An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Radrook]

The simple isometric scaling of the skeletons should tell you they're not real. Allometry will tell you why - "Isometric scaling is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight."

This means that, for a doubling of height (e.g. 6ft to 12ft), the skeleton must carry eight times the weight - the tallest man on record was just under 12ft, and despite skeletal thickening, had serious joint problems. Check the bone thickness of large animals; the skeletons of the so-called 'giants' show no signs of the necessary robustness. Also, the hydrostatic pressure difference from head to toe would require a radically different circulatory system, and the weight of the abdominal organs would require additional pelvic skeletal support. Much above 13' would probably not be physiologically sustainable for a recognizable humanoid.

Fakes.

I never claimed that a human being can reach those heights.

 

[Radrook]

It's not much of an argument though. It mainly rests of obfuscation of terms like "information" and resorts to false equivalence via poor analogies to make its point.

It's also one reason I don't like using things like language or books as a metaphor for DNA. It creates too many false impressions about what DNA is and how it works.

For example, at the end of the video where the guy is talking about information theory and how information can't spontaneously arise. Therefore he says, information in DNA has to be from intelligence. But notice they never bother to properly define "information"; they don't explain what the information in DNA actually *is* or what a unit measure of it is. They don't give you anything to really work with.

Rather than finding it compelling, it's actually quite lacking.

But if he explained what information is then you would disagree with his explanation.
Also, if you disagree with his explanation of what DNA is then provide your own please so we can see exactly what it is that you are disagreeing with..

 

[pitabread]

But if he explained what information is then you would disagree with his explanation.

Not necessarily. It depends on the definition used and whether or not it was relevant to DNA.

Also, if you disagree with his explanation of what DNA is then provide your own please so we can see exactly what it is that you are disagreeing with..

I'm not disgreeing with what DNA is; I know exactly what it is.

What I'm saying is that before talking about "information" in DNA, one needs to have an agreed upon definition that actually can be applied to DNA and preferably a unit measure of said information content so that we can determine whether information is being created or not.

Considering there are a number of ways of potentially defining it, it's a bit problematic to make a bunch of assumptions about it without a working definition.

 

[Radrook]

Not necessarily. It depends on the definition used and whether or not it was relevant to DNA.



I'm not disgreeing with what DNA is; I know exactly what it is.

What I'm saying is that before talking about "information" in DNA, one needs to have an agreed upon definition that actually can be applied to DNA and preferably a unit measure of said information content so that we can determine whether information is being created or not.

Considering there are a number of ways of potentially defining it, it's a bit problematic to make a bunch of assumptions about it without a working definition.

The ones calling it informationare your own atheist scientists.
DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable

What exactly do you understand when they say that?

 

[pitabread]

The ones calling it informationare your own atheist scientists.

Atheism has nothing to do with being a scientist. Lots of non-atheists are scientists too.

DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable

What exactly do you understand when they say that?

In this case they are using the word "information" in a colloquial sense. This particular article is neither trying to formally define it nor making any specific claims about its existence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I never claimed that a human being can reach those heights.

Nor did I claim you did.

 

[Radrook]

Atheism has nothing to do with being a scientist. Lots of non-atheists are scientists too.



In this case they are using the word "information" in a colloquial sense. This particular article is neither trying to formally define it nor making any specific claims about its existence.

I never claimed that only atheists are capable of being scientists.

 

[Radrook]

Nor did I claim you did.

Obviously the normal human physiology has limits on height.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Obviously the normal human physiology has limits on height.

My point was mainly that the images of so-called 'giant' skeletons show bones that are not suitably adapted to support bodies of that size, regardless of physiology. so they should be taken with a pinch of salt; i.e. they are fakes.

 

[pitabread]

I never claimed that only atheists are capable of being scientists.

Then why make a comment like "your own atheist scientists"?

 

[Radrook]

Then why make a comment like "your own atheist scientists"?

Because atheists usually cite atheist scientists when defending atheism.

 

[pitabread]

Because atheists usually cite atheist scientists when defending atheism.

When did I bring up atheism?

I was talking about the definition of "information" as it pertains to genetics. Not sure what atheism has to do with this discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

But if he explained what information is then you would disagree with his explanation.

Claude Shannon defined information adequately in 1948. Nobody disagrees with that definition except ID proponents.

 

[Loudmouth]

But if he explained what information is then you would disagree with his explanation.

What you and others fail to provide is evidence that only an intelligent designer can produce information.

Also, if you disagree with his explanation of what DNA is then provide your own please so we can see exactly what it is that you are disagreeing with..

You don't have to provide your own explanation in order to show that another explanation lacks evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The ones calling it informationare your own atheist scientists.
DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable

What exactly do you understand when they say that?

What we don't understand is your claim that only an intelligence can produce information. For example, what don't you understand about this article?

Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15; 28(14): 2794–2799.

Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneider

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.​

Scientists have already shown that the naturally occurring process of evolution produces information, no designer needed.

 

[Radrook]

It's not a matter of not understanding. It is simply a matter of finding it intellectually unacceptable due to the totally illogical premise on which the concept is based.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's not a matter of not understanding. It is simply a matter of finding it intellectually unacceptable due to the totally illogical premise on which the concept is based.

Can you tell us, and provide evidence in support, what that illogical premise is?

 

[Radrook]

Can you tell us, and provide evidence in support, what that illogical premise is?

That's an invitation to an exercise in futility since all evidence is automatically disqualified as evidence or else the claim of inability to reason properly is deployed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ones calling it informationare your own atheist scientists.

You mean, people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller?
Oeps, they aren't atheists.

 

[Jimmy D]

That's an invitation to an exercise in futility since all evidence is automatically disqualified as evidence or else the claim of inability to reason properly is deployed.

The problem is Rad the evidence is just not convincing.