Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 286 of 1273 (540281)
12-23-2009 9:49 AM


Why the Proposed Connection Between CSI and Intelligence is Bunk
Consider a single gene of a simple organism like a bacterium for which you then measure the CSI of that gene and get a number.
The bacterium then divides into two bacteria, and one of the bacteria experiences a single insertion mutation in that gene of a single codon (three nucleotides). You measure the CSI of this modified gene and get a different number. The CSI of the gene is now different than it was before, and it came about by completely natural means, no intelligence required.
Note that this also invalidates Smooth Operator's mathematically nonsensical argument that the CSI of genes can only be changed by an intelligence and not naturally. His claim couldn't possibly be true if CSI is a function of the actual sequence of nucleotides in the gene.
Of course, CSI is actually made up, so no one will ever present here anything as concrete as an equation for CSI that is a function of the nucleotides in a gene the way we can with Shannon information. For example, the amount of Shannon information in a gene with 253 codons is (assuming a codon represents one of 20 amino acids):
All that need be done to answer the claim that CSI is made up is to produce the equivalent equation for CSI showing how much is in this gene of 253 codons.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2009 9:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 289 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 10:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 287 of 1273 (540282)
12-23-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Percy
12-23-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Why the Proposed Connection Between CSI and Intelligence is Bunk
In fact the CSI MAY be different (and probably is) but it isn't so easily calculated. CSI is the probability of the specification being met without design.
Simply trying to generate the probability of the sequence forming by simple random assembly is wrong because it lacks a valid specification AND because it ignores other ways in which it could have formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 12-23-2009 9:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 288 of 1273 (540283)
12-23-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dr Jack
12-22-2009 10:25 AM


Re: Please explain E. coli
quote:
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.
I totally agree with you. That is why the experiments that show genetic entropy, trump any notions of evolution.
quote:
Then why don't we see any effect of it?
Yes, we do. We see them in ALL species.
quote:
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.
No. We do not know how much mutations would they have accumulated. To predict real numbers is not possible, simply because we do not know what was the initial population size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 10:25 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 9:46 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 695 by Dr Jack, posted 01-15-2010 4:58 PM Smooth Operator has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 289 of 1273 (540285)
12-23-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Percy
12-23-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Why the Proposed Connection Between CSI and Intelligence is Bunk
Note that this also invalidates Smooth Operator's mathematically nonsensical argument that the CSI of genes can only be changed by an intelligence and not naturally
By the insertion of three nucleotides? This is another case of something that I hope lurkers see through. Things like this happen to my posts all of the time. Smooth Operator couldn't have possibly implied this.
A real refutation would have been to show how 400 complimentary bits of novel information would have been inserted into a genome. We can assume this has been done if you wish to like so many other things we can assume around here.
My heart isn't into this and I really need to do some studying up on this. I obviously am not defending my position nearly as well as I could. I would be willing to discuss these things with people without even mentioning ID but that is not going to happen around here. There are questions that I can think of but I think I will just turn into something else.
You all have a nice holiday!
I keep thinking of things to add to this post. Theoretically, we can add and add information to the genome. Either natural selection or neutral mutations have to preserve it. Consider first, insertions, deletions and substitutions roughly happen at the same rate. Secondly, almost no set of mutations has produced a new protein binding site in any lab in the world. Only one new one has been documented in a human. So have organisms bulit new sets of coherent machinery in labs across the world? Thirdly, organisms have been known to shed their genetic patrimony including E. coli's ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. Why? Apparently it saves the organism energy.
What is happening in our heads is one thing but what happens in the world, could be something entirely different.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 12-23-2009 9:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 290 of 1273 (540290)
12-23-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by PaulK
12-22-2009 10:42 AM


Re: l
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.
Enzymatic activity is a subset of protein activity. Enzymatic activity depends on teh structure of the proteins. Therefore, if we know what amount of change will affect the catalysis, the same amount will affect whatever the flagellum is doing.
quote:
OK, so Dembski;s wrong. There goes the whole CSI argument.
Explain why.
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).
Yes, and that means that you have to measure the informational content that is expressed in the structure you are looking at. Int his case the flagellum.
quote:
You just managed to contradict yourself again. Your specfication is directly read off of the E Coli flagellum.
No, because we have a description called "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", that is independent of the 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.
And how exactly are those otehr flagella different than this one? They aren't. That is why we are talking about the same thing.
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%.
You just said that no more than 20% can change. That means that on average 20% change is the maximum amount of change.
quote:
Why, exactly ?
You said it's a specification. That means that it has an independently given pattern. So go on, describe it,a nd tell me it's pattern.
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;
No, because there are no regularities in flagellum's formation.
quote:
They come with evidence that allows us to work out the dates.
Really? Show me that evidence.
quote:
It doesn't., of course.
Than why the hell did you bring it up int he first place!? Yes, I know it doesn't help you. That's what I've been telling you all along.
quote:
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.
If I'm only counting a subset of all deleterious mutations, I would have to increase the number if I wee to take into account all of them.
quote:
Your estimate of the rate of deleterious mutations appearing would be even sillier.
The rate isn't important. I could ahve picked any number. Nothing would ahve changed.
quote:
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that.
1+1=2. 1+2=3. Does by your logic 1+3=2, or 1+4=1?
No obviously not. The more mutations, the faster the genetic meltdown occures. The larger the population, the slower the genetic meltdown occures. But it's still inevitable. It doesn't matter what numbers you include, the end is the same. Only differnece is how long will it take. A deterministic process has always got the same end result.
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.
It's possible that that happens sometimes. But that's not the rule. The rule is that mutations accumulate.
quote:
In sexually reproducing species, of course, the mutations are NOT necessarily passed on to the offspring.
Yes, but on average they are.
quote:
But ONLY in certain circumstances, and always involving low populations.
No, in all circumstances and in all populations. And you still didn't define what is a small population. This here model shows that even large populations accumulate slightly deleterious mutations. Which are the worst because they do not get removed by natural selection.
quote:
Here we have shown that accumulation of deleterious mutations may be a significant threat to large metapopulations and would be expected to exacerbate the effect of habitat loss or fragmentation on metapopulation viability. From a genetic perspective, a single large fragmented metapopulation is much more vulnerable to extinction than a panmictic population of the same overall number of individuals.
Just a moment...
quote:
Basic statistics. Chance variations have less overall effect on large numbers of trials.
No. I'm not talking about statistics. I'm talking about evidence from nature.
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 !
Again. I want evidence from nature.
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.
No. It is true that because of sexual recombinations teh offspring will on average inherit only half of their parents mutations. That is true. But they do, and they have to add their own. That is just how it goes. All people have their own mutations.
As you can see here, about 175 (nearly) neutral mutations are introduced in every single person born. And as I said before. These are the worst possible mutations becasue they have such a small effect on fitness that they do nto get selected out. Yet they still destroy genetic information, and sccumulate in the genome.
quote:
Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91—238). As a minimum estimate of the fraction of the genome under constraint, we consider only coding sequences.
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2009 10:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Coyote, posted 12-23-2009 11:35 AM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 305 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2009 5:18 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 291 of 1273 (540293)
12-23-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 12:24 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
I see your game, and I'm no longer willing to play it.
Than why post 2 more posts directed at me? Why don't you just go somewhere else to play?
quote:
I have offered you detailed evidence for everything I've posted - many many times.
No. You offered vague assertations. I destroyed all of them by showing you links to real scientific evidence. And now you're sad and angry.
quote:
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.
What can I say, except that drugs have destroyed your mind. That's like asking an evolutionist to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Are you really that drugged up that you don't understand that ID does not deal with the mechanisms of design implementation?
quote:
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.
No, I jsut wanted to explain to you that the fossil record does not support you insane notions of evolution.
quote:
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.
What an unintelligent chance worshipper. I'm not a Christian so all your attempts of trying to be funny are falling flat on their face. And the funny thing is, your religion of evolution came from the old Asian and Native American creation myths where they thought that people and animals were related. So, you are basicly following their religion. You are the religious fanatic, not me.
quote:
Timmy, when you use words you don't understand you make yourself look even dumber.
Oh chance worshipper, why are you still here, isn't it time for yout to go and pray to saint Darwin, so he may let you evolve?
quote:
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?
And again, you're still here? Why aren't you praying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 12:24 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 11:37 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 299 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 10:48 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 301 by bluescat48, posted 12-23-2009 11:18 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 292 of 1273 (540295)
12-23-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
12-22-2009 1:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
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.
The Design Inference - 272 pages about CSI and how it works.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages about CSI and how it works
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages about CSI and how it works.
When start reading, and tell me exaclty which point in those publications are not scientific.
quote:
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.
Are you insane? Did your doctore give you an overdose last time he gave you your perscription pills?
I already said why 400 it the threshold. In this very topic. Go and search for the explanation, I'm not going to bother anymore since youre so irritating.
quote:
By the way, please stop including this as a bare link:
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
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.
I'm sorry but no, I'm not going to stop. I have already pointed out many times what exactly that paper shows. Yet you didn't deal with my arguments, and instead just called CSI a made up claim. So untill you show me what exactly is wrong witht hat paper, I'm not going to stop posting it as a bare link. You do nto deserve to be treated respectfuly.
quote:
But before we could detect radio waves, how would one tell whether they were imaginary or not?
We obviously couldn't. Does that mean they actually were imaginary?
quote:
So right now we're in roughly the same situation with respect to your designer as we once were with radio waves.
No, we are not. You may be in that situation but I'm not. CSI si a reliable mark of intelligence. And untill you tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with it, you are the one who has problem with evidence, not me.
quote:
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.
Of course it's the answer. If it's not. Than, for the 100th time. Here is the link, point out the flaws.
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 12-22-2009 1:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 12-23-2009 1:17 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 293 of 1273 (540296)
12-23-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
No.
Yes.
quote:
You asked: and I really don't see how to break the concept "small" down into more primitive concepts.
Did you graduate at the University Of Not Knowing What Small Means?
I know what small is, but obviously you don't. I know it's a relative term, but you don't. I know that you can't say that something will only be affected by something else if it is something in relation to something else. Therefore, you can't say that a population will only be affected by genetic entropy if it is small, because that is a relative term. A population can be small relative to some other population, and large relative to soem other IN THE SAME TIME! Thereofre, genetic entropy affects it without it being small or not.
quote:
We know that purifying selection operates more efficiently on large populations.
Yes, and I'm the one who said that first. But you obviously didn't get my question straight. I saked you how will increasing the population FULLY HALT genetic entropy, not just slow it down. Obviously it won't, it will just slow it down.
quote:
This seems rather muddled.
That's becasue you dn't understand simple mathematical functions.
quote:
Suppose, for example, I have a data set for a case of the Traveling Salesman Problem. I apply some off-the-shelf optimization algorithm such as good old random search, let us say of order 1000. On average, I get out some solution in the top 1/1000th of possible solutions.
Have I gained any "information", according to your criteria?
If you answer "yes", then clearly your argument is bogus.
If you got better than average results, than you gained information. But my argument is not wrong, becasue what the algorithm did was simply transmit the information from point A to point B. And that would aslo mean that you selected a better than average algorithm. But the question arises now, how did you get the algorithm? Because the information was not created, it was simply transmited. It's origin is still unclear.
quote:
But if you answer "no", then it appears that algorithms can solve optimization problems without increasing "information", and your argument does not relate to the question of whether evolution can do what it is claimed to do. It would relate only to the irrelevant question of whether evolution can do something which is unnecessary to the solution of optimization problems.
They can solve problems only if they already have problem specific knowledge embedded in them. If they don't, on average every one of them is as good as the other.
quote:
If unsupported assertion was equivalent to evidence, you guys would be home and dry. Creationists are good at unsupported assertion.
What's unsupported about this here explanation?
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
quote:
As a perfect illustration of the theory of evolution, which predicts less purifying selection for smaller populations.
Which means that the same thing will happen in larger populations, only more efficiently
quote:
Consider the first article. They attempted to induce genetic meltdown by repeatedly artificially forcing populations through bottlenecks. When the bottleneck was of size 300 or greater, this did not produce genetic meltdown.
Not in the time the experiment took place. But if it lasted longer, it would have produced that.
quote:
The second paper, again (using body size as a proxy for low Ne) finds "less efficient purifying selection" associated with smaller populations.
Exactly. Natural selection is better at doing it's job in larger populations. But better does not mean PERFECT. Genetic entropy still exist, and the end effect is the same.
quote:
And the third paper? "The risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals"
Which again means that smaller populations have more risk of genetic meltdown than larger populations. Not that large populations have NO RISK WHATSOEVER.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 6:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2009 10:37 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 294 of 1273 (540298)
12-23-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Genetic entropy (again)
The more mutations, the faster the genetic meltdown occures. The larger the population, the slower the genetic meltdown occures. But it's still inevitable. It doesn't matter what numbers you include, the end is the same. Only differnece is how long will it take. A deterministic process has always got the same end result.
Why, in 3.5 billion years, has this "genetic meltdown" not occurred?
Starting from very small populations one would think that it would have occured immediately, eh?
But it didn't. The whole concept is disproved by the history of life on earth.
It seems to me that this is an idea which you are most likely pushing because of a belief in biblical literalism and the "fall," not because of some overwhelming scientific evidence. Much like your geocentrism. (Do you also believe in a young earth and a global flood in historic times?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 10:38 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 295 of 1273 (540299)
12-23-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 10:51 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
I destroyed all of them by showing you links to real scientific evidence.
No, you've denied understand how to count. You've claimed to not understand chronological time.
That's not counter an argument, that's just being a douche bag.
Are you really that drugged up that you don't understand that ID does not deal with the mechanisms of design implementation?
You can't claim design if you can't explain how design can happen.
I'm going to write this slow. See if you can get a friend to help you understand.
Evolution ASSUMES that life exists because it is a fact that it does. Evolution does not need to explain where life came from because it does not attempt to prove the existence of life.
ID ASSUMES that there is a mechanism through which design is done in order to prove that there is design. That's ASSUMING that there is design in order to prove design.
That's a monumental fail.
By those standards, ALL suggestions are equally valid.
For example:
Intelligent Falling doesn't need to explain the force of attraction between two objects. The fact that there is a force is evidence enough that the Designer is pushing things together.
Only in THAT case we can ACTUALLY demonstrate that there is a force.
In YOUR case you can't even demonstrate design.
Pathetic!
And the funny thing is, your religion of evolution came from the old Asian and Native American creation myths where they thought that people and animals were related.
So to the list of counting, chronological time, sexual reproduction and basic biology we can now add history and anthropology.
Sorry, Beavis but animism =/= evolution in any way shape or form.
Seriously, did you attend even a day of school in your entire life?
ndgnyrstllhrWhrntyprng
Again with the gibberish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 10:51 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-25-2009 6:24 AM Nuggin has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 296 of 1273 (540304)
12-23-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
The Design Inference - 272 pages about CSI and how it works.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages about CSI and how it works
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages about CSI and how it works.
When start reading, and tell me exaclty which point in those publications are not scientific
So in other words, you can't tell us any of the science behind CSI. No surprise, because there's no science in Dembski's books.
As described in the Forum Guidelines, references should be provided in support of, not in place of, one's own arguments. If all you're going to provide is book titles and links then please stop doing this. If you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask.
I already said why 400 it the threshold. In this very topic. Go and search for the explanation, I'm not going to bother anymore since youre so irritating.
I was hoping for a better explanation than the handwave you provided in Message 105:
Smooth Operator in Message 105 writes:
The number 400 isn't arbitrary though. It's the -log2 of 10120. That is the number of bit operations the observable universe could have performed in about 15 billion years on all the elementary particles it has, which is 1090. Since to fully search a sequence space of 400 bits is 10120 bit operation, or trials, that means that random chance in the whole universe could have only produced 400 bits of information.
This is just nonsense. If we consider the observable universe a closed system, then of course information is conserved. No additional information can be produced, and no information can be destroyed (the debate about black holes notwithstanding). This is a known law of physics, because of the equivalence that has been demonstrated between the laws of thermodynamics and information theory.
But you can increase information in one part of the universe by decreasing it in another. The information in our part of the universe could have increased an enormous amount simply by taking it from another part of the universe. And in fact, the earth gains an incredible amount of information from the sun everyday. We also radiate a lot of information back into space.
Given the amount of information the Earth is gaining and losing everyday, as it has been doing for billions of years, it isn't possible to place limits on the amount of information that might have been gained, and certainly not a 400 bit limit.
So no limitation exists on the amount by which information can increase locally, and more importantly, no connection has been made limiting the creation of information to intelligence. Information theory tells us that all matter in the universe is exchanging information with all other matter in the universe all the time.
Even worse for you and Dembski, no quantifiable definition of intelligence suitable for use in physics equations even exists, another reason why it's undeniable that Dembski is making things up. Of course, nothing else is possible since there's no body of scientific literature that was produced as a result of the research establishing CSI as a valid scientific concept, since no such research has ever been done.
No, we are not. You may be in that situation but I'm not. CSI is a reliable mark of intelligence. And untill you tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with it, you are the one who has problem with evidence, not me.
Then show your evidence. Show us one single application of CSI using Dembski's mathematics, just one little example, and we'll tell you what's wrong. Just take one little stretch of DNA and calculate the CSI, then do the same for a rock, and compare the two. But you can't do that, can you? Because if it could be done Dembski would have done it a long time ago, and you wouldn't have marched off unarmed into battle.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 11:01 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-25-2009 6:36 AM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 297 of 1273 (540327)
12-23-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Please explain E. coli
I totally agree with you. That is why the experiments that show genetic entropy ...
... in small populations ...
... trump any notions of evolution.
... in small populations.
The very experiment you cite shows that researchers were unable to produce genetic meltdown if the genetic bottlenecks that they repeatedly artificially induced consisted of 300 or more individuals.
Thanks for proving that you're wrong, it saves us the trouble.
Yes, we do. We see them in ALL species.
Evidence?
No. We do not know how much mutations would they have accumulated. To predict real numbers is not possible, simply because we do not know what was the initial population size.
The people who disseminate the fairy-tale of "genetic entropy" have made it clear that they are talking about near-neutral mutations, the fixation rate of which is to a good approximation independent of population size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 10:03 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 1273 (540329)
12-23-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Yes.
This is hardly a point on which you are likely to be able to deceive me, since I know many people with whom I am in agreement on the definition of evolution.
I know what small is, but obviously you don't. I know it's a relative term, but you don't.
You appear to be lying to me about me. Really, how do you think that's going to work out?
Therefore, you can't say that a population will only be affected by genetic entropy if it is small, because that is a relative term. A population can be small relative to some other population, and large relative to soem other IN THE SAME TIME! Thereofre, genetic entropy affects it without it being small or not.
Yes, and I'm the one who said that first. But you obviously didn't get my question straight. I saked you how will increasing the population FULLY HALT genetic entropy, not just slow it down. Obviously it won't, it will just slow it down.
The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones.
Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.
That's becasue you dn't understand simple mathematical functions.
This is a particularly stupid lie to tell to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in mathematics.
If you got better than average results, than you gained information. But my argument is not wrong, becasue what the algorithm did was simply transmit the information from point A to point B.
Has information been gained, or simply been moved about?
If it's simply been moved about, then apparently moving information about is all that's required to solve optimization problems, and it is not necessary for evolution to generate information in order to work.
If it has been gained, then your argument fails.
And that would aslo mean that you selected a better than average algorithm. But the question arises now, how did you get the algorithm?
I said --- "off-the-shelf". Random search is good for any optimization problem. It's one size fits all.
Because the information was not created, it was simply transmited. It's origin is still unclear.
Again, if it is possible to solve optimization problems just by "transmitting" information, then apparently this is all evolution needs to do to solve optimization problems.
They can solve problems only if they already have problem specific knowledge embedded in them. If they don't, on average every one of them is as good as the other.
My goodness, you really don't understand the No Free Lunch Theorem at all, do you?
Well, it's your lucky day, since I explained it in my post #165. Read it over, and if there's anything there you don't understand, get back to me and I'll talk you through it.
But until you know what it is, I suggest you stop talking about it, or you will continue to produce inadvertent moments of comedy such as this.
What's unsupported about this here explanation?
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
The assumption that only design can produce CSI.
Not in the time the experiment took place. But if it lasted longer, it would have produced that.
Your daydreams are not evidence.
Which means that the same thing will happen in larger populations, only more efficiently
Exactly. Natural selection is better at doing it's job in larger populations. But better does not mean PERFECT. Genetic entropy still exist, and the end effect is the same.
You appear to be repeating yourself, so let me do the same.
The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones.
Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.
Which again means that smaller populations have more risk of genetic meltdown than larger populations. Not that large populations have NO RISK WHATSOEVER.
Technically, I suppose that's true --- since genetic drift is statistical in nature, there's always some risk. But if it's quadrillions to one against, we may for practical purposes neglect it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 11:16 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-25-2009 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 299 of 1273 (540330)
12-23-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Smooth Operator
12-23-2009 10:51 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
No. You offered vague assertations. I destroyed all of them by showing you links to real scientific evidence.
Are you talking here about the papers you linked to which proved you wrong about genetic entropy?
What can I say, except that drugs have destroyed your mind. That's like asking an evolutionist to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Are you really that drugged up that you don't understand that ID does not deal with the mechanisms of design implementation?
I believe he does indeed realize that this is one of the shortcomings of ID. I think that's why he's taunting you with it.
No, I jsut wanted to explain to you that the fossil record does not support you insane notions of evolution.
This falsehood is off-topic --- if you wish to be wrong about the fossil record, start a new thread. This thread is for you to be wrong about genetic entropy and to pretend that you understand the No Free Lunch Theorem.
What an unintelligent chance worshipper. I'm not a Christian so all your attempts of trying to be funny are falling flat on their face. And the funny thing is, your religion of evolution came from the old Asian and Native American creation myths where they thought that people and animals were related. So, you are basicly following their religion. You are the religious fanatic, not me.
Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?
Oh chance worshipper, why are you still here, isn't it time for yout to go and pray to saint Darwin, so he may let you evolve?
And again, you're still here? Why aren't you praying?
You appear to have been driven literally insane with rage.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-23-2009 10:51 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 1273 (540331)
12-23-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 12:16 AM


Re: ID Hides
I respect the work of Dr. Meyer and he didn't give me permission to post a gem like that, not that I have been in contact with him.
Well, this is peculiar.
An ID proponent, who presumably would like nothing more than to convince everyone of intelligent design, has published what you consider to be twelve excellent arguments for ID --- and you won't tell anyone about them because he hasn't personally given you permission to do so?
Don't you suppose he wants everyone to know about them?
I haven't been in contact with Wolpert and Macready, but I don't think I need their permission to explain the No Free Lunch Theorem. Nor do I hear you chiding Smooth Operator for telling us what Dembski thinks without (presumably) asking his permission.
People publish their ideas because they want them out there. Do you really think Meyer would be angry if his views got a wider audience?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 12:16 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 11:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024