|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Data, Information, and all that.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Spoken like a true Nazi. (figured as long as you are calling me a name I don’t deserve, I’d return the favor).
quote: False. But hey, who am I to say what I believeafter all, isn’t it MrHambre who gets to determine what it is I believe?
quote: Uhm, I was the one taking intelligence and consciousness OUT of the definitions and usage of the term information.
quote: Uhm, there are reasons to think that mutations aren’t truly random: for example, genomes can have hotspots where mutations occur at a higher rate. In such genomes, because the mutations are not evenly distributed, technically, they are not random. There are plenty of debates at sites such as this one that are based on what the word random really means and I didn’t want to get bogged down in such. Now, about your real point. I was not saying that intelligence was involved in directing the mutations, and no rational and honest person would interpret my statements otherwise. Here, let me point out several keys things that show your interpretation to be completely unwarranted.
quote: Note especially that last emphasized part, which explicitly states UNDIRECTED MUTATION. Gee MrHambre, can you read?
quote: More distortion. I said exactly that oppositethat purely natural process ARE adequate.
quote: Please explain how, since before there was life in the OOL sense, there was no mutation and natural selectionby definition. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-20-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
quote: I think the how question is the one that most people would like to see your position on, and if you could clarify it, maybe it would stop the jumping to conclusions that so riles you Please realise I'm not trying to badger you into an answer - you can refuse if you like - I'm genuinely interested in what you think and it might provide a fresh perspective on your arguments
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Uhm, dude, I already made a very clear statement about my position on HOW the information that IS in DNA today got there: common descent by undirected evolution. Can you read? Were you thrown off by MrHambre's horrible response? A moment of stupidity or dishonesty on his part seem to be the best or only explanations for his actions. You shouldn't follow in his footsteps. Now be a good little boy and read my statements again.
quote: Come on people...what's so hard to understand about that? [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-21-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DNAunion,
Thanks ever so much for calling me a Nazi and asking if I can read. I assure you that I, like most of those here, can read. We've read all your eloquent arguments in defense of Michael Behe and his concept of 'irreducible complexity.' We've read your persistent arguments that DNA contains information, and your assertion that it's a different subject than how the information 'got' there. We've read your declarations that you believe that undirected processes are enough to explain evolution from the LUCA, but that you're not convinced that abiogenesis was the product of the same undirected processes. However, we've also read that you ascribe my suspicion that you're an ID creationist to my 'stupidity,' my 'delusion,' and my inability to read. I'd assume a rational and honest person like yourself would admit if he feels 'purely natural processes' are the original source of the information in the genome of the ancestor of extant life forms. Try as I might to find that here, though, it seems like you're just repeating that these undirected processes are only responsible for our evolution from the LUCA: quote: Thanks again for the compliment, and looking forward to your characteristic rationality and honesty. regards,Esteban "Frickin Retard" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: No, no, no, MrHambre...thank you ever so much for first (1) calling me a Creationist and (2) completely mangling my statements, which you clearly did as a means of launching a personl attack. Please learn the difference between an action and a REaction. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Which does appear to be the case, now doesn't it. Or do you have another explanation for your completely "whack" response? Didn't think so. Or do you have any real evidence to present that demonstrates that I am a Creationist? Nope, you don't. You can't, because I am not a Creationist. You lose...but thanks for playing. Better luck next time. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DNAunion,
As expected, you have answered the charge that you are an ID creationist with the mere assertion that you are not one. I guess nobody should wonder why you go to such great lengths to defend an ID creationist like Behe, or why you only seem able to give credit to undirected processes for evolution from the first organisms onward, and not for the origin of life itself. Nobody should wonder why you make this distinction, or why you subsequently evade the question of why you make it. The only thing I've lost is the interest in making you clarify your position. The only one playing here is you. regards,Esteban "Ceci n'est pas un Creationist" Hambre [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 03-22-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Enough of the patronising responses. I've been perfectly civil with you, please try and show me the same consideration.
I'll try and make it clearer for you:
quote: That it is not what I asked you. I accept that you have made this perfectly clear, and agree that you have stated it a number of times, but you always miss out a bit. What I asked you is where you think the information that was in the common ancestor(s) came from. The random product of a DNA/RNA world? UFO's? What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The first is definitely an informal use of the term
information, and means something like 'order'. I've already said that that, highly restricted definition, fits OK. The second is an extremely loose usage, and not to be confusedwith any analysis that has concluded this. The distinction between who is the IDer is, well, trite in myopinion. If an ETI seeded the earth ... where did they come from ... or where the ETI's the product of random mutation and selection. Ultimately any argument that intelligence is REQUIRED forlife to exist hits a limit where a god is also required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Are you sure you're not Peter Borger You don't need even distribution (spatially) for the mutationsto be random ... I agree that we shouldn't get borged down on this one ... but it's hardly compelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
They may if Wolfram's PDE is a better model of the epidermis than Murray's rxn diffusion equations but all bets are off for me if the node IS a croizatian skyhook reducible amorally. The last few words are like Chomsky's greenly sleeping hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Peter writes: Even then it's not the DNA sequence alone ... the DNA sequence is more like the data tables that a program might use. I think one can draw many appropriate analogies between computers and DNA, and the one you suggest here has nothing more to recommend it than any other. Consider a Turing machine, the ultimate confusion of program and data. Where one decides to draw the boundary between program and data, while not entirely arbitrary, has few constraints. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: As expected, you have "supported" your charge that I am a creationist with nothing: all we have is your assertion, which goes AGAINST the obvious facts on the table, and your stupid and easily refuted "logic". You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
quote: You're right...they shouldn't. If I defend a black person from unfair cricisims does that make me a black person? Nope. If I defend a woman against unfair criticisms does that make me a woman? Nope. "Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
quote: Where have I said that it requires God to create life? Nowhere. In fact, as I already pointed out in this thread, when I used to be an IDist I pushed the idea of ETIs, not God. Besides, what's wrong with "I don't know"? How would that make me a Creationist? "Logic" refuted. You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
quote: Oh no, you lost lots, like respect. You have shown us all how illogical, irrational, underhanded, and biased you can be. Thanks! You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, it is. Let me make it clear for you. Here’s the original exchange.
quote: quote: Your question, based on my statement, is how the information that IS in DNA got there. In case you didn't know this, IS is present tense. And I already answered how the information that IS in DNA got there, through undirected evolution. Now, if you meant to ask a different question, then it’s your fault that you didn’t. Is that clear enough for you Oook?
quote: So why did you ask me to explaint it again?
quote: No, that is NOT what you asked me. See, you're confused. You claim that you didn't ask me what you did in fact ask, and you also claim that you asked me what you in fact did not. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-24-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024