Evolving New Information

traderdrew responds to me:

quote:

---

Here is information leading to a famous one.

---

(*chuckle*)You do realize that the paper was retracted, yes? Not only was the paper simply bad, it was inappropriate for the PBSW:

quote:

---

It is about time you posted some meaty information.

---

I am not here to do your homework for you. You're the one saying that there is actual science behind ID. It is your responsibility to justify that claim.

quote:

---

I see it is about the immune system. I don't have a dog in that complex fight although I know Behe wrote about it. This thread is about information anyway.

---

Ah, changing the goalposts, are we? You wrote, and I quote Message 253: Well, there you go. The very thing you demanded to see and now you're hoping that you can whine about how it isn't about this other subject and we'll all forget that you didn't ask for that in the first place.The very thing you claim hasn't been shown has been shown.So what does that do to your argument?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I have made pleny of assertions around here. Nobody around here really refutes most of those assertions. Some of you have helped me learn some new things, especially you Wounded King. No I don't and that is one reason why I debate them on this forum.

That isn't true. Michael Behe wrote (and believes) about how Baker's yeast was believed to have doubled its genetic message. However, much of that duplicated message was lost due to various reasons. Yes it was an eye opener for me. What is going on in the heads of Darwinists is not what is happening in laboratories. No new protein to protein binding sites or no new molecular machines. Not for everyone. You are entitled to your point of view. I will agree with the rest of your post.

You think you have got me on that one? You don't. A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism. If scientists can't explain Darwinism with nucleotide or amino acid sequences, then this is a negative for Darwinism.Rememeber that quote I posted around here? I weigh the information whether it is positive or negative for something.I wouldn't think that any biologist in their right mind would think you can build a protein with just two nucleotides such as ACACACACACACACACAC or AACCAACCAACC. I guess it is a matter of perspective in reconstructing a trend or finding evidence for it.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This is utterly false, you just don't bother to address the refutations. You always have some other bit of ID nonsense to throw up for refutation. But you don't debate them, you just regurgitate an ID talking point and ignore all the criticisms by going on to another one, and you consistently cite Idist popular 'science' books and review articles as if they are equivalent to peer reviewed primary research. This is the stupidity of creationists and IDists. A good theory should stand on its own merits and with its own supporting evidence. If some central pillar of evolutionary theory were to be shown to be incorrect that wouldn't somehow magically constitute evidence of intelligent design. This is the purest 'god of the gaps' argument, anything that can't be explained yet is assumed to be incapable of explanation. It also totally ignores the fact that evolution can be explained with these things, along with lots of other recognised material biological phenomena. Well you can't in the current system since both those sequences lack a start codon. However that isn't a coherent argument against evolution or even against abiogenesis, which is what it seems more relevant to. Or just wishful thinking.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

You think you have got me on that one? You don't. A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism. If scientists can't explain Darwinism with nucleotide or amino acid sequences, then this is a negative for Darwinism.

---

In other words Mark was right.And uou are making another mistake. Arguments against ID do not have to be arguments for the specifics of modern evolutionary theory (what if another evolutionary theory were the real truth ?). And if you were right a good argument against Darwinism SHOULD be a good argument for ID - but your "negative" isn't even an argument for ID at all.

quote:

---

I guess it is a matter of perspective in reconstructing a trend or finding evidence for it.

---

Since a single example would not be adequate for either your guess is obviously incorrect.

traderdrew, Utter nonsense. Why does a refutation of ID have to mention Darwinism at all? All you have to do is point out is that it is evidentially vacuous & leave it as that.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No a good argument against ID should be a good argument against ID, "darwinism" not withstanding. Disproving one idea in no way makes the other correct.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Arguments such as we have seen here are clear evidence that ID is not a science in its own right, but rather an effort by believers in a particular view of religion to combat the evils of "Darwinism." It is also becoming clear that ID can't even exist without "Darwinism" -- as combatting "Darwinism" is its entire focus.Its largely the same as creation "science," with the main difference being that the creationism is hidden in the hope of fooling school boards and state legislatures. Otherwise the goal is the same -- religious apologetics.

Ok cavediver, if you want I will quantify the increase in information.So you decide how we are to store the code. I wrote the code in Java so we need to know how the Java interpreter writes the binary code instructions for the machine. Which machine?. How does the machine assemble the instructions?But in reality you're missing the point of my argument.Percy claims that given a 4⁶ possible or 12 bits of information that only 2 of these possibilities are legitimate until a mutation occurs. Then another possibility is OK.Percy doesn't know what he is talking about. Although Percy should be a Master on this topic he struggles with the realities.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

So...(and I haven't read up on this) "baker's yeast" (whatever it is) doubled it's "genetic message" (whatever you mean by that) but "much of the duplicated message was lost"....much. not all?If not all, how does that not ALSO confirm what I was talking about?Anyway, I have to appologize - you went off on a tangent called CSI which is, as I understand it, Dembski and his "irreducible complexity" argument - that's ALSO been refuted in many of his cases and so far is non-falsifiable and BAD SCIENCE.I was responding to Lucytheape's spiel about "no new information" - sorry.However, just because we don't know how something COULD happen doesn't mean it CAN'T and certainly doesn't mean "godidit" is an acceptable answer. That's an argument from incredulity, nothing more, and just "god of the gaps" with some misunderstood maths tacked on.By the way, you quoted me twice saying the same thing - I don't understand what either of your retorts are about:

quote:

---

Yes it was an eye opener for me. What is going on in the heads of Darwinists is not what is happening in laboratories. No new protein to protein binding sites or no new molecular machines.

---

the timeline Im talking about is that Darwin came out with his book (many years after he finished it). Almost immediately, and regularly since then, theists of all colours and creeds have been universally condemning it as evil, misguided, badly written, false and a passing fad that'll crumble away proving it to be just a facade - and they've been doing it for 150 years.Through all this time, the evidence has only been getting stronger FOR Darwin's theory.I saw an excellent piece on it - pointing out only the amount of people and works saying how soon evolution would be blown out of the water - unfortunately I can't find it and I see lucy is still steadfastly ignoring the evidence given to her. Pity really, I'd like to know her response - sticking your fingers in your ears really isn't a response.

Lucy, please respond to my post #247 in this thread. this has all been covered before. You did that already, lucy - please re-read my response before you repeat yourself yet again.I showed you an increase in information. I showed you a mutation. I was shown the error of my ways by WK and others about the word "point mutation", but the point (haha) still stands. DNA is the code. the cell is it's own interpreter. The mechanism of how a cell divides is well known (although I can't explain it, others can). The cell, key point here, isn't a computer program and your analogy breaks down at some point. Your argument seems to say "Percy says this. (I think) Percy's a big poopy-head and f**k you, that's why". That's not really a point.

Where did you "quantify the increase in information?" I won't go into detail over your confusion about the number of bits of information beyond saying that DNA contains a great deal of redundancy. This means that it uses many more bits than necessary to represent and communicate information. The three alleles (not two) of my example require only 1.585 bits, not 12. The extra 10.415 bits are redundant and unnecessary as far as representing information, but they help a great deal with error tolerance.More importantly, I did not say that only 3 (again, not 2) alleles were "legitimate." I said that only 3 existed within the population. That means that if you checked that gene in every single individual in the population that you'd only find the 3 alleles I listed. It was that only 3 alleles existed, not that only 3 were legitimate. Other alleles are perfectly possible and legitimate, but no other alleles for that gene happened to exist in the population.Thus when a mutation produced a 4th allele the amount of information that could be communicated by that gene increased from 1.585 bits to 2 bits.--Percy

Actually, it's quite high. The mechanisms the cell has for mutation detection and repair tend to be not nearly as picky about the third codon.I am thankful for you guys pointing this out to me. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way but some of you might take it that way. It could me another example of something that lends a bit of support to ID. The error correction mechanisms could be designed for emphasization toward the first or second positions in the codons. This would help allow Darwinism to become an artist. (Despite what some of you may think, I am not totally antiDarwin.) I previously thought the designer designed the world so it could play a role as a minor artist as well creating "endless forms most beautiful" as Darwin put it.As for your comments on Richard Sternberg, I just did a little more investigating myself. Type in "Richard Sternberg Intelligent Design" in google. I will settle for the reports from the Washington Post and NPR.

I don't know much about the vertebrate immune system and not nearly enough to debate it. This thread is about information anyway. I can put it another way. Can you discern the difference between rhetorical arguments and substance? Can we stop with equivocation and get back to the subject matter? InformationEdited by traderdrew, : No reason given.