|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
I am afraid that is exactly what it is. I'm afraid you are just another creationist who doesn't understand his own argument. No Paul, I'm afraid I understand my argument very well. You don't seem to be able to grasp the definition of specificity. Just something following natural laws of physics and producing a predictable pattern is not specificity. A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters: 1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC 2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobinthe two halves don't resemble one another. That is because the ordering is like that in the type 2 example abovechop that sentence in half and it loses all its meaning. Your examples of highly ordered naturally occurring patterns are not examples of specificity. Though they may be at times very complex and beautiful to look at, they do not spark the recognition response or the function response required to qualify. Without which they are only contrived rather than real.
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! Look Paul, its actually quite simple. All we need is a controlled study in which a parent group that did not possess some certain trait that over several generations evolved a new novel beneficial trait as a result of added new never before existed information to the DNA of that population. It can't be through duplication of the same information because that would be like a billionaire claiming he made his wealth by writing himself checks. It can't be through loss of information because that would be like a guy claiming he gained his wealth by taking a pay decrease which put him in a lower tax bracket. It might benefit him in the short term, but over all he lost wealth, not increased it. In order to gain wealth, somewhere along the way you have to add more money to your account. To gain more advanced life forms, somewhere along the way you've got to add more beneficial information to the DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Please let us know how you wish to quantify information; thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
All DNA of course has highly specified code in the sequence of arrangements of its bases. Um, exactly how specified do you think it is? Given that, for most proteins you can alter as much as 80 or 90% of them without changing their function or catalytic activity, isn't DNA actually not all that specific, much as we might expect for something that evolved by mutation and random selection?
It utilizes this as the very blue prints for each cell in the construction of the entire living organism. Uh, no, in fact your DNA contains absolutely no blueprints at all. With very few exceptions there's no homology between DNA and anatomy, either on a cellular or organismal level. DNA isn't anything like a "blueprint."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In Message 98 I showed you how duplication and mutation can change and add information.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobinthe two halves don't resemble one another. Another bad example showing how little biology you actually know. Cut haemoglobin in half and, depending on the intersect, you can in fact get two identical halves because haemoglobin is formed from a tetramer of globin subunits, usually 2 alpha subunits and two beta sub units. Since the current evidence supports a duplicative origin of the globin superfamily, including the alpha and beta globins, you seem to have picked a particularly poor example to support your current line of argument. As an aside, if you chop example 2 in half it doesn't lose all its meaning. 'A CAT SAT.' is still a perfectly good sentence and conveys a substantial portion of the meaning of 'A CAT SAT ON THE MAT.' So even your non-biological example is highly flawed. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It is according to your original definition, and according to Dembski, too. Looking at your examples:
quote: 1 is a better example of a specified pattern, because you don't need to understand English to recognise it.
quote: Since it's your idea of "information" that you refuse to explain that doesn't help. If you are going to rule out any examples on the grounds that they don't meet a criterion you won't explain there really isn't any point in me trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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. No offense, but that's just a terrible description of DNA. DNA is nothing like a blueprint. A blueprint is a picture of the final product, DNA is a chemical that causes the production of amino acids into proteins. The DNA doesn't even tell you "put this cell here and that one there" (like blueprint instructions might), it just produced whatever amino acid it must due to the chemisry involved. We've all heard DNA described as a blueprint, even tho its a terrible analogy, but to use that as an argument for design is fallacious reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You don't seem to be able to grasp the definition of specificity. Just something following natural laws of physics and producing a predictable pattern is not specificity. Then life is not specified since it passes on DNA in a predictable manner in accordance to natural laws, and the adaptation of species produces a predictable pattern which is the nested hierarchy.
[qs]A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters:1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC 2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobinthe two halves don't resemble one another.[/quote] Chop this rock in half and you will have two halves that do not resemble one another:
So I guess this rock is specified as well.
Though they may be at times very complex and beautiful to look at, they do not spark the recognition response or the function response required to qualify. Without which they are only contrived rather than real. How does this spark the recognition of function? MTQGAQIADFVNAVLDAVIAIANGGQAGVPKLIETALATSVPLLIGFLAALLGIGGLANKVKSVFQSVSRPVTRAIDKIVDFIAKKGKALWNKLKGKDEKEGTAPA TDKKNNPGDRPKGRDGEQQKKPIRVAFTMQGEPHRLTLTRSGRLLMASSRE QALLVKIEAAMGSARDQDQIDDLLNLWRLTSALLGRGGDAAQEQVREHAK ALERYGDKYAKDDIAPDSDEPGRANRTPAERPAKKDRKSTPRLLKLADEHRG AGCVARLNVDSRTYEGWSEGRSESDLDSRALRDIRTHSSSHTLGCAEVHCI SQAYGAEYKKSVNELPVEFTTIEMVHADRHGKPNSWYQKPFRACSHCGPM LDGLKITTMN (this is a random hypothetical protein from a Streptomyces species that I found at NCBI) Just looking at it, it appears to be a random jumble of letters. What makes it specified? I don't see anythink like "A cat in a hat". It appears that real proteins fail to meet your requirements. How does this spark a recognition of function?
The above picture is the crystal structure of a functional protein. Can you please tell us how the appearance of this protein is any more specified than the rock pictured above? How is the shape of this protein any different than a random dirt clod?
Look Paul, its actually quite simple. All we need is a controlled study in which a parent group that did not possess some certain trait that over several generations evolved a new novel beneficial trait as a result of added new never before existed information to the DNA of that population. Already done: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm In this example, a frame shift mutation produced a new and novel enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers used in nylon production. We have the parent strain and the mutated strain that started growing in the vats containing these oligomers. We know exactly where the mutation is. It is not in the parent strain. It is in the mutated strain, and the mutated strain is better adapated to that environment than the parent strain. Added by edit: Per suggestions, I am also adding a peer review source that discusses the frame shift mutation that gave rise to nylC, the enzyme that is important for the adaptation of the Flavobacterium to the industrial environment.
A new nylon oligomer degradation gene (nylC) on plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Please let us know how you wish to quantify information; thank you. I see this a lot, and it's one of my pet peeves. It's not actually necessary to be able to quantify information; rather it's necessary to be able to order information in an "a > b > c ..." order so we can objectively see if information is added, subtracted, or unchanged without necessarily knowing the amounts of information we're comparing. Of course we both know that neither a quantification or ordering will show up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The NMSR site you reference has several things substantially wrong in its account of the Nylon Bug story. For some of my issues see the thread 'Is the evidence concerning the Nylon bug being exaggerated'.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I see this a lot, and it's one of my pet peeves. It's not actually necessary to be able to quantify information; rather it's necessary to be able to order information in an "a > b > c ..." order so we can objectively see if information is added, subtracted, or unchanged without necessarily knowing the amounts of information we're comparing. Of course we both know that neither a quantification or ordering will show up. Let Σ = {A,C,G,T}. Let Q0 = {λ}. Define inductively Qn = {s in Σ* | Qn-1 < s & ~exists t in Σ* s.t. Qn-1 < t < s} Let q be a function from Σ* to N such that q(s) = n iff s is in Qn. Then q quantifies information so that q(a) < q(b) iff a < b. Hence if you can order DNA by information content, you can quantify it. The converse is, of course, obvious, since given a quantifier function q you can define < by a < b iff q(a) < q(b).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: 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? Taq writes: 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. OK. But if we detected the signal I have described it would seem to indicate an intelligent source wouldn't it?
Taq writes: It would be more accurate to say that SETI is looking for a specific type of technology, not intelligence per se. Sure. But that technology would be indicative of intelligence would it not?
Percy writes: 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. I have proposed a topic specifically about comparing the methods of SETI and IDists. If it gets promoted I hope to see what you have to say more fully there. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
OK. But if we detected the signal I have described it would seem to indicate an intelligent source wouldn't it? Yes, it would. I would agree with that.
Sure. But that technology would be indicative of intelligence would it not? That is the assumption that SETI is working under. However, I think it is worth pointing out that SETI is looking for technology, something that has been manufacturered. They are not looking for codes in naturally occuring signals. This differs greatly from what ID/Creationists are pushing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Percy writes: You've expressed it a bit differently this time. This time you've said that archaeologists detect "high level intelligent designers." That's not true, either, unless "high level intelligent designers" is a synonym for human beings. If you look at the Wikipedia article on archaeology, the word intelligent or intelligence doesn't even appear. The article doesn't have a section on how artifacts and human architecture are identified, does it?
Percy writes: They not only don't have a specific method for detecting intelligence, they're not even looking for it. If they're looking for artifacts and architecture, then they're certainly looking for intelligently designed things. The method involves a large number of observations combined with accumulated knowledge. No fixed magic formula does not mean no method. Paleontologists don't have a magic formula for deciding whether two similar fossils are of the same family. A number of observations combined with accumulated knowledge is the method.
Percy writes: All species possess a specific blend of qualities that makes them unique, and biologists or paleontologists or archaeologists can seek out and study the expression of those qualities in nature. Recognizing the signs of a dung beetle tunnel or a Hadrosaur nesting ground or an ancient city is what is done, rather than seeking signs of a given level of intelligent expression. That last sentence might be a clue as to where we differ. If humans were not intelligent and highly cultural creatures, we could do exactly as we do with the dung beetle and the Hadrosaur, and there'd be no need for a separate field called archaeology. But when it comes to human artifacts and architecture, we're not obliging enough to just make one type of stone axe and one kind of nest or shelter, and then to keep repeating that wherever we are in the world throughout the ages. So, what's left as our specific marker (apart from our bones, excrement and footprints)? What I was originally suggesting is that the intelligent shaping of materials and the landscape in a way that is often highly distinctive compared to what's formed by unintelligent processes is a useful thing to look for. Think of designed human homes in all known cultures. Is there one thing that they all have in common that you could look for as an archaeologist apart from "apparent relics of intelligently designed structures large enough to fit several humans inside".? The diversity is so great that I can't think of a single thing they've all got in common that's more specific. And the sign of intelligently designed structures (on any planet) would be straight lines and geometric shapes, for practical engineering purposes that relate to the physical nature of this world. So what do archaeologists look for in arial surveys?
Percy writes: But probably the most compelling reason that archaeologists do not seek out signs of intelligence is that it doesn't have a rigorous scientific definition, as IDists make clear in debate after debate. That's because intelligence is a biological phenomenon in an evolutionary world. Try making a rigorous scientific definition of "digestive systems", and we have the same problem. Which early ones do we count in? We ourselves as a species are impossible to rigorously define. When does our ancestral group become us, and what are the essential characteristics that define our exact species? (Then consider our relationship to Neanderthals for a headache - because part of them appears to be part of some, but not all, of us). Welcome to the world of being an imprecisely defined being. Archaeologists (and other scientists) frequently deal with concepts that do not have rigorous scientific definitions. A lack of rigorous definition of intelligence would be a problem for zoologists dealing with animal intelligence, rather than archaeologists who are dealing with creatures who definitely have it however we choose to define it. That doesn't stop the zoologists from looking for it in a whole variety of creatures, though. As for IDists, and their design detection which relies on pointing at things that we have certainly intelligently designed and then drawing parallels to things in nature, that doesn't really relate to what archaeologists are doing at all.One of the best ways to deal with the IDists approach is to ask whether it follows that, because we build artificial hills, that the hills and mountains were intelligently designed. Or, as I asked JBReal (a question he avoided) whether our intelligently designed canals mean that the rivers were designed. Underlying that is the fact that our ancestors often did come to the conclusion that such natural phenomena were the work of the gods. Creationists wear modern clothes, drive cars and use computers, but underneath there's been little change from the superstitious folk who started building Stonehenge for their world shaping gods 5,000 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
1 is a better example of a specified pattern, because you don't need to understand English to recognise it. That is exactly why it is NOT specificity. Just recognizing a pattern isn't specificity. Recognizing a pattern that is "intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose," is specificity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024