Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Data, Information, and all that....
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 241 of 299 (92100)
03-12-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by MrHambre
03-12-2004 3:37 PM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
The Creationist who accepts a natural origin of species but a miraculous origin of life has neither theological nor scientific support. But this species of Creationist can be a comfort since their mere presence acts as counterpoint to those Creationists who assign evolutionists a sinister motive for wanting to keep biogenesis and abiogenesis separate.
--Percy
[text=wheat][Wordsmithed 1st sentence. --Percy][/text]
[This message has been edited by Percy, 03-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by MrHambre, posted 03-12-2004 3:37 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 1:02 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 242 of 299 (92663)
03-16-2004 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Percy
03-12-2004 4:24 PM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
"The Creationist who accepts a natural origin of species" is not a creationist by the usual definition of the word
Creationism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
is pretty specific about it involving literal biblical creation
Creationism - Wikipedia
cuts a little more slack, but still shows a strong literal christian bias.
more like an evolutionist in the closet ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 03-12-2004 4:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by MrHambre, posted 03-16-2004 8:48 AM RAZD has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 243 of 299 (92721)
03-16-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
03-16-2004 1:02 AM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
Abby,
I think anyone who proposes miraculous or supernatural mechanisms as being necessary for any natural phenomenon is a creationist.
regards,
Esteban "Funk'n'Wagnall's" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 1:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:06 PM MrHambre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 244 of 299 (92754)
03-16-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by MrHambre
03-16-2004 8:48 AM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
That is pretty broad based ... you might just as well say "anyone who is not an atheist" because even agnostics think supernatural activity may be involved or have been involved.
The purpose of words is to draw distinctions and when the distinctions blurr the words become useless: if I call all my tools "hammers" because they are all tools, then I have trouble asking for a screwdriver.
A proper term imho for your definition is theist
Theist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Is a Buddhist a creationist if they believe that everything has always existed in an endless cycle of reincarnation, while still allowing supernatural behavior?
I find it interesting that a survey of Americans showed that approximately half didn't know what creationism was ... (I can find the survey and the actual ratio if need be).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by MrHambre, posted 03-16-2004 8:48 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by MrHambre, posted 03-16-2004 1:22 PM RAZD has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 245 of 299 (92766)
03-16-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:06 PM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
Abby,
Please note that I said that a creationist believes miraculous intervention is necessary to explain natural phenomena. I think the crux of the issue is the sufficiency of natural law. I think there is good reason to believe in the universal application of natural law, and creationists do not.
Someone brought up a good point about design or intention as it applies to the lottery. Maybe it only seems random, but in fact the process is controlled by the intention of the divine will. Is there any good reason to believe this? Does it constitute an affront to honest religious belief to assert that the outcome of a lottery is random and unpredictable?
I think the regularity of natural laws is reason enough to suspect that they are not merely the whims of the Creator. It's for that reason that we'd consider something 'miraculous' if it violated scientific laws.
regards,
Esteban "Law Abiding" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:06 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Brad McFall, posted 03-16-2004 3:17 PM MrHambre has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 246 of 299 (92783)
03-16-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by MrHambre
03-16-2004 1:22 PM


Re: Creationist in the Closet
we are talking a matter of degrees? and not absolute's then???????
I am begining to notice AND take note that the JACOB mentality of evo as a tinkering is becoming the NOrm? in the web cheapened discussion of evolution before creation. This may be the consensus but then if that is what evo means today I know a herp differntly as I ALWAYS have.
I also think I am near to conceive or simply have percieved that one can RETURN to Wright's first and more general use of chance randomness that he later discounted(made cheaper as well?) to get the point over to FIsher. Fisher never accepted his brain. Others know better but then a data division becomes necessary which it may not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by MrHambre, posted 03-16-2004 1:22 PM MrHambre has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 247 of 299 (92883)
03-17-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by DNAunion
03-12-2004 8:28 AM


I'll try again ....
If there is no specific definition of information
for this text, one must assume a common-language
usage, not a technical one.
Using 'information' as a descriptive, metaphorical way
of explaining DNA in organisms is a far cry from claiming
that there is any information (in any technical sense) there.
Even if you want to use the 'information is a measure of
order' approach you run into problems.
DNA (as a chemical) shows order (the same as any other chemical).
A chain of DNA does not. ANY sequence of bases is possible
hence there is no specific 'order' involved.
The processing, within the cell, from DNA to protein shows
'order' in this structural/deterministic kind of way.
If that's all you mean, OK. I already said that.
IF on the other hand, you are trying to claim that cells are
programmed to do what they do, and that the DNA sequences
are more like machine code ... that's where I disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by DNAunion, posted 03-12-2004 8:28 AM DNAunion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 03-17-2004 7:43 AM Peter has replied
 Message 250 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 3:38 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 248 of 299 (92894)
03-17-2004 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Peter
03-17-2004 4:35 AM


Peter writes:
IF on the other hand, you are trying to claim that cells are
programmed to do what they do, and that the DNA sequences
are more like machine code ... that's where I disagree.
I have to agree that cells are not programmed, if "programmed" in any way implies a sapient entity. But there does seem to be a legitimate analogy to be drawn between DNA at work and computer programs at work.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Peter, posted 03-17-2004 4:35 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Peter, posted 03-18-2004 7:21 AM Percy has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 249 of 299 (93107)
03-18-2004 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
03-17-2004 7:43 AM


I have no problem using the analogy ... so long as
one remembers that it IS an analogy and not a formal/accurate
description of the system in question.
Even then it's not the DNA sequence alone ... the DNA
sequence is more like the data tables that a program
might use.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 03-17-2004 7:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by DNAunion, posted 03-19-2004 9:19 PM Peter has replied
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 03-23-2004 8:21 PM Peter has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 250 of 299 (93175)
03-18-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Peter
03-17-2004 4:35 AM


Noise
Peter indeed it is a "far cry" but if one were able to use vicariant species distributions and DNA alingement gaps to PREDICT differential distributions of procaryotes in the solar system then I think we have to ADMIT the idea of information IN there those genes etc. If it takes another 20yrs just to get the database I will indeed have lived before my time for I can indeed imagine that this is not a fig but meant to be known for real. You have to guess two openings on the first try. This is hard to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Peter, posted 03-17-2004 4:35 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 7:46 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 253 by Loudmouth, posted 03-19-2004 11:32 AM Brad McFall has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 299 (93231)
03-18-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Brad McFall
03-18-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Noise, or music
Not just the solar system, but throughout space (although we are more likely to find it there than across cosmic distances with our current means and limitations)
We know that some 'organic' molecules are found in deep space
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zi.html
(Kitt Peak - October 1, 2001)
This would tend to bias life development to use this molecule rather than try to replicate it or a near likeness from the bottom up. The effect may be indistinguishable from organic contamination.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 3:38 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 10:50 AM RAZD has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 252 of 299 (93350)
03-19-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
03-18-2004 7:46 PM


Re: Nomusic or the silent state of posterior problems
Yes butNO ONE is putting out these predictions today. So you like me would have expected that you could go to Cornell and become an academic to actually try if not actually make such not retrodictions about physical artifical life but nautral chemical streches that match up Russel's word "disjunct" with a color of Nelson's fish map of Africa for an explation not only of HOW but WHY (Catholicism and Panbiogeography) Croizat was not on any LUNATIC fringe in Caracass and rejected such "lights"first as MAYR, THEN NELSON OR GOULD (but both). A job in the Bufflo Museum of Science is NOT the proper result for the work that these thoughts could do if given the degree a chance. The issue comes in when one tries to use distance as measured as the crow flies without interacting with a physical intution of the interval that SEPERTED the material work of such a generation as LORENZ, EINSTEIN, and POINCARE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 7:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 299 (93358)
03-19-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Brad McFall
03-18-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Noise
quote:
Peter indeed it is a "far cry" but if one were able to use vicariant species distributions and DNA alingement gaps to PREDICT differential distributions of procaryotes in the solar system then I think we have to ADMIT the idea of information IN there those genes etc.
  —Mr. McFall
This is the type of information that I think exists in genomes. We could compare tree ring temporal thickness across mountain ranges to guage annual rainfall across a geologic range and come across the same information. However, I think we can all agree that a single tree ring does not contain contain information. It is when humans start comparing between genomes that information arises, there is not intragenomic information in this sense. The information in DNA is due to selection on variation, and this information can be understood by cataloging changes in alleles across populations, and even across speciation events. On this we can agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Brad McFall, posted 03-18-2004 3:38 PM Brad McFall has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 299 (93431)
03-19-2004 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Brad McFall
03-19-2004 10:50 AM


Re: Nomusic or the silent state of posterior problems
do fluctuations at subatomic level cause self organizing trends in low gravitations fields?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 10:50 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 10:12 AM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 299 (93442)
03-19-2004 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Peter
03-18-2004 7:21 AM


First, y'all, I'm not a Creationist. Even when I was arguing for ID I was offering ETIs, not God.
Second, ...
quote:
DNA transmits information from one generation to the next
Humans give birth only to human beings, not to giraffes or rose bushes. In organisms that reproduce sexually, each offspring is a combination of the traits of its parents. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick worked out the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, more simply known as DNA. This chemical substance makes up the genes, the units of hereditary material. The work of Watson and Crick led to the understanding of the genetic code that transmits information from generation to generation. (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, and Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p7)
quote:
Genetic information is stored in DNA molecules and is faithfully replicated and passed on to each new generation of cells during cell division. Information in DNA codes for specific proteins that in turn determine cell structure and function. (Biology: Fifth Edition, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R Berg, and Diana W Martin, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p73)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Peter, posted 03-18-2004 7:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Peter, posted 03-23-2004 2:52 AM DNAunion has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024