Search This Blog

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Information? Is this an answer???!!!


Awhile back I took a post from this blog, filled it with links and content from other blogposts and put it on top of a links list.   I called it the !Ultimate Information Post.   Devoted Darwinists do not particularly care for this and often accuse me of censorship.   You can read their written accusations because they do it quite often.   I ask you, if I am a censor would I let people continually accuse me of it, or would I erase those comments?   Ah, Darwinists!   Anyway, recently I decided to open up a thread for them to give me the answer to a simple question, one they have gagged on for years:

The Great Darwinist Information Invitation

 

"I have a challenge for Darwinists.   Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information. "

 

Has this been answered?  Nope.  Of course the old "mutation and natural selection" was trotted out.  Hmm.  You see, you have to have information to build organisms that would be capable of mutation and enduring natural selection so that is not an answer at all.   Then data was proposed and naturally that was rejected.   Finally they began asking me questions instead of trying to answer.  Here is where it had come down to at around comment 100 or so because I had become bored of their continual evasions and rabbit trails.  So one of them gave me this:

 

"Anonymous whatsit said...
"Actually, you have all become boring. I would love to have people read these comments and see how Darwinists try to weasel out of the question.
[...]
You have nothing to say. You cannot answer the question." (whatsit was quoting me)

You're the one not answering the questions, as any reader of this thread can tell very easily:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information.

Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. (see above example and details)

Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.


You know you can't win this argument, don't you? That's why you have to run away and pretend to be "bored".

Thanks for conceding the argument."
Hmmm. I didn't see any answer in all that, did you?   Is there any attempt to give me a natural source for information?   Trust me, there is a trail of comments like this one, all apparently attempting to evade the question itself.

No, I am not being snarky, it is just that after 100 plus comments I hoped a Darwinist would identify a source of information from nature.   There must be a talking rock or a singing stone or a pool of magic words and numbers somewhere or else my assertion (which is the scientific one) is that information only comes from intelligence.   If we are organisms (mankind), we are also special organisms because we can think  abstractly and be marvelously creative and I would also assert that we have a spiritual component.   That component is longing for an answer to the meaning of life.   Hopefully even though you understand that you can think up and pass along information, you are aware that you did not create yourself?   If intelligence is inherent in all organisms (and it is) then intelligence was needed to create them.   Enter God the Creator of the Universe and life and all that is in existence.
   
Atheism will basically tell you that you will eat and drink and then you die.   Atheists will steal whatever moral code they like from the Bible and ignore the rest.   They will live by situational ethics or whatever they can get away with or ?   After all, if there is no God then there is no one to be responsible to and you can do as you please.  This is why Darwinism is so important to Atheism, because without it you have to acknowledge a Creator and responsibility to that Creator. 

Darwinism asserts that we have evolved from simpler forms (although they cannot explain where life comes from, either) and if you actually believe we are simply the result of chance bonkings of atoms and subatomic particles (oh, yes, they cannot tell you where matter comes from, either) then their thoughts are the thoughts they were evolved to think and they cannot help what they say because it is pre-determined by evolution!   Think about that for a moment...if you think you can actually think...hmmmmm...do you actually believe you have free will?   Or do you believe you have evolved?

While you are thinking (or being predetermined to think you are thinking) on that, let me clue you in to what real science is doing.    It is accepting that DNA is a wonderful coding structure and trying to work within that structure to advance science and bring a better life to mankind, just as God intended man to do.




Sigh.   So I am going to try to reason with you.   If we know that man is intelligent and can pass information back and forth even without transferring material in the process, doesn't that mean that information is not material?   Review the notepad and paper analogy.  Then review basic statements about information:

 
The following statements about information are true:

  • Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form.
  • Information containers can be quantified but the exact quality and quantity of the information within cannot be.
  • Information within DNA can be associated with specific portions of the DNA string, which enables us to quantify to some extent and identify to some extent the information contained within DNA.  But this is still a matter of identifying the container of information.   
  • No material or natural source for information has been identified.  Information within the genome is pre-existent and it is lost, it is mutated or it is transmitted but it is never created.

I have given Darwinists ample time and space to deal with these things.   To remind you of what the dictionary says (not a Creationist dictionary, just a dictionary):

Dictionary.com (that hangout for nasty old creationists)

in·for·ma·tion

[in-fer-mey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
6.
Law.
a.
an official criminal charge presented, usually by the prosecuting officers of the state, without the interposition of a grand jury.
b.
a criminal charge, made by a public official under oath before a magistrate, of an offense punishable summarily.
c.
the document containing the depositions of witnesses against one accused of a crime.
7.
(in information theory) an indication of the number of possible choices of messages, expressible as the value of some monotonic function of the number of choices, usually the logarithm to the base 2.
8.
Computers.
a.
important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by means of processing input data with a program: Using the input data, we have come up with some significant new information.
b.
data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage, transmission, etc.).

Origin:
1350–1400; ME: instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind <>See inform1, -ation
How about Merriam-Webster?

in·for·ma·tion

noun \ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\

Definition of INFORMATION

1
: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2
a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : intelligence, news (3) : facts, data b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3
: the act of informing against a person
4
: a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
~


knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance (DDC)
and
the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence (MWO)
 
Okay,  so it is obvious that whatsit is trying to take me down a rabbit trail.   His intent is evidently to try to get me to accept containers of information as being the information itself?   I am not entirely sure what he is attempting to accomplish but it is CERTAIN that he is NOT answering the question and in fact not one Darwinist commenter has an answer.  For this reason I quit trying to play whatever reindeer games he is attempting to play.
 
Intelligent Design is real science involved in studying the makeup of organisms and in doing so asserting that they are designed, so those designs are worth studying and copying.   Real science is learning to "speak" DNA and also learning to try to deal with mutations and fix them.
 
Now just to remind you that even bacteria are no help to Darwinists because their mutations are all negative:
 
 

Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?

 

Bacilli Bacteria
Click to enlarge
Bacteria are single-celled microorganisms, and most bacterial species are either spherical (called cocci) or rod-shaped (called bacilli). The 3D rendering on the left shows bacilli bacteria.

The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics—which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses—has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for several years. It is also heralded as a textbook example of evolution in action.

These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets as to how molecules-to-man evolution could have happened.
But are bacteria really evolving?

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

Antibiotics are natural substances secreted by bacteria and fungi to kill other bacteria that are competing for limited nutrients. (The antibiotics used to treat people today are typically derivatives of these natural products.) Scientists are dismayed to discover that some bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics through various alterations, or mutations, in their DNA.

Hospitals have become a breeding ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. These bacteria proliferate in an environment filled with sick people who have poor immune systems and where antibiotics have eliminated competing bacteria that are not resistant.

Bacteria that are resistant to modern antibiotics have even been found in the frozen bodies of people who died long before those antibiotics were discovered or synthesized.1

History of Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics were first discovered through a providential experiment by Alexander Fleming in 1928. His work eventually led to the large-scale production of penicillin from the mold Penicillium notatum in the 1940s. As early as the late 1940s resistant strains of bacteria began to appear.2 Currently, it is estimated that more than 70% of the bacteria that cause hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one of the antibiotics used to treat them.3
 
Antibiotic resistance continues to expand for a multitude of reasons, including over-prescription of antibiotics by physicians, non-completion of prescribed antibiotic treatments by patients, use of antibiotics in animals as growth enhancers (primarily by the food industry), increased international travel, and poor hospital hygiene.2

How Do Bacteria Become Resistant?

Bacteria can gain resistance through two primary ways:

1. By mutation, and
2. By using a built-in design feature to swap DNA (called horizontal gene transfer)—bacteria share resistance genes.

An antibiotic kills a bacterial cell by simply disrupting a critical function. This is achieved in the cell in much the same way that a saboteur can cause a massive jetliner to crash by simply cutting the hydraulic lines.

Bacilli Bacteria
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria only leads to a loss of functional systems. Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man.

The antibiotic binds to a protein so that the protein cannot function properly. The normal protein is usually involved in copying the DNA, making proteins, or making the bacterial cell wall—all important functions for the bacteria to grow and reproduce.

If the bacteria have a mutation in the DNA which codes for one of those proteins, the antibiotic cannot bind to the altered protein; and the mutant bacteria survive. In the presence of antibiotics, the process of natural selection will occur, favoring the survival and reproduction of the mutant bacteria. (The mutant bacteria are better able to survive in the presence of the antibiotic and will continue to cause illness in the patient.)

Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

Let’s look at a famous example to help clarify this. During the anthrax scare shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) was given to potential victims. Cipro belongs to a family of antibiotics known as quinolones, which bind to a bacterial protein called gyrase, decreasing the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. This allows the body’s natural immune defenses to overtake the infectious bacteria as they are reproducing at a slower rate. Quinolone-resistant bacteria have mutations in the genes encoding the gyrase protein. The mutant bacteria survive because the Cipro cannot bind to the altered gyrase.

This comes at a cost as quinolone-resistant bacteria reproduce more slowly.4, 5, 6 Resistance to this family of antibiotics is becoming a major problem with one type of bacteria which causes food poisoning. This bacteria increased its resistance to quinolones 10-fold in just five years.7

Bacteria can also become antibiotic resistant by gaining mutated DNA from other bacteria. Unlike you and me, bacteria can swap DNA. But this still is not an example of evolution in action. No new DNA is generated (a requirement for molecules-to-man evolution), it is just moved around. It’s like taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right pocket—it doesn’t make you wealthier. This mechanism of exchanging DNA is necessary for bacteria to survive in extreme or rapidly changing environments like a hospital (or like those found shortly after the Flood).8

What Does It Really Prove?

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Are all bacteria bad? Visit www.answersmagazine.com/go/bacteria-good-or-bad to find out.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. She is now a researcher and writer for Answers in Genesis-US, and she teaches online courses for Answers Education Online.

Footnotes

  1. Thompson, Burt, Bacterial antibiotic resistance­: proof of evolution? www.apologeticspress.org/articles/439. Back
  2. Antibiotic resistance:­ How did we get to this? the Fleming Forum, flemingforum.org.uk/slides/antibiotic_resistance.pdf. Back (1) Back (2)
  3. The problem of antimicrobial resistance, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/antimicro.htm/ Back
  4. Heddle, Jonathan and Anthony Maxwell, Quinolone-binding pocket of DNA gyrase: role of GyrB, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 46(6):1805–1815, 2002. Back
  5. Barnard, Faye and Anthony Maxwell, Interaction between DNA gyrase and quinolones: effects of alanine mutations at GyrA subunit residues Ser83 and Asp87, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 45(7):1994–2000, 2001. Back
  6. For a more technical review of antibiotic resistance see Anderson, Kevin, Is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change? Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4):318–326, 2005, www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/2005v41n4p318.pdf. Back
  7. Molbak, Kare, et al., Increasing quinolone resistance in Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis, Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(5), 2002, www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/ncidod/eid/vol8no5/01-0288.htm. Back
  8. For more information on antibiotic resistance and natural selection see Purdom, Georgia, Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? in The New Answers Book, ed. Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2006. Back

Recommended Resources

Genesis of Germs (The)
It seems that a new and more terrible disease is announced almost daily. Author Professor Alan Gillen shows that constantly mutating diseases are proof for devolution rather than evolution.
Evolution: The Grand Experiment
Join the author as he travels the globe—visiting dig sites and museums, conducting interviews with leading experts, and more—all to answer a simple question: “Can you prove evolution?”
NEW Answers Book Bundle (The)
(Retail $29.98.) Totaling more than 55 answers to questions on creation/evolution and the Bible, these two books answer such questions as: Can natural processes explain the origin of life? Can creationists be real scientists? Where did Cain get his wife? Is evolution a religion? and more! 
Evolution Exposed POWER PACK! (The)
(Retail $31.98.) The two most important science books for every high school student! Equip teens to respectfully challenge evolutionary indoctrination in class, research papers, and during everyday interactions outside of school. These two powerful books are thoroughly indexed by topic so that anyone can use them!

 

 


15 comments:

Chaos Engineer said...

I guess I'll try again. The problem is that you keep changing your definition of "information" depending on what argument people are making. Can we just agree to use the dictionary definition that you highlighted? That was:

knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance

Now, under this particular definition, DNA doesn't contain information. This is because DNA doesn't have knowledge or any desire to communicate.

But if a human being runs a piece of DNA through a gene sequencer, and decides she wants to tell somebody the results, then she's formed a desire to communicate, and new information has been created.

Another example: If a house catches fire and no one notices, then no information exists. But if a dog sees the fire and starts barking to alert his packmates, then he's created information.

So (under this definition), the natural source of information is the brain. Obviously there are some grey areas; honeybees are able to "communicate" with each other, but it's not clear whether they're creating information or just reacting mechanically to stimuli. I'm pretty sure that all vertebrates can create information, though.

radar said...

Chaos, you are twisting and shortening the definition of information in order to get it to fit into your worldview.

You would still be wrong. DNA is indeed a container of information and within DNA is the knowledge required to build organisms to specifications and also to keep them running correctly. DNA is a magnificently engineered coding system crammed with informtion and far superior to binary methods of information containers.

I have not changed my definition of information. The definition is posted in the !Ultimate Information Post and it is in this very blogpost. Go back and read the whole thing.

Anonymous said...

"DNA is indeed a container of information and within DNA is the knowledge required to build organisms to specifications and also to keep them running correctly."

It's amusing to see you use terms like 'knowledge' and 'information' in such a way as to allow you to invoke intelligence.
To whom is this 'information' knowledge? Certainly not to the organisms and processes that 'use' DNA; they are not intelligent.

DNA (or its contents if you wish) is not information, it's data.

radar said...

The above comment is utter nonsense. Raise your hands if you do not think DNA contains information.

Okay, all you guys with hands raised? You need to find something other than science to talk about because you are in the wrong room. You are embarrassing yourself.

Everybody else? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/16/book-written-dna-code

Yes, not only does DNA store information but we are BEGINNING to learn how to store information in it ourselves and how to learn to fix mutations.

Anonymous said...

"Raise your hands if you do not think DNA contains information"

I would say DNA contains data which can under certain circumstances also be information (when DNA replicates), but since the information is not received by an intelligent entity but a mechanical one (one of the issues you've been skirting around for some time now), your own definition of information is obviously wrong.

"You need to find something other than science to talk about because you are in the wrong room. You are embarrassing yourself."

That's the story of your blog, Radar. Your list of embarrassments is astoundingly long.

Jon W said...

" I didn't see any answer in all that, did you? Is there any attempt to give me a natural source for information?"

What you didn't and don't understand, Radar, is that we commenters have gotten tired of the way you play games with words and their definitions. No one can have a meaningful discussion, of any subject whatsoever, if they don't agree on the terms and concepts under discussion. Se we're trying to find consistent definitions of terms like 'information' which are useful in this context, not logically flawed, and compatible with the real world. Only after we agree on the terms and definitions in your question can we start to answer it.

"Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form"

This is not true. It's a logical fallacy: a non sequitur. In fact it's often easier to quantify a nonmaterial 'thing' than a material one.

"Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics"

TANSTAAFL. So what? What this proves is that some mutations make the resulting organism more fit to survive in its current environment, whether that environment is a hospital or a forest. Any mutation that increases the organism's ability to survive in its current environment is by definition beneficial. Thus, your own example demonstrates that not all mutations are deleterious.

Anonymous whatsit said...

You keep going on and on about “over 100 comments”, as if that were in any way significant. After all, about half of those were your comments, going off on irrelevant tangents and making unsupportable claims that people then had to correct you on.

“I didn't see any answer in all that, did you? Is there any attempt to give me a natural source for information?”

In the context of the conversation, it was pretty clear that these questions were a process, not the end result. I clearly said “to sidestep this whole measurement of information issue, let's see if we can come at this from a slightly simpler angle. And let's take this step by step so we don't keep running off into side issues”.

Even so, to get you to answer some very simple questions wasn’t easy, and after a mere 3 very easy questions that even now you refuse to answer definitively, you’re ready to take your ball and go home.

Why are you afraid to debate a Darwinist?

And with such simple questions, no less:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information.

Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition.

Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Anonymous whatsit said...

“Okay, so it is obvious that whatsit is trying to take me down a rabbit trail.”

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Why would that be obvious? Instead of spending hours trying to come up with justifications for not answering some exceedingly simple questions, why not answer the questions?

“His intent is evidently to try to get me to accept containers of information as being the information itself?”

Again, you’re hung up on the containers, and my very first question should clue you in to the fact that I am doing anything but trying to get you to accept the containers of information as being the information itself. That goes completely counter to what is clearly said in that statement – should you choose to agree with it.

You’ve spent ages arguing that the only way to quantify information is through the containers. The first question does away with that. If you have two copies of the same book, you don’t have twice the information. That’s the opposite of the containers of information being the information itself.

“I am not entirely sure what he is attempting to accomplish but it is CERTAIN that he is NOT answering the question”

If you’re not sure of what I’m trying to accomplish, then how can you be sure that I’m not working toward answering the question? I’ve already told you that I’m doing this step by step, and there are more steps to come. I am engaging in a process that will result in an answer to the question.

And you’re clearly afraid to answer these very easy questions.

“and in fact not one Darwinist commenter has an answer. “

To these questions? Since they were addressed to you, I assume they’re waiting for you to answer them.

“For this reason I quit trying to play whatever reindeer games he is attempting to play.”

For what reason was that?

I guess we can now add “afraid to debate a Darwinist” to your list of embarrassments, along with “deleted comments on his blog that he couldn’t handle”.

radar said...

I am not going to fall into a battle of stupidity. Until you acknowledge that DNA contains information you are being knowingly ignorant and that means stupid.

Also, if you cannot answer the original question I am not going to continue to discuss ignorant issues.

Is fifty books more information than ten books? Well, if they all have the same information they are all containers with the same information. But if I have fifty students then I can give that information to fifty students rather than just ten, so I have given out five times the information I would have otherwise been able to give out.

Comparing DNA between various felines? Have you completely mapped the DNA strands of all these individuals? If not, you cannot intelligently answer the question. What you ARE doing is avoiding the uncomfortable question you continue to duck.

Give me a natural source for information? YOU CANNOT DO IT!

I do hope readers do go to all the comments threads and realize the ducking and jiving you Darwinists engage in because you do not have an answer. You are displaying ignorance and doing so continually and consistently.

radar said...

Also, I have many times taken your ignorant comments and made a blog post based on them. You guys are the gift that keeps on giving. Your continual insistence on pontification while not answering the question has become boring but occasionally you say things that are so ignorant that I use them as a basis for a blogpost.

Hilarious that some of you claim that DNA does NOT contain information. Real science begs to differ. My subsequent post to this one shows the world that scientists of all kinds know that DNA contains information and it is a far more efficient coding system than human binary code that is the basis for digital computing.

Even the book written in DNA that is mentioned in my next post was coded as a four digit version of binary code. The researchers basically converted binary code into CATG by using two DNA letters for 1 and two for 0. Science is apparently not ready to fully utilize the DNA coding system. But it is a start.

One more time. Answer the question or admit defeat and stop going down rabbit trails. ANYTHING you answer from this point forward is an admission of defeat UNLESS you are giving us a natural source of information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Hilarious that some of you claim that DNA does NOT contain information"

IIRC, the claim was that DNA doesn't contain information according to the definition you insisted on using, which only goes to show that that definition isn't applicable in this context, no more. And no, I didn't make that claim in any case, so there is no reason to try to dismiss my questions because I supposedly said such a thing. (Not that it makes sense anyway, but hey.)

Seriously, why are you so afraid to debate a Darwinist? Three simple questions, as part of a clearly identified process of answering the question. Why do you whine and complain for paragraphs on end when you could just spend 2 minutes answering them?

Ah, but at least you've made a start:

"Is fifty books more information than ten books? Well, if they all have the same information they are all containers with the same information. But if I have fifty students then I can give that information to fifty students rather than just ten, so I have given out five times the information I would have otherwise been able to give out."

Have you given out five times the information, or have you given out the same information five times? Is it more information because there are more copies of it?

I would suggest it is still the same quantity of information.

"Comparing DNA between various felines? Have you completely mapped the DNA strands of all these individuals? If not, you cannot intelligently answer the question."

You keep trying to change the subject to absolute quantification of information. Since that is quite difficult and certainly beyond the capacity of anyone on this blog, it's a dead end for discussion, so I'm coming at this from a different angle.

We can agree that there are ways to compare the quantity of information up to a point, even if we can't quantify them absolutely to the nth degree. For example, a book with an added chapter has more information than a book without that added chapter. We don't need to be able to quantify the information in the book and the book with the added chapter to see that this is so.

What is the result of the DNA in four lion cubs when they reproduce? It contains instructions on how to make more lions, right?

What about the DNA of the four other big cat varieties?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"ANYTHING you answer from this point forward is an admission of defeat UNLESS you are giving us a natural source of information."

Nonsense. A step-by-step process that gets us to the answer is not an admission of defeat, Radar. Evading these very simple questions is.

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Why would you not just answer them?

Anonymous said...

"ANYTHING you answer from this point forward is an admission of defeat UNLESS you are giving us a natural source of information."

Wow Radar, you are really desperate aren't you? Or maybe just frustrated that those pesky 'Darwinists' don't fall for your game and challenge your claims?



radar said...

What is the natural source for information?

Answer it or admit you do not know.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Answer it or admit you do not know."

That's a false dichotomy, for starters. It also implies that this question hasn't already been answered multiple times.

Are you really saying you don't know the answers to the three rather simple questions above?

What are you afraid of?