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

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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."

      Comment


      • #18
        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, 11:22 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              And what about the role of mutations in bringing new information?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                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.
                I agree. DNA is a molecule with chemical reactions. The reactions are big and complex but they are nothing more than chemical reactions nonetheless. Nothing of which is required by ''intelligence''.

                BTW, thanks for being the only one to answer my questions.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sorry, I just realized my previous posts two contain some mistakes (grammatical and semantic). Pardon me, English is not my first language.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                    Sorry, I just realized my previous posts two contain some mistakes (grammatical and semantic).
                    I wouldn't have even noticed any if you hadn't said this.

                    Pardon me, English is not my first language.
                    I had no idea of that until you said this.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      I wouldn't have even noticed any if you hadn't said this.

                      I had no idea of that until you said this.
                      LOL Fail! I exchanged ''two'' and ''posts''. It should have read ''previous two posts'', not ''previous posts two''.

                      I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                        LOL Fail! I exchanged ''two'' and ''posts''. It should have read ''previous two posts'', not ''previous posts two''.

                        I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.
                        I didn't even notice you had swapped the two words until you pointed it out, and I suspect neither did Terraceth. And accidentally swapping words so they're in the wrong order is something native speakers of a language do too, so that's hardly indicative of someone who is not at native level proficiency in a language.

                        Like you I'm not a native speaker of English either, so my opinion doesn't really hold as much weight (although I have spent most of my time on the internet on sites where the discussions have mainly/only been in English), but I would never have guessed that English wasn't your first language either.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          I didn't even notice you had swapped the two words until you pointed it out, and I suspect neither did Terraceth. And accidentally swapping words so they're in the wrong order is something native speakers of a language do too, so that's hardly indicative of someone who is not at native level proficiency in a language.

                          Like you I'm not a native speaker of English either, so my opinion doesn't really hold as much weight (although I have spent most of my time on the internet on sites where the discussions have mainly/only been in English), but I would never have guessed that English wasn't your first language either.
                          Thank you for your kind words. The people on this site are really nice. lol

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                            And what about the role of mutations in bringing new information?
                            A check of the internet will reveal hundreds of conflicting views on new information and gene mutations. I found this simple youtube video on a basic level with examples that descripes 'point mutation' and new information.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=DlhpvcgK_28

                            Just a few obvious examples of new information is gene splicing where a new gene or sequence genes are inserted in the DNA. The other is the doubling of RNA in the formation of new information of DNA as in the evolution of the eye.




                            The following is more involved reference, but readable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21578/
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                              LOL Fail! I exchanged ''two'' and ''posts''. It should have read ''previous two posts'', not ''previous posts two''.

                              I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.
                              No facetiousness intended. The two posts in question have no obvious issues in them. I had to actually look carefully at them to try to find the errors you were embarrassed by.

                              As for the "previous posts two" (which is more obvious but wasn't part of the applicable posts), I can't remember if I noticed it or not when I made my post. As I didn't mention it, I either missed it entirely due to not taking as close as look at it as the previous 2 posts or just shrugged it off as an accidental typo not worth mentioning.

                              Believe me, your English is better than I've seen from a lot of native speakers.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It happens that, when reading rather than examining a text, the reader's background "auto-correct" simply amends what is written to what should have been written*, and it passes completely unnoticed by the reader. That is, unless the writing falls foul of a pet peeve. One that I encountered recently: "viscious." On the first pass, I read it as "viscous" which didn't make sense in context, and re-read it as "vicious" - and still didn't notice the extraneous "s" before the "c."

                                (* One time I wrote a piece with the kanji for "I" wrongly written - the character doesn't even exist. It completely escaped the teacher's notice.)
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                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