I have enjoyed it as well. As most people I debate with will attest, I have nothing to hide and I am always as direct with my answers as possible. To me, it is very important to understand the implication's of one's own position, and often time those implications are best drawn out by someone else's questioning.Bob Enyart said:Johnny, thank you for being direct with so many of your answers! I have enjoyed talking with you.
That's another topic, as you well understand, but the key difference between evolution and your analogy is that evolution only has to win a little every once in a rare while.Bob Enyart said:Regarding money, I want to quote Real Science Friday co-host Fred Williams about mutations being the supposed primary source of change for evolution, even though they are overwhelmingly destructive, or neutral, or even fatal: "is like the merchant who loses a little on every sale, but he's hoping to make it up in volume."
My entire point with that analogy was that a book, or paper, or whatever, is always written with intent -- and criticizing someone's intentBob Enyart said:You mentioned your copy of Harrison's Principles of Medicine and said you wouldn't "criticize them for not clearing up some... medical misconceptions people have." What if a journal article on catching a cold and sleeping under a chilly breeze reported that it is the rhinovirus and other germs that often trigger a cold, and not a breeze, and they ended there. Then a million grandmothers would wonder, why then, do they recall so many times that their kids and grandkids DID catch a cold coincident with sleeping in a chill? If the article did not consider whether the cold breeze can tax the body's resources and lower its ability to fight germs that are often in plentiful supply, then the paper may be guilty of an ivory tower effect, doing too little investigation and thereby furthering the confusion by ignoring what is really happening in the world around them, until someone comes along and looks more carefully at the matter.
This is kind of getting old, and just like when you misunderstood ThePhy, your lack of careful reading is perhaps the culprit here.Johnny said:Earlier you had denied that the two misconceptions were supposed to be listed in Dan Styer's two bullet points, and claimed they were lurking somewhere in the preceding text. But Professor Styer kindly clarified when he replied, "It's obvious that the two misconceptions were the two bullet points." Yes, I thought so too . Johnny, you couldn't find them even when looking so carefully!
The two misconceptions are lurking in the preceding text. They're in the argument Dr. Morris presented, and they're in the subsequent summarized creationist argument just prior to the words "This argument rests upon two misconceptions about entropy." That sentence means that the prior argument contains two misconceptions.
The second one was left as an exercise to you or the reader. You note that I use a singular form of misconception, that's because I was referencing only the first misconception. That's probably due to sloppy writing on my behalf.Bob Enyart said:I pointed out that NOT EVEN YOU Johnny had listed Dan's two misconception (Professor Styer was happy to have us use his first name), and you reply by S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G … I-T … O-U-T as clearly as you can, but then you only listed ONE MISCONCEPTION and not two! Good grief!
Just so we're insanely clear here:
Misconception #1: Disorder is a definition of entropy.
Misconception #2: The entropy of a system must increase with time.
As you note, this horse is beat.
Regarding my bias against information:
My answer to question #7 was direct and honest. Information is a very difficult topic, and given that you didn't attempt to answer the questions I posed in my response (perhaps so as to avoid furthering the point of the illustrations), I think you saw the point of my response.Bob Enyart said:Johnny, I submit to you and to the reader that your answer to my Question 7 is a dramatic example of evolutionists being extremely biased against open consideration of matters regarding information...
Johnny, did you want to answer this question, or did you only want to obfuscate? You demonstrate that evolutionists have a bias against dealing forthrightly with the concept of information...
So you dig in even further and write that: "increasing information [is] not a primary aspect of Darwinian evolution."...
Every religion has its martyrs. Someone has to take the hit. And Johnny, here you took one for the team. But because God created life in all its awesome splendor, you're "taking it" for the wrong team...
However, I do want to refute your position that "...evolutionists have a bias against dealing forthrightly with the concept of information..."
Evolutionists have no problem with the idea that the information content in the genome can increase. That's part of what natural selection can explain. Just like you, evolutionists marvel at the complexity and organization of life. To claim that evolutionists can't deal forthrightly with the subject is silly -- there are entire books devoted to the subject written by evolutionists! There are also a ton of papers on the same subject. Here's some good papers regarding the subject that evolutionists can't deal forthrightly with:
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799
Decadt, Y. JG, 2000. On the origin and impact of information in evolution (available online)
Adami, C., Ofria, C. & Collier, T.C., 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468.
and two boks:
Information Theory and Evolution by John Avery
Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life by Hubert Yockey
Thus, I don't think your position that evolutionists "...evolutionists have a bias against dealing forthrightly with the concept of information..." is very supportable position.
It's been fun discussing this with you Bob. As expected, little is resolved between us, but hopefully we stimulated some thought!