Intelligent Design in Universities

Global Warming is not a good example because there really is a great deal of valid, but contradictory, evidence to support either view.The problem with ID is that it is not valid science.It is only philosophy at this point.

quote:

---

It is only philosophy at this point.

---

IF that is proven to be the case, I would then say that philosophies are like lenses through which science...and by extention all of humanity...views reality. Naturalism is the philosophical lens through which mainstream science would like to view the origin question. The question is, which lens brings the origin question into focus better?It seems to me we cant find that out until we try both lenses. We have tried the naturalism lens for long enough. For science to say, "No! we refuse to try that lens!" seems somehow...evasive.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 02:26 AM

quote:

---

I'm not asking about extropy, since the concept isn't as complete as entropy. From your previous posts, you were trying to show that as more functional genes lost there functions, the entropy went up, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. You were trying to equate loss of information with entropy, isn't this correct?

---

There is certainly no need for me to attempt to equate loss of information with entropy. That's been a part of science since the 1800s. Boltzmann, Shannon, Landauer and others long beat us there. Loss of information is increasing entropy. End of that story. If you don't believe that, I might just suggest you take a class or two. Not my problem.

quote:

---

Yes, the organism wouldn't function. I'm not arguing that. I'm using your equations to show an absurdity, and therefore your calculation must be invalid. I know what would happen, but according to your equations the entropy would decrease, as I showed in my previous post.

---

No, it wouldn't decrease, there would be maximum entropy because the organism is dead and there is no calculation for maximum entropy in that case. It's just maximum. Did Schrodinger calculate maximum entropy when he used S = K log 1/D to show rising entropy in the human body? No. What will be the calculation when the universe finally obtains its heat death and all is nothing more than a floating sea of random particles? The universe will be at perfect equilibrium and maximum entropy. It is dead, so what is the calculation for death? There isn't any, it's just dead and there is no progression left to calculate.

quote:

---

I know, I saw the graph. But that is besides the point. We are talking about the information in the genome, and what it tends to do. You say it tends to decrease as more deleterious mutations arise, and the entropy increases. This is in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics.

---

OK??

quote:

---

What I am trying to show you, along with other posters using the coin analogy, is that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to information theory. There is a disconnect.

---

Well if you can get it done, you will be the first, and I for one would love to see this. But you do understand that was Boltzmann's stuff and not Shannon's information entropy don't you? I would hate to see you spend time fighting windmills.And you do know, I hope, that if you ever come up with a scenario in which an organism could somehow lose half of its protein coding genes and still remain alive (an absolutely ridiculous postulation) entropy would then not began to decrease. That would not reflect the accuracy of the study which clearly shows it increasing each generation and you are into daydreaming with mathematics at that point.Of course, at that juncture I would have to ask you to stop daydreaming and use the math you should be using in this situation, not the S calculated for a single generation, but the deltaS you so rightly suggested I use to better reflect what is occurring from generation to generation until mutational meltdown occurs. Think that through before you put too much effort into this.

quote:

---

I am using your equations to do this calcuation, not mine. According to your equation, as I increase the deleterious mutations past a certain point, the entropy actually decreases. I know this isn't what you are trying to say happens, so I dont' think the equations, or your calculation, are useful in this scenerio.

---

Boy. I do appreciate you guys attributing all of this science to me. Ned credited me with inventing stochastic mechanisms. Now here you are crediting me as inventing the use of combinatorials to calculate protein complexities. This stuff goes way back, people. It's not ID, it's science that supports ID.This book was published in 1984 and the math goes back to the references before them (sorry, the board software won't allow me to use the Greek):

quote:

---

[1] Using the definition for configurational "coding" entropy given in eq. 8-2c, it is quite straightforward to calculate the configurational entropy change for a given polymer. The number of ways the mass of the linear system may be arranged (Omega-c) can be calculated using statistics. Brillouin(20) has shown that the number of distinct sequences one can make using N different symbols and Fermi-Dirac statistics is given by

​

Omega = N! 

​

If some of these symbols are redundant (or identical), then the number of unique or distinguishable sequences that can be made is reduced to

​

Omega = N! / n1!n2!n2!...ni! 

​

where n1 + n2 + ... + ni = N and i defines the number of distinct symbols. For a protein, it is i =20, since a subset of twenty distinctive types of amino acids is found in living things, while in DNA it is i = 4 for the subset of four distinctive nucleotides. A typical protein would have 100 to 300 amino acids in a specific sequence, or N = 100 to 300. For DNA of the bacterium E. coli, N = 4,000,000. In Appendix 1, alternative approaches to calculating Omega(c) are considered and eq. 8-7 is shown to be a lower bound to the actual value.

​

For a random polypeptide of 100 amino acids, the configurational entropy, S(cr) may be calculated using eq. 8-2c and eq. 8-7 as follows:

​

S(cr) = k ln Omega(cr)

​

since Omega(cr) = N! / n1!n2!...n20! = 100! / 5!5!....5! = 100! / (5!)^20

​

= 1.28 x 10^115

---

Gee. Everybody else uses this method but I cannot? All I did was this and then tossed it into Boltzmann's formula. This is just MATH used in SCIENCE not anything I or ID have originated. If you were not taught this, you need blame the secular humanist college professors you had who would not let you see these formulas. Not me.

quote:

---

I know you are not trying to say this, but the equations you used to calculate the entropy do say this. I showed it in my previous post. I think this calls into the question previous calculation, and calls into question the equating of Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy.

---

I have NEVER used Shannon entropy. I told you what that was and posted a link to the formula for you. Where did you see me sum over anything as in Shannon entropy? I did not.

quote:

---

Not really. I'm would merely be taking the place of the replication machinery of the cell. So I would be adding no more energy than the cell would itself. I'm wouldn't be introducing the information, just replicating it and introducing random point mutations (via UV radiation or some mutagens), just as happens in nature.

---

Yep. People going into the genomes of organisms and placing genes here and mutating other genes there happened all the time in nature a million years ago. Right? You are directly interfering with the second law. The second law can always be overcome by the addition of energy and intelligence from an outside source and this is exactly what you are attempting.

quote:

---

You are saying the entropy tends to increase in such a system.

---

No I'm not. The abstracted study I sent you to said that entropy DID increase in that system, entropy IS increasing in that system and suggests entropy will tend to increase in that system in the future. I did not provide the data, evolutionary biologists did. I just stuck the data into statistical formulas and let the chips fall where they may.

quote:

---

To summarize, according to your equations, if I have a bunch of deleteriously mutated genes, I have a low entropy compared to a genome that have half there genes mutated deleteriously and half of them functional. Don't you see a problem with this?

---

No, I see you attempting to invent problems where none are because the mathematics are not acceptable to your religious beliefs. NO organism can live with half of their protein coding genes missing because organisms are made of PROTEINS. But all that's needed to rectify the math if you want to go this route is to use the proper math to get there, that is deltaS rather than S in this case. I anxiously await the chemist/physicist's math on this.

quote:

---

Again, an organism isn't a closed system either.

---

Who cares? Neither is a water heater. You don't think water heaters interact with their surroundings?

quote:

---

Your calcuations assumed a far from equilibrium state in the opposite direction, I'm just assuming a far from equilibrium state in the opposite direction and seeing were your equations take us.

---

OK. Run with this. I'm anxious to get into the math with you.[1] C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, pg 136, 137.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Are you finally admitting that there is no equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics for configurational entropy?

---

Nope. Because you would then be throwing out an entire subset of biologists studying configurational entropy in protein folding (and many other fields). What a waste of good grant money:"Furthermore, these estimates assume that the crosslink effect lies simply in the configurational entropy of the unfolded chain, and that the presence of the crosslink in the folded protein introduces no conformational strain or other constraints in the native form."Why aren't the Darwinists doing a letter campaign toward these scientists and others like them something to the effect of, "There is no such thing as what your studying because if there were it would violate my religious beliefs!" Might want to think about doing this.

quote:

---

And you are right that I haven't calculated the entropy. Because - as I have already explained - my argument does not require that calculation.

---

Yes, I was and that is very honest on your part, Paul. Just don't call it entropy and your argument might walk.

quote:

---

Finally the study does not appear to anywhere assert that evolutionary theory expects beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental ones. If you beleive that it does then I suggest that you quote the relevant section.

---

Sorry. Totally lost me. There were no beneficial mutations in that study at all, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Jerry, play nicely! You can't do that too often, you know!

---

I ain't? I always try to be self moderating (but I have flunked out of this a time or two); so....sometimes when an argument isn't going anywhere, I just end them. Saves the Mods some work, let's them know I'm not here to attack people or screw up their forums and keeps the threads cleaner.

quote:

---

Following up on jar's comment... Actually I would be interested to hear what your view is on whether it's possible to have an empirical test to decide whether a biological system shows intelligent design, or not. I agree with you that one needs to know what a pattern is meant to look like, before you can attempt to identify its existence.

---

Of course there are tests. Do you really think anyone with a science background would be studying this stuff if there wasn't? Believe if you will and don't if you won't, but I am not a young earth creationist (but certainly respect those who are), I don't go to church and I just am not the religionist that people always assume I am. I have my beliefs as everyone with an IQ does, but that doesn't affect my science.There are MANY ways to empirically detect design and I would be glad to go as far into that as anyone would care to go.

quote:

---

I understand that ID (in its biological incarnation) has a theory of specified complexity, which I've never understood completely. What is your view of that theory?

---

Then, sit right back in your easy chair.........(of course, when you ask a question like this, I cannot answer it in a paragraph, capice?)Let's begin by looking up the word specific (dictionary.com): "special, distinctive, or unique: specific qualities and attributes. A) Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: a specific remedy for warts. B) Concerned particularly with the subject specified. Often used in combination: 'age-specific voting patterns' (A. Dianne Schmidley).'"Specificity describes how important a certain part or sequence of information is in fulfilling a vital function in a given system.Consider the sparkplug in a lawnmower. That sparkplug is most important to the overall function of the apparatus to cut grass. When the gasoline is mixed with air in the carburetor, it is sucked into the cylinder, and some source is required to ignite the mixture in order to power the piston to rotate the cutting attachment.The sparkplug provides a spark at just the right time and the gasoline explodes, driving down the piston, and this provides the mechanical energy needed to cut the lawn.A sparkplug cannot be used as a wheel, a starter, a blade or anything else we can think of in our system, the lawnmower. There is only one role the sparkplug provides, but it is a role of such paramount importance that without it the entire system would die. Therefore, this is a highly specified part because it is 'specific' to one job, and that job is of utmost importance.The decal denoting the manufacturer of the lawnmower is also a part of the machine. However, if it is removed from the machine it affects nothing as the grass will continue to be cut. This particular part is not specified at all.I could remove the flywheel cover and nothing would happen.The handle on the rope is convenient as it serves me ergonomically when I start the engine but how specific is that part? I could conceivably wrap the rope around my hand, the engine would start and the lawn would never know the difference.The above describes specificity pertaining to a part in a machine or an organ in an organism or an organelle in a cell; and it works similarly when we are strictly discussing information.One example popular in intelligent design to show the specificity of information is an analogy of an archer shooting arrows toward a wall and those arrows communicating information to us according to how exact the aim of the archer is.If a skilled archer is blindfolded and stands a hundred yards from a huge wall, say the wall of a football stadium the size of the Astrodome, and is then asked to hit the wall with an arrow, we wouldn’t be surprised if he did hit it, because the wall is so large the odds are in his favor. In fact, the wall is an enormous target, and we might be surprised if he missed. This action would communicate to us as simple information when we observe
the arrow hitting the wall.Now let’s repeat the experiment, painting the walls of this same stadium in black and white squares, each measuring 10 feet square, in a ‘checkerboard’ pattern as illustrated in the graphic. At this point, the archer is blindfolded and asked to hit a white square. Again, it would not be surprising if he did hit it because, providing he hits the wall at all, he has a 50/50 chance of hitting a white square as opposed to a black one. But when the arrow hits a white square, this information becomes a little more specified to us, because the odds of the archer hitting the white square are a bit more against him doing so than just hitting the wall.Suppose this wall is then painted into an ever increasing number of smaller colored squares, first a wall of 4 squares, then 8 squares, 32 squares, 64 squares, etc., with each square being a different color.The odds of the archer hitting the color he is specifically instructed to hit will ever increase against him. With the simple two color checkerboard pattern, the archer had a one in two chance of hitting the specified color, or = 50% chance. With the four color checkerboard pattern, he had a one in four chance, or = 25% chance of hitting the color and so on. These odds will continue to decrease as the squares increase in number until eventually there will be a point where the odds of him hitting the color he is asked to hit will become so astronomically large against him that it becomes overwhelmingly unlikely he will hit it.But what if he continues to hit each color? There has to be a limit. if he continues to hit each color as asked past a certain barrier, this becomes complex specified information.But first let's draw another hypothesis (already threw you one) unique to ID:Specified information is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring. Once the specificity reaches 1 chance in 10^150, or 500 bits if expressed in information content, it is simply impossible that nature could have caused the event. Ask me why, Mick. There is your next query.

quote:

---

Could such a theory be used to set up a biological version of SETI, searching the biological world for intelligent signal?

---

Probably, never really thought about it.

quote:

---

What would a biological version of SETI look like, and what would its data source be? Would it be possible to come up with a theory of "nucleotide design", and devote huge amounts of computing power to detect intelligent patterns in genbank data (National Center for Biotechnology Information) for example?

---

You don't have to provide me a link to genbank. But ask the above question and we be moving on and doin' some ID. Lots of religion in this stuff, don't you guys think so far?

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Well, it looks like I've been written out of the conversation as unworthy.

---

No you haven't. You came across as too aggressive. Please change this. I simply stopped you from asking the same silly question over and over to which there is no logical answer the way you phrased it. Get off the games and we can move on.

quote:

---

Based on what you've outlined would it be possible to make a statement that the information content of a series of yes-no or on-off or binary incidents is inversely proportional to the amount of order and directly proportional to the amount of disorder?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Does information content increase as order decreases and disorder increases?

---

Yes. Do I detect intelligence behind that wad of fur?

quote:

---

Can all of the examples of coin flips etc be reduced to that?

---

No. Coin flips have their place in infodynamics but we wouldn't exactly want to take this stuff to a post grad class. People would be laughing at us.

---

Design Dynamics

Jon:You are starting to impress me with your knowledge of science:

quote:

---

Oh, and you were doing so well! Some formulations of the 2LoT appear at first glance to apply only to closed systems, but any correct formulation of the 2LoT applies to all systems of sufficient size and over long enough periods of time (the 2LoT being at heart a statistical law), be those systems closed or open.

---

Make them petition the Nobel Committee to take back Prigogine's Nobel Prize for his work in open system thermodynamics. Also, Nobel winner Schrodinger was simply wrong in his lectures on using S = K log 1/D in the human body because that is an open system. But what about Gibb's work in thermodynamics that can calculate so many thermodynamic reactions medically in an open system? Gee. These scientists that don't seem to know one iota about science are rather downers. Ho hum.

---

Design Dynamics

Hope I didn't miss anybody!

---

Design Dynamics

Are you implying that, just because a living organism in its current state surpases some critical threshold of complexity that it cannot arise through simple, non-directed evolutionary processes?I would contend that evolution is an entirely adequate concept for explaining all living phenomena, independent of their apparent degree of complexity.What understanding is to be gained by postulating a 'designer'?

quote:

---

It is only philosophy at this point.

---

quote:

---

IF that is proven to be the case, I would then say that philosophies are like lenses through which science...and by extention all of humanity...views reality.

---

Yes, that is the role of all philosophies.Philosophies ask the "why" questions, where science asks the "how" questions.

quote:

---

Naturalism is the philosophical lens through which mainstream science would like to view the origin question.

---

Now, do you mean methodological naturalism or ontological naturalism?Methodological naturalism is the tenet of science that one can only use naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic, explanations within scientific enquiry because there is no way to falsify supernatural explanations, and therefore no way to improve or correct errors.The supernatural is not specifically denied by MN; it could exist, but MN has no way of detecting the supernatural.MN makes science universal, as no scientist must accept a a priori belief in any supernatural entity to repeat another's research.Ontological Nnaturalism is the philosophical belief that "Nature is all there is", and may or may not be adhered to by a given scientist.Scientists are not required to accept Ontological Naturalism as a personal philosophy, but they must adhere to Methodological Naturalism in their scientific work for it to be considered science.

quote:

---

The question is, which lens brings the origin question into focus better?

---

Which method has the most positive evidence to support it?

quote:

---

It seems to me we cant find that out until we try both lenses. We have tried the naturalism lens for long enough. For science to say, "No! we refuse to try that lens!" seems somehow...evasive.

---

Limbo, humans have used the "supernatural lens" for most of our existence on the planet.It has only been in the last few hundred years that scientific inquiry has been able to proceed largely unfettered by religious entities demanding that scientific findings conform to their preferred religious view of how the world must be.Perhaps you can explain to me how inquiry will benefit by going back to allowing supernatural explanations?I especially would like to hear your thoughts on the issue of how we would correct errors.For example, let's say that supernatural explanations were permitted in science tomorrow, and it was decided that phenomena X was designed by God because we currently do not understand how it could have come about naturally.Does that mean that we should stop trying to understand how phenomena X works? Do we just stop asking such questions?What if there really is a naturalistic explanation for phenomena X but we just haven't thought of it yet, or perhaps we don't have sophisticated enough instruments to facilitate our understanding but could be built in the future.Do we just stop inquiry?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-08-2005 07:43 AM

quote:

---

Couldn't be anymore irrelevant. I spend hours on my riding mower and have no idea what the designer of that looks like.

---

quote:

---

There simply has not been any science in your posts that I can address.

​

You are entitled to hold opinions as we are all and I grant you that right. But I cannot scientifically refute opinions as those are subjective. So you win. Your opinions stand as your opinions!

---

Are you sure we are talking about the same post, in which I asked the following questions and made the following requests for information? I was actually looking for actual information and answers to these questions, you know.Why won't you answer them?

You are not impressing me with your reading comprehension. I stated that the 2LoT applies to all systems, including open systems. You attempt to contradict me by listing great scientists who applied the 2LoT to open systems. Your examples support my claim. No need. Prigogine's work is completely compatible with the 2LoT, and is subject to its requirements; his work just requires a significantly more complicated statement of the second law because he's working in non-equilibrium situations. Nope,he was right. S = K log 1/D is a statement about the quantity of entropy in a system, open or closed, and is a correct statement when the system meets certain requirements, which the human body does over reasonably short periods of time. Yup, what about it? Another example of the 2LoT applying to open systems, which is what I said.

Jonf quotes me: And answers: You are most probably right, my mistake. As I said, I'm not a physicist and I'm glad that a more knowledgeable physicist corrects me. Would I be correct in thinking that this is only logical because the ultimate system, the universe, is closed by definition (as far as the input of energy is concerned, anyway), and thus any part of it would have to have its entropy maximized in the long run - the long run being the time left until the heat death of the universe? Could you give an example of that?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yet another example of your very sloppy style of arguing: Mick was talking about design and for no apparent reason you switch to the designer. Why? Are you having trouble reading?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins