[Johnny]

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Johnny, I think I've noticed a first! You, taking advice from a creationist! And from Stripe of all people?

I acknowledge good advice at every opportunity.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Johnny, say it isn't so. I hope you are not quitting! OF COURSE Prof. Styer would defend himself (unless one day he agrees that he unintentionally furthered the entropy confusion). I am criticizing what Prof. Styer wrote. You agreed to answer the Yes/No questions presented to you a few posts back. You haven't done so. Please don't use Stripe's suggestion as an excuse to quit. If Dan Styer wants to debate me in a TOL One on One on evolution, on entropy, or on whether his paper furthers the confusion, I would be honored to enter such a debate. But please don't use that as an excuse to bail out.

I'm never one to shy away from a debate. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps it's a bit silly to continue arguing over what someone meant when they have now offered their own clarification.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

p.s. Johnny, if you're now willing to consider suggestions from creationists , let me make one. You might want to use what I see as the most substantive point that Prof. Styer has added to the debate so far, which comes while he's disputing one of my points, saying in the Discussion Thread Post 98: "The microwave background is not 'far, far away' ... it's right here. We're immersed in it."

It is a good point that I had not considered.

Moving onwards (or backwards) to your previous posts,

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Questions: Regarding Confusion That May Actually Result from Styer's Article

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q1: If degreed and leading evolutionists openly use Styer's article to dismiss information entropy challenges, would you concede and say that is an indication that Styer should have clarified for them the differences to avoid furthering their confusion?

No. These degreed and leading evolutionists need to correct their own understandings of the clear principles Styer presented. Styer was absolutely clear, as you acknowledged when you said "Yes, the opening sentence does provide that thermodynamics context." Criticizing a writer for not being absolutely redundant in clarification is not an impressive argument.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

But because he writes of "Entropy and evolution" after decades of both sides of the debate confusing heat and information, he should have clarified.

He did. It's in the first sentence of the paper. That's really the end of the discussion. Styer was sufficiently clear, and any misunderstanding is simply the fault of the reader. You're defending a ridiculous position for the sake of defending a position.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q2: If eventually evolutionists widely use Styer's article to dismiss even information entropy challenges, would you concede and say that he should have titled his paper "Thermodynamic Entropy and Evolution," and should have explicitly stated that his calculations do not apply to the creationist argument regarding information entropy?

No. This is simply question #1 repackaged. If Calvinist's widely use the Bible to dismiss the open theist's position, would you concede and say that God should have explicitly stated that he does not know the entire future? You can substitute anything into this position. If leading Nazi's widely used Darwin's origin of species to justify their genocide, would you concede that Darwin should have explicitely stated that his work is not a moral compass? Misinterpretations and misapplications are not the fault of the writer, as long as the writer has been sufficiently clear. Syter, as you admit, offered explicit clarification in his opening sentence.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q3: This TOL One on One debate has already led some studied creationists to admit to me that they had never before clearly distinguished information and heat entropy. Of a thousand evolutionists who discuss creation, do you think a significant percentage might confuse heat and information entropy?

I have no way of assessing this, but I would assume so.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q4: Regarding evolutionists who have never distinguished between heat and information entropy who read LSoL's opening post on Styer's article, or PZ Myer's column, or Styer's paper itself for that matter, none of which make the info/heat distinction, do you think a significant number might easily assume that Styer has completely refuted evolution's entropy challenge?

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q5: Even though you maintain that Styer did not add to the confusion that blurs heat and information with his Entropy and Evolution paper that is sure to be widely referenced in the ongoing creation debate, do you agree that his article did nothing to help clarify entropy confusion?

Yes -- with exception to the fact that he referenced a few excellent resources on just what thermodynamic entropy is. Styer had a very specific purpose to his paper which was stated clearly in the opening paragraphs. It's a bit silly to fault someone for not writing about something they never intended to write about, don't you think? Perhaps I should write the editor's of the well-known "Harrison's Principles of Medicine" sitting beside me and criticize them for not clearing up some of the ambiguous pseudo-scientific medical misconceptions people have. Yes, the book is about medicine. Yes, there are many medical misconceptions. No, their purpose was not to clear up medical misconceptions. Yes, Styer's paper is about thermodynamic entropy and evolution. Yes, there may be many misconceptions about thermodynamic and information entropy. Not, his purpose was not to clarify the difference between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q6: If I can show that Styer included information increase in his article, would my criticism that he furthered the confusion between heat and information entropy be more tenable?

No, unless he used the two interchangeably.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

In your latest post you disapprove of my reference to your bias. So to help me and the reader confirm whether or not you (or other evolutionists) have a bias that prevents you from criticizing evolutionists who further the confusion regarding information and heat entropy, I'd like to ask you about a topic we've clashed on before:

I have no problem criticizing evolutionists who further the confusion. Styer is not one of them, however, because to any educated person he already clarified the type of entropy in the first sentence.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q7: Considering that an organism is defined biologically by its genetic content, would you agree that a primary aspect of "single-cell to man" evolution would be "an increase in information?"

This question is too ambiguous to answer. What do you mean "defined biologically"? What does "genetic content" mean -- are you talking about # of genes, # of base pairs, or what? Is the number of genes roughly equivalent to the amount of information in a genome? These all need to be defined before I can answer your question to the best of my ability.

To give you an example of why this question is difficult, consider the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. It has one of the smallest genomes of all plants -- about 115 million base pairs. Compare this to the human genome which has over 3 billion base pairs. However, even though this plant has a tiny genome compared with humans, it contains nearly 25,000 genes. The human genome contains somewhere between 20,000 to 25,000 genes. Which genome contains more information?

Which sentence contains more information:
“John went to the store”
or
“At some time in the past, John went to the store”

Both sentences convey the same idea. One sentence used more words. Do they contain the same amount of information?

What about:
“John went to the store to buy apples.”
or
“John went to the gas station to fill his tires with air”

The sentences are conveying different ideas, with varying amounts of words. Now how do we compare which sentence contains more information?

Hopefully now you're seeing the difficulty of talking about the information content of the genome and whether or not one genome contains more information than the other.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q8: Would you agree that a primary aspect of Darwinian origin of species would be "an increase in information?"

No. I will agree there has been likely been a trend in the direction of increasing information as a function of time. That's not a primary aspect of Darwinian evolution, it's just the way things turned out (just like water running downhill isn't a primary feature of water. It's not what defines water -- it's just the way water interacts with gravity.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q9: Would you agree that two years ago when you posted on TOL that "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information,'" and you were then pressed to retract that statement," and instead you dug in, "Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement,” and Fred Williams and I discussed your comment on a Real Science Friday radio program, do you agree that as you draw your own conclusions, you have to guard against a heavy evolutionary bias that downplays information's role in biology?

There is no downplaying of the role of information in biology or evolution. Evolutionists don't have a problem with the idea that the information contained in a population's genome can increase.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q10: Johnny, as I wonder about our disagreement, I realize that if you do not think there is an extraordinary gulf between the nature of information and the nature of energy, you might be disinclined to charge a fellow evolutionist with blurring the distinction. So to verify your understanding, do you agree that there is an extraordinary gulf between the nature of information and the nature of matter?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

EE1on1-BE-Q11: Even in YOUR OWN defense of Styer's supposed listing of two creationist misconceptions, EVEN YOU did not list the two claimed misconceptions! I'm beginning to see this as an intellectual temper tantrum. Johnny, since Styer never listed two creationist misconceptions, neither in the argument he described previously nor in the two bullets following, and since YOU DID NOT EITHER in your latest post (#10), can you now admit that he simply forgot to include them in his paper and that the American Journal of Physics peer review process did not prevent that minor instance of poor writing from being published?

I did not realize that second order thinking was beyond the capabilities of many of the creationists here. I'm being serious. If this is troublesome reading then there is a problem.

Styer writes in regards to "two misconceptions":

"Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition for entropy."

Now, Bob, honestly, do you REALLY have trouble figuring out what the misconception is? Do you really need it spelled out in a direct sentence for you? Because in all honesty very little brain power is required to arrive at the misconception: “Disorder is a definition of entropy”. Consider it in the context of the statement by by Dr Morris who finds it "...obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder."

Although the entropy of the universe increases with time, the entropy of any part of the universe can decrease with time, so long as that decrease is compensated by an even larger increase in some other part of the universe.

Once again, do you really have trouble understanding what the misconception is?

Moving away from the questions for a few minutes, you write

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Johnny, will you join me? I'm calling on creationists and evolutionists to make the distinction between heat and information wherever such are easily confused.

How about instead of catering to the “confused” by calling on those who know better to dumb down their language, we instead call on those who are “confused” to correct their ignorance? Wouldn't that be more prudent? I would want someone to do that for me. When I first started medical school I didn't call on the medical community to dumb their language down so as to avoid any confusion on my behalf, I bought a medical dictionary so I could understand their language.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

So will you join me and call on creationists and evolutionists to stop confusing thermodynamics and information?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Johnny, I'd even offer to conclude this TOL One on One with a draw if you would reply stating: Yes, it would have helped reduce the widespread confusion over entropy if Styer had clarified that his paper did not deal with information entropy.

It would have helped reduce the widespread confusion elementary school students have between the words “their” “there” and “they're” if you had clarified as to each definition each time you used any of the above. In fact, it would have helped clarify the confusion non-English speakers have with your post had you extensively clarified the context and definition of each word (in their native language, of course) of every sentence you typed. In the same way, it would have helped reduce the widespread confusion over entropy had Styer redundantly clarified that his paper dealt strictly with thermodynamic entropy. You see my point through these extreme examples, hopefully. If someone wants to read a paper, it is their responsibility to ensure they understand the topic and/or language of the paper. Styer did his part: in the opening paragraphs he (1) noted that he was addressing the old Henry Morris argument, (2) clarified that he was referencing the second law of thermodynamics, and (3) by extension clarified that he was talking about thermodynamic entropy, and (4) gave ample references to papers that extensively explore the concept of thermodynamic entropy. As you said in your second to last post, “Two things can hardly be more different than information and energy (see the p.s. in my last post)...” You should understand, then, why an expert writing a paper in a physics journal did not feel the need to redundantly clarify that he was talking about thermodynamic entropy only.

As to just what Styer was saying, or trying to say, or what concepts he confused – he is now with us to answer these questions. I think it's a bit silly to engage in such speculations any further. It should be noted, however, that Styer has confirmed much of what I've argued.

On to a few other random things,

You claim to give us an example of “...the misuse, blurring, and confusion between information and thermodynamics among evolutionists, and flowing from Styer's paper, that I'm trying to expose.” Your example is ThePhy's response to Stripe's question. The discussion went as follows:

Originally Posted by Stripe

The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.

ThePhy responds,

Originally Posted by ThePhy

Outside what the Styer paper addresses.

To which you comment,

”Phy indicated that: there are no known unintelligent means by which energy can be turned into information other than the means addressed by Styer.

Of course, Styer did not address ANY means of turning energy into information. Stripe was attempting clarifying the difference bewteen the two issues, Phy wrongly conflated them.”

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but (maybe it's that second order thinking) if you mentally insert the words “That is” in front of ThePhy's response, you'll get a better picture of what he was saying.

If you'd like to argue with Dan Styer by posting responses in this thread, then perhaps it would be best for you to contact Knight and have Knight replace myself with Dan in this thread so you two can talk without interruption.

In summary of this entire thread: You admit that Styer was clear that he was talking about thermodynamic entropy, but you continue to criticize him for not clarifying what he was not talking about. Maybe for our sake you could clarify what you're not talking about.