Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 187 (8027 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2014 11:05 AM
165 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,144 Year: 9,985/28,606 Month: 1,675/2,455 Week: 393/592 Day: 38/127 Hour: 3/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
48495051Next
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 691 of 752 (607237)
03-02-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Huntard
03-02-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Address posts please
I dont need to be lectured about ethics from a REDSOX fan.

And here you were saying how people attacked you.

I thought that was funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2011 5:07 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2011 5:36 PM havoc has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 692 of 752 (607238)
03-02-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by havoc
03-02-2011 5:15 PM


Re: Address posts please
Perhaps, but what some people find funny, others find offensive. The point is that you can't complain about being attacked when you do it yourself, whether it was meant as humour or not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 5:15 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:45 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5046
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 693 of 752 (607239)
03-02-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:38 PM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide

So the developmental pattern has changed in both lineages, or perhaps changed in only one lineage. Your point? We still see a nested hierarchy, as expected.

Does this cause you to question your belief? If not why does the backbone development count as proof but finger development does not?

Can you explain why phalanges and backbones are not homologous structures?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM havoc has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5046
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 694 of 752 (607240)
03-02-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:43 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
I never said Shannon was the propper way to measure information in the genome.

But you did mention information quite a few times, and now you have switched over to specified complexity. This is called "moving the goal posts".

Any one who studys information theory knows that shannon theory is usefull for somethings but comes short in others.

So why is it not useful for determining an information gain or loss in genomes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 695 of 752 (607241)
03-02-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:43 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Hi havoc,

I never said Shannon was the propper way to measure information ...
Read "In the begining was information" ...

Perhaps you could supply the definition of "information that Gitt uses in that book, and cut through to the pertinent point?

http://www.amazon.com/...formation-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552

quote:
In his fascinating new book, In the Beginning Was Information, Dr. Werner Gitt helps the reader see how the very presence of information reveals a Designer ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

quote:
Werner Gitt (born 22 February 1937) is a German engineer and young earth creationist.

Gitt was an engineer professor at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology). By the 1990s he was assuming a leadership role in the German creationist movement, through the publication of several influential creationist books. He was one of the leaders of the nondenominational Wort und Wissen (Word and Knowledge) society, the largest creationist society in Germany, with a membership of 230 and a mailing list of 7,000. The society was headed by theologian Richard Junker.[1]


Sounds like another YEC\ID creationist hack pretending to do math to me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

quote:
... Gitt defines the following empirical principles:

1. No information can exist without a code.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8. No information can exist without a will.


Sounds like he is assuming the conclusion in the premises to me ... more:

quote:
Where Gitt Goes Wrong

A striking contradiction is readily apparent in Gitt's thinking- he holds that his view of information is an extension of Shannon, even while he rejects the underpinnings of Shannon's work. Contrast Gitt's words ...

In SC2 Gitt notes that Chaitin showed randomness cannot be proven (see Chaitin's article "Randomness and Mathematical Proof"), and that the cause of a string of symbols must be therefore be known to determine information is present; yet in SC1 he relies on discerning the "ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels." In other words, Gitt allows himself to make guesses about the intelligence and purpose behind a source of a series of symbols, even though he doesn't know whether the source of the symbols is random. Gitt is trying to have it both ways here. He wants to assert that the genome fits his strictly non-random definition of information, even after acknowledging that randomness cannot be proven.

(There is a deeper problem here, in that Chaitin is discussing algorithmic randomness and not statistical randomness. Algorithmic randomness for a given string depends on the selection of reference computer see Algorithmic Information Theory. Chaitin shows that you cant prove a string is uncompressible or algorithmically random on a given reference computer. Now a string may be laden with meaning yet algorithmically random on a given computer. It may also be meaningless yet highly compressible. Statistical randomness is a different concept, as long as we stick with finite-length strings. While it is possible to compare use statistical tests on long strings, there are classes of deterministic programs called Pseudo-Random Number Generators or PRNGs, of great importance to cryptography, that meet statistical tests for randomness. In other words, neither type of randomness can be proven, but Gitt appears to be confusing the two types of randomness.)

Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions.

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.


Perhaps you can provide "information" that shows that there is some useful "information" from his book?

Start with a definition of what he means by information and then show how it is calculated as a measurable quantity in any specific organism.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : splng


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM havoc has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5046
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 696 of 752 (607242)
03-02-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by havoc
03-02-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Address posts please
I commented on this and how its design was not flawed and how this was one of the examples of convergent evolution that evos use as a just so explanation of violations of their theory.

Where is the violation? We don't see ANY VERTEBRATES with a forward facing retina, including those that share the same ecological niches that cephalopods occupy. The eyes fall into the expected nested hierarchy that the theory of evolution predicts.

And I am still waiting for you to measure the specified complexity in the DNA sequence I posted in a previous message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 5:02 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 AM Taq has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 697 of 752 (607251)
03-02-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:43 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Read "In the begining was information" Well thought out.

Gitt's writings are not "well thought out".

He commits a number of howlers, but the most glaring and obvious is that he defines information as having an intelligent source --- which is pure sleight of hand, because it throws no light on the source of information in DNA, it just changes the question to whether there is any information in DNA in Gitt's sense of the word information.

By analogy, if he belonged to a different religion he might redefine lightning as that which is produced when the thunder-god Thor brandishes his magic hammer Mjǫlnir. But that sheds no light on what actually produces lightning, it merely leaves us doubting that there is any such thing as lightning in Gitt's sense of the word lightning.

What is required are some actual facts, not an end-run around the English language.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 698 of 752 (607254)
03-02-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by havoc
03-02-2011 9:12 AM


motors and biology and silliness
Hi havoc

ATP Synthase and the Bacterial flagellum are indeed motors. Unless your definition requires a man to make it in order for it to be a motor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motor

quote:
Molecular motors are biological molecular machines that are the essential agents of movement in living organisms. Generally speaking, a motor may be defined as a device that consumes energy in one form and converts it into motion or mechanical work; for example, many protein-based molecular motors harness the chemical free energy released by the hydrolysis of ATP in order to perform mechanical work [1]. In terms of energetic efficiency, these types of motors can be superior to currently available man-made motors. One important difference between molecular motors and macroscopic motors is that molecular motors operate in the thermal bath, an environment where the fluctuations due to thermal noise are significant.

This only works by definition, from adapting what motors accomplish to describe organic molecular chemical functions. By this definition any organic molecular structure that results in movement from the use of energy is a motor, which means virtually every part of every cell. Curiously, I don't see that as either remarkable or useful. Sounds more like an argument from incredulity: wow look its a motor, therefore it must be designed?

The only reason they are badly analogous is because they are far superior to anything modern science and engineering could create.

Really? or is this just another argument from incredulity?

Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... Message 33:

quote:
One of the "icons" of the Neo-Paleyist "intelligent" design concepts is the bacterial flagellum. Whether or not this concept has been debunked as an "irreducibly complex" mechanism is open to some discussion, but here we look at whether this "icon" of many an ID essay has the markings of "intelligent" design or those of "silly" design.

Flagellum Fun Facts

First lets look at a diagram of this mechanism, drawn to make it look as mechanical as possible:

What happens is that ions cause the base to rotate, the "hook" is fixed (to aim the whip-like end of the flagellum) and the end whips about while it spins, at speeds that can reach many 100 Hertz (revolutions per second), and driving the bacterial cell at several body lengths a second (1).

{abe}An nice animation of this mechanism can be seen at the Access Research Network Molecular Machines Museum website on The Bacterial Flagellum. {/abe}

Obviously a highly efficient motor design, making maximum usage of the energy expended ... or is it?

Here we have a similar arrangement, the spinning drive mechanism extends down a tube, is turned and then exits the "hook" to turn the drive part of the motor, a small propeller.

We know one of these mechanisms was intentionally designed as a method of locomotion and for maximum efficiency in it's use of energy. Furthermore we know that the elements of this design have been developed over the course of many years of experimentation to select the best gear ratios, material strengths, power ratings and propeller design. Propellers in particular have undergone extreme design for improved efficiency, borrowing from the more prolific design of airplane wings and propellers in the process (such borrowing being an element frequently seen in good design when some other design element already is known to work and work well).

So the question is whether the flagellum design measures up to the known reference intelligent design, or is it just flailing about?

Any Bubba Can Do This Experiment

There is a simple experiment that anyone with ready access to a couple of similar boats with similar engines can do evaluate the question:


  • Use one boat as-is: this is the control, the known intelligent design

  • On the other remove the propeller and replace it with a 50 foot length of 1" diameter hose, hose clamped tightly to the driveshaft\spindle of the outboard

  • Load up the boats with kids (so they can ask "are we there yet?")

  • Race. See who gets "out of the hole" first, who tops out first and what their tops speeds are.

  • Put in reverse and repeat.

  • Match speed and compare engine RPM (revolutions per minute) and fuel consumption.

  • If you feel that you need more evidence, try different size hoses and different lengths.

  • See if the kids are laughing at the hose or the propeller.

Oh, and if the flagellum design wins? Publish, become a national hero to endangered manatees, broken propellers sufferers, etcetera and put many propeller design companies out of work.

Note: a 25 foot boat traveling at 50 mph is traveling ~3 times its length in a second.

Silliness

Now consider that it would be extremely easy to make the flagellum become a propeller by the intelligent input of design information from other available systems. The flagellum could be easily split into two (or more) filaments that are then flattened and angled apart in a "Y" type pattern, and with one leg bent up and one down and both shortened (less material overall = more efficient design) you have a rudimentary propeller. Add some twist and some shape (such as you find on a penguin wing - used to "fly" underwater) and you have a more efficient design.

We can get an idea of what this simple modification would look like by again referring to known intelligent design, this time to an early propeller design before scientific methods were applied (2):


Except of course that a central spindle is not necessary and could be eliminated. But even these early propellers are silly by today's standards of design (3).

The hose on the other hand can be nothing but a silly way to waste gas.

This mechanism displays an excessively high Silliness Index (SI).


btw -- you might want a steel cage over the hose boat, just in case the end of the hose whips around.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:12 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2011 11:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 702 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 699 of 752 (607255)
03-02-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by havoc
03-02-2011 9:25 AM


shakespeare, mutation AND selection
Hi again havoc, try to stick to one issue at a time and you might make some sense, rather than dropping argument after argument.

So if you know the end game the phrase that you want you can get there. However this is not how selection works. Only traits that give that generation a breeding advantage will be selected.

You were the one to introduce the poor analogy in the first place, so now you are complaining that it doesn't represent evolution? LOL.

... However this is not how selection works. Only traits that give that generation a breeding advantage will be selected.

Those that survive and breed will survive and breed, some will survive and breed better than others, but in all cases it is a matter of fitness to the ecological opportunities that drives the selection.

In the case of this poor analogy what we have for the "ecological opportunities" is the phrase from Shakespeare that you select, and selection takes those tiles that fit the ecological opportunities, and reshuffles the rest. This would represent (badly) following generations and testing them for fitness to the ecological opportunities.

It would be better a better analogy if you took say 10 or 20 tiles at random from the pile, and tested them for fitness, then took another 10 or 20 (with a supposedly endless pile of tiles to draw from, but you could keep the relative relationships of various letters in the mix).

You could also try taking a specific phrase to start with and then replacing letters until you developed a different phrase, but the modeling there is even worse compared to actual biology.

This does not explain how sight or flight or micro motors or proteins can come into existence the first time.

And that was not what you asked. Your post Message 615 said:

Is there a base in any genome that can not be mutated?

Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.

so once again ...

... you are moving the goalposts.

Every famous mutation ... once examined at the molecular level has been shown to involve information loss.

Answered on Message 634 (See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, particularly part 2 of the first post) and Message 669

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:25 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:09 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 700 of 752 (607290)
03-02-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by RAZD
03-02-2011 7:15 PM


Re: motors and biology and silliness
There is a simple experiment that anyone with ready access to a couple of similar boats with similar engines can do evaluate the question:

  • Use one boat as-is: this is the control, the known intelligent design

  • On the other remove the propeller and replace it with a 50 foot length of 1" diameter hose, hose clamped tightly to the driveshaft\spindle of the outboard

  • Load up the boats with kids (so they can ask "are we there yet?")

  • Race. See who gets "out of the hole" first, who tops out first and what their tops speeds are.

  • Put in reverse and repeat.

  • Match speed and compare engine RPM (revolutions per minute) and fuel consumption.

  • If you feel that you need more evidence, try different size hoses and different lengths.

  • See if the kids are laughing at the hose or the propeller.

Your argument is flawed. The small-scale dynamics of water are different from its large-scale fluid dynamics, because at a small scale its viscosity becomes a much more important factor while inertia becomes negligible. You'd have to test the bacterium against something of a similar size.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 7:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 701 of 752 (607331)
03-03-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by RAZD
03-02-2011 7:21 PM


Re: shakespeare, mutation AND selection
This does not explain how sight or flight or micro motors or proteins can come into existence the first time.

And that was not what you asked. Your post Message 615 said:

Is there a base in any genome that can not be mutated?

Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.

Do you really not get the correlation between my Shakespeare analogy and novel functional information?

And by the way I have been having multiple conversations with several different people perhaps this is why you think I have been jumping around. I have only been responding to posts directed to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 7:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:43 AM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 702 of 752 (607332)
03-03-2011 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by RAZD
03-02-2011 7:15 PM


Re: motors and biology and silliness
the markings of "intelligent" design or those of "silly" design

Glad to here you admit that design has markings. Now does something that is designed require a designer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 7:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 703 of 752 (607333)
03-03-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 697 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2011 6:45 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Gitt's writings are not "well thought out".

He commits a number of howlers, but the most glaring and obvious is that he defines information as having an intelligent source --- which is pure sleight of hand, because it throws no light on the source of information in DNA, it just changes the question to whether there is any information in DNA in Gitt's sense of the word information.

By analogy, if he belonged to a different religion he might redefine lightning as that which is produced when the thunder-god Thor brandishes his magic hammer Mjǫlnir. But that sheds no light on what actually produces lightning, it merely leaves us doubting that there is any such thing as lightning in Gitt's sense of the word lightning.

What is required are some actual facts, not an end-run around the English language

Do you admit that there is more information in specifically ordered letters such as and instruction manual than there is in random keystrokes?

Shannon would measure them the same. This is not how you should measure the information in a code.
.

Edited by havoc, : quotes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2011 6:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 9:06 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 708 by Wounded King, posted 03-03-2011 9:12 AM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 704 of 752 (607334)
03-03-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by Taq
03-02-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Address posts please
And I am still waiting for you to measure the specified complexity in the DNA sequence I posted in a previous message.

Well that might not be a fair question since I do not know the language of DNA and amino acids. A bit like showing me a Spanish book and asking me to translate.

However since I do so love these discussions I will try to play along. Dembski purposes a filter to determine design or specified complexity. Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design. These events are both specified and of vanishingly small probabilities. Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.

A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannons bits?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 5:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 9:25 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 710 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 9:32 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 712 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:21 AM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 705 of 752 (607335)
03-03-2011 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 692 by Huntard
03-02-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Address posts please
Perhaps, but what some people find funny, others find offensive. The point is that you can't complain about being attacked when you do it yourself, whether it was meant as humour or not.

Sir I dont think you understand sports fans to well. Im a Yankees fan hes a redsocks fan. Im sure he found that as polite joking. I know I would have if the rolls were reversed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2011 5:36 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
48495051Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014