Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

Do you ever get tired of dragging out these old PRATT arguments?
Do you know who exposed Haeckel? Other scientists. You see, science is self correcting. It's one of it's greatest strengths. It corrects its mistakes. You do not. You've been shown to be in error when it comes to irreducible complexity, yet you hold onto that argument. I consider that to be intellectually dishonest.

"Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

Again, you are shown to be in error here. The question is, will you correct yourself?

I'm not in error, the Haeckel pictures are not irrelevant to whether your textbooks contain bald-faced lies, and in this case "science" didn't self correct.

"Science" doesn't do anything. Scientists have the incumbency to speak the verifiable truth, and most do so most of the time. That's great, and laudable.

How could I have been shown to be in error about irreducible complexity when you havent even told us what you think irreducible complexity is?

Was it you that mentioned intellectual dishonesty?

I don't remember.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read the quoted material? If there are refutations they should be easy to find. I tried and didn't find any but you should be able to. Give it a try.

I see that you either did not read or understand my post. Please go back and read it again. I did not try to refute anything because there was nothing posted that merited a refutation.

Again you claim ignorance, and that's fine. It's just that it's an incongruent claim juxtaposed to your often repeated admonition to "learn something". Are you saying I should shut up about it because I don't have a terminal degree in the relevant field? Then it follows that you should shut up as well. So should Krauss, and so should Harris, and so should....

No, again, I asked for clarification. You better work on the reading comprehension.

The "So what?" Is that your claim that I used the term "information" in the wrong sense. I did not, and I knew that going in. It seems that you're pretty immune to getting slapped in the face by your own mistakes, which then necessitates me trudging through the process of spelling it out.

No, you have not been able to show that you used "information" in the correct sense yet. You have a single peer reviewed paper, if it is even that. I have not even bothered to look at it since you presented no real argument.

What I think this paper, and many others, and the considered conclusions of the bulk of educated people in the relevant disciplines is, that DNA is an example of both main categories of information.

Sorry but you have failed to do so in any meaningful way at all.

This is a quote from a respected atheist physicist:

"There's a very broad definition of infomation that is used in physics that is basically 'any property of a system', for example, a cloud of gas falling into a black hole results in a loss of information - you cannot retrieve the configuration of the cloud to recreate it.

But there's more narrow definition about codifying sequences of events. Wiki has a defintion: "any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system." but I'm not sure it needs to affects a dynamic system.

What's been bugging me is that I cannot find an example of information (in the codified instructions sense) that does not involve life."


So, I agree with his conclusion. Is that an acceptable conclusion?

No, he is a physicist and biology is out of his area of expertise. His comment only shows that he does not understand biology. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. He is far from being an expert in the area that you are trying to use him in.

Also it appears that you got that quote from here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-dna-information.502160/

He explains how DNA is not the sort of information that you are trying to claim it is. In other words you quote mined. That is where someone takes a quote out of context to try to support an argument that the quote does not support in context. In fact you went 100% against what he meant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know he's a physicist?

Here is the source of the quote. The writer of the quote disagrees with Pater Familia:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-dna-information.502160/

 

[lasthero]

Here is the source of the quote. The writer of the quote disagrees with Pater Familia:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-dna-information.502160/

I know, I found it. I just found it off that the 'well respected atheist physicist' was a guy on a message board. It'd be like calling Dad a 'well-respected theologian'. He might very well be, but how you gleam that on a message board is beyond me.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hi I am on a mobile phone at the moment so I will not be able to write well. I looked up all of your links, I saw no evolution at all just a bunch of lizards. You go have a strong good look at those fossils and tell me where evolution is occurring.

I'm curious about what timeline you believe in for all of the different humanoid species that led to homo sapiens. How do you explain the fossil record? When do you believe that homo habilis fossils or the Peking Man date from, for example, and why do you think God created so many different human-like species? Which ones do you think had souls, for that matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not in error, the Haeckel pictures are not irrelevant to whether your textbooks contain bald-faced lies, and in this case "science" didn't self correct.

But they are not "bald faced lies". Haeckel made one error that he corrected in later editions where one image was used twice. He was wrong about his conclusions but embryology still supports the theory of evolution. He was wrong in his claim of "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" but he was not wrong about embryos supporting evolution. Creationists hate the fact that embryology supports evolution so the try to slime Haeckel.

"Science" doesn't do anything. Scientists have the incumbency to speak the verifiable truth, and most do so most of the time. That's great, and laudable.

Once again he was being colloquial. If you want it stated more formally: "Scientists using the scientific method correct the errors of previous scientists". I am sorry that you are such a literalist. If you don't understand someone that proper thing to do is to ask questions politely. If you understood him there is no excuse for that post.

How could I have been shown to be in error about irreducible complexity when you havent even told us what you think irreducible complexity is?

Because we have seen it from others. But go ahead. What is your definition of that failed idea?

Was it you that mentioned intellectual dishonesty?

I don't remember.

Yes, we debate with creationists all of the time. Sooner or later they are going to show extreme intellectual dishonesty, or did you forget your fail with the quote that you did not link properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know, I found it. I just found it off that the 'well respected atheist physicist' was a guy on a message board. It'd be like calling Dad a 'well-respected theologian'. He might very well be, but how you gleam that on a message board is beyond me.

Not quite. Physics forums has actual physicists on it. I know one that has done work in the field personally. In his professional career he has worked on several different applications of physics. His company was working for NASA on the ISS though they have changed projects now. This was someone that was recognized for how he helped others there with understanding physics. Also the important point is that that physicist has the same claim on DNA as I have. He tried to explain it to others there that it was not information in Pater's sense.

 

[Paterfamilia]

There is no such animal.

Here is an honest question: What reasonable test would falsify "ID theory"?

First off, thanks for your citations and cartoons and all. I have read the refutations, and they do have some merit. But I don't think they carry the day. I mean, goodness man, how many tsunamis carrying bathtubs and coincidental lightning bolts can there be?

The reasonable test that would falsify an offer of ID would be if a thing actually contained or comprised no intelligent information. If it doesn't, then ID doesn't can't cash out as the source.

If a thing contains or comprises intelligent information, then we have to consider the possibility of an intelligent source of that thing, since in our common and universal experience, any example of intelligent information does have an intelligent causal agent.

If we trained our telescopes on Mars, and observed a 10 meter wide and two meter deep trench, that described a one hundred meter long semi-circle, superscripted by two vertical trenches ten meters wide, 20 meters long, perpendicular to and symmetric to the center point of the semi-circle, 30 meters apart, (picture a humongous smiley face ) we would probably not make the attribution to natural forces as its cause for existence.

And can you imagine the conspiracy theories??

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know he's a physicist?

One more point. It is fairly clear that he is a physicist. But why did he compliment him and call him an "atheist physicist"? I don't think that religious discussions are allowed on PF.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Not quite. Physics forums has actual physicists on it. I know one that has done work in the field personally. In his professional career he has worked on several different applications of physics. His company was working for NASA on the ISS though they have changed projects now. This was someone that was recognized for how he helped others there with understanding physics. Also the important point is that that physicist has the same claim on DNA as I have. He tried to explain it to others there that it was not information in Pater's sense.

No, he actually did the opposite. But I do sincerely appreciate your honest support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off, thanks for your citations and cartoons and all. I have read the refutations, and they do have some merit. But I don't think they carry the day. I mean, goodness man, how many tsunamis carrying bathtubs and coincidental lightning bolts can there be?

Your opinion on what will carry the day has been shown to be worthless. And for you to fully check that out you need to do more than to watch the cartoon which is just a synopsis, though a very good one, of the paper that it was based upon.

The reasonable test that would falsify an offer of ID would be if a thing actually contained or comprised no intelligent information. If it doesn't, then ID doesn't can't cash out as the source.

Sorry but you have nothing there. You have undefined terms and a unreasonable test. As it is we could say that DNA falsifies your "theory" since you have not shown that DNA as we see it had to come from an intelligence. You need to try again.

If a thing contains or comprises intelligent information, then we have to consider the possibility of an intelligent source of that thing, since in our common and universal experience, any example of intelligent information does have an intelligent causal agent.

If we trained our telescopes on Mars, and observed a 10 meter wide and two meter deep trench, that described a one hundred meter long semi-circle, superscripted by two vertical trenches ten meters wide, 20 meters long, perpendicular to and symmetric to the center point of the semi-circle, 30 meters apart, (picture a humongous smiley face ) we would probably not make the attribution to natural forces as its cause for existence.

And can you imagine the conspiracy theories??

Yes, but that still does not apply to DNA, and DNA falsifies your theory as you have defined it.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I see that you either did not read or understand my post. Please go back and read it again. I did not try to refute anything because there was nothing posted that merited a refutation.


No, again, I asked for clarification. You better work on the reading comprehension.



No, you have not been able to show that you used "information" in the correct sense yet. You have a single peer reviewed paper, if it is even that. I have not even bothered to look at it since you presented no real argument.



Sorry but you have failed to do so in any meaningful way at all.




No, he is a physicist and biology is out of his area of expertise. His comment only shows that he does not understand biology. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. He is far from being an expert in the area that you are trying to use him in.

Also it appears that you got that quote from here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-dna-information.502160/

He explains how DNA is not the sort of information that you are trying to claim it is. In other words you quote mined. That is where someone takes a quote out of context to try to support an argument that the quote does not support in context. In fact you went 100% against what he meant.

I do appreciate your posts; don't get me wrong. But you have communicated a refusal to engage the real arguments so many times, and refused to read any of my cited sources that have all been secular, that I feel utterly released from any responsibility to take anything you say very seriously.

Additionally, when we read the exact same quote, which clearly says "philosophy", and you stridently claim that it says "Philadelphia", and then you say I am resorting to the irresponsible tactics that you yourself employ, I do have to chuckle and relax a bit.

If this is all you got, I don't have anything to worry about.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yes, but that still does not apply to DNA, and DNA falsifies your theory as you have defined it

Ha ha ha ha!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do appreciate your posts; don't get me wrong. But you have communicated a refusal to engage the real arguments so many times, and refused to read any of my cited sources that have all been secular, that I feel utterly released from any responsibility to take anything you say very seriously.

Additionally, when we read the exact same quote, which clearly says "philosophy", and you stridently claim that it says "Philadelphia", and then you say I am resorting to the irresponsible tactics that you yourself employ, I do have to chuckle and relax a bit.

If this is all you got, I don't have anything to worry about.

Please don't act foolish. These have been your problems far more than they have been mine. I have had to explain more than once the clear meaning of post to you. You engage in word salad and other nonsense. We all know that you are wrong since your heroes have all been shown to be wrong. But that is not a reason that you can't at least try to make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha ha ha!

I see that post was beyond your understanding. We know how new "information", it is actually more accurate to say "new traits" enter the genome. No intelligence is necessary. Since you failed to demonstrate any intelligence at all is needed for DNA then DNA alone refutes your argument. You need to properly define your terms. You nee to cut back on the word salad.

There is a time for colloquialism and a time for clarity. You have not been clear when needed and you have not understood colloquialisms when they were properly used.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Please don't act foolish. These have been your problems far more than they have been mine. I have had to explain more than once the clear meaning of post to you. You engage in word salad and other nonsense. We all know that you are wrong since your heroes have all been shown to be wrong. But that is not a reason that you can't at least try to make sense.

If I misunderstand your meaning, I ask for clarification. What's wrong with that???

And I go to all of your citations. Most I read or watched long ago, so I am familiar with them.

What I would like to see, by weight of logical presentation, or factual refutation (not simple agitated apoplectic accusations), your answers to my assertions.

I have to go play with the kids but I will check in later.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Paterfamilia]

I see that post was beyond your understanding. We know how new "information", it is actually more accurate to say "new traits" enter the genome. No intelligence is necessary. Since you failed to demonstrate any intelligence at all is needed for DNA then DNA alone refutes your argument. You need to properly define your terms. You nee to cut back on the word salad.

There is a time for colloquialism and a time for clarity. You have not been clear when needed and you have not understood colloquialisms when they were properly used.

Ha ha ha ha you say the silliest things!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, he actually did the opposite. But I do sincerely appreciate your honest support.

No, you misused him as a source in several ways, unfortunately I have to run for a few hours. I promise I will get back to this.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Sorry but you have nothing there. You have undefined terms and a unreasonable test. As it is we could say that DNA falsifies your "theory" since you have not shown that DNA as we see it had to come from an intelligence. You need to try again.

One last thing, and this is a good point (it's a shame I have to wade through so much vitriol to find a relevant nugget), I have not, nor have I attempted to show "that DNA as we see it had to come from an intelligence."

Not there yet.

 

[Nithavela]