Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:00 AM
54 online now:
dwise1, edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 49 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,617 Year: 3,654/19,786 Month: 649/1,087 Week: 18/221 Day: 18/36 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 301 of 315 (520037)
08-19-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 4:56 PM


Smooth Operator writes:

quote:
No they didn't they had it all along. It just get's turned on when they need it.

Incorrect. Because it only works when the two genes are present at the same time. Since one is a duplication and subsequent mutation of another gene, this means that they didn't have it all along. It was only after a gene was duplicated and mutated that the new information came along.

Which has more information: A or AA?
Which has more information: A or B?
Which has more information: A or AB?

quote:
No, it doesn't that's an assumption based on the assumption that evolution is true.

But the genetic clock shows that it did evolve.

quote:
Similarity is not evidence for common ancestry.

In and of itself, yes. But to think that it is only "similarity" that is the basis for the conclusion of duplication and mutation, then you really don't know anything about genetics.

quote:
Actually it was always there.

Incorrect. First, it wasn't there. Then, a gene was duplicated. Then, the gene mutated. Thus, new information appeared.

Which has more information: A or AA?
Which has more information: A or B?
Which has more information: A or AB?

quote:
The enzymes still perform the same function, but now it's just fine tuned for current low temperature.

Incorrect, because there are two enzymes where there used to be only one.

Which has more information: A or AA?
Which has more information: A or B?
Which has more information: A or AB?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 4:56 PM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:50 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2173 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 302 of 315 (520044)
08-19-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
08-10-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Information
information - 2. the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.

That seems to be a pretty good definition, not useful for quantification perhaps but certainly consonant with Percy's example of new alleles representing new information, i.e. a novel alternative sequence that produces a novel specific effect.

Information in the second definition would not necessarily require a concious recipient. It can refer to a sequence of characters that produce a specific effect. Software contains information but the computer that reads it is obviously not conscious.

The main question as far as ID goes is whether a conscious originator is required. If you read up about Smooth Operator's Gitt information, you will see that a key assumption of Gitt's concept of information is such that it requires a will and a mental source. Such a definition clearly excludes any conception of information as not having an intelligent source and therefore makes axiomatic what ID is still trying to show, that the information in genomes requires an intelligent source. I'm glad if you reject this approach.

The evolutionary conception is that the ordered 'functional' information in the genome is the result of the interaction between the randomly generated variation in genomes, caused by mutation, and the organisms environment leading to differential reproductive success based on the phenotypic variation this genetic variation produces.

In other words mutation is changing the information, including increasing it, but it is natural selection that is leading to the persistence of 'specified' functional information, and over time to 'complex specified information'.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 08-10-2009 2:23 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 303 of 315 (520166)
08-19-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Percy
08-09-2009 9:52 AM


quote:
Unlike semantic information, CSI submits to mathematical and logical analysis; yet like semantic information, CSI is associated with intelligent agency. To define CSI requires only mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax and no theory of meaning is required.

...

Semantic information and complex specified information are distinct categories of information.

...

That is not to say that semantic content is necessarily lacking from CSI. But it is not required.

William Dembski - No Free Lunch p. 147


This is a correction I would like to make. CSI does not take into account semantic information. But it does not exclude it either.

quote:
You keep saying this, but it obviously isn't true. If I express the number 3 using pencil and paper, then that's information. If I instead express the number 3 by dragging rocks into position, then that's information, too. And if the rocks already happen to be in position by luck, then that, too, is information.

Now I understand you think this is wrong, but you need to explain why. So far all you're doing is repeating simple declarations like "That's not information" or "Rocks just represent themselves." Restating your position several different ways is not an explanation.


You could that say that their color is also information about them. Clearly you could pick anything about those rocks and call it information. But the point is that for a number "3" to be recognized as "three" we need an agreement. This agreement is the syntax. Rocks by themself do not produce syntax.

quote:
I think what you actually need to do here is address my explanation about why Gitt's views have not found any acceptance within the scientific community. You can find that explanation in Message 287.
He is talking about what information is in general. There is nobody who does not accept his view and has any understanding about information. That doesn't mean that his model is supposed to remove Shannon's model. Only those who thing that Gitt is trying to remove Shannon's model think that.

quote:
Have you thought this through? How can views never presented to the scientific community become accepted by the scientific community? Gitt's views have no legitimacy within the scientific community. That's not why he's wrong, but that's why you shouldn't be touting Gitt as if his views were widely accepted. They're not.
You misunderstood what Gitt did. He didn't actually build a new model froms cratch. He just used various well known aspects of information and explained them. He gave them context. He is talking about what information is in general.

quote:
The reason why Gitt is wrong is because he makes claims he can't support. He claims that meaning is part of information, and that information cannot be created without an intelligence, but he can't quantify his information with meaning, so how would he know? He doesn't. He simply declares that it is so.
He isn't suppoesd to quantify it. We know from observations that matter by itself has no teleology, and we never saw matter by itself create any meaning. Therefore he concluded that matter can't create inforamtion. This is called an inference to the best explanation.

quote:
Dembski's supposed CSI is just the probability of a protein forming at random from constituent molecules. How is this a measure of information that includes meaning? How is it a measure of information at all?
As you saw, I made a correction to what CSI is. Dembski said he is not using the semantic aspect while calculationg CSI. But that doesn't mean that semantics are lacking. What the specific protein represent is it's semantic part.

quote:
You're somehow looking at this backwards. Deleterious mutations is where natural selection really shines versus random selection. According to random selection, a bacterium with a deleterious mutation, even a deadly one, would be as likely to be selected for survival to the next generation as any other bacterium. With random selection, deleterious mutations would quickly accumulate and overwhelm the population, probably wiping it out in short order.

But the type of selection provided by evolution, natural selection, allows bacteria to contribute to the next generation according to fitness. The more beneficial the mutation, the more likely the bacteria is to contribute to the next generation. The less beneficial, the less likely. Because it is much more likely for a mutation to be deleterious than beneficial, it is deleterious mutations that allow natural selection to outperform random selection by so manner orders of magnitude.


Like I said, yes, in theory. But not in real life. Deleterious mutations keep accumulating is spite of natural selection.

quote:
You've managed to completely misinterpret the Crow paper. His concern isn't that natural selection is allowing the accumulation of deleterious mutations. His concern is that modern technologies and medicine have insulated human beings, particular those in western style societies, from the normal effects of natural selection, and so deleterious mutations that in more primitive times would have been removed from the population are now propagating freely. Were we once again exposed to nature in the wild instead of life in environmentally controlled homes with access to modern medical care, those mutations would be again exposed to the forces of natural selection. As Crow himself says:
What he said is that if we had such a society we would be safe from such mutations, but we are not. Even in drosophila, mutations are accumulationg, and drosophila have no advanced technology.

quote:
Neutral mutations both accumulate and are removed. The paper is about how what he calls "selective constraint" allows the neutral mutation model to better describe what is actually observed in nature. "Selective constraint" is his term for natural selection selecting against mutations that cause a decline in fitness, however slight.
They are not neutral, they are slighty neutral. Big difference. It means that they are slightly deleterious, but are not removed by natural selection. And yes, they are accumulating. Yes, slightly, but given enough time, they will cause a mutational meltdown. And that is the extinction of a population.

quote:
Regardless why you keep saying that fitness and new functions are not correlated, you've got to stop saying it because it makes no sense. It's like saying that any changes in a car's performance is uncorrelated to any changes you make to its engine, transmission, suspension, brakes or aerodynamics.
You keep missing the point.

Imagine that you had 10 cars. All were the same. You removed a part on 5 of your cars that made it go only under 200 km/h. Without this blockage, it can go up to 250 km/h. And you decided to test all cars and select only those that go over 200 km/h. It is obvious that you will end up with only 5 cars, because of their increase in fitness. But they will not be having any new functions. Becasue they fitness in speed was not correlated with new parts.

The same thing would be if you modified a device in your car to give the motor of your car more gas than usual. That would make it go faster. And now you perform the same selection as before, and tell me, in what time is this process going to give your car a rocket engine? Never obviously. Becasue giving your car's engine more gas through a modified pipe, and increasing it's fitnes, is not correlated with building a new part, like a rocked engine.

Or consider this example:

Imagine that you had a lot of blocks with letters. And you had all the letters from A to Z + the space character. Not only that but you had 100 blocks for each character. Now imagine that all the blocks were red. The characters on the blocks have a tint of white. The tint ranging in steps of 1 and it's going from 0 to 100.

The amount of "0" tint meaning you can't actually see the letter since there is no tint of white, the whole block is red. And the amount of "100" means the letter is fully white, and you can read it with no problem.

Now, imagine that you tried to make a sentence with those blocks. You are to pick randomly letters from that bunch of blocks. Now, you decide that since you can't really read anything below the tint of "10" you will remove those blocks, and not put them in your sentence. This is the selection part of your process.

Now my question is, what kind of sentence will you get?

Will it look something like this: "LOIS, BRING ME ANOTHER BEER".
Or something likE this: "EDJD FJUDUDDDD DEPM FUDEJF ZE E".

I think that it is obvious that it will look like the lower one. Why is that? It's obivous. Even though you used an evolutionary algorithm, you still wound up with a meaningless sentence. That is becasue the tint of the color on the block was not correlated with any meaninglful sentence. It had no correlation with new sentences.

Yes, you removed the bad blcks under the tint of 10, that you could not read, but your selection was not going toward any meaningful text. The same thin applies to biological evolution. Mutations are random. Some mutations will optimize the function a bit more, some will degrade it. Those that degrade it, will be selected out. Those that make the function work more optimally, will get selected form. But this will not get you any new biological functions, because natural selection is not celecting for them. And fitness is not correlated with new biological functions in this way.

quote:
And that's precisely what evolution does, one little step at a time.
No, it doesn't. It increases fitness.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Percy, posted 08-09-2009 9:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 304 of 315 (520167)
08-19-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Wounded King
08-09-2009 6:50 PM


quote:
A phrase with no meaning in biology or informatics. What you seem to be doing is actually conceding the point but insisting we change the words to hide the fact.

There are mutations with beneficial effects which do not cause a net loss in information/functional information, we can call this fine tuning if you like, it doesn't change what it is and it doesn't stop the website you directed us to from being wrong to use such an instance as an example of a loss of information.


But I never said that ALL mutations are loss of information. Is switching your light swithc to OFF a loss of information? No, it's not. It's tuning it to a position you want. If you want to turn of the lights you could also cut the wires from the switch and get the same result. Only this time this would be a reduction in information.

quote:
You aren't answering the question, the question wasn't, 'Do you think most mutations are detrimental?' It was "If a mutation causes no change in function then please tell me how you measure the change in information involved and determine it to be a net loss?".
Most of them are deleterious. But not all of them. The amount of information stays the same if the structure was not damaged.

quote:
When your answer doesn't even make grammatical sense in the context of the question, as yours fails to, then you probably aren't answering the right question.

If you just don't know how you would measure it then why not just say so?


Again, biological functions are calculated by CSI.

quote:
Is this a house you are buying furnished? Let me tell you, my house was a show house when I bought it, an ideal home as it were, and it distinctly benefited from my changing some of the light shades and curtains, yet it is as structurally sound and has all the same lighting and window blocking functionality of before the changes.
You improved your house. You didn't try to do all thet work by throwing rocks, now did you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Wounded King, posted 08-09-2009 6:50 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 305 of 315 (520169)
08-19-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Rrhain
08-19-2009 5:34 AM


quote:
But you can keep repeating this experiment and never stop. By your logic, eventually you'd run out of information. But since we can keep going indefinitely, how does that affect your argument?
But we can't. Human genome is degrading, together with all other living genomes.

quote:
You did not just say that, did you?

Didn't we establish that AB has more information than A? Therefore, how does going from A to AA to AB not equate to "new information"?


I meant new CSI. Not Shannon information.

quote:
So why is it we can keep repeating the process indefinitely? How can these bacteria possibly survive when all of their information has been lost?
Who says we can? We can't. Not all information is gone. Is their whole genome destroyed? Obviously not.

quote:
Huh? A mutation that doesn't affect reproductive success isn't neutral?

Just what is your definition of "neutral"?


A mutation that has no effect at all would be neutral.

quote:
Huh? If they have transposons, then they haven't lost anything. And the evolution of lactose tolerance after deletion doesn't involve transposons.
Yes they did. They lost's the ability they had.

quote:
How can there be a mechanism when there is no gene to digest lactose to be found anywhere in the genome? It was deliberately removed. So are you saying god came down and consciously, deliberately, and purposefully put in a new lactose operon? It was a miracle?
No, it is a modifed version of a previous gene. Modified by transposons.

quote:
Chemistry is a miracle? Because that's how mutations happen: No chemical reaction is ever perfect every single time. Are you saying that this was "designed" by god?
What are you talking about?

quote:
Huh? Do you not understand how gene cascades form? Duplication and mutation such that the duplicated gene becomes a promotor for the original gene. By your own definition, that is an increase in information because we started with A and we ended with AB.
Only in Shannon's model, not in CSI. And you can't use Shannon's model since it only uses statistical approach to information.

quote:
Huh? First, why not? Frame shift mutations happen. Second, who was talking about a nucleotide? I was talking about genes.
Because to gain CSI you need 400 bits. Second, Frame shifts are modifications in already existing information. They are either fine-tuning or deleterious changes.

quote:
Then why did you bring it up? If you're going to use a definition of "information" that you are simply going to reject as inappropriate, why did you mention it?
I used it becasue it explains what information is in general.

quote:
Then why did you bring it up? If you're going to use a definition of "information" that you are simply going to reject as inappropriate, why did you mention it?
Becasue it explains how to define information in telecommunications.

quote:
Do you even know what a transposon is?
Do you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Rrhain, posted 08-19-2009 5:34 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Coyote, posted 08-19-2009 9:28 PM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 306 of 315 (520170)
08-19-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 5:35 AM


quote:
No.
How do you know?

quote:
No.
How do you know?

quote:
But he's pretending that what he's doing is information theory.
Because it is. It's explaining what information is in general.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 5:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 9:01 PM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 307 of 315 (520171)
08-19-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Rrhain
08-19-2009 5:49 AM


quote:
Incorrect. Because it only works when the two genes are present at the same time. Since one is a duplication and subsequent mutation of another gene, this means that they didn't have it all along. It was only after a gene was duplicated and mutated that the new information came along.
There is no information. They had the first version of the gene.

quote:
But the genetic clock shows that it did evolve.
Genetic clocks are based on an assumption that the organism actually did evolve. They are wrong.

quote:
Foote's team chose to analyse placental mammals (the group of mammals that produce live young nurtured through a placenta in the mothers womb - including humans, bats, whales, elephants and mice). Fossil evidence suggests placental mammals first appeared on Earth some 65 million years ago while the biochemical data suggests a date of 130 million years. The team asked the question: "Is the fossil record so poor that the group could have been undetected for 65 million years?
Molecular clocks do not correlate with fossil records.

quote:
In and of itself, yes. But to think that it is only "similarity" that is the basis for the conclusion of duplication and mutation, then you really don't know anything about genetics.
What else is used as evidence?

quote:
Incorrect. First, it wasn't there. Then, a gene was duplicated. Then, the gene mutated. Thus, new information appeared.
Again, it's not new CSI.

quote:
Incorrect, because there are two enzymes where there used to be only one.
So what? The new enzyome doesn't perform a new function.

http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/Molecular-clock-keeps-good-time--twice-a-day/View/Default.aspx


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Rrhain, posted 08-19-2009 5:49 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Admin, posted 08-19-2009 6:43 PM Smooth Operator has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 308 of 315 (520194)
08-19-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Smooth Operator
08-19-2009 5:50 PM


Hi Smooth Operator,

Because I'm a participant in this thread I will not be playing the role of moderator. I believe Relativity is wrong... is the only thread I'm moderating in which you're currently a participant.

I'm posting this in my moderator role solely to remind you that continued posting of messages that consist of a series of one line responses will pretty much guarantee permanent suspension by Saturday morning.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:50 PM Smooth Operator has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 309 of 315 (520203)
08-19-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Smooth Operator
08-19-2009 5:45 PM


How do you know?

How do you know?

Because I've read Gitt's nonsense.

Because it is. It's explaining what information is in general.

Look, information theory is a field of mathematics. A creationist lying about information is not doing information theory any more than a creationist lying about triangles is doing Euclidian geometry. OK? If Werner Gitt tried to redefine a triangle as a shape with four curved sides, he wouldn't be doing geometry, he wouldn't be improving geometry, he wouldn't have made a discovery in geometry --- he'd just be twisting words for the purposes of talking crap --- and if he pretended that what he was doing was geometry, that would be the biggest load of crap of all.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:45 PM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 310 of 315 (520204)
08-19-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 9:01 PM


quote:
Because I've read Gitt's nonsense.
Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it.

quote:
Look, information theory is a field of mathematics.
I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general.

quote:
A creationist lying about information is not doing information theory any more than a creationist lying about triangles is doing Euclidian geometry. OK?
Where exactly did Gitt lie?

quote:
If Werner Gitt tried to redefine a triangle as a shape with four curved sides, he wouldn't be doing geometry, he wouldn't be improving geometry, he wouldn't have made a discovery in geometry --- he'd just be twisting words for the purposes of talking crap --- and if he pretended that what he was doing was goemetry, that would be the biggest load of crap of all.
That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 9:52 PM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 311 of 315 (520205)
08-19-2009 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Smooth Operator
08-19-2009 5:44 PM


That "degrading" claim again
Human genome is degrading, together with all other living genomes.

But you have provided no evidence to show that this is the case. Repeated claims do not constitute evidence and... (well, see tagline).

And those folks who are most familiar with the scientific evidence on this issue (biologists) don't agree with you by an overwhelming number.

Curious: only biblical literalists follow and promote your "degrading" argument.

You may try to claim that you are pursuing science, but when 99.9% of scientists disagree with you that is a specious claim.

If you really, really are pursuing science you are so far out on the fringe you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble.

But I still think you are pushing religion, adhering to the bible as accurate on this point in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

(A related question: for how long has the human genome been degrading? And what is the position of Homo ergaster and H. neanderthalis in relation to either the global flood or the tower of Babel incident? Do you see them as products of "devolution" after a perfect creation represented by Adam and Eve?)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 5:44 PM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-20-2009 1:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 312 of 315 (520207)
08-19-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Smooth Operator
08-19-2009 9:21 PM


Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it.

He's pretending that he's doing "information theory", which he isn't. Instead, he's just writing down a bunch of dumb creationist daydreams and calling them "information theory".

I might as well write:

Theorems of information theory:

Theorem 1: All the information in DNA was produced by evolution.
Theorem 2: Everything creationists say about information is rubbish.
Theorem 3: I win.

In fact, this would be better than Gitt's maunderings, because it would have the benefit of being true. But it still wouldn't be "information theory".

I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general.

No. In particular, his concept of information is entirely opposed to Shannon's.

Where exactly did Gitt lie?

For one thing, he's pretending that what he's doing is "information theory". For another thing, he claims to have proved the creationist nonsense he's reciting.

That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how.

He's redefining "information" in order to bullshit people such as yourself.

But, as I have written elsewhere:

By analogy, if Mr Gitt was a devout believer in the Norse gods, he might redefine "lightning" as "the effect produced when the thunder-god Thor swings his magic hammer Mjöllnir". But this definition does not answer any substantive question about lightning: it would merely raise the question of whether there is any such thing as "lightning" in Mr Gitt's sense of the word.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 PM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-20-2009 1:49 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 313 of 315 (520231)
08-20-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Coyote
08-19-2009 9:28 PM


Re: That "degrading" claim again
quote:
But you have provided no evidence to show that this is the case. Repeated claims do not constitute evidence and... (well, see tagline).
I did, several times. Read this.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Peek.cgi?action=peek&f=12&t=13589&m=518219

quote:
And those folks who are most familiar with the scientific evidence on this issue (biologists) don't agree with you by an overwhelming number.
Who doesn't agree with me? Show me those biologists that do not agree with me.

quote:
Curious: only biblical literalists follow and promote your "degrading" argument.

You may try to claim that you are pursuing science, but when 99.9% of scientists disagree with you that is a specious claim.

If you really, really are pursuing science you are so far out on the fringe you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble.

But I still think you are pushing religion, adhering to the bible as accurate on this point in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.


I don't care what you think! Are you stupid or something? And no, I'm not insulting you, I'm just honestly asking if you are a stupid person, and you have trouble understanding written words. Becasue you keep talking about religion and I keep talking about science. And I also keep telling you I'm not interested in religion. I don't give a damn if you belive me or not. Maybe you're a satanist? Are you? Are you working for Satan? Are you rpomoting evolution because you worship Satan? How do I know you're not? Prove to me you're not worshiping Satan!

Do you see how stupid this sounds? Well that's how you sound for the past month.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Coyote, posted 08-19-2009 9:28 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3192 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 314 of 315 (520232)
08-20-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 9:52 PM


quote:
He's pretending that he's doing "information theory", which he isn't. Instead, he's just writing down a bunch of dumb creationist daydreams and calling them "information theory".

I might as well write:

Theorems of information theory:
Theorem 1: All the information in DNA was produced by evolution.
Theorem 2: Everything creationists say about information is rubbish.
Theorem 3: I win.

In fact, this would be better than Gitt's maunderings, because it would have the benefit of being true. But it still wouldn't be "information theory".


You are acting stupid. I asked you to tell me what exactly did you consider wrong with Gitt's work. Answer my question.

quote:
No. In particular, his concept of information is entirely opposed to Shannon's.
In which part? Explain why.

quote:
For one thing, he's pretending that what he's doing is "information theory". For another thing, he claims to have proved the creationist nonsense he's reciting.
Explain why he is not "doing" information theory. Cite me where he said that the proved anything.

quote:
He's redefining "information" in order to bullshit people such as yourself.
How is he redefining information? Explain in detail.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 315 of 315 (520236)
08-20-2009 2:31 AM


Terminally off-topic - Closing soon
This topic is past 300 messages and out of contact with the topic theme.

It is NOT an information theory topic.

Going to close down, probably in the next 1/2 hour.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150


  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019