Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

In the Beginning was Information.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Can you explain what you mean by "DNA is a molecule with chemical reactions."?

    DNA is basically inert. It is copied by proteins. It is transcribed by proteins. It is repaired by proteins.

    It doesn't do anything by itself.
    Sorry, I should have said: DNA is a molecule that reacts with other molecules in chemical reactions, without intelligence or meaning. It's a big molecule and the reactions are complex, but they are nothing more than chemical reactions.

    I hope that clarifies.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by DaveB View Post
      Meyer has a PhD from Cambridge in History and the Philosophy of Science, not simply Philosophy. So while he doesn't do primary research, he's very qualified to review the literature and understand the "big picture" of what science has really been able to accomplish in the area of explaining the origin of life or the Cambrian Explosion, which are discussed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt. He does a good job of explaining the issue of information from the ID perspective and also the inability of science to come up with an explanation.
      LOL! Science knows how information arises. Meyer is a laughingstock in scientific circles. He doesn't do science, he does Christian apologetics. If you had even the slightest bit of scientific training or knowledge you'd know that, but you obviously don't.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Seeker View Post
        Sorry, I should have said: DNA is a molecule that reacts with other molecules in chemical reactions, without intelligence or meaning. It's a big molecule and the reactions are complex, but they are nothing more than chemical reactions.

        I hope that clarifies.
        First of all, you are using the word reaction incorrectly, just as others are. A chemical reaction is when the chemicals that are the inputs to the reaction are actually changed to other chemical(s). So, if the 3 bases molecules were mixed together and formed a molecule of a particular amino acid, then that would be a chemical reaction. But nothing like that is happening in the transcription/translation process. (I hope you watched the video.) And this isn't to say that there aren't any chemical reactions happening within the cell. There are many of them. But I think you'd be more accurate in saying "chemical processes".

        I think you're saying that the processes going on in the cell can be reduced to "it's just chemistry". While it's true that the processes in the cell work according to the laws of chemistry, the laws of chemistry can't account for the sequential information necessary to produce the proteins that perform the processes.

        Think of it this way. The parts of a car work according the laws of physics. But you would never deny that there was intelligence used in the design of the car by saying "it's just physics". Right?

        Another example is a computer. Would you deny that there was intelligence used to design the parts of the computer and the software that it runs by saying "it's just electronics"? Of course not.

        So saying "it's just chemistry" is no different than saying "it's just physics" or "it's just electronics". In each case, the "how it works" does not determine the "how it came to be".

        Lastly, in case you're thinking that the creationist / ID argument is that DNA (or even the cell) is intelligent, that is not the case. I think that intelligence was required to produce the sequential information stored in DNA, but I don't think that the cell has anymore self-awareness than the components of a computer do.

        Let me know if you have any questions.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          LOL! Science knows how information arises.
          Science knows about mutations that can change DNA sequence. These changes can either be harmful, neutral (no observable change) or, rarely, beneficial. But the beneficial ones are in the fine-tuning (of existing systems) category. Science can't account for the sequential information needed for the origin of life or the major changes needed for the Cambrian Explosion. It's all hand waving.

          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Meyer is a laughingstock in scientific circles. He doesn't do science, he does Christian apologetics.
          I take it you haven't read his books.

          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          If you had even the slightest bit of scientific training or knowledge you'd know that, but you obviously don't.
          A career as a software engineer tells me that Meyer's arguments on information are exactly right.

          And I'm not the one lamely trying to compare tree rings to the information in DNA. Sheesh!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Not quote mining at all. Gitt believes all information comes from God, as recording in only 'one information source' the Bible.
            Gitt was the director of IT and, later, a professor at Germany's national institute for natural and engineering sciences..

            For you to think that he would deny that humans produce information is nonsensical.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by DaveB View Post
              Science can't account for the sequential information needed for the origin of life or the major changes needed for the Cambrian Explosion.
              Of course it can. There's a good reason Meyer's religiously motivated stupidity has been universally rejected by the actual science community.

              A career as a software engineer tells me that Meyer's arguments on information are exactly right.
              While millions of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists and geneticists say Meyer is a blustering IDiot. I'll go with the actual scientists.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by DaveB View Post

                Think of it this way. The parts of a car work according the laws of physics. But you would never deny that there was intelligence used in the design of the car by saying "it's just physics". Right?

                Another example is a computer. Would you deny that there was intelligence used to design the parts of the computer and the software that it runs by saying "it's just electronics"? Of course not.
                LOL! Once again ID-Creationists just don't understand analogies aren't evidence.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Returning after a long break... So many Internet sites, so little time.

                  Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                  I think that intelligence was required to produce the sequential information stored in DNA
                  How are you defining "information"? Well known evolutionary processes can increase both Shannon Information and Kolmogorov Information measured in DNA (and in RNA for that matter).

                  If you are using a different measure of information, then you need to specify what that measure is and how to calculate it.

                  There is also the question of the required intelligence you mention. How much information is there inherent in that 'required intelligence'? What is the origin of that information? Did it require a meta-intelligence to set up that information? There is an obvious infinite regress here, unless you have a way of setting up some form of intelligence that does not itself require some initial intelligent input.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rossum View Post
                    Returning after a long break... So many Internet sites, so little time.



                    How are you defining "information"? Well known evolutionary processes can increase both Shannon Information and Kolmogorov Information measured in DNA (and in RNA for that matter).

                    If you are using a different measure of information, then you need to specify what that measure is and how to calculate it.

                    There is also the question of the required intelligence you mention. How much information is there inherent in that 'required intelligence'? What is the origin of that information? Did it require a meta-intelligence to set up that information? There is an obvious infinite regress here, unless you have a way of setting up some form of intelligence that does not itself require some initial intelligent input.
                    Well, according to Gitt God is the only possible 'Source' of information and the Bible is the record of God's information of Creation.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Well, according to Gitt God is the only possible 'Source' of information and the Bible is the record of God's information of Creation.
                      Then Gitt refutes ID. God contains complex information (He is omniscient after all) yet God was not intelligently designed. Hence, complex information can exist in the absence of design.

                      ID is logically proven false.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Yes, every argument should stand on the merits of the argument itself, but no coherent argument is presented by Gitt.

                        I believe he limits the validity in two ways: (1) He asserts only the literal Biblical Creation, without any argument nor other references to support the assertion. (2) He does not present anything in terms of science. (3) His qualifications as a scientist or not does decidedly impact the coherency of an argument. In his own reference he claims to be a scientist, he is not. The problem is very real where other creationists present a scientific argument with no qualifications in science, and even Creationist scientist present unethical and dishonest arguments in terms of science.
                        and no coherent argument was presented by you Frank when you said he was an engineer, implying that engineers can't present correct arguments.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          LOL! Science knows how information arises.
                          Please enlighten us as to how the information necessary for the origin of life or the Cambrian explosion arose.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            LOL! Once again ID-Creationists just don't understand analogies aren't evidence.
                            Evidence of what?

                            What is my post saying?

                            1. Life is designed because computers and cars are designed.

                            2. "It's just chemistry" doesn't mean that life isn't designed, just as "it's just electronics" doesn't mean that a computer isn't designed.

                            You seem to think that 1 is the right answer, but the correct answer is 2. Once again, you display that your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by rossum View Post
                              Returning after a long break... So many Internet sites, so little time.



                              How are you defining "information"? Well known evolutionary processes can increase both Shannon Information and Kolmogorov Information measured in DNA (and in RNA for that matter).

                              If you are using a different measure of information, then you need to specify what that measure is and how to calculate it.

                              There is also the question of the required intelligence you mention. How much information is there inherent in that 'required intelligence'? What is the origin of that information? Did it require a meta-intelligence to set up that information? There is an obvious infinite regress here, unless you have a way of setting up some form of intelligence that does not itself require some initial intelligent input.
                              I know what Kolmogorov complexity is, but I've never heard of Kolmogorov Information.

                              Please provide a link to the definition.

                              To answer your question, you only need to read my earlier post.

                              I'm using the "2b" definition from Webster's.
                              the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

                              I would simplify this as functional, digital information.

                              Shannon is concerned with the transmission of a string (of bits). Shannon doesn't care if the string being transmitted actually carries any function information or not.

                              Meyer explains this very well in Signature in the Cell.

                              So, I agree that evolutionary processes can increase Shannon information because any random change to a random sequence can be considered new.

                              However, that isn't the creationist/ID argument. The argument is on the ability of evolutionary processes to generate functional information (what ID calls CSI).

                              As far as the origin of the intelligence goes, there is no origin because God is eternal and had no origin.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Well, according to Gitt God is the only possible 'Source' of information and the Bible is the record of God's information of Creation.
                                No, Gitt does not say that God is the only possible source of information.

                                Why keep quote-mining Gitt?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X