|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I specifically explained why this is not the case of new information. Yet you decided to not read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Right. quote:There is a difference. Instructions tehmselves do nto lead to calculations. For an example. Just becasue you know the alphabet you may or you may not write a novel. If a computer knows the alphabet, there is no chance he will write it by itself. quote:The problem here is that people choose what they are going to do. A computer does not. Just from knowing how to calculate, doesn't mean you will calculate something. A computer has to if you make it do it. quote:But the information in the calculator also originated in the mind first. quote:That's true but matter by itself does not create new information. It only processes it, and transfers it. It always originates in the mind first. quote:New information is what you make in your mind. And the source when it is known is always a mind. quote:This is simply not true. All matter can transfer information, yes. But it only originates in the mind. quote:No, it's actually totally correct. Since natural selection also has no knowledge of the search target. It does not know what function to select for. So teh result is the same as blind chance. And as for the rabbits, that's probably an epigenetic factor.
quote:It doesn't. quote:Information is there from the start. It only depends who extracts it. In both cases, the origin of the search space, and the whole of information is from the mind. quote:I didn't make an argument from authority. I'm not saying that you should accept it becasue he said it, I'm jsut trying to show you that I'm not making things up. quote:Well he's simply wrong about that since teh sequence space has been programmed in from the start by a mind. quote:I'm sorry but it works for me. The book is in English. And there is no specific argument. I just said he calculated the CSI of a flagellum, that's all. quote:There's nothing to discuss here. They are making their work, just as any other institute does. Except this one is ID based. quote:Than tell me how long does it take to evolve resistance without LexA?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: I specifically explained why this is not the case of new information. In your example we get to know that the place where you live is a big place. Saying it twice does not teach us anything new. I think we can agree on that. But in my example, first we learn that the place where you live is a big place, and next we learn that your rodent is a big rodent. These are two completely different pieces of information. If we started out with "MY HOUSE IS BIG", got a duplicate of that, after which the duplicate acquired a small mutation - "HOUSE" becomes "MOUSE" - we genuinely do have some new information. My example models exactly what can and does happen in genomes. Could you please explain how this is not an example of new information? "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It picks sequences randomly. quote:Not really. They are an objective reality. A noise has no meaning. A picture of a person has. It represents that person. it has mening. The meaning is that person. quote:Of course it can. CSI does it perfectly. So do Abel and Trevors with their FSC. quote:Of course it is. It's not part of Shannon's information model, but Shannons information model is not the whole of Information theory. It's liek saying that mutations are not part of Evolution theory because Darwin didn't mention them. Information consists of 5 levels. StatisticsSyntax Semantics Pragmatics Apobetics All of those levels together make information.
quote:Yes, and you totally missed the point. He said that semantics are meaningless to engineering problems, not to the theroy of information itself. If you wan't to transfer information in systems, it is enough to just describe it with a statistical model, like Shannon's. That is true. But if you are going to measure biological functions, than no, it is not enough. You need at least two more levels to describe them. Becasue now you are dealing with semantics. And biological information has semantics if form of functions. quote:That's beacuse it's tiresome to constantly have to be repeating the same thing over and over again. quote:No, they are not dealing with measuring biological functions. This goes back to Shannon's original paper,[/quote] quote:There you see. This is a prime example why this discussion is getting boring. You totally and completelly misunderstood me. You don't know what I meant by the word statistical. No the approach that statistitians use! I meant the number of enteties in a system. For an example, the number of bits in information used to convey a message. That is just one part of what information is. Like I said there are still: Syntax - do you know what this is?Semantics - you probably know what this is? Pragmatics - how about this? Apobetics - you probably don't know what this is... quote:Again, you misunderstood me. That's why this discussion is boring. I said that there are no cases of mutations producing new biological functions. quote:Shannon information? Yes it does. But that's not a good description of biological functions. quote:But this is using Shannon information. This is not good enough. This way is not going to get you new biological functions. More genes that are the same will not get you new biological functions. quote:There is only one problem. This is the same amount of information. So it's only fine tuning. Even if you got a longer sentence it's still couldn't be applied to reality, because such things don't happen in real life. That's the problem. Random chance will not do this. It will be more like this: MY HOUSE IS BIGMA HOUSE IS BIG MO HIUSE IS BIG LO FIUSE IS BIO NI KOFSA IL FIO This is what is happening in reality with biological information. It is deteriorating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because it takes the same same amount of bits to describe it. You need a longer sentence. But the problem is again, in the fact that this doesn't happen. The opposite is happening. Random mutatons cause the genome to deteriorate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Because it takes the same same amount of bits to describe it. You need a longer sentence. No, no, no! You don't get it. I'll put it in a different format, maybe you'll get it then. First we have: "MY HOUSE IS BIG" By duplication we get: "MY HOUSE IS BIGMY HOUSE IS BIG" Then the second H is replaced by an M: "MY HOUSE IS BIGMY MOUSE IS BIG" This sentence is longer and contains more information. Moreover, it contains new information.
But the problem is again, in the fact that this doesn't happen. The opposite is happening. Random mutatons cause the genome to deteriorate. I'd say that random mutations cause the genome to change, not necessarily to deteriorate. And next, selection kicks in, selecting those changes that do well, while weeding out those that do not. In your response to Percy, you gave some examples of changed sentences:
MA HOUSE IS BIG MO HIUSE IS BIG LO FIUSE IS BIO NI KOFSA IL FIO My sentence "MY MOUSE IS BIG" would fit in there nicely. If the selection pressure was about correct sentences, then most of them would not be selected, but "MY MOUSE IS BIG" most certainly would. ("MA HOUSE IS BIG" might also be selected for, if we happened to be in, say, Arkansas.) Do you now understand what I mean? "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
This is hardly some rare, isolated case that only legal buffs would have ever heard of. It made the national news. And I don't want you taking my word for it. I want you to learn about it on your own. Actually, I have been scanning the transcripts of the Dover trials and I look for specific things that support what posters such as RAZD and PaulK have stated around here. So far, I just haven't found them. Could I have overlooked them? I think psychology can explain people interpreting information into a way they want to hear. I can just see a lawyer throwing publications in front of Behe. Lawyers are not in trial to be fair, they are there to help win cases for their clients. Who is the jury? Most of the time, they don't want to be there. I'm sure most of them found the flagellum a boring subject. It is all good because if someone isn't smart or astute enough to see through the BS and I do see it in posts here that I haven't responded too, then they shouldn't be advocates of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Who is the jury? Most of the time, they don't want to be there. I'm sure most of them found the flagellum a boring subject. It wasn't a jury trial. I shouldn't imagine judges are so easily swayed by cheap courtroom theatrics, although I'm sure it looked good for the press and other interested parties. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote:Odd how you suddenly fail to understand the argument. It is purely negative because it relies solely on eliminating alternatives. No positive design hypothesis is stated, nor is any argument made for it.
quote: No. In fact that whole claim that IC systems are CSI is based on the assumed impossibility of evolving IC systems. Even though Behe - the supposed authority behind the claim - doesn't even agree.
quote: That sounds like a pretty clear example of a "fabrication". And it is not even adequate for Dembski's actual calculation (there is nothing for the "configuration" aspect, for instance),
quote: Even if you were correct, that would still be invalid. The NFL theorems do not (and obviously cannot) show that evolution can never work.
quote: I was answering your false assertion that the use of the event to derive a specification was invalid. I note that you implicitly acknowledge that that assertion was false. However I note that you have helped prove my initial point - that in real design detection cases we use positive evidence when we can. The fact that Caputo supported the Democrats and was in a position of authority that might have enabled him to rig the draw is indeed relevant - but it is not part of Dembski's Design Inference. That method avoids any talk of possible designers. You automatically appeal to that circumstantial evidence, just as I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which may well include you. I am prepared to give specific references for any claims I have made. You just have to ask.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No, there certainly was a change in the genetic sequence, but it degraded the information. That was subsequently according to you, when the gyrase lost binding affinity. What I'm asking is did the gyrase have complex specified information in the pre-mutated sequence even though it had no binding partner to have an affinity for prior to the development of the antibiotic?
Becasue the gyrase was designed to do it's job. It was doing it just fine. And if it can not perform it anymore as good, it must have lost information in the process. No problem, but the gyrase's job isn't to bind an antibiotic that would impair its function. If you are claiming the mutation had an effect other than to change the affinity of gyrase and the antibiotic then that would be a good thing to provide evidence for. All the paper you directed me to does is claim that the loss of affinity between the gyrase and the antibiotic represents a loss of information for the gyrase. So tell me what job the gyrase no longer performs as well?
The function and the shape was always there. It lost it die to mutations. So it functioned to bind and antibiotic for millenia before that antibiotic was developed? In what way does that fulfil the concept of function?
The gyrase was designed the way it was. Just becasue we find some weakness doesn't mean it wasn't designed. Please state this explicitly, you are saying the designer designed gyrase to have a specific genetic sequence which it maintained for thousands of years simply so humans could develop an antibiotic that would be effective for a few decades before the gyrase mutated and made the antibiotic ineffective? Is that what you are saying?
Since we know that a physical process can not produce new information Well we don't know that, you may claim that but it is a quite different thing.
Maybe becasue they are not billions of years old? So bacteria have a generation time of 1 or so years do they? I'm glad you have helped us gauge your knowledge of biology so succinctly. Your argument seems to do nothing except make a nonsense of the concept of function as useful in terms of information. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
That didn't come out quite right but to be more specific, this is an example of what I saw:
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? It is not my point of view that evolutionists haven't worked out every little detail yet. The point of view of Behe isn't that they have worked out every little detail and that there are hurdles in IC systems such as the vertebrate immune system. "Every little detail" tells me Darwin has worked out the basic step by step details. If this is so then, why would you say it hasn't worked out every little detail? And really, why would more IC systems such as the flagellum be a ridiculous one-sided demand? I'm also looking at this copied from the same message you posted. Below is a cut and paste from message 191.
Fallen: 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. PaulK: That looks like hair-splitting to a point where I can't see a relevant difference. That doesn't appear to be hair-splitting to me. Behe is telling us there "might" be but nobody has showed me a good tortuous route that explains how to build a classic one. In other words he is keeping his mind open to a possibile explanation. I don't blindly accept Darwinian conjecture for building something like a flagellum. If Darwinian conjecture can be used to build a great model or explanation then, why aren't the more well known authors advancing a good model? The best I have seen for the flagellum is a TTSS and it has problems. I would think an unambiguous evolutionary model for an IC system would sell books and make the author famous because he or she was the one who bought Behe or an IC system down. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It isn't ? Well it is Behe's - and it's obviously true because working out every little detail is a huge task and may not even be possible. Which is one reason why I question Behe's motives in making such extravagant demands of his opponents.
quote: Even if that were so it is should not be necessary to go into the lengths that Behe demands to show that those hurdles are not the problem that Behe assumes that they are.
quote: I'm not even sure what you mean here.
quote: I guess you are missing the point. Behe demands that evolutionists work out every little detail about how the immune system evolved. But ID doesn't offer that level of detail - and Behe doesn't require them too. THAT is what is one-sided. Isn't that obviously one-sided ?
quote: It doesn't look that way. And if it were, how would it be relevant ? EIther Behe does claim that IC systems could not evolve or he doesn't. It seems to be agreed on both sides that he doesn't.
quote: Perhaps they have other priorities than defeating an argument that was incomplete when it was first made - and is still missing a vital part. Maybe they are more interested in advancing scientific knowledge than dealing with a sideshow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
You are correct and I was wrong. Although it could raise another point, why would someone decide to leave the outcome of this trial hinging on one person to make?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are correct and I was wrong. Although it could raise another point, why would someone decide to leave the outcome of this trial hinging on one person to make?
If you are asking why just the judge made the decision, the answer is that both sides agreed to that format. If you are asking why only Behe represented the ID position, the answer is the other invited witness backed out. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024