A creationist's definition of information

[Lame Name Dame]

The format on Yahoo!Answers is not good for proper conversation, but I had this brief exchange with a creationist some days ago, reported for your comments and amusement mostly. Translation is mine.

ME:
I have read on Y!A:

"Adaptation is a modification with loss of information...
Evolution is a modification with increase of information...
There is no process or physical law allowing information to increase in an orderly, complex and functional way....
Information tends, spontaneously, to dissipate, not to accumulate in an orderly way...
The only event through which information accumulates in a complex way is an active and intelligent intervention..."

I think the writer does not use the same dictionary as I, especially regarding the word "information". What is your rigorous definition of information? An example related to DNA would be appreciated.

CREATIONIST (the same guy who wrote the sentences I was quoting in my question):
A brick wall possesses "information". This "information" is the way bricks have been laid. A mechanism possesses "information" regarding its functioning, purpose and design. Matter, as you will know, is linked to energy by the renown formula E=mc^2. Matter is defined as "energy at rest", ie "energy packaged" under form of matter. According to the laws of physics, for those who know them, EVERYTHING tends towards dispersion, matter should not even exist. Matter possesses more information than energy. It is "orderly" energy and the order is not spontaneous. A spontaneous transformation (TOTALLY spontaneous...) from energy to matter does not occur.
A human cell possesses, in its DNA, 3 GIGABYTES of information. That is the information necessary to form the human being and make it "work".
Information is what characterises the difference among states of order. More order means more information.
DNA is pure information. It is matter ordered in an excelse way. Characterised by an immense quantity of information.
Moreover, whoever follows astronomy will know the phenomenon of black hole "evaporation". Matter which enters, may perhaps exit under form of radiation. These radiations correspond to the matter in entrance, but they have lost the original information. I hope my answer was clear, I did the best I could.

ME:
No, that wasn't clear at all. A wall does not possess information regarding its functioning, purpose and design. Looking at a fence wall I do not know whether it has been built to keep people in or out.
"More order means more information".
The difference between dissolved NaCl and a NaCl crystal lies in the orderly disposition. But Na and Cl orderly assemble by virtue of their chemical properties with no need for an active and intelligent intervention. Therefore information may increase "spontaneously"? Ice is more orderly than water, how much more information does it contain? What is the unit measuring this information? This is what I meant when I asked for a rigorous definition.
P.S. Human genome contains 3 Mbp (milion base pairs), corresponding to 800 Mb (megabyte). [My fault - ought to have been 3000 Mbp].

CREATIONIST:
The wall has been built. Information was added to the system. Bricks were laid in order. Bricks do not lay themselves, as an initial action, to form the wall. My bad, I should have been more precise. The wall did not self-assemble. Ice does.
Bricks do not form by themselves. Crystals of NaCl or other types of crystal do.
By "increase in information" we may intend the increase in "functional complexity", that is, the increase in non-spontaneous and/or purposeful order. The order increasing in non spontaneous way needs an active intervention. That active intervention feeds information to the system.
In DNA there are 3 billion base pairs, for an information total of 3 Gigabyte.

ME:
Ahhh that's how it's done...
I define evolution = increase in information. I define increase in information = increase in order caused by the intelligent intervention of a superior being. Therefore evolution may only have been caused by an intelligent being, by definition! It's the squaring of the circle! That really solved my doubts.
By the way, I lost some zeroes along the road. You cannot convert Gigabases in Gigabyte. One byte = 8 bit = 4 DNA bases.

The guy did not reply any more. I gave him a Best Answer for the effort, even though it makes no sense.
I think it recaps creationist tactics nicely:
Vaguely form a concept, dress it in pseudo-scientific jargon, sprinkle a few sweeping statements that cannot be disproven until you accept to nail down the concept. When confronted, release a smoke curtain and flee.
I have a few more like these. Care for a sequel?

 

[WarK]

The guy did not reply any more. I gave him a Best Answer for the effort, even though it makes no sense.
I think it recaps creationist tactics nicely:
Vaguely form a concept, dress it in pseudo-scientific jargon, sprinkle a few sweeping statements that cannot be disproven until you accept to nail down the concept. When confronted, release a smoke curtain and flee.

Same tactic is used by climate change deniers, homepathy proponents and so on. Basically, people who adhere to an idea that is outside of reality

I have a few more like these. Care for a sequel?

Only if the law of sequels doesn't apply, but this can be ambiguous when talking about creationism. I mean, they're bad, they're so bad they're hilarious. Then you end up looking for the most hilarious comments by creationists. Then you realise they actually believe that shit. They believe it even without thinking about it. They act on their belief and influence your life through laws. And then you realise how bad it really is

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The creationist first states this:

A brick wall possesses "information". This "information" is the way bricks have been laid. A mechanism possesses "information" regarding its functioning, purpose and design. Matter, as you will know, is linked to energy by the renown formula E=mc^2. Matter is defined as "energy at rest", ie "energy packaged" under form of matter. According to the laws of physics, for those who know them, EVERYTHING tends towards dispersion, matter should not even exist. Matter possesses more information than energy. It is "orderly" energy and the order is not spontaneous. A spontaneous transformation (TOTALLY spontaneous...) from energy to matter does not occur.

Emphasis mine.

Than goes on to contradict said statement in the next post:

The wall has been built. Information was added to the system. Bricks were laid in order. Bricks do not lay themselves, as an initial action, to form the wall. My bad, I should have been more precise. The wall did not self-assemble. Ice does.
Bricks do not form by themselves. Crystals of NaCl or other types of crystal do.
By "increase in information" we may intend the increase in "functional complexity", that is, the increase in non-spontaneous and/or purposeful order. The order increasing in non spontaneous way needs an active intervention. That active intervention feeds information to the system.

Emphasis mine.

Nice work.

 

[Lame Name Dame]

Then you realise they actually believe that shit. They believe it even without thinking about it. They act on their belief and influence your life through laws. And then you realise how bad it really is

But "they" are not the only ones with the ability to sway politicians... otherwise there wouldn't be such things as divorce, working women, contraception, vaccines, and organ transplants.

The creationist first states this:

A spontaneous transformation (TOTALLY spontaneous...) from energy to matter does not occur.

Than goes on to contradict said statement in the next post:

The wall did not self-assemble. Ice does.
Bricks do not form by themselves. Crystals of NaCl or other types of crystal do.

Heh, I was going to cut him some slack about it... I guess he meant that water turns to ice and ions into salts spontaneously, rather than "inorganic stuff just pops into existence".

However, he's at it again. We had some back and forward in someone else's question - the guy has the "receive email" option disabled, I wonder why .

CREATIONIST:
Mutations with increase in functional complexity (that is, with apparition of "functioning parts" such as eye, hand, bones, inner ear, etc...) have not been observed. Therefore the essential basis to observe evolution is lacking.
Regarding the direct observation oif God, we cannot prove that He exist. On the basis of the works that He did (Romans 1:20), we can. Just as we cannot observe and directly demonstrate the existence of a black hole, but its presence is demonstrate through its effects.

ME:
God cannot be directly observed, but we see his effects, therefore he exists. A black hole cannot be directly observed, therefore it exists. Evolution cannot be directly observed, but we see its effects, therefore...?
Therefore 4000 years ago Noah made an ark and put all animals in there except unicorns [that's a kindergarten song]
It really is true that none is deafer than he who does not want to hear.

If you define functional complexity as the effect of divine intervention, no surprise it's not observed. Unfortunately for your assertion, mutations in homeotic genes can have spectacular effects:

CREATIONIST:
-Unicorns did not exist and could not have been put on the ark... not "all animals" but only two for each "baramin" ("species" according to biblical definition)
-Evolution cannot be directly observed. It implies increase in information in functional complexity. We only witness adaptations with loss of information.
-Functional complexity characterises structures with a well-defined function (like those listed).
-The "spectacular" effect you indicate in Drosophila is nothing but a malformation, with replication of information already present in the DNA [as if replication of a structure was caused by replication of a gene... wrong on so many levels]. Not quite an improvement and it does not generate new information, but it replicates existing one.

ME:
You asked for "mutation with apparition of "functioning parts" such as eye, hand, bones, inner ear, etc...)" and I brought you an example: a new pair of functioning wings following mutation of a single gene. Now you move goalposts and talk about "malformation". Why am I not surprised?

Replication of a gene increases "information" even if the new copy is identical to the previous one. Polyploidy generates new information even if the two genomes are equal. 2N are more bits than N.
Raphanobrassica is an allopolyploid obtained by cross and it has twice the genome of the parental species. Tobacco, tomato, potato, coffee, wheat, bananas are int the same condition, except the are not the result of selective breeding but hybridation spontaneosly occurred in the wild.
Of course you'll ignore this fact and keep spouting that Naturalmente ignorerai questo fatto per continuare a ripetere che "we only witness adaptations with loss of information." Four legs, good. Two legs, bad.

CREATIONIST:
-One thing is the apparition of functional parts that did not exist before (evolution), another is pre-existing information repeating itself like a broken record, as is the case with the two pairs of wings.
From no pair of wings to a pair of functional wings it can be defined evolution. From one pair of wings to two pair of wings as a malformation it's not evolution, it's malformation.
To be clearer, as "functional information" I mean information "tail". Manx cats are cats which have lost the "tail" information. Two tails do not represent evolution.
-Polyploidy in plants is present as a duplication mechanism. And it generates new types of plants (it has been seen ,therefore it exists). But the variability within the "baramin" (i.e. biblical "species") is contemplated in the creationist theory and it falls under that. Polyploidy puts the plants under a greater risk of extinction anyway.
-Polyploidy generates an increase in information, but repeated, not new. In animals it is associated to malformation (that will not be transmitted to thew progeny, in natural selection...) it is only a duplication, it does not generate new information. I cannot associate malformation to an "improvement" or "adaptation"

ME:
If several genes in a row have no more information than a single gene, then several bricks in a row do not have any more information than a single brick, and your example is invalid. Polyploidy, especially allopolyploidy, is accompanied by large-scale rearrangements in the genome. Triticum sativum DNA is not the sum of the parental genomes.

"Polyploidy puts the plants under a greater risk of extinction."
Do you just pull these out of your ass? If you have a source I'd like you to share it with the rest of us.

"In animals it is associated to malformation"
Meet the viscacha rat, a tetraploid rodent. [Thanks to the LoR for that one]

"But the variability within the "baramin" (i.e. biblical "species") is contemplated in the creationist theory."
I love it when they quote the baramin.
Usage of biblical terms=creationist who has reached the end of the line.
If one was to follow the definitions of "evolution", "information" and "species" that from time to time you find most convenient...
In the beginning you were like, "this doea not happen". Now you admit that, yes, it happens, but it's microevolution. Which is the single "macroevolutive" characteristic that poses such an impassable barrier to a transition from newt to lizard? From oviraptor to chicken? From manatee to whale?
Ever-moving goalposts.

And that's where we are at the moment. I guess there would be lots of other observation to make (eg his abysmal comprehension of the mechanisms of "information loss"), but the format of the site is not made for that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I like the fact that you pointed out that he is changing the meaning of words to make his argument. In order to drive this home you should start defining terms. This would expose the fact that he is redefining terms in order to make his case. Because, I do not understand how someone can see an example of change in allelic frequency in a population and claim that it is not evolution, only malformation. Pointing this out plainly and bluntly will go a long way, in my opinion.

You should also ask him to define baramin (i.e. kind) beyond "biblical species". That definition does not tell us anything. It would be nice if the creationist were able to define baramin in such away that we are able to apply it to different animal groups independently of him. The biological definition of species can be applied this way.

Whether you do this or not, you are still wiping the floor with this creationist. Great work.