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?

[sfs]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

"Information and Randomness are opposites: just as Entropy and Order are opposites."

Information and randomness are not opposites in information theory, and entropy and order are not opposites in thermodynamics. Perhaps you have some other definitions for these terms, but in those arenas, your statements are not true.

[Various slurs deleted.]

[Volbrigade]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

No, thanks. It would be as pointless as discussing Lady Ga Ga producing good music. Or Ooberman producing worthwhile posts.

None of those things are within the realm of possibility. To believe any of them can happen, is to believe in a fairy tale -- like the one about microbes becoming men.

[dianaiad]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

No, thanks. It would be as pointless as discussing Lady Ga Ga producing good music. Or Ooberman producing worthwhile posts.

None of those things are within the realm of possibility. To believe any of them can happen, is to believe in a fairy tale -- like the one about microbes becoming men.

Moderator Warning


Do not make personal comments about other posters.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[sfs]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

No, thanks. It would be as pointless as discussing Lady Ga Ga producing good music. Or Ooberman producing worthwhile posts.

None of those things are within the realm of possibility. To believe any of them can happen, is to believe in a fairy tale -- like the one about microbes becoming men.

Your failure to offer any support for your claims -- in a forum devoted to debate, no less -- is noted.

But since you haven't got anything to contribute, I'll throw out a few tidbits.

1) The human genome encodes ~20,000 proteins. Along with isoforms created by alternative splicing, the genes you were born with code for perhaps a few hundred thousand proteins, maximum. That's all of the protein-coding information you come equipped with. Nevertheless, at any given time you've got something like 100 million different antibody proteins circulating in your blood, all manufactured by your body, each capable of recognizing a different foreign protein. Over the course of your lifetime, you'll produce perhaps 10 billion different, highly functional proteins. Where does the information to make these proteins come from? (Hint: it involves randomness.)

2) When you are exposed to a new virus, say the latest flu that's going around, your immune system can only respond weakly, in part because it doesn't have any antibodies that are perfectly tuned to that virus. And yet, within a few days, your body will be churning out antibodies that perfectly match the new virus, so much so that you'll never get sick with that strain again. Where do you think the information comes from to create the new, extremely important antibodies? It wasn't in the DNA you got from your parents. Where did it come from? (Hint: it involves randomness. In fact, it involves something called "somatic hypermutation".)

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 60 by sfs]

My opinion is very well informed,

by false and erroneous uniformitarian, materialist presuppositions

and can be substantiated by reference to the primary scientific literature, the same literature cited by CMI in its articles. And no, that's not a lie.

Thanks. That's the only passage in your message that is worthy of response.

Same evidence, same literature -- different worldviews, with different presuppositions reaching different conclusions.

At least one is wrong.

I'll side with the one that acknowledges the Creator. It has the attractive quality of being built on truth.

You may choose the vague, unsubstantiated and preposterous claims made by those who have a vested, personal interest in denying God (if you like...):

That matter created itself; that entropy produced order; randomness produced information; and human intelligence is the only incidence of "mind" in the cosmos.

I suggest you consider altering your faith in that absurd ideology -- it is woefully antiquated and obsolete.

It begins with the simple acceptance that the force behind our reality is a Mind, with intelligence and will -- not the comforting chimera of "impersonal forces".

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

Intelligence Will Design Information

Moderator Comment

You need to supply support for your claims; support that can be seen in the post itself. This post is, frankly, a speech from the pulpit. While appropriate in many venues, and sincere, it's not appropriate for a debate forum.

This post would be considered to not comply with the guidelines on preaching. Please read through the guidelines and abide by them.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Volbrigade]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

No, thanks. It would be as pointless as discussing Lady Ga Ga producing good music. Or Ooberman producing worthwhile posts.

None of those things are within the realm of possibility. To believe any of them can happen, is to believe in a fairy tale -- like the one about microbes becoming men.

Your failure to offer any support for your claims -- in a forum devoted to debate, no less -- is noted.

But since you haven't got anything to contribute, I'll throw out a few tidbits.

1) The human genome encodes ~20,000 proteins. Along with isoforms created by alternative splicing, the genes you were born with code for perhaps a few hundred thousand proteins, maximum. That's all of the protein-coding information you come equipped with. Nevertheless, at any given time you've got something like 100 million different antibody proteins circulating in your blood, all manufactured by your body, each capable of recognizing a different foreign protein. Over the course of your lifetime, you'll produce perhaps 10 billion different, highly functional proteins. Where does the information to make these proteins come from? (Hint: it involves randomness.)

2) When you are exposed to a new virus, say the latest flu that's going around, your immune system can only respond weakly, in part because it doesn't have any antibodies that are perfectly tuned to that virus. And yet, within a few days, your body will be churning out antibodies that perfectly match the new virus, so much so that you'll never get sick with that strain again. Where do you think the information comes from to create the new, extremely important antibodies? It wasn't in the DNA you got from your parents. Where did it come from? (Hint: it involves randomness. In fact, it involves something called "somatic hypermutation".)

That's all very interesting, sfs. I'm not familiar with the details and technicalities of the processes you cite (it may alarm you to be, uh, informed... that I don't as yet know everything there is to know ). I will not dispute any of it, taking it as factual -- with the caveat that every day brings new discoveries with regard to the complex design of the DNA molecule; and its instructions [coded in 3D] for the coordinated, integrated, orchestrated operations of the trillions of cells that compose our bodies. I therefore submit that your perception of randomness being the source of protein-recognition is as spurious as the rejected concepts (once universally held, and commented on at length by God-deniers such as Dawkins) of "junk DNA"; or the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis.

In fact, all you're doing here is reflexively putting the "cart" of randomness before the "horse" of Design -- iows, using your presuppositions (or, at any rate, somebody's) to determine your conclusion. "Something produces the information for antibodies to form in response to viruses -- (since it's "axiomatically" not God, by consensual agreement) it must be randomness!"

Isn't that rather silly, when you think about it?

All you're really pointing out here is the amazing design elements that God instilled in his Creation; in fact, knowing the consequences of disease and death, due to sin, He formatted these processes to cope with the reality of a fallen creation. They are no more "random" than the composition of the hydrogen atom; or the calibration of the strong and weak forces, without the infinitesimally precise fine tuning of which (and countless other factors) none of the factors cited takes place, and this discussion is moot -- as is our very existence.

You, or perhaps a moderator or some other posters, will no doubt make the tiresome demand to "support your claim!".

Fair enough. But first, support yours:

Please provide the empirical evidence and support for the argument that the processes you refer to confirms the commonly held myth that the original genome (leaving aside how it came into being for the moment) incrementally, by random processes, accreted the information that instructed the novel design mechanisms required for it to climb uphill from a cell (or the more "socialist"-friendly collective of cells) to a human being.

In fact: let's narrow down the parameter, just to be fair. Simply provide the incontrovertible evidence that proves the link between a seagull, and its closest non-flighted ancestor; and provide the data that proves that the increase of information needed to code for the gull's wings and feathers accrued gradually over many generations.

The establishment of the second requirement will, of course, of necessity be required before attempting to make the connection with the first.

And while you're chasing down that errand, allow me to increase YOUR information ( ) by providing the following article, which I discovered while "fact-checking" your post; it is from a trusted and credible source -- one that is not handicapped by the absurd premise that randomness can generate information; and submitted as partial "support (for my) claims":

http://creation.com/splicing-and-dicing ... man-genome

[Goat]

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

No, we don't agree. Randomness can produce information. Would you like to discuss this?

No, thanks. It would be as pointless as discussing Lady Ga Ga producing good music. Or Ooberman producing worthwhile posts.

None of those things are within the realm of possibility. To believe any of them can happen, is to believe in a fairy tale -- like the one about microbes becoming men.

Your failure to offer any support for your claims -- in a forum devoted to debate, no less -- is noted.

But since you haven't got anything to contribute, I'll throw out a few tidbits.

1) The human genome encodes ~20,000 proteins. Along with isoforms created by alternative splicing, the genes you were born with code for perhaps a few hundred thousand proteins, maximum. That's all of the protein-coding information you come equipped with. Nevertheless, at any given time you've got something like 100 million different antibody proteins circulating in your blood, all manufactured by your body, each capable of recognizing a different foreign protein. Over the course of your lifetime, you'll produce perhaps 10 billion different, highly functional proteins. Where does the information to make these proteins come from? (Hint: it involves randomness.)

2) When you are exposed to a new virus, say the latest flu that's going around, your immune system can only respond weakly, in part because it doesn't have any antibodies that are perfectly tuned to that virus. And yet, within a few days, your body will be churning out antibodies that perfectly match the new virus, so much so that you'll never get sick with that strain again. Where do you think the information comes from to create the new, extremely important antibodies? It wasn't in the DNA you got from your parents. Where did it come from? (Hint: it involves randomness. In fact, it involves something called "somatic hypermutation".)

That's all very interesting, sfs. I'm not familiar with the details and technicalities of the processes you cite (it may alarm you to be, uh, informed... that I don't as yet know everything there is to know ). I will not dispute any of it, taking it as factual -- with the caveat that every day brings new discoveries with regard to the complex design of the DNA molecule; and its instructions [coded in 3D] for the coordinated, integrated, orchestrated operations of the trillions of cells that compose our bodies. I therefore submit that your perception of randomness being the source of protein-recognition is as spurious as the rejected concepts (once universally held, and commented on at length by God-deniers such as Dawkins) of "junk DNA"; or the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis.

In fact, all you're doing here is reflexively putting the "cart" of randomness before the "horse" of Design -- iows, using your presuppositions (or, at any rate, somebody's) to determine your conclusion. "Something produces the information for antibodies to form in response to viruses -- (since it's "axiomatically" not God, by consensual agreement) it must be randomness!"

Isn't that rather silly, when you think about it?

All you're really pointing out here is the amazing design elements that God instilled in his Creation; in fact, knowing the consequences of disease and death, due to sin, He formatted these processes to cope with the reality of a fallen creation. They are no more "random" than the composition of the hydrogen atom; or the calibration of the strong and weak forces, without the infinitesimally precise fine tuning of which (and countless other factors) none of the factors cited takes place, and this discussion is moot -- as is our very existence.

You, or perhaps a moderator or some other posters, will no doubt make the tiresome demand to "support your claim!".

Fair enough. But first, support yours:

Please provide the empirical evidence and support for the argument that the processes you refer to confirms the commonly held myth that the original genome (leaving aside how it came into being for the moment) incrementally, by random processes, accreted the information that instructed the novel design mechanisms required for it to climb uphill from a cell (or the more "socialist"-friendly collective of cells) to a human being.

In fact: let's narrow down the parameter, just to be fair. Simply provide the incontrovertible evidence that proves the link between a seagull, and its closest non-flighted ancestor; and provide the data that proves that the increase of information needed to code for the gull's wings and feathers accrued gradually over many generations.

The establishment of the second requirement will, of course, of necessity be required before attempting to make the connection with the first.

And while you're chasing down that errand, allow me to increase YOUR information ( ) by providing the following article, which I discovered while "fact-checking" your post; it is from a trusted and credible source -- one that is not handicapped by the absurd premise that randomness can generate information; and submitted as partial "support (for my) claims":

http://creation.com/splicing-and-dicing ... man-genome

What part of that supports your claims? Pointing to a web site and say 'go read this' is not debate.

[sfs]

That's all very interesting, sfs. I'm not familiar with the details and technicalities of the processes you cite (it may alarm you to be, uh, informed... that I don't as yet know everything there is to know ). I will not dispute any of it, taking it as factual

Okay, great -- you don't understand the details, but you'll accept these as factual examples of randomly produced information . . .

-- with the caveat that every day brings new discoveries with regard to the complex design of the DNA molecule; and its instructions [coded in 3D] for the coordinated, integrated, orchestrated operations of the trillions of cells that compose our bodies. I therefore submit that your perception of randomness being the source of protein-recognition is as spurious as the rejected concepts (once universally held, and commented on at length by God-deniers such as Dawkins) of "junk DNA"; or the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis.

. . . with the caveat that you're going to reject them anyway, because someone else was once wrong about something else. Are you sure you're clear about what "not disputing" and "taking as factual" mean? (Not that I think you're right about junk DNA, mind you, but that's an unrelated question.) In fact, you're going to completely reject them -- while admitting that you don't understand them. This is quite the display of logical rigor you're putting on here.

In fact, all you're doing here is reflexively putting the "cart" of randomness before the "horse" of Design -- iows, using your presuppositions (or, at any rate, somebody's) to determine your conclusion. "Something produces the information for antibodies to form in response to viruses -- (since it's "axiomatically" not God, by consensual agreement) it must be randomness!"

Isn't that rather silly, when you think about it?

No. Having thought about it quite a lot, I don't think it's silly at all. In fact, I think it's really silly that you, who clearly haven't thought about these examples at all, and who admits to not understanding them, feels comfortable rejecting them because of your preconceived notion that randomness can't produce information.

All you're really pointing out here is the amazing design elements that God instilled in his Creation; in fact, knowing the consequences of disease and death, due to sin, He formatted these processes to cope with the reality of a fallen creation. They are no more "random" than the composition of the hydrogen atom; or the calibration of the strong and weak forces, without the infinitesimally precise fine tuning of which (and countless other factors) none of the factors cited takes place, and this discussion is moot -- as is our very existence.

No, I'm pointing out examples of well-understood random processes that generate biologically meaningful information. You said that can't happen. I gave examples. How about dealing with the examples, instead of making completely unsupported assertions?

You, or perhaps a moderator or some other posters, will no doubt make the tiresome demand to "support your claim!".

Fair enough. But first, support yours:

Please provide the empirical evidence and support for the argument that the processes you refer to confirms the commonly held myth that the original genome (leaving aside how it came into being for the moment) incrementally, by random processes, accreted the information that instructed the novel design mechanisms required for it to climb uphill from a cell (or the more "socialist"-friendly collective of cells) to a human being.

In fact: let's narrow down the parameter, just to be fair. Simply provide the incontrovertible evidence that proves the link between a seagull, and its closest non-flighted ancestor; and provide the data that proves that the increase of information needed to code for the gull's wings and feathers accrued gradually over many generations.

The establishment of the second requirement will, of course, of necessity be required before attempting to make the connection with the first.

What the heck are you talking about? The issue we're discussing is whether random processes can produce information. I've said nothing at all about the origin of the genome, or of humans, or indeed whether design happens somewhere else.

To recap: I claim that random processes can produce biological information. To support that claim, I offer two examples. You claim that randomness can't produce information. To support that claim, you offer . . . nothing at all.

And while you're chasing down that errand, allow me to increase YOUR information ( ) by providing the following article, which I discovered while "fact-checking" your post; it is from a trusted and credible source -- one that is not handicapped by the absurd premise that randomness can generate information; and submitted as partial "support (for my) claims":

http://creation.com/splicing-and-dicing ... man-genome

I got as far as the author's equation of non-coding DNA with junk DNA. Since the author clearly doesn't understand the basics of the subject he's writing about, further reading would be a waste of time.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 78 by sfs]

Meh.

You're just being oblique, if not obtuse, if not opaque.

You keep saying you've provided examples of randomness producing information. I assure you, you have not. You have provided examples of the information code in DNA responding to the environment.

Where does the information to make these proteins come from?

From your DNA.

Where do you think the information comes from to create the new, extremely important antibodies? It wasn't in the DNA you got from your parents.

Of course it is. That's all the DNA you've got; it is subject to copying errors; which, I suppose, creates "new information", but only in a degraded sense. Those copying errors are the only viable means of climbing uphill from a microbe to a man.

A preposterous idea.

Now, you are correct. I don't fully understand all the processes by which the information in DNA performs all of the functions it performs, like you do (blue font for sarcasm, isn't it?).

That is why a sensible person must take many things on authority.

The question is, when two "authorities" disagree, which one do you choose?

I guarantee you, I will side with Dr. Robert Carter every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, over you.

Why?

Because he understands that information cannot be produced by randomness. To even think otherwise borders on some sort of mental disorder.

[sfs]

You keep saying you've provided examples of randomness producing information. I assure you, you have not. You have provided examples of the information code in DNA responding to the environment.

How does DNA respond to the environment? It's just a chemical; how does it produce information?

Where does the information to make these proteins come from?

From your DNA.

The average human protein is 480 amino acids long, and there are ~20,000 protein-coding genes. There are 20 amino acids to choose from, which corresponds to less than 5 bits per amino acid. That's less than 2400 bits per gene; throw in another 100 bits for alternative splice sites, giving 2500 bits per gene, or 50 million bits in our DNA specifying proteins.

Antibodies are ~1500 amino acids long, so each requires ~4500 bits. 10 billion different antibodies therefore require something like 50 trillion bits to specify. Where did those bits of information come from? That's 1 million times as much information as in the protein-coding genome. Where is the rest hiding? (Note: even if you only count the amino acids that are actually different in the antibodies, more information is required than is present in the entire genome.)

When you're born, where is the information that specifies an antibody for next year's flu? For that matter, where is it now? Which bases of DNA hold it?

Where do you think the information comes from to create the new, extremely important antibodies? It wasn't in the DNA you got from your parents.

Of course it is. That's all the DNA you've got;

Where in the DNA? DNA is just a molecule made up of a string of bases. Where in those bases is this information?

[Mockery -- but no evidence -- deleted.]

That is why a sensible person must take many things on authority.

The question is, when two "authorities" disagree, which one do you choose?

I guarantee you, I will side with Dr. Robert Carter every day of the week, and twice on Sundays, over you.

Why?

Because he understands that information cannot be produced by randomness. To even think otherwise borders on some sort of mental disorder.

So to lay out your argument . . . You believe Robert Carter when he tells you that information cannot come from randomness because you recognize him as an authority. The reason you recognize his authority is because he knows that information cannot come from randomness. Do you notice a wee bit of circularity there?

But by all means, if you Robert Carter can tell us where the information for antibodies comes from, great. What's he say?

(By the way, an appeal to authority only has any validity if he's an authority about the subject in question. Carter is trained as a marine biologist, and has no expertise in genetics or information theory. Me, I'd take the guy who was an actual expert in genetics.)