Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Wesley J Elsberry still choking on information

Wes Elsberry is one thick evotard. He claims::
You said that two copies of the same information holds no more information than one copy alone. You are wrong by formal accounts of information (unpublished connotations don't count). Again, anyone having actually read Elsberry and Shallit 2003 would have found the discussion of increasing information via functions on pages 47 and 48, and might even have seen footnote 19:

Only a complete imbecile would say that Wes. Ya see the problem is you are so wed to definitions of "information" that have nothing to do with information it has made you stupid.

And BTW all "formal accounts of information" don't seem to have anything to do with information:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?

He then babbles on about polyploidy:
Further, your response to the biological examples provided by tetraploid daughter species is a capitulation, not a denial: you apparently agree that two copies of the same information does result in morphologically distinct species. Dismissing the degree of difference in the morphology is irrelevant; under your claimed paradigm of how two copies of information is no different than one copy of that information, no difference of any sort would be appreciable. You are wrong about information and ought to own up.

Yes Wes two copies of the same dictionary take up twice as much space as one copy does. But you do not have twice as much information by having two copies just twice the mass. IOW Wes, under my cliamed paradigm there is a difference, just not in information content.

IOW Wes you are wrong, again, as usual.

Having mulitple copies of the genome does not produce more protein machines. It does not produce more functions and more functionality.

Not, of course, that I am expecting that. But at least we have your documented failures here on record where you can't expunge it.

That is OK Wes. I am documenting all of your failures also although I will run out of archive space well before you do.

Evos are so freaking stupid that they cannot grasp reality. They cannot support their position so are forced to lash out at everyone who opposes them. They seem to be too stupid to understand that all they have to do is start producing POSITIVE evidence for their position. Yet it is obvious that they cannot.


Post a Comment

<< Home