Talk:Creation biology/Archive 5

Biological kinds

I looked for a reference to "biological kinds" in AiG, ICR, etc. They don't generally use it. Rather they refer to "Genesis kinds" or "original kinds". I changed it tenatively to "Genesis kinds", but would be happy for the alternative too, if that is more to the liking of others.

These aren't "biological kinds" as described in most literature which describe this phrase as being opposed to "non-biological kinds". In other words, life and non-life. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some "google grade research", and at first wink, "created kinds" is the most common, then "original kinds", and "Genesis kinds" least (but the top hits are all on creationist websites, so "no-one" isn't quite accurate). (Could be all sorts of false hits in there, but there's at least one positive in each case.) I've included all three in the text as synonyms, for the sakes of documenting the variation. But please edit if there's any inaccuracy here. Alai 03:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

open question

<<several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.>>

i don't object to this being on the page ... i welcome mainstream critiques ... but can we be a little more specific? which kinds? why? who says? Ungtss 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any of them; though I was thinking especially of the examples you cite at the order and family levels. Clearly those are (a lot) more than one gene's worth of mutation/variation. I'd go into more detail, but the 'heterozygosity' argument needs to be drawn out in more detail in the first instance to be properly responded to. (See a couple of 'open questions' on this, on this very page.) More specifically, are you (CBs in general) suggesting that kinds are characterised by gene-for-gene variation/mutation, as your example is highly suggestive of? And that changes in the gross structure of the genome (number of chr., approximate total of genes, etc) are highly unlikely/impossible? Alai 03:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human speciation

According to CB, kinds speciated after the flood due to bottleneck effects. Apparently this didn't happen to human beings. Why? Joshuaschroeder 05:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) they had fewer to go on (only 8 people, but 14 of each kind).

2) there was a great deal of variation that may or may not have been speciation, including Neanderthal man, Homo floresiensis, and (some argue) the Hottentots of South Africa (with radically different features than all other races -- see Hottentot Venus) and the Twi peoplegroup in central africa that averages 4 feet in height.

3) humans didn't spread to the four winds as quickly as the animals -- they remained together for several hundred years, reducing the effects of population isolation and genetic drift. Ungtss 13:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll buy your third comment as the YEC explanation. The first comment is simply throwaway. 8 vs. 14 should yield at most a twice as much genetic variation in the larger population. There is no evidence the other human organisms you named were post-flood with the exception of the Hottentots which are obviously not an example of speciation. Joshuaschroeder 14:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds good:). Ungtss 15:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, however, you haven't explained how population isolation and genetic drift explain speciation on small timescales in the first place. The explanation you offer assumes that this mechanism is available. You haven't pointed to any studies that support your claims. You haven't shown any evidence that such is the case. Until you can do that, there is no way we can accept any explanation you offer as scientific. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

once again, that sounds like a great area of research, but it hasn't been done. note on the page that the research hasn't been done all you like. the idea itself stands. i'd do the research myself, but it seems creationist biologists can't get state funding to do their research ... Ungtss 04:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That creationists cannot get funding is often touted as a conspiricy. Perhaps we should include this belief in the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i said nothing about a conspiracy. i said only that the reason we don't have exhaustive research done in this area is that we all have real jobs to make a living. Ungtss 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one's forcing you not to work in science. Joshuaschroeder 03:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problematic addition

Here is what I removed:

""Roughly speaking," says Leslie Orgel, "the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure." (L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, 1973, p. 189)

Essentially, the complexity of a structure is measured by the number of instructions necessary to specify it. More complex structures, by definition, contain more "information."

It is argued that there are three types of structures.

Random structures (such as "asdfkjaD23") require very few instructions, and therefore contain very little information. They require only the instructions, "Write a letter between A and Z," followed by "Now do it again," ad infinitum. Highly ordered structures (such as "AAAAAAAAAA") also require few instructions. Complex structures (such as "I love you.") require many instructions. If we wanted a computer to write out a poem, for example, we would have to specify each letter. That is, the poem has a high information content. Further, this type of structure is specified for a specific purpose, in that each component of the structure is dependent on the others for its function -- to change "I love you" into "I lyve you" would destroy the meaning of the entire structure. Creationists argue that the first two structures can occur through natural means alone (the first through random functions and the second through selection functions), and genetic information can change or decrease. However, the information content of a structure cannot increase to any significant degree without the influence of an intelligent designer.

Creationists argue that biological structures are of the last type: complex, specified information. As an example, the construction of the eye requires an enormous number of individual bits of genetic data, each of which are dependent upon each other for their function. A lens without a retina is useless. A retina without a link to the brain and the ability of the brain to process the information is useless. Each of these components require a large number of genes, and all the genes must be present for any to function. The eye, according to creationists, must have been constructed at once in order to function at all.

In response, evolutionists posit natural selection as the means by which these information increases came through the accumulation of beneficial random changes over time. Essentially, an organism tends to pass on the advantageous traits more often than the disadvantageous traits, so that a series of small random changes can be "added" to each other.

Creationists argue that this function is inherently insufficient to explain the specified and irreducible complexity, because "I lyve you", "A lose you," or any other random variant hold no meaning, and (in the biological context) no survival value, until they are assembled intact. Without any benefit or use while partially formed, a string is useless, and carries no survival advantage. Without any survival advantage, it will not be aided by natural selection, and the construction of the structure is relegated to pure chance.

Further, random functions will destroy the meaning of the structure much more quickly than constructing it, leading to, on balance, a net decrease in genetic information over time. For instance, should the structure reach the state "I lyve you," there are 9 other characters within the structure that are also subject to random change, making it 9 times more likely that the rest of the structure will change before the y changes to an o than that the final component of the structure will complete the structure.

For a more complete discussion, see this article (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/menu/complex/complex.htm)."

Here are the problems:

1) There is a conflation of random with simple. This is not the case in any information theory I've ever read. Writing a perfect random number program is, in fact, one of the more complex machines you can build.

1a)I don't trust Ungtss' source as a good review of information theory. Therefore, we have to reformulate this.

you don't trust anything you don't agree with. therefore you have to unilaterally delete it. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a single source.

i cited a book in the last version you mindlessly reverted. irrelevent, i suppose. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Specified complexity is assumed true. That is, it is assumed that there is some complexity associated with "I love you" BEYOND the simplest computer program that can be written to display that. In other words, specified complexity assumes meaning not touched by the actual text itself.

right. specified complexity is not assumed true. it is STATED as a creationist IDEA that it is true, and demonstrated with the strings. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not well formulate that this is a POV and not simply a fact. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well fix it. don't delete it, grand inquisitor. this thread provides no justification for deleting it. ~

If you can fix it, do so right now. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i don't see any problems. you're making vague and empty complaints in an attempt to justify you're brainless deletion. YOU have the problem. YOU fix it. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) There's no such thing as a random function, that I know of.

no randomness in nature, joshua? how about those third base pairs? Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question is, what is a "random function"? Are you talking mathematics here?

first, your failure to understand the terminology is not grounds for deletion, so this thread fails too. beyond that, i'm not talking strictly mathematics -- i'm talking ANY random function -- computer generated or natural. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't terminology, it's madeup jargon. There is a rule about notability. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i fixed the term in the last version which you so thoughtfully deleted. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4) Information content not increasing is absolutely incorrect statement. For example, the information about the past history of a planet is easy to find out because there is evidence as to what the past history of the planet is (for example in the form of craters)

that's a totally non-contextual use of the word information, just like your comparison: "ideas get more complex, therefore life gets more complex." the meaning of information is very clearly defined in the segment. or at least it was, before you deleted it. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I never said "ideas get more complex therefore life gets more complex". Information, as Alai says below, is not well defined. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it has been defined as best as creationists can as yet on the page. the lack of a clear-cut definition is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for clarification on the page that the definition is not clearcut. this thread fails too. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Alai has pointed to better definitions of information which you continue to ignore. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what do "better definitions of information" have to do with the summary of a creationist article on the topic? Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

5) The eye-complexity argument seems to be relatively devoid of content. What's the point of the description in the first place (it doesn't say anything about whether it is possible for the eye to have evolved)? What's the "large number of genes"? Furthermore, the final sentence is simply throwaway. Of course creationists believe that, but that doesn't follow from the above comments.

"of course creationists believe that." that's what this page is intended to represent -- what creationists believe. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the paragraph is an attempt to develop the rationale for the belief. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the PURPOSE of the paragraph is to EXPLAIN the creationist rationale for the belief. conclusions alone do not make good articles. EXPLANATIONS make good articles. and the fact that a paragraph explains the rationale for belief is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It does a poor job of explaining the rationale because the explanation doesn't plainly follow.

THAT'S a job for EDITING, not deletion. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6) The "creationist response" to the "evolutionist response" is, ironically, itself devoid of meaning. A typo or a homonym is supposed to be the evolutionary equivalent of "I love you"? That's impossible logic to follow.

your mechanism for evolution is by definition a number of typos that eventually add up to the right thing. monkeys typing shakespeare over millions of years. am i wrong? Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and you're free to put that on the page, but my "wrongness" (in your silly little world where an example of an information increase is increased understanding of geology) is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But the "monkeys typing Shakespeare" isn't even on the page. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's right -- a more subtle and accurate description of the process of evolutionary is. why are you deleting it? Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7) Crude forms are supposedly without survival advantage. This doesn't make any sense. To use a creationist favorite, if a crude eye allows an organism to see, it is definitely a survival advantage even if it isn't a human eye.

crude? who said anything about crude? the text says, "incomplete." one part without the others won't work. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Irreducibility, another highly criticized creationist invention, is not explicitly delineated in that part. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well i'd like to do that with EDITING, not with DELETION. this thread fails too. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You haven't editted. The removal is warranted because the bit is not good enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia article. You're the one that is adding a poor section. If you don't want to see it deleted, add a section that isn't poor.Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i edited a number of things you didn't both to notice. compare versions. i took some out, changed a lot of wording, attributed to particular authors, and qualified. smoke going to your head, grand inquisitor? Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8) "Random functions will destroy the meaning..." The effect of natural selection is totally ignored.

the effect of natural selection is EXPLAINED as FUNDAMENTALLY INADEQUATE, because it only protects organs that are USEFUL in a PARTIALLY FORMED state. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not in that paragraph it isn't. And what makes you so certain that organs that are evolutionary precursors aren't useful? Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

your DISPUTE with the uselessness of the precursors can be documented on the page, but it is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not my DISPUTE, it is simply a statement that the paragraph itself contains hidden assumptions that need to be rectified before inclusion. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well NAME them and INCLUDE them. why are you expecting ME to read YOUR mind and include YOUR objections, and REFUSING to allow a CITED SUMMARY of a BOOK until i DO SO? have you COMPLETELY lost your mind? Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are not insurmountable problems, but they need to be addressed before they go into the article. Right now the section is a creationist POV screed. We need balance at least. Joshuaschroeder 03:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well get working. i especially enjoy your false representations of creationist beliefs. like a fundamentalist christian putting words in the mouth of muhammed. Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quite. I think there's a confusion here between raw amount of information (from a purely genetics meets informatics POV, number of codons is a perfectly decent measure), which can clearly be increased by 'mutation' (esp. in the broad sense previously alluded to), and the utilily of that information, which is entirely a matter of fitness (and which I think even Ungtss would agree, can be increased by natural selection).

did the text not follow? we're saying that mutation can add RANDOM strings, but that those have a low information content, because they can easily by produced with a few computer instructions (produce random number. repeat.) and natural selection doesn't HELP with those instructions until they are arranged in such a way as to be specified -- that is -- to have some USE.

Have you ever tried to write a computer program that will produce a random number? It's a near impossibility. I'm glad you're on board and admitting that we can add things to the genome. Now we've got to figure out what exactly you mean by "information" in terms of "speficity". Joshuaschroeder 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'm clear that there can be no truly random numbers in computer programs. but firstly, i'm not talking about computer programs, i'm talking about nature, and second, i'm not talking about purely random numbers, but the influence of random changes, which is the basis of evolutionary change. as to the definitions, yes, they're vague, and we can work on in refining the text further, but it is not grounds for deletion. this thread fails too.

What is a "function" in nature? I know the mathematical definition for a function, I know the computer science definition, but the problem with the presentation as it now stands is that it is not specified well. You did not address the issue. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i got rid of the word function in the latest version you deleted. maybe if you read edits other than your own, you might have noticed. Ungtss 17:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow how you can add material like the above, Ungtss, and make any pretense it's either a) addressing the issue of defining information and complexity (or stating that CBs don't define), which is what we were discussing on the talk page; or b) that it makes the least good faith attempt at NPOV. The last paraphrase is unmediated creationist POV without even the usual reported speech fig-leaf, and the intro to the final link pretty breathtaking. The ID discussion is merely "mere complete"? And not, say, an utterly partisan POV? Once again I feel compelled to point out that NPOV is the joint and several responsibility of every wikipedian; it's not satisfactory or sufficient to throw in a shedload of POV, and then challenge others to "make it NPOV". Alai 05:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you asked for more about information on the page, and an effort to describe and quantify it on the page. i laid out exactly what i thought it was, per your request, ascribed it to creationists, and gave a cite which references a book. i don't see any pov in there at all (not nearly as much as say, Human evolution, which states those things and evidence as undisputable fact without any alternative viewpoints). now it's been reverted wholesale (again). i'm trying to represent the topic. joshua? to deliberately misrepresent something he has no understanding of. why are you on me? Ungtss 12:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, we've been trying to get information out of you on the talkpage for some time now. This is what you claim is the result of that --> a screed you post on the page itself instead of on talk, none of which answers the question we were asking of you but brings up a whole slew of other questions. You're the one who is always arguing for taking "one thing at a time". Believe me, if I had simply editted what you had written, we'd be embroiled in an enormous edit war right now. Joshuaschroeder 15:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the reason we'd be embroiled in an edit war is that you'd insist that nobody state as a VIEW anything that you think is an invalid view, and would insist on inserting the VIEWS that you THINK we hold, rather than those we actually do. Alai's approach is editing is constructive -- he adds mainstream views and tones down pov on creationist views. yours is destructive. you delete views held by those with whom you disagree, and insert caricatured. YOU have failed to provide a single justification for your mass deletion. this text is a summary of the creationist views on information. tone down pov and add mainstream perspectives if you'd like, but DO NOT DELETE MINDLESSLY. Ungtss 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtfully redeleted

Ungtss, simply adding "creationists say" to the beginning of a paragraph is not addressing the concerns raised above. This is an article, not a treatise. You need to develop a presentation of the arguments with the critiques in mind, otherwise you aren't being honest. Joshuaschroeder 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

listen. you haven't offered any substantive changes. you're making vague and empty complaints about a cited summary of a text. if you wanna fix it, FIX IT. why the hell do you think you're justified in deleted a cited summary of a book explaining a widely held idea until someone ELSE can adequately address YOUR CONCERNS? don't hide behind reason. she's not on your side. on the contrary, she's laughing at you. this is WIKIPEDIA. if you don't like it, FIX IT. Ungtss 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop yelling. We can see you know how to hold down the shift key. I have explained exactly why this was an inappropriate addition. Frankly, I don't think you are calm enough to consider the issue carefully. I have fixed the problem. If you want the problem fixed in another way, you need to give us some explanation. Joshuaschroeder 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

stop bullying, telling me how calm i am (much less telling me i SHOULD be calm in the midst of your bullshit), and stop deleting my good faith, substantive edits wholesale without substantive comment, and we'll have a deal. Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not doubtin your good faith. I am doubting your ability to be a fair and neutral editor. I am also disputing your dismissal of my comments. Please ask around and figure out if anyone else thinks they are substantive or not. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The biggest changes I want to see are:

1. Definitions of complexity, information, entropy, simplicity, and random that everyone agrees upon (hopefully). Followed by the concepts of irreducible and specified complexity which are creationist inventions.

sounds like a good place to start. entropy and simplicity are not used in the article, so i don't see how they are relevent. random is intuitive to me, unless you'd like to define it differently than most people think of it. information and complexity are defined as best i know how -- do you have suggestions for improvement?

Entropy and simplicity, however, are often referred to by creationists and should be included. Random has an agreed upon definition that I submit we should stick to. It's not an intuition. Information theory is what defines information and complexity, I submit, is defined by Kolmogorov complexity the best. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

these are all great ideas, but they do not come from "creation biology" sources. if you'd like to provide these definitions and ideas, or critique creation biology on these bases, then feel free to do so. but if you can't find it in a "creation biology" book, then i don't see how it is relevent to the article?

1. A definition of biological information as suggested by Alai.

what would you suggest as an improvement upon the general definition of information as used now? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alai's posts above show what would be better. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and has that definition ever been used in the context of creation biology? Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. A change of examples. The text used isn't well-qualified or explained why it is a good example (in fact, I submit it is a bad example).

what better example would you suggest? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For example, laminar flow moving to turbulent flow. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and has that example ever been used in the context of creation biology? Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. The complexity of the eye in terms of specificity or irreducibility is a well-understood example from the mainstream perspective. There is an entire talkorigins.org article on the matter.

that's a pov you're free to add as an attributed pov, but certainly a disputed fact for purposes of this article. Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As NPOV, we should strive to have decent attribution. Right now, to critique your point would be difficult because it isn't well written or attributed as a creationist POV. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how do you mean it's not attributed? the citation to the book is given. Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Removal of the conflation of text messages with biological evolution (a comparison that isn't described in any detail, this probably will be resolvable if we change the examples).

and why is this a conflation, rather than a valid comparison? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because there is no indication that the analogy is valid or how it can be considered to be so. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's grounds for a critique, if you don't find it to be so -- again, creation biology considers it to be a valid analogy, as indicated by the cited book. Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. A distinction made between random processes and environmental context.

and what would you like that distinction to be? Ungtss 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like a proper description of evolutionary theory rather than a sidestepping jab at something else. Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 20:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

feel free to add that. i'd prefer if we also maintained a proper description of Creation Biology, rather than a sidestepping jab at something else. Ungtss 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dogma"?

Is there a "dogma" or "religious dogma" tag that can be added to articles like this indicating that they are matters of belief, not fact, and will be contentious until the day the sun expands and swallows the earth? I doubt any two people would even agree on the line between presenting facts about the dogma vs presenting the dogma as fact.

and what makes you think you have the right to determine which beliefs are fact and which are fiction? Ungtss 04:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I would want to? But my understanding of the definition of dogma would certainly include "creation biology" Krisjohn 08:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes. that would be your definition of dogma. and there are a solid contingent of people (including myself) who would place evolution squarely within the same category. Ungtss 14:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This cannot continue

Ungtss, will you agree to Wikipedia: Requests for Mediation to help resolve the disputes? Joshuaschroeder 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well sure, if you want to waste some poor mediator's time ... but honestly, i don't think it is necessary. we're big boys here. let's follow basic policy. the purpose of this page is to summarize and explain the concepts held by those claiming to be "creation biologists," and provide mainstream critiques of those ideas. i've taken a stab at the first part based on an article and a book, and i'm planning to move forward with further clarification, citation, and development of the idea. you're welcome to read through creation biology articles to further clarify the topic, or provide summaries of cited mainstream critiques of the ideas. this is not complicated. this is not a power struggle. this is not a case of "we can't say anybody says it unless everybody agrees it's true." this is a very simple case of "let's write an encyclopedia article about what a certain group of people think." why do we need a mediator to do that? Ungtss 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Anatomical?) complexity vs. genetic information

I feel it would help if we picked out the distinction between the points currently being made in generalised terms about the systemic anatomic, developmental, etc biological complexity of an organism qua organism in its total environment (which is, I think, what 'complexity' is suggestive of), and 'genetic information', which surely can be given a much narrower definition. The article currently seems to flip between the two on a pretty a hoc basis, without ever clarifying which (if either) is meant. The 'text strings' comparison is somewhat useful in the second context, but I don't see how it illuminates the first. As it stands I follow the drift of the portion on irreducible complexity, but the 'specified complexity' bit seems to be arguing purely from rather loose analogy, without actually specifying what it's asserting to be very unlikely/impossible. Alai 05:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 'text strings' comparison is somewhat useful in the second context, but I don't see how it illuminates the first.--> I don't think it makes a good comparison to the genetic information either because it's not clear what makes "I love you" a good comparison to ATAGATTC, for example. Joshuaschroeder 05:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in U's mouth, but I assume the gist of it would be, a genetic sequence that codes for a 'useful' protein. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means arguing in favour of the disputed section; I'm trying to take a step back from it. Alai 06:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not trying to get U. to come up with such a definition out of whole cloth, but to represent the statements of CBs on the matter as best as we, collectively, can. If there really is no such definition, or if CBs don't agree among themselves as to what it is, then we should simply say that. Alai 06:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks, alai. that is exactly my point -- ATAGATTC may "work," while CTAGATTC may not "work" in creating the protein it needs to create on order for the organism to function. i'd love to clarify exactly why creationists make the analogy in such a way as to make it easy to read, but it's very clear they do, as any article of creationist arguments from genetics will indicate, including the one linked from the page, which explicitly makes the "I love you" analogy. i'm not a biologist myself, so i can't make up these definitions on my own, and it's not my job. i'm just reporting what other people have said in the best way i know how. that's all any of us can do. obviously i agree with them, so i'm not as familiar with counterarguments, and not as aware of biased tone i might insert. that's why this is a team effort, so we can clean up each other's messes. let's do this:). Ungtss 15:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(But that's not information or complexity, see, that's fitness. Which you may argue in the "irreducibility" context, or try to, but I can't see how it elucidates "specified complexity".) But you're not supposed to be "making the creationists' arguments" in the first place. If you can't find a definition of information and complexity, it's inappropriate to simply continue to lax lyrical with "laws" and arguments that are seemingly based on such a thing. We have a couple of links to such things, we don't to reproduce them here with the ol' "creationists say" formula (or in some cases in your additions, without even that). Honestly, if I were to start editting the currently removed section, I'd probably end up either in whole or in large part re-removing it, or trying to find a polite way to phrase "CBs say these things about genetic information, which they don't define, and which are clearly false by any likely definition (such as size of the genome)". Alai 04:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

points all well made ... it seems to me we've got a section that describes a vague and ill-defined idea in a vague and ill-defined way ... but i don't know how better to describe the idea yet, and i don't think that wikipedia requires such a description. i'd like to continue researching to try and define and refine it ... maybe i'll try and dig up some of dembski's stuff to put a sharper edge on things. but do you think this really warrants deleting the section entirely? Ungtss 04:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit to being somewhat disarmed by your candour on the first point. But I don't see how to integrate it into a reasonable comparison between CB and EB without getting into lengthy "but that's not a very good characterisation of information" sidebars. What does it objectively matter what English language 'instructions' can encode a text string or genome? (And JS's observation that "it's random" is not a sufficient specification for any sequence.) That's not, after all, relatable to how they arise. The sequence itself, or a series of genetic operations that could produce it would be more pertinent. As it stands, the analogy is too long-drawn out and too wooly, the token "EB" view is sandwiched between two chunks of CB POV, and is framed in terms of the preceding wooly definition of information. Alai 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<What does it objectively matter what English language 'instructions' can encode a text string or genome?>>

the analogy makes perfect sense to me -- "randomness" is easy to find in nature -- it doesn't take any "intelligence." "order" is also easy to find it nature -- it only requires a law. but we're arguing that specified complexity, that is, text strings in which the components of each string are dependent on each other for their meaning, CANNOT come about by those two functions ... just like "i love you." if it's bad, let's explain why it's bad. but let's at least explain it, no? Ungtss 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Randomness is easy to find, but hard to specify. The distinction between 'nature' and 'intelligence' is rather begging the question, isn't it? Your argument here about specified complexity still sounds to me exactly like the IC argument; one (or very possibly more!) of us is missing something, I think. IC I can dig up reasonable EB context on. But SC I'd personally have to sift through the CB stuff on to get a handle on what they're saying. I agree we should certainly describe it, but focussing on a particular analogy makes for a weak article structure, as it too easily falls into EB rebuttal, CB counter-rebuttal, etc, etc, then someone else coming along and saying the example is a straw man and weak analogy and the CB position is really more like such and such. So I'd prefer a clear, but more abstract example, but one that's more directly connected (or connectable) to the genetics/biology. Alai 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fair enough -- i share your goal of better examples and analogies. but i don't have one:). do you think omission is better than inclusion in this case, given that the example is cited specifically to a website and book as an identifiable CB position? Ungtss 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does it need to be an analogy at all? If text strings are a stand-in for genes, why not simply describe it in terms of (partial) gene sequences? Or at the least, make it clear that that's what the text strings are there to illustrate, as opposed to Non Brand Complexity(TM). Alai 01:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that sounds like a perfectly reasonable proposal ... i'd prefer the second, since it would give instant recognition to the way the sequences have to "work together." Ungtss 05:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<As it stands, the analogy is too long-drawn out and too wooly, the token "EB" view is sandwiched between two chunks of CB POV, and is framed in terms of the preceding wooly definition of information.>>

how would you suggest making the analogy less wooly, drawn out, and allow the evolutionist side fair representation? Ungtss 18:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)