A gram of water contains approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits of information.
Entropy is related of course but entropy is dimensionally different than information; so it is easy tell the difference.
1 Like
This is a demonstrable lie. Every rigorous peer reviewed scientific treatment of this topic reveals that the majority of mutations are neutral. Indeed, Susumu Ohno, when providing a proper treatment of the topic during his exposition on neutral drift, provided us with a direct molecular test that can be performed, to determine if a gene had undergone positive selection, purifying selection or drift.
Fatuous analogy. But I’m used to seeing this from creationists.
So is the emergence of the CD32 deletion in the human genome, that protected its inheritors from the bubonic plague in the past, and which in more recent times conferred enhanced resistance to HIV.
Beneficial mutations exist. No amount of dishonest hand-waving by creationists alters this fact.
Sanford is a professional liar for creationism, and wholly untrustworthy on that basis. As for his resurrection of the usual creationist canards about “information”, I’ll deal with that shortly, but there are other matters to attend to first …
No it didn’t. If he had found genuine evidence for his cartoon magic man, he would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
That he hasn’t been awarded one for this should be telling you something iimportant.
We’ve seen your idea of “verification” - which is synonymous with “does it conform to my prejudices?”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You’ve already demonstrated that you possess a childishly naive view of what constitutes “truth”.
This assertion I shall treat with the suspicion it deserves, given your output here.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
A mythology that asserts plants were “created” before the Sun existed to power photosynthesis? A mythology that asserts genetics is controlled by coloured sticks?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
BOLLOCKS.
I’ve just provided two examples of where science pisses on your sad little goat herder mythology from a great height.
As for moraltiy, I’ve already provided an extensive dissertation on the evolutionary and biological basis of ethics, which you manifestly never even bothered to acknowledge the existence of, and as for archaeology, that discipline pisses on your Christian nationalist pretentions wholesale.
I’ll tell you why shortly. First, let’s deal with the rest of your garbage.
Elegant? It’s a piece of rococo biochemical bureaucracy, as anyone who has actually studied molecular biology will tell you.
Why are entire sections of a gene discarded during the translation process, for example? And why did several versions of the ribosome appear in different organismal lineages, if the first one was “elegant”?
Oh, and I have numerous scientific papers in my collection, documenting the evidence that the genetic code itself is an evolvable entity.
Nothing points to your imaginary cartoon magic man, this is a delusion you entertain.
One, that you’re peddling lies and bullshit, and two, that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for the relevant entities and interactions, as documented in tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers.
Bullshit. Repeately parroting this bullshit doesn’t stop it being bullshit. And I’m about to destroy your bullshit about “information” wholesale, if you exet a little patience.
Bullshit. Every rigorous analysis of the universe and its contents by scientists, has pointed to testable natural processes, not an imaginary cartton magic man from a goat herder mythology.
Was it your childhood ambition to be a mindless Xerox bot for Christian Nationalist lies?
Right, now it’s time to deal with your tiresome resurrection of canards about “information”, which, lo and behold, is Canard #23 in my list of creationist canards. Since I’m now repeating this here specifically for you to read and learn from, so that you cannot claim you were never presented with this, any future resurrection of creationist “information” canards by you, after my posting this, will simply reinforce the view that you’re not interested in honest debate, but in propagandising for your tacky brand of mythology fanboyism, regardless of how much DATA destroys the assertions thereof. Without further ado, I present:
[23] The infamous canards surrounding “information”.
Now this is a particularly insidious brand of canard, because it relies upon the fact that the topic of information, and its rigorous analysis, is replete with misunderstanding. However, instead of seeking to clarify the misconceptions, creationist canards about information perpetuate those misconceptions for duplicitous apologetic purposes. A classic one being the misuse of the extant rigorous treatments of information, and the misapplication of different information treatments to different situations, either through ignorance, or wilful mendacity.
For example, Claude Shannon provided a rigorous treatment of information, but a treatment that was strictly applicable to information transmission, and NOT applicable to information storage. Therefore, application of Shannon information to information storage in the genome is a misuse of Shannon’s work. The correct information analysis to apply to storage is Kolmogorov’s analysis, which erects an entirely different measure of information content that is intended strictly to be applicable to storage. Mixing and matching the two is a familiar bait-and-switch operation that propagandists for creationist doctrine are fond of.
However, the ultimate reason why creationist canards about information are canards, is simply this. Information is NOT a magic entity. It doesn’t require magic to produce it. Ultimately, “information” is nothing more than the observational data that is extant about the current state of a system. That is IT. No magic needed. All that happens, in real world physical systems, is that different system states lead to different outcomes when the interactions within the system take place. Turing alighted upon this notion when he wrote his landmark paper on computable numbers, and used the resulting theory to establish that Hilbert’s conjecture upon decidability in formal axiomatic systems was false.
Of course, it’s far easier to visualise the process at work, when one has an entity such as a Turing machine to analyse this - a Turing machine has precise, well-defined states, and precise, well-defined interactions that take place when the machine occupies a given state. But this is precisely what we have with DNA - a system that can exist in a number of well-defined states, whose states determine the nature of the interactions that occur during translation, and which result in different outcomes for different states. indeed, the DNA molecule plays a passive role in this: its function is simply to store the sequence of states that will result, ultimately, in the synthesis of a given protein, and is akin to the tape running through a Turing machine.
The real hard work is actually performed by the ribosomes, which take that state data and use it to bolt together amino acids into chains to form proteins, which can be thought of as individual biological ‘Turing machines’ whose job is to perform, mechanically and mindlessly in accordance with the electrostatic and chemical interactions permitting this, the construction of a protein using the information arising from DNA as the template. Anyone who thinks magic is needed in all of this, once again, is in need of an education.
As for the canard that “mutations cannot produce new information”, this is manifestly false. Not only does the above analysis explicitly permit this, the production of new information (in the form of new states occupied by DNA molecules) has been observed taking place in the real world and documented in the relevant scientific literature. If you can’t be bothered reading any of this voluminous array of scientific papers, and understanding the contents thereof, before erecting this particularly moronic canard, then don’t bother erecting the canard in the first place, because it will simply demonstrate that you are scientifically ignorant. Indeed, the extant literature not only covers scientific papers explicitly dealing with information content in the genome, such as Thomas D. Schneider’s paper handily entitled Evolution And Biological Information to make your life that bit easier, but also papers on de novo gene origination, of which there are a good number, several of which I have presented in the past in various places. The mere existence of these scientific papers, and the data that they document, blows tiresome canards about “information” out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. Post information canards at your peril after reading this.
Whilst dwelling on information, another creationist canard also needs to be dealt with here, namely the false conflation of information with ascribed meaning. Which can be demonstrated to be entirely false by reference to the following sequence of hexadecimal bytes in a computer’s memory:
81 16 00 2A FF 00
To a computer with an 8086 processor, those bytes correspond to the following single machine language instruction:
ADC [2A00H], 00FFH
To a computer with a 6502 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:
CLC
ASL ($00,X)
LDX #$FF
BRK
To a computer with a 6809 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:
CMPA #$16
NEG $2AFF
NEG ??
the ?? denoting the fact that for this processor, the byte sequence is incomplete, and two more bytes are needed to supply the address operand for the NEG instruction.
Now, we have three different ascribed meanings to one stream of bytes. Yet, none of these ascribed meanings influences either the Shannon information content, when that stream is transmitted from one computer to another, or the Kolmogorov information content when those bytes are stored in memory. Ascribed meaning is irrelevant to both rigorous information measures. As is to be expected, when one regards information content simply as observational data about the state of the system (in this case, the values of the stored bytes in memory). Indeed, it is entirely possible to regard ascribed meaning as nothing other than the particular interactions driven by the underlying data, once that data is being processed, which of course will differ from processor to processor.
Which means that under such an analysis, even ascribed meaning, which creationists fallaciously conflate with information content, also requires no magical input. All that is required is the existence of a set of interactions that will produce different outcomes from the different observed states of the system (with the term ‘observation’ being used here sensu lato to mean any interaction that is capable of differentiating between the states of the system of interest).
For that matter, just to illustrate how fatuous creationist assertions about “information” are, a dog turd is a source of information. Chemical analysis of said dog turd will reveal what the dog ate the previous day, if we operate on the basis that it takes 24 hours for food to pass through the dog’s digestive tract. Indeed, the timescale involved here is irrelevant - the principle that chemical analysis of the dog turd reveals the nature of the dog’s previous meal is the same, whether it takes 12 hours, 24 hours or 48 hours for the dog’s first mouthfuls of food to be converted into an extruded turd. In addition, detection of an excess of such molecules as bile metabolites in the dog turd, will tell a veterinarian that the dog is suffering from some sort of liver disease.
Likewise, by spreading small samples from the dog turd onto some agar plates, we can determine the bacterial serotypes that make up the gut flora of the dog in question. We can also determine whether or not the dog is suffering from a bacterial infection of the gastrointestinal tract, and the bacterial serotype responsible for this. A histological analysis of the dog turd will reveal whether or not the dog is carrying parasitic worms in the digestive tract (and which species), and if we want to be really vigorous in our pursuit of pathogens, we can use serum antibodies or DNA oligos to match with a whole range of pathogens, ranging from protists to viruses.
A dog turd is a goldmine of information for both chemists and biologists in this respect, and the idea that we need a cartoon magic man to “insert” information into the dog turd is farcical. Yet, creationists assert precisely this with respect to DNA.
So, can we see an end to creationsit bullshit about information once and for all, especially from you?
2 Likes
That’s an assertion.
No. There is no evidence for this assertion. You just rejected my assertion 
Where is Thor in all this?
1 Like
Yeah, what he(you) said.
I am getting tired of asking this, how does any of that evidence any deity? God did it is not only an unevidenced assumption you’re making, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever?
So you keep claiming, when do we get to the evidence? Pointing to the subjective religious beliefs of a scientist does not mean they have scientific evidence for a deity, in fact atheism is far higher among scientists than in the general population.
Oh, and since you raised Francis Crick, who dominated the field of genetics, he was an atheist, and he directly cited the scientific evidence as a reason he for being an atheist. It seems that despite dominating the filed of genetics, he didn’t see this scientific evidence you keep claiming indicates a deity? Odd that, don’t you think…
1 Like
You do have a point, people can be unsure about their beliefs. Oh well.
It’s pretty obvious that our resident mythology fanboy spent his formative years living in a Christian Nationalist bubble throughout his formative years, and never once dared venture beyond it before coming here. It’s obvious that he didn’t know of the existence of peer reviewed scientific papers before coming here, let alone anything about the contents thereof, and spooned up all his knowledge about “science” from duplicitous apologetics websites selling lies to the gullible rubes. He uncritically accepted whatever those websites fed him, because like so many of his ilk, he manifestly (and naively) thinks that the only source of “truth” is his sad little goat herder mythology, and whatever narrow cabal of adherents thereof subscribe to his brand of creationist fantasising.
He obviously thinks that his sad little goat herder mythology constitutes the Ultimate Fountain Of Wisdom™, despite said tome containing assertions about the natural world that are not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd. He thinks we need his cartoon magic man to “explain” vast swathes of reality that have long since succumbed to scientific investigation, and genuine explanation in terms of testable natural processes. He also sees no irony in dismissing summarily other mythology fanboys and their choices of mythology, while in the next breath trying to prop up the fantasy that his choice of mythology possesses a special, privileged status.
Yet, when pressed to provide evidence for any of his assertions, he has none. He thinks, again naively and foolishly, that ex recto apologetic fabrications, of a sort that an astute five year old child would point and laugh at, purportedly count for more than, say, hard experimental test of postulates by scientists who spent decades researching their fields.
It’s also obvious that he has no idea whatsoever how postulates are properly tested. His travesty of court proceedings presented earlier being a case in point, let alone his manifestly naive clinging to the childish belief that separating true from false propositions is a simple task, one that I don’t need to have read Quine’s Methods Of Logic to know is woefully and hilariously wrong.
I suspect he thinks William Lane Craig’s egregious abuse of Aristoteleian syllogisms constitute “logic”, while being blissfully unaware that huge advances have been made in the intervening 23 centuries between Aristotle and the present. Most mythology fanboys would blow an artery if they saw the advanced chapters of that textbook. Indeed, one of the items mentioned in Quine’s textbook is Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which on its own destroys his naive ideas about “truth”, though interestingly, Quine points out that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem follows as a corollary of Church’s Theorem (due to Alonzo Church, who invented the lambda calculus and provided a second route to the Halting Problem identified by Alan Turing - but I digress).
Indeed, referring back to an earlier part of Quine’s book, we have this interesting paragraph on page 201:
That this applies with the same lethal force to merely asserted mythological carton magic men, is territory that mythology fanboys dare not venture into of course.
There is a beginning: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1
The earth is round: “God is enthroned above the circle of the earth; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”
Isaiah 40:22 compare this to the fact that most people thought the earth was flat at this time
The earth floated in space: “He stretches the northern skies over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.”
Job 26:7 (oldest text in the Bible) compare this to greek mythology that lays the earth on the back of atlas or as in asian cultures back of a turtle
The universe is expanding aka cosmic point of singularity: “I made the earth, and created man on it. It was My hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”
Isaiah 45:12 most times that the Old Testament describes God creating this expanding universe the expression is that He stretched out the heavens.
Time has a beginning: “However, we do speak a wisdom among the mature, but not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. On the contrary, we speak God’s hidden wisdom in a mystery, a wisdom God predestined before the ages for our glory.”
1 Corinthians 2:6-7
Springs in the deep (hydrothermal vents): “Have you entered the springs of the sea, And walked in the depth of the ocean?”
Job 38:16
The currents of the sea: “Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, You who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have set in place; You have him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put everything under his feet, The birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.”
Psalms 8:1, 3, 6, 8
2nd law of thermodynamics: ““In time of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. “Even they will perish, but You endure; All of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will pass away.”
Psalms 102:25-26 & And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will wear out like a garment,”
Hebrews 1:10-11
What do you mean by beginning? You need to define your terms. This has a very specific meaning in cosmology, and it does not include ex nihilo creation. You have not stated a fact but made an assertion. (Do you know the difference.)
A circle is not the same thing as a sphere, The Earth is neither. The earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid .and a God should know that. The earth only appears to be a circle when an ignorant goat herder looks at it, in all directions, from the top of a mountain or perhaps a tall tree. A God should know better. Don’t you think? Your assertion is sorely lacking in specificity and would never approach the necessary characteristics to qualify as, ‘scientific evidence.’
The earth does not float. The earth does not float; it is held in place by the gravitational forces of the nearest star…better known to humanity as…”the sun". (Reference Einstein) It is also orbits the Sun at an average speed of 67,000 mph, or 18.5 miles a second That is hardly 'floating." In addition, Sun has to move is an astounding 483,000 miles per hour (792,000 km/hr) to get around the Galaxy. Finally, the Galaxy itself is ‘FLOATING’ through space at a lazy 1.3 million miles per hour.
FLOATING ---- MY ASS!
Past tense… It says nothing at all about an expanding universe. The act is done and completed. I made my bed this morning. I stretched out the universe yesterday. Nothing about continuing to stretch it out. You simply don’t know how to read English.
Your biblical quotes are boring and your interpretations after the fact fallacious. Post Hoc Fallacies. Basically you FAILED!
3 Likes
Certainly no “Creator” God as it were
Hmm. Everything appears to be orbiting something else. Does the same apply to our galaxy? 
Yet again you have ignored my request, and have offered not one word of explanation as to how this string of unevidenced and often erroneous myths represent evidence for any deity?
So for clarification here:
This started with your claim that the bible contains scientific evidence for a deity. Which I find dubious. It has now devolved into two separate claims;
- That the bible contains scientific evidence.
- That what you claim is scientific evidence, somehow evidences a deity.
The second one is the primary claim, and I would appreciate since it is the main claim, that you explain how any of your biblical examples evidence any deity? You can also add my previous request, that you explain carefully how the human genome evidences any deity, as you claimed?
1 Like
I see he’s playing duplicitous apologetics with science again … as well as omitting the nonsense parts of his mythology that are flatly contradicted by scientific discoveries.
Quelle surprise.
Genesis 1
- in the beginning - God started creation.
- the first day - light was created.
- the second day - the sky was created.
- the third day - dry land, seas, plants and trees were created.
- the fourth day - the Sun, Moon and stars were created.
- the fifth day - creatures that live in the sea and creatures that fly were created.
- the sixth day - animals that live on the land and finally humans, made in the image of God were created
- by day seven - God finished his work of creation and rested, making the seventh day a special holy day.
The first day, light was created? but how was there light for four days, when there were no sun or stars?
The second day, the sky was created? which sky, there are many planets in the universe, many of which have atmospheres, these can all be called ‘sky.’ Also, at no point does it mention the earth was ‘created.’ indicative of someone who does not comprehend what a planet is.
The third day, dry land, seas, plants and trees were created? similar to the last, which planets?
The fourth day, fails to mention all the other bodily masses in the universe, and also comes far too late.
Days five and six, did he get lazy towards the end of the week? also if humans were created in the image of a god, so too must monkeys, after all we look very similar. (because we too are monkeys 
)
Address this or disregard any credibility you might have.
*apologies for all the edits, many typos were made.
1 Like
I know, and I edited my post to remove some of the examples of the errancy in the Genesis creation myth, that is contradicted by science, as I don’t want to get sidelined from his main claim, that the bible contains scientific evidence for a deity.
So I ask @WhoAreYou again, please explain carefully how you think your examples evidence a deity? How does the human genome evidence any deity?
So far all we have is the unevidenced and unexplained claim that science evidences a deity, but no explanation of how it does so? I mean if science evidenced a deity, one can imagine the kind of global reaction to such a paradigm shifting event, for a start and at the very least, it would rationally follow that the majority of scientists would be theists and not atheists, yet we see from research that the opposite is true, and that among scientists atheism is far higher than among the general population, rising even higher among bodies of elite scientists, like the US National Academy of Sciences, where 92% of the elite scientists reject a belief in God or higher power.
Is it credible, or reasonable to imagine that these elite scientists from every field of science, have failed to see or understand properly this mysterious scientific evidence for a deity? Anyone with a basic grasp of how science is conducted will see the claim for what it is, creationist propaganda.
Unless of course @WhoAreYou can a) explain how any scientific fact evidences any deity, and b) why if this there is scientific evidence for any deity, atheism remains so much higher among scientists who best understand that evidence?
Magic mun, god can do anything, what is yer ignorant or something?
If we can get to them the point of admitting it’s because magic or ‘god can do anything.’ then they have lost the debate.
If they are prescribing to that sort of childish mentality, they are disregarding any need to take them seriously.
To debate with them further, is fruitless in my opinion and I can ignore them.
1 Like
They don’t need to admit it, every time @WhoAreYou presents a vague appeal to mystery he is demonstrating that is the core of his belief.
Just like his claim that the human genome evidences a deity because… well why or how does it do this @WhoAreYou, do you have anything beyond an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy?
1 Like
True, we only need them to demonstrate it by the content of their arguments/claims, I worded that poorly.
Well it was worded well enough, it’s just that the religious apologists I’ve encountered are often either unwilling to admit the obvious inference of their constant use of argument ad ignorantiam appeals to mystery, or they are unable to see the obvious inference of basing belief on arguments that are demonstrably and relentlessly irrational.
The verdict is still out on how much @WhoAreYou has understood about why his arguments and claims are irrational, but I’m leaning towards willful ignorance at this point, since he has had ample time to desist from repeating the same fallacious arguments, and yet persist in almost every post. Though of course seems suspiciously careful not to go all the way so to speak, stopping short with vague implications, like “the human genome is evidence for a deity”, but fails to say explicitly why. So I can only infer he doesn’t care that he is being relentlessly irrational in defence of his beliefs, yet has learned to try and avoid making the same claims, as if this makes the them rational, rather than vague and meaningless.
It is clear, and I mean no offence here, that he has been indoctrinated in such a way that he doesn’t have even a basic understanding of the scientific method. This kind of distortion of science is common among YEC’s of course, it could not be otherwise, as it is the only way they can avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from a good but basic understanding of the methods of science, and science’s rejection of their superstitious claims for a young earth, as too many accepted scientific facts disprove the superstition.
2 Likes