What exactly is ID?

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

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?

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

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.

quote:

---

No, you've denied understand how to count. You've claimed to not understand chronological time.

---

Now you're just being what you know how to be the best. An amoral atheistic liar. I never said that. I said that in order to explain to you how your ideas about fossils being evidence of evolution, we will have to go in detail about how this notion works.And when do you intend to leave the topic already? You said you do not want to play anymore?

quote:

---

That's not counter an argument, that's just being a douche bag.

---

This is just being an atheist.

quote:

---

You can't claim design if you can't explain how design can happen.

---

Yes I can. Because to detect design we do not have to know the mechanism. Even if we proposed the mechanism for the Rosetta Stone, we could be wrong about it. Yet we would infer design even without knowing the mechanism.

quote:

---

I'm going to write this slow. See if you can get a friend to help you understand.

---

Don't bother. I suggest to you that you should leave the topic.

quote:

---

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 doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how design gets implemented because ID assumes there was a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical neccessity. If we detect design, it means also that there was a designer and a mechanism that he used to implement the design.

quote:

---

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.

---

No. ID assumes there was a mechanism because we know from experience that designers implement design through a mechanism. ID does not assume mechanism to prove design. ID detects marks of design that reliably signal design to detect design.

quote:

---

That's a monumental fail.

---

If ID actually did that, yes it would be a gigantic fail.

quote:

---

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!

---

Yup, pathetic. Building a strawman and putting so much work into it just to later find out that your whole argument was based on the wrong assumptions and misrepresentation.

quote:

---

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?

---

Chance worshipper, educate yourself.Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

quote:

---

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.

---

There is a difference between me not wanting to show you something, and you not wanting to accept what I'm showing you.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why should I stop? I rpovided my arguments plenty of times, and only thing I got back in return is that they are wrong, non-scientific, and other crap atheist like to throw out at others when they have nothing to say. Why should I bother to explain anything to you when I already did thousands of times before, yet I got no real response back?

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. Of course information can increase. Any written book is an increase in information. Unless you claim that information was contained in the paper and ink all the time.

quote:

---

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.

---

And yes, if you define your information as Shannon Information, than yes, that's true. But if you define it as CSI, than no. And if you're going to tell me that CSI is false, than you will have to tell me exactly why.

quote:

---

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.

---

True for Shannon information, wrong for CSI.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, true for Shannon information, not true for CSI. When teh Sun sends out signals, it only sends out statistical information. It does not send out that information in any known syntax, no semantics, no apobetics or pragmatics. There is no code that information is coded in. CSI is always coded information and can be interpreted by an independent coding system.

quote:

---

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.

---

What a retarded argument. Information defined as Kolmogorov Complexity is not computeable, so what? It's still a valid definition of science. It's just not computeable.

quote:

---

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.

---

What drugs are you using? How many times do I have to say that rocks have zero CSI? Read NFL, you have a calcualtion for a flagellum there.

quote:

---

... in small populations ...

---

What's a small population?

quote:

---

... in small populations.

---

What's a small population.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, in the TIME THAT EXPERIMENT TOOK PLACE IN! Why do you think the meltdown would not have occured if the experiment lasted longer? What magic would ahve saved the population? Do you know the name of that magic?

quote:

---

Thanks for proving that you're wrong, it saves us the trouble.

---

No, what I proved is that you do not know math.You think that 1+1=2, and that 10+10=20, but no, 100+100 DOES NOT EQUAL 200.Why? What is the sifference?

quote:

---

Evidence?

---

You want me to show you tests for ALL THE MILLIONS of species that exist on Earth? Nothing like that has been done. But if you have even a bit of common sense you would extrapolate from the results that we do have.

quote:

---

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.

---

We just do not know. We can't estimate that. There is nothing wrong in not knowing something. If you are interested in the ultimate truth, better go and deal with philosophy.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yet not with others. And since you do not know ALL people in the world, don't say you agree with all of them.

quote:

---

You appear to be lying to me about me. Really, how do you think that's going to work out?

---

Define what is small and we'll see.

quote:

---

The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones.

---

So? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.

---

No, this will never happen. But let's assume that it will. Again, so what? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

This is a particularly stupid lie to tell to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in mathematics.

---

OMG!!! You have a PhD in math and you found my explanation of NFL har do understand! LOL! I can't believe to what kind of people PhD's will be given today! This is laughable!

quote:

---

Has information been gained, or simply been moved about?

---

Obviously, moved from point A to point B.

quote:

---

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.

---

The information has been gained in point B by moving it from point A. And at this particular problem, evolutionary algorithm was suited well to do it's job, and it has done it just fine.

quote:

---

If it has been gained, then your argument fails.

---

Wrong. Because the algorithms do not create new information. They simply move it from point A to point B. You see, in order to solve a particular problem by an algorithm, you have to give it problem-specific knowledge. Meaning, you have to pick the righ algorithm for a specific problem.And now the question arises, how do you pick teh algorithm? Well, obviously, you have to have some information about the problem, to pick the right algorithm. And the fact it that amount of information, is NEVER less than simply knowing the answer you wre looking for by the algorithm in the first place. Therefore, the information gets conserved, and the NFL theorem is shown to be true. So in order to pick the right algorithm, you already had to know the answer for picking the right algorithm. Which means that you had the information all along. And by picking the right algorithm to do the job, you provided new information, by providin problem-specific information.

quote:

---

I said --- "off-the-shelf". Random search is good for any optimization problem. It's one size fits all.

---

You can't just randomly pick an algorithm every time to do te best job.

quote:

---

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.

---

True. But, the question is, where did evolution get the information to solve the problem in the first place?In other words, you are claiming that the laws of nature are set up in such a way that the mechanism of random mutations, and natural selection, is an algorithm that works better than average and can input new information from nature into the genomes of living organisms. Fine, but we know that that information was not created, but transmited from nature by the algorithm of evolution. So the question of the origin of information is still not clear. How did you get the right structure of the universe and the natural laws for evolution to work?Let me demonstrate the vertical NFL theorem for you. You see this is the problem. You have a search space of 4 possible solution. And you have to find the target. How are you going to find it? So, to find a target we have 3 possible explanations. 1.) Chance, 2.) Algorithm, 3.) Intelligence.If you use random search, that is chance, the chances of finding it are 1/4. Which is fine if you have all the time you want. But what if you didn't have enough time? You would ahve to use an algorithm. An algorithm can be something like, 1, 2, 3, 4. Or, 2, 1, 4, 3, etc.We both agree that on average they are all equally good. The first algorithm will work best if the target is in the box no. 1. Becasue that's the first place it will be looking at. It will be the wors if the tharget is in number 4, because that is the last place it will be looking at. The similar goes for the second algorithm. It will give out best results if teh target is in number 2, and the worst if the target is in number 3.So, now if for some reason, chance alone is nto enough, and you have to resort to an algorithm to find your target, you come into a problem. And here is where the vertical NFL theorem kicks in. If you say you have an algorithm to find the target, than you have to explain how you found the algorithm in the first place. And search for that algoritm by chance is not easier than searching the original target. Becasue as you can see, there is an exponential riese in sequence space when searching for all the possible algorithms! Now the chance of finding the right algorithm is 1/24!So, again, you have to find the right algorithm. How are you going to do it? 1.) Chance, 2.) Algorithm, 3.) Intelligence. So an obvious conclusion is that if chance can't help you find the original target, it's not going to help you find this one eitehr becasue the initial chances were 1/4 and now the chances are 1/24. Therefore, chance is precluded.The second answer is yet a higher order algorithm to find this one. Obviously this one is wrong, becasue that will jsut generate an even higher order search space. So we have an infinite regress if we invoke another algorithm.And the third and last answer is - intelligence. This is obviously the best answer since we know intellignece can create information on it's own. Therefore, to trace inforamtion to it's ultimate source, we invoke an intellignece.To put this in evolutionary perspective. If you invoke evolution to explain information in genomes of living organisms, you have to explain how you got just those laws right in the first place. Meaning you would have to claim that out of ALL possible combinations that the universe could be existing in, we just happen to be living in one that evolution works in, by chance! Which is a stupid answer anyway.That is why an intelligence is a better explanation.

quote:

---

My goodness, you really don't understand the No Free Lunch Theorem at all, do you?

---

Of course I do, why do you keep embarassing yourself? You are the one who has a PhD yet does not know how simple functions work.

quote:

---

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.

---

Your post is obviously wrong. You said that when someone claims that one algorithm on average does not outperform other, that he is actually claiming that it can not in any way outperform it. Wrong, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that in order to do that, it has to take into account problem specific knowledge.

quote:

---

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.

---

You should have gotten your PhD in a clown school. You really are funny.

quote:

---

The assumption that only design can produce CSI.

---

It's not an assumption. It's the only observed cause that can. When you show me some other that can, than feel free to propose it.

quote:

---

Your daydreams are not evidence.

---

Basicly what you said now is that 10+10=20 but 100+100 do not equal 200.

quote:

---

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.

---

And let me repeat myself once more.No, this will never happen. But let's assume that it will. Again, so what? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it doesn't matter what the odds are, becasue the end result is always teh same. The entropy is going only one way. And it doesn't matter if it happens in 10 generations, or 100, or 1000, or million, or 100 million generations, or in a quadrillion generations, it's still happening, and the end result is genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

Are you talking here about the papers you linked to which proved you wrong about genetic entropy?

---

How exactly do they prove me wrong?

quote:

---

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.

---

That's like saying that not being able to explain the origin of life is a shortcoming of the evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

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.

---

It can also be for discussing the fossil record. And for yout o show off your worthless PhD. Like I said, you should have went to a clown college.

quote:

---

Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?

---

Wait so you are actually telling me that I'm a Christian? Well than fine, you're a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

You appear to have been driven literally insane with rage.

---

Actually, I'm laughing while I'my typing this!

quote:

---

Of course we can't know anything of the sort. Different properties may be tolerant of differing amounts of change.

---

We know that if we change enough of the structure, the proteins become worthless in any way.

quote:

---

YOU SAID SO! It is really very simple. If Dembski's measue of information is wrong - and you said that it was - the whole thing falls apart.

---

But I never said it was wrong.

quote:

---

Well obviously to do the calculation you must do the calculation. What we mustn't do is to do a different calculation that will very likely produce an inflated result.

---

And we never did that. I increased the chance of the flagellum forming as much as I could.

quote:

---

But you aren't using that specification in your calculations. What you are using is based directly on the actual structure of the E Coli flagellum. So it is a fabrication.

---

A fabrication is when an observed pattern does not match any other pattern.A specification is when an observed pattern matches some other. E. Coli's flagellum matches another pattern. Therefore it's not a fabrication, but a specification.

quote:

---

You're just assuming they aren't different. Why don't you give me a source that actually supports your claim ?

---

You are the one who is claiming they are different. And if they are different, they are irrelevant to our discussion.

quote:

---

I didn't say anything about snowflakes. You introduced them to the discussion for no apparent reason demanding that I give a specifciation. Therefore - since the reason is a complete falsehood - I decline.

---

You are the one who brought them up and claimed they have a spcification. Well, what's their specification?

quote:

---

So we are back to assuming that flagella CAN'T grow. Sorry, but you are wrong. There must be regularities underlying the process of growth. Otherwise it would require an intelligent designer individually assembling each one as Dembski proved.

---

I'm not talking about growth. I'm talking about accounting for the information that is used to build aflagellum. Flagellum's growth does not account for it. Flagellum's growth is the expression of already existing information. What we need to do, is account for how that information comes about in the first place.

quote:

---

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of geology. Let's just say that by a numhber of methods (mainly radiometric dating, but others too) geologists have worked out dates for the depoition of many strata.

---

Too bad those methods are flawed in their initial assumptions.

quote:

---

Because you forgot to mention that you were only considering a subset of deleterious mutations. When we consider the whole set of deleterious mutations it DOES help, because many disadvantages may be offset by other advantages (this is even true in the case of single mutations, such as sickle-cell).

---

How does that help you when you're sterile or stillborn?

quote:

---

No. Your estimate is for ALL deleterious mutations, but you ignore a lot of them so you have to reduce the number (which was too high in the first place).

---

How can I both ignore and include all mutations at the same time?

quote:

---

That is also wrong. Because the slower the rate that dleterious mutations enter the gene pool, the lower the rate of removal that natural selection has to achieve to counter it.

---

Does that completely halt genetic entropy?

quote:

---

In other words, your evidence that deleterious mutations must inevitably accumulate to the point of genetic meltdown is your assumption that such must be the case.

---

No, it's math. Math is proof. It's not a assumption. If it's an assumption that 1+1=2, than you're insane.

quote:

---

So you keep saying, but simply repeating the claim does not make it true. In fact in a large population rare events will occur, and natural selection can work with those rare events to spread the benefits through the population.

---

Natural selection will work better in larger than in smaller populations. But it will NEVER be perfect. Therefore geentic entropy will always occure.

quote:

---

NONE of the papers makes that claim.

---

It doesn't have to, you have have common sense to extrapolate. If small populations have more problems with genetic entropy, than larger populations will have less problems. But tell me how does that mean that some populations will have no problems whatsoever with genetic entropy?

quote:

---

By definition even a slightly deleterious mutation is "visible" to natural selection, and may be removed by it. And, of course, the less deleterious the mutation, the lower it's contribution to genetic meltdown.

---

No. By definition they are effectively neutral. They have such a smalle ffect that natural selection sees them as being neutral.

quote:

---

As for the quote, it simply states that a fragmented population is more like several small populations than one large one. Hardly a surprise - or something that helps your argument.

---

It means that even large populations have problems with genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Well, if you assume that the whole field of statistics is fundamentally wrong, how about the fact that genetic meltdown of a large population has NEVER been observed ?

---

Becasue there was not enough time!

quote:

---

It seems then that the rate DOES matter. Unless the average is well over 1 it is entirely possible that the

---

It matters to what!?!!? To slow down geentic entropy? Yes, it obviously does! That's what I've been saying from the start. But it does not matter to stopping genetic entropy. Becasue to stop it, population would ahve to be infinite in size. Which we know is not true.

quote:

---

The vast majority of which will be neutral. Then there are the benefical mutations. Then there are the deleterious mutations which only carry a normal disadvantage. When we have eliminated all the mutations which your model ignores, how many are left ?

---

Why should we eliminate any mutations? Almost all degrade the genome. Even beneficial ones.

quote:

---

If they are neutral then they aren't deleterious. By definition.

---

NOOOOOOOO!!!. You are clueless about this topic!!!! They are called NEAR NEUTRAL! Or Slightly deleterious.Why?Becasue they have such a small effect on reproduction that they are invisible to natural selection. They are spread around by genetic drift. In other words, by random chance.

quote:

---

I'm not an atheist.

---

Than stop acting like one.

quote:

---

Most people who don't agree with you are not atheists.

---

Yes they are. And they are the worst kind of atheists. They are atheistic fundamentalists.

quote:

---

Information theory is no more atheistic than any other branch of mathematics.

---

Did I ever claim that it was? It's atheists that claim that science and math are atheistic.

quote:

---

As I said, 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.

---

You ahd your chance.

quote:

---

In a closed system information cannot increase or decrease. For example, if you're in a room and the window blinds are closed you could not write a description of what is going on outside. In that respect the room is a closed system. Only when you open the blinds and allow information into the room can you write down what is happening outside. Now the room is no longer a closed system because information is entering it from outside.

​

That information in a closed system cannot increase or decrease is a known law of physics directly related to the laws of thermodynamics.

---

I can take a piece of paper and write whatever the hell I want. It will increase the amount of information on that paper. If I write: "Today, Percy is acting like an atheistic fundamentalist." I have increased the amount of information on that paper.

quote:

---

Again, if we consider the observable universe a closed system, then because information cannot increase or decrease in a closed system the amount of information in it could not have increased by 400 bits, not by random chance or intelligence or any other means.

---

Obviously it can by an intelligent intervention. Every single written book is an increase in information.

quote:

---

If you can provide the mathematical equation for calculating CSI in the same way as I have done for Shannon information then I would have something concrete to go on. If it is contained somewhere in your 41-page link (http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf) then please copy-n-paste the relevant equation or equations into your message.

---

It's not a simpe equation. The whole paper is the explanation. You know, just liek Darwin's On the Origin of Species is "one large argument", so is this one.

quote:

---

Aren't you confusing Gitt information with CSI? The words "syntax," "semantics," "apobetics" and "pragmatics" appear nowhere in your Dembski link.

---

I know, I'm just pointing out what Shannon information lacks. I already said in this here topic that Dembski only uses mereology and statistics to define CSI.

quote:

---

But I wasn't speaking of Kolmogorov Complexity. I was speaking of CSI, an invention of Dembski.

---

But I don't see you going on about how Kolmogorov complexity is MADE UP, and is not scientific because it's not computeable. Why not?

quote:

---

Dembski invokes Kolmogorov Complexity as a means of detecting randomness, but the sequence of nucleotides in DNA is not random.

---

Dear GOD!!! Why don't you just shut up for a change!?!? KC is used to tell apart sequences that are more random than other sequences. You can use it to tell how random a sequence is. So yes it can be used on DNA to show that it's not very random, or is very random depending on the sequence.

quote:

---

The sequence is a result of a lengthy process of consecutive selection over many generations across changing environments.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

Demski's CSI assumes that DNA nucleotide sequences are random when they are not. For this reason alone, CSI is bunk.

---

You are proving yourself to be sillier and sillier by teh minute. The point of CSI is to detect something that did not arise by chance, therefore to show that it is NNNNOOOOOTTTTT random!!!Again, why don't you just shut the hell up?

quote:

---

Meaning "the fossil record is false if time does not occur chronologically". That's the argument from douchebaggery.

---

I never said that. Why do you keep being an atheistic fundamentalist?

quote:

---

The Rosetta Stone can be examined and reproduced. It could be clay with pressed symbols, it could be clay formed through a mold, it could be hard stone etched by scrapping, it could be hard stone which was chissled - EACH of those processes leaves evidence. We can examine the evidence and recreate the stone using similar techniques. It's called experimental archaeology.

​

Therefore we DO know the mechanism.

---

Wrong. We DO NOT know the mechanism. We ASSUME the mechanism. Just because we reproduced something similar to Rosetta stone, that doesn't mean that we actually know the mechanism.

quote:

---

In the case of ID you can't even confirm that there IS a mechanism. You allege design out of laziness and proclaim it "Jew Magic Beams" then wipe your hands and pretend you are done.

---

Wrong you filthy chance worshipper. I rpoclaim design because or reliable marks of design we find on DNA.

quote:

---

ID ASSUMES there is design - but can't prove it.

---

Nothing is proven in science. Id detects design by finding the marks of design.

quote:

---

ID then ASSUMES there is a designer - because one must exist if there is design (which remains an unproven assumption).

---

No, this is a logicaly neccessity. Design requires a designer.

quote:

---

ID then ASSUMES There is a mechanism through which the designer (which is ASSUMES exists) did the designing (which it ASSUMES happened).

---

No, becasue the implementation of design, requires a mechanism to implement it. It is a logical neccessity.

quote:

---

That's 3 MAJOR assumption and NO evidence to support any of them.

---

No, you are just calling them assumption.

quote:

---

ID CAN'T detect marks of design if it doesn't know HOW or WHAT did the designing!

---

That's like saying that you can't detect design in Rosettas tone if you don't know who or how it was designed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that something was made through a process unless you know what the process is that made it.

---

If something was designed, than the process obviously existed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that a designer designed something unless you know what this designer is and how they design.

---

Than you can't also say hte Rosetta stone was designed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that a design was made unless you know what designs and how it designs.

---

Than you can't determine Rosetta stone was designed.

quote:

---

It's a house of cards and each card is made of tissue paper.

​

You have NOTHING but a circular argument.

---

Naw... you are jsut misrepresenting them to look like that.

quote:

---

Really? Let's review:

---

Yes, let's.

quote:

---

IF doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how falling gets implemented because IF assumes there is a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical necessity. If we detect falling, it means also that there was a intelligent faller and a mechanism that was used to implement the falling.

​

Given your statement and my statement above explain to us the difference between "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Design".

​

...what you can't? Didn't think so.

---

Wrong, becasue falling can be explained by a natural cause called gravity.

quote:

---

I'm significantly more educated than yourself. Animism is not evolution. Animism states that everything has a spirit, including rocks and water.

​

Show me where evolution says anything about inanimate objects evolving.

---

I gave you a link, you should have read it. Native Americans thought people came from animals. So did old Asian and middle Eastern people.

quote:

---

Oh, you wanna play? Okay.

---

Not really. I remember you said you were gonna leave.

quote:

---

What is a meltdown?
What is "occurred"?
What is an experiment?
What is "longer"?

---

Now you're just being pathetic.

quote:

---

What is "1"?
What is "not"?
What is "EQUAL"?

---

You should have learned that in primary school by now.

quote:

---

What is "show"?
What is "tests"?
what is "Earth"?

---

This you should ahve learned at home.

quote:

---

What is "slow"?
What is "down"?

---

Everybody knows that.

quote:

---

See how helpful your method is in debate.

​

If you want to have a discussion, we'll be happy to do so on your terms.

​

Go ahead and define in detail every single word you are using and prove to us that they are what you say they are.

​

Otherwise, your arbitrary use of a subjective word like "down" is completely meaningless.

​

Let's see if we can't bring this entire discussion to a screeching halt over your personal douchebaggery.

---

That's not my method. Do I go arounf asking people to define every single term? No I don't. So why misrepresent me?

quote:

---

For the record, clown college is one of the hardest schools in the US to get into. They accept very few students out of their pool of applications.

---

And you failed to get in so now you are venting yourself online. That's not my problem, you know?

quote:

---

I'm going to keep this simple for you and hopefully you can follow along.

​

You are claiming there is a difference between these two things:
"Fabrication" and "Specification".

---

Yes, obviously there is. And For teh record, I expalined many times what the difference is.

quote:

---

Your definition of each boils down to: "Unique" vs "non-unique".

​

A fabrication is unique. There are no other examples of it.
A specification is non-unique. There are other examples of it.

​

This is predicated on the idea that you have ALL the information which will ever be available to you from the past, present and future. That's simply not reality.

---

No. I'm simply using our current knowledge. That's how science works. I do nto assume I know everything. Science does not give 100% true answers, but instead it deals with approximations.

quote:

---

If I present you with a pattern out of a collection of patterns which you can not see, you can't tell me whether or not the pattern I've given you is unique or non-unique because you can't see the other patterns.

​

The ONLY thing you can test it against is other patterns you've been presented. You have a limited data set.

​

If I present you with additional patterns, you start to build a bigger data set and patterns which HAD BEEN unique suddenly are no longer unique.

​

However, patterns which are NOT unique never BECOME unique.

​

In other words, of the two columns of evidence - examples only ever move from your column of "unique" to our column of "not unique" and NEVER EVER EVER the other way around.

​

And the more information collected, the more often things move from your column to ours.

​

Yet, you are confident that your column is correct and ours is incorrect because you believe that you have items in your column which will ALWAYS be there no matter how much information is collected.

---

Again no. I only know what I know now. I never said that detecting design is 100% accurate. It's reliable enough to be science. But it's not perfect. Neitehr does it have to be perfect. Dembski described the process being like a fishing net. You catch some, and you don't catch others. And that's how science works. It's not perfect, but it's trying to get better. If you don't like it, maybe you should try philosophy.

quote:

---

WHY?

​

What experience in the past has given you a reason to believe this?

​

The ONLY thing your claim has ever witnessed is a steady loss of evidence as more and more data is collected.

​

Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY AROUND?

​

If you were right, you should be GAINING evidence, not losing it.

​

Surely, even YOU must admit that you don't have ALL the evidence which could ever be collected.

​

Yet, you are willing to claim that no matter what the future evidence will present, the constant ongoing pattern of you consistently losing examples to us will somehow reverse itself.

​

WHY?

​

Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect the Jew Wizard. Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect Magic Jew Beams.

​

Just look at your claim of unique evidence. It's unfounded.

---

This just means that we will be more efficient in claiming things to arise by chance or a regularity. Which is fine since we do not need to infer design. What's so bad about it?

quote:

---

Riiiiight, but you're not here arguing for Biblical literalism. LOL.

---

No, I'm not why should I? Even if I was, why should I hide that? How can I know you are actually not a Hindu-Muslim?

quote:

---

Why would DNA be random?

---

DNA is not random.

quote:

---

Sorry, bucko, but you've kind of lost the right to ask for evidence seeing as you yourself have announced quite clearly that you don't need to provide any whatsoever.

---

Except that every single thing I said I provided not only scientific articles for, but my own diagrams. Yeah, righ, I didn't provide evidence.

quote:

---

Who ever claimed that is should be random? Mutations are random. Selection is decidedly not random (that's why we call it "selection").

​

Random data + any kind of filter = NON-RANDOM results.

---

Percy claimed that Dembski applied KC to DNA to show that it's random.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is a rewording of the actual argument from douchebaggery or: "How do we know that what's real is real?"

​

You're alleging that just because we can evaluate the materials and accurately reproduce the object using methods available at the time - we don't know for certain that it wasn't some "Magical Jew Beam" that did it instead and just made it LOOK LIKE it was done through normal means.

​

If THAT is your standard, then let's just EVERYTHING by that standard.

​

How do you know that gasoline burns when ignited? It COULD just be that every single time it's been tested so far, the "Magic Jew Beams" have been set to "burn".

​

Science operates under a simple assumption: Reality is real.

​

If ID operates under a different assumption, it's not science - it's make believe.

---

Well yes, it's a stupid argument I know. But you are the one who used it first. I just used it against you. Because I said that we can detect design both in Rosetta stone and DNA, without knowing who teh designer is. Yet you said we do not know who made the DNA, thereofre we can't say it's designed. By that stupid logic, we don't really know if the Rosetta stone was designed also, since we do not know it's designer. Design implies a designer. If the Rosetta stone is a design, than there was a designer. If DNA is a design, than thre was it's designer too.Also, you are the one who used the argument that DNA could just LOOK designed, but it really isn't. By that logic, the Rosetta stone could also just LOOK designed.

quote:

---

No. It doesn't. You can't find "marks" of design if you don't know WHAT LEAVES MARKS or WHAT KIND OF MARKS it leaves!!!

---

But we do know that. Intellignece leaves behind marks of specified complexity. It's an observed fact.

quote:

---

It's IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the end result if you don't have ANY idea what sort of process would lead to the end result!

---

Yes we can because the end result is observable and we can investigate it. Without knowing how it came about.

quote:

---

If I presented you with a snowflake, would you say it's designed or simply a result of ice crystal formation?

​

If you DIDN'T KNOW about ice crystal formation, what would you say?

---

I'd still say that it was not designed becasue there is no specification on te snowflake.

quote:

---

So, you are claiming: "There is design".
And from this claim, you are deducing there must be BOTH a designer and a mechanism of design.

---

That is the most logical thing to say. If I see a car, I know there was a designer and a mechanism that implemented that design.

quote:

---

However, you can't demonstrate design. You point to things which you CLAIM are designed, but since you can't tell us HOW things are designed, you have no method of testing it.

---

Wrong. We use the explanatory filter and try to find traces of CSI.

quote:

---

The CLOSEST you can come to testing it is by saying that it is mathematically improbably that X would exist by chance.

---

And, we can find if the said pattern exhibits a specification. Therefore, signaling design.

quote:

---

However, NO ONE is alleging chance in ANY scenario.

---

Algorithms don't help you because without problem specific knowledge, NFL theorems equate any algorithm with random chance, including evolution.

quote:

---

Further, you have NO IDEA how large the probability set it.

​

If the odds of hitting the lotto are 1 in 100 billion and you have 1 ticket you have very different odds than if you have 100 billion billion tickets.

​

Unless you know the data set from which your allegedly improbably design arises you have NO ABILITY to determine if it is likely or unlikely to occur by chance (which - AGAIN - is not the claim that evolution makes in the first place!)

---

1:10^120 is the maximum probability of the whole universe. Therefore, no lower chance than that should be considered.

quote:

---

That's correct. If I presented you with the rosetta stone and you were completely unfamiliar with writing, rock or the ability to carve rock, you would have no basis against which to determine whether or not it was designed.

​

You would have to have at least one other rock to determine if the markings on the stone were normal for rock or if they were unusual.

​

So, give us an example of a living thing which was NOT designed so we can check it against your claim of design.

---

I already explained this by the use of my picture. We know from experinece that intelligence creates information. Therefore, simply by knowing that, we infer design from Rosetta stone. And since DNA is information also, we infer design in it too.We do not have to have designed animals to show that they are designed. Becasue DNA is a subset of a larger set called information, for which we know is created only by intelligence.

quote:

---

Really? Apparently you don't know what the word "small" means, but you assume that we all understand your meaning of "down". How is "down" any LESS relative than "small"?

​

YOU are the one setting the standards. YOU have to be the one that lives by them.

​

If you expect us to define every single term for you, you better get off your fat ass and start defining every single term you use.

​

So, either EXPLAIN "down" -or- STOP asking what "small" means.

---

They are all relative terms which can't be used to prove an absolute. You can't use small/large to say when something either starts or stops in absolute terms. You can only say it's more of something or less or something when it's either smaller or larger.

quote:

---

So, you admit that you can't be sure that you detect design, but based on this ADMITTEDLY inaccurate detection method you are willing to assume BOTH a Magic Jew Wizard AND Magic Jew Beams.

---

First of all, nothing is sure in science. And why do you not admit already that you're a Hindu-Muslim, trying to push your religion on us?

quote:

---

Seriously?

​

Okay, I'll lay it out AGAIN.

​

You don't have an example of something which you can demonstrate is actually designed.

---

Any book you see is designed.

quote:

---

You don't have an example of something which you can check an alleged design against.

---

I can check it agains a book.

quote:

---

You don't know what causes design or how it causes it.

---

Sometimes we do. We know how cars, computers book etc. are designed.

quote:

---

Your definition of design RELIES ENTIRELY on a _lack_ of additional evidence.

---

No, it relies on an observable fact that we have seen books, computers, cars, etc. get designed.

quote:

---

To date everything you've present has been proven to be incorrect.

---

And you're a crazy Hindu-Muslim priest.

quote:

---

AND, the FOUNDERS of your movement have CATAGORICALLY admitted that they are involved in a political movement to put Fundamental Creationism into schools and have NO QUAMS about lying in order to do so.

​

THAT'S what's "wrong" with your claims.

---

Yup, a crazy Hindu-Muslim, is trying tu push his religious views on teh rest of us.

quote:

---

Um, no. Linking Dembski, who's ADMITTED that his goal is to replace science with Christian Fundamentalism is NOT presenting a scientific article.

---

Who says so? Since when is he not a credible source? He has published in peer-reviewd scientific journals, you know? Here are just two examples. There are more. Now tell me, how many articles did your crazy Hindu-Muslim fanatics publish? And are we supposed to disregard tehm because they are pushing your religion?Shibboleth Authentication RequestIEEE Xplore - Page not Found

quote:

---

Further, your "diagrams" have been completely erroneous from head to two. All you managed to demonstrate is that you don't understand sexual reproduction.

---

This coming from a crazy Hindu-Muslim priest! You didn't even understand my diagrams.

quote:

---

And since you admitted that DNA is NOT random, you've got three options:

​

Dembski is wrong. KC is wrong. Both Dembski and KC are wrong.

---

Why should any of those be wrong?

quote:

---

No, we don't because Axe didn't test for all possible functions. Worse still your claim is that you know HOW MUCH you can change the structure by without even considering what the function is.

---

He mutated the Beta lactamase protein to se when will it lose it's function. What other functions does it have except this one?

quote:

---

I told you what Dembski's measure of information is. You say it's wrong. You want to use a different measure. Seems pretty clear that you are saying that Dembski's measure is wrong.

---

Whatever you said is not what Dembski said. You can't even tell the difference between the specification and a fabrication, so why would I trst you. I don't believe anything you say. You claim to have read TDI. If you really did, can you give me the definition of spceification, exactly it was written in TDI?

quote:

---

Wrong. A fabrication can still match other patterns - in fact you demonstrated exactly how to create such a fabrication. Just add a range of variation to the actual event. So long as the pattern cannot be determined independently of the event it is a fabrication.

---

How can it be wrong? Dembski himslef said it that way?

quote:

---

That's simply false. You didn't even increase it by enough to allow for the variations in structure that you allowed. There is a big difference between allowing any variation, so long as the result is at least 80% similar, and simply counting only 80% of the protein.

---

I increased the chance by 20%, what more was I supposed to do?

quote:

---

If you were using the specification of a "bi-directional propellor" then any flagellum that meets that specification is relevant. If it is irrelevant simply for being outside the range of variation that you allow, then it simply proves that you are using a fabrication

---

They are irrelevant because of the difference in their complexity. We are than dealing with totally different machines. Which have more or less CSI. If they have the same complxity, than calcualting flagellums CSI is the same as calcualting their CSI.

quote:

---

I did not bring snowflakes up, nor did I claim that they had a specification.

---

Than what did you bring up? Salt crystals, that's the same.

quote:

---

Of course BECAUSE flagella grow you cannot use the organisation of the proteins in the flagellum to calculate the complexity - as Dembski does - since that growth relies on regularities.

---

We are setting aside that now. You see that doesn't help you. Becasue of two reasons. First is that growth does not create information itself. It only unpacks the already existing information. So yes, we do have to calculate the whole structure when it's funished.And second, you would have to account for the information of the growth information and mechanisms. Which means that this reduces teh probability of the flagellum nd the growth mechanism arising without design. This goes totally against your claim.

quote:

---

And to calculate the information needed to grow the flagellum you need to calculate the probability of that arising, considering all possible explanations. Which you refuse to do.

---

As I just said above, This does not help you in any possible way. This would just increase the amount of information, and decrease the chance.

quote:

---

Oh it's really, really simple. When you want to count how many occur you use all of them, because you want a high number. When you want an excuse for ignoring the possiiblity of beneficial mutations offsetting the effects of deleterious mutations you decide to ignore all those deleterious mutations that CAN be set by beneficial mutations. It's all very transparent.

---

You don't get it. I'm not saying that two deleterious mutations may not act as a beneficial, unlike where one deleterious mutation would just be deleterious. I'm saying that that does not help you because that still leads to degradation of genetic information in the genome, which leads to genetic entropy.

quote:

---

If the rate of removal at least exceeds the rate at which new deleterious mutations are introduced then genetic entropy HAS halted.

---

Completely WRONG! This is why you fail to understand what genetic entropy is, and how it works.Genetic entropy is NOT about beneficial VS deleterious mutations! It's about accumulation of ANY mutations.Beneficial mutations still degrade genetic information and cause genetic entropy.

quote:

---

And the lower the rate of deleterious mutations, the easier that is to achieve.

---

No. Because as I said, beneficial mutations still cause loss of genetic information.

quote:

---

It is your assumption that 1+1=2 accurately describes the situation.

---

Well than, let's hear your model.

quote:

---

Since my argument does not require that natural selection be perfect, your conclusion is premature.

---

Yes it does. Becasue if mutations can't be eliminated 100%, they will logically accumulate!

quote:

---

The papers don't say that large populations simply have less problems. They say only that meltdown sometimes occurs in small populations. Extrapolating that to the idea that large populations are liable to meltdown is simply not justifiable from the text of the papers.

---

Actually, the last paper I posted actually says just that.

quote:

---

Of course this is wrong. Because the effect and natural selection "seeing them" are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other

---

Yes I can. There is no such thing as 100% neutral mutation. And since natural selection is not 100% accurate, some mutations which are deleterious do not get noticed. Look at this picture. This is from a paper by Motoo Kimura. He has shown that some mutations are nearly neutral. They are in the shaded area. They have such a small effect on fitness that they do not get selected, and they keep accumulation in the population.

quote:

---

If we only have theory to go on, then I for one will trust the theories of actual experts over those offered by creationists.

---

In otehr words, you already made up your mind and you don't care what anyone who des not agree with you has to say...

quote:

---

You've not proven any such thing.

---

Not to you because nothing can be proven to you, can it?

quote:

---

So you are saying that we should use a double standard in counting mutations because in your opinion (an opinion without objective support) all mutations "degrade" the genome in some way you haven't even described. Hardly a scientific attitude.

---

Almost all mutations degrade the genome. Even beneficial ones. Liek sickle cell. It makes the red blood cell less efficient, but it's considered as beneficial.

quote:

---

On the contrary, it is you who does not understand. To be completely invisible to natural selection a mutation must be absolutely neutral. The most you can say of a nearly neutral mutation is that genetic drift has a larger effect on its spread than natural selection. Of course, in larger populations drift is weaker than in smaller populations. So again we see that population size matters.

---

I never said that it doesn't matter. I just said that to completely halt genetic entropy you would have to have perfect selection. Which we do not have. And no, Kimura has shown that nearly neutral mutations have low effect on the fitness, yet are invisible to natural selection, because of the noise.

quote:

---

No. I said that without a plausible explanation as to WHO or WHAT "designed" and/or HOW they "designed" you have no reason to conclude "design".

---

Which is just plain stupid you Hindu-Muslim, because even if we did have a plausible explanation for the Who/where/what designed DNA, it wouldn't hel us one bit in actually detecting design. We are better of at finding marks of design.

quote:

---

All of your arguments boil down to mathematics. You claim there is a low percentage chance of X occurring naturally. However, you don't have any idea how large the data set is, therefore a percentage is a useless measurement.

---

You should have read my whole last post because I precisely described why 1:10^120 is the ultimate chance to consider. There is no less chance than this. Therefore, if soemthing has less chance than this, and is also specified, it is designed. Why do you keep misrepresenting me, with your flawed Hindu-Muslim logic?

quote:

---

IF! IF! IF! IF DNA IS DESIGNED.

---

Assuming htat it is, doesn't that also mean there was a designer? I mean, don't they teach you basic logic at Hindu-Muslim church-schools?

quote:

---

You don't have any evidence to prove that it is!

---

CSI is the evidence DNA was designed. Unlike no evidence for your Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

No. It isn't. You can not demonstrate a single example of this so called complexity which you can prove has arisen from design. Nor can you produce an example, based on your standards, of something which you KNOW was NOT designed.

​

You have no field against which to gauge your guesses.

---

This whole topic, and the words written on it, is an example of specified complexity. And if you weren't a Hindu-Muslim, you would have known that.

quote:

---

Only because you KNOW the mechanism of creating a car.

---

Even if I did not know that, it would still be true. And you would still be a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

You DON'T know the mechanism for creating a Xylorprop, therefore if I present you with one you CAN'T tell if it was designed or not.

---

You can't present me with something that doesn't exist. Liek your Hindu-Muslim chance god who supposedly created all life by evolution.

quote:

---

Since you DON'T know the mechanism of your so called design, you can't conclude it was designed.

---

Neitehr do you knwo how the Rosetta stone was designed, so you can't infer design. And no, your Hindu-Muslim chance god is not the answer.

quote:

---

We know from experience that non-intelligence also creates information.

​

Therefore, this is not the bases for your conclusions.

---

By information I mean CSI unless stated otherwise. Natural causes do not create CSI, only intelligence does. Un like your non-existent Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

First off "hindu-muslim" as a term makes NO sense. Muslims are members of your "Jew Wizard" cult. Hindus are polythesists. Further, you've already accused me of being a fundamentalist atheist.

​

Clearly you are completely confused from head to toe.

---

No, you are confused since you are a Hindu-Muslim, not me. You are a chance worshipping Hindu-Muslim, be proud of it already!

quote:

---

You _CAN NOT_ detect design if you don't know HOW design is made.

---

You can't detect design in Rosetta stone, if you don't know how it was made. But than again, you are a Hindu-Muslim, so you have no logic to judge with.

quote:

---

If I present you with a crystal, it would appear designed so long as you didn't know HOW crystals were formed.

---

Wrong. I already told you. Why do I must repeat myself? No specification = no design. Crystals = no specification = no design. End of story. Don't brng it up again. Unless you're a Hindu-Muslim, then you would think crystals were designed.

quote:

---

HOW crystals are formed, there's no reason to suspect it's designed.

---

Neitehr do I claim they were designed. But if you saw an alien spaceship for the first time in your life. You would still conclude it was designed, without knowing how it was made. Unlike your Hindu-Muslim chance god, who doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Without knowing method YOU CANT JUDGE results.

---

Since you don't know how Rosetta stone was made, you can't say it was designed. So stop pushing your Hindu-Muslim religion into my face already!

quote:

---

And that claim is incorrect.

---

Explain why. Oh, and btw. you're a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

So IF we ASSUME that design exists THEREFORE there is a designer.

​

SO IF we ASSUME that a faller exists THEREFORE there is an intelligent faller.

---

No, you insane Hindu-Muslim! It was a hypotehtical question! Are you that drugged up on heroin that you can't even tell a hypothetical question when you see one?

quote:

---

As I am clearly neither of these things, I'm not particularly offended. However, since there are RULES to these forums, I suggest you ease up on the name calling before they boot your ass.

---

When you stop using stupid names as "Jew Wizard" than I'll stop. If you can claim that I'm a Christian, than I can claim that you're a Hindu-Muslim bishop. There you just got promoted!

quote:

---

Since you clearly are having a lot of trouble with this, I'm gonna radically simplify and see if you can follow.

​

There is a word: "tea" which is constructed of individual letters "t" "e" and "a".

​

The letters in and of themselves don't express a meaning, however when put together in a specific order they spell out the word "tea" which has a specific meaning.

​

If you change the letters around, they no longer spell "tea" and therefore the meaning (a drink made from soaking leaves in water) is no longer expressed.

​

However, if you look at all the combos:

​

tea, tae, aet, ate, eta, eat

​

You will notice that "tea", "ate" and "eat" are common words. "eta" is a common term, "tae" is a word from a different language than English and AET is the stock symbol for a large company.

​

In other words, just because a combo NO LONGER expresses the ORIGINAL bit of information doesn't mean that the NEW combo doesn't express any information.

---

What about the word "PROFESSIONAL"? You can't mutate that one that much, now can you?And that is precisely what Axe's work was about. To find how much working sequences there were for this particular protein. And he found that the functional sequences are like an island of functionality in a sea of meaninglessness. In toehr words, you can change about 20% of the protein before it looses it's function. And than, there is this whole sequence space which is totally useless for biological functions. It has absolutely no function whatsoever.