A Bit of Orange

A creationist youtube channel

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

A Bit of Orange

#1  Postby Mr. Skeptic » Aug 25, 2018 8:24 pm

So there's this youtube channel called A Bit of Orange. He's your average creationist and has been debunked by Vice Rhino and
Professor Stick, so he is somewhat well know. His definition of evolution is rather special:

an unguided, natural process which increases the genetic information of an organism; creating new genes which did not previously exist. These new genes cause an increase in physical complexity and associated behavior, both of which increase the organisms ability to survive and pass on these traits to offspring




So, if anybody can debunk him further, let me know. :thumbup:
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 142

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A Bit of Orange

#2  Postby felltoearth » Aug 25, 2018 9:00 pm

Cali’s “Creationists Read This” thread pinned at the top of this subforum is a good primer for dealing with most of the crap arguments creationists come up with.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... -t429.html

[22] The infamous canards surrounding "information".

Now this is a particularly insidious brand of canard, because it relies upon the fact that the topic of information, and its rigorous analysis, is replete with misunderstanding. However, instead of seeking to clarify the misconceptions, creationist canards about information perpetuate those misconceptions for duplicitous apologetic purposes. A classic one being the misuse of the extant rigorous treatments of information, and the misapplication of different information treatments to different situations, either through ignorance, or wilful mendacity. For example, Claude Shannon provided a rigorous treatment of information, but a treatment that was strictly applicable to information transmission, and NOT applicable to information storage. Therefore, application of Shannon information to information storage in the genome is a misuse of Shannon's work. The correct information analysis to apply to storage is Kolmogorov's analysis, which erects an entirely different measure of information content that is intended strictly to be applicable to storage. Mixing and matching the two is a familiar bait-and-switch operation that propagandists for creationist doctrine are fond of.

However, the ultimate reason why creationist canards about information are canards, is simply this. Information is NOT a magic entity. It doesn't require magic to produce it. Ultimately, "information" is nothing more than the observational data that is extant about the current state of a system. That is IT. No magic needed. All that happens, in real world physical systems, is that different system states lead to different outcomes when the interactions within the system take place. Turing alighted upon this notion when he wrote his landmark paper on computable numbers, and used the resulting theory to establish that Hilbert's conjecture upon decidability in formal axiomatic systems was false. Of course, it's far easier to visualise the process at work, when one has an entity such as a Turing machine to analyse this - a Turing machine has precise, well-defined states, and precise, well-defined interactions that take place when the machine occupies a given state. But this is precisely what we have with DNA - a system that can exist in a number of well-defined states, whose states determine the nature of the interactions that occur during translation, and which result in different outcomes for different states. indeed, the DNA molecule plays a passive role in this: its function is simply to store the sequence of states that will result, ultimately, in the synthesis of a given protein, and is akin to the tape running through a Turing machine. The real hard work is actually performed by the ribosomes, which take that state data and use it to bolt together amino acids into chains to form proteins, which can be thought of as individual biological 'Turing machines' whose job is to perform, mechanically and mindlessly in accordance with the electrostatic and chemical interactions permitting this, the construction of a protein using the information arising from DNA as the template. Anyone who thinks magic is needed in all of this, once again, is in need of an education.

As for the canard that "mutations cannot produce new information", this is manifestly false. Not only does the above analysis explicitly permit this, the production of new information (in the form of new states occupied by DNA molecules) has been observed taking place in the real world and documented in the relevant scientific literature. If you can't be bothered reading any of this voluminous array of scientific papers, and understanding the contents thereof, before erecting this particularly moronic canard, then don't bother erecting the canard in the first place, because it will simply demonstrate that you are scientifically ignorant. Indeed, the extant literature not only covers scientific papers explicitly dealing with information content in the genome, such as Thomas D. Schneider's paper handily entitled Evolution And Biological Information to make your life that bit easier, but also papers on de novo gene origination, of which there are a good number, several of which I have presented here in the past in previous threads. The mere existence of these scientific papers, and the data that they document, blows tiresome canards about "information" out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. Post information canards at your peril after reading this.

Whilst dwelling on information, another creationist canard also needs to be dealt with here, namely the false conflation of information with ascribed meaning. Which can be demonstrated to be entirely false by reference to the following sequence of hexadecimal bytes in a computer's memory:

81 16 00 2A FF 00

To a computer with an 8086 processor, those bytes correspond to the following single machine language instruction:

ADC [2A00H], 00FFH

To a computer with a 6502 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:

CLC
ASL ($00,X)
LDX #$FF
BRK

To a computer with a 6809 processor, those bytes correspond to the following machine language instruction sequence:

CMPA #$16
NEG $2AFF
NEG ??

the ?? denoting the fact that for this processor, the byte sequence is incomplete, and two more bytes are needed to supply the address operand for the NEG instruction.

Now, we have three different ascribed meanings to one stream of bytes. Yet, none of these ascribed meanings influences either the Shannon information content, when that stream is transmitted from one computer to another, or the Kolmogorov information content when those bytes are stored in memory. Ascribed meaning is irrelevant to both rigorous information measures. As is to be expected, when one regards information content simply as observational data about the state of the system (in this case, the values of the stored bytes in memory). Indeed, it is entirely possible to regard ascribed meaning as nothing other than the particular interactions driven by the underlying data, once that data is being processed, which of course will differ from processor to processor. Which means that under such an analysis, even ascribed meaning, which creationists fallaciously conflate with information content, also requires no magical input. All that is required is the existence of a set of interactions that will produce different outcomes from the different observed states of the system (with the term 'observation' being used here sensu lato to mean any interaction that is capable of differentiating between the states of the system of interest).

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13446
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#3  Postby Mr. Skeptic » Aug 25, 2018 9:21 pm

I know very well of that. I think Arona did a bit of it during his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. It's this one

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&index=8&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC[/youtube]

He also did one on what evolution actually is, to dispell redefinitions of evolution:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&index=6&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC[/youtube]
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 142

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#4  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 26, 2018 12:17 am

Mr. Skeptic wrote:So there's this youtube channel called A Bit of Orange. He's your average creationist and has been debunked by Vice Rhino and
Professor Stick, so he is somewhat well know. His definition of evolution is rather special:

an unguided, natural process which increases the genetic information of an organism; creating new genes which did not previously exist. These new genes cause an increase in physical complexity and associated behavior, both of which increase the organisms ability to survive and pass on these traits to offspring




So, if anybody can debunk him further, let me know. :thumbup:

The bolded bit is a deliberately vaguely worded straw-man.
As is the cursive bit.
The underlined bit is incorrect. The only traits need to be/do to be pass on, is to not be detrimental.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#5  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 26, 2018 3:12 am

Indeed, this cretin has obviously never heard of neutral theory.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22039
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#6  Postby Mr. Skeptic » Aug 26, 2018 8:53 pm

Most have not, sadly.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 142

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#7  Postby SpeedOfSound » Feb 13, 2020 10:39 am

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, this cretin has obviously never heard of neutral theory.

Neutral theory and genetic entropy are the new Big Debunk for creationists on youtube. Or rather a complete misreading of Kimura.

Do we have any YEC's currently on the board? I want to talk to one of those critters.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32079
Age: 69
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A Bit of Orange

#8  Postby NineBerry » Feb 13, 2020 2:06 pm

Debunking creationists was fun a decade ago, but it all has become a bit boring by now.
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6100
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 14, 2020 8:23 am

Mr. Skeptic wrote:So there's this youtube channel called A Bit of Orange. He's your average creationist and has been debunked by Vice Rhino and
Professor Stick, so he is somewhat well know. His definition of evolution is rather special:

an unguided, natural process which increases the genetic information of an organism; creating new genes which did not previously exist. These new genes cause an increase in physical complexity and associated behavior, both of which increase the organisms ability to survive and pass on these traits to offspring


...

So, if anybody can debunk him further, let me know. :thumbup:



It's "special" insomuch as it's a carefully crafted strawman primed for his unscientific Creationist rebuttals.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#10  Postby Rumraket » Feb 15, 2020 9:41 pm

Mr. Skeptic wrote:
an unguided, natural process which increases the genetic information of an organism; creating new genes which did not previously exist. These new genes cause an increase in physical complexity and associated behavior, both of which increase the organisms ability to survive and pass on these traits to offspring


LOL

Well all you need to know is that this cannot be a successful theory of evolution because it would fail to account for things like gene loss and genome reduction.

While what he is describing have occurred to some lineages, the opposite has also occurred to many others. It depends on many different factors whether gene gain or loss, or increased or reduced complexity, is adaptive, deleterious, or neutral. To a very rough approximation, more simple and unchanging environments with strong competition for the same limited resource, generally favors simpler organisms.

In other words, he has deliberately constructed a straw-man version of evolution such that he can compare his ill-conceived definition with some experimental result that contradicts it, so that he can then declare that since this thing he defined didn't occur in some experiment, evolution must be false since it can only ever produce that thing in the experiment.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13208
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#11  Postby campermon » Feb 16, 2020 7:54 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, this cretin has obviously never heard of neutral theory.

Neutral theory and genetic entropy are the new Big Debunk for creationists on youtube. Or rather a complete misreading of Kimura.

Do we have any YEC's currently on the board? I want to talk to one of those critters.


Christ, there's even a website; https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy

:what:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17410
Age: 50
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Bit of Orange

#12  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 16, 2020 11:57 am

Its not surprising really as Sanford's been at this for 2 decades.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest