What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

So some are left? Which are those?

---

If you think that the fact that you said all function is lost is sufficient to prove that some function remains you have great faith in your ability to get things wrong.

quote:

---

The point, is that this one was lost. Regardless of what else happened, this one was lost. The point of the article was to show how much you can mutate a particular function before it is lost. That is all.

---

We're not discussing that at all, because that was accepted long ago. Instead we go round and round in circles with you switching between asserting that all function was lost and then trying to act as if you never said it.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter. I'm talking about those same proteins. Just more of them.

---

It certainly does matter. Since the only "50 proteins" figure we have is the number of different proteins in the E coli flagellum - which is made up of a good many more than 50 protein molecules using that figure implied distinct proteins. But OK, why would 1,000,000 units of 50 distinct proteins be significantly more improbable than 1 of each ?

quote:

---

First of all, it's not "complexity" it's complexity. And it's obvious that there would be vast differences in complexity. More dies more complexity. More proteins more complexity.

---

Given that the "complexity" we are talking about is a measure of improbability and not closely related to the normal usage then the scare quote are entirely justified.

quote:

---

Evolution is the chance hypothesis in this case. You don't use it. You calculate the probability based on it.

---

Then it's a pity that Dembski did no such thing.

quote:

---

No, he does it because that's how statistical calculations are done. If you have no prior knowledge of the sequence space you are searching, you assume uniform probability. Everyondoy does that every single time they do a statistical calculation.

---

No, they don't. At least not if they want the result that they get to be anything more than a rough estimate. For things like dice and coins we use a uniform distribution - but that's because of knowledge, not ignorance. (And even there we acknowledge that there might be subtle biases in the real objects).

quote:

---

Umm no. Generalization means that this works for all cases.

---

In this case it means an idea that is often close to being right (but can be drastically wrong).

quote:

---

Poit out where.

---

Message 1056.

quote:

---

They are the noise. I never said they are not. But the point I'm trying to make is that genetic entropy itself means deterioration of genetic information due to accumulation of mutations.

---

In fact you did say that and attempted to misuse Sanford's definition to back up your claim.

quote:

---

They were modeling real populations. Not aliens or mythical beings.

---

Please show that the figures used in the runs which lead to mutational meltdowns in large populations used figures derived from a real population.

quote:

---

The point is that the doomed cheetah lost vital functions. You can keep loosing genetic information and not die out for a very long time.

---

WHich of course means that the issue is not the loss of all genetic information, but just sufficient to disrupt one or more vital functions. Therefore the absolute measure of genetic information is not relevant (the more so because many of the "vital functions" will be "vital" because other aspects of the animal require them - the simpler the life form, the less it has to go wrong). [quote] In reality it does just that. Like I said. The probability is to small. Simple RNA chains won't find any new functions. And even if they did, they wouldn't be beneficial enough to actually outperform other and take over the population.

quote:

---

So you refuse? Fine.

---

You are also refusing to do the very same thing. But I am happy to let my argument stand unrefuted.

quote:

---

Just remember that I didn't make this up. This is from Sanford himself. He know what he's talking about.

---

If Sanford really claimed that population genetics really required all those assumptions to work at all then Sanford doesn't know what he is talking about.

quote:

---

1.) Genes are inherited in blocks. These things do not go under genetic recombination. So if one of the genes in such blocks has a beneficial and the other a deleterious mutation, they both get passed on.

​

2.) Nucleotides do interact. The ENCODE project has shown that genes are polyfunctional and poly constrained. Which means you can start translation of one gene, hop on on to another and finish the translation. You can also read them in the opposite direction. Nucleotides do interact in just such a way. That means, that the gene can not, in any ossible way be the unit of selection.

---

1) is not strictly true since the chromosomes are broken up by recombination. Genes that are very close will tend to stick together but that is all. And even if this were not the case, then the most you could do is to take a chromosome as the unit of selection, not the genome.2) is just illogical. The fact that genes interact doesn't mean that they can't be the unit of selection.

quote:

---

The genome is. The genome gets passed on in full. Natural selection does not pick out the best genes and drops the rest. To claim the opposite is to be in argument with reality itself.

---

In sexually reproducing species the genome does NOT get passed on in full. And in the long term natural selection will tend to favour the better alleles. "Hitchhiking" relies on the linkage remaining intact, which is not guaranteed even for adjacent genes - and you've got nothing else.

quote:

---

Something is or is not CSI, that's true. But something can contain more or less CSI. That's also obvious. And since information is measured in bits. CSI is also.

---

How many bits of having more bits than the bound can a thing have ?

quote:

---

Such as?

---

Requiring exactly 50 proteins - that isn't in the specification. using the same proteins as in the E coli flagellum or variants of them - that isn't in the specification either.

quote:

---

I'm simply asking you to name teh functions that are left? Keep in mind that we are totally of the subject now. I neevr claimed that loss of all functions is my main argument. It's you who simply doesn't want to drop this. Why? I don't know. But please do continue, tell me which functions have remained.

---

I am quite happy to leave it at the known function was lost, but we don't know if there were any other functions which remained or other functions gained. You, on the other hand will only leave it there if we hide the fact that you originally argued that ALL functions were lost.

quote:

---

But I did say it. And I told you why I said it. So why again are we talking about it?

---

Because your reason was incorrect, but the closest you will get to admitting it is trying to conceal the fact that you said it.

quote:

---

What a question... For the same raeason that getting 6 of 5 dice is less probable than getting one 6 on one die.

---

THe reason why it is more likely for dice is that the result of the throw is random. The production of proteins is not random - the structure is controlled by the gene. So getting multiple copies of the same protein is not at all like throwing dice.

quote:

---

Excuse me, but it's your, not my problem that those two words, complexity and improbability are inversly proportional. When one increases, the otehr decreases. This is a well known fact of statistics. Increase the number of dice, the complexity increases, yet the probbili probability of getting a specific outcome decreases.

---

Of course what you say is quite silly. If we simply consider Dembski's idiosyncratic usage of complexity getting 500 heads in a row is a "complex" sequence. But in normal usage it would be seen as simple.

quote:

---

Explain why. Point out where you did so, if you already did it.

---

I wouldn't like to speculate on Dembski's motives here.

quote:

---

Where! Show me where is non-uniform pobability used without prior knowledge!

---

I didn't say that it was.

quote:

---

Well, duh! That's what statistics are all about. It's about probability! It's not exact like standard algebra where 1+1=2. It's about approximation.

---

That's also wrong. Statistics are useful in dealing with approximations (e.g. calculation of error bars) but approximations are no better in statistics than in any other branch of maths.

quote:

---

As you can clearly see, the principle of insufficient reason, or as it is also called the principle of indifference, is uset precisely because we do not know the laws of nature 100%. If we did, we would be doing a statistical analysis in the first place! We would just know what would happen when we threw the die!

---

And you will notice that your wikipedia quote says nothing about uniform probability or the reasons for assuming it... In fact all it does is give the reasons for treating dice in terms of probabilities instead of exact predictions. Maybe you should have quoted the previous paragraph, but then that contains a reason FOR assuming that each number is equally likely.

quote:

---

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that we use this principle because it's the best approximation. If you have a better one, please do share it with us. If you don't than we are sticking with this one. If you claim that this method is false because it's not perfect and it's not giving us exact results, than your criticism fails. Because approximations are not supposed to be exact. Approximations are by definitions not exact.

---

Dembski claims that his method produces a mathematical proof of design - so no, approximations aren't good enough,

quote:

---

Umm... that's what the scientists were supposed to show not me.

---

I don;t see why they should be expected to come here to back up your claims. And if they were supposed to show it in the paper all you have to do is to find the section where they did it.

quote:

---

We are still talking about the absolute measure of information. A specific vital fuction is coded for by an absolute, not relative amount of information. And no, it's the individuals with more genetic information that can survive longer while loosing genetic information. Because they can be loosing those functions that are not vital. Unlike simple RNA chains that can loose som much and practically be done with.

---

Well that's a confused mess. Nevertheless it seems clear that even an inviable cheetah embryo will have more genetic information than a perfectly viable RNA self-reproducing RNA strand - so obviously the absolute measure is not what we need.

quote:

---

What the hell did I refuse to do?

---

The same thing that you asked me to do. That is what "you are refusing to do the same thing" means.

quote:

---

Of course, and that is because you are smarter than he is. You know better than he does. You invented the Gene gun, not him.

---

Just two problems with that. On is that inventing the gene gun doesn't require a knowledge of population genetics. The second is that it is quite possible that Sanford doesn;t agree with you.

quote:

---

By full I mean the half that gets passed on. That half is not examined by some mechanims inside the cell and all the deleterious mutations are not picked out. And again, by full, I mean that natural selection evaluates the full genome. It evaluates how the whole organism functions, and than it either selects it, or it does not. Only than does that organism pass on that half you were talking about. But first, thw whole genome is evaluated overall.

---

In other words "reality itself" does not say that the full genome is passed on by sexually reproducing species. Only half the genes are, and those are mixed by recombination. This is why we can't use the genome as the unit of selection - it doesn't persist long enough for the statistical effects to build up and dominate over noise. We need something that lasts, something that can spread through a population - and the full genome obviously isn't it.

quote:

---

No it won't. Noise is too large for this to happen. Remember those 6 sources of noise I was talking about? Like epigenetics? It interferes with the selection.

---

And that is simply an assumption. Oddly enough the "noise" didn't stop the alleles producing the melanic form of the peppered moth from spreading, once pollution turned the trees black.
Natural selection can overcome noise.

quote:

---

Umm... hitchhiking is what's happening all day everyday. It's caused by the 6 sources of noise I was talking about before. Nto jsut one you just mentioned.

---

And it also fails to happen every day. Recombination mixes things up.

quote:

---

What?

---

It's a simple question. Being CSI is having more bits of information than the bound. How is that measured in bits ? Why would you ever need more than one ?

quote:

---

And Dembski never said that 50 proteins is the specification. It's the complexity of the event D*.

---

If it's not in the specification his calculation of the probability can't use it. And do you really think that log2-P(D*) is 50 proteins ?

quote:

---

Why would I argue for that when I said before, and now, that that is NOT my main argument?

---

If you don't know why you did it, why should I know ? And it still doesn't change the fact that you DID argue for it, and that is why this bit off the discussion has gone on so long.

quote:

---

But genes are the ones that are under teh question of being designed. It's notl like they are a product of some natural law. There is no natural law that directs a DNA sequence to code for a flagellum. It was either produced by chance, or it was designed.

---

This misses the point that we were talking about individual protein molecules, not genes. And in fact the version using 1,000,000 molecules need have no more genes than the version using 50 since you insist that each uses the same set of proteins.

quote:

---

I see you basicly have no more arguments. You are not arguing with me anymore, nor with Dembski, nor with the whole mathematical community. You are now in an argument with the logic itself. As far as I'm concerned, our discussion is over. I'll continue it simply because I will do so, but in reality there is no real reason to do so.

​

If you deny something as simple as the inversly proportional relation between complexity and probability than we have nothign to talk about anymore.

---

Even using Dembski's idiosyncrative definition of complexity the relation is not an inverse proportionality (the complexity is proportional to the logarithm of the inverse probability). Using a more normal understanding of complexity your assertion is even more laughable.But if you won't communicate unless I agree with your silly assertion, all I can say is goodbye and good riddance.

Oh, it seems that you can communicate after all...

quote:

---

Who ever said I didn't know? What I actually said, is that I did know, and I told you that I did know, and I told you why I said it.

---

In other words your attempt to imply that you DIDN'T argue for it was a an attempt to deceive.

quote:

---

Why are you switching the discussion to DNA now? From the start 'till now, we were talking about proteins not DNA. DNA is irrelevant. Besides, there is a differnece in DNA if it's going to code for 50 proteins or 1.000.000 proteins.

---

Since we're talking only about individual protein molecules with the same structure, the only difference would be in the regulatory regions. Good luck arguing that the version that leads to 1,000,000 copies is going to be less probable than the version which leads to only 50.

quote:

---

1.) Tell me the difference between Dembski's definition of complexity and the "normal" definition.

---

Dembski's definition is (to be generous to you) -log2 p where p is the probability. The ordinary definition is "complicated". Look up a dictionary if you really want to know more.

quote:

---

2.) You contradict yourself in one single statement. Saying that: "relation is not an inverse proportionality" and that right after that saying: "the complexity is proportional to the logarithm of the inverse probability" is a contradiction.

---

I suppose that this is the sort of mathematics we can expect from someone who thinks that a probability can be "50 proteins". But no, there is no contradiction because -log n is NOT proportional to 1/n. (Two variables, a and b, are proportional if there is a constant c such that for all values a = c.b. )

quote:

---

So if you agree that complexity is proportiional to inverse probability, than you also agree with what I said which is that complexity is inversely proportional to probability. WHich are two identical definitions.

---

Well I don't agree because logarithms don't preserve proportionality.

quote:

---

What I have problem with are 2 things. First your unwillingness to accept teh principle of insufficient reason. Which is not something that is under debate, but a rule we should follow. If you attack it, you are not debating me. You are not debating Dembski. You are than debating the whole statistical community. Which is not what we are supposed to do.

---

Firstly the entire statistics community does NOT accept Dembski's ideas. If they talk about complexity it is more likely to be Kolmogorov complexity which is a measure of compressibility of a sequence.Secondly the entire statistics community know what proportionality is and what a logarithm is and therefore know that you're wrong to say that p is inversely proportional to -log p.And thirdly the entire statistics community know that simply assigning equal probabilities to different outcomes without knowledge is NOT reliable.

quote:

---

This is a valid criticism. Because in order to limit a possible source of explanations, you first have to know that something else is not responsible for the event in question. If you don't know it's not responsible, you can't say that it can't be used as an explanation.

---

Except, of course, methodological naturalism doesn't say that supernatural explanations are false. It says that science isn't competent to investigate the supernatural. That's rather a big difference. (Your "criticism" also doesn't address the other pragmatic reason for using methodological naturalism - it has been hugely successful).

quote:

---

Let's say that our targetwhile flipping coins is all heads. Heads are marked with H, tails with T. So basicly this is what we have. As you can clearly see, as the number of coins increase, the number of sides increase. The complexity also increases. Complexity in this case are all the sides that landed. The probability decreases. Therefore it's inversely proportional to complexity.

---

The probability of getting the exact sequence changes. However if we consider Kolmogorov complexity the complexity depends not on the probability of the sequence, but the sequence itself. Sequences displaying a regular pattern are less complex than those which do not - so the definition of complexity we use is important.Even with Dembski's measure the relevant probability may not change - or it may even increase. That is because the relevant probability is the probability that the specification is met, not the probability of the exact sequence (as in Dembski's analysis of the Caputo case).

quote:

---

But I never said that. I said that I argued for it, and why. Please stop misrepresenting my position.

---

You implied it, as is perfectly obvious.

quote:

---

I'm talking about proteins themselves forming by chance.

---

But they don't.

quote:

---

As for the sequence. The DNA that gets translated to RNA maps nucleic acids to amino acids which are supposed to fold into proteins. Obviously, you will need more RNA for more proteins.

---

Even if you do (and I have to say that I am far from certain that is true) it still doesn't matter because the sequence is dictated by the gene.

quote:

---

What's the difference?

---

Simple things can be improbable, too.

quote:

---

As the complexity gets higher, the probability gets smaller. Why do you deny this?

---

I didn't. I denied that the relationship was inversely proportional - and your list proves me correct.

quote:

---

I never said they do. Neither is the principle of insuficcient reason Dembski's idea. And yes, the statistical community does accept it.

---

Frequentists don't accept ANY probability based purely on a priori considerations. And nobody who understands probability theory thinks that you can get an accurate result just by assuming that the outcomes are equiprobable without information. It wouldn't even work for something as simple as the sum of two dice.

quote:

---

False. When you apply equal probability to dice, you are making an assumption and using the principle of insufficient reason. So yes, they do use it.

---

Based on knowledge, not on ignorance. (And a fequentist would insist on rolling the die to be sure that it was fair).

quote:

---

Neither did I say that it says that they are false. But they limit what science can and can not investigate. Explanations are supposed to be materialistic. Which means that an intelligence can not be an answer. If you don't know that the intelligence isn't an answer in the first place, you can't say that you can't say it is.

---

And you're wrong again. Methodological naturalism doesn't rule out intelligence at all. All it says is that science can't investigate the supernatural.

quote:

---

Newton's description of gravity did very well also. But it also had to be replaced. Being correct in some instances doesn't mean you are always correct. Science is supposed to be improving itself constantly.

---

However, abandoning a successful strategy to return to a failed alternative is hardly an improvement.

quote:

---

Currently we are tolking about events. It's the patterns that are described by Kolmogorov complexity.

---

The Caputo case was both. A protein is both, Your examples are both. They are not so distinct.

quote:

---

Probability of an event can not increase if you increase complexity.

---

Which is why I am correct to say that the length of the sequence does not dictate the complexity.

quote:

---

I implied what?

---

That you hadn't tried to argue for loss of all function, instead of just the known function.

quote:

---

Oh, but I know that very well. It is you who is claiming that they evolved, thus they formed by the exact probability as with random chance.

---

And you are wrong as usual. The point is that the assembly of proteins is controlled by genes. So producing multiple copies of the same protein just requires using the same gene over and over again. Evolution doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

Is the sequence dictated by itself? No it's not. The gene is the sequence, and the sequence is the gene. It can't direct itself.

---

The sequence of the protein is dictated by the gene. Thus proteins do not assemble by chance.

quote:

---

Please define the words "proportional" and "inversely proportional".

---

I defined proportional a couple of posts back. Two quantities a,b are proportional if there is a constant c, such that a = c.b for all values of b. THey are inversely proportional if a = c.1/b for all values of b.

quote:

---

And now tell me does this list show you proportional relationship, or inversely proportional relationship.

​

1 - 60
10 - 6
15 - 4
30 - 2
45 - 1 1/3
60 - 1

---

That is an inverse proportional relationship.

quote:

---

Fine, than please do give me a better method. I'm waiting. If you don't have it, we'll keep using mine.

---

Either we find out what the real probabilities are or we admit that we can't do the calculation for lack of the correct figures.

quote:

---

Wrong! It precisely says that based on us NOT KNOWING THE LAWS OF MECHANICS IN FULL, we infer uniform probability.

---

In reality it's more to do with not knowing all the variables to an adequate precision - but also knowing that the die is a regular shape and that the mass should be evenly distributed. Even your quote points to the knowledge that the die is symmetrical,

quote:

---

When I say methodological naturalism, I mean the today's version of implied materialim. Since intelligence is non-material, than intelligence can't be an explanation.

---

Then you are criticising a strawman. The methodological naturalism of science only ignores the supernatural. Intelligence, whether animal, human or hypothetical extraterrestrial species is included within the natural.

quote:

---

Failed? Failed how? Return? Return how? It's not failed, and it's still in use.

---

I suppose that there are still people who attribute lightning, disease or earthquakes to supernatural beings, but these beliefs contribute nothing to our scientific understanding.

quote:

---

For instance in cosmology. You do know that by definition the idea of Big Bang and multiverse are not naturalistic because they imply something outside of nature, thus are by definition supernatural. It's just that there are certain people who would like to impose artificial constraints on scientific fields such as biology to adhere strictly to materialism and methodological naturalism.

---

In fact I know that the multiverse is entirely within nature and that scientific proposals for the cause of the Big Bang are likewise natural.

quote:

---

False on all three accounts. KC has nothing to do with Shannon. My example had on algorithmic compression. Where did I use it? Nowhere. I only used Shannon's method to calculate the complexity from the probability, not KC method.

---

So the fact that you didn't calculate the Kolmogorov complexity means that they are NOT sequences ? What a strange idea.

quote:

---

Wrong. What I said means that it doesn't increase because it decreases! It can't do both in the same time. It decreases, that's why it's inversely proportional.

---

Nevertheless the relevant probability is not dictated by the length of the sequence.

quote:

---

Which is true.

---

What is true ? Are you now trying to assert that you did NOT argue for the loss of all function ?

quote:

---

What if they were different proteins of the same size N?

---

You said that they weren't different proteins. That is why I have to point out that more copies of the same protein isn't that unlikely.

quote:

---

According to you, one of them did. The proteins come from genes. Yet you need proteins to have a DNA replication. Since it would lead to an infinite regress to say this has been happening since forever, it's obvious that one came first. How? Well, you claim one came about by chance.

---

Since DNA replication was preceded by RNA replication we cannot say that the assembly of any protein was by chance. You are treading on unknown ground when you make that claim.

quote:

---

Okay, and how would you define this equation.

​

---

I would say that y is proportional to the logartihm of x

quote:

---

Great. And what is this?

​

1/2 - 1
1/4 - 2
1/8 - 3
1/16 - 4
1/32 - 5
1/64 - 6
1/128 - 7
1/256 - 8
1/512 - 9

---

It's an inverse logarithmic relation.

quote:

---

Which is a statement that you yourself do not agree with. You basicly want to stop science in its tracks. When science doesn't know something, it infers it. I don't know if you actually read what I wrote few posts ago, but I'll re post it now. Here it is...

---

No, I don't want to stop science in it's tracks. The progress of science does mnot depend on making wild guesses that happen to be convenient to ID proponentsAlso your long paragraph is very, very silly. We conclude from induction that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very, very high. We do not conclude that it is just as likely not to rise or to perform odd manouevres as you suggest, There is no similar body of evidence validating the use of uniform probabilities - a method recognised as unsound by statisticians.

quote:

---

You are missing the point. It's not about what we DO know, it's about what we DON'T know.

---

No, I am CONTRADICTING the point by poiting out that the choice of uniform probability in this case is supported by knowledge. If it were not, it would be unreliable.

quote:

---

It's not a strawman, because materialism is also implied today.

---

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. However the fact is that inference to naturally existing intelligences is entirely permissable within methodological naturalism - which is based on the natural/supernatural dichotomy, not the natural/artificial dichotomy. Thus any assertion that methodological naturalism rules out intelligence is false and a strawman.

quote:

---

No, by definition can not be. Our universe is the nature. Everything that is outside of it is supernatural. So by definition the multiverse and big bang are supernatural.

---

No, our universe (which includes the Big Bang) is not regarded as necessarily all of nature.

quote:

---

No, I simply said that KC is not used for the probability of events. Shannon information is used instead.

---

Which is completely by Kol irrelevant since they are sequences and have a Kolmogorov complexity whether it is calculated or not. And that complexity is not determined by the length of the sequence.

quote:

---

But it is by the amount of proteins

---

Not really. Two different proteins would be more complex than two copies of the same protein - and very likely more complex than three or four. Certainly by Kolmogorov complexity - and Dembski's measure is even more sensitive to other factors.

quote:

---

Nope, why would I say that?

---

I don't know why you said it, but you did and even admitted to doing so, not so many posts ago. And by past form you will admit to saying it again and insist that it is correct next...

quote:

---

I know, and now, I'm asking you what if they were differnet but of the same size N.

---

Perhaps you can go back to my earlier posts where I discussed the point only to be cut off by your insistence that you were using the same proteins...

quote:

---

You very well know that this is a pure assertation. Nobody knows what preceded what. So if we are going to accept the idea that something came first, than one of them came by chance, by your logic. So which one was it?

---

The current scientific view is that RNA life preceded DNA life, and this view has been accpeted for some time now.

quote:

---

Thank you. So it's an inverse logarithmic relation. Fine. So do you now accept that complexity and probability have an inverse logarithmic relation?

---

I haven't changed my mind on the relationship between Dembski's complexity and probabiity.

quote:

---

Saying that the Sun will rise tommorow is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT a wild guess! It's an inference, with which you would agree on. And it's based on an assumption!

---

And it's got nothing to do with the point we are arguing.

quote:

---

You got your analogy wrong. Infering that the Sun will rise tommorow is a generalized case of principle of insufficient reason.

---

Except that we could base it on induction or on an understanding of the dynamics of the Earth and it's relation to the Sun. Rather than assigning equal probabilities to all possible outcomes we know that it is highly unlikely that the Earth will stop spinning unless a drastic and improbably event occurs (conservation of angular momentum tells us it can't "just happen").

quote:

---

The article clearly says that PoIR is use not because we DO know something, but because we DON'T know something! We use it because, in this case, we do not precisely know the mechanical laws that govern the dice!

---

And the article omits to mention the important things that we do know, that justify assigning equal probabilities to the six faces of the die.

quote:

---

I said materialism rules out intelligence.

---

Which is both false and irrelevant to the original claim that methodological naturalism did not consider intelligent causes. Forensics work uses methodological naturalism - it does not consider demons or miracles - but it certainly allows for human action.

quote:

---

1.) I didn't say BB itself. But the CAUSE of BB. The cause is obviously outside our universe.

​

2.) As I said, unter the multiverse hypothesis, our nature is just one of many natures. And any one of them is by definition supernatural becasue it's outside our nature.

​

3.) If you claim that our universe is just a part of the whole nature, than this is an unfalsifiable claim, thus not science. Becasue that emans that everything is nature, and thus nothing is nature. Eitehr soemthing is, or isn't nature.

---

You said: The "big bang" not"the cause of the Big Bang. And you would still be wrong if you HAD said "the cause of the Big Bang".Your point 2 is also wrong.And I am not sure what the hell your point 3 is supposed to mean. Definitions aren't meant to be falsifiable.

quote:

---

Which is why I ddin't use KC for the probability, obviously.

---

You don't use Kolmogorov complexity for probability because it isn't a probability. But then I suppose I shouldn't expect somebody who thinks that "50 proteins" is a probability to understand that.The point is that Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of complexity. And one which is rather better than Dembski's odd definition - and more accepted in the statistics community.

quote:

---

What exactly would be the correct answer than?

---

The correct answer would be that we can't tell if it would lose all functionality or not.

quote:

---

Look, it doesn't matter if they are the same or not.

---

It was important enough to you when you insisted on it.

quote:

---

Youwould still need more information in teh regulatory regions if there were more proteins even if they were similar. Because now you would need to coordinate more proteins. Thus, you would need more information to do so.

---

Not necessarily. When dealing with identical units it doesn't matter which one goes into which slot.

quote:

---

In any case, you need more information. Therefore, probability of them forming by chance decreases.

---

That is entirely the wrong way around. You can't use your guesses about information to argue the probability.

quote:

---

Fine. So the RNA is the one that formed by chance. How exactly does that help you?

---

RNA life doesn't need proteins at all. Therefore the synthesis and use of proteins is likely the product of evolution, based on the chemical properties of existing RNA rather than pure chance. Thus your claim that a protein "must" have formed by pure chance is refuted. That's how it helps me.

quote:

---

Oh, I see, so in the light of facts, you still won't change your mind. So why are we even having this conversation? I clearly demonstrated an inverse relation between complexity and probability and you won't change your mind.

---

You actually suggest that the fact that you have proven that my position was correct and your position wrong is a reason why I shoulod change MY mind ?I suppose this explains why so much of what you say is wrong.

quote:

---

CASE 1. - Dice

​

a.) We don't know the mechanic underlying their movement.
b.) Based on this ignorance we assume that increasing the number of dice will change the probability in a predictable way.
c.) And that's how we infer the probability of dice throws.

​

CASE 2. - Sun

​

a.) We don't know the mechanic underlying it's movement.
b.) Based ont his ignorace, we assume that increasing the time we observe the Sun rising and setting will continue in the predictable manner.
c.) And that's how we infer Sun's movement.

​

As you can see this is the same thing.

---

The question is, of course, about the reasons why we assign uniform probability. Something that goes completely unmentioned in either case.In case 2 we DO know the mechanics underlying the movement (the rotation of the Earth) we understand how this may be changed (and that it does change my small amounts over time) and that it is difficult to change to a significant degree.And if you don't know that muich then you had better retake high school physics.

quote:

---

And you miss the point again. Yes that's the part we know. But it could be wrong. The point is that we don't know EXACTLY the mechanics underlying the dynamics between the Sun and the Earth. We could be wrong. In absence of knowledge about how things really work we ASSUME that they are going to work the way we observe them now.

---

Since the Sun has very little to do with the Earth's rotation and we don't exactly need to know a lot about that to realise that significantly affecting it is a massive task (conservation of angular momentum plus decent estimates of the Earth's shape, diameter and mass will do) then your point is daft. Especially when it completely ignores the point you are supposedly discussing - there is no mention of uniform probability in it at all.

quote:

---

And again, this is where you make a false analogy. We do not asign the same probabilities to all outcomes like that. We asign the same probabilities to the uniform motion of the Sun.

---

The same as WHAT ? Non-uniiform motion ?

quote:

---

Wrong. You keep missing the point. It doesn't omit anything. We know something about the dice. Yes that's true, the point is we don't know if it's 100% true. And that's what we're ignorant off. And that's where teh PoIR comes in.

---

And what we know about the dice justifies the use of uniform probabilities. Not ignorance.

quote:

---

I said certain sciences, like biology imply materialism with methodological naturalism.

---

No, you said:

quote:

---

1.) It seems I was not precise enough. I emant the cause of BB. And no, I'm not wrong. Tell me where was teh cause of BB. Inside or outside of our universe?

​

2.) Umm... Why?

​

3.) It means that since nature is everything, than there is no sucha a thing as supernatural. Therefore, even God is a natural explanation.

---

Your question in 1) is unanswerable since we do not even know if our universe is all there is or if it is embedded in a larger naturak reality.Your point 2) is wrong because the multiverse is considered part of nature. The only difference between it and our universe is that the study must rest on theoretical study since it is not directly accessible (i.e. it IS "governed by natural law" and therefore natural).3) Claiming that there may be more to nature does not entail that everything is natural. Your assertion is simply illogical and fallacious.

quote:

---

The point you fail to understand is that complexity is the logarithmic inverse of probability. They are in certain cases equivalent.

---

No, I fully understand that that is Dembski's measure of complexity. What you fail to grasp is that it does not even agree with your intuitive ideas of complexity - let alone more widely accepted measures like Kolmogorov complexity.

At this point it becomes clear that you aren't worth talking to. The discussion has gone on so long and become so repetitive that I would be surprised if anyone else was still reading or if they would learn anything that had not already been covered.The idea that you have to make a false claim, try to pretend that you hadn't said it and then try to pretend that you didn't say that you didn't say it over and over again round and round in circles is bad enough. But this piece of lunacy proves that you are a hopeless case: The sun does NOT go around the Earth. The apparent motion of the sun is due to the Earth rotating on it's axis. If you don't know that much then there's little I can say.As I said, we know that it would take a massive force to significantly change the rotation of the Earth and there is no likelihood at all that "it could do a 360 loop at 12 o'clock in the noon and than continue as if nothing happened." We don't even need to invoke gravity - conservation of angular momentum is rather more important ! Relativistic considerations aren't significant. either We know that Newtonian mechanics is an extremely reliable model for the masses and speeds involved. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sure Dembski proposes that. But nobody has ever used Dembski's method to detect design in living things - his method is so hopelessly impractical that even Dembski himself can't apply it correctly.