Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[pitabread]

I'm afraid this inane belief of yours that DNA is not a language

It's not. Don't be confused by colloquial use of the word "language" with respect to DNA or analogies where DNA is compared to languages for the purpose of explaining genetic concepts.

It doesn't mean DNA is a language in the same manner that English or Spanish is.

 

[HitchSlap]

@PsychoSarah

I'm not even sure where to begin. I am sorry to hear you have recently graduated with a degree in biology yet fail to recognize DNA as an instructional language. I'm afraid this inane belief of yours that DNA is not a language and does not contain information places you apart from even the vast majority even within the secular evolutionary community of scientists:

http://epicofevolution.com/biological-evolution/dna-language-of-life
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/the_language_of_dna
https://bio.libretexts.org/TextMaps/Biochemistry/Book:_Biochemistry_Online_(Jakubowski)/04:_DNA_AND_THE_CENTRAL_DOGMA_OF_BIOLOGY/4.3:_The_Language_of_DNA
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20180124/Scientists-aim-to-decipher-language-of-DNA.aspx

I'll just stop [head shaking] - it doesn't add value to just post hundreds of links... I almost cannot even accept you would have such a failed understanding at the BIO 101 course level - you seem too intelligent. I can only assume your 3-part discourse above was simply a strategic attempt to protect the belief you've up until now chosen to adhere (that no god exists), even at the risk of not maintaining honesty.

DNA is a language, DNA contains information (if not, it would be impossible to have any of the traits from our parents), and thus far research only shows information originates from a mind. If you are going to ignore what both secular and creationist scientists know to be true from a basic understanding about even DNA, then I'm not sure further dialog back and forth here can do much for your struggle. At this point it feels you have become irrational, but this may be in haste so I'll await your response to see where we go from here, if anywhere.

“Hyperbole” is a word. You should look it up.
Pretending to know more than a recent biology grad is hubris on steroids. Don’t be so arrogant in your attitude and ask proper questions. You might just learn something.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for clarifying, and this is a one-up over secular science because within secular science, expressing views towards a particular faith is almost always rejected and will abruptly shorten one's career potential within mainstream science, it's just not formally expressed.

Considering there are successful scientists who also profess religious beliefs (e.g. Dr. Francis Collins), I'm skeptical of this claim.

Having religious beliefs does not prevent one from doing [good] science...

Rejecting scientific conclusions based on one's religious belief does prevent one from doing good science. And that's what creationist ministries like AiG, ICR and so on are doing.

I can appreciate the position of not knowing 100% for sure, but will tell you that you will never be 100% sure... so you're here on CF because...?

To argue. Same as most people here I imagine.

We'll try again. Let's talk a little about information theory.

Do we have to? I'm a little jaded when it comes to creationists trying to bring up information theory in the context of DNA. It usually goes poorly.

Usually in biology when "information" is referred to in DNA it's one of two ways:

1) In a generic, colloquial manner referring to DNA sequences or total genetic content in a genome.
2) In a specific mathematical manner via the application of information theory itself.

The problem I find with creationist arguments is they tend to invoke #1 while trying to argue #2, usually in an attempt to construct an argument whereby the claim is that genetic information can't increase. Which is what you have done in your argument.

The problem is you're not working with a definition of information as it applies to DNA whereby you can even make that claim. If you want to argue about information in DNA increasing or decreasing, you first need a definition whereby you can actually measure information content. So how are you measuring DNA-based information?

Now in cases where information theory is actually applied to DNA with calculated measures of said information content, I'm not aware of any case where such a definition prohibits the increase of information in a genome.

In fact, it's basically nonsensical to think about when you consider reversal mutations. If a mutation could theoretically decrease information in a genome, then a reversal of the same mutation would be an increase.

Insofar as the origin of information in the genome, it could simply be an emergence property of such. No mystical origins required.

Helioseismology is the study of the interior of the sun. The age of the sun; however, (according to Cornell University) is determined by radiometric dating of objects within the solar system that are believed to have been formed at the same time as the sun.

Age of the sun is determined via Equations of State. See here: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ps/2002/30/aa2598.ps.gz

Building on unrealistic scenarios, if the sky tore open and in a brilliant light unlike anything you've ever seen, Jesus emerges through and comes down to you, addresses you by name, places his hand upon your shoulder and in the most loving way says, "It is me, Jesus. Why do you doubt? Have faith, believe, and have everlasting life through me.", would you then believe? Answer: Well, of course - wouldn't everyone... but that's not faith, we are called to live by faith and we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

The way I look at the subject of faith is this: If there really were an omnipotent deity that desired my belief/worship/obedience, they would already know what it would take to convince me of their existence. That they haven't convinced me of their existence means they a) either don't really care, or b) don't exist in the first place.

But yes, in the scenario you described I would find it hard pressed to disbelieve in the Christian faith after an experience like that.

The tools and instruments used to find resources are indifferent to beliefs of how long it took for those resources to get there.

I suggest looking at the sources I posted previously, because they state otherwise:

https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/can-young-earth-creationists-find-oil/
https://stevemaley.com/2017/03/05/young-earth-creationism-old-earth-geology/

Also, "the industry" is not the source of truth, so it's a fallacy to assume that if 6,000 were true that it would be coming from the industry

Industry is where the consequences of poor scientific knowledge would be most felt. There are big dollars at stake and competitive advantage to be had by companies best capable of exploiting scientific knowledge.

the only real difference is that YEC proponents believe there was a global flood (a one-time event) some 4,000+ years ago... most major principles of geology are relevant to the YEC view.

Not based on my reading and understanding of YEC material. Claiming that large portions of the geological column was laid down and major geological features were formed in a single event (which btw, would have released enough energy to vaporize Earth's atmosphere) is a far cry from conventional geology.

Being that creationist geologists do have published work in both creationist and secular journals, I can only conclude that their work, their research, and their models are in fact relevant, and the difference in age is interpretive in nature.

YEC models aren't relevant to anyone except other YECs. They have zero application in the real world.

Odd that you keep dwelling on phylogenetics as this has only added to tearing apart ToE

Yeah, it hasn't. The rumors of the demise of the ToE at the hands of phylogenetics are greatly exaggerated.

Besides the point is that phylogenetics is an applied science. Whether you agree with phylogenetics or not is a moot point. It's still an applied science; they very science you claim is without application.

Any of us can get lost in the mire of endless debates around scientific beliefs, which have historically shown to continually change and even contradict themselves.

Science is about obtaining the best understanding of the natural world we can. The fact it continually changes as a result of acquisition of knowledge is a strength. It's why we enjoy the technology we have today.

I think a better use of your time is to seek after the truth, and clearly science is not the answer.

If you're talking about religion, I've been down that path already. It led me to the conclusion that all religions are human-made, propagated via cultural expansion, and that no singular religious belief is likely to be The Truth™ at the expense of all other religious beliefs from history.

 

[Speedwell]

DNA is a language, DNA contains information (if not, it would be impossible to have any of the traits from our parents), and thus far research only shows information originates from a mind. If you are going to ignore what both secular and creationist scientists know to be true from a basic understanding about even DNA, then I'm not sure further dialog back and forth here can do much for your struggle. At this point it feels you have become irrational, but this may be in haste so I'll await your response to see where we go from here, if anywhere.

It is dishonest of you to imply that both creation and secular scientists support your position. To begin with, they are not using the same definition of "information." When a secular scientist asserts that DNA contains "information" he is not using Werner Gitt's definition of the term, he is using Shannon's definition. Nobody uses Gitt's definition but creation scientists. When a secular scientist likens DNA to a language he is describing a certain kind of orderly and predictable coding behavior which is similar in many ways to a human language. But it is not the coding processes which uniquely describe an intelligent language, but the kind of meaning which is coded onto it, and the scientist is not implying that there is any intelligent meaning encoded into the language of DNA.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, these all display evidence of degrees of intelligence, because they were all created by an intelligent Creator. You're speaking the words, but you're not seeing the forest through the trees - intelligence in all life must come from one that gives life. Intelligence requires information, information requires a mind, a mind requires a being. The Christian, believes that being... is God.

Where did your God get his intelligence from?

 

[NobleMouse]

It is dishonest of you to imply that both creation and secular scientists support your position.

I just cited articles to the contrary - mostly from secular sources - so do you have anything meaningful to add?

 

[NobleMouse]

“Hyperbole” is a word. You should look it up.
Pretending to know more than a recent biology grad is hubris on steroids. Don’t be so arrogant in your attitude and ask proper questions. You might just learn something.

I just cited (and could continue to add many more) secular sources that assert DNA contains information/is a language. Thank you for the ad hoc comments anyway - expected.

 

[Ophiolite]

I just cited (and could continue to add many more) secular sources that assert DNA contains information/is a language. Thank you for the ad hoc comments anyway - expected.

And you have been informed that the varied definitions of information and language create serious opportunities for confusion and misinterpretation when observations/studies/theories related to different definitions are mixed. You have chosen to disregard this. I won't attempt to guess your motivation for that, but it does a disservice to yourself, your fellow members, the forum and anyone reading the thread.

 

[Speedwell]

I just cited articles to the contrary - mostly from secular sources - so do you have anything meaningful to add?

You are trading dishonestly and blatantly on differing definitions of "information" and "language." The question is, do you have anything meaningful to say?

 

[NobleMouse]

Where did your God get his intelligence from?

To the non-atheist, God is not "created", He is the creator. I suspect you already knew this, right? Just picking out a random verse from the Bible, "to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

From this, the Christian accepts that God always was, is, and forever will be. Psalms 147:5 states, "
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure." So, to the Christian, God's wisdom is infinite and has always been.

God <> man... man has to learn to gain wisdom, God does not have to learn for He knows all things. This is not something you and I can tangibly see under a microscope, through a telescope, through radiometric dating, through the measurement of distance of stars using parallax or red/blue-shift... it is believed by faith. If; however, once accepts that God exists and that God created everything, then one clearly sees His intelligence is beyond measure when they look through the microscope, the telescope, physical laws, a study of astronomy, etc...

There is absolutely no answer to your question under the paradigm from which you operate (atheism), so just temporarily if you can ask yourself, "If I believed God was real and true and accepted the above verses as speaking to qualities of His character and nature, would I believe God always was, and has always possessed all intelligence?" I think you'll find that you would. If I turn the table and said if I didn't believe God was real and true, I can understand from your paradigm why the question of where God received His intelligence is posed.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is dishonest of you to imply that both creation and secular scientists support your position. To begin with, they are not using the same definition of "information." When a secular scientist asserts that DNA contains "information" he is not using Werner Gitt's definition of the term, he is using Shannon's definition. Nobody uses Gitt's definition but creation scientists. When a secular scientist likens DNA to a language he is describing a certain kind of orderly and predictable coding behavior which is similar in many ways to a human language. But it is not the coding processes which uniquely describe an intelligent language, but the kind of meaning which is coded onto it, and the scientist is not implying that there is any intelligent meaning encoded into the language of DNA.

I suspect part of the problem arises because the character and function of DNA are unique. In attempting to explain it (and to some extent, to understand it) it is natural to use analogies: language, recipes, software, etc. But analogies are just that; the map is not the territory. DNA is unique, but the analogies provide ample opportunity for misunderstanding - both accidental and deliberate.

 

[NobleMouse]

You are trading dishonestly and blatantly on differing definitions of "information" and "language." The question is, do you have anything meaningful to say?

And @HitchSlap , et al.

"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

Who wrote that??

Richard Dawkins, Atheist
Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16-19

So, don't act like I'm just going about quoting Ken Ham and other creationists on this stuff.

Why is it I have no difficulty finding the same assertion that within DNA is information, from scholarly science journals with no affiliation whatsoever with creationists?
https://www.aaas.org/blog/member-spotlight/erik-winfree-studies-computational-components-dna
https://www.aaas.org/blog/qualia/using-dna-medium-information-storage
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive


Not sure what your issue is, but you're welcome to change the channel if facing the fact that information exists in DNA and is a biological programming language is bothersome to you.

 

[Speedwell]

And @HitchSlap , et al.

"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

Who wrote that??

Richard Dawkins, Atheist
Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16-19

So, don't act like I'm just going about quoting Ken Ham and other creationists on this stuff.

Why is it I have no difficulty finding the same assertion that within DNA is information, from scholarly science journals with no affiliation whatsoever with creationists?
https://www.aaas.org/blog/member-spotlight/erik-winfree-studies-computational-components-dna
https://www.aaas.org/blog/qualia/using-dna-medium-information-storage
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive


Not sure what your issue is, but you're welcome to change the channel if facing the fact that information exists in DNA and is a biological programming language is bothersome to you.

Now you're just repeating yourself. No one doubts or denies that DNA contains information. But you are being sneaky and dishonest in twisting this to mean that it contains information as defined by Werner Gitt. But you're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

 

[NobleMouse]

And you have been informed that the varied definitions of information and language create serious opportunities for confusion and misinterpretation when observations/studies/theories related to different definitions are mixed. You have chosen to disregard this. I won't attempt to guess your motivation for that, but it does a disservice to yourself, your fellow members, the forum and anyone reading the thread.

You can try to redefine and be as abstract about information and language as you wish, but the fact remains that cells replicate because they have both the machinery and the instruction to be able to do so. Whether we're talking about a robotic arm on a car assembly line, a machine crunching out Lego pieces, or circuit boards, or whatever, there needs to be both the machinery and the information.

How is it when 1 cell (an egg) and 1 cell (a sperm) can make an entire human? Answer: Because there exists the information no not just make more eggs and more sperm, no no no, there's information and machinery to make every single type of cell, in the right quantities, in the right order, in the right position, to form a baby. And this does not produce a "generic" baby, no it will have the traits of it's parents and it's parent's parents, etc... That... requires "information".

 

[HitchSlap]

And @HitchSlap , et al.

"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."

Who wrote that??

Richard Dawkins, Atheist
Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16-19

So, don't act like I'm just going about quoting Ken Ham and other creationists on this stuff.

Why is it I have no difficulty finding the same assertion that within DNA is information, from scholarly science journals with no affiliation whatsoever with creationists?
https://www.aaas.org/blog/member-spotlight/erik-winfree-studies-computational-components-dna
https://www.aaas.org/blog/qualia/using-dna-medium-information-storage
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive


Not sure what your issue is, but you're welcome to change the channel if facing the fact that information exists in DNA and is a biological programming language is bothersome to you.

Have you read River Out of Eden?

 

[NobleMouse]

Now you're just repeating yourself. No one doubts or denies that DNA contains information. But you are being sneaky and dishonest in twisting this to mean that it contains information as defined by Werner Gitt. But you're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

No, @PsychoSarah said in post #1047 that DNA does not contain information. Please read.

Going back to Gitt's definition of information, from post #986:

Gitt defines information as "an encoded, symbolic message, with a language convention, and which contains an expected action upon the part of the recipient, and an intended purpose." Below are the 4 components:

1) Encoded symbols
2) A language convention
3) An expected action
4) An intended purpose

What are the encoded symbols? adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). They are not character on a computer screen nor Hebrew characters on parchment, they are bases of nucleic acids - they are biological in nature.

What is the convention (how are the symbols structured/organized)? This is the sequence, the codons. Defined as "A codon is a sequence of three DNA or RNA nucleotides that corresponds with a specific amino acid or stop signal during protein synthesis. DNA and RNA molecules are written in a language of four nucleotides; meanwhile, the language of proteins includes 20 amino acids." This is from
https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/codon-155

What is the expected action? That proteins would be generated by way of amino acids produced by the RNA ribosomes.

What is the intended purpose of doing all of this? The production of proteins is needed in order for the cell to survive, in short the purpose is life.

Can you demonstrate that Gitt's definition of information is not satisfied by DNA and how it functions? If you'd like to discuss an alternate definition of information then I am happy to do so.

 

[NobleMouse]

Have you read River Out of Eden?

Not fully - though I do know Dawkins' position and views regarding evolution, Christianity and creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

No, @PsychoSarah said in post #1047 that DNA does not contain information. Please read.

Going back to Gitt's definition of information, from post #986:

Gitt defines information as "an encoded, symbolic message, with a language convention, and which contains an expected action upon the part of the recipient, and an intended purpose." Below are the 4 components:

1) Encoded symbols
2) A language convention
3) An expected action
4) An intended purpose

What are the encoded symbols? adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). They are not character on a computer screen nor Hebrew characters on parchment, they are bases of nucleic acids - they are biological in nature.

What is the convention (how are the symbols structured/organized)? This is the sequence, the codons. Defined as "A codon is a sequence of three DNA or RNA nucleotides that corresponds with a specific amino acid or stop signal during protein synthesis. DNA and RNA molecules are written in a language of four nucleotides; meanwhile, the language of proteins includes 20 amino acids." This is from
https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/codon-155

What is the expected action? That proteins would be generated by way of amino acids produced by the RNA ribosomes.

What is the intended purpose of doing all of this? The production of proteins is needed in order for the cell to survive, in short the purpose is life.

Can you demonstrate that Gitt's definition of information is not satisfied by DNA and how it functions? If you'd like to discuss an alternate definition of information then I am happy to do so.

Why should I? You've already blown off Shannon and real Information Theory. But DNA and how it functions cannot satisfy Gitt's definition because it requires intention or purpose which has not been demonstrated in DNA.

See now how nice I am, giving you an opening for the next stage of the Discovery Institute's shell game: the confounding of purpose and function.

 

[Speedwell]

Not fully - though I do know Dawkins' position and views regarding evolution, Christianity and creationists.

Alas, the poor fellow knows almost nothing about religion, and has confused creationism with Christianity and indeed, with theism generally.

 

[Hank77]

The alleged “gills” are just fat folds on the embryo and all non-egg laying animal embryos receive their oxygen through the blood of the mother, and in no other way.
‘Fat folds’? From what uninformed source was that gem of ignorance copied? There is no fat in an embryo in a stage in which the pharyngeal apparatus is seen. And they are not “folds” as in ‘they are there because of folding’. The ‘folds’ are there because they house internal structures which make it appear, from the outside, to be ‘folds.’ Since this creationist is wrong in his depiction of the pharyngeal apparatus, shall we adopt their anti-vestige tactic and attack him as a fraud? And by the way – fish embryos don’t get oxygen from their “gill slits”, either. Weird that your engineer/violinist/creationist source did not mention this.

Quote taken from 7th grade biology science book.
"'gill slits' that appear in all vertebrate embryos are properly called 'pharyngeal arches'. These arches are actually folds of tissue that do not function in respiration during the embryonic stage. In fact, the pharyngeal arches do not develop into breathing organs in any vertebrate except fish. In humans, they form parts of the jaw, ear, and several endocrine glands."