|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Universities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: What? I made that point to show how rich in history ID is. Not to recommend that we recede science back to the B.C. era. Sheeze....How did you ever read that into what I posted? You might want to expound on your VLSI circuit deally-whacker as I doubt anyone understands what you mean here. Surely you are not suggesting that genes had a role in the motherboards of computers. Expansion, please?
quote: No. since I haven't any idea what the heck you are talking about and highly doubt anyone reading this does, there is little chance I will say that.
quote: I'll go anywhere with you in thermodynamics you wish to go, Mr. Physicist. I'll change hats and get right back to you like....um...now? BLINK! Ok, I'm in physics mode now. Want to do some physics? Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system? Do you also agree with the stipulation that with any chemically spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase as stated here? Let me know and we'll boogie down in thermo, I'm well versed and formally trained in that subject. One of my faves.
quote: Like what? Please don't throw this stuff out there without the specifics. Biologists have all kinds of plausible scenarios, you just don't what they are?
quote: We have tons of testable hypotheses. I'll match you one for one with those in Darwinism. What say you? The molecular biologist seems to have got the heck out of Dodge on the first round of this issue.
quote: I like my hubris, thank you. It fills my puddle.
quote: LOL...Well thank you. Please get this rant out of your system. I am here for you.
quote: *burp* Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: LOL....Does this forum have any way of dealing with trolls, or do I just have to put up with you periodically in every thread I participate in? Please don't post further to me. Thank you. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I'm glad to. What area would you like to further understand? Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Back atcha, Sal:
Haven't heard from you for awhile:
quote: Yep. I caught the Nature article and we featured it front and center on our Web Site ID Theorist Salvador Cordova Appears in Nature I haven't been discouraged at all. I love the way things are going especially with the "gagging" of Darwinists from participating in the Kansas hearings by the AAAS. Lol--They are afraid that having to publicly defend Darwinism "might confuse people." Their new strategy: Make us look like "asses" and target people that are poorly educated (link below). They also openly admit they have been trying to "convert" creationists to their 'science.' Keep up the great work on the campuses. Young and curious minds seek truth and you are providing it. You've discovered your niche and appear to be soaring with it. Quite frankly, I'm very proud of you and your work. Now, get that PhD in cosmology as Uncle Bill advised you and I think we gots us another point man. Hmmm....who is encouraging who. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
paisano, are you going to answer my post back to you, or just ignore it and hope it goes away? I wanted to do a little physics with our resident physicist.
Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: What? I can't be proud of pride? And you guys just missed how I tied in my hubris to the puddle analogy and therefore into ID. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Well heck. I mean it's not like I can get the PhDs in here to the point where I can actually CALCULATE something. Every time I introduce some formulas and get to the calculation stage of my argument you guys all drop out and refuse to answer my posts. What is it you're afraid of, paisano? I know that none of you are mathematically illiterate, yet you just will not go there when someone comes on this forum like Sal and I that can actually show ID to be true both scientifically and mathematically. Interesting. There's got to be a truism in that fact somewhere. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: *chuckle* Soundly refuted by his suddenly getting the heck out of Dodge and no longer addressing my posts to him on the subject? Boy. If that's how you guys refute things in here then I suppose I must have been refuted a 100 times or so thus far. But, indeed, I will construct a technical argument to throw out.
quote: Yes, let's do, Doctor. And I expect you actually to do something mathematically to refute this, not refuse to address this post, run and hide and proclaim with hubris to the masses that you have refuted another IDist. I tried to show you this in our last major exchange but you simply refuse to answer the post even with me goading you a bit. Speaking, in this case biologically, considering the genome of vertebrates: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. In other words, since genes are loose information (information that is not "fixed" in a manner it cannot change as it diffuses, like a library book or video tape) we do not expect to see macroevolution via increasing information content due to random mutations in a population of organisms over time as Darwin asserted. In fact, we would expect to see just the opposite: a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations and that species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record. The trouble is that considering vertebrates, we never had any studies on this until Eyre-Walker and Keightley published their study in Nature on a comparison of the genomes of Chimp and Man over a period of about 6 million years considering homo sapiens evolutionary walk from hominids. Once this was published (See Mick? Here is a paper that supports ID but it's gasp...biology!) Eyre-Walker brought our observation into the scientific method experimentally because lo and behold, the researchers did not show the genome to be evolving via increasing information over time but to be devolving by the steady increase of detrimental mutations as this information is diffused down lineages from progenitors to progeny. In fact, the study concludes in the abstract: "Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages." Note that these accumulating deleterious mutations are considered AFTER those that were weeded out by natural selection. Then knowing this, we can learn just how this study was accomplished having it further explained to us by professor of genetics James Crow (I believe at U of Nebraska) who served as an interpreter in this study.
HERE we read: "Eyre-Walker and Keightley have made the analysis feasible by concentrating on protein-coding regions. They measured the amino-acid changes in 46 proteins in the human ancestral line after its divergence from the chimpanzee. Among 41,471 nucleotides, they found 143 nonsynonymous substitutions -- mutations where swapping one DNA base for another changes an amino acid, and therefore the final protein made by that gene." Now let's get into some mathematical physics with the physicist. I asked you: "Are you familiar with the work of Ludvig Boltzmann? Do you agree that he formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system? Do you also agree with the stipulation that with any chemically spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase as stated here?" I'll answer this for since you simply refuse to, "Yes I do!" Thank you. The Eyre-Walker study showed this entropy increasing at the rate of 1.6 deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome each generation and our plight is to show this entropically. It just so happens that W in this formula stands for statistical weight--the total number of ways that matter/energy can be arranged-- and can be calculated as Feynman told us how to calculate it: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
Reference Feynman never used Boltzmann's formula in this particular lecture but it is clear he is referring to it. So let's calculate this. Infodynamic theorists (IDists) use the same statistical method as do thermodynamicists and physicists as those "numbers of ways" are calculated using combinatorials or factorials. The University of New South Wales, physics department has a good page on calculating entropy HERE. In fact they use the same formula that ID theorists use:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deletariously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy. W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487 W = 1.71 x 10^7 Now we can do Boltzmann's math: S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7) S = 9.98 x 10^-23 There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula if you are a math purest, but most no longer do this, and we can go with Uncle Claude and calculate this in bits, if you like, just holler. Anyhow, there you have it, my new friend. If I have pushed all the right buttons (which I'm prone to NOT do occasionally--just correct me), then the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism stands refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history. ID walks tall. See why the Darwinists refuse to publicly debate us in Kansas? They KNOW they would lose because the science and math is all in ID's camp! NOTE TO READERS: If you want to learn this type of ID insight for yourself sign up for my summer course on this at designdynamics.org ~ This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-05-2005 09:31 PM Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Mike, if you learn one thing from this thread I hope you will learn that people will not respond to provocative posts like this at the professional level. We all tend to trade insults and that's human nature, but in the first post? Think about that. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Justin, I will try you one more time because you seem a nice guy at heart. But if you go getting snippy on me again, I will ignore your posts as the big moose moderator (lol, whoever that was) advised in our last thread. Don't get FRUSTRATED. I'm not out to degrade you personally, I simply disagree with your arguments. And, fairly vigorously so.
quote: It doesn't matter what it applies to, it is the total number of ways that something can be arranged. Any something; and that's what the statistical weight is in infodynamic formulas, such as Botzmann's S = K log W, or Shrodinger's S = K log 1/D. Consider a simple system created by the flipping of 4 coins. One would think that total microstates might be calculated as the total number of available states (heads or tails) taken to the power of the number of coins, or with 4 coins, 2^4 = 16 ways. Well, this is partially true, and here they are:
But this only relates to the state of each coin and not how that state interacts with other states. IOW, we can take it further and discover more microstates. But we must calculate it combinatorially to do so, or 4! = 24. When we allow each coin to be represented by a color, it is easier to see how they really interact:
There are really 24. With me? I might also jog your memory and remind you that Boltzmann fully considered his expanding atoms in a gas as information. Here is how he defines the entropy in the formula I used:
"Gain in information is loss in entropy" Finally, as I stated, we can also calculate it with Shannon's information formula:
quote: Yep, correct. I was calculating S considering only a single generation. But you can bring an argument that I also could calculate deltaS, or the change in entropy from generation to generation. The formula you threw out is a valid one I am very familiar with. Or it works as well with simple subtraction such as deltaS = Sf - Si, or change in entropy is represented by final entropy minus initial entropy. It doesn't matter as long as we all use the same math to compare when we are quantifying the same system.
quote: Matter is information. A pebble laying in the road is information, as an information channel (light reflecting from the pebble to my eyes) is established and an information recipient (me) records the fact that a pebble is there into the neurons of my hard drive. Boltzmann was correct that his atoms were information. IOW, there isn't a difference in this particular situation if we wish to define one atom as one bit of information, under Shannon's description of bits in his original paper, we can certainly do so. Now we be doin' some ID! Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: This post is absolutely ludicrous and contains no science at all. Is this why you posted no references to back up your assertions? Did you note that I posted references with every step in my post to you? Why can you not, because it's all Darwinist propaganda claptrap with no science or math anywhere in it? You see, it is very common to do exactly what I did and scientists often express statistical entropy thermodynamically. Yet, I did not express mine thermodynamically because thermodynamic entropy always deals with heat. Thermo means heat in Greek. Did you see any heat in the form of Joules/degrees Kelvin in that calculation? No, but I could rightfully do so as others before me have. Here's a page with a college professor expressing the flipping of quarters thermodynamically; in heat never-the-less.
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Also, I'm afraid you do not even know what Shannon entropy is. Shannon entropy is summed over and calculated via this formula:
Now did you see this anywhere in the post I just sent to you? No. Therefore your assertion that I am confusing thermodynamic entropy with Shannon entropy is simply ridiculous and obvious to any reader. The fact is, I calculated logical entropy. You might want to Google that as you obviously are not that familiar with the infodynamics in your field. And finally, your implication that natural selection was ignored and that this should be considered in only one generation of a population is just as preposterous. Change by mutation and selection in one generation? Talk about punk eek! Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
I'm sorry. Do you recall that I gave you the last word on our argument? Please format your final post on it and it will stand.
There simply has not been any science in your posts that I can address. According to you, I am a creationist and all creationists do not understand methodological naturalism. Despite the fact that most of science used in the lab today was brought to you complements of creationists. I asked you to show pakicetus to be true under your qualifications as to what is science and you did not. You just came back with more opinion. Fine. 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! Accept this and move on to another discussion as ours is over. Thank you for your participation. In fact, have a great evening! This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 01:19 AM Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ned:
quote: Not quite. I did not assert that the entropy must increase in that system. But the study showed that it did. Sorry. There's the science. Science says macroevolution didn't happen. Math shows entropy actually increased.
quote: The second law is a universal law of nature that applies to EVERYTHING. Another thing you are missing is that the study considered the deleterious mutations that were weeded out in natural selection and concluded that only about 38% of them were. This is stated in the abstract. The 1.6 accumulation is considered after natural selection has done its magic. Prigogine showed that systems maintain a far from equilibrium state by the flow of energy, which I believe is what you are touching on here. Organisms eat food, water heaters use gas or electricity to correct the situation every time the second law tries to take them to equilibrium with their environment. But how is there a flow of energy in genomes to keep them from detrimentally mutating? There isn't. This is what you are going to have to show to further your argument, I'm afraid. Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: You haven't presented any facts. I bring my argument to you using references, usually from the science departments of respected universities. You come back with nothing more than your opinion, and even that supported by no math or science at all that can be addressed or cross-referenced. On what do you base your rebuttal? On the fact that you do not like what I presented because of your particular religious views? Yep. That doesn't cut it. Either bring a rebuttal based on science and math using references as I did or just be honest and admit you cannot. Your peers will better respect you. There's nothing dishonorable about simply admitting you are wrong.
quote: This could not be any further from the truth. Random mutations ARE equiprobable as any nucleotide can mutate at any time in the transcription process where mutations normally occur (or any other scenario I can think of). To suggests that transcription stochastically favors certain mutations over others is simply a misunderstanding of biology.
quote: So what? I did not calculate many generations. You can calculate several generations if you want to, it's not that difficult. It's just a matter of extrapolating the average decay in one generation to as many as you want. This is not exactly brain surgery.
quote: LOL...Well there ya go, people. Paisano's sole argument is that he has some "training" and even though he does not know me, I must not because he disagrees with me. He presents no science, no math and absolutely nothing backed up with references to show one of his point to be correct and generally accepted by others that study this subject. I'm sorry my friend, your argument isn't rational. If you don't start posting some references as the rest of us do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that you simply stand by yourself trying to mask your faith as science. There's your pseudo-science by anyone's standards. This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 02:21 AM Design Dynamics
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Now Paul, you either are blinded by religion or you have a reading comprehension problem. ONE did not express that opinion, read what the danged article says:
"His main question for each person was on their opinion of the age of the earth. All said it was billions of years old, except for William Harris who quipped he thought it was "really old."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024