Search This Blog

Monday, September 17, 2012

A Darwinist FINALLY answers the Information question!!!!!!!!!!!

I can hardly believe it.   I did not think any of them had the intellectual honesty to admit defeat.  But one of the regular commenters, Lava, has answered:

I have for years challenged Darwinists to name a natural source for information and turned the heat up on that fire this year.   I have made two online publications on the subject so far:

The Ultimate Information Post


Listing Darwinist Lies



So as the commenters kept evading by giving me questions back for questions or answers that were horribly amiss, such as "from mutation and natural selection" and such, I refused to budge from the question until I got an honest answer: 

Blogger radar said..."Don't you mean, has that one question been answered yet or are all the Darwinist commenters running away?

I will keep posting your failures to answer that one question. I am not running, you are.

I asked the question, none of you can answer it and that question will be there until you do. I will keep posting on it and proclaiming to the world that you cannot do it. So if you like it that way, you will get it consistently until you quit running away."

  
Would  you believe an honest answer appeared,  whether satirical or not?


Anonymous said...
"OK. Let me end this charade. Let me answer this question for all "darwinists" everywhere, Radar. There is no natural source of information. You win. And, please, use this admission to claim victory over all darwinists everywhere, as I speak for them, too. This is the final stroke, the last nail has now sealed the coffin and "darwinism" is officially dead, as you proclaimed and predicted! Congrats!

Now that your question has been answered, please answer anony's questions above.

lava"


Finally a Darwinist admits the truth.   And what are these three questions.  Here we go with my answers in this color font and anonymous in black.



Anonymous said...
I predict that Radar will not be able to answer the following three questions and will use all kinds of excuses (including derision) to get away from them:



Truth is, you anonymous posters have been using questions like this to evade my question so you are making a false charge.  But when one Darwinist admitted that there is no natural source of information, that freed me up to address your questions.

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?


No.  I do not agree.   You have not gained any NEW information, assuming the books are identical.  However, you could now pass that book out to fifty people or five people so there would be more information to share.   So we have gained more of the same information.   If I have one document on my computer that takes up 478 K and I decide to keep one in my 2012 business folder for the product it describes and put another copy on my desktop so I can grab it quickly for reference then I have twice the information containers stored on my hard drive.  So now I have 956 K allotted to one document that is stored in two places. 

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


No.  First of all we do not know the amount of information in the other editions.  What if the others are all summaries or excerpts of the original?  Unless we know more about these editions we cannot make a judgment here.   Furthermore I fail to see the point you are seeking to make with this, so please give us more detail or just ask what you really want to ask?

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.



Without studying the structure of the individual animals closely,  The DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together would have more differing information than that of four lion cubs.  All of these animals are Felids and would have similar DNA structures, because they are all one kind of animal.  They are able to mate theoretically (although usually it requires human intervention for that to happen) and would all have a great deal of identical portions of their DNA string.  But all four are variations of the greater Cat kind and since four lions from the same litter will have the code of the parents and will all be lions, they will have more of the same DNA in long sections of their DNA helix aka their genetic code.    The differing variations expressed in the DNA of a lion plus a tiger plus a panther plus a jaguar would therefore have more coding differences and thereby be expected to contain more information.  So I choose from column "B" here.

Go ahead, Radar. Make my day!

See how easy that was?  Lava was intellectually honest enough to admit that there is no natural source for information so I am answering your three questions, not one of which has much bearing on the original question.  I am doing it for his sake, not yours, for you were not able to answer the question at all.

We can count containers of information and we do this in the computer industry continually.   We have defragmentation and deduplication and other programs in place to store only the best information in the best possible ways.  But we can only enumerate information objectively, when we are called upon to decide upon the quality of information then we must be subjective.

The only way we know information is completely lost in organisms is when an animal becomes extinct.   If there are no more T Rex extant we can assume that DNA information is lost forever.   In the case of dogs or cats it may be that all the original information of the original kinds could be restored by breeding varieties together?   But likely mutation has done enough damage that a total restoration would be unlikely.

Note that the two islands inland of Madeira are where the beetle population is more wingless.

But there are the "wingless beetles of the island of Madeira" are another matter.   Apparently the varieties that have wings did not survive natural selection often because of the windy conditions of the island.   Charles Darwin noted them, but did not realize they represent devolution rather than evolution.  Actually the proportion of wingless beetles was more prevalent on windier Desertas but the Madeira name is more well known.   Beetles without operable wings would be more likely to survive to breed.   The genetic code for working wings is almost lost in that population (as of the last article I have read, the vast majority of beetles there are wingless but not yet all).   That is built-in survivability in action but is going in the wrong way for Darwinists.  The famous Citrase bacteria?   Loss of functionality.   The nylon-eating bacteria?  The ability to eat nylon was found to have predated mankind's invention of nylon!!!

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Finally a Darwinist admits the truth.

Am I a darwinist? I know I was answering for all of them, but I'm not sure what one is. I'm pretty sure your definition of darwinist requires one to be an atheist. If so, I'm not really a darwinist.

I do believe in evolution and a 6Byo universe.

lava

Anonymous said...

"Finally a Darwinist admits the truth."

The way Jonathan Swift proposed a solution for the children of poor people to become useful?

Anonymous said...

WOOOWWWWW Radar....you really are desperate, aren't you?

This article had me LOL'ing all over the floor! xD

But anyway, now you (kind of, LOL) have the answer you so craved for, there's no harm in answering those three simple questions, hmmm?

radar said...

I did answer them. Next.

Go answer the Law of Biogenesis question.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Biogenesis? Easy. It only refers to complex organisms (even as relatively "simple" as a complete cell) and so has nothing to do with current research on abiogenesis by natural means, which is conducted at the molecular level - a level at which the Law of Biogenesis was never tested.

Next.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Q: "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?"

Radar's A: "No. I do not agree. You have not gained any NEW information, assuming the books are identical."

If it's not new information, then you haven't really gained it, have you? If you're given information you already have, you 're not gaining information.

"However, you could now pass that book out to fifty people or five people so there would be more information to share."

No, you're not sharing more information, you're sharing the same information. If you're telling twenty people that 2+2=4, then you haven't added anything to the information. The information is still just 2+2=4, no matter how many places you store it.

"So we have gained more of the same information."

You really think "gaining" the same information in a different container is actually gaining information? Well, let's ask one of your own guys:

"However, just think: if you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? Of course not. Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information." - Creationist Don Batten, quoted in Radar's post http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-information-question-only-one.html

"If I have one document on my computer that takes up 478 K and I decide to keep one in my 2012 business folder for the product it describes and put another copy on my desktop so I can grab it quickly for reference then I have twice the information containers stored on my hard drive. So now I have 956 K allotted to one document that is stored in two places."

You have twice the information containers, yes. You don't have twice the information. Those are two completely different things.

Anonymous whatsit said...

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

Radar's A: "No. First of all we do not know the amount of information in the other editions. What if the others are all summaries or excerpts of the original? Unless we know more about these editions we cannot make a judgment here. Furthermore I fail to see the point you are seeking to make with this, so please give us more detail or just ask what you really want to ask?"

If you recall, the detail was provided back when this question was first asked. You can find the detail here: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-great-darwinist-information.html?showComment=1345009059218#c4531845009355263955

The other editions, for the sake of this argument, each have a chapter added, a chapter taken away. The question is whether five such editions collectively contain more information than five copies of any one of the editions.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Q: "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."

Radar's A: "Without studying the structure of the individual animals closely, The DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together would have more differing information than that of four lion cubs. All of these animals are Felids and would have similar DNA structures, because they are all one kind of animal. They are able to mate theoretically (although usually it requires human intervention for that to happen) and would all have a great deal of identical portions of their DNA string. But all four are variations of the greater Cat kind and since four lions from the same litter will have the code of the parents and will all be lions, they will have more of the same DNA in long sections of their DNA helix aka their genetic code. The differing variations expressed in the DNA of a lion plus a tiger plus a panther plus a jaguar would therefore have more coding differences and thereby be expected to contain more information. So I choose from column "B" here."

By "choosing from column B", you mean that the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together would have more information than the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter?

radar said...

#1 - I made it abundantly clear you do not get new information. You are arguing against yourself. No is what I said. I then specified no new information.

I then pointed out it would be more information by containers. This is significant because I can give books to five or fifty people rather than one.

I then explained how this would be more information in the Shannon/IT view of information. We do stubbing, we do deduplication, we do defragmentation and many other things to more efficiently store information digitally. But if I have 180 emails with the same attachments sent out and I am charged with archiving emails, I will need to keep a master copy of those emails and attachments and have stubs for all of them so the one sent by John Doe can be brought back and rebuilt.

#2 - This is a muddled question. You need to find a way to ask it so that it is clear. The problem with this question is twofold. Are you counting containers of information and how are you counting them? Letter counts? Word counts? Tell me the exact amount of the letters or words in all the editions and then you will realize you answer the question with the question. Unless you are seeking to determine the quality of the information and that is subjective rather than objective.

#3 - Yes, it is likely that the four different varieties of big cats would have more genetic information than four individual lion cubs. You would have to completely done gene mapping of all eight animals to be completely certain, however. But logic would expect that "B" is correct.

radar said...

"You have twice the information containers, yes. You don't have twice the information. Those are two completely different things."

Yes they are! I completely agree. What don't you understand here?

radar said...

"Anonymous whatsit said...

Biogenesis? Easy. It only refers to complex organisms (even as relatively "simple" as a complete cell) and so has nothing to do with current research on abiogenesis by natural means, which is conducted at the molecular level - a level at which the Law of Biogenesis was never tested.

Next."

Oh, whatsit. Where are you getting your information? First thing is this - no life has been found to come from non-life, so Darwinists removed Law from the Law of Biogenesis because of religious beliefs rather than scientific discoveries. We call that cheating or lying, you pick. It is deceptive in the extreme.

Secondly, there are plenty of real time experiments that have been done that show that the "building blocks of life" cannot form and exist in the wild. The molecular barriers to their existence are impassable. DNA cannot exist without the components, which cannot exist in nature unless protected within the cell or produced in labs and they are also racemic when produced, while DNA is all left-handed. Even if you get all the components to be non-racemic you still have no information, no code for assembly.

The extreme prevarication of saying that Biogenesis was never tested at the molecular level is astounding. To what lengths will Darwinists go to fool themselves? Pasteur and his peers gave life a chance to develop from far more friendly environments than being exposed to the elements and yet no life ever was formed without coming from life.

I have posted often on the reason the molecular level is hostile to the components of DNA and RNA and precludes life forming from non-life. But Pasteur proved that already and until you show life coming from non-life you have NO scientific basis for overturning the Law of Biogenesis.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"#1 - I made it abundantly clear you do not get new information. You are arguing against yourself. No is what I said. I then specified no new information.

I then pointed out it would be more information by containers. This is significant because I can give books to five or fifty people rather than one.

I then explained how this would be more information in the Shannon/IT view of information. We do stubbing, we do deduplication, we do defragmentation and many other things to more efficiently store information digitally. But if I have 180 emails with the same attachments sent out and I am charged with archiving emails, I will need to keep a master copy of those emails and attachments and have stubs for all of them so the one sent by John Doe can be brought back and rebuilt."


Okay, so please explain how and why you differ with Don Batten, who happens to agree with me on this point.

How does giving books to fifty people increase the actual information that is available? It's still the same information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"#2 - This is a muddled question. You need to find a way to ask it so that it is clear. The problem with this question is twofold. Are you counting containers of information"

... I'll stop you right there. No, we're not counting information. We're simply comparing which has more information while sidestepping quantification, since that has proven to be a dead end in all your previous posts.

Here is the relevant section again:

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...

"You have twice the information containers, yes. You don't have twice the information. Those are two completely different things."

Yes they are! I completely agree. What don't you understand here?


What I don't understand here is why you would cite adding information containers as an example of gaining information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Oh, whatsit. Where are you getting your information? First thing is this - no life has been found to come from non-life, so Darwinists removed Law from the Law of Biogenesis because of religious beliefs rather than scientific discoveries. We call that cheating or lying, you pick. It is deceptive in the extreme."

I must have missed something here. When and where did this happen?

In any case, the LOB isn't interesting because it's about complex life. It's self-evident and irrelevant, so not a terribly useful "Law". Maybe that's why it's not on the same level as natural laws.

radar said...

The Law of Biogenesis does apply because it precludes life coming from non life. This Law has been tested and tried continually since the 17th Century and in 1864 Pasteur got the scientific community to agree the evidence was so strong as to be a law. You do not overturn a law unless someone does an experiment that overturns it. That has not happened.

As for the books questions. There is no NEW information added and I have said that every time. You need to understand how information is viewed and by whom. IT must quantify information containers. 50 books will be more than one if placed on a hard drive. I can give the same information to 50 people with 50 books or I can give it to one person with one book.

I have been very clear. If considering one versus fifty copies of the same book?

1) No new information addded.
2) 50 times the amount of information containers.

radar said...

I admit it is hard for me to communicate on information with people who are not in the information industry.

The first question MUST have two answers, one about new information and one concerning the amount of information containers. Don Batten and I do NOT disagree. He is concerned with new information being added, which would not be happening. I have to answer the question fully and consider it from the IT side as applied science as well as pure science.

That second question is a convoluted mess! I would say yes but it makes your head hurt and I do not see the point of it. Nevertheless, yes. Since The Walking Dead is about to start the new season, I would prefer the fifth edition.

The third question was answered to the best of my knowledge. Has anyone completed gene mapping of all of these Felids? So the answer is a good educated guess that is 99 and 44/100% likely to be right.

Anonymous said...

"The extreme prevarication of saying that Biogenesis was never tested at the molecular level is astounding."

So when and where was Biogenesis tested at the molecular level? What was the verifiable, falsifiable claim that was tested? Who performed the test?

"[...] far more friendly environments than being exposed to the elements[...]"

"[...]I have posted often on the reason the molecular level is hostile to the components of DNA and RNA.[...]

Radar, this is just out and out incoherent. The "molecular level is hostile to the components of DNA and RNA"?! You do know what "the molecular level" is, right?

"But Pasteur proved that already and until you show life coming from non-life you have NO scientific basis for overturning the Law of Biogenesis."

The argument was never that the Law of Biogenesis should be overturned, but that it is self-evident and irrelevant, because it refers to something else. Availing yourself of the Law of Biogenesis in an argument about abiogenesis by natural means at the molecular level is simply a strawman argument.