Give your one best shot - against evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mud-to-man evolution demands that massive amounts of information must have been added to the genome over time via random mutation and selection. There is not a shred of evidence for this. It is no surprise that Information science says it is impossible.

---

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?

quote:

---

I haven't even asked you to tell us how any code, let alone the genetic code, could possibly arise naturalistically in the first place. Information science says that the naturalistic origin of a code is impossible, not vastly improbable, impossible.

---

Then tell us who is responsible for writing this code and who the receiver is. If my understanding is correct, information must have an intelligent source and an intelligent receiver that can decode the information. Who are the sender and receiver?

[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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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.

---

Or it could be that he does not believe that Gitt Information is entirely analogous to biological systems.Yes, Fred, your (perhaps not so) favorite bonehead geologist here still wondering how you apply Gitt Information to biological systems. I admit to being relatively ignorant of IT, and that is why I have come to rely upon you for enlightenment. Many of the websites you and others recommend get bogged down in jargon that I do not have the time to become entirely familiar with. That is why I have asked so many basic questions that you don't seem to care to answer.Now, I agree that IT might explain, model or even describe the genome and pathways of development, but I simply do not see it as anything more than a model based on assumptions (oh, dread!). And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality. Because of this I feel a substantial degree of skepticism regarding the engineer's ability to take into account all of the variables in such a system, especially when some of the science is still cutting edge. That is why I ask so many stupid questions.For the benefit of myself and others here, I have located what I think Gitt's laws are.
"(1) No information can exist without a code.
(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
(5) No information can exist without a transmitter.
(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
(8) No information can exist without a will."Actually, as a natural scientist, I disagree with virtually every one of these. It seems that Gitt is stacking the deck here, defining what information is and then saying, "Aha! Evolution is impossible!"He goes on to say:"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

​

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."2Actually, it is not really clear here whether Gitt seems more interested in the agenda of proving his religious philosophy or practicing a scientific method of inquiry.What I don't get is if the 'Logos Jesus Christ' is the sender of this information, who is the receiver? What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism? What is the will behind the code for a protein? Based on this simple-minded analysis it would appear to me that Schneider has a much more credible concept of IT and how it applies to natural systems than Gitt.

quote:

---

Please quote Gitt's definition of new information.

​

Fred: Sorry, no time. You’ll have to search the web or get his book.

---

And yet you can write nice long posts, and even start new threads ("Page's Misuse...."). Come on, Fred, we thirst for knowledge. How about just a sentence or two? Or maybe your own opinion?

quote:

---

This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.

​

Fred: And this is precisely how some evolutionists attempt to brush-aside the information problem (see Joe Meert for recent example).

---

Sorry, Fred, but it's beginning to sound like an excuse. I could just as easily say, "... and this is how Fred attempts to brush aside the fossil record..." Can you reply to the statement?

quote:

---

Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist?

​

Fred: Not one that everyone agrees on, because of the obvious implications to the origins question.

---

Some of us are looking to you for guidance here, Fred. Or do you just not want to be pinned down?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It’s perhaps worth belaboring my point. My primary goal here is to show that information is devastating to evolution even if we ignore the Gitt nail-in-the-coffin definition of information. Using less stringent requirements for information, such as the corollaries I gave Mark and Joe Meert, evolutionists are still left without a chair when the music stops!

---

LOL! A typical creationists ploy. Create a definition and then find out that, miraculously, evolution cannot happen! I think this is called stacking the deck, Fred.

quote:

---

What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism?

​

Fred: You misunderstand what Gitt is saying. The information was already programmed in the genome by the Sender (Jesus Christ) at the point of creation. From that point on, the information slowly deteriorates over time, and eventually you get people who start believing in fairytales!

---

No, I understand quite well. However, are you sure that a nonmental relay is valid for transmission of information (according to edge-information, this is not possible). And I still do not see who the reciever is.And so, we have no choice but to deteriorate? How gloomy a philosophy you have. And I thought it was the evolutionists who base their world view on death and destruction, and ever declining standards.

quote:

---

And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality.

​

Fred: LOL! It’s because you are a geologist!

---

Yeah, I know, I'm always having to clean up someone else's mess ...

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!

---

Why does it have to be "code?" Aren't we talking about information in general? Does information have to be in "code?"

quote:

---

Scott: 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.

​

Fred: LOL! You should take your own advice. You used code several times in the past, including in my guestbook:

---

Come on, Fred, to what are you responding, this thread, or your guest book?

quote:

---

(Fred quoting Scott)

​

22 Oct 2001
Time: 05:47:05
Remote Name: 192.149.109.217
Comments
Fred writes: Fact #2: It is impossible to have a code without a sender

​

Who sent the code in tree rings?
----
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook_page10.htm

​

OK, this time around you said information, and now your argument is more coherent.

---

Then why bring this up? I would guess that Scott is simply putting the question in your terms. I do that all the time to help the creationist understand my question.

quote:

---

Tree rings represent order, not complexity, and since they clearly are not a code they do not represent information, as described by Gitt, Dembski, and others.

---

So, are you saying that they do not represent information to anyone? Are Gitt, Dembski and others the final arbiters of what information is or is not?Does information have to be 'complex?' Does not order yield some information about the process that formed it? Is all information a 'code?' Really, Fred, it seems that you are just defining away your problem. Natural patterns are not code so they are not information, therefore any natural process cannot produce any information. That is a very convenient position for you to take.

quote:

---

What about Shannon information? Without giving it much thought, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is Shannon information (I could be wrong here). But is it information from a random source, or is it information from a sender? Trees do not produce tree rings randomly, they follow a fairly consistent pattern.

---

Actually, randomness is part of the process. For instance, how do fires fit into the picture? Is a tree in the pathway of a fire? That would be random. Now, go back to the original question and assume for a minute that the rings represent Shannon Information. Who is the sender?

quote:

---

Scott: 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.

​

Fred: Yes, it does work wonderfully, because there are no known counter examples to Gitt information in earth’s history. Show me a code that originated naturalistically?

---

Hmm, why do you slip from 'information' to 'code' so easily. To a dummy like me, it seems that this is just a dance. You need to make your point here that information is code. You have not done that as far as I can see.

quote:

---

People need to understand what a code is. I’m not just talking about a new algorighm, or an altered algorithm (these are merely manifestations of an already-existing code). I'm talking about the code itself. That is the heart of Gitt's information laws of nature: the symbols, the syntax, and the semantics (the language). Show me a code, a new language if you will, that can arise naturalistically, outside the presence of already-existing information (intelligence). How did the codon mechanism for selecting amino acids arise naturalistically? (a system BTW with optimum efficieny - you could not have picked a better, more efficient system for selection of 20 amino acids). Information science says code by naturalism is not just improbable, but impossible.

---

Once again, we go from 'code' back to 'information.' I'm getting dizzy. Are you saying that natural processes leave nothing behind that gives us an idea about how they occurred?

quote:

---

Provide one counter example and you refute this claim. Yet time and time again, when we discover a code, by golly we find out there is a sender.

---

This is all very good, Fred, but only by your definition of information and sender.

quote:

---

If we detect a code from outerspace, we are not going to attribute it to a natural phenomenon.

---

If a code, probably, but if information, not necessarily.

quote:

---

We will immediately recognize there must be an intelligent sender at the other end. Its amazing evolutionists refuse to apply this standard to the discovery of a code in the DNA. It was this discovery that shocked DNA co-founder Francis Crick into dumping the Neo-Darwinian theory. He now thinks aliens seeded the planet with the necessary information — ROTFL!!!

---

Yeah, well, we don't apply it to tree rings either. We see a natural process that started somewhere in the past and continues today. It gives us clues about how mutation happens, but I will agree that there are other natural mechanisms that we (maybe it's just I) do not presently understand. In the meantime, we have other evidence that evolution has occurred.