|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
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. If that is true then all of you do a bad job overall in enlightening me.
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 not stupidity, it is common sense. Maybe I should rephrase that. "The best arguments for Darwinism should be major blows to ID." Once again, a rational person demands positive reasons to believe in something. I wouldn't be invested in ID if it was only critical of Darwinism. Weighing the evidence for and against the subjects doesn't contradict scientific methods. It is a complimentary perspective. Actually I wouldn't blame many of you for not wanting to look at it that way because if you did then design wins by far. Just look inside the "Edge of Evolution" by Mike Behe for the figure illustrating the depth of fine-tuning required for life to exist on earth. It doesn't even list everything required. I understand that Darwinism mimics design and even a certain amount of forsight but nobody has convinced me that it has the forsight necessary and utilizes multiple coherent methods to construct sophisticated biological machinery.
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. You do have another point here. There is always the possibility of a better explanation.
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. Not only would it lack start and stop codons, it would bet it lacks the versatility to construct the cell and all of its complimentary and complete functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
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. The best arguments for Darwinism are various examples of microevolution. The homoglobin molecule also is more of an argument for common descent which I cannot deny unless I find a better explanations for them. There is better evidence for common descent. There is great evidence for fine-tuning. Just read the book "Rare Earth" to find out. I haven't finished reading it but it has absolutely no direct inferrence to intelligent design. In fact, one of the authors is anti-ID. I believe in common descent for various reasons. I have wrestled with it. Most diests think God can do anything. They might be correct but, why would God create natural laws and then break those laws? Would this not be a double standard? As Michael Behe stated in "The Edge of Evolution", the arguments for common descent is in a profound sense 'trivial'. Maybe there is another natural explanation we haven't found yet. I think your best bet is within chaos theory. I'm getting off the subject but I hope I am interesting.
Coyote writes: It is also becoming clear that ID can't even exist without "Darwinism" -- as combatting "Darwinism" is its entire focus. If that were true then there isn't any affirmative evidence for the existence of a designer. I am not sold in an alternative natural explanation. Such an explanation would require a higher degree of foresight in order to construct a life supporting planet and sophisticated molecular machinery. Do you know how many protein to protein binding sites that exist in the average cell? 10,000 of them. However, no new binding sites have been created in the lab yet. The only one I know of that found its way through the lottery of Darwinism is the sickle cell and of course this is more detrimental than helpful. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
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 don't take the non-falsifiable agruments at face value. With a little bit of thought you can demonstrate ID arguments are falsifiable. All you have to do is build models or give unambiguous explanations of how natural forces can do the trick. In the case of information and off the top of my head, remember the example of monkeys chained to tables with typewriters will eventually create the works of Shakespeare. The problem with that analogy is that you have to have the ingredients in the proper places and the intelligently designed typewriters and huge amounts of paper in place and ready to go. All of that on top of if you believe in this could really be done. There are ways information can be added to the genome. I think one mutation occurs when the transcription process backs up and recopies the information. The other was in baker's yeast when the entire genome was duplicated twice. A virus can also insert information. However, it is easier to destroy than to create especially creating coherent machinery. It is kind of ironic that Darwinism theoretically rides the narrow pathways of mistakes considering that cellular machinery is quite good and faithful in transcription and detecting errors. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
"It's a lovely 243523asdsdf asdfasdf day in outback Australia, again today" According to Percy, I've just added information to my original message. Do you think I have? You have added Shannon information. Is a long series of Shannon information ever added to the genome? I think your example would be analagous to a virus inserting information. But I don't think this is a true analogy. Since what viruses inject has meaning for the purposes of perpetuating its existence. I'm almost going to play devil's advocate here. Can natural genetic engineering deal with insertions? If it could it has limited utility since in many cases we are at the mercy of viruses. I would think this could provide some hope for the naturalists. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
They might be correct but, why would God create natural laws and then break those laws? ? You lost me on this, please explain. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Where did you "quantify the increase in information?" As I said to cavediver, I need to know which interpreter he wants to use and on which machine he wants to assemble the instructions.
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. Please Percy, detail my ignorance. You say that the DNA code contains a lot of redundancy, and of course, you can demonstrate this. The amount of information that we will get by quantifying my code will seem excessive also, but it's not redundant.
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. Good, you understand.
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.
So now you're talking about communication of information, not new information.The cell itself knows what it needs to do. If the eye colour machine needs to make an eye colour, it takes in its parameters from the DNA. If the parameters are not of the same "object" that it requires the machine will break down, just like any other machine. In other words the language has to be in place. A mixture of symbols from the alphabet is not good enough. Information cannot be created by noise. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Information cannot be created by noise. But information can be created by random change and by eliminating everything that is not information. Get some alphabet dice; roll 'em; arrange them into words, if possible; if not, roll some or all again. It won't be long until you have words. I bet even you won't try to claim that those words are not information. That is as simple as I can make an analogy to the genome as acted upon by mutation and natural selection. But I bet the real reason you are so against "new information" is religious, not scientific. Something to do with "the fall" and devolution, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: But information can be created by random change and by eliminating everything that is not information. When you say, "random chance" I take it you're referring to probability.
Get some alphabet dice; roll 'em; arrange them into words, if possible; if not, roll some or all again. It won't be long until you have words. I bet even you won't try to claim that those words are not information. Ah, Coyote, you're beginning to understand. Do the dice create the information or do you? What is the message the dice are imparting?
But I bet the real reason you are so against "new information" is religious, not scientific. Something to do with "the fall" and devolution, eh? Coyote, it's a scientific endevour. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
LTA,
Coyote, it's a scientific endevour. In which case you have already accepted that it occurs, right? Because we know new function evolves, right? And if new function doesn't require new information, then evolution doesn't require new information & you just did yourself out of an argument, right? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LucyTheApe responds to Coyote:
quote:quote: No, not "random chance," random CHANGE.
quote: No, not probability. Chemistry. No chemical reaction is ever perfect every single time. When I take two moles of hydrogen gas and a mole of oxygen gas, mix them at STP, and spark the mixture, the heavily favored reaction is water, but you will find some hydrogen peroxide in there as well as some hydronium. Which molecules will be the ones that don't go in the most favored reaction cannot be predicted. They are random. The reproduction of the cell is a chemical reaction. Thus, it will never happen perfectly every single time. Thus, there will be changes between the parent cell and the daughter cells. Or are you saying that there is something happening in cell reproduction other than chemistry?
quote: Does it matter? You're still ignoring the fact that we're talking about chemistry. The molecules are interacting with themselves. The products of one set of reactions become the reagents for another set of reactions. Some chemical reactions are self-replicating and autocatalyzing. The "information" comes from the chemicals reacting with themselves. There is no outside consciousness involved. Or are you saying that there is something going on inside the cell other than chemistry?
quote: So where's your science? Why is it that nowhere in any of the biological treatises on the subject can we find anything like what you are proposing? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
traderdrew responds to me:
quote: Now, I asked you nicely to stop before going on a "See! Design!" hyperventilation. Why would the cell need a correction mechanism if there weren't mistakes being made in the replication of the cell?
quote: But why? Why would the cell need this sort of thing in the first place? You need to deal with that first. Then, you'll understand why a correction mechanism exists that allows slop in the third position where it doesn't matter nearly as much as the first or second position.
quote: And thus, you found out that he lied about his experience, right? That there was no plot against him, he was not fired, he was not asked to leave his office for any reason other than the entire office was being reorganised, his keys were being taken because he was being given a new card swipe, etc. Right? Do you have any evidence to contradict the report from the Smithsonian? The statement from the NIH? From the PBSW? Yeah, you may have read the Washington Post story, but did you actually read the OSC report and see how Sternberg lied about what it said? So far, all you've done is use Sternberg's secondary statements to back up his primary ones. You do realize that this is circular reasoning, yes? You are claiming that Sternberg's account is accurate because Sternberg says he's not lying. On the other side, we have independent statements from multiple sources, none of which have anything to do with the other, all of which contradict Sternberg's claims. It's time for you to explain why you accept Sternberg's claims when it is very clear he has an agenda to push as composed to multiple independent sources, none of whom have any agenda to push. Of course, it doesn't help that the very director of the OSC was under investigation for the very types of political bias that Sternberg is trying to claim was being inflicted upon him. You say you'll accept NPR...did you find the story from "All Things Considered" about the suit filed against Bloch from his own staff to have him removed? So the questions are very simple: Was Sternberg fired from his position as editor or did he resign on his own?When did his departure as editor happen? Why was his office changed? Why was he asked to turn in keys? Was Sternberg ever denied access to Smithsonian research materials? Was Sternberg's contract as a research associate at the Smithsonian revoked or extended? These were the things that the OSC wanted investigated. Do you claim that the results of that investigation showed Sternberg experienced retaliation? If so, upon what basis do you make this claim? I am not here to do your homework. You need to get past reading what other people tell you what happened and take a look at the first-hand evidence. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
traderdrew responds to me:
quote: Then why did you bring it up? You thought you could catch us in some sort of bind and now that you have seen that your argument is falling apart, you're backpedaling like hell, hoping that nobody will notice.
quote: (*chuckle*) Nice try, but that's our argument to you. You haven't presented anything of substance. It's been nothing but flourish and hand-waving. You're doing it right now. You painted yourself into a corner and rather than simply admit you made a mistake, that the Meyer article was published under false pretenses and yet despite that, nobody suffered any consequences because of it, you're trying to whine and complain that we're "off topic" when you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
quote: And thus, you prove my point. Do you even know what that word means? Where is the word with a double meaning that you are concerned about? No, you threw that word in to try and show that you had some "substance" to your post when it was nothing more than the "rhetoric" that you are complaining about. That said, how sad that you find rhetoric to be somthing to avoided. The reason that we can have any sort of actual discussion of anything is because of rhetoric. "Rhetoric" is not a synonym for "worthless argument." The fact that somebody can dazzle you with fancy bullshit isn't the fault of rhetoric. It's simply that you can be dazzled. No rhetorical framework can prop up a faulty argument: Was there any retaliation against Sternberg? If so, what was it? Was he fired from his editing position or did he resign? When did he leave his position as editor? Why was he asked to turn in his keys? Why was his office reassigned? Was he fired as an associate researcher from the Smithsonian? Was he ever denied access to the research materials there? Was his job at the NIH ever in any jeopardy? Was he demoted? Did his pay change? If not, under what justification do we claim that he sufference any negative effects for his publication of a non-peer reviewed article in an inappropriate journal?
quote: If you didn't mean to talk about this, why did you bring it up? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
traderdrew writes: greyseal writes: 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 don't take the non-falsifiable agruments at face value. With a little bit of thought you can demonstrate ID arguments are falsifiable. All you have to do is build models or give unambiguous explanations of how natural forces can do the trick. the problem goes like this: Dembski says: We haven't proved how the flagellum could have evolved. I think it's so improbable that it can't have happened. I can't prove it but here's some (contrived) math that says I might be right, and it's obviously so difficult we haven't seen (strawman example of flagellum evolving in the lab over short timescales). In fact, it's so difficult, it's so perfect, it works so well as it is that it must have been built because we can't take bits away and have it still work. When you get right down to it, what he's saying is that because we haven't seen it evolve, because we don't yet know how it evolved, that it must have been designed and built. Can't you see that that's an argument from incredulity and nothing else? Can't you see that lack of knowledge isn't evidence of anything? Can't you see that taking pieces out of a working system is in no way analogous to proving that it can't have evolved from a different, related system? All it is is "god of the gaps". It demands an impossible burden on science to prove a negative - for him to be happy, absolutely everything about absolutely every creature ever must be shown to have evolved - from the eye to the ear to everything in between and more. And when he doesn't get that (how could he) he crows "you can't prove it isn't, so it must be god". Now, if you agree with me, you see the problem. If you don't, there's nothing more I can say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If your original statement was common sense you would not have had to change it - especially not to the extent where it becomes irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make. If you remember you were trying to dismiss a criticism of ID on the grounds that it did not support Darwinism. (Of course, even your modified version - while better - is not true because ID is so amorphous. It is quite possible to argue for major features of evolutionary theory without arguing against every possible form of ID. Behe's view in particular is so close to that of modern evolutionary science that the best arguments for Darwinism would not be expected to be major blows against it).
quote: But the "science" of ID is almost universally directed to criticising evolutionary theory. Behe, in particular, is dedicated to trying to find "gaps" to shove God into.
quote: But that is not what you are doing. You are not weighing the evidence, you are advocating for ID. Instead of weighing the evidence you are just accepting the pronouncements of the ID crowd without looking any deeper. And worse, ignoring criticisms that have already been brought to your attention (which apparently you choose to blame on your opponents). Of course I can't blame you for refusing to really weigh the evidence. Because if you did ID would be shown to be an anti-scientific propaganda movement dedicated to changing the U.S. educational system to favour the religious beliefs of the ID supporters. We have the Wedge Document. We have the lack of real research coming from ID. We have the outright propaganda, unrelated to actual science - the attempts to link evolution to the Nazis or to racism. We have the amorphous nature of ID which embraces almost everything from Young Earth Creationism to almost-theistic-evolution (but not ACTUAL theistic evolution because ID opposes that). We have the attempts to paint support for ID as rising - your own for instance (you didn't weigh the evidence there !).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
what's natural genetic engineering? breeding?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024