Common Creationist Canards

[Haven]

Creationists (especially of the young-Earth variety) tend to use several ill-defined, unscientific, and flat-out erroneous terms and concepts when arguing in favor of creationism or critiquing evolution. These include, but are not limited to:

• Information: An ill-defined concept typically used when discussing genetics. Creationists often claim that evolution can't produce "new information," by which they generally mean "new genetic material." This is false. Also, "information" is not a scientific term and it has no standing in biology.
  
  Irreducible Complexity: A claim that certain features of (usually animal) life, such as eyes, limbs, and wings, could not have evolved because said features would be useless in a less-than-fully-formed state. This concept is useless because no features of life have been found to be irreducibly complex.
  
  Kind: Another ill-defined concept that essentially means whatever the creationist wants it to at the time. May be equated with species, genus, order, or something completely novel or incoherent. Generally, it's meant to draw the line between "microevolution" (changes within a "kind") and macroevolution (the change of one "kind" into another "kind"). Creationists should kindly provide a definition of this concept or it is useless.
  
  Macroevolution and Microevolution: Unscientific terms meant to divide the unitary process of evolution. As mentioned before, microevolution is said to be changes within a "kind" and macroevolution is said to be changes between "kinds." Without a coherent definition of "kind," this doesn't get off the ground.

Debate questions: Are these common creationist concepts coherent? Why or why not? Can such concepts be shown to be relevant to the natural world? Are these concepts biologically sound, or just meaningless canards?

[Jashwell]

Information can be a scientific term - in computer sciences and quantum physics.
In quantum physics, however, information doesn't have to mean anything. It just has to be capable of storing data. What's referred to is the transition of data, be it meaningful or random, and how it's preserved.

Anyone whose done any research into computer science will know how highly subjective information is - if you want an example just try opening a JPG with notepad.

It largely isn't however, certainly in standard biology, as it has little use.
Any complexity other than thermodynamic complexity also has little use outside of specialised sciences that recognise their subjectivity.

Irreducible complexity is largely based on the misunderstanding that evolution only ever adds, and never takes away. For example, if A requires x and B requires y, and B provides x and A provides y (if you remove A or B, the system fails), then it is still possible that the system evolved to get rid of some C, which provided x or y (allowing the system to have evolved to become "irreducibly complex")

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

This sounds like one of those veiled "help -- my faith in the 'matter invented itself, which invented microbes, which magically morphed into men' mythos is beginning to crack under the strain of facts, truth, and -- uh, increasing information " posts; a quest for reassurance that one's entire worldview is not based on an unsupportable, indefensible sham.

Though any lay Christian who has done his homework could provide rebuttal to your assertion, it appears the lot has fallen to me this time. As the punchline to the old vulgar joke goes: "it's my turn in the barrel."

A caveat: I am not trying to convince you of anything, or attempting to change your views; merely providing the information that validates the reasons for doing so. What you do with it is up to you.

Information: An ill-defined concept typically used when discussing genetics. Creationists often claim that evolution can't produce "new information," by which they generally mean "new genetic material." This is false. Also, "information" is not a scientific term and it has no standing in biology.

Irreducible Complexity: A claim that certain features of (usually animal) life, such as eyes, limbs, and wings, could not have evolved because said features would be useless in a less-than-fully-formed state. This concept is useless because no features of life have been found to be irreducibly complex.

These two are intertwined, so I'm lumping them together.

We can play semantical word games, or we can face the fact that the 4-letter, self-correcting code of the DNA molecule is an information system, that contains both the precise instructions required to replicate itself, assemble living things, operate the nano-machinery required for that assembly, and integrate the trillions of living cells that function together in the various systems that compose the higher animals.

Worse: the assembly of amino acids into the proteins which form the molecule likewise requires information, in order to arrive at the precise design of the coded information system, which are beyond any possibility of random assembly. Even worse, it requires nano-machinery to operate the reading and carrying out of the code(s) -- a "chicken or the egg" scenario that is irreducible in its complexity.

Kind: Another ill-defined concept that essentially means whatever the creationist wants it to at the time. May be equated with species, genus, order, or something completely novel or incoherent. Generally, it's meant to draw the line between "microevolution" (changes within a "kind") and macroevolution (the change of one "kind" into another "kind"). Creationists should kindly provide a definition of this concept or it is useless.

"Kind" describes the animals on board the Ark; of which every living creature that has "the breath of life" (which excludes insects, sponges, fish, and the lower orders) is a descendant -- including you and me; perhaps a 100 or so generations removed from our 8 ancestors. Howdy, cuz.

"Kind" is used to refer to the common ancestor shared by various types of animals: for instance, a canine "kind", which would (I presume) include jackals and hyenas. This common ancestor carried in its genetic information a greater diversity of traits than those naturally selected for by their progeny; and, in most cases, selected OUT. This LOSS of genetic information is what artificial selection achieves by design -- the selecting out of undesirable traits; which, past a certain point, is irreversible within the selected population -- unless the information for those traits are re-introduced from outside.

Example: two chihuahuas will never produce a wolf. But one could mate with a Husky, or a mixed-breed, to produce an animal that has a greater variety (more genetic information ) in its genetic composition.

This selecting out of information by natural selection from a more genetically diverse ancestral Kind is the ONLY form of evolution that has ever been observed, or for which there are known mechanisms, or indeed which is even possible.

It is often referred to as "microevolution".

Microbes2Men "macroevolution" is a Godless myth that has no basis, no evidence, no known mechanisms, and no possibility.

For it to be true, the genetic information for a sponge, or unsegmented worm, must somehow alter and increase to form a seagull's eye, wings, and feathers.

Easier for a pumpkin to turn into a coach (the carriage, not the guy who runs an athletic team).

Hope this helps...

[Haven]

This sounds like one of those veiled "help -- my faith in the 'matter invented itself, which invented microbes, which magically morphed into men' mythos is beginning to crack under the strain of facts, truth, and -- uh, increasing information " posts; a quest for reassurance that one's entire worldview is not based on an unsupportable, indefensible sham.

A propagandistic distortion worthy of the former Iraqi information minister, and a blatant strawman fallacy to boot. All the logical fallacies in the world won't weaken the ironclad case for evolution by natural selection.

We can play semantical word games, or we can face the fact that the 4-letter, self-correcting code of the DNA molecule is an information system, that contains both the precise instructions required to replicate itself, assemble living things, operate the nano-machinery required for that assembly, and integrate the trillions of living cells that function together in the various systems that compose the higher animals.

Worse: the assembly of amino acids into the proteins which form the molecule likewise requires information, in order to arrive at the precise design of the coded information system, which are beyond any possibility of random assembly. Even worse, it requires nano-machinery to operate the reading and carrying out of the code(s) -- a "chicken or the egg" scenario that is irreducible in its complexity.

Terms like "information" and "instructions" (and the flamboyantly extravagant "nano-machinery!") are anthropomorphizations that make no sense when discussing DNA, a type of chemical (an acid) that exists within nature. True, DNA (along with other chemicals, such as RNA) plays a major role in gene expression and replication, but this does not amount to "information" or "instructions" in the human sense any more than falling barometric pressures and warm air amount to "information" or "instructions" for forming hurricanes. Natural elements and forces can produce things that appear designed.

"Kind" describes the animals on board the Ark; of which every living creature that has "the breath of life" (which excludes insects, sponges, fish, and the lower orders) is a descendant -- including you and me; perhaps a 100 or so generations removed from our 8 ancestors. Howdy, cuz.

There is no evidence for any of this (in other words, it is the fallacy of bare assertion), nor does it answer my original question. What is a "kind?" Is it a species? A genus? Something else?

"Kind" is used to refer to the common ancestor shared by various types of animals: for instance, a canine "kind", which would (I presume) include jackals and hyenas.

This idea, when followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to only one "kind" -- biota, or Earth life, which includes every living organism to have evolved on this planet.

This common ancestor carried in its genetic information a greater diversity of traits than those naturally selected for by their progeny; and, in most cases, selected OUT. This LOSS of genetic information is what artificial selection achieves by design -- the selecting out of undesirable traits; which, past a certain point, is irreversible within the selected population -- unless the information for those traits are re-introduced from outside.

There is absolutely zero evidence for this, and in fact there is strong evidence against it. Keep in mind, making false claims does nothing to advance your position.

Example: two chihuahuas will never produce a wolf. But one could mate with a Husky, or a mixed-breed, to produce an animal that has a greater variety (more genetic information ) in its genetic composition.

Two wolves could never produce a chihuahua. It took thousands of years of selective (artificial) breeding for the descendants of wolves to become chihuahuas. Evolution doesn't imply chihuahuas giving birth to wolves, or dogs giving birth to cats, or any insane caricature like that. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. It doesn't imply interspecies birth or any "gain" or "loss" in information.


Also, it is indeed possible for successive generations of dogs to produce an animal resembling a wolf. See: Breeding back--wolf.

This selecting out of information by natural selection from a more genetically diverse ancestral Kind is the ONLY form of evolution that has ever been observed, or for which there are known mechanisms, or indeed which is even possible.

It is often referred to as "microevolution".

This is true, given the way that you define "Kind" (i.e., the most recent common ancestor of all life, placing all living organisms into one "Kind"). This would make all evolution (including the short leap from Homo antecessor to Homo sapiens and the much larger leap from Pikaia gracilens to Canis lupus familiaris) "microevolution."

Microbes2Men "macroevolution" is a Godless myth that has no basis, no evidence, no known mechanisms, and no possibility.

Wait a second . . . you just argued in favor of "microevolution" from a single "Kind" encompassing all life through the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift. This is exactly what the fossil and genetic records show, and it is exactly what can account for the small change from wolf to chihuahua and the large change from an ancestral population of microbes to modern humans. Call it "microevolution," "macroevolution," or (as scientists call it) evolution, it is the only explanation for the diversity of life for which the relevant scientific evidence accounts.

For it to be true, the genetic [material] for a sponge, or unsegmented worm, must somehow alter and increase to form a seagull's eye, wings, and feathers.

This (increases in genetic material forming new functions, not sponges spawning seagulls) has in fact been demonstrated to happen under controlled conditions.

[sfs]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]
I've used information in genetics -- mutual information, to be specific -- and I've seen people use the Akaike information criterion for genetic models. (Of course, those uses have clear definitions for information, something creationists generally lack.)

Macro- and microevolution are, in fact, scientific terms. John Wilkins has a writeup on the subject at talkorigins.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 4 by Haven]

Terms like "information" and "instructions" (and the flamboyantly extravagant "nano-machinery!") are anthropomorphizations that make no sense when discussing DNA, a type of chemical (an acid) that exists within nature. True, DNA (along with other chemicals, such as RNA) plays a major role in gene expression and replication, but this does not amount to "information" or "instructions" in the human sense any more than falling barometric pressures and warm air amount to "information" or "instructions" for forming hurricanes. Natural elements and forces can produce things that appear designed.

Come now, sir. Be sensible.

Terms like "DNA" and "chemical", "acid" and "nature", are anthropomorphizations, too. They are invented by men, assigned to things that exist, in order to talk sensibly about them.

Information exists, too. And the billions of "letters" of it (A,T,C,G) that compose the unique pattern of DNA that is in every cell in your body, convey the information that your cells use to turn hamburgers and french fries into you. Do you think it happens by accident? Or perhaps by magic?

And if you want to say that heat energy and moisture, in proper combination under specific conditions (the specificity of those conditions going beyond calculation, in terms of gravity, orbit from and size of sun, size of planet, compostion of constituent atoms, and the properties that determine their substance (strong and weak force, electromagnetism, etc.; and on and on and on...) produces hurricanes on a planet that is uniquely situated at the precise juxtaposition of those conditions:

if you want to call that "the information to create a hurricane", I won't object.

But I think its a relatively weak example of the concept, since a hurricane is not a living thing; and the categorical difference between inanimate and even simple living things is astronomical.

A better analogy, or metaphor, is this. This sequence, repeated for 400 pages, contains data -- but almost no information: aaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

The alphabet, repeated for those same 400 pages, contains a bit more information.

400 pages of that alphabet, arranged into the words of "War and Peace", contain categorically more information.

The information in your DNA -- or that of a blade of grass, or a slug -- is of a different category than that expressed in a hurricane.

Do you follow?

This idea, when followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to only one "kind" -- biota, or Earth life, which includes every living organism to have evolved on this planet.

No, this idea, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to a Creator -- who created plants and animals "according to their kind"; that is, with the diversity of genetic information to produce the incredible variety of flora and fauna we observe today, from a population that was preserved through His judgment on a world in which "every intent of the thoughts of (men's) hearts was only evil continually" -- that judgment expressed in a cataclysmic global flood (which is the source of the geologic and fossil record).

All the logical fallacies in the world won't weaken the ironclad case for evolution by natural selection.

I agree.

Nothing could weaken the case any more than it already is, on the face of it. Which is non-existent.

It is purely and simply an excuse for reality, that leaves out the Creator.

Which is the ultimate logical fallacy.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 4 by Haven]

Terms like "information" and "instructions" (and the flamboyantly extravagant "nano-machinery!") are anthropomorphizations that make no sense when discussing DNA, a type of chemical (an acid) that exists within nature. True, DNA (along with other chemicals, such as RNA) plays a major role in gene expression and replication, but this does not amount to "information" or "instructions" in the human sense any more than falling barometric pressures and warm air amount to "information" or "instructions" for forming hurricanes. Natural elements and forces can produce things that appear designed.

Come now, sir. Be sensible.

Terms like "DNA" and "chemical", "acid" and "nature", are anthropomorphizations, too. They are invented by men, assigned to things that exist, in order to talk sensibly about them.

Information exists, too. And the billions of "letters" of it (A,T,C,G) that compose the unique pattern of DNA that is in every cell in your body, convey the information that your cells use to turn hamburgers and french fries into you. Do you think it happens by accident? Or perhaps by magic?

It doesn't happen by accident, it happens by well understood and acknowledged scientific phenomena.
Similar to how evolution is not a series of accidents.

If it was supernatural, then it'd be magic.

A better analogy, or metaphor, is this. This sequence, repeated for 400 pages, contains data -- but almost no information: aaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

The alphabet, repeated for those same 400 pages, contains a bit more information.

400 pages of that alphabet, arranged into the words of "War and Peace", contain categorically more information.

This is where you're wrong.
It has exactly the same complexity and information as any other sequence.
The interpreter is what makes the difference.
What's the chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided dice? Exactly the same as rolling a 1 on a six sided dice.
What's the chance of rolling two 6s on a six sided dice? Exactly the same as rolling a 5 and then a 2.

Such a repeating character could mean a great deal. It doesn't mean anything to me and this is where we get to the realm of "information is subjective" (at least in this context)

Consider the number 10 in a computer.
If you double that, you get 100.
No? Then clearly it doesn't give you the same information it gives me, I see the binary number 10 (decimal equivalent is 2) being doubled into the binary number 100 (decimal equivalent is 4).

In the same way, just because people see a face on the moon doesn't mean it's got "more information than any other pattern".

There's no logical requirement for DNA to be the way it is.
For instance, we refer to the main chemical bases of DNA as A C T and G.
We could've gone with A B C and D, it would make no difference because the meaning of something is subjective.

This idea, when followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to only one "kind" -- biota, or Earth life, which includes every living organism to have evolved on this planet.

No, this idea, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to a Creator -- who created plants and animals "according to their kind"; that is, with the diversity of genetic information to produce the incredible variety of flora and fauna we observe today, from a population that was preserved through His judgment on a world in which "every intent of the thoughts of (men's) hearts was only evil continually" -- that judgment expressed in a cataclysmic global flood (which is the source of the geologic and fossil record).

Complete non sequtur.

Also, "source of the geologic and fossil record"?
If there was a global flood that could sink Everest, it'd physically crush and break fossils.
There isn't enough water on Earth for a global flood. Hence why we aren't underwater right now. That's one reason - and one reason is all that's needed - why it does not explain the "geologic record"

If you're gonna say God magicked up the water, why bother saying it explains the fossils in the first place? Why not just say he magicked those up instead of making such an outrageous claim?

All the logical fallacies in the world won't weaken the ironclad case for evolution by natural selection.

It is purely and simply an excuse for reality, that leaves out the Creator.

Which is the ultimate logical fallacy.

Are you not aware of the number of Christians and other theists that believe in Evolution?

[sfs]

A better analogy, or metaphor, is this. This sequence, repeated for 400 pages, contains data -- but almost no information: aaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

The alphabet, repeated for those same 400 pages, contains a bit more information.

400 pages of that alphabet, arranged into the words of "War and Peace", contain categorically more information.

The information in your DNA -- or that of a blade of grass, or a slug -- is of a different category than that expressed in a hurricane.

Do you follow?

I don't follow at all, because I still have no idea what you mean by information. It's quantitative, because some objects have more of it than another, but it also seems to be subjective, since it's a matter of taste whether hurricanes have it. How do you measure it? Does it have units?

It is purely and simply an excuse for reality, that leaves out the Creator.

Don't be absurd. With rare exceptions scientists don't judge a theory by what it says about God (especially since many of them are theists of one sort or another); they judge it by how well it lets them explain and predict data, and suggestive fruitful research questions. Evolution does a superb job of these tasks, across a wide range of fields. There's no other theory around that even attempts to do any of them.

[Ooberman]

Information exists, too. And the billions of "letters" of it (A,T,C,G) that compose the unique pattern of DNA that is in every cell in your body, convey the information that your cells use to turn hamburgers and french fries into you. Do you think it happens by accident? Or perhaps by magic?

How about Chemistry?

BTW, how is it that your God happened to exist the way it does, perfectly and all? Magic? Accident?


And, how do you explain disease and all the suffering in the world? Design?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 7 by Jashwell]

It doesn't happen by accident, it happens by well understood and acknowledged scientific phenomena.

Exactly. And what is understood is that the DNA molecule is an incredibly complex, efficient, and precise error-correcting code. Bill Gates called it the best software program ever devised; in all probability, the best one possible. Its code contains encyclopedias of information -- more being discovered every day, including the recent discovery of an alternate code within the structure of the molecule.

Information for what? Depends on how the code is written: for you, me, little tadpoles which become frogs, apple trees, paramecium -- every living thing that has ever existed.

All this by way of saying: can we please dispense with this nonsense that DNA doesn't clearly express INFORMATION -- which implies design, will, and intelligence? Computer programmers spend years, and huge amounts of money, using their will and intelligence to design computer codes --

and we're to believe Nature outdid them through mindless, random, accidental processes?

Similar to how evolution is not a series of accidents.

Indeed it is not. Microbes2Men evolution is not anything; it is a fraud, a lie -- a "no-thing". It is an absurd explanation, cooked up to deny the existence of God, and readily accepted by the weak-minded. That last term is not a dig, by the way. It is an accurate description, and is not meant to imply anything, pro or con, related to intelligence.

If it was supernatural, then it'd be magic.

Indeed it would be. But everything in nature is "natural"; it is the SOURCE, and Creator, of the natural world that is "extra-natural", supernatural, hyperdimensional. "Magic" suits me just fine -- we exist in "The Grand Miracle".

There's no logical requirement for DNA to be the way it is.
For instance, we refer to the main chemical bases of DNA as A C T and G.
We could've gone with A B C and D, it would make no difference because the meaning of something is subjective.

Not to break in on your solitary cranial activity here -- but what does that have to do with anything? Yes, the "meaning" of information is subjective. But that doesn't mean the information itself is -- just that we, individually, can fail to understand its objective meaning.

The billions of letters of information in DNA will code for a chicken, a cow, or you, depending on how they are arranged -- "written" -- regardless of your interpretation of them.

Also, "source of the geologic and fossil record"?
If there was a global flood that could sink Everest, it'd physically crush and break fossils.
There isn't enough water on Earth for a global flood. Hence why we aren't underwater right now. That's one reason - and one reason is all that's needed - why it does not explain the "geologic record"

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!