Good video on creationist use of "information theory"

[Underseer]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

 

[rhutchin]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." .... Things don't happen overnight.

No, they take six days. And you've had 6000 years....

 

[James Brown]

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

And what will happen when biologists "nail down" a definition for species?

 

[Underseer]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

So your argument is that creationists are not wrong about information theory because you don't like the definition of species used by scientists?

In other words, you don't have an argument to make, so you're hoping to change the subject.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So your argument is that creationists are not wrong about information theory because you don't like the definition of species used by scientists?

Well, of course. Creationism only exists as a reaction to evolutionary theory. Without that, then their evidence (which mostly consists of taking evolutionary claims out of context and shouting 'Nuh-UH!') would be nonsensical gibberish.
They cannot provide evidence FOR creation except to show that either:
1) Scientists' claims are dismissable,
or as rhutchin tries to claim in this case,
2) Scientists' are 'just as bad' as creationists.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." Things don't happen overnight.

So generous, for someone who believes that everyone believes in god without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'
And when creationists use 'information theory' are they all using the same (however robust) definition as information theory specialists?
IS this a comparable tit-for-tat?
Or is it just a tit-from-twit?

 

[sdelsolray]

Since these arguments come up again and again, I thought this was worth posting.

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

And you could lead the way for your creationist tribe with meaningful definitions of "information" and "kind." But you haven't and you won't.

 

[Kharakov]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'

Yeah. Evolution is creeping death. Wow... sometimes I tell the truth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

My experience has been to observe that creationists don't want to nail down anything. If there's disagreement about what something is you just invent another denomination based on the difference of opinion. Religionists and creationists don't attempt to classify anything based on observation but rather opinion and their favorite interpretation of their favorite sacred translation. This means that in the end they can have everything every way they want it and all still be correct, all be believers, all be right. Science does not do this.

It's interesting how creationists continue to use science to enhance their interpretations of their sacred writings, and in the end say scientific observation is bullshit. There's certainly a lot of bullshitting going on, but it isn't among scientists.

 

[Underseer]

OK. This is one person's opinion. No more than that. Certainly, the creationists need to nail down their definitions of "information" and "kind." However, evolutionists need to nail down a definition for "species." Things don't happen overnight.

And you could lead the way for your creationist tribe with meaningful definitions of "information" and "kind." But you haven't and you won't.

Of course not. He would only do that if he wanted to prove his claims were true. He know they aren't, which is why creationists carefully avoid clearly defining things and will change definitions mid-debate whenever it is convenient to do so.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And you could lead the way for your creationist tribe with meaningful definitions of "information" and "kind." But you haven't and you won't.

Of course not. He would only do that if he wanted to prove his claims were true. He know they aren't, which is why creationists carefully avoid clearly defining things and will change definitions mid-debate whenever it is convenient to do so.

Well, if a given creationist is sincerely not ignorant on the subject, what's the mechanism driving the behavior? And actually, if a given creationist IS ignorant on the subject, what's the mechanism driving the behavior? It can only be natural selection.

Natural selection offers infinite change and possibility, it just doesn't all make the cut, obviously. That's why Mohammed can be riding around heaven in a Rolls Royce as we speak. Hercules and Jesus are enjoying their coloring books too.

 

[Underseer]

Of course not. He would only do that if he wanted to prove his claims were true. He know they aren't, which is why creationists carefully avoid clearly defining things and will change definitions mid-debate whenever it is convenient to do so.

Well, if a given creationist is sincerely not ignorant on the subject, what's the mechanism driving the behavior? And actually, if a given creationist IS ignorant on the subject, what's the mechanism driving the behavior? It can only be natural selection.

Natural selection offers infinite change and possibility, it just doesn't all make the cut, obviously. That's why Mohammed can be riding around heaven in a Rolls Royce as we speak. Hercules and Jesus are enjoying their coloring books too.

I hereby redefine "Hercules" to mean "a circle that is also a square," and "Mohammed" to mean "unmarried bachelor," therefore Mohammed and Hercules don't exist, but Jesus does. QEDuh.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I hereby redefine "Hercules" to mean "a circle that is also a square," and "Mohammed" to mean "unmarried bachelor," therefore Mohammed and Hercules don't exist, but Jesus does. QEDuh.

But somehow the irony meter did not explode... Odd.

 

[bilby]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'
And when creationists use 'information theory' are they all using the same (however robust) definition as information theory specialists?
IS this a comparable tit-for-tat?
Or is it just a tit-from-twit?

Quite. A species is clearly defined as a population that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

The concept of the species is not very useful in many circumstances, however, because it simply doesn't allow for the fact that populations are not sharply divided from each other. Like 'colour', species is a useful concept when distinguishing between distantly related entities; Light with a wavelength of 520nm is green, and light with a wavelength of 470nm is blue, but it is futile to try to define an exact point at which one colour becomes another - light at 495nm wavelength is neither blue nor green - or perhaps it is both blue and green - and no two people would set the dividing line between blue and green in the same exact spot.

A similar situation arises with ring species; the European Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull are distinct species, according to the definition given above; but under the same definition, the East Siberian Herring Gull is the same species as the European Herring Gull, and is also the same species as the Lesser Black-Backed Gull.

This is not a problem for evolution - quite the reverse; if species arise from common ancestors, this is exactly the kind of thing we would predict. But it does demonstrate that conceptualising 'species' as a clear-cut set of boxes in which populations or individuals can be placed without ambiguity is a cognitive error.

Reality is not as simple as we might like; this is not a problem for reality, nor is it a problem for science, but it is a problem for those who wish for the world to be simple.

 

[Kharakov]

I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it?

Quite. A species is clearly defined as a population that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

The concept of the species is not very useful in many circumstances, however, because it simply doesn't allow for the fact that populations are not sharply divided from each other.

What about clones, bacteria, viruses and the like?

Show

Like 'colour', species is a useful concept when distinguishing between distantly related entities; Light with a wavelength of 520nm is green, and light with a wavelength of 470nm is blue, but it is futile to try to define an exact point at which one colour becomes another - light at 495nm wavelength is neither blue nor green - or perhaps it is both blue and green - and no two people would set the dividing line between blue and green in the same exact spot.

That isn't exactly right (check this wiki on  Color_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception) (light isn't colored). People can have their neural architecture switched, so that the low wavelength detectors fire as "blue" and the high wavelength detectors fire as "red". People with "left handed" neural architectures see an "inverted" color palette, etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Quite. A species is clearly defined as a population that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

okay.
So at the least, 'Kind' =! 'Species.'

There would be no point for God to decree, in Lev 19, not to let animals of different species breed together. Biology is already better at that than any fence.

 

[Underseer]

Wait.
I thought that science HAS a definition of species, there are just areas and boundaries that don't quite conform to it? I mean, like all labels, it's an attempt to let us get a grasp on what's happening. And the biosphere is more complicated than our labels are comprehensive.

But... Do any two creationists offer the same definition of 'kind?' Is the fuzziness of 'kind' at all analogous to the incompleteness of 'species?'
And when creationists use 'information theory' are they all using the same (however robust) definition as information theory specialists?
IS this a comparable tit-for-tat?
Or is it just a tit-from-twit?

Quite. A species is clearly defined as a population that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

[...]

That's what they teach schoolchildren. The reality is a bit more complicated as you mention.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, we're talking about school textbooks, anyway. That's where creationism is aimed, at what we tell people when they're more impressionable.

But even if it's like an onion, different levels of complexity at different levels of scholarship, there IS a definition of species, no? For as far as it goes, for as useful as it needs to be at differing levels of research, the word means something.

But when rhutchin says 'mutations cannot increase complexity,' for example, he has no coherent definition of the word, making his objection meaningless.