Evolving New Information

I will agree with you.

quote:

---

I have tried to find evidence against what I believe. I found this in another link on this forum:

---

So you say. But your post clearly shows that you have not done so and that you are ignoring facts that have been brought to your attention. None of your post addresses Dembski's definition of CSI.

quote:

---

I'm tired of arguing with walls. I'm begging you to shut me up.

---

It seems that you're the one acting like a wall. You ignore what I say, and keep repeating your errors. Except for the nastiness of the false accusations.The "complex" part of Dembski's CSI is a probability measurement. NOT complexity as it is usually thought of. Tossing a coin and getting 500 heads in a row would be complex by Dembki's standard even though it is very, very simple.

The guy above you says that I should think about it and know that it is true as if what is going on in our heads represents reality. I just tried these google terms. It hasn't been the first time I have looked for criticisms of Robin Collins."dials for adjusting laws of physics"I just found this in wikipedia. Fine-tuned universe - WikipediaThere are fine tuning arguments that are naturalistic [10].You cannot disprove or dismiss the fine-tuning theories with good scientific research. The anthropic principles are the best arguments against it that I can think of. I'm calling your bluff.

I have had enough. You all win. I'm sorry that I appeared to be nasty but I was just trying to challenge you to provide me with something with more substance.I will go away but I will lurk to see if any of you can provide any real documentation.

It seems strange to try and challenge us on our claims based on a claim that no one on this site made. Why not ask us to support some of our own claims, apart from the obvious reason that we have done so in multiple instances, almost always to the detriment of your position.I have to agree that tolerance of 80% amino acid substitutions sounds very high. One would have to assume that this might be the very extreme range of functional conservation, or that most of the substitutions were highly conservative in terms of physicochemistry.A bit of sleuthing on my part discovered that the proteins in question are the Treponema pallidum and Agrobacterium tumefaciens forms of the MOTA flagellar motor protein. You can get their protein sequences from ENTREZ here and here. Put them into an alignment program such as ClustalW and you will see that indeed they do differ in ~80% of their amino acid sequence. Whether this actually goes with no change in conformation and function I don't know, but presumably the flagella function in both species. I might investigate further but this seems to substantiate the idea that 80% amino acid substitutions still produce a functionally equivalent protein even if not a functionally identical one. You may have found instances where this is clearly not the case for many proteins but unless you are actually looking at the relevant case it hardly matters. There is information supportive of the claim, it is just hard to track down because unfortunately the link to it in the original commentary on Meyer's paper is now broken due to changes in the website it targeted. No its not true, it is transcribed in to mRNA which is then translated into amino acids, in some cases. we'd rather you followed one line of argument to some sort of conclusion instead of batting around all over the place. And ideally that you backed your claims up with reference to scientific research rather than popular books. James Shapiro is the right sort of direction to be going Shapiro's work is very interesting, but unfortunately for you it doesn't provide evidence for ID.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

I will go away but I will lurk to see if any of you can provide any real documentation.

---

My reference is The design Inference written by William Dembski.I've read it. Have you ?

Hi traderdrew: exactly what I expected. Which is WHY providing a reference to the fifth listing on google is silly when you could have provided the link. I did exactly what you said to do, except that the fifth link was not to Shapiro, but to some IDist website.Enjoy.

traderdrew writes:

quote:

---

"dials for adjusting laws of physics"

---

Do you have any evidence of any other universe? The very second sentence of your own source is: So unless you can show that there is a second universe out there, then we are left with only the universe we have.And thus, the probability of a universe existing with precisely the characteristics of our current universe is exactly 1.

quote:

---

The anthropic principles are the best arguments against it that I can think of.

---

The anthropic principle is nothing more than a tautology: Of course we exist in a universe that is capable of supporting our existence. Where else could we possibly exist?A parent and child are walking along when the child asks, "Why is the sky blue?"The parent responds, "Because if it were green, we would ask, 'Why is the sky green?'"That is what you are arguing: That the reason the sky is blue is specifically and solely so that one carbon-based organism upon its surface can make an acoustic waveform of "hwai Iz thuh skai blu."If it seems ridiculous to claim that the entire universe was created so that one person could ask, in English, "Why is the sky blue?" then it is equally ridiculous to claim that it was all created so that the persons could exist within it.But just in case you've forgotten, you need to show that there is a second universe out there.

---

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.

But Percy thats what is information is, implementing a thought, or idea... a message into code.According to you ALL information is redundant.Answer these two questions:

• How many bits of information did it take for you to understand that your best friend was distressed?


• How many bits of information did it take to construct your brightest idea?
  

Of course the answer is none. But if you want to relate it, then you need to encode it into a predefined language that the recipient can understand. The shell consists of 832 bits the first bit of code consisted of another 1752 bits and the second bit of code added another 376 bits. It depends how we define redundancy. I obviously have a different interpretation than you do. Redundancy is necessary in critical systems for reliability. Error checking for example. It doesn't need to be there for a particular function but it is necessary for the overall well being of the system as a whole.In the case of my code there is no redundancy at all. Thats just how many more bits of information is required to perform the additional functionality. No its not, its black and white. Is that right? If we want to keep things simple, like I do, I suggest we use models that can be simulated in the lab, like I have, rather than using unsubstantiated, untestable theoretic models that are contrary to observation. And you have an example, besides your theoretical musings. I think the machinery is lacking? do I? And if this happened say, once and then propagated, a germ cell would be useless.

---

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

In everyday usage information can mean representations of facts or thoughts or ideas. When used in this way information is understood to have meaning. But Shannon information theory provides a very specific mathematical definition of information that excludes meaning. People can associate meaning with information, but information itself is independent of meaning.One very simple example of this is the famous message of Paul Revere's ride, "One if by land, two if by sea." The meaning of "land" is not inherent in one lantern, nor is the meaning of "sea" inherent in two lanterns. The code could have been, "One if by sea, two if by land," and it would have worked just as well. In information theory, meaning and information are two different things, and meaning is not part of information theory. Specifically, thoughts and ideas are not included in information theory. You never mentioned a "shell" before, so I don't know what you're referring to, and I can't figure out how you calculated the number of bits of information. Could you describe this for me? I'm using the definition of redundancy from information theory. This is the first sentence from the Wikipedia article on "Redundancy (information theory)": Since a message from a message set of size 3 can be represented in 1.585 bits, and since the DNA representation actually uses 12 bits, the extra 10.415 bits are redundant. The example I provided is a simplified model of what we observe happening in nature. My simple gene of 3 alleles experienced a single point mutation, something that is observed to happen all the time. This single point mutation caused the number of alleles of this gene to grow from 3 to 4 in our population. This represents a change in information from 1.585 bits to 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits.--Percy

not only does she not know what "information" means, it appears she can't understand it.I still haven't had an answer to post 241 in this thread which you can find hereLucy, Lucytheape. Paging Lucy. Calling Lucytheape. Will the real Lucytheape please stand up.PS: Yes, I know the word "point" from "point mutation" is wrong. please forgive.Edited by greyseal, : added a link! go me!Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

I still haven't had an answer to post 241 in this thread which you can find here

Show me one

---

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

Hi,It was actually post 241, not 247 - the reason I think 241 is important is because I think it displays two examples from nature which are exactly analogous to what you say doesn't and cannot happen.What I'm expecting you'll say is that the mutation causing the colour change proves nothing even though it increases the number of alleles, and that the other huge mutation doesn't count simply because it's not beneficial.I'm saying that's besides the point because allele increase IS an increase in information (and it happened) and that non-harmful mutations happen often, and there is apparently enough leeway for a huge mutation to occur and still not be harmful - granted the syndrome I showed you isn't beneficial, but I don't think it's impossible to say something similar (but of smaller scale) can't happen - and indeed there's some "Baker's yeast" case in which that's apparently happened)...and you might like this to answer this message:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlOf course, I'm expecting you to tell me that it doesn't count because that's such a simple creature.

In the rebuttal posted above (through the IIDB debate site) it states that protein SEQUENCES can differ by 80% while still holding the same conformational shape and the same enzymatic properties.I did find the above quote on this website but not in this section. See message 9 in here:EvC Forum: Meyer's Hopeless MonsterI also found out that different enzymes (proteins) can perform the same functions. Such as the case in evolving an enzyme that can hydrolyze nylon. Different species of bacteria are capable of it. There is more than one type of enzyme that can do this. Although it is one thing to have different tools that can perform a similar or the same function and another thing for similar but different sequences of proteins to determine the same structures.I found a link the other day, where it basically stated a 50% sequence differences also showed significant differences between protein shapes. I didn't bookmark it and I can't find it right now. I found a quote from another link:The present work shows that folding rates for proteins of all kinds (as well as short polypeptides) are well estimated from secondary structure predictions based on the amino acid sequences and the lengths of these sequences.I thought I couldn't post bare links or links that I don't articulate thoughts from (I'm not sure where the moderators draw the lines) but if you want to find the source, just cut and paste the quote into a google search. I think we both left out details in the process. You didn't mention the polymerase and the ribosome. I think Shapiro's work is metaphysically neutral so far in the debate and the same with symbiogenesis. Were did all of the engineering in the cell come from? That is another subject.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.