Thinking about Creation: The Origin of Information Systems

[maplebayou1]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You need to look at your assumptions more closely and tease apart some of the concepts you are unintentionally melding. An "information system" is not necessarily a communication system. Because abstractions exist in some sense does not mean that there needs to be anything understanding them. Great complexity can arise from simple systems following very simple rules. Good luck in your pursuits.

[gerontodon]

video stopped at 53 seconds.

[jeffparr123]

I can deduce information about a star 1000's of light years away (must be <6000 Ly away sorry about that;-). chemical composition, its relative motion, wether it may have a conpanion, and much else mearly from the radiation I recieve from it.

That information is encoded in the photons, by this guy augument I have discovered ET. Must e-mail SETI.

Do any of these creationist ever properly study a subject before they disseminate ther opinions on it. Like understanding what information is.

[FiverBeyond]

Hmmmm... not really.

In the first place, the definition of 'information system' is so rooted in humanities that many aspects of it are arbitrary. For example: all known non-living information systems were created by humans. Therefore, we can conclude that the genome was also created by humans, right?

And it should be noted that the physical organism created by the DNA system aren't semantics. What is the meaning of a finger?

[NephilimFree]

Well done!

[jhbbunch]

How does a 3 legged rabbit and a 4 legged fox need an 'intelligent agent' to decide what the outcome of the race is going to be?

I have asked this question for years: What is the criteria for something's existence to be proof of a God and it's non-existence to be proof of no God? It's never been answered. It always comes back 'if A then God, and if not A, why then God also." That is, there is no criteria. Coherent laws of nature prove God, the lack of them (miracles) prove God also. Useless.

[stussy535]

What a beautiful floral arrangement this genius is wearing on his head.

[tristenmc]

You're on the right track. Information is non-physical. You have to have an awareness to know what the heck information is. So, we must infer that awareness (consciousness) came before physical life.

[memoryofakiss]

prime numbers contain information and are empirical.

all you need to have are 2 clear empirical states to form a basic information system without intelligence.

[azfarmb]

this guy is dumb, you know how some people think they are smarter than they really are? well this guy lacks some serious learning, thats why he developed such a false assumption.

[maplebayou1]

@azfarmb Because someone has a half-baked theory does not mean they are dumb. When Niels Bohr pointed out to Einstein that his own theory of relativity contradicted one of his attacks on quantum mechanics, that did not make Einstein suddenly dumb. Calling people dumb is no way to point them in a productive direction.

[azfarmb]

@maplebayou1 the world is flat... lets debate that idea. Some things are just dumb, and your comment about supporting dumb ideas is one of those dumb ideas. Questioning an intelligent idea with another intelligent idea is acceptable, but some ideas are so stupid that the person bringing them up lacks clear knowledge. The earth is not flat, and what this guy is proposing is just dumb.

I think you get the point.

[maplebayou1]

@azfarmb First of all, you did not say his ideas were dumb. You said, "This guy is dumb.' Second, I did not make any comment about "supporting dumb ideas." Third, I find it remarkable that you talk of what is "acceptable." What productive purpose do you hope to accomplish by ad hominem attacks? I did not, nor do I propose to debate the guy. I merely suggested that you refrain from calling him names. Sorry if that is "unacceptable."

[sardarshamas]

Our mind is a complex tool such as a computer! Our Soul or subconcious is US! Its the actual plug which is connected to the Universal laws. I.e The matematical principles and laws that govern the entire cosmos. Therefore, its the subconcious which receives the message from the angels (physcial math laws) which in turn receive their instructions from the supreme energy (Allah (God)). Thus the message will only make sense if you can process the math!

[sardarshamas]

Allah (God) = Energy

Angels = Physical laws and properties we know as mathematical laws.

Therefore, the Human Being is controlled by language. Language which is Mathematics. We are a complex set of laws of Physics and our composition is a formula that governs our creation. Thus it stands to reason that we have the medium to comprhend the language. One is our MIND and the other is our subconcious or our Soul!

[Epyon42]

No. This is wrong. Bad.

[wazooloo]

Haha! What part is wrong? Scientifically speaking, information has only ever been observed to come from information. As he said, information isn't just information; you need a sender, receiver and agreed method of transmission of information.

[Epyon42]

The entire fucking premise is wrong. "Scientifically speaking" my aching ass, learn some god damn biochemistry. Living organisms do not function the same way as a computer. It's just simply not analogous, and no pseudo-philosophical-engineery bullshit is going to cover that up.

[wazooloo]

Ah - biochemistry; would that be biochemistry that shows that the genome (information) is DETERIORATING over time, and not increasing, as is required for evolution? (John Sanford, co-developer of the gene gun, "Genetic entropy")

[Epyon42]

That statement leads me to reiterate, very strongly, with an incredible amount of profanity and smugness, to learn something about biochemistry. If you can't understand how DNA is repaired, you have a series gap in educational understanding of the subject matter.

[Epyon42]

and by series I mean serious

[wazooloo]

Haha! Gotcha; serious - so which came first - the repair mechanism or the DNA? John Sanford has demonstrated - well beyond any doubt, that the genome is deteriorating. Evolution thrives on mutations, but mutations are "repaired." If you remove the repair mechanism, the organism dies a rapid death due to mutation accumulation.

[wazooloo]

So again, I ask, which came first? The DNA or the repair mechanism? Let's assume there IS beneficial mutations (this is arguable at best); they are outnumbered somewhere between 300 and 1,000 to 1 with near-neutral to negative mutations. You can't select out the beneficials; so for every beneficial mutation, you've gained 300 to 1,000 other mutations; many of them negative. The genome is deteriorating.

[Epyon42]

Again, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I don't know who taught you that, but it's like talking about how gravity is really just "sticky atoms". It makes no sense. Again, if you can't understand DNA repair mechanisms, you aren't going to understand evolution (which is glaringly apparent). Wikipedia should have some good information. Oh, and to answer your question: RNA. Now, go. Read.

[wazooloo]

You didn't answer ANY of my questions. RNA is not an answer. Perhaps it is you who should be reading Dr. Sanford's book? He's spelled it out quite nicely. In a nutshell: Evolution can't keep the boat afloat, let alone explain where the boat came from. The genome is deteriorating. DNA repair mechanisms stop evolution by removing mutations; no repair mechanism, the organism dies, evolution dies with it, no evolution.

[Epyon42]

No. That is simply factually wrong and incredibly incredibly dumb. Good god. I can't explain to you the number of repair mechanisms, let alone try to understand what the fuck you mean by deteriorating. It's utter nonsense, it's not even common creationist nonsense, it's just...dumb. Check wikipedia. And RNA was the correct answer. RNA was the most like precursor for modern DNA. Many viral RNA strands have primitive repair/error checking mechanims. The answer to your question is: neither.

[wazooloo]

Viruses can't reproduce; they hijack the reproductive systems of other, vastly more complex systems. RNA can't be the precursor - you haven't answered the origin of DNA, and more importantly, the information it carries.  Secondly - I gave you the title of the book, and the world-renowned expert who wrote it: Dr. Jonathan Sanford, Genetic Entropy. You are calling him "dumb," not I.

[wazooloo]

Lastly, I didn't ask you explain the number of repair mechanisms; I asked you how evolution could happen with OR without it.

[Epyon42]

And I said that there is too much explanation for a 500 character comment limit, check wikipedia. While you're there, check out this virus called "HIV" and what anti-HIV drugs attack. I'll give you a hint! It's the proofreading mechanism.

[Epyon42]

Your Doctor seems to have made some amazing discoveries, and he has excellent credentials. I wonder why he hasn't bothered to publish his findings in a scientific journal, where they would be open to criticism from other scientists. Oh wait, as I stated, it's utterly retarded. You simply don't understand what you are talking about. You will never convince _anyone_ with previous knowledge on the subject because you are spouting absolute nonsense. How many times must I reiterate this?

[Epyon42]

Apologetic books are great for bed time reading, but when it comes to the real world and actually presenting those ideas to people who know what they are talking about, you will only get mocked and ridiculed. I don't know what else to tell you than to start from scratch since you earnestly believe that a genome is deteriorating.

[Epyon42]

Since I gather you still won't be bothered to read the page, here is the exact quote from Wiki on HIV using it's own replication mechanism: Once the viral capsid enters the cell, an enzyme called reverse transcriptase liberates the single-stranded (+)RNA from the attached viral proteins and copies it into a complementary DNA of 9 kb size. This process of reverse transcription is extremely error-prone and it is during this step that mutations may occur.

[wazooloo]

Alright; would you agree that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral? Would you also agree that there are many negative mutations? Would you also not agree that beneficial mutations are extremely rare at best? This is all common knowledge; surely we can agree on this?

[Epyon42]

agreed. And yet there are 3 billion bps in humans, and we have error proofing of about every 1-10 million. That's still a lot of errors capable every time your cells split.

[wazooloo]

Agreed; the estimates are between 300 to 1,000 mutations per generation according to _many_ experts; it's certainly over 100. According to Dr. J.F. Crow (1997, PNAS 94:8380-8386 The High spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?); this is an accumulating deterioration of 1-2% per generation. Dr. Crow is not a creationist. It is an accumulation of errors, with pretty much NO beneficial mutations.

[Epyon42]

Protip: That's not in gametic cells, dude. Sperm and ovaries are all that matters, otherwise you would be correct. Ovary cells are made right at the beginning of a girls life, and stay dormant until puberty. They don't mutate at such an alarmingly rate because they don't divide that many times. Same with sperm cells. Again, you were simply misled. The article you cited specifically even says 1 mutation per zygote.

[wazooloo]

A later study by Kondrashov (2002; "Direct estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates...; Human mutation 21:12-27) has JUST nucleotide substitutions ONLY in reproductive cells at around 100 per generation. He told Dr. Sanford personally that was his LOW number; it may have been as high as 300/generation. Nachman & Crowell put it at around 175. (Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide...; 2000; Genetics 156:297-304)

[Epyon42]

This isn't much different than your last link. Genes only occupy about 5% of a genome, estimated. 300 base pairs out of the entire genome wouldn't be all that surprising then. The vast majority of that would be neutral. You still aren't understanding the basics here, you're just throwing papers at me until one of your talking points "sticks" at this point. Since you cite science papers, why did you keep citing this guy's unscientific book?

[Epyon42]

And to answer your reply before you post it: 1 minor mutation in a specific gene is actually a lot lower than I would have predicted. And yes, 1 minor negative mutation each generation is acceptable because, again, it's out of an assload of base pairs. Very rarely will your mate have the same mutation, and produce a defective child. That is, of course, unless you are inbred. Which is why you shouldn't.

[wazooloo]

Nonsense? You just built my case! HIV KILLS. This is what happens when the repair mechanism is removed - death. If the repair mechanism is intact, it repairs mutations in the DNA. Evolution thrives on mutations, the repair mechanism stops it. If mutations are allowed, it KILLS the organism, evolution dies with it. This is common knowledge! You sure you know what you're talking about?

[Epyon42]

what the fuck, dude. come on.

[Kailoa36]

The Polynesian languages were entirely oral and did not have an alphabets until the post European contact period. Therefore, information systems do not require an alphabet. This is just one or many problems with this video.

[baraminology]

The lack of a written alphabet does not mean that it did not have one. A dictionary can be considered a very large alphabet, and so can phonemes. The main requirements of an alphabet are as stated in the video -- that it has a finite size and that the sequence is based on formal rather than physical rules.