EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

It seems that it is improbability from the perspective of information forming by chance. It is like finding a series of the same species of palm tree lined up in a specific orderly sequence.If each amino acid is not used as a part of CSI, then what are the amino acids used for? I will have to read Dembski's rules. I never read his book. Are you interested in making this hard on me in an attempt to discredit what I think is the obvious? Superficially, it is obvious that things like orderly sequencing such as the palm tree example or specific messages that serve specific functions are not something that has been produced by forces within chaos. The debate stems from this. Sometimes I get the impression that some of you are trying to escape metaphysical reality. "See no CSI, hear no CSI." There is a simple answer. The accuracy rate isn't physical. Amino acids are physical.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

It is generally a good diea to know what you're talking about before debating it. Define orderly sequence.Is 123456789 any more orderly, from a non anthropocentric view as the exact sequence 182746235?Why? What are the odds of that exact sequence of numbers forming compared to the exact sequence of the other numbers forming?They're exactly the same. But in evolution, we're not talking about a specific series of number, we're talking about any series of numbers. IDist tend to look at things from the end point and say, "What are the odds that random chance would take us from Point A to Point B?"You're quite right when you say the odds are slim. But you're missing the point. The organism started at Point A. It ended up at another point. What are the odds the organims would end up at a point different from A? 100% What are the odds it will end up at any specific point? Slim, but it had to end up somewhere, and no matter where it ends up, the odds of it having gotten there are slim, but that doesn't mean it was directed.If you drive out of your driveway and take random turns down random roads, you'll end up somewhere. Now, if you stopped and tried to calculate, based on where you started, the odds of you having gotten to where you are, it would be astronomically small, and even smaller as the length of time you drive went up. However, that doesn't mean you were consciously picking where you went, its just that you had to end up somewhere, and all specific spots were improbable.

Agreed... but I have been known to take risks. A trader takes risks when he or she believes the odds are in their favor.How would the information you provided disprove ID? Darwin's theory says that we got here by some sort of fluke doesn't it? How would it disprove convergent evolution? I.E. the different evolutionary paths of different but similar types of flying animals or the evolution of the celaphopod eye paralleled with the vertebrate eye? I would say that natural selection would explain part of it.

Again, what you think is irrelevant. No they didn't, they had seen it was only a simple blob of plasma. They had of course seen wrong. It's not their fault people are ignorant of how evolution works and don't want to accept it. No I don't. I know it already explains it, even though there are people like yourselves who think it doesn't No, I don't. See above. Yes, that's true. You're wrong though. ooh! Nice! *puts on aluminium hat* True, though that only works for so long. And of course that didn't happen. That still doesn't mean it happened. You have evidence it is a conspiracy then? Let me get this straight, liberals that don't want people to think for themselves....you really have a weird outlook on things. Once more. What you think is irrelevant. It will. Goddidit isn't an answer of any kind, and brings us absolutely no step closer to finding out how nature works. By the way, did you just admit that the "intelligent designer" is god? I thought this wasn't a religion? what you th...yeah you know by now. These debates do, the answer ID provides doesn't. Clever . But wrong. It's simply the way of reality, It is what it is regardless of what you think it should be like.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

It seems that it is improbability from the perspective of information forming by chance. It is like finding a series of the same species of palm tree lined up in a specific orderly sequence.

---

No, you are expected to include EVERY factor other than design. In other words the argument is basically all about trying to prove that the evolution of some feature is too improbably to have occurred. But it doesn't give you any help in actually doing the calculation.

quote:

---

If each amino acid is not used as a part of CSI, then what are the amino acids used for?

---

I'd guess that they are used for their biological functions.

quote:

---

I will have to read Dembski's rules. I never read his book.

---

In other words you are trying to use an argument that you don't understand.

quote:

---

Are you interested in making this hard on me in an attempt to discredit what I think is the obvious?

---

The requirements are Dembski's not mine. If they are too difficult for you then blame him. In fact you should blame yourself for trying to use an argument that you don't understand.

quote:

---

Superficially, it is obvious that things like orderly sequencing such as the palm tree example or specific messages that serve specific functions are not something that has been produced by forces within chaos. The debate stems from this.

---

Superficially, yes. But the genome is not a nice simple orderly line of palm trees. And then again on a "superficial" level a "fairy ring" looks designed - unless you know how it forms. That is the whole point of formalising CSI instead of relying on superficial appearances.

quote:

---

The debate stems from this. Sometimes I get the impression that some of you are trying to escape metaphysical reality. "See no CSI, hear no CSI."

---

Well I have to wonder why telling the truth is supposed to be an "escape" from any sort of reality. THe fact is that Dembski made the rules. If you want to claim that you have a real example of Dembski's CSI - and you did - then you have to follow his rules to show it. Human intuition is often a poor guide in dealing with probabilities even in simple cases - and any significant evolution will be a massively complex situation to calculate.And that is the fundamental flaw of Dembski's argument. He set himself up for failure.

quote:

---

There is a simple answer. The accuracy rate isn't physical. Amino acids are physical.

---

The right answer is that the accuracy rate is a probability - and the physical amino acid isn't. So which one would you use in a probability-based measure of information ? (Hint: it's the one that is a probability).

Smooth Operator just posted a link that refutes your position. Look for the image of the double helix in the link below.It says that information is condensed on a molecular scale in DNA. If this information is absent, no living being will exist. Where did it come from?The Evolutionary Informatics Lab - EvoInfo.org

Well, every mutation is a fluke, yeah, but whether that fluke gets passed on to successive generations is not. If the fluke happens to help, or at least doesn't hurt too bad, it has a greater chance of being passed on.For convergent evolution, you have two different animals who are faced with similar problems. They can't do anything until a fluke (mutation) happens. Does this mutation help them solve the problem?No? Well, it doesn't get passed on.Yes, a little? Then my kids will have this slightly better chance of reproducing, and maybe, they'll have another fluke and we can see if that one helps or not.The fact that getting from a branch of one tree to a branch of another, without climbing down and back up, has only a couple possible solutions considering the starting positions. You have skin, bones, muscles, and limbs. You can either try and make the limbs into wings, but those don't work much better than limbs until they're strong enough to create the lift necessary, so those probably won't get selected for (though they may not get selected against, either), but an expanded slip of skin could act as a parachute, and at least slow a fall, even if it's not much of one, so it would get selected for.The fact that multiple species solve a similar problem with a similar solution isn't tough to believe. In fact, if it didn't happen, that could be used as better evidence for ID, since a designer wouldn't be constrained by the previous designs, he wouldn't have to reuse designs.So, yeah, natural selection is the thing in evolution that factors out the randomness.

quote:

---

Smooth Operator just posted a link that refutes your position.

---

No, he hasn't.

quote:

---

It says that information is condensed on a molecular scale in DNA. If this information is absent, no living being will exist. Where did it come from?

---

So that quote - somehow - proves that somebody has successfully applied Dembski's method ? Bearing in mind that it was published in 1972 (when Dembski was a boy of 12) it is incredibly unlikely that it is even referring to Dembski's measure of information - let alone anything else.

In other words the argument is basically all about trying to prove that the evolution of some feature is too improbably to have occurred.No, I think that certain features can evolve. I believe in microevolution. I think you are referring to minimum complexity of the most simple replicating cells. There is where the "faith" those who believe in Darwinism might surface.According to "Signature in the Cell" the most simple one celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes. See no CSI, hear no CSI. The two statements that convey a similar meaning above is what I mean when I say someone is trying to equivocate my information. I agree. The genome is not a simple orderly line of palm trees. Yes, it wasn't specific sequence of amino acids but I just posted the link. Why fight it? Don't try to equivocate it. Maybe you should calm down. ID is not so bad.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Did that man need Dembski to hold his hand and show him that DNA has information?Perhaps I can offer you a solution. I don't just wish to argue with you and it is more or an argument than a debate at this point.If it is a particular god that you are concerned about, I will offer you a metaphysical escape hatch. Guided transpermia does not require a God. It just requires some sort of energetic intelligence that doesn't require irreducibly complex systems to exist. Perhaps the intelligence was an entity formed from plasma? That intelligence could very well have created CSI.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I think that certain features can evolve.

---

The opposite of "some" is all. So if you think that there are ANY features in biology that could not have evolved, you are not disagreeing with my point.

quote:

---

According to "Signature in the Cell" the most simple one celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes

---

Which - even if correct - does not consider the possibility of simpler life.

quote:

---

See no CSI, hear no CSI.

---

Making false attacks on me doesn't change the fact, that you did not even know how CSI is defined.

quote:

---

The two statements that convey a similar meaning above is what I mean when I say someone is trying to equivocate my information.

---

Presumably you mean people who correct your misinformation[/i].

quote:

---

Yes, it wasn't specific sequence of amino acids but I just posted the link. Why fight it? Don't try to equivocate it. Maybe you should calm down. ID is not so bad.

---

I'm not equivocating anything. I'm simply pointing out the facts - because I know more about ID than you do. Apparently you don't like that - which is why you have to make these false accusations. And ID's reliance on false accusations IS one of the reasons that it IS bad.

quote:

---

Did that man need Dembski to hold his hand and show him that DNA has information?

---

Since I'm not arguing that DNA doesn't have information that is irrelevant.I am arguing that there are no known examples of Dembski's CSI. If you want to deal with other measures of information then you're talking about something entirely different.

quote:

---

Perhaps I can offer you a solution. I don't just wish to argue with you and it is more or an argument than a debate at this point.

---

A good solution would be for you to be honest - intellectually honest as well as simple honesty. Admit the limitations of your knowledge instead of using bluster and bullying when you get corrected. Do your research properly. Don't claim that a link "refutes" my position when it doesn't even say anything of relevance.

quote:

---

If it is a god that you are concerned about, I will offer you a metaphysical escape hatch. Guided transpermia does require a God. It just requires some sort of energetic intelligence that doesn't require irreducibly complex systems to exist.

---

You mean that if I agree to lie for you, you'll let me choose a less offensive lie ? No thanks. The fact is that there are no known examples of Dembski's ID in biology. None.
So we don't need to invent anything to account for it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

...but one of the warning signs of a thread about to spin out of control is when issues of honesty and integrity are raised. Please make things easy on the moderators. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There was a part of me that was trying to help. It is a new day so I'm sorry for the offense. Maybe I went to far. The frustration kind of builds up when I argue with multiple people around here.Forget about Dembski's definition. Unless you want to make the CSI argument as brittle as possible and then attack it.I did give you an idea of what CSI is (in another thread) but you rejected it. I will illustrate it in simplistic form again. Why does it have to be complicated?Mere Complexity - words jumbled randomOrder but redundant information - That That That ThatComplex Specified Information (CSI) - There are a lot of people who don't like traderdrew in the evcforum.netDNA contains specific arrangements of information that produce specific effects.Maybe your problem is that you don't know that each amino acid within DNA has no particular bonding affinities that attach to the sugar phosphate backbone of DNA. It is true that G has to go with C and T has to go with A.So if I can arrange combinations of GC / CG or TA / AT in any combinations inside of DNA, I can get any combination of G,C,T,A that I want. Let me demonstate.TAGCATTACGCGATGCTAWhen I read the information above illustrated vertically, I have the combination TGATCCAGT (left)or ACTAGGTCA (right). These are short patterns representing amino acids in DNA generated ramdomly.I followed the rule that links A with T and G with C but as you can see, when they are arranged along DNA, the combinations can be read on a DNA model when it is read running parallel with the twisting DNA. (Look for a model of a double helix and read the sequences as the spiral along with the twisted backbone.)In order for you to have a functional protein, it has to have a tetiary structure or at least approximately 75 amino acids. In order to get the amino acids that build proteins, each amino acid in DNA has to be expressed in chains of three called condons. So I would need a chain of at least (75x3) = 225 A,C,G,Ts represented by those illustrations above. (This doesn't count the start and stop information at the beginning of the chain and at the end.)

I'm not trying to have a go at you traderdrew but it is amazing how often these basic misunderstandings of molecular biology pop up in creationist/ID proponents arguments. You are not the first poster we have encountered who doesn't seem to know what DNA is actually composed of, what the difference between amino acids and nucleotides is or ,presumably given this confusion, what the central dogma of molecular biology is.This example doesn't serve to illustrate anything other than that you are coming into this discussion without actually knowing anything about the biology involved.The fact that you take an instructive tone with PaulK make your basic misunderstanding even more eggregious. You aren't just being wrong you are trying to correct people who DO actually understand the biology.TTFN,WK