Thanks for the support, guys. I try my best. Actually, I see NO erros in the two posts in question now. I must have gone insane. lol
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
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
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostA 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst, Gitt is an engineer not a scientist, and approaches the concept of information very mechanistically from a Creationist assertion of a Divine perspective and not a scientific perspective. It is a simple straight forward literal Biblical view without any reference to science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostThe 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).
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1999.tb08916.x
I should also mention that the information in DNA, specifically the genes, goes far beyond "Shannon information".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostDon'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.
coded information in the same sense that a computer tape holds coded information, but DNA
itself is not a code.
The information that is stored in a gene is coded in the Genetic code. A code (or code set), like Morse code or
computer code (there are many different computer codes like ASCII or EBCDIC) has limited
characters, like dots and dashes or ones and zeros. Different sequences of the characters
represent something else, like a letter of the alphabet. So in Morse code, "dot dot dash" represents "U".
You can take the characters that represent a letter and rearrange them and they will represent a different letter.
So, you can take the "dot dot dash" that represents "U" and rearrange them to "dash dot dot"
and it then represents "D". It's the sequence of the characters that matters.
The Genetic code is no different. The characters of the code are the 4 chemical bases that are a part of each
nucleotide. Different sequences of the bases (a codon is an sequence of 3 bases) represent an amino acid.
Like the example above, you can take the bases from a sequence that represents one amino acid and
rearrange them to form a sequence that represents an entirely different amino acid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually 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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostThis 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.
Actually, the equivocation here is over the word information.
From Websters:
2a(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
b : 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
Your examples of tree rings and spectral lines are examples of "2a" information, while the information coded in
DNA is an example of "2b" information.
There are no sequences or arrangements of tree rings or spectral lines that produce anything, unlike
the sequence of amino acids produced when the sequence of bases in a gene are transcribed/translated.
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostThe 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.
And, what do you mean by "DNA which is a chemical process"?Last edited by DaveB; 07-03-2019, 01:42 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostActually, the equivocation here is over the word information.
From Websters:
2a(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
b : 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
Your examples of tree rings and spectral lines are examples of "2a" information, while the information coded in
DNA is an example of "2b" information.
There are no sequences or arrangements of tree rings or spectral lines that produce anything, unlike
the sequence of amino acids produced when the sequence of bases in a gene are transcribed/translated.
The arbitrary representation is the relationship between codon and amino acid.
The comparison of the Genetic code to Morse code is a valid one and was used by none other than Francis Crick.
And, what do you mean by "DNA which is a chemical process"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostI'd recommend 'Signature in the Cell' by Stephen Meyer.
Note that Meyer followed up this stinker with an even more wretched steaming pile of science-free propaganda with Darwin's Doubt. Pushing the DI's "Wedge Strategy" to get the Christian God sneaked back into public school science classrooms has been Meyer's only goal since day one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostYou are quote-mining Gitt. What you quoted is related specifically to the question of the length of the days of creation. He is not stating that all information comes from the Bible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostI 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.
Here is a short animated video. It does a good job of showing how the sequential information in DNA is used to produce proteins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BwWavExcFI
Keep in mind that all of the proteins and RNA involved in the transcription and translation processes were themselves produced by the same processes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostBig time fail there Dave. Spectral lines and tree rings do indeed encode information which may be recovered by an external observer later. That's information in the "2b" sense.
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIt's not arbitrary. You can't decide to have any codon create any amino acid on a whim like you can arbitrarily make any symbol in Morse represent any letter. The genetic code exhibits degeneracy in that sometimes more than one codon may produce the same amino acid but that's not the same as arbitrary.
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostWhy do ID-Creationists never understand that analogies aren't evidence?
Crick's comparison of the Genetic code to Morse code is saying "these two things are similar in principle". They are both codes.
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostAll of life is a big, hugely complicated chemical reaction but a chemical reaction never the less.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostWhy? It's a horrible piece of anti-science ID-Creationist garbage almost universally rejected by the scientific community. It's full of vague undefined ID-Creationist buzz-terms like "complex specified information" which Meyer leans on heavily to sway scientifically illiterate laymen. Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher and his lack of basic knowledge about biology and genetics are well documented. Like other ID-Creationist books of that time it's one more big "this is SOOOOOOOO complex, it must be DESIGNED" argument from personal ignorance. Of course Meyer's "Designer" is the Christian God.
Note that Meyer followed up this stinker with an even more wretched steaming pile of science-free propaganda with Darwin's Doubt. Pushing the DI's "Wedge Strategy" to get the Christian God sneaked back into public school science classrooms has been Meyer's only goal since day one.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
4 responses
34 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 09:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment