Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 134

Thread: In the Beginning was Information.

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    163
    Amen (Given)
    115
    Amen (Received)
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Among other fatal flaws Gitt invented a lot of his own definitions for various forms of "information" not used by anyone else in any scientific field. Most were circular and all were scientifically worthless. Sadly he's just one more in a long list of Jesus loving crackpots out to scientifically "prove" his Biblical beliefs.
    The fact that it is not accepted by anyone else is again an argument from authority. The question is: does Gitt's arguments stand or fall on their own merits? Now I agree that maybe ''most were circular and all were scientifically worthless'', because he defined 5 levels of information: statistics, sintax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. However, I came lo learn that only the first one really applies to DNA (which is Shannon's definition).

  2. #12
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,331
    Amen (Given)
    1564
    Amen (Received)
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    The fact that it is not accepted by anyone else is again an argument from authority. The question is: does Gitt's arguments stand or fall on their own merits? Now I agree that maybe ''most were circular and all were scientifically worthless'', because he defined 5 levels of information: statistics, sintax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. However, I came lo learn that only the first one really applies to DNA (which is Shannon's definition).
    As far as Gitt's arguments, they all fail, because his argument have no scientific merits, nor does he propose any scientific hypothesis to support his argument.

    Statistics as used by Creationists is an unethical misuse of statistics to justify their agenda. They are ALL circular and ALL scientifically worthless. The statistical arguments by Creationists require assumptions based on their Creationist beliefs {argument from authority).
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    163
    Amen (Given)
    115
    Amen (Received)
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    As far as Gitt's arguments, they all fail, because his argument have no scientific merits, nor does he propose any scientific hypothesis to support his argument.

    Statistics as used by Creationists is an unethical misuse of statistics to justify their agenda. They are ALL circular and ALL scientifically worthless. The statistical arguments by Creationists require assumptions based on their Creationist beliefs {argument from authority).
    No, the concept of statistics in information is valid since it was not invented by Gitt, but by the father of information theory, Claude Shannon. Shannon's theory DOES have applications in biology, AFAICT.

  4. #14
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,331
    Amen (Given)
    1564
    Amen (Received)
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    No, the concept of statistics in information is valid since it was not invented by Gitt, but by the father of information theory, Claude Shannon. Shannon's theory DOES have applications in biology, AFAICT.
    The application of information theory in biology is most definitely not the same way Gitt corrupts it to justify his agenda.

    Actually no, statistics is not a scientific argument based on a hypothesis that may be falsified. The best statistics can predict is probability, and probability as used by Gitt cannot be the basis to falsify a hypothesis for Intelligent Design.

    In another thread a while back I documented the terrible misuse of statistics by Creationists. In summary the Creationists tried to use statistics to demonstrated the whole chain of the probability of cause and effect events, and in reality it can only apply to the probability of each event.

    Yes, Claude Shannon. is the father of information theory, but that is where the comparison with Gitt ends. If Shannon is the father Gitt is the corrupter of information theory.

    Shannon's monumental contribution to information theory, design of computers and Quantum Mechanics is summarized here:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...annon-founder/

    The thread that details the misuse of statistics by creationist is here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again


    My first post:

    Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4/BIO-C.2018.4



    Remark. It should be noted that although Landman claims [8] that the number of possible states should be used as the replicational resources (scaling constant) r rather than the number of possible events, it should be clear that such a claim is mistaken, since the replicational resources represent the number of attempts a system is given to produce a given result (if every operation on every bit were a sampling attempt), which corresponds to the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang (and not to the number of possible states). In either case, since we are concerned with proving bounds for Dembski’s model, and he uses the scaling constant of 10120, we do so here as well.

    © Copyright Original Source




    If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result. More comments may follow. Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'

    I believe that Landman referred to this limitation as 'the number of possible states.' I comment with caution on Landman, because I lack his full reference. I may word this more completely as the limitations of the possible states of the outcome of each cause and effect outcome constrained by the laws of nature.

    I believe they have tried this before.

    Source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/15/liars-figure



    The old saying, that “figures won’t lie,” is true, without doubt; and the same may be said of letters, marks, and other signs of thought. But the mode in which many use figures, in order to carry a point, has sometimes tempted us to believe that the hasty remark of the Psalmist, if paraphrased thus – “all men” – who deal in statistics “are liars,” – is not far from the truth.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-25-2019 at 03:27 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    163
    Amen (Given)
    115
    Amen (Received)
    10
    A creationist has written the following:

    ''Gitt has an argument by analogy, where he is basing his assertions about something we don't know on something we do know (origin of genetic information vs. other information), and skeptics try and refute it by arguing that we don't observe the origin of genetic information (which is why it's an argument by analogy), and asserting without cause that genetic information is different to other information''.

    I honestly can't find any fault with this argument. Can anyone help?

  6. #16
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,331
    Amen (Given)
    1564
    Amen (Received)
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    A creationist has written the following:

    ''Gitt has an argument by analogy, where he is basing his assertions about something we don't know on something we do know (origin of genetic information vs. other information), and skeptics try and refute it by arguing that we don't observe the origin of genetic information (which is why it's an argument by analogy), and asserting without cause that genetic information is different to other information''.

    I honestly can't find any fault with this argument. Can anyone help?
    The fault is that it is not a coherent argument at all. It is a shell game without the pea.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,088
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    A 1997 book by Werner Gitt. Is it worth reading, or there are, in your opinion, better and more up-to-date books to be purchased within this type of book? What would you reccomend I buy on the topic of 'information' issues?
    In the beginning, i.e eternally, was the Cosmos, and information is simply that which defines it, in my humble opinion, of course. "From nothing, nothing comes."

  8. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    163
    Amen (Given)
    115
    Amen (Received)
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The fault is that it is not a coherent argument at all. It is a shell game without the pea.
    Don't really like to play Lee Merill style, but why? Let me state the argument in another way: ''There are evolutionary scientists who agree that DNA has the characteristics of a code (message), but claim that the agencies involved were not intentional. The creationist argument is that such codes require intelligence, as far as observation goes.

    In short, an argument by analogy. DNA is arbitrarily declared to be the only exception to such 'codes'. I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way.
    Last edited by Seeker; 06-29-2019 at 10:22 PM.

  9. #19
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,078
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    A creationist has written the following:

    ''Gitt has an argument by analogy, where he is basing his assertions about something we don't know on something we do know (origin of genetic information vs. other information), and skeptics try and refute it by arguing that we don't observe the origin of genetic information (which is why it's an argument by analogy), and asserting without cause that genetic information is different to other information''.

    I honestly can't find any fault with this argument. Can anyone help?
    It's wrong because we do observe the origin of new genetic information. Every individual in every generation has new genetic variations not present in the parents. These are caused the small amount of randomness in chemical reproduction processes. That is new genetic information. The new information which is retained in the species' gene pool is that which is concentrated by selection pressures and/or neutral genetic drift.

    Sorry but Gitt is just another sad Creationist trying and failing to scientifically justify his religions beliefs.

  10. #20
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,078
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Don't really like to play Lee Merill style, but why? Let me state the argument in another way: ''There are evolutionary scientists who agree that DNA has the characteristics of a code (message), but claim that the agencies involved were not intentional. The creationist argument is that such codes require intelligence, as far as observation goes.

    In short, an argument by analogy. DNA is arbitrarily declared to be the only exception to such 'codes'. I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way.
    This is another false claim based on equivocation over the definition of "code". There are naturally occurring codes which don't require an intelligence to encode the information. That includes the widths of tree rings which encode information about the local climate when the rings grew, and spectral lines in starlight which encode information about the chemical composition of the star. DNA is another naturally occurring process which encodes information about a creature's environment.

    The only codes which require intelligence are those which use arbitrary symbols as abstractions for other values - things like Morse Code or computer code. That does not include DNA which is a chemical process that naturally encodes information with no abstraction or arbitrary symbols anywhere. Merely being a "code" is not an indication of intelligence.

  11. Amen JimL amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •