Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[OldWiseGuy]

blah blah blah

And the conclusion:

There it is - the usual cop-out of the under-informed, desperate, and hateful. Wish I had seen this sooner.

When you've got NOTHING of relevance to counter facts with, call your opponents liars.
Now, if you had some actual evidence that evolution is a lie and that we are supporting this lie (i.e., are liars), that is one thing. I have on several occasions provided evidence that creationists have lied (I would add to that list those creationists that, even after having their errors corrected and documented more than once continue to post the exact same erroneous material over and over) and so feel justified in calling it like I see it (Trump-like, though most of Trump's observations seem premised on delusions). The alternative, of course, is that these folks are simply too incompetent to know any better, which is always possible.
But my point it, when you jump right to the tired old 'its all a lie!!!' schtick, put some beef on the table or be exposed as pathetic and desperate.

Evolution isn't a "lie" per se, as those who teach it actually believe it. It's more delusion ('strong delusion' at that) than anything.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolution isn't a "lie" per se, as those who teach it actually believe it. It's more delusion ('strong delusion' at that) than anything.

says the guy who believes in an invisible sky daddy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

says the guy who believes in an invisible sky daddy.

We each have evidence for our beliefs. But you are studying my evidence.

 

[NobleMouse]

That would be Shannon's definition of Information: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09316

And unlike Gitt's definition, Shannon's definition has actually been applied to DNA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3220916/

CC: @HitchSlap, @PsychoSarah, @Speedwell, et al.

I didn't get a concrete definition of what information "is" from these sources you referenced; however, they are helpful and so thank you. I found this on Wikipedia (not what I'd consider a "scholarly" source, but was directly focused on Claude Shannon and information theory):

"information" is thought of as a set of possible messages, where the goal is to send these messages over a noisy channel, and then to have the receiver reconstruct the message with low probability of error, in spite of the channel noise."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

This is backwards. It's not that his definition needs to be demonstrated as false; it's that it needs to be demonstrated as correct. Based on my reading of Gitt's work, his definition of 'information' is formulated based on little more than a series of unsupported assertions.

There is no sense blindly subscribing to a definition without first checking to see whether it's even valid.

I've previously provided a link to how Gitt's definition is applied to DNA and also typed it out in post # 1076. See this post for how it is applied to the characteristics of DNA. For redundancy, below is the definition of information from Gitt:

Gitt defines information "as an encoded, symbolic message entailing an expected action and intended purpose."

Also, redundantly - the link (I do want to caution: this is a creationist source citing Gitt's definition, but alas with Gitt being a creationist this would be expected, and we would not expect a secular source to cite Gitt's definition, this is just to corroborate post #1076 that Gitt's definition of information has been applied to the context of DNA and its characteristics):
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/information-theory-part-2/

Given the two definitions... I'm really having a hard time seeing them as mutually exclusive or in any way incompatible with one another (but willing to discuss if you see differently). In contrast (unsurprisingly), the two definitions appear consistent with there being a message (or messages). Also, Shannon's definition references that there is a goal to send the messages such that the receiver can reconstruct the message (ie. there is an expected action/intended purpose... it is a motivated/intentional goal). That's how I see it.

There was a bit of a reaction at first, accusations of dishonesty, and whining in general regarding my use of Gitt's definition, but I'm willing to use Shannon's definition if there is a fear that Gitt's is somehow a slight-of-hand card trick. Under both definitions, the conclusion within both the secular scientific community (the vast majority), as well as creationists alike, is that DNA contains information. Are we in agreement, all standing at the starting line on this yet?

 

[NobleMouse]

Right. so there is a circumstance by which intelligence doesn't have to be given by a higher intelligence then? Good, we can drop that as a hard and fast rule if your God didn't get his from a higher intelligence, no matter how long he's been around, because your God existing for an eternity before we were around still necessitates his intelligence coming from somewhere.

First sentence was correct: ... there is a circumstance by which intelligence doesn't have to be given by a higher intelligence... a circumstance (singular), only known circumstance is God Himself. Outside of God, there is no intelligence that arises from nothing without intelligence being given first by a higher intelligence.

more to the point, what is Satan thinking that he and 1/3 of the angels could battle God in heaven with his infinite wisdom and omnipotence? ...but I digress - the hominid apes that led to our existence have an ever increasing cranial capacity that gives us bigger brains and that in conjunction with a number of mutations in genes known to increase our grey matter density can easily explain our intelligence. Intelligence is an emergent quality of animal life and we see it at all levels throughout the animal kingdom.

Satan wasn't thinking, he was rebelling. Everything else here is a repetition of the evolutionary paradigm, which I am familiar with this paradigm and what it believes (albeit without being able to demonstrate as such - but that's just my view as a creationist).

My interest here is less on trying to convince anyone that biblical creationism is true, but rather that God Himself exists (whether you believe in evolution or not). One does not have to believe evolution is false to believe God is real.

 

[HitchSlap]

We each have evidence for our beliefs. But you are studying my evidence.

Therein lies the delusion.

 

[Speedwell]

CC: @HitchSlap, @PsychoSarah, @Speedwell, et al.

I didn't get a concrete definition of what information "is" from these sources you referenced; however, they are helpful and so thank you. I found this on Wikipedia (not what I'd consider a "scholarly" source, but was directly focused on Claude Shannon and information theory):

"information" is thought of as a set of possible messages, where the goal is to send these messages over a noisy channel, and then to have the receiver reconstruct the message with low probability of error, in spite of the channel noise."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory


I've previously provided a link to how Gitt's definition is applied to DNA and also typed it out in post # 1076. See this post for how it is applied to the characteristics of DNA. For redundancy, below is the definition of information from Gitt:

Gitt defines information "as an encoded, symbolic message entailing an expected action and intended purpose."

Also, redundantly - the link (I do want to caution: this is a creationist source citing Gitt's definition, but alas with Gitt being a creationist this would be expected, and we would not expect a secular source to cite Gitt's definition, this is just to corroborate post #1076 that Gitt's definition of information has been applied to the context of DNA and its characteristics):
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/information-theory-part-2/

Given the two definitions... I'm really having a hard time seeing them as mutually exclusive or in any way incompatible with one another (but willing to discuss if you see differently). In contrast (unsurprisingly), the two definitions appear consistent with there being a message (or messages). Also, Shannon's definition references that there is a goal to send the messages such that the receiver can reconstruct the message (ie. there is an expected action/intended purpose... it is a motivated/intentional goal). That's how I see it.

There was a bit of a reaction at first, accusations of dishonesty, and whining in general regarding my use of Gitt's definition, but I'm willing to use Shannon's definition if there is a fear that Gitt's is somehow a slight-of-hand card trick. Under both definitions, the conclusion within both the secular scientific community (the vast majority), as well as creationists alike, is that DNA contains information. Are we in agreement, all standing at the starting line on this yet?

First, let us clear up the accusations of dishonesty. Let me give you an example: Everybody agrees that atoms contain protons. Now I can define "proton" any way I want, being as it's a free country, so I define "protons" as "invisible purple pixies." Then I go on to quote many secular physicists as asserting that atoms contain protons and point to that that as support for my claim that atoms contain invisible purple pixies. Do you see why doubts about my honesty might arise, given that these physicists define protons as hadrons made up of three quarks, not invisible purple pixies--especially if that definition supports my religious views and is only used by me and my coreligionists?

As to the difference between Shannon and Gitt, there is an important distinction to keep in mind between "message" and "information." Shannon originally developed his theory while working at Bell Labs on a particular problem. Sending information through a communication channel costs money. If the amount of information sent can be reduced without corrupting the message encoded into it then money can be saved, so you can see that the distinction is important. Shannon's information can be quantified as being proportional to the size of the algorithm required to reproduce it. For example, a transmitted long string of the letter A, AAAAA... can be reproduced at the other end of the line by merely sending the algorithm "repeat A" and so requires very little information to be sent. On the other hand, a long string of random letters, FCMUKL... can only be reproduced by repeating the whole string, which is the maximum amount of information. Shannon discovered that meaningful content (a "message") is arbitrary to information content; a string of dots and dashes with a message encoded does not necessarily contain the same amount of information as the same message encoded into a different symbol system.

Think on that a little; I have to keep this short because I am sitting in a meeting I am supposed to be paying attention to, but the thing with Gitt is that he has confounded "message" and "information." The other thing is that he has included "purpose" in his definition, but the presence of purpose is unfalsifiable and thus has no place in a scientific definition, either to confirm or deny it.

 

[Speedwell]

My interest here is less on trying to convince anyone that biblical creationism is true, but rather that God Himself exists (whether you believe in evolution or not). One does not have to believe evolution is false to believe God is real.

In that case you are really in the wrong forum. The issue discussed in this forum is not the existence of God. Some of us here believe in God and some do not. But the issue which concerns us, theist and atheist alike, is biblical creationism and its denial of science.

 

[NobleMouse]

First, let us clear up the accusations of dishonesty. Let me give you an example: Everybody agrees that atoms contain protons. Now I can define "proton" any way I want, being as it's a free country, so I define "protons" as "invisible purple pixies." Then I go on to quote many secular physicists as asserting that atoms contain protons and point to that that as support for my claim that atoms contain invisible purple pixies. Do you see why doubts about my honesty might arise, given that these physicists define protons as hadrons made up of three quarks, not invisible purple pixies--especially if that definition supports my religious views and is only used by me and my coreligionists?

As to the difference between Shannon and Gitt, there is an important distinction to keep in mind between "message" and "information." Shannon originally developed his theory while working at Bell Labs on a particular problem. Sending information through a communication channel costs money. If the amount of information sent can be reduced without corrupting the message encoded into it then money can be saved, so you can see that the distinction is important. Shannon's information can be quantified as being proportional to the size of the algorithm required to reproduce it. For example, a transmitted long string of the letter A, AAAAA... can be reproduced at the other end of the line by merely sending the algorithm "repeat A" and so requires very little information to be sent. On the other hand, a long string of random letters, FCMUKL... can only be reproduced by repeating the whole string, which is the maximum amount of information. Shannon discovered that meaningful content (a "message") is arbitrary to information content; a string of dots and dashes with a message encoded does not necessarily contain the same amount of information as the same message encoded into a different symbol system.

Think on that a little; I have to keep this short because I am sitting in a meeting I am supposed to be paying attention to, but the thing with Gitt is that he has confounded "message" and "information." The other thing is that he has included "purpose" in his definition, but the presence of purpose is unfalsifiable and thus has no place in a scientific definition, either to confirm or deny it.

CC: @HitchSlap, @pitabread, @PsychoSarah

Shannon:
"information" is thought of as a set of possible messages, where the goal is to send these messages over a noisy channel, and then to have the receiver reconstruct the message with low probability of error, in spite of the channel noise."

Gitt:
"an encoded, symbolic message entailing an expected action and intended purpose."

How has Gitt confounded information and message when Shannon also explains that there is a goal to send the message with the intent that the receiver reconstruct the message? That is a purpose.

Purpose is defined as:
Noun: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
Verb: have as one's intention or objective.

So, by Shannon's definition, the goal of the receiver reconstructing the message satisfies the reason for sending the message... (that is, it's purpose). Conversely, by Shannon's definition, the fact that there is a goal satisfies an intent or objective... (that is, the presence of a purpose, per the definition of purpose).

My position is that Shannon and Gitt are both correct and their definitions of information are congruent with one another. As I stated before, we can use Shannon's definition if that is preferable.

Arguments for the presence of purpose regarding information are going to be no different in nature than arguments for the presence of vestigial structures, relevant to this thread would be the coccyx. I could show an array of examples where information is present and known to have been created with purpose, to the point of ad nauseam, then show how these examples align with the same conditions observed in DNA. This would be positively affirming by analogy (conversely, I could ask for examples of information being communicated without purpose to negatively affirm that information is only communicated by purposeful intent).

Similarly, some argue that the coccyx is vestigial and make this argument, by analogy, likening the coccyx to the tail of a mammal alive today. It's not that anyone has seen humans walking around with tails and using them for the same purpose that a mammal with a tail uses their tail, it is an extension by analogy. Observably, the coccyx does serve a purpose so it is not 'vestigial' in the sense that it has no purpose; rather, it is labeled by some as being vestigial on the basis that if had once been a full tail, the result of not needing or using that tail for a very long time would look like a coccyx today (albeit this is not evidenced in the fossil record... and lemurs don't help the case as they are known to stand and walk about erect on two legs and have a tail... but that's not really the point).

So....... if you assert that something is unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) by analogy, as in the case of purpose being behind the communication of information, then by this same requirement, stating the coccyx is vestigial by arguments of analogy is also unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific). Although I would say the argument for a tail is weaker because we have to imagine there was once something there that is not there now and is not seen anywhere in the known fossil record. In contrast, we take a cookbook (knowing it contains information and is communicated with a purpose) and show how this parallels DNA and that information there is communicated with a purpose. We don't have to imagine it being something different, something we cannot see, something where the end result would be different than how it actually happens in reality... it would truly be based solely upon observation.

 

[Speedwell]

CC: @HitchSlap, @pitabread, @PsychoSarah

Shannon:
"information" is thought of as a set of possible messages, where the goal is to send these messages over a noisy channel, and then to have the receiver reconstruct the message with low probability of error, in spite of the channel noise."

Gitt:
"an encoded, symbolic message entailing an expected action and intended purpose."

How has Gitt confounded information and message when Shannon also explains that there is a goal to send the message with the intent that the receiver reconstruct the message? That is a purpose.

Purpose is defined as:
Noun: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
Verb: have as one's intention or objective.

So, by Shannon's definition, the goal of the receiver reconstructing the message satisfies the reason for sending the message... (that is, it's purpose). Conversely, by Shannon's definition, the fact that there is a goal satisfies an intent or objective... (that is, the presence of a purpose, per the definition of purpose).

My position is that Shannon and Gitt are both correct and their definitions of information are congruent with one another. As I stated before, we can use Shannon's definition if that is preferable.

Arguments for the presence of purpose regarding information are going to be no different in nature than arguments for the presence of vestigial structures, relevant to this thread would be the coccyx. I could show an array of examples where information is present and known to have been created with purpose, to the point of ad nauseam, then show how these examples align with the same conditions observed in DNA. This would be positively affirming by analogy (conversely, I could ask for examples of information being communicated without purpose to negatively affirm that information is only communicated by purposeful intent).

Similarly, some argue that the coccyx is vestigial and make this argument, by analogy, likening the coccyx to the tail of a mammal alive today. It's not that anyone has seen humans walking around with tails and using them for the same purpose that a mammal with a tail uses their tail, it is an extension by analogy. Observably, the coccyx does serve a purpose so it is not 'vestigial' in the sense that it has no purpose; rather, it is labeled by some as being vestigial on the basis that if had once been a full tail, the result of not needing or using that tail for a very long time would look like a coccyx today (albeit this is not evidenced in the fossil record... and lemurs don't help the case as they are known to stand and walk about erect on two legs and have a tail... but that's not really the point).

So....... if you assert that something is unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) by analogy, as in the case of purpose being behind the communication of information, then by this same requirement, stating the coccyx is vestigial by arguments of analogy is also unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific). Although I would say the argument for a tail is weaker because we have to imagine there was once something there that is not there now and is not seen anywhere in the known fossil record. In contrast, we take a cookbook (knowing it contains information and is communicated with a purpose) and show how this parallels DNA and that information there is communicated with a purpose. We don't have to imagine it being something different, something we cannot see, something where the end result would be different than how it actually happens in reality... it would truly be based solely upon observation.

Shannon's original work was, of course, concerned with human communication, but the mathematical concept of information he developed is distinct from meaningful content. The mathematics is the same whether the signal string contains a coded message or is gibberish.

As to unfalsifiability, no, it is not an analogy, it is a logical category. An unfalsifiable proposition is one for which no possible empirical test can be devised which would potentially disprove it. The existence of God is one such. The presence of purpose is another. Purpose can sometimes be inferred but can never be disproven. But all scientific propositions must be falsifiable, in accord with the scientific method.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution isn't a "lie" per se, as those who teach it actually believe it. It's more delusion ('strong delusion' at that) than anything.

You could have just written "I am out of my depth but am devoted to my religious fantasies, thus I must write something to make myself feel better."


Creationism isn't a "lie" per se, as those who teach it actually believe it. It's more delusion ('strong delusion' at that) than anything.

 

[tas8831]

We each have evidence for our beliefs. But you are studying my evidence.

Funny how you can never present anything other than these dopey, desperate attempts at naive co-option.

Aorta makes you vocalize... How ignorant! You should stick to bible verses, since science is not your friend.

 

[tas8831]

I could show an array of examples where information is present and known to have been created with purpose, to the point of ad nauseam, then show how these examples align with the same conditions observed in DNA.

You mean you could spew analogies all day long.

Analogies are not evidence, so surely you do not think such things would convince someone of anything?

This would be positively affirming by analogy (conversely, I could ask for examples of information being communicated without purpose to negatively affirm that information is only communicated by purposeful intent).

Oh... LOL!

Similarly, some argue that the coccyx is vestigial and make this argument, by analogy, likening the coccyx to the tail of a mammal alive today.

Example?

What analogy can you employ regarding any of the take-downs of creationist propaganda that I provide din the OP?

Surely with your expertise in information as it applies to Biology, you must also be an expert in all things biological (this is usually how these arguments go...) and can explain the PURPOSE and DESIGN of the Extensor Coccygis?

Observably, the coccyx does serve a purpose so it is not 'vestigial' in the sense that it has no purpose;

LOL... Love how suddenly every creationist is an expert on anatomy and physiology...

rather, it is labeled by some as being vestigial on the basis that if had once been a full tail, the result of not needing or using that tail for a very long time would look like a coccyx today (albeit this is not evidenced in the fossil record... and lemurs don't help the case as they are known to stand and walk about erect on two legs and have a tail... but that's not really the point).

The point you have made is that you have bought into the creationist strawman explanation of what evolution posits.
Tiresome hubris.

 

[NobleMouse]

Shannon's original work was, of course, concerned with human communication, but the mathematical concept of information he developed is distinct from meaningful content. The mathematics is the same whether the signal string contains a coded message or is gibberish.

As to unfalsifiability, no, it is not an analogy, it is a logical category. An unfalsifiable proposition is one for which no possible empirical test can be devised which would potentially disprove it. The existence of God is one such. The presence of purpose is another. Purpose can sometimes be inferred but can never be disproven. But all scientific propositions must be falsifiable, in accord with the scientific method.

CC: @HitchSlap, @pitabread, @PsychoSarah

Now you're trying to categorize and qualify Shannon's definition to just a limited context, but earlier made it out to be the universal and only acceptable "scientific" definition of information. At this point I don't know if anyone can follow this - it seems you're going in circles and we're back at square one again. If you can demonstrate that Gitt and Shannon's definitions are incompatible or that somehow they do not demonstrate that information exists in DNA, then please. If not, I'll continue with Shannon & Gitt's definition of information.

I understand and agree that to be falsifiable is to be able to show empirical evidence to the contrary of something believed to be true. As such then, to say that that the coccyx is vestigial is not observable - that it once was what it is said to have been and now is a remnant thereof, and to the contrary is observable (now) as serving a present purpose.

Now, with information... the opposite of purpose would be... random? I think so. I've seen calculations of the probability of getting a protein sequence correct by purely random chance as being all over the map, making many different assumptions... like whether the protein is 3,000 nucleotides long or 50,000 nucleotides long, factoring the probability of the underlying atoms all functioning consistently or not (how random is "random"), etc... But you've all seen the numbers as well, whether 1 in 10^183 and I've seen as high as 1^1,000,000,000 if absolutely everything is truly random. Given the conventionally assumed age of the universe at about 13.8 billion years old, this does not bode well... only IF we assume a purely random process, even under the best conditions and the least amount of "random" in our assumptions.

If random chance successfully produces one protein correctly, this is no guarantee of a 2nd one immediately thereafter, right? No, we have to proceed through all the random attempts to produce the same protein again. So to play devils advocate against myself for a minute and say evolution is true and life evolved over time: I still have to assume that it is not a purely random process. Instead, I have to believe that the DNA has not only been ordered correctly to be meaningful, but also believe that there is a mechanism by which the information in the DNA can be interpreted and consistently acted upon with little to no error. This would require something beyond being purely random - thus there must be an element of intentional design, a goal to be consistent, a purpose. In fact, purpose is a key mechanism for one to accept evolution, because with evolution one has to believe that new information arises (from a mutation, but what kind of mutation?? A random mutation as they say), the new information has to somehow then be arranged in a meaningful way (that leads to a beneficial change to the life form), that the new information is understood and acted upon (remember Shannon's definition of information? The goal of the sender is that the receiver can reconstruct the message), and ultimately the decision is that this new information is beneficial (what is determined "beneficial" or "harmful" within DNA itself, hard to say), but anyway is kept around for the benefit of continued life for future generations. Ultimately, those who accept evolution (perhaps unintentionally) are asserting that it isn't purely random and that beneficial changes are kept... so while I am a biblical creationist, I don't believe even the staunch evolutionist accepts that evolution is without purpose and is a completely random process.

 

[NobleMouse]

@tas8831

Looks like you're on the defensive already so I'll conclude this is your way of protecting your beliefs. I understand. I can appreciate anecdotal remarks as much as others, I suppose.

I've never claimed to be an expert in anything, so like most here do, I'll cite my sources when it goes beyond my lay understanding of a topic. There's no one source I've come across in secular or creationist literature that always perfectly fits a given discussion here in this forum, and I assume everyone here has a basic level of understanding on certain topics so I don't cite sources for commonly understood things, so naturally I bring together multiple sources and have to synthesize them using my own wording - not that I am the authority on the topic. To the contrary, I've offered multiple times to discuss other's definitions on something if a more appropriate one is provided. Recent example of this was to use Shannon's definition of "information" rather than Gitt's definition since Gitt is a creationist. If there is a preferred alternative to this approach, I can try to accommodate.

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831

Looks like you're on the defensive already so I'll conclude this is your way of protecting your beliefs.

LOL!

So precious. Your way seems to be using 5 paragraphs for a 2 sentence answer.

I understand. I can appreciate anecdotal remarks as much as others, I suppose.

I've never claimed to be an expert in anything, so like most here do, I'll cite my sources when it goes beyond my lay understanding of a topic. There's no one source I've come across in secular or creationist literature that always perfectly fits a given discussion here in this forum, and I assume everyone here has a basic level of understanding on certain topics so I don't cite sources for commonly understood things, so naturally I bring together multiple sources and have to synthesize them using my own wording - not that I am the authority on the topic. To the contrary, I've offered multiple times to discuss other's definitions on something if a more appropriate one is provided. Recent example of this was to use Shannon's definition of "information" rather than Gitt's definition since Gitt is a creationist. If there is a preferred alternative to this approach, I can try to accommodate.

All those words to say you've got nothing but taking a creationist at his word.

I will wait for you to explain the design and purpose of the extensor coccygis in humans. Then perhaps you can give me the Gitt version of the information involved in producing this muscle.

 

[tas8831]

Now, with information... the opposite of purpose would be... random?

Is not the concept of 'purpose' a human contrivance? I think so.

I've seen calculations of the probability of getting a protein sequence correct by purely random chance as being all over the map, making many different assumptions... like whether the protein is 3,000 nucleotides long or 50,000 nucleotides long, factoring the probability of the underlying atoms all functioning consistently or not (how random is "random"), etc... But you've all seen the numbers as well, whether 1 in 10^183 and I've seen as high as 1^1,000,000,000 if absolutely everything is truly random.

I've seen those, too. Do you understand why people that understand evolution see them as, at best, flawed?
Do you understand why post hoc probability calculations don't really tell us much about anything? I once saw someone do one of these sorts of calculations to 'prove' that he did not exist, so improbable were all of the events that had to have occurred for him to be. Yet, there he was.
I think deep down, creationists know this, but they also know that big numbers impress lay folk, so they run with them.

Given the conventionally assumed age of the universe at about 13.8 billion years old, this does not bode well... only IF we assume a purely random process, even under the best conditions and the least amount of "random" in our assumptions.

Why do you assume this strawman? Is it on purpose? Or did Gitt say so?

If random chance successfully produces one protein correctly, this is no guarantee of a 2nd one immediately thereafter, right? No, we have to proceed through all the random attempts to produce the same protein again. So to play devils advocate against myself for a minute and say evolution is true and life evolved over time: I still have to assume that it is not a purely random process. Instead, I have to believe that the DNA has not only been ordered correctly to be meaningful, but also believe that there is a mechanism by which the information in the DNA can be interpreted and consistently acted upon with little to no error.

Why would you have to believe more strawmen?
You realize, do you not, that we can employ these sorts of "arguments" and dutifully declare biblical creation impossible, right?

This is why we prefer EVIDENCE over thought experiments, analogies, and unwarranted certitude in the veracity of ancient tales from the middle east.

 

[Speedwell]

CC: @HitchSlap, @pitabread, @PsychoSarah

Now you're trying to categorize and qualify Shannon's definition to just a limited context, but earlier made it out to be the universal and only acceptable "scientific" definition of information.

Never said that--there are many different definitions of information. Shannon's information seems to be the one which applies to molecular genetics.

At this point I don't know if anyone can follow this - it seems you're going in circles and we're back at square one again. If you can demonstrate that Gitt and Shannon's definitions are incompatible or that somehow they do not demonstrate that information exists in DNA, then please. If not, I'll continue with Shannon & Gitt's definition of information.

As you please. In any case the interacting stochastic processes which constitute the biosphere constitute sufficient information-generating capacity to account for the diversity of life we see around us.

Now, with information... the opposite of purpose would be... random? I think so.

No, the opposite of purpose is no purpose. Random means something else. In science it merely means unpredictable, with no implication of purpose or the lack of it.

I've seen calculations of the probability of getting a protein sequence correct by purely random chance as being all over the map, making many different assumptions... like whether the protein is 3,000 nucleotides long or 50,000 nucleotides long, factoring the probability of the underlying atoms all functioning consistently or not (how random is "random"), etc... But you've all seen the numbers as well, whether 1 in 10^183 and I've seen as high as 1^1,000,000,000 if absolutely everything is truly random. Given the conventionally assumed age of the universe at about 13.8 billion years old, this does not bode well... only IF we assume a purely random process, even under the best conditions and the least amount of "random" in our assumptions.

The problem with those calculations is that they generally assume that all combinations of atoms are equally likely to form--which is certainly not the case in biochemistry--that there is no continuously acting mechanism selecting those which are functional and that there is no reservoir of partially assembled components available. In other words, that out of a sea of basic elements, a large complex molecule forms by "random chance" which is not what anyone thinks actually happened. But that is a question of abiogenesis, not evolution.

If random chance successfully produces one protein correctly, this is no guarantee of a 2nd one immediately thereafter, right? No, we have to proceed through all the random attempts to produce the same protein again. So to play devils advocate against myself for a minute and say evolution is true and life evolved over time: I still have to assume that it is not a purely random process. Instead, I have to believe that the DNA has not only been ordered correctly to be meaningful, but also believe that there is a mechanism by which the information in the DNA can be interpreted and consistently acted upon with little to no error. This would require something beyond being purely random - thus there must be an element of intentional design, a goal to be consistent, a purpose. In fact, purpose is a key mechanism for one to accept evolution, because with evolution one has to believe that new information arises (from a mutation, but what kind of mutation?? A random mutation as they say), the new information has to somehow then be arranged in a meaningful way (that leads to a beneficial change to the life form), that the new information is understood and acted upon (remember Shannon's definition of information? The goal of the sender is that the receiver can reconstruct the message), and ultimately the decision is that this new information is beneficial (what is determined "beneficial" or "harmful" within DNA itself, hard to say), but anyway is kept around for the benefit of continued life for future generations. Ultimately, those who accept evolution (perhaps unintentionally) are asserting that it isn't purely random and that beneficial changes are kept... so while I am a biblical creationist, I don't believe even the staunch evolutionist accepts that evolution is without purpose and is a completely random process.

Of course beneficial changes are kept, and deleterious changes are rejected. That is the basic principle of evolution. Each new generation presents randomly distributed (think "bell curve") range of variants to the environment for selection and the most beneficial variations are selected and passed to offspring by subsequent reproduction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You could have just written "I am out of my depth but am devoted to my religious fantasies, thus I must write something to make myself feel better."


Creationism isn't a "lie" per se, as those who teach it actually believe it. It's more delusion ('strong delusion' at that) than anything.

All things being equal our delusion is easier to swallow.

 

[HitchSlap]

All things being equal our delusion is easier to swallow.

Well, that’s the thing, ToE requires time and study before one begins to understand it. Creationism OTOH, is taught by in Sunday school by volunteers to ten year olds in an hour.

For those who can’t be bothered or have the aptitude, goddidit is sufficient.