08 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI know what a strawman is, so it would be more helpful if you simply told us where you thought we were misrepresenting you and what you think the original argument is.
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
08 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, it wasn't RJs definition, it was your interpretation of what you think RJ was saying.
I am trying to determine what your definition of 'information' is.
[b]So if DNA is only information if I intend it to be information, then it would be information? What does that mean?
Its RJ's definition, that you claim has no contradictions in, yet you don't understand it? You say that I didn't point out contradictions, yet you apparently didn't understand what either I or RJ said?[/b]
Those were your words I was working with, not RJs. You're either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what RJ is saying, and then finding contradictions with those misinterpretations. And if anyone can confirm or deny this, don't you think that person would be RJ himself?
I can't speak for him and neither can you, but we can at least put SOME effort into understanding what he said, can't we? Frankly, IMO misinterpreting is better than misrepresenting... I have little patience with people who intentionally 'misinterpret'.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, the problem as I see it is that both you and KazetNagorra started off by treating that observation as being "trivial".
So when I threw letters on the floor, they were not information until I read them, but if I intended them to be information then they would be? Would they be information even if they didn't spell any English words, but I still intended them to be information?
It sounds to me that you are defining information in such a way that the original claim is tru ...[text shortened]... formation' just because nobody intended them to be interpreted by the cell is irrelevant.
You both want to control the information here (or data if you prefer) to be limited, and one way to do that is too treat an opposing point of view as being "trivial". You actually do believe throwing letters on the floor can self assemble into a meaningful pattern if given enough time, do you not? Isn't that one of the underlying premises of evolution? If you don't believe that, then how can you believe evolution is at all possible? Time is the magic ingredient that makes anything possible, even random letters on a floor eventually forming intelligible words and phrases.
If this isn't something you believe, then I will need to assume the theory itself has evolved and looks nothing like it did only a few short years ago. Are a few short years enough time for the theory itself to evolve? I think the answer to that is, of course it can... because anything is possible.
08 Jun 13
The phrase "given enough time anything is possible" does not give permission to ignore any particular fact of science. It may imply something could be possible if given enough time, but this is not in and of itself a fact or established principle of science.
It's the sort of mumbo jumbo reasoning evolutionists say creationists indulge in. IMO we wouldn't even be here talking about any of this if creationists hadn't left the confines you wanted them to stay in. If creationists are peeking behind the curtain to see just who this wizard of oz really is that's your problem. You should have put up an iron door instead of a curtain.
08 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't appear to have sufficient intelligence to understand the original argument.
I know what a strawman is, so it would be more helpful if you simply told us where you thought we were misrepresenting you and what you think the original argument is.
DNA is an information storage medium, not information itself. DNA is used to store information in the form of genomes by every living organism on Earth. I already told you to think of it like a hard drive on a computer and the information code in the DNA would be like the computer code that Microsoft uses, however, as Bill Gates has already pointed out, the code in the DNA is much more complicated than any that man has devised.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic
The instructor
09 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeFor the record, I do not deliberately misinterpret anyone. I do think however that RJ just makes it up as he goes along, and trying to understand his exact meaning is a waste of time as he will have changed it by the next post anyway.
Frankly, IMO misinterpreting is better than misrepresenting... I have little patience with people who intentionally 'misinterpret'.
Well, the problem as I see it is that both you and KazetNagorra started off by treating that observation as being "trivial".
No, I don't think we did. I think we thought you were making a different claim and we challenged said claim.
You actually do believe throwing letters on the floor can self assemble into a meaningful pattern if given enough time, do you not?
It doesn't require belief. I have seen it happen with my own two eyes. You can try if for yourself if you want. Get hold of a scrabble set, or make your own set of letters, and throw them on the floor. I guarantee there will be at lest one English word.
Isn't that one of the underlying premises of evolution?
Yes. I see KazetNagorra said 'no' suggesting that we have slightly different interpretations of what you just said.
Time is the magic ingredient that makes anything possible, even random letters on a floor eventually forming intelligible words and phrases.
No, now you are going off track. I never said the letters rearrange themselves once on the floor. I said there would be some words in it the moment you threw the letters on the floor.
In evolution, rearrangement does happen - that's what sex is all about, and the topic of this thread. Although within genes, most rearrangement/change happens through mutation.
If you continuously shuffled the letters on the floor, then yes, many words would inevitably form. Feel free to try it for yourself.
Surely this contradicts your claim about 'information'? Or do I still not understand what you mean by information and what you actual claim was?
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSomething very similar is however an established principle of probability. If something is possible, no matter how unlikely, then it will happen, given enough time.
The phrase "given enough time anything is possible" does not give permission to ignore any particular fact of science. It may imply something could be possible if given enough time, but this is not in and of itself a fact or established principle of science.
What you stated however is not an established principle of science and I don't think you will find anyone claiming that it is.
09 Jun 13
KOriginally posted by twhiteheadI didn't say the letters rearrange themselves once on the floor either. You added something to what I said and it changed the meaning. I'm obviously talking about a series of events where letters are repeatedly tossed onto the floor. You are assuming I don't know one of the underlying premises of evolution you agreed with.
For the record, I do not deliberately misinterpret anyone. I do think however that RJ just makes it up as he goes along, and trying to understand his exact meaning is a waste of time as he will have changed it by the next post anyway.
[b]Well, the problem as I see it is that both you and KazetNagorra started off by treating that observation as being " ...[text shortened]... do I still not understand what you mean by information and what you actual claim was?
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe key to that principle as you stated it are the first 4 words. Something has to first be possible for the principle to be true.
Something very similar is however an established principle of probability. If something is possible, no matter how unlikely, then it will happen, given enough time.
What you stated however is not an established principle of science and I don't think you will find anyone claiming that it is.
However, if we assume anything is possible, then that principle becomes meaningless. For example, I imagine something no one (including myself) believes is possible. If I set it forth as a possibility, then no matter how unlikely, it will happen, given enough time. The logic breaks down if we forget to say "If something is possible." And if there is disagreement over what is or isn't possible, then there will always be people at threads like this wrangling over differences in opinion.
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, it was not obvious. I genuinely thought you were suggesting they rearranged themselves over time, partly because that would be a better analogy for evolution or abiogenesis.
I'm obviously talking about a series of events where letters are repeatedly tossed onto the floor.
You are assuming I don't know one of the underlying premises of evolution you agreed with.
I don't think I assumed that at all.
09 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeYou've lost me. Is there an argument in there somewhere? Is there something that you claim is possible, that I agree is impossible, yet claim will happen given enough time? Or are you presenting a counter argument to something nobody has actually given in this thread?
The key to that principle as you stated it are the first 4 words. Something has to first be possible for the principle to be true.
However, if we assume anything is possible, then that principle becomes meaningless. For example, I imagine something no one (including myself) believes is possible. If I set it forth as a possibility, then no matter how un then there will always be people at threads like this wrangling over differences in opinion.
Can you clarify what you believe is actually impossible?
09 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadRepeatedly tossing letters onto the floor until a word shows up does not mean we can expect to see that same word show up on the next throw. There is no incremental increase of probability. The probabilities remain the same with each throw.
For the record, I do not deliberately misinterpret anyone. I do think however that RJ just makes it up as he goes along, and trying to understand his exact meaning is a waste of time as he will have changed it by the next post anyway.
[b]Well, the problem as I see it is that both you and KazetNagorra started off by treating that observation as being "t do I still not understand what you mean by information and what you actual claim was?
Evolution assumes incremental increases from one generation to the next based on selection. Selection is based on how well some fortuitous change increases the chance of survival. But survival is a quality that cannot be measured by one tiny change after another over several generations. An organism needs to actually do something to increase its chance of survival. Tiny changes with potential for survival cannot be selected. Natural selection is not an intelligently guiding force... it does not recognise potential because it cannot recognise potential.
Evolution assumes tiny changes are retained and added to other tiny changes until something develops to a point where it can then be "selected". This is like expecting letters thrown on the floor to retain words until those words are eventually arranged into sentences and paragraphs.
The changes themelves are too small to account for an entire mechanism for survival to show up in only one generation. Even it was possible for all the elements that go into making a simple mechanism to show up at the same time, self assembled and ready to go, what is the chance of this happening only once? According to evolutionists it happens so frequently there should be no doubt about it.
09 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said "For example"... it was an example of flawed reasoning to illustrate how the logic breaks down if we skip over the part where it says IF something is possible. Saying IF something is possible does not mean the same as saying something IS possible.
You've lost me. Is there an argument in there somewhere? Is there something that you claim is possible, that I agree is impossible, yet claim will happen given enough time? Or are you presenting a counter argument to something nobody has actually given in this thread?
Can you clarify what you believe is actually impossible?
09 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you don't understand is that biology is not like throwing a set of scrabble letter in the air and one English word appearing on the floor by chance. It is more like an encyclopedia appearing after throwing a bunch of scrabble letters. Everything must be in it's proper order and communicate the intended information for the system to work.
You've lost me. Is there an argument in there somewhere? Is there something that you claim is possible, that I agree is impossible, yet claim will happen given enough time? Or are you presenting a counter argument to something nobody has actually given in this thread?
Can you clarify what you believe is actually impossible?
Also encoded in the encyclopedia is instructions on how the encyclopedia can reproduce more copies of itself. And that is just for starters.
The Instructor