Introduction to Information

C'mon, admins. This guy is just out of control. You can't afford to ignore this any longer.

quote:

---

Discussion Guidelines
These are in effect at all times:
...
3 Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

---

I don't want to jump to any rash conclusions, but I'm starting to sense a guidelines violation in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

If DNAunion here is talking to a frickin' retard, I think he's justified in calling him a frickin' retard. You want him to lie???

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

It's the use of "frickin" that I object to. Peter could potentially be retarded, so that could be a factual statement, but "frickin" just shows a lack of respect for retards. (Sorry, Peter, for a laugh at your expense. Unlike some I do in fact hold your intellect in the highest regard.)

I'm almost certain websites have been shut down for tolerating use of the term 'frickin'. The NAAFP is powerful in this country, and it's about time frickin people stopped being the butt of abuse in our nation. I've literally never heard one positive reference to any frickin person. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Me being so PC and all.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I have a simple question. Keeping in mind this question means what it asks - there are no hidden agendas...Who here, or by proxy, accepts the following statement as being true: DNA contains information.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

I do. That's one.

Two

---

Common sense isn't

This seems like a dodge. I'm not impressed.Here's another question: Who here thinks that DNAunion's ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate and clearly against the forum guidelines? Me, that's one...[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-17-2004]

From several posts on this page: http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

Crashfrog: Well, then, [DNAunion,] answer the question that you might have understood if you weren't so busy acting like an asshole:

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: The problem (besides [DNAunion] acting like an asshole at the slighest indication that we're not likely to simply bow to his encyclopedic arguments from authority and odious posting habits)..

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: I didn't say you were an asshole. I said you were acting like one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, though I'm rapidly becoming disinclined to do so.

---

Who here thinks Crashfrog's ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate and clearly against the forum guidelines? Me, that's one...[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

What attacks? Oh, I see. You're unable to draw a distinction between a critical analysis of someone's behavior and an infantile insult like "you retarded monkey."But, by all means, keep putting your own bad behavior in stark relief by juxtaposing it against my own legitimate complaints. If the worst you can dig up about my comments is a response to the ad hominems you started then there's little I could do you make you look worse.

About the putative dodge.I recently skimmed through another thread here (don't remember which one) where it appeared to me that several people were clearly attacking a Creationist, personally. Why is that allowed? Well, some of the attackers seemed to claim their actions were "justified" because of the level of frustration that had been finally been reached due to the other person's not accepting the obvious (it didn't seem to be the case that the Creationist attacked them first).My point here is that several people had said they agree that DNA contains information, obviously.

quote:

---

Joralex: That point is illustrated here with you having to explain the transparently clear fact that there is a huge amount of information in the genome. (http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....)

---

quote:

---

Columbo: Basically I agree with you about information, but I am unknowledgable about the subject so I don't qualify to take part in the debate. (http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....)

---

quote:

---

Quetzal: I've been following the discussion on this and the other thread with some interest. So far, I have not seen you make any statement that was controversial if taken at face value. (http://EvC Forum: Introduction to Information -->EvC Forum: Introduction to Information)

---

This probably counts as a YES too (once one realizes I didn't have any hidden agenda).

quote:

---

Oooook!: Once you get the general statement of "DNA contains the information required to produce proteins in cells today" how is this milestone relavent to the discussion of evolution and specifically the area of intelligent design?

​

Why do Peter and Crashfrog want to disagree so strongly with you if you just leave the statement there? Surely such a simple statement that can then be interpreted in quite a few ways has no bearing on the debate (on either side).

​

It has to be then qualified: By saying "...and therefore protein sythesis could not have evolved by chance" for example. (http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....)

---

quote:

---

Holmes: Thus DNAunion is correct that the information is in the system itself, just not the common term of information (it is a mathematical kind), and exists only within those parameters under study. (http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....)

---

Now NosyNed has also stated explicitly that he accepts the position (so far, he's the only one to respond).Of course, I accept the position too.Of course, agreeing that DNA contains information are all of the scientists I quoted from various college texts (genetics, general biology, molecular cell biology, general chemistry, and organic chemistry); as well as T Schneider from his web site, Werner Loewenstein in his book on cellular communication, Paul Davies in his book on the origin of life, and another science writer on his book on information (The Bit and the Pendulum, I believe); as well as the three articles and one research paper I easily found in the peer reviewed journal Science; and whatever else I've forgotten about as I created this list off the top of my head (I could post all of it again!). And it wouldn't be just the one genetics text I have - I could spend the time at my old university to gather dozens more quotes from college texts that state DNA contains information.This "debate" should have lasted 2 seconds. But Peter has pigheadedly continued to battle against the obvious and the scientific consensus, for weeks, has used poorly reasoned arguments that just waste my time, and has stooped to underhanded tactics a few times lately too, all resulting in a high level of frustration: I would imagine very similar to that the others felt when they ganged up on the Creationist.I finally realized the utter pigheadeness of Peter's actions and that he would never concede the point, so asked if we could just agree to disagree. Didn't work.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

Well, nobody says you have to respond. In fact it's generally considered good form to withdraw from the argument if you feel that you're going to be unable to refrain from calling people things like "you retarded monkey."I don't see how any of this justifies boorish behavior.

quote:

---

Who here thinks Crashfrog's ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate and clearly against the forum guidelines? Me, that's one...

---

quote:

---

What attacks? Oh, I see. You're unable to draw a distinction between a critical analysis of someone's behavior and an infantile insult like "you retarded monkey."

---

Using the VULGAR term asshole when speaking of a specific person IS an attack upon that person, and has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It is, by definition, an ad hom.

quote:

---

But, by all means, keep putting your own bad behavior in stark relief by juxtaposing it against my own legitimate complaints.

---

What legitimate complaints. You distorted my statements...I called you on it...you then, three times, used the word asshole when referring to me. Not legitimate at all.

quote:

---

If the worst you can dig up about my comments is a response to the ad hominems you started then there's little I could do you make you look worse.

---

Dream on girlfriend!It's in the thread...anyone can check it out for themselves.1) After a long absence, Crashfrog reenters the discussion AND IMMEDIATELY, in just ONE post, distorts TWO of my statements (this is HARDLY the first time she's done this here - it's a "habit" for her to use underhanded tactics against me).http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....2) I called Crashfrog on ONE of her TWO distortions.http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....3) I called Crashfrog on her SECOND distortion.http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....4) Crashfrog attempts to plead innocent (as she always has done when she sets up strawmen or otherwise misrepresents me), uses the term ASSHOLE when referring to me specifically, and finally practices some hypocrisy by claiming I am arguing from ad hom.http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....5) Crashfrog, for the second time, uses the term ASSHOLE when referring to me specifically.http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....6) Crashfrog, for the third time, uses the term ASSHOLE when referring to me speficially.http://EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that.... -->EvC Forum: Data, Information, and all that....[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

How is criticism of you behavior "by definition" a criticism of your person? By definition, it's not. I'm not complaining about what you called me. I'm complaining about what you called Peter. (I know it's hard for you to believe that a person could care more about what people say about other people than what they say about themselves, but it's how adults act.) Indeed they can. And what they'll discover is that in this and other threads, you're the first to use ad homonem and the loudest to complain about it.