Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
John
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 224 (12895)
07-06-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by blitz77
07-06-2002 5:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
BTW, in order for chance to create the simple proteins, there has to be a high enough concentration of amino acids, and for the amino acids to link up against the energy gradient, and for the probability that all of them are left-handed (which, for a 100-amino acid protein, would be 1/2^100).
Can you back up that probability calculation?
I've seen calculations like this before and they usually neglect a few factors
Like:
1) There should have been loads of energy around at the time. The planet was young and very violent-- volcanoes, etc.
2) You don't have to create a protein by chance, only a small self-replicating precursor, a catalyst. From there on the dice are loaded.
3) What is the time-frame and base volume of 'soup' used in this calculation? These reactions would have been occurring over the whole surface of the Earth for millions or hundreds of millions of years. Again, a few good molecules and the dice are loaded.
4) Several thoughts about left-handedness.
There may be a REASON for it besides chance. from Nature magazine
or:
Polarized light
Even if the above is incorrect, there may be a biochemical reason for left-handedness. I recall reading a paper suggesting that left-handed molecules function marginally better than right-handed one. Selection takes over. Sadly, I cannot find this paper.
Even if the above is incorrect, if the first proteins happened to be left-handed, they could have simple flooded the market drowning out their right-handed siblings.
Basically, things aren't as random as they appear.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 07-06-2002 5:13 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 1:46 PM John has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 137 of 224 (12906)
07-06-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by John
07-06-2002 12:04 PM


[QUOTE][b]for the probability that all of them are left-handed[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Interesting that you bring that up because meteoric AA's *are* almost exclusively left-handed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by John, posted 07-06-2002 12:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by John, posted 07-06-2002 2:32 PM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 224 (12911)
07-06-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by gene90
07-06-2002 1:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

Interesting that you bring that up because meteoric AA's *are* almost exclusively left-handed.

Right, the link I posted labeled 'polarized light' discusses this and gives a reason why.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 1:46 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 139 of 224 (12913)
07-06-2002 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by edge
07-05-2002 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Could you tell us Fred just out of what field information theory arose and just why you think it is applicable to complex biological systems?
LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems! Two down, one to go!
Perhaps within the next week we will get #3 (the only one with a leg to stand on; BTW, its not as common as the other two; clue: think theistic evolution).
You can get a history of info theory on the internet. I honestly don't want to take the time to spell it out here.
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by edge, posted 07-05-2002 10:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by John, posted 07-06-2002 3:08 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 07-06-2002 4:54 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 07-06-2002 7:36 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 143 by edge, posted 07-06-2002 8:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 224 (12914)
07-06-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
07-06-2002 2:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems!

I agree with you, Fred, that systems theory (or information theory) is pertinent to biological systems. ... a discussion of the connection for those interested
I do not agree that information theory contradicts evolution. (also discussed in the link above).
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 07-06-2002 2:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 224 (12919)
07-06-2002 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
07-06-2002 2:51 PM


Don't forget posts #132 & #133. Just making sure.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 07-06-2002 2:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2002 1:31 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 142 of 224 (12925)
07-06-2002 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
07-06-2002 2:51 PM


Hi Fred!
I remember we had a discussion on information theory as evidence against evolution a few years ago, although I wasn't one of the primary participants. You argued that random mutation cannot create new information, and that since new phenotypes can only come into existence through the addition of information to the genome that therefore evolution is impossible.
One of the problems with discussing your underlying premise that random mutation cannot create new information is that the discussion quickly bogs down in arguments about the correct definition of information. In no time at all no knows what anyone else is talking about (pretty ironic for a discussion about information
).
An alternative approach would be to see if we can find examples of randomness creating new phenotypes. Such an example would lead us to suspect problems with the underlying premise, regardless of how anyone defines information.
We can actually create our own example to test your premise by creating a simple model of the evolutionary process drawing upon your own field of computer engineering. Imagine we have a state machine with only two bits of information, and the desired behavior is a ring counter, ie, 0->1->2->3->0...etc. The next state of each bit in our state machine is a function dependent upon the states of the two bits:
fi = ((p1i0s0 || n1i1ns1) && (p1i1s1 || n1i1ns1)) ||
((p2i0s0 || n2i1ns1) && (p2i1s1 || n2i1ns1)) (i = 0, 1)
where:
fi is the next state of bit i
p1,2i0,1 is the coefficient for the positive (non-negated) s0,1 bits (two terms)
n1,2i0,1 is the coefficient for the negated s0,1 bits (two terms)
s0,1 are the states of the two bits
ns0,1 is the negated states of the two bits
This implements a simple PLA.
In this evolutionary model the bits are the organism while the coefficients are the genome. Reproduction occurs when ten copies are made of our "organism", and mutation is represented by modifying a single coefficient in each "offspring". The impact of the environment on the organisms is modeled by a checker which measures how well each offspring performs the ring counter function by clocking them each four times and using a weighted measure to assess how well it performs the count. The best offspring is selected to become the parent of ten offspring in the next generation, and the rest are discarded. The evaluation function:
e = E(n=0,3) abs(S(n+1)%4 - Sn) - 1
where:
E(n=0,3) is summation, vary n from 0 to 3
Sn is the two-bit state of the ring counter
n is the numbered states for 4 clock ticks
I've written a simple C++ program to do this: Ring Counter Evolution
Here's some sample output. The five numbers are the count sequence produced in each generation:
Best in generation 1: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 2: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 3: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 4: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 5: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 6: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 7: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 8: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 9: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 10: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 11: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 12: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 13: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 14: 0-0-0-0-0
Best in generation 15: 0-1-2-1-2
Best in generation 16: 0-1-2-1-2
Best in generation 17: 0-1-2-1-2
Best in generation 18: 0-1-2-1-2
Best in generation 19: 0-1-2-3-0
Ring count function achieved: 0010-0111 1001-0110 (the coefficients)
The interesting thing is that since the changes to the coefficients are random, each time you run the program you get a different result. It once achieved a ring count in only 16 generations, and the longest took over 200 generations. And the ring function can be realized with more than one set of coefficients. For example, here are all the different ways the program's evolution implemented a ring counter in terms of the coefficients:
Ring count function achieved: 0001-0111 0110-1001
Ring count function achieved: 0101-0111 1001-0110
Ring count function achieved: 0110-0101 0110-1001
Ring count function achieved: 0110-0101 1001-0110
Ring count function achieved: 0111-0011 0110-1001
Ring count function achieved: 0111-0100 0110-1001
Ring count function achieved: 0111-0101 1001-0110
Ring count function achieved: 1100-0111 0110-1001
Ring count function achieved: 1100-0111 1001-0110
In other words, just like in real-world evolution there is more than one way to accomplish the same goal.
This evolutionary model demonstrates that random mutation can create new phenotypes, and if you believe that new phenotypes require new information it therefore falsifies the original premise that random mutation cannot create new information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 07-06-2002 2:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 143 of 224 (12931)
07-06-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
07-06-2002 2:51 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems! Two down, one to go!
Perhaps within the next week we will get #3 (the only one with a leg to stand on; BTW, its not as common as the other two; clue: think theistic evolution).
You can get a history of info theory on the internet. I honestly don't want to take the time to spell it out here.[/QUOTE]
So, you don't have a point? Well, I didn't think you would want to get into the details. Actually, this was your predicted response. As far as I can see, it is not necessarily applicable since not all of the parameters are understood or nicely controlled. The world is not a telecommunications laboratory.
By the way, I asked some other questions. Are you going to tell me to go research the internet on those as well?
(added by edit) By the way, Fred, could you present us with those 11 (or whatever) rules of information theory?
[This message has been edited by edge, 07-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 07-06-2002 2:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 224 (12941)
07-07-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jonathan
06-29-2002 12:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
[b]I was waiting in the doctors office one day in the exam room looking at cut away diagrams of the human body. Seeing how extreamly complex the design is and how well it works is what convinced me. I just cant possibly imagine that all of this has happened totally by chance.[/QUOTE]
That's good, because it didn't.
Evolution doesn't happen "totally by chance". Mutation is random, but natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.
quote:
It just works to well to have hapened on its own with no outside help.
First, there is a lot about the human body that is rather far from optimal.
Our lower backs are and knees are poorly constructed for vertical locomotion, which is why millions of people have terrible back pain and knee injuries.
We have a sharp ridge of bone on the insides of our skulls. Not good if you ever hit your head just so.
We have a crossover food/windpipe construction which makes us extremely susceptable to inhaling food and drink into our lungs, and to outright cutting off our air and killing us. (The evolutionary advantage to being able to produce complex speech was greater than the disadvantage of greatly increased chance of choking to death.)
Etc.
quote:
A million engineers working a million years couldnt even come close to designing somthing as well designed as the human body.
What about many millions of years and natural selection to produce something as adequately adapted, yet far from perfect as the human body?
quote:
And evolutionists expect us to beleive that it created itself?
Um, no. See this link for lots of what Biology has to say about evolution and chance:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
[QUOTE]It is harder to beleive that abiogenesis and evolution occured than it is to beleive that there is a god that has created us.
Just my opinion.[/b]
First, why do you bring up Abiogenesis in a discussion of human anatomy?
Second, whether or not something is hard or easy for you to believe has little bearing on if it is true.
Third, what you don't know about Biology is a lot. Go here and read it all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jonathan, posted 06-29-2002 12:55 AM Jonathan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 224 (12942)
07-07-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Philip
06-29-2002 3:09 AM


Well, it seems that all you are left with is your emotional discomfort with the thought that humans evolved, rather than any evidence either for the notion that Godidt or against Biology.
Argument from Personal Incredulity/It-Makes-Me-Feel-Less-Special.
Funny, I think it is utterly amazing and wonderful that I am "evolved slime". What could be more humbling and awe-inspiring than that?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Philip, posted 06-29-2002 3:09 AM Philip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 224 (12943)
07-07-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Fred Williams
07-05-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, its healthy man in healthy envirnoment, to less healthy man in less healthy environment. Evolution at its finest!
I have a question for you. If you were told this moment that you were going to be transferred to a malaria-infected area, would you want the specific amino acid in your beta globin switched on one of your chromosomes to the sickle-cell variety?

If I was a population which "wanted" to survive to reproduce, yes.
It doesn't matter what an individual in a population "wants"; it matters what makes the survival of the species possible.
SCA confers resistance to malaria long enough so that individuals can reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 12:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 147 of 224 (12947)
07-07-2002 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by TrueCreation
07-06-2002 12:21 AM


quote:
TC: If limited time is your problem, I should hope you would attempt to work around it.
Time is a huge problem for me. There is only so much I can squeeze in. I usually try to post when things are slow at work, but those moments have been few and far between in the last year. I usually try to avoid boards at home, because they can become time consuming, sucking away time I need for other things (such as family time). Since I normally don’t get on the computer until 9:00pm or so, I barely have enough PC time to manage the CRS website (I’m their lone webmaster), manage my personal website, answer emails for both sites, answer personal emails, manage personal finances, etc. It also takes away time for creation research, though I suppose boards contribute a bit to research because they help keep me tuned in to the other side’s latest arguments.
Tonight is a rare exception where I feel I can take some time away from my usual routine. I must say Percy’s has become one of the top boards on the net for productive discussions.
So, because of limited time that is why I offered a website to get a good idea of what information is. I also think is completely reasonable for me to give an abridged definition that is still valid and good for discussion and debate.
quote:
A definition is very much needed before an example of what information is can be made.
I thought I did. I apologize if it wasn’t clear. Let me word it differently:
New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, such as sonar, where this coding sequence did not previously exist.
Now if you asked is this the definition of information, I would say it qualifies as an abridged definition (provided you change the genome to a system to make it more general), but not an all-encompassing detailed definition. That is why I recommend the Dr Truman article at True.Origins. Otherwise, I would highly recommend Dr. Werner Gitt’s In the Beginning was Information. Dr Gitt has numerous published peer-reviewed articles on information theory. He is also a Director at the German Institute of Technology.
quote:
--No, this definition is not vague in the least, it is highly direct and able to be worked from. With an addition + change in nucleotide base and/or codon sequences qualifying as new information. Demonstration that new information has come about is very simple, that is, the differentiation between new and old(Previously existing sequentially) information. I would like to speak to your handful of evo's which have come to the conclusion that addition + change does not imply an addition of information, or is that different from 'new' information.
For starters, contact evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder at NCI. He is cordial and usually responds promptly to questions from the public. His web site and contact info can be found here:
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/
Note that Dr. Schnieder only deals with Shannon information (or traditional communication theory). He rejects Gitt information for obvious reasons (it would force him to be a creationist, something he does not desire
). Regardless, even at the Shannon level of information, which is the lowest level, addition + change does not equate to new information. Dr Schnieder will confirm this for you. He will also confirm my dictionary example. He has an excellent primer on Shannon information theory somewhere on his website (sorry, I couldn’t find it in the brief time I looked).
quote:
Me: 1) A new program installed on your computer (such as WordPerfect), where it did not previously exist"
--So is it the fact that it now exists 'new' information, or is the fact that it is compiled in binary coding in say, the C++ information codec system.
It doesn’t matter how it is compiled, be it C++, assembly, Basic, the English language (what an inefficient code that would be for a computer
), or whatever code it comes in. If it is a code that performs some function (in this case a word processor for the computer user) it represents new information on the computer.
quote:
--Sonar is likely a very large compilation of new datasets of nucleotide sequences in the genome. So shouldn't the nucleotide base sequence mutation, being the source of this characteristic, have the merited attribution of new information?
I don’t understand your question. Do you mean mutations, plural?
quote:
I also think this is asking far too much from those who would like to experiment on the potential falsifications to Evolution.
It was one of a myriad of examples I could have asked for. I also asked for any evidence for the origination of new information to turn a scale into a feather. How about solid bones to hollow bones?
My point is, if evolution happened there should be numerous examples of some kind of useful information arising in the genome, especially in rapid reproduction species such as fruit flies, bacteria, etc. Yet there is not a shred of physical evidence for this.
quote:
Me: If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.
--What? I think this is rediculous when applied to reality and the initial question. The reason behind asking for 'new information' is that the argument is 'new information' cannot be brought about, thus the ToE is bunk.
I’m simply elaborating on my example. Given two programs with equal output, the program that takes up more space and is less efficient contains less information than its peer because uncertainty is increased (more code compared to its peer means more can go wrong). This is fundamental Shannon information theory.
quote:
Nucleotide base mutation and disruption sequentially is what should be looked at as it essentially is the source from where new characteristical changes will be formed from. Why is this not reasonable?
This is entirely reasonable. What is incorrect is when you say that addition + change = new information. This may be true, this may not be true. It would be like saying eggs + tobacco sauce = hurl, in some cases it is true (like in my case), in others like my brother it is not true.
quote:
"3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information). "
--So apparently, what your definition of 'information' is, is beneficial inheritance?
My definition (at least for the sake of debate here) is given earlier in this post.
quote:
"Gitt information demands that a programmer is required for any new information (considering some of the advances in gene therapy, I suppose you can get new information in the genome this way). There certainly is a barrier, as you can fit only so much sequence data on the chromosomes."
--So then, this barrier just hasn't been met yet, even if 3.5 or so billion years of Evolution has occurred or not?
We haven’t the foggiest idea, because we are far from fully understanding the genome. I submit to you that the original genomes in Adam & Eve were perfect, at maximum information capacity, and loss of information has occurred since then. Can I prove this? Of course not. But creationists have no problem finding myriads of examples of lost information, yet evolutionists can’t scrape up even one compelling case of information gain via random mutation/selection. If evolution were true, we should be buried in examples of positive information gain. But no bonafide examples exist.
quote:
In mainstream Evolution theory, it takes time and environmental submission to allow a new sequence of code which will code entirely for a new 'feature' or mechenism by which a task can be carried out.
Again, I disagree. For years now we have mutated over and over again fruit flies and bacteria and observed virtually countless generations, yet no signs of any kind of information gain in their respective genomes. Moreover, there should be clues from comparative analysis between various genera, families, & orders of information gain, yet the analysis never provides any kind of expected pattern. In fact, we observe the opposite, as would be expected by a Programmer who wanted to thwart any opportunities for a naturalistic explanation. What am I referring to? For starters, Convergence. It’s a phenomenon that is rampant in nature, yet by its very definition it is an anti-evolutionary term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by TrueCreation, posted 07-06-2002 12:21 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 148 of 224 (12949)
07-07-2002 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
07-06-2002 5:59 AM


Mark, your timing is horrible!
I realize I left you hanging from last time I was here, so I promise I'll address your post next. Hopefully I can find time tomorrow morning, otherwise next week sometime. Good night!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 07-06-2002 5:59 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by mark24, posted 07-07-2002 2:01 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 149 of 224 (12959)
07-07-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Fred Williams
07-07-2002 3:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark, your timing is horrible!
I realize I left you hanging from last time I was here, so I promise I'll address your post next. Hopefully I can find time tomorrow morning, otherwise next week sometime. Good night!

NP, take your time, (not that much time, mind
)
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, such as sonar, where this coding sequence did not previously exist.

Would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Fred Williams, posted 07-07-2002 3:10 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 150 of 224 (12960)
07-07-2002 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Fred Williams
07-05-2002 8:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Would you care to share with the world how selection alone, working on pre-existing genes, could possibly produce *new* information?
I take it then, that you are NOT as well read as you would have us believe - that, or perhaps you simply ignore/deny anything contrary to your personal opinions on this matter.
Natural Selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. 1961. Kimura, M.
"...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it."
The paper is laden with equations and graphs, which I do not have the formatting skills to reproduce here. The paper is reproduced in "Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory - selected papers (of Motoo Limura)". 1994.
quote:
Also, your continued claim that a tree ring contains a code is truly amazing! I will say it is at the very least quite original!

I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we?
"I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?"
Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible.
Tree rings, in nearly all circumstances, represent one season's growth. When we cut down a tree or take a core sample, the rings are evident. Are they just a random pattern? Are they unique to individual trees? No. Again, each ring represents one season's growth. Is that [i]information/i? Is it a "code"
In addition, individual tree rings can provide information regarding the growing season. Thicker rings represent 'good' years - lots of water and sunshine; thinner rings, not-so-good years. Individual rings can contain evidence of insect activity, fire, severe weather, etc. Is that considered information or not?
It is interesting to note that depending on the creationist, tree rings: definitely do not contain information; do contain information, but only after humans 'decode it' (maybe Fred - information theory 'xpert' - better track down those wrong-headed YECs and set them straight!); do contain information, but not the right kind; etc.
So, do tree rings contain information? By most logical standards, yes. Is that information quantifiable? I have no idea. Does it fall under the auspices of so-called "Gitt inforamtion"? Apparently not. Is it in a 'code'? Well, the rings don't have captions, so...
Of course, all "Gitt information" is is an argument via favorable (and completely arbitrary and unaccepted by actual information theorists) definitions.
Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation.
Wonderful how that works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 8:40 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 5:31 PM derwood has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024