Search This Blog

Monday, August 06, 2012

The Great Darwinist Information Invitation

I invite everyone to read my online book or at least part of it.   !Ultimate Information Post.

In that online publication, I give the reader years of my attempts to help Darwinists understand what information is and what it is not.   Information is not natural in form or substance and is not produced by natural means.   Patiently over the years I answered their questions and took apart their arguments so that the entire world could see the difference between the scientific and obvious understanding of information versus the illogical and simplistic arguments presented by Darwinists.

It is not the fault of the Darwinist that he cannot answer the question, because there is no natural source for information, so how could he present an argument for one?  So I am not faulting them for the inability to answer the question.   

However, one does get bored with the same old tired and failed answers after a few years.  So I have a challenge for Darwinists.   Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information.   Some of you have gone so far as to say I censored an answer to the question, which is ridiculous and wrong, but I will say that I would love to see something new!   We have dealt with all the Darwinist boilerplate answers on the !Ultimate site and frankly I cannot imagine that any Darwinist has a fresh idea.   But here is your big chance.

I will not be snarky and erect strawmen like The Sensuous Curmudgeon, for instance.  If you have a new explanation we will examine it.

Consider this the gauntlet flung down before you.   Here is the chance to put up or shut up!   Demonstrate to the readers what you have been unable to do in eight long years of the history of this blog and give us one natural source of information!!!   Can you do it?


119 comments:

Jon W said...

"Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information."

What is "information" in the context of biology? How do you measure it? How do you determine quantity, and whether one sample has more information than another?

radar said...

What happened to the amazing arguments for natural sources of information?
What is "information" in the context of biology?

Information is held within the DNA using the ACTG coding system, which is more sophisticated than the binary system we use in computing. Just as in computing, the information is not measurable by content but rather simply the containers. I can have a hard drive with 500 gigs of space and have 218 gigs of used space, which tells me how much space the containers use but that is all.

How do you measure it?

Now you are getting somewhere. Information challenges measurement because it is not material. So we cannot even measure it. We can only measure/count the containers. We can count the number of "letters" in a DNA string but that will not tell us the amount or quality of the information itself.

How do you determine quantity, and whether one sample has more information than another?

See? Three great questions! You are on the way to becoming an ID advocate! Since information is not from natural sources and is not material in form or substance, you cannot measure the quantity or quality objectively. Subjective measurements of the containers give you a general measurement of amount but it is highly speculative and non-specific. Imagine doing a warehouse audit by counting the boxes in that warehouse without identifying the contents themselves? That is how we have to quantify information in biology, because we can count DNA strands but not what they "say" to the organism with precision.

As to quality of information, that is only inferred in biology from what is produced. If a dog has puppies, one offspring might have a missing leg (mutation) and one might be much bigger than the rest. We would have to keep the dogs and see which ones were most intelligent, which if any had inbred diseases or design flaws.

A responsible dog breeder has potential parents x-rayed to check on back alignment and look for hip problems (like dysplasia or CDH) when said parents are about ten months old and do not breed dogs with apparent problems in hopes to avoid (for instance) hip dysplasia in the puppies. They also cull out any dogs with non-accepted qualities in terms of size, ear shape, coat, tail and other things.

Bottom line, the breeder could have a fully detailed DNA report on their dogs and still not be sure which dogs to breed until said dogs are old enough (9-10 months) to fully display their qualities and exhibit any structural problems.

So in biology the information expresses itself in the offspring and we only know the quality of the information by the offspring produced. This is because information is not material so it cannot be truly inspected apart from the container or medium of expression.

I might think something, but until I tell you (transmittal via sound waves through the air or over a phone, etc.) vocally or write it down or in some other way transmit it to you, you do not get the information. If I write it, you can count the letters but that only gives you a count of the containers and not the information.

So you did not give me a natural source for information but you did ask questions that, by their nature, actually illustrate the point that information is NOT material and therefore could not arise from a natural source. It requires intelligence which requires consciousness which requires life.

Anonymous said...

Jon W, be aware of the fact that Radar might just remove this article, along with all the comments, if he gets cornered.

Aside from that, he's all yours. Have fun!

Jon W said...

" That is how we have to quantify information in biology, because we can count DNA strands but not what they "say" to the organism with precision."

Well then, information as you define it is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Why? Glad you asked!

By your definition, the amount of information in a gene can only be measured by counting the number of bases (letters) in that gene. However, the number of bases in a gene is completely unrelated to the enzyme or protein or other polypeptide that the gene in question codes for. The evolutionary process uses the enzyme/protein/whatever that the gene codes for, not the gene itself. Ergo, the 'information' (as you define it, in your very own words repeated above) in a gene has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution doesn't have to account for that information at all.

I do enjoy watching creationists trip over their own feet.

radar said...

No, by my definition I say that you CANNOT measure the amount of information in the gene, you can only measure the containers. So you are inferring a definition that was not made and in fact cannot be made. So you are tripping over your own tongue.

The reproductive process uses the DNA to code for things, and evolution has nothing to do with it at all. So you have misquoted me, come up with your own definition and then replaced the word "reproductive" with the word "evolutionary." We cannot identify an "evolutionary process" and neither can you.

Darwinists parrot the phrase "mutation plus natural selection" as a supposed way that organisms move from simple to complex forms.
However this is not observed. What is observed is a massive and remarkably precise information-packed process that is far more orderly and complex than any computerized factory and it is happening in your cells continually. Mutations are usually harmful or fatal if the mutation elimination process built in to the process does not weed them out.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I can have a hard drive with 500 gigs of space and have 218 gigs of used space, which tells me how much space the containers use but that is all."

This strikes me as a rather useless way of measuring information, causing me to suspect that this premise is one of the weak points in your overall argument.

For example, if you have 218 GB on a hard drive taken up with thousands and thousands of text files, each of which contains the same nonsense word, say "xczivuwmn", is that the same amount of information as having 218 GB containing all the works in the Library of Congress, the Encyclopedia Britannica and whatever other reference works etc. might fit in those 218 GB?

According to you, these would be the same amount of information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Information challenges measurement because it is not material. So we cannot even measure it."

If you're implying that something needs to be material in order to be measured, time can be measured and is not material. So your logic here doesn't add up.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Which has more information, three copies of the first part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy or one copy of the entire trilogy?

Jon W said...

"No, by my definition I say that you CANNOT measure the amount of information in the gene, you can only measure the containers."

A difference which makes no difference is no difference. If your definition doesn't allow a way to compare two genes and decide which has more information that is useful to the organism, then your definition is useless and meaningless to biology.

"We cannot identify an "evolutionary process" and neither can you."

Of course I can. The evolutionary process changes populations of organisms to better fit their living environment, by means of a repetitive process of variation and natural selection.

"Mutations are usually harmful or fatal"

Usually. Not always.

radar said...

Jon is simply repeating propaganda. The rest of you are grasping blindly at the concept of information being immaterial. Yes, it is true that 218 gigs of information could be dozens of documents and pictures and other important items or it could be lots of old log files and txt files and cookies and the like. So measuring containers of information has a place but it cannot measure quality. All you can measure is the amount of space taken up by the information.

This is applicable to organisms as well. The number of chromosomes does not determine the complexity of the organism. Similarities in DNA length do not translate into similarities in organism. The results lead one to comprehend that information is not material and cannot be quantified in that way properly.

radar said...

In the IT world we do have to quantify the containers - how many gigs of information are being captured and replicated off-site, how many gigs for a hard drive in a server, how many gigs of free information left on the computer's hard drive, etc.

You may need to erase all spam mails, rss feeds and old messages from your Outlook folder as a means of weeding out information containers that take up room. You may have XL spreadsheets that you find have only one sheet full of information but have the three default tabs, so you delete two tabs. In archiving messages on a network, you want a product that saves stubs of messages and only one complete copy as a reference as one example of keeping containers of information down to reasonable levels. But like in the world of biology, you cannot determine the quality of information by the containers.

Are you beginning to comprehend this now?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Yes, it is true that 218 gigs of information could be dozens of documents and pictures and other important items or it could be lots of old log files and txt files and cookies and the like."

Strange comparison. You're imposing a criterion that you call "important" to differentiate between, say, "log files" and "text files". As far as information goes, they may contain very similar levels of information.

"So measuring containers of information has a place but it cannot measure quality. All you can measure is the amount of space taken up by the information."

I would argue that the QUANTITY of information (not data) is different between 218 GB of a simple nonsense phrase repeated (from which we can glean very little information) and 218 GB of libraries, encylopedias etc. (from which we can gain a lot of information).

That may be the crux of your misunderstanding, and it makes sense given that you sell IT equipment. You're confusing data and information.

"The number of chromosomes does not determine the complexity of the organism. Similarities in DNA length do not translate into similarities in organism."

So what?

"The results lead one to comprehend that information is not material and cannot be quantified in that way properly."

Are you now arguing against your own claim and acknowledging that information can't be properly quantified by the size of its container? Okay.

Information is not material = true but of no further consequence

If you're so sure that we can't quantify information properly in this context, then are you willing to retract your claims that evolution (or devolution) always represents an information loss?

radar said...

No, I am not confusing information with data. That was a mistake Jon was making and I was trying to correct the mistake.

Since information is not material, it cannot be measured. So instead we have to measure the containers for quantity. 59 gigs on a disk. 738 pages of a book. 282 words on a typed letter. Quantity can be measured by containers but not quality.

The LSD gang included a guy named Art Kleps, who put out a book called the Boo-Hoo Bible. It was 218 pages of illogical random thought, published in an attempt to establish the "Neo-American Church" in which LSD would be a sacrament. I had a copy and wish it had not been lost over the years of moves and life changes. It was intentional gibberish.

Now you could purchase a book entitled "The Lakewood Story", which is a historical summary of the history and traditions and values of the City of Lakewood, California. The same number of pages but far more real and useful information is contained in the Lakewood book as opposed to the Boo Hoo book.

How can we determine this? Well, the container is the same size approximately (218 pages) so quantifying does not work. We have to use our intellect to draw out the information within the books and determine the quality of the information!

So information must come from intelligence and must be analyzed by intelligence. Anything that contains information has to be associated with intelligence. God designed organisms and they transfer information from parent to child by processes devised by God. James Patterson writes novels using probably a keyboard on a computer or he may dictate to a recorder and have someone transcribe the words, but intelligence provides the book that is produced. Part one.

radar said...

So then you ask how someone can assert that information is lost? Well, if containers are lost then whatever information of whatever quality that was in them is gone.

T. Rex is extinct. Therefore the information within the genome of that variety of organism is gone. That is a macro loss.

With dogs, one observes the loss of characteristics from without to infer information loss. For instance a breeder intentionally does not breed dogs with hip dysplasia in order to breed out the genetic mix that causes it. This is probably an attempt to stop mutations. But Collie breeders will breed out short noses and flopped ears to keep their breed within standards so they are intentionally causing information loss by observation.

Within DNA, we can read the strings now and therefore we can identify individual human DNA with great certainty. We can also see differences between individuals to observe specific points on the DNA string where there may be a portion of code that is different or missing compared to most people. Observation and breeding techniques aka husbandry have been used by mankind for many centuries to breed out information and to select specific traits for the benefit of the owners. By these methods beefier cattle and birds with more meat and corn with bigger cobs and dogs with keener eyesight or sense of smell or other traits are sought.

Now we know that husbandry weeds out genetic information in order to select for the preferred traits. In this age of DNA comprehension scientists can identify specific places in the gene itself to modify. So we can absolutely know when information is being lost, either intentionally through breeding or intentional/unintentional extinctions.

Therefore I can state categorically that we can identify information loss through observation of DNA and/or viewing the traits of the organisms. BUT we cannot specifically see the information itself or understand it without including the containers because information itself has no substance.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu3HqSB4Its

radar said...

Finally, even the spoken word requires a "container" or medium. We speak and there are vibrations of our vocal chords as air is expelled through the throat. We shape our mouths and move our tongues to produce the sound waves which have to move through the air and then enter your eardrum, where they are directed to cause the eardrum to vibrate and then the brain translates the vibrations into a code that is associated with speech and receive the message.

To say, "Please let the dogs out" you must first think the thought and decide to say it and then use lungs and voice to produce the sounds that go through the air and are received by the listener. The air "contains" the vibrations and said vibrations continue to the hearer and eventually lose their power over distance until they are no longer discernible.

To hear this message requires the complex human ear and a brain that converts the vibrations into what we call sounds. If the hearer does not speak English then the noise is heard but the message itself is not.

The Russian word for dog sounds like "sobahkah" and plural would be "sobahkee" and "Let the dogs out" would look like this in Cyrillic: освобожденные собаки
and I think it would sound like "oshvosvdenye sokahkee" so if a Russian asks you to let the dogs out you would have no clue as to what was said. To add "please" you would say "pahzhalestah" at the end. (rudimentary sounds representing actual Russian, "eez sveneetya" to all Russians for any failure to capture the pronunciation precisely, spahseeba").

My Russian is quite out of practice so if I was left in Moscow (Moskva) for a couple of days I would probably survive, but would begin by looking for English speakers to help me out. I could point at my mouth and say "Hoteetye yedet" and hopefully be directed to a place to eat. Most of the things people would be saying would be faster than I could comprehend so that information would not have a lot of quality for me. But the "Rooskees" around me would be understanding each other. Do you grok this now?

Sigh. Information is simply not precisely quantifiable because it is not material. It must come from intelligence, which means consciousness and that means life. When God identified Himself to Moses He gave this name: I AM THAT I AM. God was trying to get Moses to understand that He is self-existent and, with the message to people we call the Bible, we now know that God transcends the Universe that He made and, in fact, may be continually supporting the Universe by the power of a thought. God probably can end the Universe by deciding to cease providing a material existence to exist. This is why the Quantum world is, as Einstein said, spooky. Because it seems that intellect and consciousness somehow underlies our very existence. If I took 12 years of training to get my BA/Masters/Ph.D and Post-doctorate in Physics I could speak to that with a bit more authority but even those guys are puzzled at the behavior of light and subatomic particles.

Information is apparently found at both macro and micro levels of existence, it is in all organisms and it is inherent to thought and communication but it is NOT natural and therefore not measurable per se. Phew!

radar said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu3HqSB4Its

That youtube? It begins with an intentional mistake. DNA is not information, it contains information. Shakespeare has nothing to do with it. So wrong premise to start.

Second, there is no proof of an "ancestral RNA world" and, like DNA, the components of RNA cannot be formed naturally or remain extant naturally and would not be formed accidently to transmit coded information anyway. So now an unscientific myth is presented.

Then the concept that life is a biochemical construct is ridiculous. Biochemists know that the components of DNA and RNA would not form and cannot be formed naturally.

So then comes the conclusion that DNA is not information but just a molecular construction. You are being barraged with Adam Sandleresque Scientism now! We know that DNA is a molecular coding mechanism and it is the patterns of DNA that transmit specific messages that cause specific actions to take place in the cell. Billions and billions of times every second DNA is replicating and sending signals out within the cell to cue operations within the cell. To suggest that this was a random accidental function of chemical reactions is ignorant in the extreme.

DNA is just a chemical dance? Seriously? Oh, my brain, DNA is a "weird molecule?" This is supposed to be science?!!!

The speaker then says that the information in DNA is not actually information until "printed in biology books."

PLEASE watch that youtube!!! Here are the conclusions:

DNA is a chemical dance and a weird molecule.

That is science? Crick and Watson would beg to differ. Kirschner and Gerhart would beg to differ. John Sanford would beg to differ. Whoever made this video would hopefully fail a college-level biochemistry final. Even modern Darwinists know that DNA is a coding mechanism that contains information. Any attempt to dumb down the argument simply illustrates the problem that Darwinists have:

Information is not material in form or substance.

Information is always associated with intelligence.

Therefore Intelligent Design is a valid scientific discipline and the implications are deadly to Darwinist pipedreams like "chemical evolution aka abiogenesis" and in fact all stories of random concoctions of DNA.

Anonymous said...

"But Collie breeders will breed out short noses and flopped ears to keep their breed within standards so they are intentionally causing information loss by observation."

How do you know long noses mean less information?

"So information must come from intelligence and must be analyzed by intelligence."

When a tree grows it creates tree-rings. If we cut a tree in half we can get a lot of information from it, like its age, the changes in weather, etc...
Is the tree therefore intelligent?

radar said...

Oh, my head! Dogs have genetic information for long, medium, short noses/snouts/however you wish to put it. Collie breeders eliminate the medium and short noses to get the preferred long ones only.

Tree rings are not intelligent but humans are, so we can view them and make conclusions about them. Tree rings mean nothing unless an intelligent source can study them and make conclusions about them.

A rock can fall down by the side of the road. The rock is not intelligent. But a California Highway official may be notified and might know that the rock fell from a cliff that has been associated with rock falls in the past. If he discovers that there are indications of seismic activity in the area, he might choose to put up a warning sign or even close the road until the danger of a rockslide is considered to have passed. If you live in or around mountainous areas you have seen the signs notifying motorists of the danger of falling rocks on some stretches of roadway and you may have even been forced to take a detour.

So was the rock intelligent? No, but we are.

Anonymous said...

Long reply eaten by blogspot, so here's the short one, only focusing on the tree rings

"Tree rings are not intelligent but humans are, so we can view them and make conclusions about them. Tree rings mean nothing unless an intelligent source can study them and make conclusions about them."

Of course humans can deduct information from tree rings because they are intelligent. But your own definition states that "information must come from intelligence and must be analyzed by intelligence".
So since tree rings contain information they must be put there by intelligence.

So once again: are trees intelligent?

If not, please demonstrate how this differs from the 'information' contained in DNA.

Thank you.

radar said...

Thank you back for asking a great question!

"Of course humans can deduct information from tree rings because they are intelligent. But your own definition states that "information must come from intelligence and must be analyzed by intelligence".
So since tree rings contain information they must be put there by intelligence.

So once again: are trees intelligent?

If not, please demonstrate how this differs from the 'information' contained in DNA."


DNA is a coding mechanism that produces organisms and runs the systems operating within organisms and has the information for building all the structures of organisms, the various genetic information that can be "chosen" as attributes during reproduction and etc. The information within DNA is identified by the functionality it provides and resembles the binary code we use in computers, by exponentially more rich by having four rather than two choices.

We know DNA has information because we see it transmitting that information through reproduction and in directing reproduction and myriad processes within the cell. No human intervention is needed for rabbits or dogs to have offspring or to live and eat and make more rabbits or dogs, because all the information to code for living out life, reproduction and so on is within the genome.

Tree rings do not contain such information. They are simply there. However, people can discern from studying tree rings various attributes of tree growth and as they collect data on tree rings they can make hypotheses and predictions based on their observation of tree rings. Notice that the human intellect is taking a material object and inferring things from it. All the intelligence is human in this case. Tree rings do not talk nor do they transmit information, they can simply be analyzed and that analysis produces data that humans can then use as information about trees.

Same with rocks. We can look at granitic zircon harvested from below the sedimentary rock layers and acknowledge that it is a nice, hard rock. By investigation we can find helium atoms trapped within the zircon itself and then conclude that by the laws of physics the helium should have escaped the rock within 6,000 years. The rock does not tell us this, but we bring intelligence to the rock and analyze it, so the intelligence resides in the human.

Anonymous said...

OK, thanks for your reply. Let's take this in small steps.

You said:

"We know DNA has information because we see it transmitting that information through reproduction and in directing reproduction and myriad processes within the cell."

So this information the DNA contains, by whom is it used? What is it's purpose.

(as I said: I'm going to take this step by step).

radar said...

If I take awhile to respond further it is because I have a birthday party for my son about to start. So I do want to continue that dialogue and will be back to do it!

Anonymous said...

"Since information is not material, it cannot be measured."

Again, this argument fails because it can be shown that something doesn't need to be material to be measured. Time for example. It is not material, but it can be measured.

Therefore the logic in your claim doesn't hold up.

Jon W said...

You know, Radar, I don't think you actually have any idea what "information" is in the context of genetics. You just found a bunch of words somewhere that seemed to make sense and that seemed to preclude any 'natural' source for it. Now you mindlessly repeat those words over and over, ignoring all counter-points, because allowing any breach in your mental defenses against reality is unthinkable.

If you can't measure the amount of information in a gene, how do you know if one gene has more information than another?

radar said...

"So this information the DNA contains, by whom is it used? What is it's purpose.

(as I said: I'm going to take this step by step)."

First, apologies to those who are following the exchange for Jon, who is trying to confuse things by making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Okay, the information in DNA was discovered by Crick and Watson (and some assistants, notably Franklin) who were looking for "the golden gene" because people like Linus Pauling had predicted that there was some kind of coding structure within organisms.

Who uses it? All organisms use DNA. DNA is the universal coding device for life, just as binary code is the universal coding device for computers. Just like computers, organisms have hardware, software and operating systems although since organisms came first...anyway, all living things "use" it.

But just as computers do not build themselves, organisms had to be designed to not only live but go well beyond computers by being able to replicate. The ability to replicate and instructions for how to replicate are all also held within DNA. So a Designer was the original "user' of DNA, devising the code and the coding mechanism and all the systems and processes involved in reproducing life and maintaining it.

In my opinion God is the only possible Designer. Furthermore, when anyone says that these things "just happened" I shake my head with wonder. Jon W will talk about mutations and natural selection but without the highly complex structures and systems and codes there would be no organisms in the first place, no genetic information from which to select and none to mutate. Furthermore this simplistic view of life ignores the anti-mutation error checking inherent in DNA, the symbiosis of living things and of course the hard barriers to DNA/RNA components ever forming in nature outside of the cell.

Anonymous said...

"All organisms use DNA."

Do these organisms need to be intelligent to use DNA. In other words: do they need intelligence to use the 'information' stored in DNA?

radar said...

"Anonymous said...

"All organisms use DNA."

Do these organisms need to be intelligent to use DNA. In other words: do they need intelligence to use the 'information' stored in DNA?"

Answer: Qualified yes. All organisms need intelligence to utilize DNA. It would also be true to say all computers need intelligence to run programs and all answering machines need intelligence to operate properly.

Organisms were designed with intelligence to utilize DNA to maintain life and reproduce it. The concept of "junk DNA" is fading away as we discover uses for what was once considered useless mutated trash within the DNA code. Study of the cell has revealed far more sophisticated applications of the information within DNA to "run" the cell, not just be the vehicle that drives reproduction.

So an Escherichia Coli may not be intelligent as we view intelligence, but it has been designed by intelligence to live and operate and reproduce. The e.coli have flagella that became famous as an example of irreducible complexity as made famous by Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" so even though they may be tiny and apparently simple creatures, they have structures that mankind still study to learn to make more efficient motors.

The "motor" of the e.coli flagellum resembles a standard electric motor but on a very micro scale and with "living" parts that get replaced on the fly and must all be present and working together for the system to work. Behe's work on this structure opened a can of worms for Darwinists as scientists began to find myriad irreducibly complex systems and symbiosis between multiple (not just two) organisms, obligate mutualism in which two or more organisms cannot exist without the other...evidence for design is all around. DNA is one piece of evidence. It requires intelligence to exist and intelligence to be useful.

Anonymous said...

"All organisms need intelligence to utilize DNA."

If organisms are intelligent enough to utilize the DNA's information, then why shouldn't they be intelligent enough to create it? After all, by your own definition, information must come from intelligence and be analyzed by intelligence.

radar said...

A side note to this discussion is the concept of consciousness. People have consciousness and we do have the ability to think abstractly, make moral choices, be creative and so on.

We can see that many organisms have consciousness as well. Dogs and horses would be obvious but studying down the line of size and complexity we can postulate that perhaps even bacteria have consciousness. They do have language (chemical languages) as mentioned on this blog in a post concerning Quorum Sensing. Bees have dance languages.

The Darwinist must assert that all of the languages and remarkable abilities of organisms are all simply evolved by chance and that includes the formation of the first organisms and the languages, the tiny but efficient motors and systems, the abilities to see, smell, hear, taste, touch that vary greatly between different kinds of organisms. There are at least ten different basic eye structures, for example, so an eye would not just happen by accident once but ten times...except the idea that a sophisticated eye pops into existence is ridiculous. Yet sophisticated eyes are found in "Cambrian" layers. Trilobites had fantastic eyes, capable of remarkable visual feats and Darwinists claim such organisms were primitive?

We have not found any organisms that do not use DNA nor do we find any organisms that do not have efficient systems that allow them to live and move and reproduce capably. What we do find is a continuum of organisms on the planet that can fill every ecological niche and redundancy among them, so if cattle all went extinct we would have sheep and if sheep died out there would be deer kinds and so on and so forth.

radar said...

" Anonymous said...

"All organisms need intelligence to utilize DNA."

If organisms are intelligent enough to utilize the DNA's information, then why shouldn't they be intelligent enough to create it? After all, by your own definition, information must come from intelligence and be analyzed by intelligence."

So do computers made baby computers? Do computers decide to turn on and do they go shopping for processor upgrades? A computer is designed by intelligent men and runs because intelligence has designed them to run and use intelligence to perform whatever tasks they are designed to accomplish. Yet we do not expect a computer to think abstractly.

Humans design robots to do tasks. Robotic equipment is a common item on assembly lines. Is a robotic arm intelligent? No. But it was designed by intelligence and runs as planned by the intelligent designer.

So we have organisms. Organisms all contain information and said information has instructions for the cells to operate. Humans do not consciously tell our skin cells to reproduce and cause the layer above to flake off, we do not think about the digestive process for it to operate, we do not go out and shop for all the fungi and bacteria and other microbes living in us and on us that are helpful or even necessary for us to live (other than perhaps buying supplements at a health food store). So even humans have almost nothing to do with all the intelligence that drives the workings of our cells and accomplish the operation of our senses or even the "mechanics" of how our nerves and brain operate. If we had to decide to direct the ATP Synthase operations in just one cell we probably would not have time to think of anything else, just constantly ordering the process to go.

I see where you are trying to take the argument but it will not go there. Intelligence can put intelligence into a machine and the machine will run without the designing agent there to tell it to work. I certainly do not have to tell my answering machine to answer and record messages. Nor do I have to tell my eyes to process the light coming into them and convert that light into images that my brain can comprehend, they just work because the information input into the eyes, the optical nerves and the brain are doing the work for me without requiring me to oversee the operations.

Intelligence must input intelligence into a machine, whether made of metal and silicon and other non-living materials or the living machines God designed we call living things. A computer does not need consciousness to work and it need not be self-aware for me to use it. A cell doesn't necessarily have any self-awareness but it does contain information input by intelligence that oversees all operations it will perform because of the instructions that contain information that was input by intelligence.

radar said...

So kindly do not twist words. Intelligence produces information and information does not come from any other source. Intelligence can make non-intelligent machines that nevertheless work without supervision if the correct information is input and the proper systems and processes are built in to allow for said machine to operate without human direction. Men build automobiles with onboard computers that will direct functions of the automobile while the man drives said automobile. The computer may rule over the precise manner in which the internal combustion engine receives fuel and air to combust, the complex system of sensors and valves involved in such operations, the power being provided to individual trans-axles in slippery conditions, the individual brakes for each wheel in an emergency stop, if and when headlights automatically turn on and off and many other functions.

Does the automobile contain information? Did the information come from intelligence? Do you need the engineers who designed the car to operate it for you, or did they input enough information so that you can ignore such operations and simply use the simple controls - steering wheel, shift, turn ignition on and off, watch for traffic, stay in your lane, stop at stop signs, that kind of thing.

If you believe that automobiles muse be intelligent in order to contain information, if you believe the same about computers or answering machines, then perhaps you should study those items first and then come back to the idea of intelligence in organisms?

Anonymous said...

"So do computers made baby computers?"

That's indeed where your argument gets into problems: computers do not reproduce and do not pass on information to their "children". They are also not subject to environmental pressure which makes them select favorable mutations.
If you stand by your statement that information needs intelligence and that organisms who use DNA are intelligent, then there is no reason why these organisms wouldn't be capable to create information by copying and mutating DNA.

Isn't it intesting where you can get when you apply some rationality to your statements?

radar said...

"So do computers made baby computers?"

That's indeed where your argument gets into problems: computers do not reproduce and do not pass on information to their "children". They are also not subject to environmental pressure which makes them select favorable mutations.
If you stand by your statement that information needs intelligence and that organisms who use DNA are intelligent, then there is no reason why these organisms wouldn't be capable to create information by copying and mutating DNA.

Isn't it intesting where you can get when you apply some rationality to your statements?


It would be interesting if you did not twist my words. I did not say that " organisms who use DNA are intelligent" and would not say that. They were designed by intelligence. There is a huge difference! Are answering machines intelligent? Of course not, but they were designed by intelligence and information was used to produce them. Is your laptop intelligent? Can it reproduce?

Darwinism fails in part because naturalism is an ideology and there is no natural source for information. Darwinists try to begin with complex organisms and argue that they evolve and become more complex but they utterly fail when it comes to how such organisms came into existence. Furthermore we do not observe evolution, we observe devolution.

You can twist my words to come up with your own argument that satisfies you, but it is not rational or logical and you have to keep twisting my words to make your argument.

Again, DNA is not a "weird molecule" and it is not produced by a "chemical dance" no matter how aesthetically pleasing such terms may be to a Darwinist. It is a coding mechanism that is wonderfully designed to accomplish far more than human-designed binary code can accomplish and is the basis for all living things to both live and reproduce. It is a signature of design rather than a remnant of random chemical accidents.

Anonymous said...

OK, I see where the problem lies. Since English is not my mother tongue, I understood 'Qualified yes' to be 'Absolutely yes'.
So apologies for that.

So let me try again by asking you this simple question: how does DNA actually work? Which processes does it use?

Also, I noticed that you conveniently ignore some comments/questions by other commenters, so I'll ask them again here:

You claim that information cannot be measured because it is immaterial. Yet time is immaterial an CAN be measured. Do you still stand by your claim?

Asked by Jon W:

"If you can't measure the amount of information in a gene, how do you know if one gene has more information than another?"

Are you capable of addressing these remarks or do you prefer to ignore them?

And once again sorry for the misunderstanding by the way. ;)

radar said...

Dear anonymous, I do admire your desire to communicate and as English is not your mother tongue I also admire your ability to converse with me in English and I also thank you!

Time is a dimension as I am sure you know, like height and width and breadth. We can measure it passing using clocks or sundials and calendars and etc. You cannot order a pound of time and put a box of it on your shelf. Since we are bound by time and cannot traverse it, to us it is simply change and is not similar to information, because we can use information, we can learn from it, we can formulate it and delete it and use it to our advantage. Due to the requirements of relativity, we cannot travel in time or bend it to our will, we can simply count it as it rolls along.

I cannot see how information and time can be comparable and what that comparison would add to the discussion at all. It is to me a rabbit trail, a way to get off the subject and so that is why I did not address the subject. Someone would have to give me a reasonable explanation for a comparison between time and information in order for me to consider this further?

radar said...

As to how DNA works, I have posted a LOT about the function of DNA, including putting up youtube videos of DNA transcription in action and long explanations concerning it.

Simply speaking, DNA is a molecular coding system that uses four units I shorten to CAGT but spelled out are cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine. They are nucleic acids. (The RNA equivalents replace thymine with uracil).

DNA is therefore a rich code basis for transferring information, exponentially more powerful than binary code. The cell is the environment within which DNA can exist, it cannot survive outside the cell. DNA and cell processes require the ATP Synthase process with which the cell is powered. DNA codes for cells and ATP Synthase, must exist within cells and be powered by the ATP synthase in order to operate. So DNA and cell and ATP Synthase are all co-existent and work in harmony but cannot be without each other.

In fact there are myriad processes happening within cells that were coded for by DNA and require the power from ATP Synthase and are irreducibly complex. A look inside a basic human cell would make the world's largest factory look like a simply child's toy by comparison. Yet all this is miniaturized and remarkably efficient.

Mankind studies the cell and cellular structures to learn to build more efficient machines, just as we study structures like flight mechanisms of bees and hummingbirds and dragonflies to build better flying machines. We learned to create radar and sonar after being inspired by the echolocation used by bats. How can such remarkable sophistication and design be a long series of random accidents AND be impossible to produce in nature outside of organisms?

anonymouse said...

"DNA is therefore a rich code basis for transferring information, exponentially more powerful than binary code."

You say this a lot, what do you mean by it?

Anonymous said...

"I cannot see how information and time can be comparable and what that comparison would add to the discussion at all. It is to me a rabbit trail, a way to get off the subject and so that is why I did not address the subject. Someone would have to give me a reasonable explanation for a comparison between time and information in order for me to consider this further?"

The reason is obvious and was stated clearly. You attempted a logical argument that because something was not material, it could not be quantified. This argument clearly doesn't hold because there are things that are not material that can actually be quantified.

Therefore your argument was invalid, so you need to either retract it or revise it.

I hope that's clear enough.

radar said...

"I cannot see how information and time can be comparable and what that comparison would add to the discussion at all. It is to me a rabbit trail, a way to get off the subject and so that is why I did not address the subject. Someone would have to give me a reasonable explanation for a comparison between time and information in order for me to consider this further?"

The reason is obvious and was stated clearly. You attempted a logical argument that because something was not material, it could not be quantified. This argument clearly doesn't hold because there are things that are not material that can actually be quantified.

Therefore your argument was invalid, so you need to either retract it or revise it.

I hope that's clear enough.


I did NOT say that the only property of information was that it was not material. I go to great lengths to assert with evidence to back it up that information is intelligence transmitted via some medium. We can see the results of this everyday, everywhere around us.

Humans measure time and these measurements are data. However data is not a direct correlation to information. That is why I say you are going down a rabbit trail. You cannot negate the evidence that information does pass intelligence via containers and must come from intelligence and that we can see the results of the passing of said information

Time is simply a boundary that we exist within, like other dimensions. You cannot purchase a box of width, either. A foot long trout is a fish that you can hold and clean and cook and eat. But you cannot extract the length from the fish and put it on display.

Don't try to equate concepts or data with information itself. You are thereby avoiding the argument. I can show that time is a dimension, that we are bound by it, that we count it and keep the time as data. We use it in equations, but we use weight or other measurements in equations as well. You are again getting stuck on data and trying to equate data with information.

Data can be compiled by intelligence and what intelligence has to say about data can be information. But data itself is not information unless an intelligent source investigates it and makes statements about or draws conclusions from it.

Try to stay on topic?

radar said...

Anonymouse, I have made blog posts about DNA functionality. This conversation is about information. DNA is the medium used to convey information from organisms to organisms via reproduction, it is the repository of information and commands that run the cellular functions within that organism and during reproduction (in most organisms) approximate half of the DNA code of father and mother are combined to pass on to the child.

However, we now know that within DNA is meta-information that tells the organism what kind of offspring to build. The mother lays the framework for the child, so a dog-kind will remain a dog-kind and meta-information contains the construction instructions to take information from both father and mother to pass along to the child. That is the standard reproductive blueprint. That does not directly involve this discussion, though.

anonymouse said...

So what you're saying is that DNA is more 'powerful' not because it has four letters and binary has two, but but because of other processes that operate in the cell.

Am I correct there?

Anonymous said...

Radar, I think the question you have to ask yourself is "To whom is the content of DNA information?"
As you stated; information requires intelligence. But DNA can perfectly function without any intelligence present. The processes and organisms that use DNA are not intelligent, yet are fully functional. Just because humans can extract information from DNA by use of their intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that this 'information' was put there by another intelligence.

That's why I made the comparison with the tree-rings: they are not intelligently made, yet human intelligence can get information from them.

It just seems to me that you are using the word 'information' to be able to invoke 'intelligence', which in turn allows you to invoke God.

Anonymous said...

"I did NOT say that the only property of information was that it was not material. [...] Try to stay on topic?"

I didn't claim that you said that, so everything between these two sentences above is actually irrelevant (and off topic).

My post was on topic because it was a direct response to your attempt at a logical argument:

"Information challenges measurement because it is not material. So we cannot even measure it."

But the thing is - as the example of time shows - if something isn't material, that doesn't automatically mean that it can't be measured. So for you to impose this criterion (as you did above) is a logical error.

Do you have any other attempts to back up your claim that information can't be measured other than by the size of its container? Can we somehow differentiate between 218 GB of repeated nonsense words and 218 GB of encyclopedias?

radar said...

First to anonymouse:

anonymouse said...

So what you're saying is that DNA is more 'powerful' not because it has four letters and binary has two, but but because of other processes that operate in the cell.

Am I correct there?


Actually I was adding information :-)

The idea of having four letters to code gives you exponentially more coding power than with two. So having four letters does make DNA more powerful or perhaps I should say more efficient than binary code.

The additional information I provided was simply pointing out that the very world that DNA inhabits is coded for by DNA and the power station that runs the cell and DNA is also coded by DNA and they are all symbiotic. This is just more evidence for design and was an informational aside.

radar said...

To whom the information is written is a bit of a misconception. Of course if I am writing to you then I am transmitting information to you. But if I am writing code for a computer program I am actually writing it to a device that was invented by intelligence and runs because of intelligent design.

The code in DNA was written by God to the organism to cause it to be able to reproduce and be self-sustaining and have multiple redundancies and contingencies in order to be able to survive in the world that God created.

When we design spacecraft for humans to travel to the Moon or to a space station, you can be sure that redundant systems are in place to allow for failures and contingencies are addressed with spare parts, SOP for emergencies and so on. This is also true of organisms. The original baramin or "kinds" were loaded with information that would allow them to live in widely varied climates and conditions.

Therefore we have organisms that live on chemicals and those that live largely on sunlight and those that subsist on the plants and animals which draw much power from sunlight. We have organisms that can travel over the Himalayas and organisms that live in the deepest trenches of the oceans. There are organisms that live in bitter cold and scalding hot conditions. Yet all of them are molecular machines running the DNA code designed by God.

anonymouse said...

"The idea of having four letters to code gives you exponentially more coding power than with two. So having four letters does make DNA more powerful or perhaps I should say more efficient than binary code."

That's what I thought you meant. So, if our computers used a base four numeric representation, they'd be exponentially more powerful? And by exponential, I assume you mean they'd run at at least their current speed squared, say 9 exohertz.

If so, why?

You'll get no argument on efficiency, but base 10 is more efficient than base 4, and to be more general, base n+1 is more general than base n.

radar said...

Now back to measurement. Remember, I said we can measure the containers of information and enumerate them. That would be data. Tree rings? We can make observations of them and produce data. Time? We can count it as it goes by.

What is interesting about information and this makes it much different than time? Information actually passes intelligence from one entity to another. Time does not do this, time is simply us finding ways to keep track of the Universe as it winds down from energy to entropy.

So by measurement I can see that there are 218 gigs of space taken up by a hard drive but in order to determine the worth of the information within I have to access the information and assign a value to it. This is subjective. But while I can count the containers I cannot count the VALUE of the information.

So as an intelligent being I can inspect that 218 gigs and I can find that perhaps within that space is an Encyclopaedia Brittanica or I may find lots of log files and internet cookies and family pictures and other items of varied use to me. I cannot see the value of the 218 gigs by simply counting the space taken up on a hard drive. Again, this is because information is not material but it does manage to carry something with it - knowledge.

Yes, information will be a message of some kind. I write a message on a notepad. The weight of the pad and pen used does not change because I write the message. But if I hold it up and you read the message, you will know what I wrote down because you can receive the knowledge held within the information even though information itself has no substance and is not produced by nature.

We still come right back to the fact that information is not material, comes from intelligence and passes knowledge along. You can quantify containers of information but not the information itself. Intelligence must decide for itself what the quality of the information might be.

radar said...

As to four over two, the concept is that it is more efficient and saves space. Speed is not a factor here. DNA needs to be able to transmit a great deal of information and do it without taking up vast quantities of space, so using four letters allows for this efficiency and space-saving.

With computers, we may seek to have speedier computation in order to solve problems, run programs, you name it. I cannot make a perfect analogy between computers and organisms. Organisms do have hardware, software, operating systems, code and programs so they have some resemblance to computers. But organisms are far smaller than human-made computers and more efficient. In fact pretty much any system found in organisms is more efficient than the replicas humans make.

It is worth noting, though, that as far as I know the human mind is still matchless as far as being an efficient information storehouse and analysis center. The mind is controlling myriad functions of the human body without requiring the conscious effort of the owner thereof. When we do take action we do not need to compute each neuron that needs to fire and each muscle that must twitch in just the right way, we just do it. Our mind learns how to accomplish things underneath the conscious choices to do them. If we had to think through each operation it would take us all day to eat a spoonful of cereal.

Anonymous said...

"The code in DNA was written by God to the organism to cause it to be able to reproduce and be self-sustaining and have multiple redundancies and contingencies in order to be able to survive in the world that God created."

But of course you have no proof of that; it's at most speculation and in fact wishful thinking.

To take your analogy with computers:

" But if I am writing code for a computer program I am actually writing it to a device that was invented by intelligence and runs because of intelligent design."

That's of course true. But that's also where the similarity between computer code and DNA ends. You see, computers cannot independently change their code under environmental pressure. A Windows computer that gets attacked by a (computer) virus and comes out unscathed because of a programming code will never pass down this virus-proof code to its descendants.
And that's exactly what organisms do with their DNA: under environmental pressure they can select favorable mutations of their ancestor's code and pass it on to their descendants; giving them an ever greater chance for survival.
So if unintelligent organisms can independently change the code, why can't they have created it from very simple basic data to ever complex data under the pressure of ever changing circumstances?

No intelligence needed.

Anonymous said...

And now for something completely different and (slightly) off-topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18430420

The bonobo's genetic code differs only 1.3% from that of humans. Does that mean that bonobos are created in 98.7% of God's image?

radar said...

Actually the Bonobo and Human are not 98.7 per cent the same. That is not even close to fact.

Now, as to organisms versus computers. Yes, selection pressures cause organisms to be able to vary. We call that speciation. The problem here is that the information is already within the genome, so the ability to change was there before the conditions brought the change on. So actually your argument favors design by God rather than evolution. In fact the ability of organisms to speciate rapidly is one of the foundations of the Creationist explanation for wide varieties of life found around the world coming from individual kinds coming out of the Ark.

Kirschner and Gerhart identified processes within organisms that hasten speciation by having switches built in to the organism that would allow for quick changes to certain attributes, such as the beaks of finches. Yes, Darwin's fabled Galapagos finches can and do change beak sizes and shapes back and forth depending upon conditions and this ability to do so is pre-existent within the organism.

By the way, heuristic programming in anti-virus programs does allow for computers to change in small ways, as does code that allows for "self learning" to help filter out spam messages on email server malware licensing or in appliances designed to filter incoming traffic. So mankind has applied a bit of intelligence to computers to allow them to make certain choices, although naturally we have to give them the choices and the means by which to make them.

Organisms pass down their particular set of genetic information during reproduction with both male and female inputting said information (in male/female reproduction, which is the most common we discuss in biology) but each child will have a differing set of information than the parents and also different from fellow offspring. Even identical twins have differing fingerprints and retinas, as well as separate personalities. It is not up to the organism to "decide" what offspring to have, however, the environment tends to weed out the least successful organisms of that kind and in doing so some information loss will occur. Hopefully at this point you know both how and why?

radar said...

http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/c9fa033ac4c5cfe969db3e095b3d467a-24.php

While Darwinists attempt to skew the evidence to report that Bonobo and Human DNA is almost 99% identical, the truth is closer to 80% and even at that there are so many differences that there is no valid relationship. Studies of Bonobo and Chimpanzee DNA reveal many differences that are critical, which is no surprise since we are not really that much alike.

Furthermore, analysis of DNA fails to find any common ancestry for the the Bonobo and Chimpanzee, let alone one that would link them to mankind.

The widely hailed "98.7" number was obtained by culling out all parts of the DNA string that were not similar and only comparing less than 2% of the DNA string at most and more likely only about 1%. This kind of deliberate misinformation is unfortunately typical of Darwinist headlines these days. Arsenic-based bacteria that weren't, ancestor of amphibians that wasn't, link between human and lemur that wasn't, ancestor of whales that wasn't and so on and so forth.

Anonymous said...

"While Darwinists attempt to skew the evidence to report that Bonobo and Human DNA is almost 99% identical, the truth is closer to 80% and even at that there are so many differences that there is no valid relationship. Studies of Bonobo and Chimpanzee DNA reveal many differences that are critical, which is no surprise since we are not really that much alike."

No doubt you have links to peer-reviewed articles in reputable, professional scientific biology journals that prove this assertion?

Anonymous said...

"The problem here is that the information is already within the genome, so the ability to change was there before the conditions brought the change on. So actually your argument favors design by God rather than evolution."

Well no, it doesn't. It only seems that way because you want there to be a designer God. You have no proof whatsoever for your assertion.
I can just as easily argue that the ability to change was inherited as a favorable trait which helped survival. Changing, after all, is nothing more than a mutation.

Again: no intelligence needed.

Intelligent design/creationism advocates often try to focus on the 'complexity' of organisms as proof for an intelligent designer/god. However if one disassembles these organisms into smaller parts, like with the bacterial flagellum and the eye, it becomes clear that this complexity is easily achievable by evolution in small, gradual steps.

Did you know by the way that there are single-celled organisms which have an eye with a lens?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1772300/?tool=pmcentrez

radar said...

Now that I have demonstrated that information transmits intelligence, comes from intelligence, is not material in form or substance and has no natural source, commenters now have nothing left to say other than to back up the truck away from the logic trail and make unsupported assertions. You want to believe that DNA and life and information and intellect magically just poofed from randomness somehow? You certainly have that right. But you have no argument.

I did put up and article that links to peer reviewed articles and other sources that also reference peer reviewed articles. If you took an elephant and a bullwhip and only examined the tail of the elephant and compared it to the last ten inches of a bullwhip you might think they were similar. But in comparing the entire elephant to the entire bullwhip you would change your opinion.

It is not surprising that all organisms have a lot of similarities, being designed by the same builder. But researchers only looked at about 1 to 2 per cent of the DNA code of both Bonobo and Human, ignoring large amounts of differences, seeking to grab a headline.

Actual research of mtDNA has shown us that Neanderthals were human and many of us are related to that particular band of people. It shows us that we can trace all of mankind back to one matriarch and that there is a very good hypothesis about the information found in DNA to suggest that mankind is around 6,500 years old. You can do some research and check it out for yourselves. Or, you can just go with the flow, ignore evidence like that and believe as you will.

Jon W said...

"Now that I have demonstrated that information transmits intelligence"

You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind. You assume it, and then you emit gibberish in such concentrated tangles that no one can figure out what you mean (not even you!), in hopes that the suckers will accept your claim on faith, and the rest of us will give up in disgust and leave.

If you can't measure the amount of information in a gene, how do you know if one gene has more information than another?

radar said...

"The problem here is that the information is already within the genome, so the ability to change was there before the conditions brought the change on. So actually your argument favors design by God rather than evolution."

Well no, it doesn't. It only seems that way because you want there to be a designer God. You have no proof whatsoever for your assertion.

Sorry, I thought we were sticking to science? We only know of organisms with information built into them. We have no record of any other kinds of organisms. The organisms we find in the very bottom layers of fossils are still the same kind of organisms that exist today. Furthermore it is chemically impossible for the "building blocks" of organisms to form naturally anyway even without the information needed to cause them to be anything other than raw materials.


I can just as easily argue that the ability to change was inherited as a favorable trait which helped survival. Changing, after all, is nothing more than a mutation.

In order to change, there has to be something to change from in the first place. We do not know of any truly simple organisms and have no record of them. But we do know that organisms can change. The problem is that you first need to account for organisms with information included.

Again: no intelligence needed.

For that argument? I agree, there is no intelligence needed to make that argument. In fact I would have to say it does not even constitute an argument at all. You ignore the existence of the cell and DNA and all the components and information and call upon the magic word "change?"

Intelligent design/creationism advocates often try to focus on the 'complexity' of organisms as proof for an intelligent designer/god. However if one disassembles these organisms into smaller parts, like with the bacterial flagellum and the eye, it becomes clear that this complexity is easily achievable by evolution in small, gradual steps.

Now this is fully fledged mythology. All sorts of naturalistic scientists have tried to sketch out scenarios in which the human eye or the flagellum of an e.coli could have been built in steps, but they actually are irreducibly complex and unless they are complete they are of no use. There are many more components to the flagellum of that e.coli than there are to any other such system and the leap from a simpler process to flagellum is like going from grain of sand to the beaches of Southern California. It is just not logically possible at all.

Did you know by the way that there are single-celled organisms which have an eye with a lens?

Did you know the Mantis Shrimp has a far more sophisticated eye than you do and so did the Trilobite? Did you know that a Bloodhound can detect smells 300 times more clearly than Humans, but a bear might have him beat and a shark might smell one drop of blood in the water from a mile away?

Did you know that Duckbills sense the electric charges of neurons firing in potential prey? Did you know that bacteria communicate with a chemical language? Did you know some moths can sense a potential mate six or seven miles away?

When you point out sophisticated systems in supposedly "less-evolved" animals you are actually involved in self-defeating arguments. There are disciplines in science now dedicated to studying and learning from the designs of organisms, Biomimetics and Biomimicry to name two. Real science has just decided to accept that organisms are designed very well and try to learn from those designs.

radar said...

Jon, asking the same questions in bold and running away from the answer does you no good.

I have demonstrated that information transmits intelligence, must come from intelligence, is not natural in form or substance and cannot be measured other than by container or medium. This has been carefully argued in this comments thread, following the questions and arguments of an anonymous poster and taking the argument to the logical end.

If you cannot understand it or do not like it that is too bad. We can do gene mapping to discover what particular strings of letters code for what particular traits and get a general idea of the quality of information held in the DNA of an organism and we can compare it to others of its kind to try to determine from differences in their genomes the total information in coded form that the kind possesses if we could get the DNA of every sample of that organism and compare them. This would be a monumental and overwhelming task.

But just ask breeders of cattle or dogs, just ask experts at breeding varieties of corn or wheat. They will tell you how they breed out undesirable qualities and seek to isolate and replicate the most desired qualities. It is by observing the results of matings and making subjective judgments of what seems best to the breeder. As they cull out the traits not wanted, the total amount of information in the genome is obviously being reduced, even if we cannot quantify it perfectly.

Mankind has known this and used this knowledge for years. Animal Husbandry 101.

Anonymous said...

" The problem is that you first need to account for organisms with information included."

Why should I, because you can't yourself. After all, when you say 'god did it', you are only speculating. You have no proof whatsoever. Actually, atheistic Raelians have as good an explation as yours if you are honest...

"For that argument? I agree, there is no intelligence needed to make that argument."

Wow, why getting so touchy? It would almost seem you feel a bit threatened...

"Now this is fully fledged mythology. All sorts of naturalistic scientists have tried to sketch out scenarios in which the human eye or the flagellum of an e.coli could have been built in steps, but they actually are irreducibly complex and unless they are complete they are of no use."

No it isn't, and you know that very well. You have to look further the information than the information the Discovery Institute feeds you, Radar. You'd be surprised.

"Real science has just decided to accept that organisms are designed very well and try to learn from those designs."

Begging the question. The correct way of saying this would be: "Real science has just decided to accept that organisms are adapted very well and try to learn from those adaptations."

Radar, your main mistake is that- as above - you keep begging the question. You keep calling the contents of DNA 'information' because it allows you to invoke intelligence. But as we have seen, DNA can be processed and used by unintelligent organisms. So DNA (or its contents) is not information, it is data. And data doesn't require intelligence.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have demonstrated that information transmits intelligence, must come from intelligence, is not natural in form or substance and cannot be measured other than by container or medium."

Re. information transmits intelligence: did you mean "intelligence transmits information"?

Re. information must come from intelligence. This is false, as was demonstrated above. Information can also come from a non-intelligent source, e.g. tree rings.

Re. "is not natural in form or substance": did you mean "is not material in form or substance"?

Re. "cannot be measured other than by container or medium". Given the arguments above and everything you've said on this subject, it would actually be truthful to say that it cannot be measured by container or medium. After all, according to your claims, 218 GB of gibberish is the same information quantity as 218 GB of encyclopedias. It's more accurate to call this a measure of data, not information.

So for the things you claim to have demonstrated, this is not a good summary. Self-serving, yes, accurate, no. I know you're more interested in claiming victory whether it is deserved or not than in actually presenting a solid argument, but I think we should try to work through this anyway.

Anonymous whatsit said...

You've claimed that information can't be measured other than by its container. We've seen that that measurement works for measuring data, it appears to be useless in measuring information (see 218 GB example above). This would mean that your earlier, unfounded assertions that there is scientific evidence for evolution representing an information loss are obviously false. Since pride always gets in your way, I won't ask you to retract them but consider them retracted unless you can actually back them up.

Now, 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.

1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?

2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012?

radar said...

Oh man oh man! First, tree rings are not information. If a man cuts down a tree and counts, measures and otherwise scrutinized them, he can produce data from the observations and transmit both the data and his conclusions about them to others. But no person, no observation, no information.

Information must come from intelligence and information transmits intelligence. We are used to transmitting information back and forth by voice, print, books, all sorts of media. Information can also be transmitted by means designed by intelligence. In fact, people have invented computers and robots and answering machines and all sorts of devices that not only contain information but can also receive information and even respond to information. But only intelligence can devise things that can transmit or receive information.

Organisms are designed by intelligence and contain information. We must concede that organisms are designed because any other hypothesis is statistically and logically impossible, no matter how hard Darwinists wish it was not so. So since organisms were designed by intelligence and designed to both contain and transmit information, the non-material source of information could not be one of the designed organisms. So man did not design himself and can identify no natural source for information. In fact, mankind cannot find a natural source for life or a natural source for consciousness. These things are apparently not material and therefore did not come from material causes.

It is quite simple to demonstrate that information can be passed without substance, such as the notepad and pen example. So even a child can understand that information itself does not have a material form.

As to all the questions trying to find ways to quantify information, please try to be serious. Nobody can determine the quality of 218 gigs of used hard drive space on a computer without investigating to see what it is. A book with 600 pages could be a Dickens classic or be a movie prop for The Shining.
It is useful for information theory to be able to number containers of information. But in fact to determine quality requires intellect and is therefore subjective.

For a time there were questions that led to answers and we were walking down the logic trail. But once we got to the end, several commenters began going backwards and making the same old unscientific claims. Having logically taken the conversation to the logical end, out come the people who make unfounded claims and unsupported assertions. If you set up straw men or misquote me or just restate a claim already disproved I am not going to continually falsify your claim.

This comment thread proves my point. Once I answered all the questions and claims, rather than admit defeat the Darwinist restates the previous falsified claim in hopes people will forget what had already been stated. These attempts move towards incoherence after a time. I have confidence in the reader that, if you have read this far, you already know the answers to the original questions and will not fall prey to the endgame of the Darwinists. No use trying to take my bishop when I have you checkmated, eh?

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's clear that you're not interested in an actual exploration of the subject at hand, merely to repeat unfounded assertions. I could spend a few more comments taking these apart in detail, but you posed a challenge in the original post that can easily be met.

Here are two simple questions. There's no reason you should be afraid of answering them.

1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?

2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012)?

radar said...

whatsit, your question is not relevant. I am not "afraid" to answer it, it just doesn't have anything to do with the core questions. You cannot easily meet the primary question concerning information so you are going off on some rabbit trail.

We now have over 60 comments and not one Darwinist has provided a natural source for information. Not one Darwinist has identified information itself as material in form and substance.

By now it should be obvious that they never will.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"whatsit, your question is not relevant. I am not "afraid" to answer it, it just doesn't have anything to do with the core questions. You cannot easily meet the primary question concerning information so you are going off on some rabbit trail."

Like I said, I'm taking it step by step, and it will become apparent quite quickly why it is relevant.

1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?

2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012)?

There's no reason not to answer them.

Anonymous said...

"Not one Darwinist has identified information itself as material in form and substance."

That wasn't part of your challenge, nor is it relevant to it, so there's no point in pretending otherwise now.

Anonymous said...

Another earlier part of this exchange also got lost somehow.

Who or what receives the information contained in DNA? And what does this "who or what" do with the information?

Jon W said...

" But no person, no observation, no information."

[snork]

A hungry wolf wandering through the woods comes across a scent-trail. She follows the trail, finds the deer that made it, and gets a meal. The scent contained information -- certainly the animal's species, probably its general age (adult/subadult/juvenile), perhaps even something about its state of health. No person in sight, yet an observation has been made. Information has been sent and received.

For a more extreme example, see how an acacia tree reacts to being munched on by a giraffe. Not only does it generate toxins in its leaves to defend itself, it sends chemical messages to other nearby acacia trees, and they start generating toxins in their leaves too!

radar said...

If information is not material, then it could not be produced by a natural source, could it?

It is just another proof of the non-natural source of information. Information and life are not formed naturally. ID has shown that the structure of living organisms are designed. It is hilariously ridiculous for Darwinists to assert that such design features just *poofed* into existence by random chance.

Consciousness is also inexplicable naturally. No one can weigh information or life or consciousness or explain the evolution of intellect. In fact evolution has a big problem in that it has no beginning. As Dembski says, if you aren't alive you don't have anything to evolve, do you?

Darwinists have tried to substitute data for information on this comments thread, they have tried to argue about means of measuring containers of information, but they certainly have not given an answer to the question.

Present a valid natural source for information?

Obviously you cannot do it.

Jon W said...

"If information is not material, then it could not be produced by a natural source, could it? "

Non sequitur.

radar said...

Jon, the ability to smell, the ability to produce smells, the ability to generate toxins, those are all produced by organisms that are coded by DNA and depend on DNA to not only be born/grown but also to continue to exist. Information is at the bottom of your argument and you still cannot account for it!

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar,

here are some questions that you left unanswered in recent comments. They are relevant and worth discussing.

"Who or what receives the information contained in DNA? And what does this "who or what" do with the information?"

and

1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?

2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012)?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Present a valid natural source for information?"

That has been done many times on this blog. We're just trying to put it into terms you'll understand at this point.

It won't hurt, honestly. Just answer the questions, they're not that hard.

radar said...

"Present a valid natural source for information?"

Anonymous whatsit said... That has been done many times on this blog. We're just trying to put it into terms you'll understand at this point.

It won't hurt, honestly. Just answer the questions, they're not that hard.


What a canard. If you could answer the question you would do it. Still you fail to answer it and instead ask irrelevant questions.

Radar,

here are some questions that you left unanswered in recent comments. They are relevant and worth discussing.

"Who or what receives the information contained in DNA? And what does this "who or what" do with the information?"


Information contained within DNA is used to continually send commands to the cells for operation of the billions of processes that go on within them daily. It is also used to pass on information to the offspring of the organism. The science of Intelligent Design has greatly advanced our knowledge of cells by focusing on the design aspects and to some extent encouraging new scientific disciplines to copy design features of organisms. So that is the "what" and as far as the "who", the organism was designed by an Intelligent Designer WHO input the original information and designed the systems that would keep organisms alive and functioning and replicating. I would assert that WHO is God. God could create organisms to utilize information just as man build computers or answering machines. I do not need to be inside my computer for it to receive emails and I do not need to manage the phone as it takes a message.

and Anonymous whatsit said...

1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?

2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012)?
3:26 AM


Seriously? 1) If you count the containers of information the first question would be answered by choice two, but you would simply be multiplying the same information.

2) Seeing as there would be some differences in the actual information contained in different editions of the same book then the new sets of books would likely contain more information within them in terms of containers (words). To determine the difference in quality one would have to read the books and make a subjective decision.

Books have no relationship to organisms. Mankind may take an older version of a book and correct errors or add information by using his intelligence, which is another thing Darwinism has no explanation for by the way. Man is alive (no natural cause for life) and stores and analyzes information using his intellect (which requires consciousness which Darwinists cannot explain) and may decide to try to improve on an older version of a book.

But no God, no information, so no man, so no books. You all keep avoiding the original question. Just like you avoid the question of the beginning of life.

Give me a natural source for information. One last chance here.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Q: "1. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide or fifty copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide?"

A: "1) If you count the containers of information the first question would be answered by choice two, but you would simply be multiplying the same information."

So if you're multiplying containers of the same information, do you have more actual information? If you have two identical encyclopedias, do you have more information?

Would you agree that five copies and fifty copies of the same book would contain the same amount of information?

Q: "2. Which has more information: five copies of The Ultimate Survival Guide (1926 edition) or five different editions of The Ultimate Survival Guide (editions from 1926, 1952, 1973, 1998, 2012)?"

A: "Seeing as there would be some differences in the actual information contained in different editions of the same book then the new sets of books would likely contain more information within them in terms of containers (words). To determine the difference in quality one would have to read the books and make a subjective decision."

The question isn't so much whether a subsequent edition of a book has more or less information, but whether the five different editions together have more information than five copies of one edition. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the 1926 edition contains a chapter on how to survive in a blizzard, while each of the other editions have an added chapter on how to survive in, say, a sandstorm, a flood, a tornado, a zombie apocalypse, while also dropping a chapter or two that may no longer be needed.

Would you agree that the five different editions together have more information than five copies of one single edition?

"Give me a natural source for information. One last chance here."

No need to run away, Radar. There's no hurry.

Anonymous whatsit said...

The question was: "Who or what receives the information contained in DNA? And what does this "who or what" do with the information?"

You didn't really answer this question. The fact of the matter is that the process of DNA replication is devoid of any intelligent transmission or reception. At no point does an intelligent entity intervene. If you disagree, kindly point us to it.

As for "the organism was designed by an Intelligent Designer WHO input the original information and designed the systems that would keep organisms alive and functioning and replicating", you state this as if it were fact, but it is actually an unfounded assertion.

radar said...

But you are the one running away. Since there is no natural source for information (and we now have 77 comments and not one of the commenters have answered this) then the information in DNA came from a non-natural source. This would require a supernatural source.

The word supernatural is not necessarily spooky as it simply means a source other than natural.

Of course you can have a computer doing computations, receiving email, perhaps sending out automated replies, running browsers, and underneath the windows people see there is RAM and there are I/O requests and the kernel is operating and the basic OS is running and there will be fans for the power supply and processor and all sorts of operations. Does the computer operator need to be there at the time? No. Does the designer and builder? No. Do the people who wrote all the codes need to be there? No. But you cannot deny they had to exist to manufacture the computer and have it set up to run and be running.

So it is with organisms. There is no accounting for life without a First Cause and there is no accounting for information without an Intelligent Designer. Information does not come from nature, it is not material in form or substance and it therefore is non-material and supernatural. It had to come from intelligence.

People have intelligence and can build things that run on their own and contain information input by people. People can transmit information to each other. But people did not create themselves or create life or invent information as we are organisms ourselves and we have all the hallmarks of design within our cells.

It is you who run from the question by attempting to avoid the answer because you know you will never have an answer.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Patience. I'm still here, and I'm not trying to end the discussion or change the subject. I'm not running away.

Okay, so we have:

1. Five copies of a book and fifty copies of the same book contain the same amount of information.

2. Five different editions of a book (each, say, with a chapter added and a chapter taken away) together contain more information than five copies of any one of those editions.

If you disagree with that so far, please let me know, and if so, please be specific about the problem you have with the reasoning.

Next:

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of five lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together?

radar said...

Patience. I'm still here, and I'm not trying to end the discussion or change the subject. I'm not running away.

Okay, so we have:

1. Five copies of a book and fifty copies of the same book contain the same amount of information.


A cautious yes. Fifty copies has ten times as much information by container count but would apparently be copies of the very same information. So it depends on what you are trying to say there.

2. Five different editions of a book (each, say, with a chapter added and a chapter taken away) together contain more information than five copies of any one of those editions.

If you disagree with that so far, please let me know, and if so, please be specific about the problem you have with the reasoning.


The second case will be two differing sets of information. It is not certain which has more containers (in this case counting letters or words) and the superiority of one set over the other would be subjective.

Next:

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of five lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together?


This feels like a rabbit trail but here goes. First, to compare DNA you know that the CATG letters are the coding mechanism. Therefore any string of DNA of the same length will statistically be probably 25% the same, correct?

Now, since you are talking about five lions versus four cat varieties (lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar) then that is a complex question. It is likely that a great deal of the DNA of all four varieties have tremendous similarities since they are all cats and could all mate. Furthermore, five lions from the same litter will have various combinations of genetic code from the parents.

So two lions mated and five cubs are produced (which in real life would be amazing) versus four other cat varieties...one would tend to believe that the five lions would have more information between them than the four diverse cats. Remember, you are comparing five to four and no DNA sequence is the same for any one organism, correct? So without actually doing DNA mapping we could not know which group of cats had more information. I would be interested in seeing the work of anyone in the field who has done that. Part one.

radar said...

To the above questions, I was willing to give general answers and did so. It is very hard to compare amount of information by just looking at DNA strings. If you were talking chromosomes, the numbers do not necessarily compare to the sophistication of the organism. For example, humans have 23 or 46 expressed as diploid number while orangutans and chimpanzees have 24/48. But which organism is more complex? By the way, this is one of many reasons why the most recent Darwinist canard about a Bonobo being "98.7" alike in comparing bonobo DNA to human DNA, sincethey only compare a very small percentage of the DNA strand. It is an artfully concealed outright lie.

The Adders Tongue fern has the most chromosomes. No one would assert that a fern is more complex than a human, right? Diploid number for this plant is 1440!!!!

Mammoths had a diploid number of 58. Fruit flies would be 8.

What I am trying to say is any discussion of measurement of information is going to be dicey. But we can identify organisms that no longer have features when ring speciation occurs and we know those organisms have less information because they have lost features. Beetles on windy islands that lose the information to make wings as an example.

The elephant kind has lost mastedons and mammoths. The mammoth diploid number is 58 but elephants living today are 56. I would assert that elephants once were all one basic kind that speciated and only the Asian and African prime species remain.

Anonymous said...

Therefore any string of DNA of the same length will statistically be probably 25% the same, correct?

This would only be true if by "string of DNA of the same length" you really meant "one".

Anonymous whatsit said...

I'll stick to the discussion of the questions for now, but just as an aside I'll note that your discursion on the diploid number underscores the fact that measurement of information (not data) by containers is useless, which is why I'm purposely trying a comparative approach.

"1. Five copies of a book and fifty copies of the same book contain the same amount of information.

A cautious yes. Fifty copies has ten times as much information by container count but would apparently be copies of the very same information. So it depends on what you are trying to say there."


I'm trying to say pretty much what I said. 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?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"2. Five different editions of a book (each, say, with a chapter added and a chapter taken away) together contain more information than five copies of any one of those editions.

If you disagree with that so far, please let me know, and if so, please be specific about the problem you have with the reasoning.

The second case will be two differing sets of information. It is not certain which has more containers (in this case counting letters or words) and the superiority of one set over the other would be subjective."


You're really stuck on this container thing, but that's not where this is going.

If you have five different editions of a book, each with one chapter added and one taken away, then taken together these will have more information than five copies of the same edition.

I'll pick it apart for you in detail:

Edition 1: let's say it has 5 chapters, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (1-3 = various survival info, 5 = how to survive in a blizzard)

Edition 2: let's say it also has 5 chapters, but with one added, one taken away: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (6 = how to survive in a flood)

Edition 3: again 5 chapters, with one added, one taken away: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (7 = how to survive in a sandstorm)

Edition 4: again 5 chapters, with one added, one taken away: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 (8 = how to survive in a tornado)

Edition 5: again 5 chapters, with one added, one taken away: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (9 = how to survive in a zombie apocalypse)

Pick any one edition, say, edition 3. It has this information: chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Buy five copies of it, and you still only have those 5 chapters.

Now if you get all 5 editions, you'll have this information: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

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

Do you agree?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"3. Which contains more information: the DNA of five lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together?

First, to compare DNA you know that the CATG letters are the coding mechanism. Therefore any string of DNA of the same length will statistically be probably 25% the same, correct?"


To the extent that I can parse your sentence and going by basic math this is not correct. Or do you just mean that 25% of any DNA string is likely to be the letter C, or the letter A, or the letter T, or the letter G? I have no idea if that would be true, and I don't see how it's relevant.

"Now, since you are talking about five lions versus four cat varieties (lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar) then that is a complex question."

Okay, I'll simplify it for you. We'll make it four lion cubs vs. four big cat varieties.

"It is likely that a great deal of the DNA of all four varieties have tremendous similarities since they are all cats and could all mate. Furthermore, five lions from the same litter will have various combinations of genetic code from the parents."

True, but what happens if two lions mate? What will their offspring be?

Anonymous said...

"Therefore any string of DNA of the same length will statistically be probably 25% the same, correct?"

Can we now discount anything Radar has to say about statistics now and forever?

Anonymous said...

Radar, there are three or four rather easy questions left to answer here.

radar said...

CATG is a four letter code. Random agreement in a four letter code would be a probability of 25%. Go ahead and demonstrate why that is not so?

These questions about books and offspring keep being asked and re-asked. Enumerating containers of information does nothing but move the food around the plate.

Should you decide one set of books or pages has more letters that does not yet identify the quality of the information. We already agreed that you cannot determine from number of books or pages exactly the quality of information and for that matter this brings quantity down to a subjective level.

The cubs from two lions will have a combination of genetic information from father and mother. One cannot predict exactly what they have inherited from the parents without mapping their DNA and even then one has to have associated specific portions of DNA to specific traits. Nobody has accomplished this yet because DNA is exceedingly complex. So any questions trying to get specific answers about the DNA of offspring would require a lot of work by scientists focusing on that specific subject.

I asked for a natural source of information and instead I get lots of irrelevant questions. A comparison of books will never get us into a comparison of genetic information. Teams of scientists working for years are still learning about what DNA does and how it does it. Gene mapping is ongoing. Years of research remain ahead to try to associate specifically where on a DNA strand we could try to fix mutations that cause disease, or perhaps could change DNA in an individual to save them from being subject to a disease that they would be prone to, like sickle-cell anemia.

But from observation we have known for years how to breed out information. Breeders may not have known then that they were reducing the amount of information in their set of organisms but they knew they were breeding out characteristics to obtain those characteristics more desirable to them. Ask any dog or cattle breeder or any plant breeder or consult an agronomist. They will describe methods of obtaining traits in animals and plants. They will be describing a method of weeding out characteristics and therefore information.

Now, before I even answer any questions about books I need a reason why that should be discussed. In a courtroom a judge will stop an attorney who goes off subject and takes the time of the court with irrelevant questions or rambling speeches. We are discussing the concept of information. Does it come only from intelligence or does it have a natural source? Speak to that!

Anonymous said...

Before, you said, "Therefore any string of DNA of the same length will statistically be probably 25% the same, correct?"

Does that mean that if you had two strings of length four that the probability of them being the same is 25%?

radar said...

A DNA strand cannot have a length of "four" numbers! DNA stands are quite long. Since they are made up of four characters then there is a default expected agreement in large numbers of 25%. Ask a statistician.

If you access the Physics Facebook, you would read this:

"The chromosomes in the nucleus of a cell contain all the information a cell needs to carry on its life processes. They are made up of a complex chemical (a nucleic acid) called deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA for short. Scientist's decoding of the chemical structure of DNA has led to a simple conceptual understanding of genetic processes. DNA is the hereditary material of all cells. It is a double-stranded helical macromolecule consisting of nucleotide monomers with deoxyribose sugar and the nitrogenous bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). In the chromosomes of a cell, DNA occurs as fine, spirally coiled threads that in turn coils around another, like a twisted ladder.

The DNA molecule is threaded so fine that it is only possible to see it under high powerful electron microscopes. To get a sense of exactly how long an uncoiled DNA molecule is compared to a typical cell, a cell is magnified 1000 times. At this scale, the total length of all the DNA in the cell's nucleus would be 3 km -- the equivalent distance of the Lincoln Memorial to the capital in Washington, DC.

The human genome comprises the information contained in one set of human chromosomes which themselves contain about 3 billion base pairs (bp) of DNA in 46 chromosomes (22 autosome pairs + 2 sex chromosomes). The total length of DNA present in one adult human is calculated by the multiplication of

(length of 1 bp)(number of bp per cell)(number of cells in the body)

(0.34 × 10-9 m)(6 × 109)(1013)

2.0 × 1013 meters

That is the equivalent of nearly 70 trips from the earth to the sun and back.

2.0 × 1013 meters = 133.691627 astronomical units
133.691627 / 2 = 66.8458135 round trips to the sun

On the average, a single human chromosome consists of DNA Molecule that is almost 5 centimeters.

Steven Chen -- 1998"

Anonymous said...

Heavens, that was a lot of words to answer a simple question.

So a physical DNA string consists of millions of base pairs. When we consider a smaller set of base pairs, we also call them a string.

What would the probability of a random set of four base pairs matching another random set of four base pairs?

radar said...

In an actual DNA string according to the methods used by the FBI (CODIS) more than one four letter sequence is used. DNA is compared, I believe, in 13 specific areas and the odds of two people having the same "letters" there are one in ten trillion. There have not been ten trillion people in the history of the Earth.

I am giving long answers because I am staying on topic. If you wish to talk about DNA realize that you are talking about code that is exceedingly complex and not anything simple. So I am answering by giving you the legal means by which DNA is compared for trial purposes. The odds that two individuals would be a match at the 13 common points of comparison used by the FBI is one in ten trillion. (According to the FBI, a match at any one section of DNA is one in ten. To match three points is one in one thousand).

In a human DNA strand there are about three BILLION letters. Discussing a four letter match is clearly not getting you anywhere.

Are you ever going to even try to come up with a natural source for information or are you going to continue to think up irrelevant questions? What was Charles Darwin's grandfather's name? What is the Russian word for Chess? Do you know the Hebrew meaning to the name Jacob? I can think of all sorts of questions to ask (I know the answers to all of those, by the way) but I asked for a natural source for information.

Either you have one or you do not. The charge was made that I would censor an answer to that question and I asserted that I had not. I even put up this post to see if the entire world of commenters could answer. Obviously you will never have said answer. I am going to go on to post the fifth Dembski blogpost now and leave you rabbit trailers to play with verbal Rubik's Cubes as you continue to not answer.

Anonymous whatsit said...

This is not a courtroom, but of course the questions are relevant. No need to be impatient or trying to change the subject.

"These questions about books and offspring keep being asked and re-asked."

No, they're only asked once and then the answer is specified. You have a tendency to veer off subject, so I'm just making sure you answer the questions. And since you try to make any questions on the subject of information (even the claim that information is lost in devolution) unanswerable by focusing on how information can't be measured accurately, I've chosen a comparative instead of a quantitative approach. So:

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.

Anonymous said...

Radar, I asked a simple question, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

You said that the likelihood of two DNA strings matching was 25%. I'm trying to figure out what you were talking about.

radar said...

Anonymous said...

Radar, I asked a simple question, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

You said that the likelihood of two DNA strings matching was 25%. I'm trying to figure out what you were talking about.


I was either unclear or not understood. I meant that with four letters you would expect any organism to have a 25% match at any one point in comparing their DNA strands. With binary code it would be 50%. But since DNA code is not random but is specified information we actually find that DNA is often very similar in some sections for very dissimilar organisms.

We also find that basic design features are found among traits of organisms. But careful study of DNA and embryo development has shown that the similarity does not support an evolution scenario. Haeckel was a fraud and recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is not true.

Jon W said...

"I meant that with four letters you would expect any organism to have a 25% match at any one point in comparing their DNA strands. With binary code it would be 50%."

This is, of course, nonsense of the type I've come to expect from creationists: the kind that comes from limited minds trying to deal with a subject that is much more complex than they imagine.

With a four-symbol 'alphabet' you can expect 25% matches at a given randomly-selected site if and only if the two symbol sequences are assigned randomly. If the sequences are not random, then you can only calculate how likely it is that they'll match if you know what nonrandom pattern is being used to assign the sequences.

In genetic analysis, when two genes produce the same polypeptide, they generally match very closely throughout their length ... and the more closely related two organisms are, the closer the genetic match is.

Anonymous said...

"We also find that basic design features are found among traits of organisms."

Please define "basic design features".

radar said...

First, Jon, what you are saying about DNA is irrelevant. Of course you can find areas of DNA in varied organisms that are near matches or for a stretch of the strand identical. That is not unusual because, for instance, cells all have a lot of similarities. They will have ATP Synthase, for instance, whether they are a buffalo or a bird.

What you are saying is that you could inspect the raw materials for building a house and find 2 by 4's in abundance and concrete blocks and plywood sheets of the same size and so on. So you can find lots of identical raw materials at the building sites of two different homes. But one house when erected is a tri-level residence and the other is an A-Frame vacation home. Most of the same raw materials, but the resulting structure is different.

As to similar design features? The majority of land-dwelling vertebrates have four limbs. The majority of limbs have five digits. Most of them have one nose and two eyes. Yet there are massive difference in the DNA of different animal kinds. Number of chromosomes, for instance. Man and chimpanzee have a difference in chromosome number, which means that immediately there is a huge difference in their DNA from the start.

When someone says "man and bonobo are 98.7 alike" they are only talking about a very tiny portion of the DNA strand. It is an attempt to fool people into believing that man evolved from an animal similar to a bonobo. Yet fully comparing the DNA strands would yield great differences. Darwinists do not want to give out the entire story because they know that DNA hurts rather than helps their case.

Anonymous said...

"As to similar design features?"

No, basic design features. "Similar design features" (a.k.a. "similar features") don't tell us anything about design vs. evolution. Similar features are of course extremely compatible with the concept of common descent.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and you seem to have overlooked these questions. They don't look all that threatening to me:

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.

Anonymous said...

"Yet fully comparing the DNA strands would yield great differences. Darwinists do not want to give out the entire story because they know that DNA hurts rather than helps their case."

OK, tell us the entire story then.
Only references to peer-reviewed research in reputable scientific journals, of course.

radar said...

Okay, over 100 comments and still no answer. Not surprising. I invite you all to go back to the !Ultimate Information Post and rethink. We are not talking about data. We are talking about information. I gave this thread 100 comments and now I will ignore it henceforth as it is obvious you have nothing.

radar said...

I will do a post on the DNA comparison swindle, though. However the peer review is a joke, since most peer review now is based on worldview rather than accomplishment. Secular Naturalists reject almost all non-Naturalists by default, which is why there is now an entirely separate set of peer review for ID and Creationist papers. However, ID and Creationist peer reviewers do cite secular sources and accept secular materials for review.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Okay, over 100 comments and still no answer. Not surprising."

Say what?! There's an ongoing discussion here and it's your turn.
What are you afraid of?


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.

Anonymous said...

... and Radar tries to chicken out yet again.

Jon W said...

"Of course you can find areas of DNA in varied organisms that are near matches or for a stretch of the strand identical. That is not unusual because, for instance, cells all have a lot of similarities. They will have ATP Synthase, for instance, whether they are a buffalo or a bird."

As usual, you miss (or perhaps deliberately avoid?) the point, Radar. Some genes are virtually identical throughout large swathes of the biosphere because every organism needs them. Some are not. Some genes vary from group to group, and always in specific patterns that imply common descent -- for example, the previously-mentioned GULO gene and its deactivation in all species of the family Primates. Or the gene for manufacturing taurine, which is present in virtually all mammals except felids, and explains why felids are the purest carnivores among the mammals: they must have taurine, but they can only get it from animal flesh.

Anonymous said...

I am betting that Radar won't be putting a link in his Ultimate Information Post to this article.
Heaven forbid that any reader of that 'book' might discover that Radar is hopelessly confused on the subject of 'information' and how it can be measured.

radar 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.

I am reading Dembski's new book, a couple of technical journals and working full time. You have over 100 comments to give some kind of answer to the question and you have failed. You keep going back to rabbit trails because you cannot address the question directly. Eventually the time comes when you have proved my point.

You have nothing to say. You cannot answer the question. Also, you hate the !Ultimate post and whine about it even though I told people I was doing it and why. This comments thread has proved my point. People can measure containers of information but not the information itself.

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."

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.

radar said...

Ridiculous and irrelevant questions. You are evading the question I asked.

radar said...

In fact I will probably use these non-relevant questions in a blog post and compare them to actual research being done on DNA - Because DNA is recognized as code by real science and synthetic DNA research has advanced a LOT because they do not even consider Darwinian concepts but rather approach DNA as a multi-dimensional coding system and are seeking to kill off mutations and fight disease by seeing DNA for what it is.

Meanwhile you guys grasp at straws because you know there is no natural source for information. Fine. But since you fail to answer do not expect me to waste my time with nonsense. I would rather take these bolded questions and incorporate them into a blogpost for the world to see and decide for themselves what relevancy they have in comparison to what science is doing with DNA.

Anonymous said...

The discussion was still going, Radar. Why run away?

radar said...

You are behind the times. I took the problematic place you folks are trying to take this and posted for the world to see.

Also I am going to stick with the dictionary definition for information and the findings of Information scientists rather than some shortened and inaccurate definition.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/08/information-is-this-answer.html

Anonymous said...

"I took the problematic place you folks are trying to take this and posted for the world to see."

Problematic for you indeed; that's why you are so eager to leave this discussion behind.

Just for your information; I have taken a screenshot of the whole article (including comments); you never know if it might somehow magically 'disappear'. ;)

radar said...

Disappear?! I actually copied some of this nonsense and made another blog post out of it. I want the entire world to understand that information has no natural source and Darwinists are befuddled beyond measure by that fact. I am not going to HIDE it, I am shouting it from the internet rooftops!!!!

Anonymous said...

" I want the entire world to understand that information has no natural source and Darwinists are befuddled beyond measure by that fact."

What the world actually sees is that you are begging the question and that the 'Darwinists' simply not falling for your ruse.
What the world also sees is that your claim that information cannot be measured is being torn apart and therefore you are running away from this topic.

Really Radar; the fact that you have to resort to this kind of argumentation only proves your desperation. So go right ahead if you want to shout it from the rooftops LOL. That's what I'm counting on...

Anonymous said...

"I want the entire world to understand that information has no natural source and Darwinists are befuddled beyond measure by that fact. I am not going to HIDE it, I am shouting it from the internet rooftops!!!!"

If you're that sure of your position, you should be able to answer the extremely simple questions that have been put in front of you.

radar said...

You all get an "F" and I am going to point this out in a blog post. You have had plenty of time to answer rather than hiding behind irrelevant questions. You have proven the point that THERE IS NO NATURAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION so you really had no chance to succeed. I did not expect you to succeed. But I gave you plenty of chances.

"F" stands for Failure. You have failed to answer and this means your Darwinist hypothesis fails as well. Without information there is no DNA and no cell and no life. So goodbye Darwinism, please stand aside and let real science go through? Thanks!

Anonymous said...

"You all get an "F" and I am going to point this out in a blog post."

Oh please do. That way everybody will be able to see you got an "F" for failing to back any of your claims up and running away from a constructive debate when a few simple questions proved to be too difficult for you.

Have fun!