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

quote:

---

Or this:

​

"MY HOUSE IS BIG"
"MY MOUSE IS BIG"

​

A doubling followed by a small mutation can easily result in new information. This is how it can and does happen in genomes. It has been observed and documented. Repeatedly negating this fact doesn't make it go away. It makes one look ignorant.

---

I specifically explained why this is not the case of new information. Yet you decided to not read it.

quote:

---

I think you meant to say that the instructions come from people, right?

---

Right.

quote:

---

But a person performing multiplication using pencil and paper is just following the instructions he learned in fifth grade. There's no difference between a person following an algorithm and a computer following an algorithm when it comes to creating new information.

---

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 implication of your position is that no new information has been created from performing multiplication since someone first figured out how to do it. That inventor of multiplication created new information, and everyone since has just been following instructions. And even the inventor of multiplication was just taking advantage of information he was taught by others before him and merely economized by showing how people could perform multiplication of many digits just by memorizing the times table for single digits, so he didn't create new information, either.

​

Obviously that's an unworkable definition of new information.

---

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:

---

Shannon defined the problem of communication as one of replicating at one point a message from a set of messages originating from another point. When a message from the message set is sent from point A to point B then information has been communicated.

​

So it works like this. A person sending you messages from his message set (his personal store of knowledge that he keeps in his brain) is adding to your own personal message set every time he tells you something you didn't already know. For you, everything you didn't already know is new information. You add it to your personal message set, and now this becomes a message that you can send to someone else.

​

So let's say you're chatting online with someone who tells you that 17x26 is 442. This is new information for you. You could have easily have figured it out yourself, but you didn't, so your online friend has now added information to your message set. Your message set has increased in size. For the length of time that you remember that 17x26 is 442, this is a message that you can pass on to others, thereby increasing their personal message sets.

​

But it makes no difference where the message that 17x26 is 442 came from. If you had instead used your calculator you would have still added new information to your message set. In other words, it doesn't matter if the new information came from a person or an object. For all you care the clouds could have formed into the equation "17x26=442" in the sky and it would still represent new information for you.

---

But the information in the calculator also originated in the mind first.

quote:

---

In other words, the creation of new information doesn't mean that the same information hasn't been created before. It would make no sense to say that of two independent inventors who create the same invention with no knowledge of the other's work, that the inventor who completed the invention first created new information and the other did not.

---

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:

---

So new information is everything you learn that you didn't already know. The source of the information is irrelevant.

---

New information is what you make in your mind. And the source when it is known is always a mind.

quote:

---

All that remains is to add to this the fact that information is sent and received by everything everwhere in existence. In other words, the sharing and creation of information is not a special trait of human beings. It is possessed by all matter everywhere.

---

This is simply not true. All matter can transfer information, yes. But it only originates in the mind.

quote:

---

This is half correct. Mutation has no knowledge of any "search target," but selection is the very opposite of random. The best adapted survive and contribute their genes to the next generation, including any mutations they might have. That's why white rabbits evolve in the arctic and not the rain forest. If evolution were truly random then white rabbits could evolve anywhere.

---

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:

---

So we're back to the same question. You cited the NFL theorem which holds that one algorithm cannot perform better than another algorithm unless it has more information. So you're talking about two different algorithms, one that you call "evolution," and the other that you call "random". How does the "evolution" algorithm differ from the "random" algorithm?

---

It doesn't.

quote:

---

So the whole search space is there from the start, and if designers search the search space and find a solution, then that is new information. And if a computer searches the search space and finds a solution, then that's not new information.

---

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:

---

But you can't just cite Mr. Robertson. You have to understand why Mr. Robertson said this and explain here why I'm wrong. Otherwise I can go off and search the web for quotes of people saying that computers *can* create new information. The purpose of discussion isn't to make arguments from authority, otherwise we'll end up arguing who cited the best authority. The goal is to actually understand what you're debating to the point where you can make the arguments yourself.

---

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:

---

And how did the information come into the DNA program? Through evolution, which potentially reflects copious information, perhaps 1035 bits of feedback.

---

Well he's simply wrong about that since teh sequence space has been programmed in from the start by a mind.

quote:

---

You refer me to a Google Books page in Croatian? That doesn't work?

​

If you have an argument to make about CSI based upon Dembski's book No Free Lunch, could you please enter the argument into the discussion in your own words?

---

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:

---

I didn't mention any of Dembski's degrees. The point is that scientists aren't producing advances based upon CSI, not even Dembski who is working as a professor at a Bible college where he teaches courses in the philosophy of religion. If you think the Biologic Institute is producing evidence of CSI, then I think it would be highly relevant to this discussion if you would tell us about it.

---

There's nothing to discuss here. They are making their work, just as any other institute does. Except this one is ID based.

quote:

---

You're just stating your original position again.

​

I have no idea why the authors of the article chose to overstate the point. Obviously evolution does not stop. There is no process that can make the copying of genetic material perfect.

---

Than tell me how long does it take to evolve resistance without LexA?

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.

quote:

---

That they give the same results is what you claim the NFL theorem tells us about the two different algorithms, "random" on the one hand and "evolution" on the other. How do these two algorithms differ in their definition? I know how evolution works. How does this "random" algorithm that your contrasting evolution with work?

---

It picks sequences randomly.

quote:

---

I think you're confusing what a gene does with meaning. Meaning and semantics are a human interpretation.

---

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:

---

Semantics cannot be quantified,

---

Of course it can. CSI does it perfectly. So do Abel and Trevors with their FSC.

quote:

---

is not part of information theory, and isn't even relevant.

---

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.Statistics
Syntax
Semantics
Pragmatics
ApobeticsAll of those levels together make information.

quote:

---

This is as true today as it was then.

---

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:

---

Yes, I know you believe this, but can you support your position with evidence and arguments? You're most common responses to everyone seem to be variants of either, "No, I'm right," or "No, you're wrong."

---

That's beacuse it's tiresome to constantly have to be repeating the same thing over and over again.

quote:

---

Population genetics is an extremely statistical science, and this flatly contradicts your position.

​

Almost all medical studies are statistical in nature, and this also flatly contradicts your position.

---

No, they are not dealing with measuring biological functions.This goes back to Shannon's original paper,[/quote]

quote:

---

But my original reason for responding was to point out you were wrong to say that Shannon information "deals only with statistical aspect of information" in your Message 182. Are you talking about the quantification of information? Not statistical. Are you talking about the introduction of noise into communication? Very statistical. In other words, Shannon information has both statistical and non-statistical aspects. Like many things. I thought the Widipedia article made this pretty clear.

​

So statistical approaches are appropriate in the biological realm. Indeed, where wouldn't statistical approaches be appropriate? Statistics is a tool (among many) that one can probably apply to virtually any problem.

---

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:

---

Mutations not currently present in a population have never been observed? Could you please return to reality?

---

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:

---

My example was the addition of a single allele to a pre-existing gene, but gene duplication adds even more information. Let's go back to Shannon again, saying what I've already said, but I want to show you that I've been accurately describing information theory:

---

Shannon information? Yes it does. But that's not a good description of biological functions.

quote:

---

So if we increase the number of alleles in a gene from 3 to 4, the amount of information in the message set rises from 1.585 bits to 2 bit, an increase of .415 bits.

​

You evidently thought I was talking about gene duplication when I was actually talking about a single mutation causing the addition of an allele, but let's talk about gene duplication using your example.

---

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:

---

First you have this gene:

​

My house is big.
Then there's gene duplication and you have this:

​

My house is big.
My house is big.
We can argue about whether this represents more information or not, but we don't need to. Now the duplicated gene experiences a mutation and we get this:

​

My house is big.
My mouse is big.
And then another mutation:

​

My house is big.
My mouse is bit.
And another:

​

My house is big.
My mouse is lit.
And so on, every change creating new information. And assuming there was reproduction involved, this new gene now has the alleles "My house is big," "My mouse is big," "My mouse is bit" and "My mouse is lit." That's quite a bit of new information in the population.

---

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 BIG
MA HOUSE IS BIG
MO HIUSE IS BIG
LO FIUSE IS BIO
NI KOFSA IL FIOThis is what is happening in reality with biological information. It is deteriorating.

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

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. 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: 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.

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.

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

quote:

---

Explain, how exactly is it purely negative.

---

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:

---

Actually no. He ruled out evolution because of the NFL theorem.

---

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:

---

All the specifications are there. The number of genes, and the numbers of proteins used to make a flagellum.

---

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:

---

Well like I said before. He ruled out the evolution because of the NFL theorem. So the only thing you are left with is blind chance.

---

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:

---

But you always use the knowledge of the event together with your background knowledge. And thais background knowledge in this case is that the 40 out of 41 cases teh Democrats were first on the ballot. And that this coresponds to an independently givven pattern of Democrats having more chance at winning elections, and that Caputo himself was a democrat.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which may well include you.I am prepared to give specific references for any claims I have made. You just have to ask.

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? 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? So it functioned to bind and antibiotic for millenia before that antibiotic was developed? In what way does that fulfil the concept of function? 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? Well we don't know that, you may claim that but it is a quite different thing. 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

That didn't come out quite right but to be more specific, this is an example of what I saw: 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. 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.

quote:

---

It is not my point of view that evolutionists haven't worked out every little detail yet.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

"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?

---

I'm not even sure what you mean here.

quote:

---

And really, why would more IC systems such as the flagellum be a ridiculous one-sided demand?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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.

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.