Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

WHAT IS INFORMATION???

WHAT IS INFORMATION???

It seems to me that if one is discussing the claim that an argument against evolution is the putative impossibility of the increase of information in the genome then the burden of definition and proof falls on those making the claim to:

1. Define information

Already done that.
hecd:

1. Show how it can be measured

It is not necessary to measure information in order to identify it. That request is unreasonable. That would be like claiming that you had to measure how much snow had fallen to the ground in order to state a theory that snow had fallen. It is enough that the theory states that snow will fall under certain conditions. Measuring it, or not measuring it, will not effect the theory.
hecd:

1. Show that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in information according to whatever definition and measure one has chosen.

Why would the Intelligent Design Theory have to make any remarks regarding evolutionary processes? However, in discussing the differences between the two theories, it may assist us to compare the two theories and determine if there are any disparities that must be considered or overcome in order to verify the strength of the theory.
hecd:

1. Show, that according to that definition and measure, an increase in information is not possible by the evolutionary process.

I’ve already stated that it is not possible for information to arise by any evolutionary mechanism. When evolutionists come forward with a definition for information, then we can begin to test their claims that information arises by naturalistic means.
hecd:

So far, to the best of my knowledge, no-one who has attempted to use this argument against evolution has ever succeeded in negotiating these four steps. Have you?

Some of those steps are valid, but some not. Hope that this helped in your understanding.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Wrong. That’s the definition of the MEASUREMENT OF INFORMATION. Try again?

(giant font)

Shouting won’t help you. Simply denial won’t help, either. That is the defintion for “information”, and it has one compelling virtue; it works.

Barbarian observes:
Information theory explains how it works.

I don’t care to know HOW it works. I already know all about that. I want to know WHAT IS INFORMATION??? Please define WHAT IT IS.

(more giant font)

Screaming still won’t help. I’m sorry you don’t like what information is, but reality is not compelled to meet your expectations.

Barbarian observes:
I’ve located a non-mathematical, non-technical description for PEPCIS:
In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. The term by itself in this context usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies, in the sense of an expected value, the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”.

I already know what entropy is. I want to know what INFORMATION is.

I restored the part you deleted. That was the part that defined information. I highlighted it in a different color so you wouldn’t miss it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin’s prediction that the earliest humans would be found in Africa, for example, was not post hoc, after the fact.

Barbarian observes:
No, that’s false. Human ancestors were found long after Darwin predicted they would be there, and his prediction flew in the face of the commonly-held belief that it happened in Asia.

LOL That’s a riot! You’ve taken to arguing with yourself.

Perhaps you don’t know what “post hoc” means. It means that the “prediction” came after the fact. In this case, Darwin’s prediction was before the find actually occured. Is is possible you didn’t read what I wrote very carefully?

Apparently I was right - you aren’t here for honest debate. You’re just looking for a fight.

I’m not the only person here you’re crossways with. You’re not doing well in a number of places. Aggression just makes people think badly of you.

Barbarian observes:
Almost all people of European descent thought that other races were inferior. Like Abraham Lincoln, how had the same opinion, he was considered a liberal on race because he thought that all people had a right to freedom and dignity, regardless of race.

That’s not the point. The point is that these sentiments were reciprocal with evolution theory, and always have been.

Perhaps you don’t know what “reciprocal” means. Today, few evolutionists think that way, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. But as late as the 1990s, creationists were still claiming that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior. This included the leader of the largest creationist organization in the United States.

There are many people today who continue to believe that morphology plays a significant understanding in evaluating evolutionary claims. Evolutionists continue to use morphology to class species.

Homologous organs. Would you be offended if I asked you to learn why?

Darwin was not “special” in his moral position.

He certainly was. Most of English upper-class people favored slavery.

Barbarian observes:
He’s not talking not about races, but about any humans who behave like that. He acknowledged that his own countrymen had at times become savage.

Actually, he’s talking straight from his own belief in evolution, claiming that humans are no better off, morally-speaking, than a monkey,

People like that are worse off than a monkey. A monkey will not spend an eternity in hell if it doesn’t repent and amend its ways.

and that even most monkeys display a better standard of morality than some men.

Observably true.

Barbarian observes:
That’s what Abraham Lincoln said about blacks. He and Huxley differed from creationists, mostly in opposing slavery and allowing that human dignity did not depend on ability.

Yeah, most creationists were most Americans,

Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

 

[PEPCIS]

Wrong. That’s the definition of the MEASUREMENT OF INFORMATION. Try again?

(giant font)Shouting won’t help you.

I see that. You remain in denial, separated from reality. Evolutionists are prone to do that.

Simply denial won’t help, either.

It’s working for you quite well.

That is the defintion for “information”

Well, that would be a lie. that is a definition for the MEASUREMENT of information. Not my fault that you can’t wrap your brain around that. Not my fault that your religion won’t allow you to conform your mind to reality.

Information theory explains how

it works.

PEPCIS:

I don’t care to know HOW it works. I already know all about that. I want to know WHAT IS INFORMATION??? Please define WHAT IT IS.

I’m sorry you don’t like what information is…

I’m sorry you can’t give a definition for WHAT information is. Good thing you’re not a waiter, and someone asks you what a particular dish is. They’re likely to get “It weighs 1 lb. 2 oz.” They want to know WHAT it is, not what it weighs. I want to know what information is, not how much there is in a specific setting.

I’ve located a non-mathematical, non-technical description for PEPCIS:

More deceit. You’ve located a description of a formula for measuring information.

I restored the part you deleted. That was the part that defined information.

Your reality filter must be permanantly damaged. That was the part that defined HOW TO MEASURE information. It had nothing to do with defining what information is.

I highlighted it in a different color so you wouldn’t miss it.

I did some highlighting of my own.

 

[PEPCIS]

Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Yes, show me in Great Britain where it was practiced extensively.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Yes, show me

The states in the Southern U.S., the old slave states, are those states where evolution is least accepted.

in Great Britain where it was practiced extensively.

Slavery in the British Empire was legal until 1833. About the time Darwin began writing the Origin of Species. It was extensively practiced in parts of the empire with large native populations.

 

[hecd2]

Barbarian observes:
Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

The states in the Southern U.S., the old slave states, are those states where evolution is least accepted.

Slavery in the British Empire was legal until 1833. About the time Darwin began writing the Origin of Species. It was extensively practiced in parts of the empire with large native populations.

But slavery in Great Britain itself was not legal after the disappearance of serfdom in the late Middle Ages, as proven by a test court case of 1772. Also see this:

Desmond and Moore: “Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Case for Human Origins”. This book’s authors have previously written an extremely detailed and scholarly biography of Darwin. In this book they make the case that Darwin was motivated by his abhorrence of slavery to demonstrate a common ancestry and equal dignity for all human beings.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Barbarian observes:
Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

The states in the Southern U.S., the old slave states, are those states where evolution is least accepted.

Slavery in the British Empire was legal until 1833. About the time Darwin began writing the Origin of Species. It was extensively practiced in parts of the empire with large native populations.

But slavery in Great Britain itself was not legal after the disappearance of serfdom in the late Middle Ages, as proven by a test court case of 1772. Also see this:

Desmond and Moore: “Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Case for Human Origins”. This book’s authors have previously written an extremely detailed and scholarly biography of Darwin. In this book they make the case that Darwin was motivated by his abhorrence of slavery to demonstrate a common ancestry and equal dignity for all human beings.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PEPCIS]

Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

PEPCIS:

Yes, show me in Great Britain where it was practiced extensively.

The states in the Southern U.S., the old slave states, are those states where evolution is least accepted.

??? When did Great Britain reacquire any states in America? I thought that we won the Revolutionary War?

Slavery in the British Empire was legal until 1833. About the time Darwin began writing the Origin of Species. It was extensively practiced in parts of the empire with large native populations.

Ok, so show me in Great Britain where slavery was practiced, how evolution has found the least acceptance. Or will you now say that you misrepresented the facts?

 

[PEPCIS]

But slavery in Great Britain itself was not legal after the disappearance of serfdom in the late Middle Ages, as proven by a test court case of 1772.

You seriously don’t think that Great Britain was not continuing to traffic in slaves well into the 1800’s? As a matter of fact, it is well-known that despite the £100 fine that the British government charged for each slave found being carried by British Captains, that the trade flourished. It is also well-known that if any Royal Navy ship was seen approaching a slave ship, that the captain and his crew would throw these slaves overboard to avoid the fines.

If you remember there was a movie in 1997 or so called, Amistad. This was a slave ship owned by the Spanish whose slaves revolted and took control of the ship in 1808. Even though this was a Spanish vessel, this sort of trafficking is indicative of what was happening among several of the European nations, including Great Britain.

In this book they make the case that Darwin was motivated by his abhorrence of slavery to demonstrate a common ancestry and equal dignity for all human beings.

That’s funny.

 

[hecd2]

You seriously don’t think that Great Britain was not continuing to traffic in slaves well into the 1800’s?

I never said anything about trafficking or slavery in the Empire. I said that slavery was not legal in Great Britain itself in 1772. (Slavery was abolished throughout the Empire in 1833).

That’s funny.

Glad that you are amused by the argument of a book that you haven’t read, about a person that you know next to nothing about. I think that is called prejudice.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that creationism is strongest where slavery was commonplace)

??? When did Great Britain reacquire any states in America? I thought that we won the Revolutionary War?

I think you’re a bit confused. I said where slavery was commonplace. Great Britain was not a place where slavery was commonplace. But in the American south, where slavery was commonplace, creationism is quite common.

It’s not surprising, considering that the leader of the largest creationist organization wrote, in 1992, a book in which he attributed intellectual and spiritual inferiority to blacks.

 

[Ender]

I think that it is you who is wrong. Could you give us the page in Mayr’s book where you get your quote from, as I can’t find it and I’d like to see the context?

Sure. It’s on page 163 (paperback) - the beginning of chapter 8, in the last paragraph of the section titled “HOW MANY SPECIES OF LIVING ORGANISMS?” I certainly do not dispute your quotations from Mayr and if you have a different interpretation of what he said (my quote) I’m interested in hearing it. I can only wonder what context could change the meaning of his comments.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

Slavery in the British Empire was legal until 1833. About the time Darwin began writing the Origin of Species. It was extensively practiced in parts of the empire with large native populations.

"hecd:

But slavery in Great Britain itself was not legal after the disappearance of serfdom in the late Middle Ages, as proven by a test court case of 1772.

PEPCIS:

You seriously don’t think that Great Britain was not continuing to traffic in slaves well into the 1800’s?

I never said anything about trafficking or slavery in the Empire. I said that slavery was not legal in Great Britain itself in 1772. (Slavery was abolished throughout the Empire in 1833).

That is not exactly true. While there are many who might argue that this case was decided against slavery, the judge (Mansfield) who ruled in the case claimed that all he actually decided was that a slave could not be forcibly removed from England against his will.
hecd:

Glad that you are amused by the argument of a book that you haven’t read, about a person that you know next to nothing about. I think that is called prejudice.

Better than that is the BLUSTER that you have shown in your claim. Just because someone said it doesn’t make it true. In reality, Darwin was a creature of his century, and would have had similar sentiments to those of his contemporaries.

 

[PEPCIS]

Not surprisingly, evolution has found least acceptance where slavery was practiced

. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

PEPCIS:

Yes, show me in Great Britain where it was practiced extensively.

The states in the Southern U.S., the old slave states, are those states where evolution is least accepted.

??? When did Great Britain reacquire any states in America? I thought that we won the Revolutionary War?

I think you’re a bit confused. I said where slavery was commonplace. Great Britain was not a place where slavery was commonplace.

More dishonesty. You said “where slavery was practiced.” It was practiced in England and throughout the British Empire.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The fact that where slavery was widespread (deep south in the US) is also where creationism is most popular, is no accident, nor is the fact that one of the most prominent of creationists wrote a book about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.

It’s part of the package. Not all creationists are racists, but they seem to have a very high tolerance for racism among their leaders.

The “slavery was widespread in England” stuff is pure imagination as you’ve already been reminded by another person.

 

[hecd2]

??? Let’s see. Mayr states: “Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.”

And then you claim: “the quote is not about discontinuities in the fossil record”???

If you were to read the quote in the context of where it appears in Mayr’s book, you will see that it is peripheral to the discussion that he is engaged in at the time, which is putative gaps between extant taxa. Have you read the book?

See, this is strange. Why would Mayr denote serious deficiencies in the record, if he was already “fully aware of detailed transitional sequences in the record”? Don’t you think he was expressing similar concerns as that of Darwin?

No-one claims that every transition is represented in the record or that the record is not deficient. However, I was responding to the erroneous claim that Mayr thinks that there are NO detailed transitional sequences when that is plainly not so, (and the mistaken claim that his reference to gaps in this section refers to gaps in the fossil record when, in fact, it refers to phenotypical and behavioural gaps bewteen extant species). Seems you missed post number 769 in this thread. Let me remind you of what Mayr wrote about transitional sequences:

" A few fossil lineages are remarkably complete. This is true for instance for the lineage that leads from the therapsid reptiles to the mammals. Some of these fossils appear to be so intermediate between reptiles and mammals that it is almost arbitrary whether to call them reptiles or mammals. A remarkably complete set of transitions was found between the land-living ancestors of the whales and their aquatic descendants. These fossils document that whales are derived from ungulates (mesonychid condylartha) that increasingly become adapted to life in water. [This conclusion has been reinforced by the molecular evidence] The australopithecene ancestors of man also form a rather impressive transition from a chimpanzeelike anthropoid stage to that of modern man." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, ISBN 0 297 60731 3, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002, p14 - 15. .[Note that since Mayr wrote the transitions from fish to tetrapod and from dinosaur to bird have also been documented by multiple transitional fossils].

“What is particularly convincing about fossil animal series is that each fossil type is found at the time level at which one ought to expect it. For instance, modern mammals began to evolve after the Alvarez extinction event at the beginning of the Paleocene…no modern mammal, therefore, should be found in strata that are 100 or 200 million years old and indeed none has ever been found.” Ibid, p16

“Fortunately, since 1859 the fossil record has improved dramatically and we now have a large number of cases where the gradual change of a species into a derived species can be documented, step by step, and where even the gradual change of a genus into a derived genus can be followed.” Ibid p63

“An even more complete gradation is presented by the evolution of the modern horse.” Ibid, p63

“This mode of phyletic evolution is particularly well documented for the bryozoan genus Metaraptodes. Futuyama (1998) describes and illustrates numerous such cases of nearly complete phyletic series”. Ibid p63.

The only thing that I see from the context, is that he notes that the stasis in the fossil record is an important feature that many paleontologists ignore when they are classifying new, or formerly established species to their class and orders.

Then you either haven’t read that chapter, or you haven’t understood what you’ve read, since it is not about the taxonomy of fossils, but about species concepts and the process of speciation in extant organisms.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

It seems to me that if one is discussing the claim that an argument against evolution is the putative impossibility of the increase of information in the genome then the burden of definition and proof falls on those making the claim to:

1. Define information

Already done that.

Well I have been away for a few weeks and just came back to the thread a few days ago. I appear to have missed your definition: can you indulge me by repeating it or linking to it?

2) Show how it can be measured

It is not necessary to measure information in order to identify it. That request is unreasonable. That would be like claiming that you had to measure how much snow had fallen to the ground in order to state a theory that snow had fallen. It is enough that the theory states that snow will fall under certain conditions. Measuring it, or not measuring it, will not effect the theory.

Huh? One step in the anti-evolutionist claim that we are discussing is that natural processes cannot increase information. In order to assess the validity of that claim one must determine whether information has been added or not, so one surely needs to be able to measure it - to quantify how much is there initially and how much is there later in the process. if you can’t measure it then you can’t quantify it, and if yo can’t quantify it, you can’t make the claim that it cannot be added. The rest of your response is a dreadful muddle between facts, theories and predictions.

1. Show that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in information according to whatever definition and measure one has chosen

Why would the Intelligent Design Theory have to make any remarks regarding evolutionary processes? However, in discussing the differences between the two theories, it may assist us to compare the two theories and determine if there are any disparities that must be considered or overcome in order to verify the strength of the theory.

First of all, I am not aware of any such thing as an Intelligent Design *Theory *in scientific terms. However, it is creationists and IDers who claim that the evolutionary process necessarily requires increases in “information” - whatever they mean by that. This is not a primary claim of evolutionary theory.

1. Show, that according to that definition and measure, an increase in information is not possible by the evolutionary process.

I’ve already stated that it is not possible for information to arise by any evolutionary mechanism. When evolutionists come forward with a definition for information, then we can begin to test their claims that information arises by naturalistic means.

You might have stated that it is not possible for information to arise by any evolutionary mechanism, but your unsupported assertion carries no weight. Unless you provide reasoned arguments for your personal opinions, they remain just that. Furthermore, as far as I can see, the primary claim is not one that evolutionary scientists make, but one that anti-evolutionists make: that “the evolutionary process requires increases of information in the genome that cannot arise naturally”. The burden of definition and proof is not on evolutionary scientists, but on creationists and IDers.

Some of those steps are valid, but some not. Hope that this helped in your understanding.

If you want to use increase of information as a stumbling block for evolutionary theory then all of these four steps are logically essential. I am not aware of anyone who has negotiated them successfully - and, so far, neither have you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

That is not exactly true. While there are many who might argue that this case was decided against slavery, the judge (Mansfield) who ruled in the case claimed that all he actually decided was that a slave could not be forcibly removed from England against his will.

And therefore he enjoyed the status of a free man in England. Look, everyone knows that British slave trade was not illegal until 1807 and that slavery was not abolished throughout the Empire until 1833. Furthermore, this is no apology for slavery in British jurisdiction which was appalling and indefensible. I am merely making the point that slavery was not legal in England itself in the 18th century long before the abolition of slavery elsewhere.

Better than that is the BLUSTER that you have shown in your claim. Just because someone said it doesn’t make it true. In reality, Darwin was a creature of his century, and would have had similar sentiments to those of his contemporaries.

Pep, why is shouting such an integral part of your style of discussion?

It’s not bluster to suggest that we should consider a careful book length argument, written by two respected professional historians who know hugely more about Darwin than you or I (as evidenced by their detailed, scholarly and lavishly referenced biography of him). We don’t have to accept it, but we shouldn’t ridicule it out of hand, just because it doesn’t fit our ideology. That is indeed prejudice.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Jean_Anthony]

I’d hate to have to close this thread for going off topic, people. Please stick to evolution and take side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you all.