What's Wrong With the Creationist Argument from Information Theory

[MumblingMickey]

Why would anyone be bothered to counteract such a silly argument to begin with? Information is 'observed' being added to entire populations of organisms over time.

So forget about needing to explain it...the argument 'complexity does not arise from simplicity' is contradicted by observation.... without a requirement for any explanation.

Essentially the response to anyone stupid enough to offer this as an argument really should be 'Okay, fine, now explain why the opposite is observed?'

[TravisMorien]

@MumblingMickey The argument is commonly used by creationists who are smart enough to know better than "evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics" but not well educated in science to understand what evolution actually is. It is used by some of the more "sophisticated" creationist blogs and apologists.

Remember, there are still a lot of creationists who maintain that there are no transitional fossils, so it's hard to overstate the level of ignorance out there.

[MumblingMickey]

@TravisMorien In fact the funniest part of all this is that they could wipe out all the nonsensical shit in one fail swoop and still square off evolution with genesis... but its too late to do that now...they have a rake of nonsense that would all be wiped out.

In fact all they have to do is go with the God made all animals and they started to evolve... but rather than do that they create a total nonsensical pile of garbage where pulling a few strings unravels the whole thing.

[labrat1807]

Been hoping to come across a vid like this. Finally I can just refer creationists to this vid when they come out with their clap trap. Finally they might understand that information is actually dependent on a process or mechanism. No process = no information. No natural selection = no information. Kind of like the old "if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" problem (although it does make a soundwave so not the best analogy, but you get my point).

[MumblingMickey]

@labrat1807 Information theory deals with hypothetical's of information which only has one purpose on the receiving end and one form on the broadcasting end and must be intact or as close to it as possible.

This is not the same in biology where the deviation is so large and environment so varied that something that offers a detriment in one area might also offer an extreme advantage in another. eg. Sickle Cell Anemia.

Plus the opposite is observed...which is the main reason its bollox!

[labrat1807]

@MumblingMickey I think that is the thing that pisses me off the most. Creationists go on and on about this law and that, claiming it proves evolution can't have happened. They may as well say that the law of gravity proves that man can't fly, whilst sitting on an aeroplane 30,000ft above the ground. It's just mental!

[MumblingMickey]

@labrat1807 Oddly they did once claim that flight was impossible.citing that God made man perfect and had he wanted man to have flight he would have supplied wings. After the Montgolfier's they switched to controlled flight, after Lilienthal they switched to powered 'heavier than air' flight...and even claimed Lilienthal's death was the hand of God.

All that was quickly reversed and all forgotten in the 20th century.

Now they are repeating the whole nonsense with evolution.

cont.

[MumblingMickey]

@labrat1807 First it was all evolution is clearly wrong, then came the discovery of DNA and it was all macro evolution was clearly wrong.... then came public education asking them to question where noah got all the kinds... which resulted in super fast evolution.... then came a total U turn with ID...where evolution happens but is controlled by God....

All the time they are forgetting that ID is in direct contradiction with genesis... So that'll die as quickly as objections to aircraft..

[labrat1807]

@MumblingMickey I did not know about the claim that flight was impossible. Very instructive. Yeah, there's a definite trend to the religious psychopathology, and it seems to transcend centuries. I wonder if it has a half life, or will actually become extinct at some point...........here's waiting.

[MumblingMickey]

@labrat1807 Well from what I know of the history of such notions there is indeed a 'half life' in that the ideas are directly attached to the level of knowledge available at any one time to a population.

In the 1700's that wasn't a lot. There was a lot of information, but it wasn't available to the general population. They got all their news from the pulpit.

However that's no longer the case. The pulpit now has to compete with a plethora of information sources, not least the internet.

[MumblingMickey]

@labrat1807 So if you were to measure the speed at which new information entered the 'general' population from say 1600 to 1800 that would probably equate with the modern period 1990 to 2010...

Which means 25 year old creationists will eventually be 60 yrs old in a world where their own grandchildren have 100 times their general knowledge base!

I'd find it pretty amazing if those grandchildren understood nucleosynthesis and were still biblical literalists!

[alanbriv]

Dear evolutionist, just keep telling yourself that it just looks like design. Keep telling yourself that the complexity of universe(from the atom to galaxies) was caused by nothing and continues to be caused by nothing. You know that a STARTER exist. You know that chance is just a word and therefore can not be the cause. YOUR GIG IS UP! Evolution will go down as JUST another modern myth.

[TravisMorien]

@alanbriv Your post reeks of a certain amount of desperation. Being unable to provide evidence or even some kind of cogent logical argument you're just projecting your own beliefs onto others and claiming that their disagreement must be based on denial.

If you are serious about actually converting people, you're going to have to do a lot better. Good luck!

[dancingnancy09]

@TravisMorien I couldnt agree more that the misguided fool called alanbrivs post utterly reeks of desperation-thats very well said-I think the words 'your gig is up"(someone should tell him its spelled jig as in the dance) and things going down in history as myths is desperate in that he is well aware that it is the case for what he wants to beleive- creationism and religion in general-I'd feel sorry for moron if he wern't so offensive, ignorant and pathetic

[labrat1807]

@alanbriv We don't believe the universe came from nothing. Keep telling yourself we do if you want, but we don't. 

[labrat1807]

@alanbriv Dear creationist windbag. The first thing to understand about evolutionary theories, whether they be regarding cosmic, stellar, chemical, biological or cultural evolution, is that none of them address the origins of the universe. You can accept any type of evolutionary theory and still believe in a creator god. Maybe not the one you believe in, but that's your problem and not the problem of evolutionists. Yours sincerely, an evolutionist.

[FiverBeyond]

It doesn't seem to be an important point, but it hurts so much to see such a respected and important field as Information Theory being hijacked to supposedly support Intelligent Design. It's an insult to Shannon and his brilliant work.

Just by using the word 'information' as a rhetorical tool, creationists ignore nearly every aspect of Information Theory. Prime example... it is vital to creationism that 'information' can never be quantified... but that is precisely the whole point of I.T.!

[MumblingMickey]

Travis... y'know I find it amazing that sitting in front of the largest library the world has ever known...that the average creationist asks YOU or I to prove this or that...when in 20 seconds they can have a qualified answer!

Its simply amazing... and in fact brings into my mind the average IQ of states in the USA.... guess where the lowest scores are?

[a01011399]

But you have to prove this things...

complex systems can not come from simpler systems, therefore modern organisms could have not come from simpler life forms.

(cont)

[a01011399]

(cont)

proves

1) Genomes are not getting more complex today, why assuming that things where different in the past?

2) It is mathematically impossible (information theory)

3) ancient fossils do not represent simpler life forms, for example ancient clams where not simpler than modern clams (acording to the fossil record)

(cont)

[a01011399]

(cont)

you said that natural selection can create complexity, well YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT, you ave to prove that organisms are getting more complex as time passes, you have to prove that my ancestors where simpler that I, if you don´t prove it then evolution can only be a hypothesis

[TravisMorien]

a01011399, would it be fair to say that it would not be possible even in principle to persuade you with scientific evidence because your mind is completely closed to the possibility that Augustine was right about some parts of the bible being non-literal (see my St Augustine vid)?

If your mind is not completely closed, then what evidence would satisfy you that evolution in fact can increase complexity, and has increased it?

I already explained what was wrong with that "proof" you mentioned.

[a01011399]

´´what evidence would satisfy you that evolution in fact can increase complexity´´

yes, prove that complexity in the genomes is increasing today, if genomes are getting more complex today, then it will be fair to assume that the same thing happened in the past.

in your video you did not provide evidence, you simply SUGGESTED a hypothesis.

besides we are not arguing about the bible, so why did you mentioned it, in your last comment?

[TravisMorien]

"in your video you did not provide evidence, you simply SUGGESTED a hypothesis."

I actually stated three examples, the evolution of complex blood clotting, colour vision and multisegmented animals. I am not merely suggesting a hypothesis, that is how scientists say they happened.

I suspect if I were to find papers naming exactly which genes on which chromozomes were duplicated that I would be wasting my time.

What to you is "evidence" and is any evidence ever going to be enough for you?

[a01011399]

No, you did not prove that colored vision evolved from a simpler system. you are simply suggesting something that could have happened BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

´´What to you is "evidence" and is any evidence ever going to be enough for you?´´

yes, I already told you, if you prove that life is getting more complex today as time passes, then you will have evidence for evolution.

[a01011399]

complex systems can not come from simpler systems, that is what information theory claims.

as an evolutionists you are claiming that information theory does not apply to living things, because living things are subjected to natural selection............... I understand that. but now you have to prove it WITH QUANTITATIVE METHODS, PROVE that natural selection can ´´produce´´ complexity from simplicity.

[TravisMorien]

"complex systems can not come from simpler systems, that is what information theory claims."

This video explains in some detail why that claim is completely false.

Did you even watch the video?

If you did, please explain what your objection is to it.

You can't just keep repeating something over and over when I've already debunked it, but if you have issues with the debunking, state your issues.

[MumblingMickey]

Chaos theory seems to disagree with your understanding of information theory... you see an organism is not a CLOSED system... everything it des in the world... when it eats, sleeps, goes out in the sun, reproduces...all of that DAMAGES its dna... so even a single organism...which DOES not reproduce ADDS INFORMATION.... and that...is self evident... or are you now going to tell me animals don't get old and die?

[TravisMorien]

"you are simply suggesting something that could have happened BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED"

I already stated the proof. The opsin genes were duplicated. We know that most mammals only have two. It is no coincidence at all that when we look at the genes applicable to colour vision, the primate genome shows the distinctive signature of a gene duplication.

And that is evidence of complexity increasing!!!

[TravisMorien]

"the primate genome shows the distinctive signature of a gene duplication."

And here is a link to a paper published in the peer reviewed journal Genome Research documenting those gene duplications:

"The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates"

genome. cshlp. org/content/9/7/629.full

[TravisMorien]

Something tells me that just because I produced for you a peer reviewed scientific paper providing exactly the type of evidence you requested still isn't going to have much impact.

But I guess you now have a chance to prove that you are more intellectually honest than most creationists. Lets see.

[TravisMorien]

I've put a link to that article, and another link to an article by Ken Miller on the evolution of blood clotting in the video information to the right of the video. Click on "more info" to see the links.

[brpierce]

"prove that complexity in the genomes is increasing today?"

What would prove that, in your eyes?

Would a single-celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism prove it?

How about an organism with twice the chromosomes of its ancestor species?

[MumblingMickey]

"yes, prove that complexity in the genomes is increasing today,"

Downs Syndrome... 1 full copy of chromosome 22 is duplicated! Of course Downs Syndrome also inhibits reproduction..

and I think in fairness you could have gone off and found that out for yourself if you weren't so lazy! You can do so now though...there are hundreds of examples online!

[MumblingMickey]

@a01011399 Surely your understanding of evolution is not tied solely to one particular anonymous person providing you personally with evidence?

Is it not possible for you to go off on your own, investigate these things, and come to a personal conclusion based on the available evidence?

You don't need anyone to provide you with evidence, you can provide that for yourself.

I think your problem is that you don't want to! My guess is you'll avoid anything that demonstrates where you are wrong.

[MumblingMickey]

@a01011399 "you ave to prove that organisms are getting more complex as time passes"

Fine just look that up... start with the following research ... Richard Lenski LTE experiment... where you can read all about new base pairs... both larger and smaller genome sizes and additions to traits and deletion of traits depending on the environment... or just look at the average race horse and compare it to a Zebra!

Seriously at the very least make a point that can't be simply shown to be incorrect.

[MumblingMickey]

@a01011399

"Genomes are not getting more complex today,..." I know you were told they don't...but the idiots that told you that aren't geneticists.

So for example the Gene size of maize. It increased from 4.9 pg for hybrid Seneca 60 to 5.5 pg? That's a genome increase of over 12% observed in only a few generations.

Source: Annals of Botany 82 (Supplement A): 37-44, 1998

So it is indeed possible, and observed that genome sizes do increase, decrease and stay the same size.

Discuss this!

[sabertooth1980]

Sweeeeet. Hopefully some of these people who keep arguing against you will actually Watch this video.

I love it how you put in there if I may paraphrase this in so many words.

"Evolution. So easy even a Redneck can do it."

[TravisMorien]

No creationist replies this time?

Does this mean I have finally answered all pseudoscientific objections to evolution by creationists, or simply that they're afraid if they do make another counterargument I'll make another video about it and explain clearly and with examples why the argument is wrong?

[MumblingMickey]

@TravisMorien Have you not noticed creationists becoming less numerous over time online generally... and certainly shrinking on youtube?

Now there are a few reasons I think for this... (its not that they all now understand what sorts of idiots they were)

The most obvious one is they are simply warned away from using modern social media and the internet generally....

Which suits me fine... let them lock themselves away from communications technology... that would be just dandy.