Free Republic

And the creationist Illiad of unreason nudges one step closer to completion.

You know, I have yet to see you engage any of the substantive criticisms of this tripe. If you care to refresh your memory, here is mine. DevNet's link is also pretty devastating.

So are you ever going to defend your postings, or are you content to remain an intellectual coward?

"I'm sorry, but who died and made you king?"

You know what died and made me king? What died is the basic damn honesty to keep your mouth shut when you know nothing about a subject. So as long as you (and by you I don't just mean you specifically AndrewC, but everyone on this shameful thread) are publicly ignorant and I am knowledgeable, I am king.

"As to your link, Albert Gore wrote a book. Does that make him believable and a requirement for people to discuss the subject of climate?"

Laughable fallacy of equivocation. Al Gore is a freakin politican who wrote a freakin propaganda piece for the consumption of the gullible masses. I linked to a textbook, written by an actual practicing specialist in the field, intended for use in rigorous college level math courses.

"I've looked at the first few pages of the book you linked to and I have not found a definition of "information" in it so far."

hahahahahahah, this is the whole dirty little secret that keeps me alternately laughing at you and spraying bile at you. Information theory is, in very loose terms, an approach to statistics that focuses on measuring the "surprise" and "uncertainty" associated with the outcomes of a random variable. There are multiple ways of doing this, and so the term "information" can be attached to several different constructions. Self-information, mutual information, entropy, joint entropy, conditional entropy, etc. None of these really correspond to what creationists are feebly attempting to talk about; the one that comes closest might be Kolmogorov complexity. Which leads me to...

"Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff put for the idea that the complexity of a string of data can be defined by the length of the shortest binary computer program for computing the string.

What exactly is data, and a computer program? I suppose the least objectionable statement would have been...[nonsense omitted by editor]"

Son you realize you read an introduction right? That there is in fact an entire chapter devoted to Kolmogorov complexity, and that's where you should look for rigorous definitions? Specifically the section entitled "Kolmogorov Complexity: Definitions"? For what it's worth, I believe strings of data are usually just functions from the natural numbers into a set (the set is the "alphabet"), and computer programs can be given rigorous definitions using Turing Machines. In fact, I believe that the rigorous discussion of Kolmogorov complexity is usually conducted in the context of Turing Machines.

DISCLAIMER: I know very little about Kolmogorov complexity, theoretical computer science, and related matters, please consult actual experts or their actual expert books for real education on this subject.

YOU PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE MY HEAD EXPLODE.

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Every last one of you infuriating goofballs on this thread is assigned the first two chapters of this book. Until you understand them you have NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INFORMATION THEORY.

Re: The Original Post, Dr Gitt is a crazyman who is attempting to disguise a laughable mess of mystical blather, non-sequiters, and general loopy moonman logic as a scientific paper. It is a fairly regular occurence that journals get insane submissions from hairy weirdos attempting to disprove (or prove) things like the second law of thermodynamics; often they keep a few of the craziest around to laugh at. Gitt's "paper" falls in this category.

More specific criticisms of his work can be found in my post here. Let me add one question to that, for anyone still defending this nonsense: what is Dr. Gitt's definition of information?

"If you’re up to the challenge, I would be glad to rigorously debate you on any subject relating to origins. Indeed, you can even pick where we start. Are you game?"

I will, I will! Our subject: information theory and evolution.

Starting place: creationist contention that evolution is impossible since mutations never add new "information" to the gene pool.

:-D
Here's a rare pic of said founder of Texas in action:

Oh man, you misunderstand me. I would never disrespect Stone Cold Steve Austin, or any of the proud graduates from his university. Do you think Brian Thomas M.S. knows the Stone Cold Stunner, or is that reserved for Ph.D.s?

Hey could you post that list of evo dodges? I’d love to see it.

"Brian Thomas earned his Master of Science in Biotechnology from

Stephen F. Austin State University,

TX, in December of 1999. He taught Principles of Biology I and II, and General Chemistry I at Navarro College in Waxahachie, TX from 2003-2005..."

Oh snap son! Don't you mess with Brian Thomas M.S., he went to STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN UNIVERSITY.

Evolution is crap 'cause STONE COLD Brian Thomas M.S. sez so!

P.S. GodGunsGuts are you Brian Thomas M.S.? You've got a weird affection for him.

Man, if you feel like criticizing me at least have the sack to call me out by name and ping me.

Better yet, you could actually read the piece of nonsense you’re defending, and then actually read my linked reply. Then you could make real grown-up specific criticisms.

Failing those two conditions, and given that you’ve admitted you have essentially no background in information theory, maybe you could remain silent in hopes of not looking the fool, hey?

"So it is you, not I, who should be justifying just how you claim to believe blue jeans are designed artifacts."

Uhhhh, I asked you first chief, and you have magnificently failed to answer. It's just common courtesy not to answer a question with another question. But I'm a generous fellow, so I'll excuse your ignorance of etiquette and give you some of the reasons I am persuaded that bluejeans are made by humans:

1. I knew some dudes that worked in a bluejean factory
2. I've seen video of people making bluejeans
3. I took a home ec class where we made pants similar to bluejeans
4. In the same home ec class we sewed stitches that look exactly like the stitches found on bluejeans.
5. My bluejeans have a tag on them that says in English "Made in Thailand" and I've only ever seen evidence that humans and computers programmed by humans use English
6. There was a news report about exploitation of child laborers in bluejeans factories, and they mentioned how many jeans each kid made per day.
7. Once my jeans ripped and I took them to a tailor who repaired them, and he told me he made new ones as well.
8. Bluejeans are sold in stores and catalogs that exclusively sell other manmade artifacts.
9. Advertising material sometimes brags about the person who made the bluejeans.
10. There are sewing books that tell you how to make bluejeans.
11. etc.
12. etc.

There you go, including plenty of indirect evidence to put the lie to your lunatic strawman that I only allow 'direct observation'.

YOUR TURN: Lets see that process of 'scientific induction' that persuades you blue jeans are man-made. Since this is the third time I've asked you this question, if you don't answer the boogeyman is gonna getcha.

PS:
Your assertion that 'consistent methodological naturalists' cannot identify a genetically engineered organism is laughably insane, and contradicted by the plain facts. Are Monsanto not being 'consistent methodological naturalists' when they sue somebody for stealing their organisms? Please explain the exact reasoning that would forbid me from concluding Al Qaeda made a disease if they in fact wrote "Made by Al Qaeda" in the genetic code.

Man, what were those evoatheists thinking, trying to exclude this stuff from science classrooms.

Down with fossils in biology classes! Up with theological disputes over the meaning of ancient Hebrew words!

"What is needed is not "philosophical reasoning" but scientific induction - that is, an understanding of the operation of natural processes such that we can predict both what nature does and does not do."

Okay. So can you show how philosophical reasoning 'scientific induction' demonstrates that bluejeans are manmade? Exactly what 'natural processes' do you have to understand to conclude that these crazy pants are made by people?

Me, I think I'll stick with evidence, thanks. And just because my general levity, you needn't assume that admissible evidence is only constituted of physical eye-sight inspection of bluejean factories.

"It is the scientifically knowledgeable person who knows with confidence what nature can and cannot do."

WHAT

You've a pretty bizarre view of science there son.

"History...is also full of naive and pretentious declarations that nature has achieved something that is quite contrary to scientific laws and principles."

Quite so good sir, it is nothing more than impudence for those Wright brothers to claim their gadgetistical contraption allows them to fly through the air. Why, human flight violates all scientific laws and principles! I say this, for I am a scientifically knowledgeable person, and I know with confidence what nature can and cannot do. Harrumph!

And don't get me started on that despicable wench Mrs Curie and her 'radium'.

"This is why we believe the clothing we are wearing was intelligently designed, for example - not because we've seen the factory or the clothing designer at work, but because we all know and accept that nature doesn't produce blue jeans and shirts by itself. (If you say it's because you read the clothing tag, dear reader, I'll tear the tag off and paste it to a rock - do you then believe the rock was intelligently designed?)"

HAHAHAHA. So I take it you know bluejeans are designed and manufactured by humans not from the physical evidence, but from some sort of first principles? Please demonstrate your reasoning!

Also, how do you feel about bananas? Is their evident suitability for humans more proof of special creation?

hahaha, this is just too good. Philosophical reasoning for human manufacture of bluejeans! Why let a simple visit to a bluejeans factory decide things when you can invent crazy philosophical reasoning about it!

Hey look, it's my favorite German fount of blather, Dr. Walnut!

GodGunsGuts, I'm surprised you've got the sand to post this, after I the shellacking I gave this poor Deustschman last time. Got any answers to my criticisms, or are you just gonna keep your head in the sand and pretend you've got science on your side?

If I work up the energy, I may ravage this current chapter of Dr. Walnut's scientific incompetence as magnificently as I did the previous chapter. Yet I almost feel remorse, as though I thrashed a child, for based on the dense brick of anti-erudition this article presents I have concluded that Dr. Gitt might be non compos mentis. He really seriously honest-to-God has no idea what he's talking about.

"Question: Can you make something from nothing?"

Please give precise definitions of: 'something', 'nothing', and explain exactly what 'make' means in this context.

Also, please explain why you responded to a criticism of a silly argument based on 'information' with a question about 'something from nothing'.

"I asked myself two questions: What is information? And: Can information ever come from a non-intelligent source?

It was a shocking moment for me because I had to confront the fact that DNA is information. If I remained an atheist, I would have to believe that all the intricate, detailed, complex information contained in DNA comes out of nowhere and nothing.

But I also knew that idea did not make sense. After all, I don’t look at billboards — which contain much simpler information than DNA — and think that wind and erosion created them. That wouldn’t be rational. Suddenly, I found that I was a very discomfited atheist."

So she made a major life decision based on grotesquely stupid creationist talking points. Awesome. You guys can have this one, we don't want her.

Hahah, man good luck trying to get real answers to those questions. I went around and around with him trying to get a precise definition of ‘information’ and some actual calculations based on it, but all I got for my efforts was a mouthful of mushy gibberish.

I had kinda hoped the fact I eventually caught him in a blatant contradiction would result in some humility on this issue, but...

Man, maybe I should read other replies before composing mine.

Marie, you should read Reign’s post, it says what I wanted to say, only more concisely and with better examples.

"Both, because I think anything that is immoral ultimately does not work."

I dunno, the Democrat vote-stealing machine seems pretty effective to me.

More broadly, I agree: there are insurmountable ethical problems with eugenics, and near-insurmountable practical problems.

"I have not studied evolutionary theory exhaustively. It was taught to me and believed by me until I reached adulthood. That said, I thought a ‘good’ trait would be one that would enhance the survivability of a species. Diabetes, cerebral palsy, etc., do not. That is why I called them “undesireable traits.”

I'm sorry, this is simply incorrect. 'Goodness' of a trait (in evolutionary terms) is decided purely on an individual or genetic level. Rats, bats, wolves, fruitflies, roundworms and bacteria: none of these creatures have any awareness or concern for the 'survivability of [their] species', they are simply striving to pass on as much genetic material as possible. Ever wonder why Dawkins titled his famous book "The Selfish Gene"? This is why.

I think if you really believe that everyone in our species is equal before God, equally valuable, whether “defective” in some way or not, you’d be less inclined to be of a racist or eugenic mindset.

Similarly, if you believe we are the product of billions of random mutations with billions of random mutations in our future, with only the strong surviving, you might take a dimmer view of anyone who is handicapped or who you perceive to be inferior."

Argghhhh, you're still making the same mistake. No moral conclusions can be drawn from evolution. It's like trying to draw morality from the Krebs cycle, or tensor geometry. Evolution in a nutshell: in some particular environment, organisms with (heritable) trait X have more offspring than organisms without trait X. Therefore trait X will gradually spread throughout the breeding group of organisms, as long as the environment grants organisms with trait X a reproductive advantage. Do you see how crazy it is to try to use something this abstract and impersonal to justify moral decisions?

I can't say this enough: the evolutionary definition of what is a good or desirable trait is totally unlinked to the human definition of a good or desirable trait. Even using the words 'good' and 'desirable' to refer to evolutionary processes is probably unsound anthropomorphism, and if there were any evolutionary biologists posting here I'd expect a mild scolding for my phrasing.

"Without arguing that point - do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces evolutionary theory to, as a result, have racist tendencies?"

No, I think a tendency towards racism is an inbuilt trait (or consequence of inbuilt traits) in most of humanity. Humans will then seize upon whatever is handy (sometimes religion, sometimes science) to justify their inherent bias.

"For example, if you believed whites were inferior because they tended to have a higher percentage of body fat. Or that blacks were inferior because their average brain mass was smaller. Or that Asians were the preferred race because their average IQ is higher.

If that were the case, would it or would it not make sense to encourage the reproduction of races with preferred traits, and to discourage the reproduction of races with “bad traits?”

You are seriously misinterpreting an important part of basic evolutionary theory. There is exactly one criteria of a 'good' trait in evolutionary theory: a trait that increases the frequency of successful gene transmission is 'good'. That's it. Stupidity, body fat, and math ability have absolutely zero to do with evolutionary 'goodness' unless they impact reproductive success (and are heritable characteristics). So it is impossible to draw justification for any breeding program whatsoever from evolution itself; evolution is value-neutral.

"Additionally, what about people with “genetic defects?” I use quotes because there is a variety of opinion as to what genetic defects are. For example, if you are committed to an evolutionary world view, does it make sense to allow people with diabetes to reproduce? How about people with cerebral palsy?"

Like I said above, from the perspective of evolution, there is only one kind of 'genetic defect': one that prevents you from having kids (or prevents your relatives from having them). That's it. An example: Matthias Buchinger, who was basically a flipper baby. Genetic defect, right? WRONG. This little guy had fourteen kids, which makes him a smashing evolutionary success. Certainly more of a success than me, with my strong healthy limbs and paltry brood of children.

Finally, I have a question for you. Do you disapprove of eugenics because you think it is immoral or because you think it doesn't work? The examples you cited for eugenic improvements would certainly fall under the umbrella of so-called 'micro-evolution', which virtually every creationist accepts. So if you accept micro-evolution, wouldn't that make you just as inclined towards eugenic tinkering as the highest high priest of the Church of Darwin?

"The main disadvantage of Shannon’s definition of information is that the actual contents and impact of messages were not investigated."

Totally wrong and insane. This is the main advantage of Shannon's mathematical formalism: it applies to any 'message' that meets its hypotheses, regardless of content.

Since the concept of information is so complex that it cannot be defined in one statement...We will formulate various special theorems which will gradually reveal more information about the “nature” of information, until we eventually arrive at a precise definition..."

hahahahahha, you're going to prove theorems about something before defining it? Does this joker even know what a theorem is?

"Ernst von Weizsäcker [W3]: “The reason for the ‘uselessness’ of Shannon’s theory in the different sciences is frankly that no science can limit itself to its syntactic level."

This is either insane or hideously out of context. So Shannon's noisy channel coding theorem is useless, huh? I tried to find the cite for this, but I don't think Doc Werner Gitt has given it. Can you find it for me GGG?

"Theorem 1: The fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information."

Okay, this answers my earlier question: clearly this guy has no idea what a theorem is. THIS IS NOT A THEOREM. It's a vague assertion about completely undefined concepts ('non-material', 'entity', 'property of matter', etc), backed up by nothing more than a few (unsourced?) quotes.

"What is the causative factor for the existence of information? What prompts us to write a letter, a postcard, a note of felicitation, a diary, or a comment in a file? The most important prerequisite is our own volition, or that of a supervisor. In analogy to the material side, we now introduce a fourth fundamental entity, namely “will” (volition), W."

Well this sure sounds scientific! As a Jew, Germans talking about 'will' makes me kinda nervous. Is he going to start talking about the Volk next?

"Information and volition are closely linked, but this relationship cannot be expressed in a formula because both are of a nonmaterial (mental, intellectual, spiritual) nature."

So 'information', which he hasn't defined, and 'volition', which he also hasn't defined, are 'closely linked'. He provides zero proof for this assertion, zero explanation of what 'linked' means, and zero explanation of what 'closely linked' means as opposed to 'weakly' or 'loosely' linked. And then he concludes this nonsensical relationship between two nebulous concepts that exist mostly in his imagination can't be written down as a formula? Surprising, that.

Based on the preceding hippy stew of made-up concepts, baseless assertions, and unnervingly Nazi-like mysticism, Dr. Walnut concludes:

"Theorem 2: Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act."

I call him Dr. Walnut because I like to imagine 'Werner' means 'walnut' in German, and because I've concluded he is a complete nutcase. The following words in this 'theorem' are undefined by Doc Walnut: 'information', 'intentional', 'volitional', 'act'. Since there are only eight total words in the 'theorem', this yields a nonsense-word-to-sensible-word ratio of 1 : 1. In other words, I have mathematically proven that at least 50 percent of this sentence is total bull.

Oh yeah, and this is still NOT A THEOREM. Did Doc Walnut's dementia set in gradually, or is there some doctorate-granting institution in Germany that should be really, really ashamed of itself?

"Theorem 3: Information comprises the nonmaterial foundation for all technological systems and for all works of art."

STILL NOT A THEOREM, HERR DOKTOR. Just in case anyone is curious for a comparison here is what a real theorem looks like. Here's another. Notice how both of those theorems carefully define their terms, express their assertions in compact, precise mathematical language, and provide a clear, logical proof. Notice how Doc Walnut's 'theorems' do none of this.

Summary: This is rambling mystical hokum intended for the mental defective or the easily duped, and a moments' consultation of any vaguely authoritative source on information theory will establish the intergalactic gulf between the actual mathematics contained therein and Doc Walnut's vague mumblings. Is this really the best AiG can do? It has lowered my already incredibly low opinion of their standards.