Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 181 of 315 (517177)
07-30-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
07-29-2009 4:00 AM


quote:
You've been misinformed. Here's a simple C++ program that multiplies two integers. There are no numbers programmed into it:

If you have access to a C++ compiler then give it a try - it works, and as you can see, no numbers are pre-programmed in.


No I haven't. I program in C#, so I know what I'm talking about. Anyway, no the numebrs are not programmed in, but by the look of that syntax, you are supposed to input them at runtime. And the action to multiply them is programmed in. So the computer has all teh information for this to work properlly. YOu gave it all the information it needed.

quote:
A genetic algorithm models evolution, just as meteorological programs model the weather, or NASA programs model the trajectories of spacecraft. The answers are not already programmed into these programs. What would be the point of writing a program to find an answer you already know?
You misunderstood me. I didn't exactly mean that ALL the numbers are programmed in. The algorithms for those numbers are programmed in. YOu gave the computer enough information to process it to get the desired result. If you didn't it would give you no result.

The point is for the computer to do the boring job of calculation faster than you. It is given a serach space, that people are too boring to search themselves. All teh answers are already there, but to find them we have to do a lot of calculations to find them. That is why we use computers. To do the dirty work, so to speak.

quote:
Numbers are not programmed into simple calculators, either. Do you really believe that somewhere in your calculator is a "2" times table for all the possible numbers you can multiply by "2" and the answers, and a "3" times table for all the possible numbers you can multiply by "3" and the answers, and so on? Calculators and computers today use ALUs (Arithmetic Logic Units) that at their heart are just gates and flops implementing complex functions like multiplication from simpler functions like full adders. (Just for completeness I'll mention that there are tables of numbers involved for the proper representation and manipulation of certain standards, like the IEEE standard for fixed and floating point values.)
Let me see if I can put it this way. My Visual Studio ain't working so I'll se what I can do from the top of my head.

If you want to initialize 4 variables you won't do it like this, but you could.

int[0] a = 0;
int[1] a = 1;
int[2] a = 2;
int[3] a = 3;
etc.

you can write something like this:

for(i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
a[i] = i ;
}

You will get the same result. The outcome is the same. You didn't have to type all the numbers in by the hand, but you did have to program in the algorith that tdoes this of equal informational value. This algorithm will not get your variable to to have a value of "23" or the word "cat". It simply has no information for it, because you didn't put it in.

quote:
What would be the point of writing a program to find a solution you already know? The target of genetic algorithms is not specific. The solution is not known in advance, just as you presumably don't know in advance the product of two numbers you enter to the multiply program. Genetic algorithms are seeking a solution in the design space that satisfies specified parameters. They are a very effective method of exploring very large design spaces that couldn't be successfully explored using more random permutational techniques.
No, you don't know the solution. You have a rough estimate. The point is to save time, so you don't have to do it.

quote:
Yes, just like the genetic algorithms that model evolution. There's a set of parameters evolution seeks to satisfy that in the aggregate are equivalent to survival to reproduce, but it has no specific goal.
And all of those parameters are put in by an intelligence. If there were no initial parameters, the algorithm would do no good.

quote:
CSI is just a concept made up by William Dembski. I can tell you how much information is in a stretch of DNA. If CSI had any reality then you could tell me how much CSI was in the same stretch, but you can't.
This is just silly. If you read the No Free Lunch by Dembski you will se he calculated the CSI for a flagellum.

quote:
If CSI were real then ID scientists around the globe would be making new discoveries every year based upon the CSI concept, improving and extending our knowledge of our world and universe. Advances in the development of new drugs would be carried out by scientists applying the principles of CSI instead of evolution. The next generation of scientists would be flooding to Bible colleges and the Discovery Institute so they'd have the best chance of winning the Nobel Prize. And William Dembski would himself receive the Nobel Prize, be knighted by the queen, and receive world-wide approbation.

Instead Dembski is a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where he teaches courses in its Department of Philosophy of Religion, and CSI has no standing within the scientific community whatsoever because in truth it is just a prop invented to give a scientific-looking veneer to what at heart is just the religious concept of special creation by God.


This is no more than slander. If you look up Dembski at wikipedia you will see more than a philosophy degree. And please do look up Biologic institute where ID science is being done. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

quote:
I don't think so. Your position is resistance-conferring mutations are a deterministic result of the presence of antibiotics. My position is that resistance-conferring mutations are the ones selected from the millions of mutations that actually occur.
Actually, the resistance is bound to happen sooner or later and is going to be selected. We agree on this one.

quote:
Do you mean Inhibition of Mutation and Combating the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance? I don't see anywhere in the paper where it refers to LexA turning on and off. It talks about LexA derepressing the SOS response mechanism when cleaved. LexA turning on and off is terminology you invented yourself.
Cleaved, or uncleaved, turned on or off, call it what you will. It's talking about interfering with it's activity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 07-29-2009 4:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 07-31-2009 7:37 AM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 182 of 315 (517178)
07-30-2009 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
07-29-2009 4:33 AM


quote:
Evolution already performs a random search because mutations are random. How is your random search different from evolution?
It's not. That's the problem for you.

quote:
I'm using Shannon information.
Which can't be used for biological functions.

quote:
You think the information for allele D was already there? Where was it then?

The reason you can't answer that question is because allele D was caused by a random change (a mutation) to one or more nucleotides of allele A, B or C. It didn't exist before the mutation occurred. It appeared out of thin air, created by random chance.


All the genes are already in the genome. They do not appear from somewhere. There can be a genetic duplication. But the product is the same gene.

quote:
Shannon information can be applied to anything in the real world, including DNA.
No, it can not, because it deals only with statistical aspect of information.

quote:
Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958

quote:
In evolution the information problem is one of how to reliably communicate the specific set of messages contained in the DNA to the next generation.
No, that's the problem for the cell's machines themselves. The problem for evolution is how did the information get there in the first place.

quote:
All the alleles of all the genes of a population form the complete message set, and each individual in the population possesses a specific subset of that message set that it needs to communicate to offspring during reproduction. Any errors in communication of this DNA message to offspring are retained by the offspring and become part of the population's collective genome, making the message set larger and increasing the amount of information.
No, this is wrong. Thi has never been observed. It is true that mistakes happen, and that they get passed on. But it is not true that informational content increases. It can only degrade, over time.

quote:
Semantics are irrelevant in information theory.
No, semantics are irrelevant to Shannon's model of information. It was the first and most primitive model. Information theory has moved on since.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 07-29-2009 4:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 07-31-2009 8:03 AM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 183 of 315 (517179)
07-30-2009 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
07-29-2009 6:27 AM


quote:
Irrelevant. Whether or not the information was copied has nothing to do with why some of the bacteria live and some of the bacteria die despite all the bacteria being descended from a single ancestor.

By your claim that no new information can ever be created, all the bacteria necessarily behave in exactly the same way. If one die, then all die. If one lives, then all live. No exceptions.

But we see exceptions. Some of the bacteria live and some die.

Thus, our premise must be false: New information necessarily was created.


No, some live and some die because come confer resistance for an example. But this resistance is aquired by degradation of existing information. Not by an increase.

quote:
Incorrect.
Yes, verry correct. Look at table one. All resistances have been aquired by loss of information.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

quote:
Because you can rerun this experiment by taking one of the K-4 bacteria and letting it be the sole ancestor to the lawn. When you re-infect the lawn with T4 phage, we find not that the lawn survives but rather that the lawn starts to die.

Now, this time it's the phage that has mutated to T4h.

We can keep this up, having the two continually mutate to change to the new environemtn. By your logic, we should eventually wind up with nothing as all that "information" gets lost. But it doesn't. The bacteria and phage keep surviving, keep changing.

How can they do that if they keep "losing information"?


Simple. Because the mutatins deform their receptors to different antibiotics in differnt way.

quote:
Some simple questions:

Which has more information: A or AB?
Which has more information: A or B?
Which has more information: A or AA?


Depends by which definition of information.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2009 6:27 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2009 5:26 AM Smooth Operator has responded
 Message 204 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 5:14 AM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 184 of 315 (517180)
07-30-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
07-29-2009 7:50 AM


Re: Three failures of CSI
quote:
1) It was intended to formalise the way that humans recognsie design. It doesn't. By relying on purely negative argumentation - "design" is even defined negatively - it ignores the fact that we work with ideas of what designers do, and more importantly how designs are implemented. Although not a fatal flaw in the method, we should recognise that it is less than it was meant to be - and also that ID proponents who attempt to co-opt all instances of design detection as uses of CSI are wrong to do so.
Actually it is a deductiove method. If you remove chance and necessity you are left with design as a logical conclusion. Why because that is the inference to the best explanation. Since from experience we know that an intelligence can create design. So it is logical to infer design, and say an intelligence had a part in it.

quote:
2) It is impractical to use in many cases - including the very cases where ID proponents would like to use it. (Dembski has even complained about it, although for some reason blaming his opponents rather than himself.) For this reason alone CSI has little real significance to the discussion of ID versus evolution - except, perhaps, as an example of ID's failures.
Dembski has calculated the CSI for the flagellum. Read the No Free Lunch.

quote:
3) The constraint imposed by specification is too loose. Dembski treats a specification constructed after the fact - knowing and using the outcome to produce the specification - to be the same as a prediction made in advance. But this is not the case. There is stll an element of "painting the targets around the bullet holes". There may be many other results which would also be found to be "designed" - and Dembski's methodology ignores this.
This is actually a serious problem - for any non-trivial specification the probability calculated will be too low, and cannot be validly compared to the probability bound. Even if the method were revised to take this into account the new method would be even less practical.
No, actually he doesn't. He specifically says that what you are calling is a fabrication, not a specification. When you can describe a pattern of an event, without looking at that event first, you have a specification. So it's not after the fact.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2009 7:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2009 7:52 AM Smooth Operator has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2349 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 185 of 315 (517183)
07-30-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:44 AM


Yes, verry correct. Look at table one. All resistances have been aquired by loss of information.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

OK, that whole article is ridiculous but that table simply doesn't support your claim.

In what way is a mutation which changes gyrase in such a way as to reduce its affinity to Fluoroquinolones a loss of information for the gyrase?

The author is simply demented. He wants us to think that Gyrase has evolved to bind Fluoroquinolones? Does he even understand what these antibiotics are? These are synthetic chemicals which have been developed specifically to inhibit bacterial growth or kill bacteria. It is like thinking that my car has a cigar lighter plug point because it was designed so I could plug my iPod car charger into it. He is getting cause and effect mixed up. So since gyrases clearly didn't evolve to function as Fluoroquinolone binding molecules how on Earth can it be considered a loss of function when their affinity is reduced?

There are numerous valid cases where resistance is the result of a genuine information loss such as null mutations removing an entire gene. But the whole argument is undermined by this idiotic attempt to describe every form of resistance as a loss of information/function when you are defining function as being 'binds to antibiotic'.

I think this is all bound up with the approach that whatever the starting state was of an organism, protein or gene sequence when it was first studied is somehow enshrined for IDist/creationists as being the ideal state so any change from that state must necessitate a loss of function/information.

Will you at least concede that to consider binding affinity for an antibiotic to be an evolved function of the bacteria is nonsensical?

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:44 AM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:09 PM Wounded King has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 186 of 315 (517187)
07-30-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:04 AM


Re: Constraints
Smooth Operator writes:

quote:
Do you mean by this that if the researcher sets up an evolutionary process to evolve, say, designs for electronic oscillators - so the constraint would be "make me an oscillator" - we should not expect it to evolve, for example, a radio receiver, correct?

Yes, something like that. You will get a kind of oscillator that the computer optimizes for you.

So the evolutionary process set up by the researcher would evolve ordinary oscillators just like those the researcher probably could have thought of himself? No novelty would come out of this process?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:04 AM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:11 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 187 of 315 (517192)
07-30-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:49 AM


Re: Three failures of CSI
quote:

Actually it is a deductiove method. If you remove chance and necessity you are left with design as a logical conclusion. Why because that is the inference to the best explanation. Since from experience we know that an intelligence can create design. So it is logical to infer design, and say an intelligence had a part in it.

None of this addresses my point. The Design Inference is purely negative. Actual designe detection uses positive evidence, too, to construct an inference to the best explanation. Therefore the Design Inference fails to fully capture the way in which we identify design.

quote:

Dembski has calculated the CSI for the flagellum. Read the No Free Lunch.

I was aware of this example and Dembski completely botched it.

1) He ruled out evolutionary explanations on the grounds that Behe asserted that IC systems couldn't evolve. Unfortunately Behe (correctly) admitted in Darwin's Black Box that IC systems could evolve by what he called "indirect" routes. Behe dismisses this option only on the grounds that he considers it too improbable - however he has not provided any solid grounds for this, and even if he did the probability could still be greater than Dembski's probability bound.

2) Dembski failed to provide an adequate specification. This is a very important point because the probability calculation that must be done is the probability that the specification is met. Without a valid specification that can be used in the calculation the necessary calculation cannot be done.

3) Dembski calculated the wrong probability (and apparently botched the calculation, too - by 65 orders of magnitude). Of course he couldn't calculate the right probability because he wrongly ruled out evolution a priori and failed to provide an adequate specification.
Instead he produces a probability based on randomly assembling an individual flagellum from protein sub-units - without taking into accunt the actual mechanisms by which a flagellum grows.

quote:

No, actually he doesn't. He specifically says that what you are calling is a fabrication, not a specification. When you can describe a pattern of an event, without looking at that event first, you have a specification. So it's not after the fact.

You are incorrect here. A specification must be - in Dembski's term "separable" from the event. That is it must be one that can be DESCRIBED without appealing to specific featues of the event. Perhaps it is better understood as a specification that might reasonably be proposed without detailed knowledge of the event.

However it is absolutely legitimate - according to Dembski - to use knowledge of the event in proposing the specification (e.g. the specification Dembski uses in the Caputo case is based on the knowledge that the results favoured the Democrats, and the degree to which the results favoured them).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:49 AM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Fallen, posted 07-30-2009 10:10 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 198 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:16 PM PaulK has responded

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 188 of 315 (517203)
07-30-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 4:57 PM


Smooth Operator writes:

That's obvious. But that means that this algorithm has been optimized for that kind of search.

it means no such thing. It means the search is better than a random search for these types of problems.

No one is arguing that the search is in any way optimal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 4:57 PM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:17 PM kongstad has not yet responded

Fallen
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 08-02-2007


Message 189 of 315 (517209)
07-30-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by PaulK
07-30-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Three failures of CSI
PaulK writes:

He ruled out evolutionary explanations on the grounds that Behe asserted that IC systems couldn't evolve. Unfortunately Behe (correctly) admitted in Darwin's Black Box that IC systems could evolve by what he called "indirect" routes. Behe dismisses this option only on the grounds that he considers it too improbable - however he has not provided any solid grounds for this, and even if he did the probability could still be greater than Dembski's probability bound.

Actually, Behe didn’t admit that they could evolve through indirect routes. Rather he admitted that, as a bare possibility, IC systems might have evolved by unknown indirect routes. The argument of intelligent design advocates is not that we can absolutely rule out evolution. Rather, the argument is that intelligent design has much more evidence supporting it than evolution. If you have a copy of No Free Lunch on hand, you should probably read the sections discussing indirect routes.

It’s important to understand what is going on here. The evolutionists are basically willing to say anything to support their theory, including "the evidence for evolution is invisible." When people say things like "evolution by subtracting parts" or "add a part, make it necessary," they are effectively substituting imagination for evidence. In one sense, their logic goes like this: "I can imagine evolution, therefore it must have taken place." Indeed, intelligent design advocates are often accused of lacking imagination. Even if it was completely impossible for evolution to make something like the bacterial flagellum, people would still just say "the evidence disappeared."

To see why this level of critical thought is ridiculous, consider that I can imagine that the world will end 100 years from now. I can imagine a huge fireball and the earth smashing into the sun. I can even imagine a cause for it’s end, such as an alien technology. Does that mean that the event will take place? Should I accuse those who disagree with me of "lacking imagination?" Simply put, science must rely on evidence in order to place restraints on the human imagination. The human imagination is almost limitless – without evidence, science would grind to a halt.

On the other hand, consider that intelligent design has much more going for it than imaginary evolution. Any objective method for design detection that we can apply to the bacterial flagellum comes up with the answer “designed.” In every instance that we have a chance to observe the origin of specified complexity, it is always the result of choices made by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, in using the explanatory filter, we are simply using standards that are expected to work in many other sciences, such as the SETI program. If you want to figure out if a rat is intelligent enough to navigate its way through a maze, you will want a long maze with many turns. (highly complex, and not the result of necessity) Furthermore, the rat must make its way to the end of the maze, not a dead end. (the event must be specified) If those three conditions are met, you will conclude that the rat intelligently chose the right turns. When we apply this same logic to the flagellum, the conclusion is “designed.” Paraphrasing Dembski, if a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies on the person who says it isn't a dog. The same logic applies to remarkable machines like the bacterial flagellum - the burden of evidence lies with those who want to deny it's design.


Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem
Quoniqm cum probates fuerit accipient coronam vitae

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2009 7:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2009 11:08 AM Fallen has not yet responded
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2009 1:39 PM Fallen has not yet responded
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2009 4:08 PM Fallen has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2349 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 190 of 315 (517223)
07-30-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Fallen
07-30-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Three failures of CSI
If you want to figure out if a rat is intelligent enough to navigate its way through a maze, you will want a long maze with many turns. (highly complex, and not the result of necessity) Furthermore, the rat must make its way to the end of the maze, not a dead end. (the event must be specified) If those three conditions are met, you will conclude that the rat intelligently chose the right turns.

This seems a rather strange example. Does you test not show intelligence if the rat becomes so exhausted that it dies? You realise that a random walk through the maze will tend to eventually lead to the rat escaping without any intelligence required at all? How can the rat intelligently choose the right turns? Did you show it a map beforehand? What you are really showing is that rats have enough memory not to go back down a dead end.

This seems about as objective as most 'explanatory filter' approaches, you set an arbitrary complexity of maze and an arbitrary time frame for completion and simply declare it to be an objective test because you can make some sort of measurement.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Fallen, posted 07-30-2009 10:10 AM Fallen has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 191 of 315 (517240)
07-30-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Fallen
07-30-2009 10:10 AM


ID's tactics
quote:

Actually, Behe didn’t admit that they could evolve through indirect routes. Rather he admitted that, as a bare possibility, IC systems might have evolved by unknown indirect routes.


That looks like hair-splitting to a point where I can't see a relevant difference.

In fact, the only relevant difference would be if you meant to say that Behe did think that it was impossible for the flagellum to evolve. But that isn't what you are saying at all.

quote:

The argument of intelligent design advocates is not that we can absolutely rule out evolution.

That is not what I said, was it ? The question is why Dembski didn't calculate the probability of the flagellum evolving. If he didn't think that it was impossible then his method required that he do so.

quote:

Rather, the argument is that intelligent design has much more evidence supporting it than evolution


They may say that, but if they do they're lying. Look at the transcript of the Dover trial where Behe rejects the evolution of the immune system simply on the grounds that evolutionists haven't worked out every little detail yet. If the evidence really favoured ID, don't you think he could come up with something rather better than making ridiculous and one-sided demands ?

Come to that, which ID does the evidence support ? YEC special creation or Behe's view of common descent occasionally interrupted by God the Divine Genetic Engineer ? To speak of evidence for ID is to miss the fact that ID is not a single view but a mix of views, with major differences between them.

quote:

It’s important to understand what is going on here. The evolutionists are basically willing to say anything to support their theory, including "the evidence for evolution is invisible." When people say things like "evolution by subtracting parts" or "add a part, make it necessary," they are effectively substituting imagination for evidence.

It IS important to understand what is going on. That is why I have to correct your misrepresentation. The sort of thing that really happens is that an ID proponent - call him Michael - claims that there is no scenario for the evolution of a particular feature. Someone - let's call him Nick - goes and produces such a scenario. Then the ID proponent moves the goal-posts saying that the scenario isn't evidence. But it was never intended to be evidence. Just an answer to the original complaint.

quote:

Indeed, intelligent design advocates are often accused of lacking imagination. Even if it was completely impossible for evolution to make something like the bacterial flagellum, people would still just say "the evidence disappeared."

Of course this isn't true. People wouldn't just say that "the evidence disappeared".

quote:

On the other hand, consider that intelligent design has much more going for it than imaginary evolution. Any objective method for design detection that we can apply to the bacterial flagellum comes up with the answer “designed.”

And which "objective tests" would those be ? Dembski's hopeless failure to apply his own method correctly hardly qualifies as "objective".

quote:

In every instance that we have a chance to observe the origin of specified complexity, it is always the result of choices made by an intelligent agent.

Of course this is question begging. In fact we have every reason to suppose that evolution can produce "specified complexity" in the ordinary sense - and Dembski's version has not been detected in life at all.

quote:

Furthermore, in using the explanatory filter, we are simply using standards that are expected to work in many other sciences, such as the SETI program

Misrepresentation of the SETI program - which is very much based on ideas about what a designer is likely to do (as opposed to Dembski's negativity) is one of the standard ID talking points.

quote:

When we apply this same logic to the flagellum, the conclusion is “designed.” Paraphrasing Dembski, if a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies on the person who says it isn't a dog. The same logic applies to remarkable machines like the bacterial flagellum - the burden of evidence lies with those who want to deny it's design.

That is hardly an objective test. It is purely a subjective impression - and a superficial one at that. ID needs to go a lot further before it could be considered science. In the meantime scientists are looking into flagellum evolution and are finding the evidence that they did indeed evolve.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Fallen, posted 07-30-2009 10:10 AM Fallen has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 192 of 315 (517264)
07-30-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Fallen
07-30-2009 10:10 AM


Looks like something else
Paraphrasing Dembski, if a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies on the person who says it isn't a dog. The same logic applies to remarkable machines like the bacterial flagellum - the burden of evidence lies with those who want to deny it's design.

see Distinguishing "designs" for more details.

But the 'designs' we see in nature (the dog for one) do NOT look like things that we know are designed by the only intelligence we have at hand to study.

It is looking at them that tells us that based on everything we know they (flagella etc.) are NOT designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Fallen, posted 07-30-2009 10:10 AM Fallen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-30-2009 4:20 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2986 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 193 of 315 (517265)
07-30-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by NosyNed
07-30-2009 4:08 PM


Re: Looks like something else
Paraphrasing Dembski, if a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies on the person who says it isn't a dog. The same logic applies to remarkable machines like the bacterial flagellum - the burden of evidence lies with those who want to deny it's design.

Not so. As Nosyned says, a flagellum (or dog) is clearly not designed by human beings. There is no evidence of any other designer.

Therefore both sides need to produce evidence. ID proponents must, if they are to have a theory worthy of the name, produce evidence of a designer. By which I mean evidence of a designer, not of so-called design. They don't even try, because the secret is that this designer is really God.

Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2009 4:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 194 of 315 (517328)
07-31-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:33 AM


Smooth Operator writes:

You gave it all the information it needed.

I gave the multiply program the same information any human would have. The program is producing the same information that a person multiplying two numbers together would produce. The program could even be modified to model a person carrying out multiplication by hand using pencil and paper. If a person multiplying two numbers together is producing new information, then so is a computer.

You misunderstood me. I didn't exactly mean that ALL the numbers are programmed in. The algorithms for those numbers are programmed in. YOu gave the computer enough information to process it to get the desired result. If you didn't it would give you no result.

Concerning GA's, of course the algorithm is "programmed in." GA's model evolution, so of course an algorithm that models evolution is "programmed in." The random mutations of evolution are modeled by random changes to design parameters. Natural selection is modeled by an assessing algorithm. Reproduction is modeled by randomly "mating" design alternatives and randomly combining their design parameters.

The point is for the computer to do the boring job of calculation faster than you. It is given a search space, that people are too boring to search themselves. All the answers are already there, but to find them we have to do a lot of calculations to find them. That is why we use computers. To do the dirty work, so to speak.

Are you saying that before a design team even gathers that the solutions are already there, that they just have to find them? This is a much more sweeping argument than you were making before. In effect you're saying that neither computers nor people produce new information. Apparently for you the solutions are already out there just floating around somewhere waiting to be discovered.

I think you're confusing the potential to produce a design with the design itself when you say the solutions already exist, and that the designers task is just a matter of finding them. The multiply program I provided as an example has the potential to solve many multiplication problems, but that doesn't mean the answers already exist. When you run the program and enter two numbers, you get a result you didn't know before. New information has been created for you.

And all of those parameters are put in by an intelligence. If there were no initial parameters, the algorithm would do no good.

The initial parameters are part of the model. Just as evolving bacteria in a laboratory experiment have initial conditions, so must any computer model of evolution. The evolutionary model must have access to the same information (or at least a reasonable approximation , or analogous information in the case of GA's) as the real world. The principles of modeling the real world are the same regardless of whether one is modelling the weather or evolution.

This is just silly. If you read the No Free Lunch by Dembski you will se he calculated the CSI for a flagellum.

I'd love to see this calculation. Could you please provide it?

quote:
Instead Dembski is a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where he teaches courses in its Department of Philosophy of Religion, and CSI has no standing within the scientific community whatsoever because in truth it is just a prop invented to give a scientific-looking veneer to what at heart is just the religious concept of special creation by God.
This is no more than slander. If you look up Dembski at wikipedia you will see more than a philosophy degree.

I think that if you look up Dembski at Wikipedia you'll find that what I said was true. He really is a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and he really does teach courses there in its Department of Philosophy of Religion. And gee, Wikipedia says the exact same thing!

And please do look up Biologic institute where ID science is being done. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

If you think there's relevant research from the Biologic Institute then please just enter it into the discussion.

Cleaved, or uncleaved, turned on or off, call it what you will. It's talking about interfering with it's activity.

But if you're going to invent your own lingo you have to tell people what it means. In this case there's no way to know whether your "turned on" corresponds to cleaved or uncleaved.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:33 AM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:35 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 195 of 315 (517330)
07-31-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:39 AM


Smooth Operator writes:

quote:
Evolution already performs a random search because mutations are random. How is your random search different from evolution?
It's not. That's the problem for you.

You were saying the NFL theorem says that evolution can be no better than random search. Just repeating that claim is no help to me. In order for me to assess your claim you need to provide a general idea of how random search differs from evolution.

quote:
I'm using Shannon information.
Which can't be used for biological functions.

Sure it can. In Shannon information the problem of communication can be reduced to reproducing at one point a message from a set of messages at another point. Everything that happens in the universe can be interpreted this way.

quote:
Shannon information can be applied to anything in the real world, including DNA.
No, it can not, because it deals only with statistical aspect of information.

This is untrue, but the real question is why you believe that statistical approaches are excluded from the biological realm.

No, this is wrong. Thi has never been observed. It is true that mistakes happen, and that they get passed on. But it is not true that informational content increases. It can only degrade, over time.

I understand that you accept the claims of people like Dembski, Abel and Trevors, but you need to go beyond just repeating their claims. I provided an example of how the amount of information in a population is increased by random mutation. If you think I was incorrect then you have to go beyond just stating I'm wrong. You have to show how I'm wrong. Here's the example again:

Consider a specific gene in a population of bacteria that has three alleles we'll call A, B and C. For lurkers not familiar with the term, alleles are variants of a single gene. One familiar example is eye color. The eye color gene has several alleles: brown, blue, green, etc. Human eye color depends upon which one you happen to inherit. Eye color isn't really this simple of course, but this hopefully gets the idea of alleles across.

So every bacteria in the population has either the A allele, the B allele or the C allele. We can calculate how much information is required to represent three alleles in this bacterial population. It's very simple:

log23 = 1.585 bits

Now a random mutation occurs in this gene during replication and the D allele appears. Through the following generations it gradually spreads throughout the population and becomes relatively common. There are now four alleles for this gene, A, B, C and D. The amount of information necessary to represent four alleles is:

log24 = 2 bits

The amount of information required to represent this gene in the bacterial population has gone from 1.585 to 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits, and an example of random chance increasing information.

All you have to do is point out the error.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:39 AM Smooth Operator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:48 PM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019