Information Argument Destroyed ! (Answering the 15 Question Creationist Pamphlet)

A favorite Creationist Argument is that of "Information". It is the notion that DNA is information, therefore, we should intuitively expect it to be the product of an Intelligent agent of some sort. Not that that would explain where the intelligent agent got his intelligence or existence.

I was given an excellent excuse by Lapkine77 to destroy this argument, with a twist, by participating in his project "Answering the 15 Question Pamphlet" along with some Excellent Youtubers. Its an effort to counteract the negative consequences of this new Creationist Propaganda Campaign.
This video is a part of that collaboration project. You can watch the whole project along with links to the video maker's channels here :
http://www.youtube.com/user/lapkine77#g/c/1AC2C2C03F5D3893

And please do visit Lapkine's channel here: http://www.youtube.com/lapkine77

We do have to keep in mind, that the Information Argument is on its own a failure, because it replaces one unknown with another. However I still find good reasons to destroy it.

Watching in HD 720 quality will increase your viewing pleasure.

Thanks for watching!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Creationism
• Intelligent
• Design
• debate
• darwin
• dawkins
• creationist
• response
• information
• Biology
• Question
• Evolution
• Campaign
• PPSIMMONS
• ShockofGod
• Nephilimfree
• Stephen
• Meyer
• Michael
• Behe
• Ken
• Ham
• Debunked
• refuted
• destroyed
• gene
• duplication
• eye

[cperez1000]

To the Shakespeare text "analogy" about information I would add that all of his writings evolved over time... The final work did not come about ex nihilo. He had to do several drafts, delete parts, add parts, modify them... He made mistakes he had to correct. I know it's not a correct analogy bc a piece text does not mutate, but just wanted to have some fun.

Anyway, a better comparison is against genetic algorithms, which can derive into solutions by themselves. Sure, Creationist avoid that.

[ONESPECIES]

@cperez1000 I mainly try to focus on the interpretation of DNA as almost a written language by the ID proponents. Undoubtably other models or examples do more justice to DNA, but Shakespeare stands for the written word, the Bible, the sense that DNA is something unmistakably "intelligent" in nature.

[The1066Al]

This has got to be one of most ridiculous videos I have ever seen. To say that DNA is not "information" - or that it does not carry information is tantamount to saying that a Shakespeare play is not "information" because all it consists of is paper and ink! You obviously have no idea what information is, and you are blinded by extreme materialistic reductionism. Funnily enough, even Richard Dawkins wouldn't agree with you, as he has stated that life is based on information (Blind Watchmaker).

[ONESPECIES]

@The1066Al What Dawkins calls information is any inheritable feauture of Biology. What you and ID proponents call information is words, language, messages, all sorts of daily uses of the word, apart rt from its scientific meaning. And you get so carried away with that, that you forget to study the actual structure, nature, and history of the DNA molecule, which is contrary to a "Designer". This video is about the wrong interpretation of Information. Its not about showing DNA is just goo.

[SocraticFox]

I can't explain thunder therefore pikachu did it 

[ONESPECIES]

@SocraticFox Zeus....

[ONESPECIES]

@thegeniushasreturned Bother Making Sense? 1) Order is not information. The molecules in a diamond are in order, is there any information in it? A Genie perhaps? 2) Its not a blue print. Its compared too. And a limited comparison it is since DNA has no actual blueprint of lets say an organ in it. 3) WOT? AntiTheocracy responded properly. 4) It does NOT. It randomly mutates over time, hence NO sorry. 5) Well RNA copies itself without a " given mechanism" get it? Take all your fail back home boy!

[ONESPECIES]

@Mogley52 Boo Hoo, Mathematical Probability in the hands of creationists will have chewing gum on your shoe as impossible and only accomplished by God. Your sources are evidently simply propaganda pamphlets, sites and books, and you lack any respectable understanding of the natural world.

[nahaymath]

Tiny probability times enormous number of trials = reality.

[nahaymath]

@ONESPECIES Separate from the issue of "information", all creationist arguments from the point of probability are equivalent to saying: "there is only one timeline, on history, only a single point in time right now: therefore, the probability of all possible configurations of atoms being what they are now is zero, hence there's a creator".

In math, we simply say:one-point sets have measure zero. Lebesgue already gave us the language in 1901 (I think) to express ideas like this consistently.

[cperez1000]

@ONESPECIES

sure I think the same.

My point about genetic algorithms is that it's a model where you can get meaningful information without an intelligent agent. The solutions provided by GAs are oftentimes more complex than a designers' solution. So they show that one cannot infer design from information.

[ONESPECIES]

@nahaymath Thank you for the kind feedback. I was away due to several reasons but now I am back and more videos will be out soon.

[nahaymath]

This is my favorite of your videos, ONESPECIES! Thanks!

[The1066Al]

It is easy to prove that the sequence of the bases A,C,G,T cannot derive from the chemistry of the molecular structure of DNA. The whole point of meaningful information is that the bits - or letters - that make up that information can be arranged indeterminately - like letters on a page, whose order is not determined by the chemistry of the paper and ink. If the sequence of bases was determined chemically, then a meaningful code would be impossible. You are so wrong!