What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

All genetic mutations are induced. Some are induced by sources outside the organism and some from within.Random is not synonomous with having no cause. Random means that the mutation can occur anywhere in a given area of the genome and do not form a predictable pattern. There are many causes for random mutations in the genetic code including inaccurate copying of DNA sequences, biochemical agents (virus, prions, etc), radioactive agents (i.e. UV light) There are a multitude of causes for random genetic mutations. Never say never in science. Science is always spoken in the language or probabilities.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

CSI is obviously suitable for detecting design. Are you just trying to wear Smooth Operator out? When information is arranged in a specific order that addresses a specific function and is designed for a specific use, there is obviously an intelligence behind it. You wouldn't say that my post is just a jumble of complex ramdom information since it replies to a specific statement you made. I think you can make a case that they are the result of a combination of an intelligent design and weather such as rain erosion. I wouldn't say that they are CSI. They are complex but so are many other things in nature. It is chaos.If a tree had to grow its way around a structure such as horizontal pole, I would say that is the chaos but not CSI.

I disagree. I think the first law of thermodynamics says "Never" since it says energy cannot be created or destroyed.

quote:

---

Not the way Demski uses it. Orgel never used the entire phrase "complex specified information" and his usage of this concept is completely contradictory to how Demski uses it. This is another case where creationists hijack the academic work of real scientists. Anyways...

---

No, Dembski improved upon it. But the fact remains that Orgel invented it.

quote:

---

Says who?

​

Says who?

---

Any ID theorist you ask, and anyone with a bit of reason.

quote:

---

I assume you got this second hand from Demski referring to Seth Lloyd's 'Computational capacity of the universe' article in which Llyod is allegorically representing the physical universe as a computation device aka a computer and trying to determine the information capacity & computation power the universe entails. In other words this is a metaphore. He even states this:

---

Yes, and do you see a problem with this? It is obvious that it's a metaphor. But the point is that that is the maximum number a chance process in the whole unverse can accomplish.

quote:

---

How can you determine that the product is not a result of a natural law? This is to assume that something exists outside of natural law (i.e. supernatural); which by definition you cannot determine using empirical evidence which is itself based on natural laws and the scientific method. You are in a catch-22 situation here with your assertion.

---

Nope. By natural law, I mean something like crystallization. It's a natural law which explains how crystals come about. They were not designed.

quote:

---

Or so you thinkanyways

---

Well if you have problems with it, let me know.

quote:

---

What 400 bits in nature? What are you talking about?

---

Anything that needs more than 400 bits to describe that you find in nature. Like human DNA.

quote:

---

The reason we can determine that it was designed by humans is because we as human beings are indoctrinated on what human-made objects look like both by through observation of other objects designed by humans and through our own trial and error.

---

Exactly, that's called experience. That's what you need for doing observational science. So if you said that Mount Rushmore was not designed, you would be wrong. But your experience says it was, and you would be right.

quote:

---

Besides, it is still subject to the same natural laws for its creation as does other phenomena not created/designed by man.

---

No it's not. Crystals arise in right conditions because of their strucutre and natural law. A novel does no arise from ink and paper because of it's structure and nautral law. An intelligence has to create the novel.

quote:

---

There is nothing magical about this.

---

Neither did I say it's magic. Intelligence in completely natural.

quote:

---

You see design from a supernatural entity because that is what you want to see you.

---

Well again I never said it was supernatural, even if it was, that is not what I want to see, but what the design detection method tells us. So if you saw a car and you concluded it was designed? Does that make you see what you want to see, or is it objective reality that it was designed?

quote:

---

How about termite mounds are they intelligently designed by termites?

---

Yes, they are, but by a very low level of intelligence. We can't even measure it.

quote:

---

How about stromatolites, are they intelligently designed by cynobacteria?

---

Bacteria are not intelligent. They are not thinking about the process they are doing, and have no intelligence. They are like machines programmed to do their work.

quote:

---

How about natural phenomena formed through the wind and water erosion and seismic activity that earily look like human-made objects, this is called :

---

Those are not designed. Natural law accounts for them.

quote:

---

You are conditioned to see what you want to see. It is called apophenia. Look it up.

---

So if I saw a computer, even if I didn't know what a computer was before, and concluded that it was designed, would that mean that I saw what I wanted to see? Should I have concluded that it was not designed?

quote:

---

LOL, is that the best you can come back with? What are you 10 years old?

---

That's not the only thing I wrote. Not my fault if you choose to respond to only selected parts of my text.

quote:

---

You are no extrapolating you are making shit up out of thin air to back up your preconceived notions.

---

You are the one that's making shit up.

quote:

---

No, that is not what this article is saying. Now you are deliberately lying. The evolution of this bacteria in this article is only taking into consideration its adaption to resist certain antibiotics not the entire evolutionary history of the bacteria.

---

Well you're a sick and twisted man and I can't help you. If you are stupid enough not to be able to extrapolate, that if the bacteria has the genes required to mutate turned off, and the specific part of its genome can't evolve because of it. And you can't conclude that this is what is happening throughout all the genome, than what can I say.

quote:

---

It does evolve without LexA. The presence of LeXA just enables mutation in a certain area of the bacterium’s genome which enables it to be resistant to certain types of antibiotics. Stop making shit up.

---

You stupid imbecile! The resistance does not evolve without LexA, because there are no mutations on that specific part of the genome! So if you turned off all LexA-type mechanisms nothing would be able to evolve in the bacteria.

quote:

---

No, this is not how adaption/evolution works. How are you defining random mutations. All these protein inhibitors are doing is increasing the mutations in one specific area of the genome. This does not mean that mutations are not occurring elsewhere in the genome.

---

I know that shit for brains. But as I said, if totally random mutations existed than the part of the genome that gets induced by LexA would still evolve without it. Because random mutations would mutate it. But they don't! So the only conclusion is that other parts of the genome are also not mutating due to random mutations but to some other LexA-type mechanisms.

quote:

---

Who is saying that these bacterium need these ‘mechanisms’ to evolve overall? These mechanisms are only needed to evolve resistance to certain types of chemical agents. You really need to study some basic biology and molecular biology before you try to attack scientific concepts you are ignorant of.

---

Andf you need to remove all the crap from your brain because you have proven yourself not to be able to extrapolate.

quote:

---

How do you know I misunderstand IC when we have not even discussed it. This statement went over your head so nevermind.

---

Because you have proven yourself to be retarded.

quote:

---

Sweeping generalization and incorrect one at that. Did this article state that all bacteria require this mechanism to be resistant to all chemical agents much less all antibiotics.

---

I'm asking you about this specific one.

quote:

---

We don’t know uncategorically and 100% that they cannot evolve resistance without LexA.

---

Science is not about knowing 100%. It's about current knowledge. And current knowledge tells us it can't.

quote:

---

It is assumed based on these studies that they can’t at this time. However, given enough time, the bacteria very well may evolve to build resistances without LeXa. If enough mutations occur who knows this may occur, no one knows. Again why would not having this mechanism inhibit the bacterium from evolving in the past since many of these synthetic antibiotics were non-existent until the last half of this century anyways.

---

Given enough time either nothing will happen or they will decay because of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

All genetic mutations are induced. Some are induced by sources outside the organism and some from within.

​

Random is not synonomous with having no cause. Random means that the mutation can occur anywhere in a given area of the genome and do not form a predictable pattern. There are many causes for random mutations in the genetic code including inaccurate copying of DNA sequences, biochemical agents (virus, prions, etc), radioactive agents (i.e. UV light)

---

Well obviously the have a couse. They follow the laws of nature. But by random it means they have no cause inside the organism. If they have a cause inside the organism, than the are not random.

quote:

---

There are a multitude of causes for random genetic mutations.

---

Who would have thought?

quote:

---

Never say never in science. Science is always spoken in the language or probabilities.

---

That means you should accept that bacteria can't evolve resistance without LexA for now. Untill someone shows it can.

I love how creationist and IDers just assume if you say something over ad nauseum it makes it true. As Jerry Maguire says "Show me the money!" or in this case the evidence. No, he is making baseless claims. If you make an assertion back it up. Otherwise you bring nothing to the debate. He conducts the same ignorant baseless claims against SR and GR on the physics threads and brings over this same form of irrational bantering to this thread. I don't tollerate it and neither should you. This is a subjective interpretation of nature. How do you know this?A natural arch formed by water and wind erosion can have a specific function and use by animals and humans. A cave can as well. Is there an intelligent agent behind the formation of these natural phenomena? There is nothing magical or special about these natural phenomena. We attribute meaning to them precisely because they do seem to conform to our needs and desires. This is in a way a form of anthropocentrism. What does that mean??? You can't even adequately define CSI, how can you expect anyone else to understand WTF you are talking about??So what is complex and not complex in nature? How are you defining chaos? Chaos means totally unpredictability and randomness. If these phenomena were truely chaotic there would be nothing tangible that you could touch, feel, taste, etc. The termite mound much less anything else would not 'exist' for all intense and purposes of the word. So what would constitute CSI and why?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

That is not what you said earlier: You can't even remember what you said in previous posts. You really are dumbing down your cause. No that is not what the random in random mutations means. Do you understand what the word 'random' means?Random means it cannot be accurately predicted meaning we cannot accurately predict where genetic mutations will strike next in an organisms genome. Some mutational sources are more random than others. For example mutations cause by UV sources are almost completely random since nearly all portions of the genome are sucesptable to this radiation source and it would be nearly impossible to determine where exactly these point mutations could occur. Whereas, the areas of DNA which are suseptible to viral agents of mutation may be more predictable in there location of occurance. Obviously not you as shown above. You have yet to show how this helps your case as I debunked your idea that these genetic mechanisms had to develop for any evolutionary changes to occur.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi, Smooth Operator.Welcome to EvC!I hope you don't mind my butting in. Randomness has absolutely nothing to do with causation. The concept you are thinking of is described by the term "spontaneous." Mutations are not spontaneous: they are random.Randomness only deals with incidence and uncertainty, not causation. It implies that there are multiple options, no one of which is guaranteed to come to fruition, but any one of which could potentially happen.This is a perfect description for bacterial mutations, with or without the inhibitor. Turning on the inhibitor increases the likelihood that a mutation will slip past the repair machinery, but it does not cause mutations to happen. The bacterium is still reliant on the usual causes of mutation to make mutations happen.If the inhibitor is on, mutations are caused by DNA replication errors, chemical imbalances, radiation, etc.; if the inhibitor is off, mutations are caused by DNA replication errors, chemical imbalances, radiation, etc.What you are calling "induction" is not causation, it is facilitation. This means that anything that happens under induction could happen without induction, but it would just happen more slowly.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Except it's true. If it were false then models of the evolutionary algorithm couldn't produce new information. If it were false then you would be able to identify the location in the cell of the information for where to place the mutation and which base pairs to substitute.I understand that you believe it is false. But believing and proving are two different things. The evidence we have says that the mutation rate goes up when the mutation repair mechanism is disabled. If you think a mutation inducing mechanism exists then you have to provide evidence of one. Interesting idea that all mutations are deterministically induced, but there's no evidence for it.--Percy

And yet we have observable, calculable mutation rates. Bacterial mutation rates are far higher than human mutation rates and your 99.99999999% correction rate is not based on any real information.

quote:

---

The most common source of mutation is due to mistakes made during DNA replication when an incorrect nucleotide is incorporated into newly synthesized DNA. The mutation rate due to errors made by the DNA polymerase III replisome is one error for every one hundred million bases (nucleotides) that are incorporated into DNA. This is an error rate of 1/100,000,000, commonly written as 10^-8 in exponential notation. Technically, these aren't mutations; they count as DNA damage until the problem with mismatched bases in the double-stranded DNA has been resolved. The DNA repair mechanism fixes 99% of this damage but 1% escapes repair and becomes a mutation. The error rate of repair is 10^-2 so the overall error rate during DNA replication is 10^-10 nucleotides per replication (10^-8 10^-2) (Tago et al., 2005).

---

Bacterial populations very often exceed 10^10, which means mutation solely due to replicaiton mistakes are pretty common. Well, the same thing any population does. A bacterium with a detrimental mutation will either a) die or b) not reproduce as fast as a wild type or beneficial mutant and that mutation "that it can't use" will disappear from the population. It's simply evolutionary theory. Read about it.Edited by Stagamancer, : clarification

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

By random I mean the frame shift/base pair change or whatever IS random. If I induce a die to roll is the outcome no longer random?!By saying random mutations have no cause I think you must be thinking of mutations that occur because of an error in replication. But UV light causes this error, are mutations that are caused by UV, or a chemical no longer random because they were "caused"? No, when a scientist says a random mutation they mean that the outcome (say getting a different, functional protein) is more or less random. Contradiction, anyone??? Yes, they wait for it to randomly occur! While mutating randomly (like a die rolling) there is a probability that a mutation will arise that gives the bacterium an advantage (like getting the desired number up on the die). Even if this increased mutation rate is induced, each time there is a mutation, it's a random mutation. Most of these mutation will be neutral or harmful, but with enough generations (rolls of the die) the right one will come up, and the bacteria that have that mutation will out-compete the others. It's really quite simple, and you seem to have a hard time grasping what random really means in this context. I've tried to explain it to you many times. This is my last. I'll respond to another argument that you have, but I'm done with this random mutation part. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This might be misinterpreted by Smooth Operator, so for him let me add that the mutation rates of human and bacterial cells are fairly close in value, but bacteria can produce tens of generations a day, and consequently bacterial populations produce many more mutations per day even with their generally smaller genomes. Humans produce only about .0006 generations per day, and our numbers are not only dwarfed by bacteria, but even by total weight they exceed us.AbE: The link provided by TraderDrew in Message 120 provides a wealth of useful information, including his 99.99999999% correction rate figure, but also that E. coli replicates its DNA at the rate of 4000 base pairs per second. Who knew!I think the important point for TraderDrew to understand is that the bacterial mutation rate of 10^-8 per base pair per generation includes the corrections.But I'd challenge that 99.99999999% figure, because if it is accurate then the error rate without correction is 1. In other words, not a single base pair is copied without error. That just makes no sense, so that figure cannot be correct, not even close.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add additional information after TraderDrew posted his Message 121.Edited by Percy, : Correctly refer to Message 120 from TraderDrew.

It seems that an assertion you're making, Smooth, is that evolutionary algorithms can't produce new complex specified information, because they are programmed in advance by humans, even their 'random' components... ... and therefore the information is already implicit in the algorithm.Now, I disagree with what you say here, but I'll put that on hold until I understand your position better as it may not be important.My question: Does this limitation on evolutionary algorithms, in your view, apply to algorithms more generally? i.e. can any algorithms produce new complex specified information? If they can, which ones can and which ones can't? How do we tell the two kinds apart?If no algorithms can generate CSI, then it would imply that 'complex specified information' is in technical terms non-computable. This would have interesting implications. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

It seems to me that you should prove to me that CSI is not suitable for detecting design. Or what you can do is prove to us that new amounts of of CSI containing at least 400 bits can be produced by natural causes. Yes but it wasn't necessarily designed by an intelligence. It was designed by the forces within chaos. The cave doesn't produce or communicate any CSI. The termites build the mound with cooperation. The mound doesn't need to have any particular elucidean shape. Different mounds have different shapes. They don't need to conform to particular mathematical models. Forces such as heavy rain can effect the shapes of the mounds. With sentences like these I get the impression that you are trying to make us look bad rather than attempting to investigate what CSI is yourself. I'm not sure if I can draw the lines there. I suspect complexity is represented in natural phenomenon with different degrees of fractal dimension. You are making me think. Chaotic things are natural phenomenon that defy traditional linear measurements.

The 99.99999999% figure came from a pdf belowhttp://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf I believe you. I asked the queston because there is at least one other person around here who thinks that the cell will hold on to neutral mutations and use those mutations to build something new. I think it is called genetic drift? I'm sure neutral mutations do occur but I think the possibility of them coherently getting together and building structures such as proteins binding together and IC structures is more like Darwinian conjecture than a realistic senario that can explain what occurs in the real world.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.