You tell your evomyth of creation, but you do not define information, nor do you make any case for your previous definition. Your only progress in misinforming is to try to paint an association between lack of heat and information. Might help if you figure out what order is, and quit trying to use it as a synonym for information.
You may not like the ‘synonym’ but it works. They are not the same but they are closely related.
I'll tell you what I like. I like clear, meaningful communication. I dislike confusion, and attempts to promote it. You may not like it, but debunking is what I choose to do with some of my time.
In a plasma particles are disconnected, they don’t form structures at all, not even atoms, so virtually no information, virtually no order exists or persists. As that plasma cools matter forms, ordered structures capable of forming bonds and holding information.
You explain that order is a
prerequisite for information. That does not make them synonymous.
What do you call the distance from the sun to mercury?
Is that not information?[/]
It is not.
What is it then?
What is it once someone measures it and writes it down? Does it magically become information once it is in a mind? Does the tree make a sound in the forest if no one is watching when it falls?
[i]What do you call the distance between mineral grains in the rocks of Mercury?
Is that not information?
Of course not.
What is it then?
What is it once someone measures it and writes it down?
Sounds like you want to define 'information' as properties of matter. (Or energy. Don't need to leave a door open for dopey insults. How 'bout I just say 'stuff', and leave it at that.)
If not what is information?
It would be unfair of me to give a definition. You are using the term, and no definition I know will work. So anything I offer will make your statements false.
Not true. I have slowly fleshed out what I believe order is and what I believe information is what I don’t understand is what you think they are.
It is true indeed. Any extant definition of which I am aware will result in falsehood when plugged into one or more of your earlier statements in this thread.
Any.
Information is either ‘that which a mind holds about the world around it’ or it is ‘the raw information on which those impressions are formed’. Personally I hold to the latter.
Naturally. As an evolutionist, I expect you're drawn to its circular nature.
Information is the raw order on which mind impressions, ideas etc are formed. The distance between the sun and the earth is information regardless of whether someone notices it. It was information before there were humans, it is so today now that humans have measured and recorded it and it will remain so once human and their minds have ceased to exist.
And this fails. It totally fails as a practical definition for everyday (or anyday) usage. It fails to plug into your statements and result in truth.
In everyday use, it's just junk. There are just as many atoms in a blot of ink, often more, than in something legibly printed. If information is just the distances between the atoms, this fails. Such a yardstick yields more information on a billboard than in a book. But the larger an object, the more atoms it contains. More atoms means more potential distances to be measured.
In earlier statements it fails fairly obviously.
Then I have to suggest that you really do need to do some research on how ToE works, on what we actually know about evolution in the wild and in the lab. We know beyond all doubt that random elements play a part in evolution and that they along with natural selection build new information into organisms. No matter how much some here deny it this is beyond all reasonable doubt. Now no one can say that god does not play a part here, maybe he set things going, maybe he gives that randomness a push at times, who knows, but there’s no evidence to support either idea while we directly observe random events in DNA adding information and adding to the design of new features of organisms.
That'll never fly.
Looking at the number of atoms, and objects composed of atoms, it's easy to see that the way to maximize "information" by such a standard would be if all the atoms paired off. This would give the potential to measure distances between the individual atoms plus half again their number (measuring the "objects").
Now this could be broken down further to subatomic particles, but the principle is the same.
In a plasma particles are disconnected, they don’t form structures at all, not even atoms, so virtually no information, virtually no order exists or persists.
Of course breaking down the particles would actually increase the number of factiods-about-particles in one sense, but it would reduce the number of factiods-about-particle-groups. But there's clearly some inconsistency. If information is defined along the lines of "things that could potentially be said about stuff", what need is there for the stuff itself to be capable of sustaining records of this "information"? If the "information" doesn't "persist", what happens to it?
Indeed, how can any information ever cease or decrease? It is believed that particles convert to energy, specifically light in most cases. Now do the waves of light not give us many, many, more factiods to play with? Could we not imagine tracking each individual wave, peak-to-peak-to-peak-to-peak, etc. for a lot more mileage than a single particle?
You have explained above that you take it to be something else. So what is it CTD. Put your money where your mouth is, what is the distance between the earth and the sun if no one has noticed it? Is it information?
It is a property of the solar system. Any description of the property would be information, but the property itself is not information.
A huge defect in your definition is that it excludes your own posts. Any practical definition must include misinformation and disinformation in its broad sense, and exclude them in its narrow sense by contrast. They never even enter the picture. They are excluded right from the get-go.
Language is excluded as well. No point in studying German, eh? No properties of physical particles there.
It is information/order of this sort that drives evolution.
As we've seen, the religion is built upon circular reasoning, misdefining terms, bogus assumptions, imagination, and logical fallacies.
If the mountains are steep creatures able to climb them may have an advantage and be selected for, they will pass on their abilities by the simple fact that they survive and breed. By this extraction by evolutionary means of information unnoticed by minds mountain goats are shaped. If the distance between the sun and the earth is not information is it order? What is it that you call this stuff that drives evolution that is the shape and arrangement of this world and its parts? Or have you not thought hard enough about this question to find a name for it that suits your world view?
You do produce propaganda, I must say. Some time, would you mind producing something worth the time it takes to read it?
Or you may provide a mockworthy definition...
Yes I understand that mocking is pretty much all you have to contribute to this discussion but I’ll give you another chance to be a productive party to it. Can you actually do this CTD?
Sometimes being productive consists of thwarting the intentions of the destructive. One tries, but I confess it gets fairly boring sometimes. The lack of challenge & all...
Look at this jumble. It has nothing to do with what I said. I took R2's own statement and showed that it logically means life must be created. He responds with this, after he himself said meaningful information requires a mind.
I understand that that was your intent but did you succeed? I would have to suggest that you did not.
Suggest the moon is a purple bomb for all the difference it makes. The code in DNA is meaningful. You said meaningful information requires a mind. Now if you wanted to argue that the code wasn't meaningful, you should have done so. Instead, you composed a meaningless mess which conveniently serves as a an example of contrast. I should not venture prematurely to say whether said meaningless mess
requires a mind.
You may define everything as needing a creator such as you have in your statement that the comet now requires one but that is one of the claims you are trying to prove. Can you? Prove that the comet needs a creator? You have to before you can just throw that idea out there as a given.
I didn't throw an idea out as a given. It derives directly from your statement that meaningful information requires a mind. You then proceeded to define the trajectory of the comet as "meaningful". Or claim I was doing so. You got lost after a couple of sentences.
We are back to trying to define information and you don’t seem to be able to do it.
It's already been done. That you need a new definition to make your evocase has been clear for a very long time. The ones that already exist won't do.
For me information is the details of the order that exists in our universe. That order appears to have come into existence as the universe cooled and matter formed bonds and accumulations in this universe. When minds observe that information and form ideas from it they assign it meaning. There is no meaning in DNA except that which we give it by observing it. DNA and the machinery of our cells are mechanistic, they have no idea what the DNA says they just slavishly follow the sequence in much the same way as a Pianola does with a roll of paper with holes in it.
That information can be interpreted by something other than a mind does not alter its status as information. I gave two examples of machines interpreting meaningful codes. You give another. Yet you do not and cannot remove the meaning. Such-and-such signal means "increase throttle". Such-and-such series of 0's and 1's means "terminate program". Such-and-such hole means "play this note".
If we change the code or if a mutation does the machinery of our cells will produce new or altered proteins regardless of whether they make any sense or have any meaning and natural selection will select for or against this new creature based on how well it survives and reproduces and thus it will test the new DNA sequence against the information of the real world in which the creature exists. If it passes this test this new DNA sequence will be passed on to the next generation. If it is more successful than the other DNA sequences out there it will come to dominate that gene pool over time no meaning required.
You shouldn't mix your propaganda so thoroughly with your argument. It makes both unintelligible. If you have anything beyond your claim that it works for evolutionism so it must be meaningless, try to present it in a less meaningless form.
By his new twist the comet requires a creator too. The distraction buys nothing. It's rather odd that we haven't heard of the "comet code", if comets contain the same type of meaningful information as DNA. At least with such logic, we can expect to be entertained if he ever gets around to defining 'information'.
Yes I’ve already gathered that you can’t or more probably won’t tell us what you think information is. This is obviously a purposeful tactic so that you can go on banging around the edges of these discussions without really getting into the guts of what is being discussed. I wonder why that is CTD?
I already told you that definitions exist. You can't pick one that works. You can't seem to invent one either, resorting to defining it in a circle and trying to confuse it with 'order'.
Computers run programs without any understanding too, but that's just too easy an analogy, and may or may not involve play.
It’s actually a perfectly appt analogy. Computers don’t think or feel or understand they just run programs as the famous kids movie once said. Computers can also use random number generators...
Programmers employ pseudorandom number generation. These numbers operate within the design parameters of the program.
...and evolutionary algorithms...
Written by whom?
...to write new code more efficient and faster than human programmers can write. When analysed many of these programs don’t conform to the norms of programming the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices used, the code should not work and no one actually understands how it works in many cases yet it does and it works very well.
If they don't understand it, it's kind of unlikely they're qualified to say it shouldn't work.
Who writes this junk for you?
Evidently they consider it impossible that variation would render them inert.
Anyhow, your propaganda is meaningless in the real world, as usual.
No, no one suggested that variation would not render them inert, {snip}
You say ANY self-replicating molecule would produce life. Nobody believes this. Absolutely nobody, unless they just take some liar's word for it.
And neither do I and, of course I didn’t say it. {snip}
Did so.
Post #42427
But of course we are not talking about computers are we. Life does not require a programmer, the environment programs life. Those organisms who can do those who can’t die exactly the same way that those computer programs I mentioned above work. Self replication is all that is required and the rest is up to evolution. Random chance plays a part the natural selection, which is a lawful process, is the real driver of evolutionary change. Dispite Russ T’s ignoring it Natural Selection has been observed, it does exist and it does work. Once replication exists ‘benficial’ changes accumulate and ‘detrimental’ ones are removed from the environment just as ToE suggests.
And in the same post he denies the error, he repeats it.
Any self replicating molecule will undergo evolution which may result in it going extinct quickly.
So why did he bother to deny it in the first place? It is perfectly possible for at least some of the molecules to go inert right off the bat. And he already provided us with evolutionists insisting that unchanging replicators would be incapable of changing into life (which is practically the only kind they've got).
This article does not resolve the issue for you. It does not address "my complaint". These people state a requirement. They do not say that this is the only requirement. They do not state that the synthetic replicators could evolve into life. They just point out that unchanging replicators would be incapable of changing into life. Duh!
Duh exactly. The authors of this article state that the replicators they worked with were observed to change.
Remind you of anyone? This constant flip-flopping, I mean.
So let’s break this down, the only sort of replicator that is ‘incapable of changing into life’ is an unchanging replicator and these authors describe their observations of changing replicators.
Wrong. There are dozens of obstacles,
all well-known.
Just look at the brazenly bad logic. Let's say we're shopping for shoes. We know that shoes without laces won't do. Does this mean
any shoe with laces will be a perfect fit, look good, be priced right, match our clothes, (and a much, much longer laundry list), and meet our requirements? It most assuredly does not!
But R2 claims that since some molecule meets one of the many requirements, it therefore meets them all. Just look again:
So let’s break this down, the only sort of replicator that is ‘incapable of changing into life’ is an unchanging replicator and these authors describe their observations of changing replicators.
What was really said was that
one sort of molecule that won't work is the unchanging sort.
That was the windup. Here's the pitch.
...In other words replicators that are not limited by this issue to being incapable of changing into life. Is there some other problem you see with them that would prevent them evolving into life other than that it does not say so in the bible?
Of course, that'd have to be it. The only reason to reject bad logic is the Bible? I can think of a few others, but
any will do, and that includes my Bible.
But this DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your own statement
Self replication is all that is required and the rest is up to evolution.
You are ignoring the fact that we already know that there are more than one type of self replicator and that some of them change from generation to generation.
Does it look like I ignored any relevant information? Looks more like a false accusation thrown in to divert people's attention from the DIRECT CONTRADICTION right in front of their eyes.
If
any self-replicators are DQ'd, the statement that
any self-replicator will succeed is false. Right out of the gate, it ain't happenin'. Slam-dunked by his own source. Anyone surprised?
It’s a given that this is true so even if some self replicators don’t change evolution will continue with those that do. Given that one of the already observed changes was a change for increased speed of replication those which do not change will be swamped by those which do and replaced by simple weight of numbers. That’s evolution in action right there no life required.
No life? Must not be counting the life that created these things & cared for them, spending who-knows-how-much money in the process.
Of course, I'm a bad boy for pointing any of this out.
So like so many of your complaints this one does not pan out. My statements did not contradict each other one was simply more complete than the other. I don’t always give every detail in every post, I assume (maybe foolishly) that all the readers here are clever enough to look at the big picture, to remember things that have been said before so I don’t have to spell out every single step every single time. In the paragraph that you mined that quote from I went on to explain that random chance was part of “Evolution” and that Natural Selection was part of “Evolution”. You can’t just ignore that word, I put it in the sentence and went on to detail it further, for a reason CTD.
Well, I've "mined" the whole paragraph now. But if you think you can fool folks at this late date, or just like demonstrating the symptoms of evosickness, go right ahead.
*Consider the irony of this blunder, just as an unreasonably strict requirement for absolute perfection is being applied to HY's book.
I never asked for ‘absolute perfection’ from this book, it would be interesting if he got anything at all right, if so that one thing would be worthy of discussion IMHO. Did he? Can you point to one thing that he got right in his book CTD?
That's not my department. When attempts are made to shift burdens of proof, it's not my job to jump in and fall victim to the childish tricks. I trust Dicky-D & crew have done their level best, and it just doesn't impress me in the way you desire. I actually find it fairly impressive that a book of that size was produced with only 3 mistakes. (I don't count "failure to assume evolutionism = truth" as a mistake; quite the opposite.)
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
