|
Author
|
Topic: What exactly is ID?
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3925 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
soup is good food
If you can think of a more simple model for protein replication starting from something else other than DNA them I am sure science would love to hear about it. I don't see them parading the old theory on origin of life from the Russian scientist Aleksandr Oparin. I think the Stanley-Miller experiment has gone out of favor also. Nonsense. Here's the current version of "the soup"
Some refer to microspheres or protein protocells as small spherical units postulated by some scientists as a key stage in the origin of life. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that many simple biomolecules could be formed spontaneously from inorganic precursor compounds under laboratory conditions designed to mimic those found on Earth before the evolution of life. Of particular interest was the substantial yield of amino acids obtained, since amino acids are the building blocks for proteins. In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diametermicrospheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces. Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspheres became more complex, they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time, organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy. Microparticle - Wikipedia Here's the best candidate for a PNA
Experiments such as the Miller experiment and others allow the simple construction of primitive organic molecules including amino acids. The RNA world hypothesis shows how RNA can become its own catalyst (a ribozyme), and so become the basis for evolution of life. In between there are some missing steps such as how the first RNA molecules could be formed. The PAH world hypothesis was proposed by Simon Nicholas Platts in 2004. It is known that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a likely constituent of the primordial sea. PAH's are not normally very soluble in sea water, but when subject to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, the outer hydrogen atoms can be stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group, rendering the PAH's far more soluble in water. These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected. In this self ordering stack, the separation between rings is 0.34 nm. This is the same separation found in RNA and DNA. Smaller molecules will naturally attach themselves to the PAH rings. However PAH rings, while forming, tend to swivel around on one another, which will tend to dislodge attached compounds that would collide with those attached to those above and below. Therefore it encourages preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. These bases are similarly amphiphilic and so also tend to line up in similar stacks. This ends up making an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid backbone to form along the bases. A small change in acidity would then allow the bases to break off from the original stack of PAHs and so form molecules like RNA. PAH world hypothesis - Wikipedia Edited by Iblis, : thanks Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 479 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:01 PM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: ID is Here
traderdrew writes: That's OK. I still have the ability to choose my own doctor here in the states but not for long.
I'm sorry for this off-topic posr, but I couldn't just let this pass. Is this a snide remark about your impending "socialized medicine"? Because if it is, it's complete and utter bullshit, unless you're all doing something seriousy wrong. I live in a country where they have socialized medicine, and I can choose whatever doctor I please. Now that that's cleared up, please continue the thread. 
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 480 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:09 PM | | traderdrew has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 483 by Admin, posted 01-02-2010 2:31 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13043 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
Message 483 of 1273 (541321)
01-02-2010 2:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 482 by Huntard
01-02-2010 2:13 PM
|
|
Re: ID is Here
Just in case there's any doubt, anyone who would like to discuss health care funding issues in the context of recent proposals from Washington should take them to another thread.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 482 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2010 2:13 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5212 days) Posts: 68 Joined: 02-14-2008
|
Re: ID is Here
I'm not sure where it is going.
I was pointing out that your arguing that there may possibly be multiple designers is as useful as discussing the resplendence of the millions of rare phoenix feathers in the emperor's cloak. There's no evidence of a cloak and no evidence of a designer; so please provide evidence that any designer(s) exist.
Nothing wrong with a little history lesson.
It's better to understand a subject before you use it as an example to support your position, but I agree; it's never too late to learn something new.
I don't think hidden implies totally undetectable. I think when something is hidden we could find clues as to where it exists or if it did exist or leave some sort of evidence behind.
So far I haven't seen as much as a face on a milk cartoon to suggest that there are any actual attempts by anyone to prove a god/designer or similar exists. There's a lot of thinking and talking going on but apparently there's no actual looking because some people don't like what they see when they do. So alert us when something is actually found...until then it's just more commentary on the emperor's new clothes.
And I think you are wrong on this one. I think you are guilty of the fallacy by judging ID by your perceived character of certain individuals and not fully judged the evidence in itself. Let the evidence be debated because everyone has a motive but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validity of the evidence.
Look, when you get out of a clown car people are going to assume you're just another clown even if you wear normal shoes, a business suit and display a lack of makeup or nose-wear. If there is a serious ID community then they need to police themselves, reject the liars and frauds and establish a reputation as a serious scientific research community. It's nobody's responsibility but their own. Until they do I'll continue to laugh at all the clowns getting into and out of the clown car. Scholars debate with other scholars. They do not try to mandate that governments force schoolchildren to debate the issue. If you don't think scholars are giving your ideas fair play then join the crowd...it's a tough world. However you might want to look down and check the size of your shoes and those of the people you came in with; clown-shoes are a dead giveaway.
I will agree with you there. I have explained that I do not necessarily believe everything I post but I offer it as an avenue of exploration to anyone who wishes to go there.
The office of Devil's Advocate is appreciated during the canonization process, but less so in honest debate. If you haven't seriously considered your position then please don't attempt to argue it as if you have. Feel free to blow holes in other people's boats, but be fair and let them shoot back at a real one and not a cardboard cutout you use to keep people from laughing at your dinghy.
I have the impression you are someone who would require physical documention for the existence of the designer(s) in order to believe in one or them. Therefore, my answer would be, "No".., Why would I wish to even continue to try?
In light of the previous comment I can't imagine you would. As far as the evidence I'd require to believe well I honestly couldn't tell you other than to say it hasn't been reached yet and that doesn't mean to imply that I haven't looked. It's been a disappointment to some people very close to me, so I really don't care what strangers say about it. It's sufficient to say that I would rather disappoint and upset them than tell a lie to them or myself in order to make it feel better. I'd rather see what there is to see instead.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 476 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 12:14 AM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3978 days) Posts: 340 Joined: 05-29-2008
|
Re: ID is Here
traderdrew writes: Ah, the perfection argument. I believe in adequacy and not perfection. When you are dealing with perfection, how perfect does perfect have to be? Once something is perfect then, what are its capabilities? Fair enough, but we aren't really even adequate are we! One rogue asteroid, like the one the Russians are gearing up to save us from ( 404) is all it would take to put our species on the massive scrapheap of failed ones. I admit I'm reaching a little here, but this is a plausible scenario that would render this designer's entire "humanity project" done and dusted. Why would this designer feel the need to put us in such a vulnerable position? (You could get around this by suggesting the God has created humans on other planets around other stars, but I'm guessing you won't.) I'm not suggesting your designer be perfect, I simply posit that, if he is capable of what you claim he is, he should have been capable of achieving a better result than what we see.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 479 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:01 PM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 486 of 1273 (541376)
01-02-2010 9:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 461 by Nuggin
01-01-2010 12:04 PM
|
|
Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
quote:
It's not important for you to know whether or not the thing you are attributing with the ability to create has the power to create? Do you not see the flaw in this argument?
No, it's oly falwed if you do not understand the process of design detection. If something is designed, than obviously, it had a designer. And by a logical necessity, the designer was intelligent enough to do it. Now, if we were to infer design, and we also wanted to identify the dessigner, than yes, we would have to take into account the ability of that designer. Becasue there is no reason to attribute the design of a car to an animal. But since, we are not identifying the designer, there is no need to take into account it's ability. Since we do not know designer's identity in the first place.
quote:
I see. So you think he's an animal. What kind of animal? Domesticated? Does it have fangs? Fur? Give us a hint so we can go looking.
I never said it's an animal. The only thing that can be said is that it had an intelligence. That is all.
quote:
Except that that is a lie and I suspect you know it. I'll name ONE experiment which pops to the top of my head. The E. Coli/Citrate experiment in which a colony of E. Coli is raised and monitored FOR 20 YEARS! in a nutrient poor/citrate high environment. E. Coli normally can not consume citrate. However, as a result of a couple of mutation, A NEW ABILITY emerged allowing them to exploit the rich untapped resource.
What's wrong with you? YOU ALREADY USED THAT STUPID ARGUMENT!!!!!!! And I refuted it by showing you Behe's response to this experiment. Yes, I know which one it is, it's Lenski's E. Coli experiment. Anyway your analogy is false anyway, since a.) no new information, or any new complexity arose. And b.) E. Coli are complex bacteria full of complex mechanisms. Self replicating RNA chains are not. Self replicating RNA chains will not be able to modify themselves, they will simply fall apart. Unliek bacteria which have regulating systems to slow down genetic entropy, and modify their functionality.
quote:
Reality.
What is this "reality" you are talking about?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 461 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2010 12:04 PM | | Nuggin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 489 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2010 11:13 PM | | Smooth Operator has not replied | | | Message 490 by Nuggin, posted 01-03-2010 1:52 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 487 of 1273 (541381)
01-02-2010 10:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 468 by PaulK
01-01-2010 12:48 PM
|
|
Re: l
quote:
In other words you claim that you don't need evidence to support your assertions.
If somebody claims there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding in his closet than he better show some evidence first. I simply said that enzymes in Axe's experiment lost their function. You on the other side are claiming that they gained one. Well, fine, show me, what they gained.
quote:
No, they don't. They just happen to be the materials used to construct an object of that description.
That's what I said. Yous aid the same thing in a differnt way.
quote:
They aren't steps, they are definitions of terms used in the definition of specification. And that is why the quoted definition of specification was incomplete.
They are not definitions. The part that I quoted actually said : "DEFINITION". Unlike those 8 steps that are a method to detect design.
quote:
Since you aren't using "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in your calculation it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many specifications you can dream up. They don't matter until ypu make them the pattern in your probability calculations.
Please explain to me how do I use the specification in my calculation.
quote:
If you don't want to talk about it, or do the work yourself, then just give up on it. As I keep telling you the calculation is based on a fabrication anyway, so even fixing the error doesn't help you.
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't mean anything.
quote:
At least you have realised that you can read the pattern off of the event. Good, we are making progress in getting you to understand Dembski's method.
However, once you have the specification, the event itself is of no further relevance.
Yes of course it is. Becasue than you have to construct side information. And if that side information doesn't give you any more information about the event, than just by looking at the event, than the event happened by chance. If it does give you more information, than the event was designed.
quote:
In Message 368
Okay, just tell me with what number do you want me to pultiply my original result an I'll do it.
quote:
So it doesn't specify 50 proteins or their structure. If that is a complete description of the E Coli flagellum then why does it leave out every factor used in your calculations ? How does it describe the E Coli flagellum but not any other flagellum ?
It doesn't leave any other flagellum or anything else that fits that patternt. What leaves it out is it's complexity. If other flagella have a different amount of proteins, than they are calculated separately.
quote:
Which only means that you cannot prove that living organisms are designed by just looking at individual organisms. That doesn't mean that nothing is designed. How would you apply your argument to the Caputo case ? Or to a similar case where 500 out of 500 results favoured a single party ?
But that's stupid. It's obvious that Dembski did not inted to make a method as useless as you interpret it to be. Becasue he went to calcualte the flagellum's complexity. Which obviously means that you can look at living organisms part by part.
quote:
That's not my logic, it's yours. If it's insane that's your problem.
Are books a high probability event when humans are near paper and pencil?
quote:
And as I keep telling you, you have to calculate THAT information. And you refuse. And now you say that it can't be done or it will give a result that won't show design.
Well that's your problem.
But that would just make an infinite regress! Becasue you would than have to calculate the complexity of where the whole bacteria came from, and that one, and that one, etc...
quote:
Yes, I thought that that was your mistake.
What mistake?
quote:
To be fixed it has to be more than "highly prevalent". Every copy of the gene in the entire population has to have the mutation. That will not happen for sickle-cell in any plausible scenario.
(And your Wikipedia reference shows rates of 5-14% in European populations for the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, which is not a long way from fixation).
But they exist. And they are spreading. So, now what? What does that say about them? Obviously they are beneficial.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 468 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2010 12:48 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 491 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2010 5:01 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
Re: lD Shambles On
quote:
The fact that ID is a load of crap comes immediately to mind.
That's how sane people actually view darwinism.
quote:
Thank you for admitting that. So not dying of malaria, or not dying of AIDS, is in fact a biological function.
No, it's a byproduct of deformed biological function.
quote:
No, it is not in fact identical. Because those are two different things. Perhaps I should explain to you that things which are different are not identical.
How is that different with what happens with sickle cell. Explan exactly how.
quote:
By definition, yes. That was my point.
Great. But the main point is that that id does nto have to lead to reduction in fitness in every single step.
quote:
Oh, splendid. Then in that case you can demonstrate the method by doing no more work than copying and pasting something that you have already written.
Here you go. EvC Forum: Message Peek The bottom part is where I explained how you would calculate CSI for the flagellum in short.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
What is this "reality" you are talking about?
Unliek bacteria which have regulating systems to slow down genetic entropy, and modify their functionality.
So much so that your version of genetic entropy is a null subject. I have posted on this several times before, but you have ignored my posts as if that would make the inconvenient facts go away. You can't do that in science. Inconvenient facts can kill an hypothesis, just as they have killed your interpretation of genetic entropy.
quote:
Reality.
What is this "reality" you are talking about?
That "reality" is what you get when you follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads, and abandon 3,000 year old myths when the evidence shows they are incorrect. Apologetics is what you have when you cling to those ancient myths, and support them in the face of overwhelming evidence that shows that they are wrong. You claim to be following science, but on every such issue you support on these threads you come down on the side of ancient myth and oppose modern science. You are clearly doing apologetics. Smooth you may be; scientist you are not.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
If something is designed, than obviously, it had a designer And round and round and round we go. Your logical process is this: X looks complicated to me, therefore it was designed, therefore there was a designer, therefore he had the power and ability to design it. But, something being complicated is NOT in and of itself evidence of design. You need to know the mechanism in order to determine design. If I presented you with an illustration of concentric rings, you would find a pattern and conclude design. Why? Because you know what paper is, you know what a pen is, and you know about drawing. However, if I presented you with the EXACT SAME rings on the surface of water, you would conclude a rain drop. WHY? Because you KNOW that rain exists and you know what happens when rain hits water. SAME pattern, SAME information. DIFFERENT conclusions because you are aware of the different mechanisms. In the case of ID, you admit that you don't have the faintest idea about the mechanisms. Therefore you can not determine if it's it's a drawing or a puddle.
And I refuted it by showing you Behe's response to this experiment. Then link the post where you did. We're on post #500 or so and not all of your posts have been replies to me.
a.) no new information, or any new complexity arose. And b.) E. Coli are complex bacteria full of complex mechanisms. Self replicating RNA chains are not. The evolved a new ability through 4 combined mutations. If that's not an increase in complexity, what is? Further, I don't give two shits about RNA chains. Stop trying to change the subject. You made a claim, I refuted it. You don't get to try and throw something else into the mix now.
What is this "reality" you are talking about? This is exactly why you repeatedly fail.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
Re: l
quote:
If somebody claims there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding in his closet than he better show some evidence first. I simply said that enzymes in Axe's experiment lost their function. You on the other side are claiming that they gained one. Well, fine, show me, what they gained.
False. You claimed that they had lost ALL function. I pointed out that you did not know that - and you have conceded that point.
quote:
That's what I said. Yous aid the same thing in a differnt way.
Again that is untrue. It may have been what you are referring to, but it is not what you said. I pointed out an important fact that you had omitted.
quote:
They are not definitions. The part that I quoted actually said : "DEFINITION". Unlike those 8 steps that are a method to detect design.
They certainly are not 8 steps, they are the definitions of terms used in the following sections.
quote:
Please explain to me how do I use the specification in my calculation.
The entire problem is that you do NOT use a valid specification in your calculations. Which you have yet to show.
quote:
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't mean anything.
And stubbornly refusing to accept your error does not make you correct. The fact is that your calculations are useless because they use a fabrication in place of a valid specification.
quote:
Okay, just tell me with what number do you want me to pultiply my original result an I'll do it.
It's your job to do the calculation correctly. I'm not wasting time and effort doing work that isn't even worth doing. If you want to fix your useless calculation you can do the work yourself.
quote:
It doesn't leave any other flagellum or anything else that fits that patternt. What leaves it out is it's complexity. If other flagella have a different amount of proteins, than they are calculated separately.
You are contradicting yourself again. And getting Dembski's method wrong. The complexity belongs to the specifcation, not to individual events.
quote:
But that's stupid. It's obvious that Dembski did not inted to make a method as useless as you interpret it to be. Becasue he went to calcualte the flagellum's complexity. Which obviously means that you can look at living organisms part by part.
If Dembki's method was useful he would have been able to apply it usefully before now. The flagellum calculation in NFL fails to follow the method described in TDI as has already been pointed out.
quote:
Are books a high probability event when humans are near paper and pencil?
Since the probability calculation excludes all design explanations I would have to say no. I have never seen a book write itself without intelligent intervention.
quote:
But that would just make an infinite regress! Becasue you would than have to calculate the complexity of where the whole bacteria came from, and that one, and that one, etc...
It can be an infinite regress, but only if you are determined to find design. If you actually find a low probability specified event you can stop and declare that you have found design. There is no way to terminate the regress on a negative finding. Which would seem to be convenient to the ID crowd, not their opponents.
quote:
What mistake?
Thinking that I was referring to the HIV resistance mutation when I was actually talking about sickle-cell. Do I really have to keep telling you the obvious ?
quote:
But they exist. And they are spreading. So, now what? What does that say about them? Obviously they are beneficial.
It is far from clear that they are spreading (indeed sickle-cell is held in an equilibrium where frequency remains constant). Sickle-cell in particular is not purely beneficial because the homozygous state is deleterious. More importantly we have yet to see your definition of "degradation" or any reason to think that even the majority of beneficial mutations fit it.
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Re: ID is Here
Science believes but, has not proven, the minimal complexity for the most simple of cells would have at least 250 to 400 genes.  so, what exactly do these "scientists" believe happened to magic a cell into existence with 250 genes? No wonder ID is so easy to believe if this is how scientists and science are mischaracterised. Long ago in this thread I gave you a reply which you missed or conveniently ignored:
cavediver writes: The first cells were most likely simple lipid vesicles - empty shells. Replication is simply an overly large shell pinching off into two vesicles, prompted by turbulence in the supporting medium. Any polymers trapped inside the vesicle would be randomly divided between the new cells. Polymers that aided vesicle growth, by for example catalysing the production of new lipids, would be selected for. And thus rudimentary "machinery" begins... The most simple cells would have had NO genes. Then follow the stages of polymerisation of useful chemicals, protein manufacture, RNA, and then DNA. And this over a time measured in fractions of a billion years. Is this proof of how life began? Of course not. Is it a plausible origin of life - yes. Is it sufficient to laugh out of court any suggestions that "non-life" cannot possibly beget "life" - absolutely.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 479 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:01 PM | | traderdrew has not replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 493 of 1273 (541637)
01-04-2010 8:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 490 by Nuggin
01-03-2010 1:52 AM
|
|
Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
quote:
And round and round and round we go.
No. You do not understand the difference between a circular reasoning and a logical necessity. Please look them up. Just a moment...Begging the question - Wikipedia
quote:
X looks complicated to me, therefore it was designed, therefore there was a designer, therefore he had the power and ability to design it.
Wrong. if X exhibits the marks of intelligence, than it was designed, and than everything else follows. It's not that it JUST LOOKS complicated.
quote:
But, something being complicated is NOT in and of itself evidence of design.
Of course it's not. That's why I never said that.
quote:
You need to know the mechanism in order to determine design.
No you don't. SETI can't determine the mechanism by which the alien intellgence would contact us. But they are still detecting design.
quote:
If I presented you with an illustration of concentric rings, you would find a pattern and conclude design. Why? Because you know what paper is, you know what a pen is, and you know about drawing. However, if I presented you with the EXACT SAME rings on the surface of water, you would conclude a rain drop. WHY? Because you KNOW that rain exists and you know what happens when rain hits water. SAME pattern, SAME information. DIFFERENT conclusions because you are aware of the different mechanisms. In the case of ID, you admit that you don't have the faintest idea about the mechanisms. Therefore you can not determine if it's it's a drawing or a puddle.
Yet you contradict yourself by saying that I would correctly infer design if I claimed that patterns on paper are designed. In which case I would be correct. Anyway, ID would not conclude design from simple cocentric rings in teh first place.
quote:
Then link the post where you did. We're on post #500 or so and not all of your posts have been replies to me.
I have no intention to, look it up yourself.
quote:
The evolved a new ability through 4 combined mutations. If that's not an increase in complexity, what is?
As I said before. They didn't evolve a single thing. A gene that codes for a specific catalisys just got over expressed, so the bacteria could degrade citrate in teh presence of oxygen. They already had all the mechanism for doing the job. They didn't evolve any new mechanisms.
quote:
Further, I don't give two shits about RNA chains. Stop trying to change the subject. You made a claim, I refuted it. You don't get to try and throw something else into the mix now.
You didn't refute anything becasue you changed the subject. The Spiegelman experiment, and others liek it have shown that there is not the slightest chance for simple RNA chains to evolve in first living cells. Because in every case they keep getting shorter not longer.
quote:
This is exactly why you repeatedly fail.
Fail at what?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 490 by Nuggin, posted 01-03-2010 1:52 AM | | Nuggin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 495 by Nuggin, posted 01-04-2010 8:46 PM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 494 of 1273 (541641)
01-04-2010 8:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 491 by PaulK
01-03-2010 5:01 AM
|
|
Re: l
quote:
False. You claimed that they had lost ALL function. I pointed out that you did not know that - and you have conceded that point.
That is becasue that was the only function they had.
quote:
Again that is untrue. It may have been what you are referring to, but it is not what you said. I pointed out an important fact that you had omitted.
No, the semantics of our statements were identical.
quote:
They certainly are not 8 steps, they are the definitions of terms used in the following sections.
Yes, they are! Form 1 to 8, they talk about how to detect design. It's the requisite precondition. Not the definition of specification.
quote:
The entire problem is that you do NOT use a valid specification in your calculations. Which you have yet to show.
Tell me what is a valid specification for a flagellum.
quote:
And stubbornly refusing to accept your error does not make you correct. The fact is that your calculations are useless because they use a fabrication in place of a valid specification.
And once more, do tell me what is the valid specification for a flagellum. I'm waiting.
quote:
It's your job to do the calculation correctly. I'm not wasting time and effort doing work that isn't even worth doing.
If you want to fix your useless calculation you can do the work yourself.
And I will. Just tell me what number do you want me to use, and I'll do it.
quote:
You are contradicting yourself again. And getting Dembski's method wrong. The complexity belongs to the specifcation, not to individual events.
That's what you say. On the page 144, which you so much like to bring up, and those 8 steps, look at step n. 6. Step 6.) A probability measure P where P(.|H) estimates the likelihood of events in E given H. You see, the probability, that is, the measure of complexity belongs to E, which is the event in question. And the event in question is the E. Coli flagellum.
quote:
If Dembki's method was useful he would have been able to apply it usefully before now. The flagellum calculation in NFL fails to follow the method described in TDI as has already been pointed out.
Beautiful, just beautiful. I'm waiting, tell me how Dembski got his own method wrong. And you know it better than him.
quote:
Since the probability calculation excludes all design explanations I would have to say no. I have never seen a book write itself without intelligent intervention.
So why claim that the flagellum is not designed, since we never saw it areise without intelligent intervention either? And the mechanisms that make it grow. Where did we see them arise by pure natural undirected causes? Nowhere.
quote:
It can be an infinite regress, but only if you are determined to find design. If you actually find a low probability specified event you can stop and declare that you have found design. There is no way to terminate the regress on a negative finding. Which would seem to be convenient to the ID crowd, not their opponents.
But by your logic you can't find that. You are claiming the flagellum is not one. Neitehr is the mechanism that makes it grow. Neither is any living being. So what is?
quote:
Thinking that I was referring to the HIV resistance mutation when I was actually talking about sickle-cell. Do I really have to keep telling you the obvious ?
What's the difference? They are both the same kind of beneficial mutaion.
quote:
It is far from clear that they are spreading (indeed sickle-cell is held in an equilibrium where frequency remains constant). Sickle-cell in particular is not purely beneficial because the homozygous state is deleterious.
The point remains that the mutations happened and that they have spread. They didn't go away. They are still here. Nautral selection did not remove them. By definition, they are both beneficial.
quote:
More importantly we have yet to see your definition of "degradation" or any reason to think that even the majority of beneficial mutations fit it.
I never said the majority of beneficial mutations are degradations. Maybe they are I don't know. I don't really care. I now some are. And that's enough to show you that just by having beneficial mutations you aer not offsetting genetic entropy. And everybody knows what a degradation means. It's a loss in efficience of functionality.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 491 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2010 5:01 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 496 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2010 8:53 PM | | Smooth Operator has not replied | | | Message 500 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2010 2:59 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
quote:You need to know the mechanism in order to determine design. No you don't. SETI can't determine the mechanism by which the alien intellgence would contact us. But they are still detecting design. Wrong. They are specifically searching for messages in certain wave lengths. If they receive a message on a given wave length they can infer that the aliens have TECHNOLOGY similar to ours which ALSO DO THIS. SETI is _NOT_ looking for secret alien messages hidden inside fish eyes. They are _NOT_ looking for secret alien messages encoded into rain drops. Why not? Because we don't have any reason to believe that the aliens are using a technology which does this because WE DON'T have technology that does this. In other words, we can determine data is designed ONLY if we know HOW it was designed. Funny, that sounds familiar? Oh! Right! It's because I've told you think about 100 times now. Can you give me a SINGLE example of something which you can PROVE was designed, but no one is able to determine how it was produced?
Yet you contradict yourself by saying that I would correctly infer design if I claimed that patterns on paper are designed. In which case I would be correct. Anyway, ID would not conclude design from simple cocentric rings in teh first place. So if I gave you a piece of paper upon which I had drawn circles, ID would declare that it _WASN'T_ designed? That's insane!
I have no intention to, look it up yourself. In other words "Oops, got caught in a bluff. Never presented the data". Yeah, didn't think so.
They didn't evolve a single thing. A gene that codes for a specific catalisys just got over expressed, so the bacteria could degrade citrate in teh presence of oxygen. They already had all the mechanism for doing the job. They didn't evolve any new mechanisms. No. If those catalysts existed in the first place and simply needed to be expressed more, it wouldn't have taken 32,000 generations to do so. In ANY given generation, there would be a min and max producer. Amplifying the max producer would have occurred incrementally from the start. Instead there was a sudden jump as the new ability came online. Not that ANY of this is gonna sink in
|
™ Version 4.2