tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5299268382486039378..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Information Theory (Concluded)Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34990506236230755512008-05-07T10:36:00.000-04:002008-05-07T10:36:00.000-04:00I think the proponents of the theory of evolution ...I think the proponents of the theory of evolution are the ones committing the fallacy of begging the question.<BR/><BR/>First, the proponents of the theory tell us that the theory explains only the origin of species when the existence of species were already present in historical time.<BR/><BR/>Then from the mutation of dna in organisms of species and the natural selection of organisms which turned out to be better suited for surviving in the environment owing to the changed dna, down the billions of years new species better suited to survive in their environment came about.<BR/><BR/>But the theory does not tell us how the species from where new species or latter species originated from after billions of years came about.<BR/><BR/>That is begging the question, because the origin of species was not explained from a point in time when there were still no species and no dna.<BR/><BR/>Consider this everyday scenario: a thief was caught but he explained that the money he has with him came from earlier money he used to do some business which earned him more money; but the question is where the very first money he ever had with him came to be in his possession.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>levsoo<BR/><BR/>gertes@hotmail.comodrareghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08367983630108000071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67358858539431090032008-02-17T17:58:00.000-05:002008-02-17T17:58:00.000-05:00Trevor said:---It's begging the question to assume...Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>It's begging the question to assume that because you needed to exercise "intelligence" to simulate a natural structure, therefore that structure must also be the product of intelligence. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>It doesn't beg the question to point out intelligence is required, because that is the <I>obvious</I> default position. If you see a system that is this complex it is not begging the question to assume it is the result of intelligence. Rather, it begs the question to say that it can occur without any intelligence at all.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the ID movement has proof on its side. We have demonstrated that these types of complex structures require intelligence. Darwinists have not proven they can come about without intelligence. They haven't even tried to when it comes to issues such as RNA being read in multiple frames, rather they simply assume Darwinism must be true. (Hey, assuming it's true...isn't <I>that</I> begging the question?)<BR/><BR/>Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>Your studies of "information theory" seem to consist of listening to parodies of evolutionists.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>My studies of information theory had nothing to do with evolutionists. I learned information theory first and foremost through computer science. I've simply applied the concepts to evolutionary theory.<BR/><BR/>By the way, demonstrate where my statements are wrong. You're simply arguing by insinuation here. You've provided no actual refutation for anything I've written.<BR/><BR/>Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>A successful genetic structure will continue to exist so as to form a basis of something to build on.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>In other words: "Assume a functional genetic structure. From that, we can evolve whatever we want!" Again, who's begging the question here?<BR/><BR/>Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>Your example of several grammatically correct 'mutations' occurring by <BR/>chance has nothing analogous to that factor.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>My analogy is only disanologous insofar as a typo in a sentence will not kill the book, whereas a mutation in RNA often will kill the organism. If anything, my example was not rigorous enough.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, multiple reading frames for RNA causes the RNA to be even <I>less</I> able to withstand random mutations. Why? Because changing one nucleotide affects <I>three</I> amino acids rather than the normative 1:1 correlation. If anything, reading nucleotides in multiple frameworks actually decreases the ability of the organism to survive random mutations.<BR/><BR/>Of course you would know this if you actually grasped the concepts instead of being so brainwashed by the monkey story that you think Intelligent Design claims the same thing when it does not.<BR/><BR/>Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>Therefore your aesthetic judgment "It should be obvious to everyone that this is too complicated to be explained by naturalistic, non-intelligent, random mutations." is bogus.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>It is not at all bogus. Ask anyone who has studied information theory.<BR/><BR/>Trevor said:<BR/>---<BR/>Your analogy to evolution, like all analogies is simply a reflection of your understanding of the mechanism of evolution.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>An assertion in lieu of an argument. I've specifically mentioned RNA viruses that rely on having three separate frames being read in order for the virus to replicate. This is a specific example that cannot be explained by Natural Selection processes. I've illustrated this with an analogy, but it is the virus itself that I am referring to. You cannot deal with this example because it cannot have come about from a random, undirected process.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22365652529186782432008-02-17T10:29:00.000-05:002008-02-17T10:29:00.000-05:00And I'll bet the first time you heard the title 'W...And I'll bet the first time you heard the title 'Will and Grace' you thought it was a sitcom about reformed theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17838059209858210022008-02-17T10:13:00.000-05:002008-02-17T10:13:00.000-05:00"It's begging the question to assume that because ..."It's begging the question to assume that because you needed to exercise "intelligence" to simulate a natural structure, therefore that structure must also be the product of intelligence. After all, you are a human being. Everything you do will be the product of conscious thought. It is the caveman's error to anthropomorphize the universe."<BR/><BR/><B>You really socked it to that straw man! Maybe you should *read* a post before responding to it?</B><BR/><BR/>"You are also begging the question with regards to your analogy:<BR/>Suppose, however, that someone wished to argue that there must have been a naturalistic explanation for that surface level reading. If we stipulate that the rules of grammar must be followed, then we could say that words were randomly put together via mutations of the alphabet. Those words that most closely matched the grammatical rules in place were selected for.<BR/>Yeah, "If Dawkins designed the book, who designed the Dawkins?" That was funny as a one-liner, but you seem to be mistaking it for a serious argument. Your studies of "information theory" seem to consist of listening to parodies of evolutionists. A successful genetic structure will continue to exist so as to form a basis of something to build on. Your example of several grammatically correct 'mutations' occurring by<BR/>chance has nothing analogous to that factor. It's the same old inaccurate "tornado+junkyard=plane" analogy. Creationists are so brainwashed by the Genesis story in which Adam was created instantaneously and fully formed, they make the blunder of thinking evolution claims the same thing when it does not."<BR/><BR/><B>You mean evolution doesn't create things fully formed. WHAT?! Gosh dawn my fundamentalist mind! I never knew that till you told me! At my hick backwoods redneck Bahbull church (where we worship gawd - ALALY -LUH - YAH! AY - MAY - EN!), we believe that evolution teaches that things are created *fully formed*. What a massive, and yet incredibly basic and simplistic, mistake to make. I won't do that again - thank ya Mr edumacated (sp?) person! I shall stop attending church talks with speakers that parody evololoshon and go ta more barn dances where ah dance with ma cuzin, who's ma wafe.</B><BR/><BR/>"Therefore your aesthetic judgment "It should be obvious to everyone that this is too complicated to be explained by naturalistic, non-intelligent, random mutations." is bogus. How about some actual evidence or arguments to back up your rhetoric? What do you mean by "too" and "obvious"? Your analogy to evolution, like all analogies is simply a reflection of your understanding of the mechanism of evolution. You are pushing it past the breaking point to *merely assert* that because the one is improbable, so is the other. I thought you Bah-bull people were supposed to be experts in detecting when metaphors and analogies are pushed past authorial intent. So much for exegesis."<BR/><BR/><B>Now ya splains it ta me, it's just so cotton- pickin' obvious. If ya need me, a'll be in ma shed hittin' ma ol' bean with a shovel to get some sense into it! Ah should've spent more time at school and less time reading my KJV 1611 Bahbull, and praying to my imaginary gawd. Evolution builds on succesful genetic structures, and doesn't teach instaneous creation. This is such a SAWPRAWSE!</B><BR/><BR/>"To summarize: All you are doing is giggling over some lame word puzzle you managed to cobble together. Why you think this proves ID is a mystery."<BR/><BR/><B>And all you're doing is guffawing into your coffee mug, from your mother's basement, as you watch Will and Grace on the TV. I know your type.</B>Claudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16705428441316701050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-916512232480758392008-02-17T07:59:00.000-05:002008-02-17T07:59:00.000-05:00Steve should hire Mikey Behe or someone to replace...Steve should hire Mikey Behe or someone to replace Pike. This silliness just isn't cutting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15229641086126040142008-02-17T07:52:00.000-05:002008-02-17T07:52:00.000-05:00It's begging the question to assume that because y...It's begging the question to assume that because you needed to exercise "intelligence" to simulate a natural structure, therefore that structure must also be the product of intelligence. After all, you are a human being. Everything you do will be the product of conscious thought. It is the caveman's error to anthropomorphize the universe.<BR/><BR/>You are also begging the question with regards to your analogy: <I><BR/>Suppose, however, that someone wished to argue that there must have been a naturalistic explanation for that surface level reading. If we stipulate that the rules of grammar must be followed, then we could say that words were randomly put together via mutations of the alphabet. Those words that most closely matched the grammatical rules in place were selected for.</I><BR/>Yeah, "If Dawkins designed the book, who designed the Dawkins?" That was funny as a one-liner, but you seem to be mistaking it for a serious argument. Your studies of "information theory" seem to consist of listening to parodies of evolutionists. A successful genetic structure will continue to exist so as to form a basis of something to build on. Your example of several grammatically correct 'mutations' occurring by <BR/>chance has nothing analogous to that factor. It's the same old inaccurate "tornado+junkyard=plane" analogy. Creationists are so brainwashed by the Genesis story in which Adam was created instantaneously and fully formed, they make the blunder of thinking evolution claims the same thing when it does not.<BR/><BR/>Therefore your aesthetic judgment "It should be obvious to everyone that this is too complicated to be explained by naturalistic, non-intelligent, random mutations." is bogus. How about some actual evidence or arguments to back up your rhetoric? What do you mean by "too" and "obvious"? Your analogy to evolution, like all analogies is simply a reflection of your understanding of the mechanism of evolution. You are pushing it past the breaking point to *merely assert* that because the one is improbable, so is the other. I thought you Bah-bull people were supposed to be experts in detecting when metaphors and analogies are pushed past authorial intent. So much for exegesis.<BR/><BR/>To summarize: All you are doing is giggling over some lame word puzzle you managed to cobble together. Why you think this proves ID is a mystery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com