|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I don't know how much it needs. But it's a logical conclusion. Logic can show all sorts of things if your assumptions are wrong; if your conclusion are demonstrable wrong then it follows your logic is flawed or your assumptions were wrong. Experiment always trumps theory.
It has. It affects all life. But like I said, a long time is needed for the actual meltdown to occure. Then why don't we see any effect of it? Every E. coli bacterium alive today should have accumulated a minimum (using a conservative estimate of the number of generations) of over 7000 deleterious mutations in the last 6000 years. That's more mutations than they have genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Unfortunately you did say that. Remember that you are arguing that ALL of the proteins in the flagellum act as enzymes, and must act as enzymes for the flagellum to work. We're still waiting to see some sensible argument for that - let alone any evidence.
quote: OK, so Dembski;s wrong. There goes the whole CSI argument.
quote: Dembski says otherwise. The information content is measured by the probability of non-design explanations producing the pattern. (That is how CSI is meant to ELIMINATE non-design explanations, so it is an essential part of Dembski's method).
quote: You just managed to contradict yourself again. Your specfication is directly read off of the E Coli flagellum.
quote: Unfortunately that's not the specification that you are actually using. Rememebr that you have to calculate the probability of ANYTHING matching the specification coming about by non-design processes. Which means that you have to go look at all those other flagella.
quote: Simple. The figure of 20% change doesn't mean that there is a fixed 20% of the gene that CAN change. Which is what you would calculate if you just multiplied the sequence length by 0.8 (which is what you did). It means that a lot more of the protein CAN change, just so long as the total change isn't more than 20%.
quote: Why, exactly ?
quote: Not exactly. My point was that just calculating the probability of a structure forming without taking into account non-chance processes (which is what you are doing) is wrong and against Dembski's method - using salt crystals of an example. ANd you have agreed with me that you DO have to take into account the regularities that cause salt crystals to form when calculating the information. Now you have to apply that to the flagellum;
quote: They come with evidence that allows us to work out the dates.
quote: It doesn't., of course. But if you take that approach you are going to have to revise your figures on deleterious mutations downwards to take into account the fact that you are only counting a subset of them.
quote: Your estimate of the rate of deleterious mutations appearing would be even sillier.
quote: Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that.
quote: In asexually reproducing creatures, the lineage dies out, or a new mutation occurs which replaces the deleterious mutation or makes it no longer deleterious or genetic material from elsewhere comes in to do the job. In sexually reproducing species, of course, the mutations are NOT necessarily passed on to the offspring.
quote: But ONLY in certain circumstances, and always involving low populations.
quote:Basic statistics. Chance variations have less overall effect on large numbers of trials. quote: Basic arithmetic. Take a number. Add another number to it. THen take away the second number. And you're back with the first number again ! Isn't that amazing !
quote: Wrong. In a sexually reproducing species the average offspring will inherit half of each parent's deleterious mutations. The best offspring will - by definition - inherit less than that. And since they needn't add any of their own then they can easily end up with fewer deleterious mutations than their parents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
You can NOT claim that the designer was an "alien" with an honest face. Firstly because obviously ID is a religious movement founded by religion fanatics pushing a religious agenda. You follow that path back and it is ALWAYS going to lead to "Jew Wizard". Somewhere out there, unseen, is an invisible Jewish Wizard floating on a cloud of Unicorn snot shooting magic Jew beams from his eyes. Yah All Trippin'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
quote:Because proto-avians in the fossil record have teeth, not beaks. What does thatz have to do with chickens? Are you by any chance claiming that these supposed "proto-avians" are related to modern day chickens? Do you have any evidence for that? I see your game, and I'm no longer willing to play it. I have offered you detailed evidence for everything I've posted - many many times. I have asked you for ONE thing and you've refused to provide it: "Give us a detailed description of the mechanism the Jew Wizard is using to poof these things into existence." You seem to think it's my job to give you the education you missed during your homeschooling. It isn't. This is tit for tat. I've given you an entire cheerleading squad full of tit. Time for you to put up that one tat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Please don't ask me to explain chronological time to you. If you don't understand "before" and "after", I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you. I'm sorry but we must go into full detail Are you F'in serious? So, let's review. Your homeschooling didn't include:Biology Counting Sexual Reproduction -and now- The concept of "before" and "after". IF I BOTHERED to answer you, your next response would be to deny the letters can be combined into words which carry meaning. Clearly you don't have anything to back up your claim so you are merely denying every aspect of every post. Fact: Your religion was stolen by Jewish goat herders who were so lazy and so unimaginative, they merely renamed things rather than come up with stories of their own. It's make believe. If you want to reject all of science. Feel free. Just don't ever go to a doctor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Because they aren't negative if they aren't having a negative effect. Tautology anyone? Timmy, when you use words you don't understand you make yourself look even dumber.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
BtthllmhwthhllsthtgngthlpywhnLLndvdlshvthsmttnYdndstndthtthchldwllnhrtthgnfrmthrprnt This question literally is unreadable. I've beat you to the punch and rejected all your vowels and punctuation. Until you can prove to me without using vowels or punctutation that vowels and punction exist, you can't use them to explain anything. Kind of a pain the ass when you are debating a mirror, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
YhllTrppn Not a valid response to the post. Go back and try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
traderdrew writes: So who created the creator? This is a short example of infinite regression. Who created you Nuggin? Who created the creator who created Nuggin? Who created that creator as well? You eventually get to a place where you cannot answer so, does that mean you do not exist? Funny that you should use the infinite regression argument in favour of a creator, on the basis of some convoluted logic that basically amounts to "we exist, therefore we must have been created". You don't eventually get to a place where you cannot answer... you could continue to ask "who created the creator of the creator"... and so on. It wouldn't get you anywhere though. And that is the point of the infinite regression argument when discussing the origins of life. To posit a designer at some stage in the past doesn't get you anwhere, but simply raises more questions than it answers. I just can't get over how you guys seem to miss the inherent beauty of a universe that does not require your imaginary designer, which is of course, the universe we live in. Which is more exciting and awe-inspiring? A universe in which the most amazing variety of life can come to exist through the very laws inherent to that universe, or one which requires a choreographer to constantly keep tabs on everything and guide the process? If I was inclined to believe in supernatural origins, I could only imagine doing so in a deist fashion - i.e. I would accept all the evidence we have and appreciate the magnificent way that things have evolved, whilst simultaneously feeling reverence to whatever supernatural force started the process. The reason I am not a deist is that, having observed how all these processes take place without the need for a designer or choreographer, I see no need to assume that there must have been one at some more distant past to kick start things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
The reason I am not a deist is that, having observed how all these processes take place without the need for a designer or choreographer, I see no need to assume that there must have been one at some more distant past to kick start things. You must be billions of years old.!
To posit a designer at some stage in the past doesn't get you anwhere, but simply raises more questions than it answers. I don't think so. I think pointing to an intelligent designer makes it easier to explain. It may raise different types of questions. Those would be the type questions you may not like. I appreciate the beauty found on this earth. In school I found biology boring. I think biology is interesting now since it has room for an intelligent designer. Other people believe or feel just the opposite but that is fine. If Wounded King comes out with a book that proves evolution through embryonic development and it has nothing to do with intelligent design, well then, all the power to him. Maybe he will help science advance. However, that still doesn't answer every question. I would have to be introduced to a theory that goes something like this: The fifth dimension has a cyclical interaction with our dimension every few thousand years and is the cause of punctuated equilibrium and new CSI. It has nothing to do with intelligent design but is a part of the natural state of the universe. My hat would be off to that person who can prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
When I said that CSI was not developed out of observations of the real world, I meant scientifically developed. Specifically I was referring to Dembski's work, the work you keep referring to, as being made up. That's because it isn't based upon real world scientific observations. It is instead based upon the kind of superficial unscientific observations contained in your Leslie Orgel quote. Those kinds of observations are fine as a starting point from which to initiate scientific research, but the concept of CSI still hasn't developed beyond that point. That's why it's made up.
quote:Obviously there is ZERO CSI because it's complexity does not exceed 400 bits. The absence of any research underpinning this claim is why CSI is made up, unless you can describe for us how it was demonstrated that 400 bits is the threshold for CSI that is evidence of intelligence. By the way, please stop including this as a bare link:
It you have points to make which depend upon material in this link, then please make the points in your own words and use the link as a supporting reference. Since it's 41 pages long, please include page numbers.
quote:Imaginary things do not exist, undetectable things do, but we can't detect them. Liek the radio waves before we could detect them. They were here we just couldn't detect them. But before we could detect radio waves, how would one tell whether they were imaginary or not? So right now we're in roughly the same situation with respect to your designer as we once were with radio waves. Since we have no evidence of the designer at this time, how do you tell whether he's imaginary or just not yet detected? CSI cannot be the answer, because CSI is as made up as your designer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
And why he faked all the evidence for evolution I believe in evolution. Evolution is a robust term. (The following sentence is somewhat speculative but I have had a lot of speculation in my mind which I don't post.) We make the mistake of seeing evolution through the prism of our own perspective. If time is irrelevant to the designer, you can take the entire evolutionary development of organisms and play it back in 10 seconds, you have nothing short of a miracle.
And yet it seems to scientists that they've found the exact opposite. It depends on your frame of reference. If you are using the book of Genesis then yes. If you are using history itself, the trend for intelligent design is up for sure! We knew nothing about punctuated equilibrium or irreducible complexity or CSI 20, 30, or 40 years ago. The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow.
An ... interesting ... statement. If the information had turned out to be analog, would creationists have all given up and gone home? What if? What if? What if? Don't trip.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Punctuated Equilibria is more than 30 years old. Irreducible complexity (as a prediction of evolutionary theory) is even older. CSI is just a partly-baked idea beset with serious - and likely insurmountable practical problems. The only "use" of it is bluffing the way Smooth Operator is (trying) to do. On the other side we have ID increasingly failing to do what it was originally meant to do (get creationism into schools). It doesn't look so good for ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
traderdrew writes: You must be billions of years old.! In a very real sense I am! And I find the notion so much more fulfilling than the idea that I am 6,000 years old and was put here by this magic guy in the sky. But if your point is to ask how could I make such a statement without having the entirety of time to come to that conclusion: Simple. I don't need the entirety of time to make informed observations about the universe any more than I need to be an evolutionary biologist to participate on EVC. The knowledge we have is enough to reach informed conclusions.
traderdrew writes: I think pointing to an intelligent designer makes it easier to explain. It may raise different types of questions. Those would be the type questions you may not like. There are no "type of questions" I don't like. I like all questions. You are asking the question "How did God go about designing things?". I am asking the question "How did things come to exist?" - I "like" both questions, as they seek answers, but your question is heavily loaded and makes invalidating assumptions. You need to ask yourself which question is more honest and objective. As for "CSI", I think Percy dealt with that adequately more than once now. It is these sorts of unquantifiable, unsubstantiated attempts to make creationism sound like science that loses you guys a lot of respect from actual peer-reviewed scientists. If you expect any theory of intelligent design to become mainstream, first you have to play by the rules: evidentially based, peer-reviewed, experimentally tested, and so on. Creationists seem to think that mainstream science is out to quash these ideas because they include a designer. That is simply not the case. The ideas are rubbished because they are not evidence-based and do not hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Court cases around the USA (and probably elsewhere) have come to this conclusion in a legal sense, concluding that in order to call ID science you'd have to start calling astrology and alchemy science as well. You'd basically have to redefine science, a wholly unnecessary and dangerous prospect. Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The gaps in neo-Darwinism are growing and one of the predictions of ID says those gaps will continue to grow. Name a real scientific theory that is so hingent upon another theory failing in order to be correct. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024