Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 106 of 373 (644775)
12-20-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
12-20-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Information
NoNukes writes:
I'm also not sure it makes sense to measure information content outside of the context in which the information is being interpreted.
It depends upon whether the information measurement is dependent upon the context. Whether or not a mutation increases the information content in the genome is independent of the environment. Take your bacteria with its mutation and place it north or south, high or low, dry or wet, and the information change caused by the mutation will be the same.
Information theory is a mathematical science. For a population where the number of possible states in the system is a function of the messages (individual genomes) in the population, if the number of possible states in the system increases then the amount of information has increased. The latitude, altitude, temperature, humidity, tides, presence of predators, food availability, etc., do not matter.
You may be trying to answer a different question, one that WK mentioned a couple times. From the short excerpt he provided it looks like Frank is treating differential reproductive across successive generations and the responsible mutations as a response to information from the environment. This sounds fascinating, but I don't think it's the question being asked. Regarding whether mutations (of any type) can cause an increase in genomic information the answer is mathematical and is a resounding yes.
There's a simpler and non-mathematical way to answer this question. Take a bacteria that experiences a non-fatal deleterious point mutation resulting from the loss of a single nucleotide and that in this case it is a decrease in information. If the bacteria then experiences another point mutation that restores the original nucleotide then it must be a beneficial mutation and an increase in information. Most creationists see the unavoidable logic in this argument, but they then ask if there's any evidence that this has ever actually happened, and of course the answer is yes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 1:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 3:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 109 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 4:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 118 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2011 4:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 107 of 373 (644777)
12-20-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
12-20-2011 3:14 PM


Re: Information
There's a simpler and non-mathematical way to answer this question. Take a bacteria that experiences a non-fatal deleterious point mutation resulting from the loss of a single nucleotide and that in this case it is a decrease in information. If the bacteria then experiences another point mutation that restores the original nucleotide then it must be a beneficial mutation and an increase in information. Most creationists see the unavoidable logic in this argument, but they then ask if there's any evidence that this has ever actually happened, and of course the answer is yes.
There has never been a better time for an on-topic plug for one of my threads:
Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
The strain used in the study contained a detrimental mutation in the gene responsible for de novo leucine production. The authors observed that random mutations occurred in this gene which reversed the detrimental mutation and re-established de novo leucine production.
If this is not an increase in information as defined by ID/Creationists, then evolution does not need an increase in information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. This is another corner that ID/Creationists paint themselves into. They define "new information" so that no mutation can produce it. In doing so, they make "new information" irrelevant and superfluous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 373 (644785)
12-20-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
12-19-2011 4:17 PM


Looking For Intelligence
Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?
If we found a signal expressing Pi to 100 decimal places in binary transmitted at the Hydrogen line frequency (or something like that) wouldn't that be clear evidence of intelligence?
I don't know what the "specific method for detecting intelligence" being applied is but such a thing would seem like a clear sign of intelligence anyway - No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 4:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 5:03 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 5:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 373 (644786)
12-20-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
12-20-2011 3:14 PM


Re: Information
For a population where the number of possible states in the system is a function of the messages (individual genomes) in the population, if the number of possible states in the system increases then the amount of information has increased.
The above is not enough to allow us to actually assess the change in information of information that results when portions of a message are changed. Looking at an electronics communications stream, for example, some number of the bits may be used for error/checking or parity or other types of redundancy and may be used to correct errors during transmission. That means we have to have some sense of how the message is interpreted to determine whether any given change to the message translates to any change in content at all as far as the receiver is concerned.
There's a simpler and non-mathematical way to answer this question.
Excellent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 110 of 373 (644787)
12-20-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
12-20-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Looking For Intelligence
Straggler writes:
Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?
Sure, or at least that's what they say they're doing. I wonder if any of the SETI people have ever written about what distinguishes their efforts from IDists'. I thought a bit about replying in more detail, but I quickly realized I'm not aware of any scientifically rigorous definition of intelligence, and anyway SETI is probably off-topic.
This information sub-thread began with a rebuttal to the claim that archaeologists are seeking signs of intelligence rather than signs of human activity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 111 of 373 (644788)
12-20-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
12-20-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Looking For Intelligence
Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?
If we found a signal expressing Pi to 100 decimal places in binary transmitted at the Hydrogen line frequency (or something like that) wouldn't that be clear evidence of intelligence?
SETI is looking for something much simpler. They are looking for a narrowband transmission that is similar to human radio transmitters. They are not looking for binary codes, or any codes for that matter. What they are looking for is a spike of energy in the radiowave frequency spectrum that is quite different from the normal spectrum of naturally occuring radiation.
It would be more accurate to say that SETI is looking for a specific type of technology, not intelligence per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2011 1:12 PM Taq has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 112 of 373 (644823)
12-21-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
12-20-2011 3:40 AM


I fail to see how the regular pulsed signal of a pulsar could be seen as anything other than specific. Both are specified in that they fit a pattern that can be predetermined.
Yes they do have very predictable patterns indeed. So do crystals, spotted unicorn snails, and a whole host of other things. But a predictable pattern is not what specificity is. No observer, upon seeing a spectral line for the first time would say that this phenomena matches a foreknown pattern he is familiar with that is completely independent of this phenomena. However, upon first sight of Mt. Rushmore, even if the observer was unfamiliar with the persons depicted their, the busts would spark a foreknown recognition response of the human figure. Likewise in my combination lock example, an observer would be able to see that a specified numeric code, completely independent of the lock, causes a function response in the locking mechanism.
There is no way to take a single mutation or even a small series of mutations and work out if they qualifiy or not. And the only way to test the claim is to look at a single mutation, or a relatively small series of mutations and work out if they qualify or not.
"BINGO" If that is true then those who affirm that universal common decent is a fact based on observations in biology, are just plain lying. That's because you can't infer UCD of lower organisms to higher organisms without at least one example showing that the basic mechanism can and does work. Therefore since we have only observed true specificity come from intelligent sources, and because the DNA of all living things contains incredibly high levels of specificity, we must conclude based on observations, all living things have an intelligent source.
If adding a new useful gene to the genome - even one similar to an existing gene doesn't qualify as an increase in information, what does ?
If it is "new" in that it hasn't existed before in the gene pool, and it benefits the organism, then that is exactly what I am talking about. Got anything like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2011 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2011 2:12 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 113 of 373 (644824)
12-21-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2011 4:17 AM


If you asked "almost ALL biologists" whether DNA is "highly specified" they'd stare at you blankly and ask what you mean.
Oh really? It might interest you to know that Crick and Watson (credited for first discovering DNA) also were the first to refer to the "specificity" of the code in DNA.
quote:
Many lines of evidence indicate that it is the carrier of a part of (if not all) the genetic specificity of the chromosomes and thus the gene itself. (1st paragraph 5th line)
...the precise sequence of the bases is the code which carries the genetic information. (11th paragraph 5th line)

Numerous other scientific papers since, can be cited that refer to the highly specified nature of DNA. Just to name a couple.
As to "many" attributing it to a designer, I await the source of your vague nonstatistic with interest.
I have no "source" that says there are "X" amount of ID believing biologists compared to "X" amount of common decent believing biologists, if that's what you mean. But I can cite you several examples of highly credentialed biologists who attribute it to an intelligent source, if you want some of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 4:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2011 3:56 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2011 5:02 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 114 of 373 (644825)
12-21-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
12-20-2011 7:17 AM


Yours is the familiar ID argument that because information cannot increase by natural means, and because only an intelligence can create information, therefore an intelligence created life. But of course information, in this case biological information, can be created naturally.
Hello Percy, I am aware of this argument all too well as I used to make the same mistake. I mistakenly confused "information" with specified information, and got beat to death intellectually for it. I had this whole speal about how a phone number was like information in DNA and how the odds of getting a certain number were enormous. Until someone pointed out to me that the odds were as equally great for any number I would dial at random on the phone. Yet there I had dialed it on the very first try. I later learned that I needed to clarify that it is specific information that requires intelligence. It has nothing to do with odds, but rather information that has a very specified intent. It wasn't about just dialing "any" number but a very specific number intended to reach a specific person. That's what identifies an intelligent source as opposed to any random acts of nature. And it is this type of specificity that has only been observed coming from intelligent sources.
All DNA of course has highly specified code in the sequence of arrangements of its bases. It utilizes this as the very blue prints for each cell in the construction of the entire living organism. Those who want us to believe it all formed by random mutations and natural selection over millions of years, tell us that single celled organisms gave rise to multi celled organisms, which grew fins and became fish, which grew lungs, then legs and eventually made lap tops. Of course in order for this to happen, a whole lot of NEW (never before existed) "specified" information must have been added over that long period of time to get where we are today. In order for that to even be plausible we would need to see evidence that excludes it from the possibility of only being a manipulation within the already existing gene pool. The ONLY evidence that could support common decent and exclude gene pool manipulation would be an example of observed added beneficially NEW never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi celled organism. That is what I have yet to ever see anyone present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 7:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2011 4:01 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 12-21-2011 7:42 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 12-21-2011 10:10 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 11:11 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 115 of 373 (644828)
12-21-2011 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:51 AM


quote:
Yes they do have very predictable patterns indeed. So do crystals, spotted unicorn snails, and a whole host of other things. But a predictable pattern is not what specificity is.
I am afraid that is exactly what it is. I'm afraid you are just another creationist who doesn't understand his own argument.
quote:
No observer, upon seeing a spectral line for the first time would say that this phenomena matches a foreknown pattern he is familiar with that is completely independent of this phenomena.
Actually they would note that the light produced fall into very narrow bands of frequencies rather than being spread across the spectrum. Specificity ! And you can take more atoms of the same element and get exactly the same pattern ! (IIRC spectral lines are also predictable from theory).
quote:
However, upon first sight of Mt. Rushmore, even if the observer was unfamiliar with the persons depicted their, the busts would spark a foreknown recognition response of the human figure. Likewise in my combination lock example, an observer would be able to see that a specified numeric code, completely independent of the lock, causes a function response in the locking mechanism.
And you will note that in both these cases it is not the vague concept of "specificity" that does the work.
quote:
"BINGO" If that is true then those who affirm that universal common decent is a fact based on observations in biology, are just plain lying.
Typical creationist amorality. When caught being dishonest, start slandering the opposition.
No, the fact that your test is worthless does NOT make all the observations in biology that support common descent miraculously vanish. Taxonomy, biogeography, fossils, genetics all continue to exist.
quote:
That's because you can't infer UCD of lower organisms to higher organisms without at least one example showing that the basic mechanism can and does work.
In the same way that Wegener couldn't infer continental drift without a mechanism ? And before you go overboard on that comparison don't forget that Wegener's view was impossible given the then-current view of the structure of the Earth. Evolution is far from impossible - the fact that your test is rigged and worthless shows that you don't even have a valid objection to it!
Think about it. If you can't identify which mutations fit your criteria then we can't know we've observed them even if they happen! Thus failing to "observe" them happening is simply a result of the fact that YOU failed to set up a valid test. So that's no objection to evolution. And worse still for you, it means that to the best of our knowledge there is nothing special about these mutations - and if there is nothing special about them then it isn't even valid to single them out as "adding information" - let alone think that there is some reason that they can't happen. Now given that we do know of processes which DO add information to the genome the whole "information argument" is really just blowing hot air.
quote:
Therefore since we have only observed true specificity come from intelligent sources, and because the DNA of all living things contains incredibly high levels of specificity, we must conclude based on observations, all living things have an intelligent source.
Really ? Does it contain more specificity than a salt crystal ? The cubic shape is a very good specification. DNA, on the other hand is not very specific at all. Large amounts of DNA may be changed freely with absolutely no effect. Other areas are relatively insensitive to change. Even for the very limited regions where the sequence is critical there are usually some changes which can be made. And that's just considering the mutations which don't have any significant effect ! If the specification is function, you need to throw in all the other ways of achieving the function, too. So obviously DNA is not that highly specified.
quote:
If it is "new" in that it hasn't existed before in the gene pool, and it benefits the organism, then that is exactly what I am talking about. Got anything like that?
The blood clotting system is an example. And here's an example where a protein from blood clotting has been duplicated and adapted to use in a venom Molecular evolution caught in action

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:51 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 10:04 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 116 of 373 (644833)
12-21-2011 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:52 AM


Oh really? It might interest you to know that Crick and Watson (credited for first discovering DNA) also were the first to refer to the "specificity" of the code in DNA.
But they didn't say it was "highly specified", nor, when they used the term "specificity" were they thinking of the vague ill-defined concept that plays such an important yet nebulous role in your maunderings about ID.
I have no "source" that says there are "X" amount of ID believing biologists compared to "X" amount of common decent believing biologists, if that's what you mean. But I can cite you several examples of highly credentialed biologists who attribute it to an intelligent source, if you want some of those.
Unless "several" has become a synonym for "many" without anyone telling me about it, you may save your breath.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 117 of 373 (644835)
12-21-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:52 AM


I later learned that I needed to clarify that it is specific information that requires intelligence. It has nothing to do with odds, but rather information that has a very specified intent.
So, in order to detect intelligent design, we need to detect specificity ... and in order to detect specificity, we need to detect intent. This might actually be true, since intent is a property of thinking entities.
Now, how do we detect intent?
The ONLY evidence that could support common decent and exclude gene pool manipulation would be an example of observed added beneficially NEW never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi celled organism. That is what I have yet to ever see anyone present.
We shall present it the moment you present an operational definition of it.
Until then you might as well be saying that the only evidence you'll accept is flurble-wurble boo bing spong.
Why you refuse to accept the actual evidence for evolution, the stuff that can be described in words that do possess meaning, is something of a mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 118 of 373 (644840)
12-21-2011 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
12-20-2011 3:14 PM


Re: Information
Most creationists see the unavoidable logic in this argument, but they then ask if there's any evidence that this has ever actually happened, and of course the answer is yes.
I think I've mentioned before that this is rarely the response I have seen to this argument. More usually the creationist/IDist insists that since there had to be an initial information reducing mutation for your example experiment then there has therefore been no net gain in new information, simply a recovery of previously lost information.
Since many IDists/creationists adhere to the idea of some sort of platonic created genetic sequence which is inherently informationally maximal, being the product of divine design, they consider any net gain over that to be impossible and all change away from that initial created genome to be deleterious. See for example the several discussions I had with Smooth Operator where he insisted that even if a mutation improved a gene product's functionality or bestowed an entirely novel beneficial trait on the organism it still constituted a loss of information because the sequence had changed at all, e.g. Message 574.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 119 of 373 (644843)
12-21-2011 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:52 AM


Oh really? It might interest you to know that Crick and Watson (credited for first discovering DNA)
The only people crediting Watson and Crick with first discovering DNA are idiots. DNA was first discovered in the 19th century, what Watson and Crick did was to deduce the correct molecular structure of DNA.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Just being real has not replied

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


Message 120 of 373 (644851)
12-21-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Just being real
12-21-2011 12:52 AM


Identifying Specified Information
Hi JBR,
Well, then, let's take what you say and try to turn it into evidence that one would expect to see if life were the product of an intelligent designer.
First we need to know how to identify specified information. You describe it as "information that has a very specified intent." Are there any objective methods for identifying intent? Isn't intent a subjective human interpretation? Don't juries argue about intent? Are you perhaps just taking what something does and defining its actions as intentional?
Someone raised the issue of SETI earlier, and that might be a good argument for you. Regarding the detection of specificity you could say that there's a gray area where specificity is very ambiguous and unclear, but that DNA obviously has specificity in spades. When challenged you could respond that SETI is doing the exact same thing when they seek narrow bandwidth electromagnetic transmissions. Like ID, SETI understands that there's a large gray area where intelligent origin cannot be established, but they claim that narrow bandwidth electromagnetic transmissions are obviously of intelligent origin.
When you say "common decent" don't you mean "common decency?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:52 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024