't actually impossible. Anything that can happen in the lab can happen in nature, and indeed vast swathes of things that aren't possible in a lab because of the energetic considerations.
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:50 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Creationists and DNA

dandan wrote:Dragan to be honest, I didn´t read all the sources that RAZD provided, I only read the first one.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ASnibB0zIU

In this experiment scientists stated with all ready started with a self replicating agent, they didn’t explain the origin of such agent. ¿does any other of the sources provides an example of a self-replicating agent coming from a non-replicating agent simulating natural mechanisms?


No, because, wait for it... this is still an active area of research. It's a problem that a few small labs have been working on for about 70 years, while the planet had half a billion years or so and a lab the size of a planet.

Either way, life is just chemistry. If abiogenesis can happen, it can happen (and it did).
Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:52 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 19
 [ 376 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests