Is this a cognitive bias and does it have a name?

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your own definition refutes your argument. By your definition "specified information" can arise naturally .

water droplets in a cloud can look like a face.. yes,

and scratches on a rock might form a cross

so quantity does count, 6 data points in a radio frequency from space = 'wow'
The Rosetta stone = conclusive

DNA + the universal constants = a far larger amount of specified information
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How is "meaning" to be decided? Once again, you have not provided a useful working definition.

Once again, if it specifies something beyond itself-

to use Dawkins' working example-

you tell me

" WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P" - is a bunch of letters

"METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" - is also a bunch of letters

which one can we determine contains specified information?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes you are correct, DNA is very much a digital code, base 4, quaternary, represented by individual bits of information- to which we assign the identifiers A C G & T

None of this is controversial

Sure, I'll buy that we can represent DNA by bits of information. That's not really the question here though.

Again, specified information is information that specifies something- e.g. eye color-
the DNA system reads this digital info and uses it to build organs accordingly

So how does one distinguish said "specified information" from non-specified information in the context of DNA then?

If I gave you a DNA strand and asked you to identify the sections that contained specified information, how would you do that?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
water droplets in a cloud can look like a face.. yes,

and scratches on a rock might form a cross

so quantity does count, 6 data points in a radio frequency from space = 'wow'
The Rosetta stone = conclusive

DNA + the universal constants = a far larger amount of specified information
Pure nonsense.

Not understanding how information enters the genome does not refute evolution. You example of "blue eyes" is an excellent example. That can be traced to one simple mutation of a specific gene:
https://www.allaboutvision.com/en-gb/resources/blue-eye-colour/

No need for an intelligent designer. Once again: Variation and natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sure, I'll buy that.



So how does one distinguish said "specified information" from non-specified information in the context of DNA then?

If I gave you a DNA strand and asked you to identify the sections that contained specified information, how would you do that?

I believe some of the best earliest examples used to establish this - were in examining the DNA of fruit flies.

It could be observed that specific mutations on specific parts of the DNA sequence corresponded to specific mutations in the fly's development (e.g. vestigial wings)

again specific code literally specifies how wings should develop

That's pretty basic, but research has come a long way and many specific genetic identifiers are known and used in forensics- inherited traits etc.

I don't like to send people down rabbit holes with links, but there is tons of info on this-

where it gets controversial is in exactly how much is specified & how much is junk- because again- when info is encoded it's very difficult to tell- we produce a lot of info that is encoded specifically to look like junk when it is not- so it's ongoing

The larger point being; there is obviously a great deal of specified info present in DNA and required for our bodies to develop
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I believe some of the best earliest examples used to establish this - were in examining the DNA of fruit flies.

It could be observed that specific mutations on specific parts of the DNA sequence corresponded to specific mutations in the fly's development (e.g. vestigial wings)

again specific code literally specifies how wings should develop

That's pretty basic, but research has come a long way and many specific genetic identifiers are known and used in forensics- inherited traits etc.

I don't like to send people down rabbit holes with links, but there is tons of info on this-

where it gets controversial is in exactly how much is specified & how much is junk- because again- when info is encoded it's very difficult to tell- we produce a lot of info that is encoded specifically to look like junk when it is not- so it's ongoing

The larger point being; there is obviously a great deal of specified info present in DNA and required for our bodies to develop
and you have as of yet to show why it cannot arise naturally.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Pure nonsense.

Not understanding how information enters the genome does not refute evolution. You example of "blue eyes" is an excellent example. That can be traced to one simple mutation of a specific gene:
https://www.allaboutvision.com/en-gb/resources/blue-eye-colour/

No need for an intelligent designer. Once again: Variation and natural selection.

yes, that was exactly my point

random control gene mutations work fine where constrained to a pre-determined range of viable options.
The text style parameters in this software being another example-

It's essentially the watchmaker argument:
you don't need an intelligent designer for the hands to move, do you? it's all part of the automated system

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin

If anything the opposite argument can be better made
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
and you have as of yet to show why it cannot arise naturally.

debatable, but for the sake of argument- let's say I can't

where does that leave us?

A hierarchical digital specified information system :

arising through intelligent design?: unmbiguously proven, we are using proof of that right now

through naturalistic mechanism? unproven


Of course that is not to say it's impossible, it's just not scientifically verified to the same extent

I don't think there is any slam dunk argument either way, i'm just looking for the least improbable explanation- regardless of the implications for any world view.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I believe some of the best earliest examples used to establish this - were in examining the DNA of fruit flies.

It could be observed that specific mutations on specific parts of the DNA sequence corresponded to specific mutations in the fly's development (e.g. vestigial wings)

If specific mutations can alter the specified information in an organism's DNA, then it seems like evolution gives rise to specified information, doesn't it?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Once again, if it specifies something beyond itself-

to use Dawkins' working example-

you tell me

" WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P" - is a bunch of letters

"METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" - is also a bunch of letters

which one can we determine contains specified information?
Sorry, that's just an example, not a definition. The second string is presumed to have "meaning" because it is a recognizable sentence in the English language. As to the first string, it is impossible to tell.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
yes, that was exactly my point

random control gene mutations work fine where constrained to a pre-determined range of viable options.
The text style parameters in this software being another example-

It's essentially the watchmaker argument:
you don't need an intelligent designer for the hands to move, do you? it's all part of the automated system

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin

If anything the opposite argument can be better made
No, you don't get it. All changes in evolution are "constrained". All it takes for life to evolve are changes upon changes upon changes, all run through the filter of natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
debatable, but for the sake of argument- let's say I can't

where does that leave us?

A hierarchical digital specified information system :

arising through intelligent design?: unmbiguously proven, we are using proof of that right now

through naturalistic mechanism? unproven


Of course that is not to say it's impossible, it's just not scientifically verified to the same extent

I don't think there is any slam dunk argument either way, i'm just looking for the least improbable explanation- regardless of the implications for any world view.

No, not debatable. Repeated failures does not equal success.

And there is no evidence for intelligent design. IDer's cannot even define their terms properly. When they do they end up supporting evolution as you have.

And at best ID only argues for controlled evolution. By using this argument you are accepting the fact that you are an ape. I thought that you disagreed with that. ID only works with a common ancestor.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
debatable, but for the sake of argument- let's say I can't

where does that leave us?

A hierarchical digital specified information system :

arising through intelligent design?: unmbiguously proven, we are using proof of that right now.
But does the proof lie in the observation that it is an "hierarchical digital specified information system?" I don't think so. Your proof relies on your assumption that an "hierarchical digital specified information system" can only arise through intelligent design.

through naturalistic mechanism? unproven


Of course that is not to say it's impossible, it's just not scientifically verified to the same extent

I don't think there is any slam dunk argument either way, i'm just looking for the least improbable explanation- regardless of the implications for any world view.
Yeah, sure.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Getting back to the topic of the thread on cognitive dissonance. I am always harping on creationists to learn what is and what is not evidence. The refusal to understand that concept is a defense mechanism so that they can maintain cognitive dissonance. If one truly understood why there is no evidence for one's beliefs and that there is evidence for another is extremely harmful to cd, so creationists put up walls to that understanding.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
IDer's cannot even define their terms properly.

I find it fascinating that any time "specified information" comes up in these discussions, nobody ever refers back to Dembski, even though his the one who got the ball rolling in the context of ID.

Which IMHO speaks to how little impact Dembski's work has had even among those arguing for ID. :/
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, not debatable. Repeated failures does not equal success.

And there is no evidence for intelligent design. IDer's cannot even define their terms properly. When they do they end up supporting evolution as you have.

And at best ID only argues for controlled evolution. By using this argument you are accepting the fact that you are an ape. I thought that you disagreed with that. ID only works with a common ancestor.

Again the information systems themselves are the objective evidence for intelligent design- no matter the context- argue that with secular scientists at SETI if you like, they are willing to base conclusions on evidence for unknown beings on alien planets- from their information alone, even if they can't decode it.

And just FYI, ID does not in itself refute common ancestry- not that I am a card carrying 'ID' guy

I am skeptical of Darwinian evolution first and foremost, for the same reason people were skeptical of the classical physics it was born out of:

a handful of simple immutable laws +lots of time and space to bump around in.. is simply insufficient. Much more specified info is required up front

This does not necessarily require God, in fact I increasingly hear it used as a secular argument - along the lines of:

'we have no need for Divine intervention, much of the necessary genetic information was pre-existing, & only needed 'activated' at later stages'- that's fine but Darwinism it ain't.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Again the information systems themselves are the objective evidence for intelligent design- no matter the context- argue that with secular scientists at SETI if you like, they are willing to base conclusions on evidence for unknown beings on alien planets- from their information alone, even if they can't decode it.

SETI isn't looking for information. SETI is about finding signals that do not appear to have natural sources based on the properties of the signals themselves.

Whether the signals contain information is irrelevant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, that's just an example, not a definition. The second string is presumed to have "meaning" because it is a recognizable sentence in the English language. As to the first string, it is impossible to tell.

you cannot tell that the second line has meaning?
 
Upvote 0