Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 91 of 1273 (531556)
10-18-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by traderdrew
10-18-2009 3:59 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
How do designers make a book or cook a dinner? You see there maybe more than one way and more than one tool to use.
In other words you have no mechanisms or ideas of how it works. All you have is "I believe evolution is wrong, therefore there must be an intelligent designer."
Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty when you have a robust theory with LOTS of scientific evidence, but for some reason(which you refuse to explain) you discount it and advocate an idea that has NO evidence, NO science to support it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by traderdrew, posted 10-18-2009 3:59 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by traderdrew, posted 12-15-2009 10:14 AM Theodoric has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 92 of 1273 (539329)
12-15-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by traderdrew
10-18-2009 3:46 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Smooth Operator told us that natural selection selects for fitness. I don't entirely agree. The "reality" is, it selects for anything that gives an organism an advantage whether it is fitness, size, color, shape and mutations, etc.
Natural selection is defined as selecting for population's fitness. And so I use it as such. But in reality it it's not doing a very good job. If it did, we would not have the problem of genetic entropy that we do have. Obviously natural selection only selects for fitness when the mutations are extremely deleterious. Slightly deleterious mutations do get passed on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by traderdrew, posted 10-18-2009 3:46 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 5:56 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 1273 (539331)
12-15-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 5:40 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Obviously natural selection only selects for fitness when the mutations are extremely deleterious. Slightly deleterious mutations do get passed on.
Then, of course, there are the beneficial mutations.
Don't forget, they get passed on too.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 5:40 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 6:11 AM Coyote has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 94 of 1273 (539334)
12-15-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
12-15-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Then, of course, there are the beneficial mutations.
Don't forget, they get passed on too.
Beneficial mutations like the ones that cause sickle cell anemia actually deteriorate the information in the genome by deforming the red blood cells and making them less, not more, efficient.
Regardless of that, natural selection is still ineffective at preserving the living organisms simply because even if by cahnce, a really good beneficial mutation happens, which does not deteriorate the information in the genome, the amount of deleterious mutations in the same individual is higher. Therefore, both beneficial and deleterious mutations get passed on. But since there are so much more of deleterious mutations, not only do they outweigh beneficial ones, they inevitably lead to genetic entropy.
Becasue you always have to remember that all individuals have mutations. The selection does not happen between mutated and non-mutated individuals. But between less mutated and more mutated. And as time goes by, mutations accumulate, and lead to the genetic meltdown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 5:56 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2009 6:44 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 10:29 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 95 of 1273 (539337)
12-15-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Beneficial mutations like the ones that cause sickle cell anemia actually deteriorate the information in the genome by deforming the red blood cells and making them less, not more, efficient.
This basically means nothing. You can't quantify the net change in information involved. All you can do is make a subjective judgement and then label it a loss of information. Does the change in haemoglobin make it a less efficient oxygen binder, no. Does it change the efficiency of the blood to transport oxygen, yes. Does it increase the carrier's resistance to malaria, yes. These tell us some of the things that the mutation to the sickle cell from of haemoglobin (HBsc) leads to but it doesn't give us a way to quantitate the informational change involved.
Becasue you always have to remember that all individuals have mutations. The selection does not happen between mutated and non-mutated individuals. But between less mutated and more mutated.
It would be more accurate to say that the selection is between differently mutated individuals, rates of mutation in populations are relatively consistent. It is the nature of the specific mutations that are important, not simply the number of them.
And as time goes by, mutations accumulate, and lead to the genetic meltdown.
Maybe, hypothetically, or not as the case may be. As we have discussed before there are plenty of models which do not lead us to expect genetic meltdown to be an inevitability, including models with synergystic epistatic interactions between mutations and those incorporating nearly neutral balancing mutations.
Is genomic 'information' for you simply a function of organismal fitness? Something divorced from the actual specifics of the underlying genetic change. Is it tied to the specific biochemical functionality of the individual proteins? If so who determines what functional changes represent increases or decreases in information? We've touched on these questions before but you have never answered them satisfactorily.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 6:11 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:05 AM Wounded King has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 96 of 1273 (539345)
12-15-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Wounded King
12-15-2009 6:44 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
This basically means nothing. You can't quantify the net change in information involved. All you can do is make a subjective judgement and then label it a loss of information.
That's like saying that a sequence that codes for an eye is replaced with a sequence that codes for nothing, is not a net change. Obviously it is.
quote:
Does the change in haemoglobin make it a less efficient oxygen binder, no. Does it change the efficiency of the blood to transport oxygen, yes. Does it increase the carrier's resistance to malaria, yes. These tell us some of the things that the mutation to the sickle cell from of haemoglobin (HBsc) leads to but it doesn't give us a way to quantitate the informational change involved.
Of course it does affect it's oxygen binding ability, that is one of the points.
The way to quantify the net change is to se which functions were diminished and which were increased in effectiveness. Both binding and transportation of oxygen are diminished. Therefore, this is a loss of information. The to quantify the loss we simply need to know how many nucleotides have changed.
The resistance itself is not a biological function. It is an inability of malaria to infect the body.
quote:
It would be more accurate to say that the selection is between differently mutated individuals, rates of mutation in populations are relatively consistent. It is the nature of the specific mutations that are important, not simply the number of them.
That is also true, but you missed the point. The point is that ALL individuals are mutants. And as such they have both beneficial and deleterious mutations. Regardles of the ratio, the deleterious ones stick and spread across the population. Causing the geentic entropy. Teh point I was trying to make that no matter how teh selection works, or how intense it is, you still do select for deleterious mutations.
quote:
Maybe, hypothetically, or not as the case may be.
No, I'm sorry this is a fact.
Just a moment...
This link here explains how 110 mamalian species were tested and a clear case of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations was noticed.
quote:
As we have discussed before there are plenty of models which do not lead us to expect genetic meltdown to be an inevitability, including models with synergystic epistatic interactions between mutations and those incorporating nearly neutral balancing mutations.
Yes but those models are not reality. As I have shown above, reality is a bit different than those models. Those models are nothig more than mathematical artifacts. Natural seelction does not work that way. Even if it did interactions between two deleterious mutations would still be deleterious. Even with slowed down rate of entropy, it's still happening. And as you can see from this here graph, it doesn't stop the accumulation.
File:Synergistic versus antagonistic epistasis.svg - Wikipedia
Yes, it slows it down by a lot, but it does not stop it.
quote:
Is genomic 'information' for you simply a function of organismal fitness? Something divorced from the actual specifics of the underlying genetic change. Is it tied to the specific biochemical functionality of the individual proteins? If so who determines what functional changes represent increases or decreases in information? We've touched on these questions before but you have never answered them satisfactorily.
Genetic informations are the biological function that is encoded in the genome. For an example, if you have a sequence that codes for an ATP synthase, and you mutate it so that after a while the same sequence produces a machine that does not produce energy anymore, and simply stands there, it lost information. If it so happened that in acquired new information for producing something else, than that would be a gain in information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2009 6:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2009 11:52 AM Smooth Operator has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 97 of 1273 (539347)
12-15-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Theodoric
10-18-2009 4:04 PM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
In other words you have no mechanisms or ideas of how it works. All you have is "I believe evolution is wrong, therefore there must be an intelligent designer."
I read the above and then I read the rest of your post and I can see why I let you have the last word. Evolution is robust I do agree. When the evidence doesn't fit a evolutionary hypothesis, neoDarwinism is robust enough to allow a large amount of flexibility. It is not a precise science such as mathematics.
There is science to support ID but that would take to much to get into here. I can start by citing the genetic code in each and every cell. As Bill Gates said, it is computer like. We have never scientifically proven a software language inside something (the first cell) that is more sophisticated than anything humans have ever designed can be assembled out of some sort of accidental process. We know that people have intelligently designed software codes and therefore you have the basis for a scientific explanation.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 10-18-2009 4:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 98 of 1273 (539349)
12-15-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
And as time goes by, mutations accumulate, and lead to the genetic meltdown.
And how much time has gone by?
6,000 years?
There's the problem, you see. This genetic meltdown is the pride and joy of those who believe in "the fall" and a young earth. It is not something established by science.
And it is no wonder that it is also a part of "intelligent design" as ID is a direct outgrowth of religion, not of science.
When you admit that we live on an old earth, with evolution acting over billions of years, and when you realize that "the fall" is a religious concept with no applicability to the real world, the entire basis of genetic meltdown simply disappears.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 6:11 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:40 AM Coyote has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


(1)
Message 99 of 1273 (539353)
12-15-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coyote
12-15-2009 10:29 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
And how much time has gone by?
6,000 years?
There's the problem, you see. This genetic meltdown is the pride and joy of those who believe in "the fall" and a young earth. It is not something established by science.
And it is no wonder that it is also a part of "intelligent design" as ID is a direct outgrowth of religion, not of science.
When you admit that we live on an old earth, with evolution acting over billions of years, and when you realize that "the fall" is a religious concept with no applicability to the real world, the entire basis of genetic meltdown simply disappears.
I gave you a chance to have decent conversation. You declined by instantly throwing out religious arguments. Therefore I bid you goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 10:29 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 11:06 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 100 of 1273 (539356)
12-15-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 10:40 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
I gave you a chance to have decent conversation. You declined by instantly throwing out religious arguments.
The topic of the thread is ID, and ID is nothing if not religious in origin. That has been clearly documented in a number of instances, including the Dover decision.
You are the one pretending it is something coming from real science rather than from creation "science" after a US Supreme Court decision removed creation "science" from the classrooms.
Therefore I bid you goodbye.
Are you leaving?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:40 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 101 of 1273 (539363)
12-15-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 10:05 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
That's like saying that a sequence that codes for an eye is replaced with a sequence that codes for nothing, is not a net change.
Yes, it is like saying that because anyone who talks about 'a sequence that codes for an eye' is essentially saying 'I don't understand developmental biology' in the same way your statement shows that you don't have a coherent understanding of genetic information.
Of course it does affect it's oxygen binding ability, that is one of the points.
It affects it when the HBs forms polymers, but the actual individual haemoglobin molecules retain their normal binding affinity (Bonaventure et al., 1999.
The resistance itself is not a biological function. It is an inability of malaria to infect the body.
This is what I'm talking about, you make a totally subjective judgement call that undercuts the validity of your whole approach. You are totally divorcing the concept of biological information from what we identify inc complex evolved systems, it isn't a question simply of having some form of molecular function, it is about wider biological function in terms onf environmental interactions, which resistance to amlaria would certainly qualify as.
As to looking at nucleotide changes to quantify the loss, this is no answer at all, you could have just as many changes with no effect on function whatsoever.
No, I'm sorry this is a fact.
Just a moment...
This link here explains how 110 mamalian species were tested and a clear case of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations was noticed.
I'm quite happy to accept that the mitochondrial genomes of larger mammals with small effective population sizes may be subject to genetic meltdown. What I dispute, and this paper does nothing to support, is the contention that this is a universal trend in all genomes, or even all vertebrate genomes. The paper certainly doesn't demonstrate the inevitability of genetic entropy leading to extinction.
And as you can see from this here graph, it doesn't stop the accumulation.
I see that you still don't understand that graph, it doesn't say anything about changing the accumulation of mutations, it talks about the difference epistatic effects have on the fitness effects of cumulative mutations. The point is that the steep drop off in the negative synergistic epistasis line means that the accumulation of only a few mutations will produce a non-linear change in fitness and consequently a non-linear change in selective pressure against the carrier.
Genetic informations are the biological function that is encoded in the genome. For an example, if you have a sequence that codes for an ATP synthase, and you mutate it so that after a while the same sequence produces a machine that does not produce energy anymore, and simply stands there, it lost information. If it so happened that in acquired new information for producing something else, than that would be a gain in information.
This is the sort of vague definition I am talking about. This doesn't tell us how to measure information at all. All it does is let us identify the extreme case where the gene completely loses its function. Have you settled on the Hazen/Szostak form of 'functional information', if so you should bear in mind the limitations they themselves identify with their approach.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 10:05 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 12:53 PM Wounded King has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


(1)
Message 102 of 1273 (539370)
12-15-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Wounded King
12-15-2009 11:52 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Yes, it is like saying that because anyone who talks about 'a sequence that codes for an eye' is essentially saying 'I don't understand developmental biology' in the same way your statement shows that you don't have a coherent understanding of genetic information.
Am I supposed to copy/paste individual sequences to you so you would understand what I'm talking about?
TACCCCGTAGAGGTGCGCTTCACCCGAGGCGATGACATTCTGCTGAGCCCC
TACCTGGTGGGGGTACGCTTCACCTGGAG-GATGACATCCTACTGAGCCCC
The first sequence is a rat's active GULO gene sequence. The lower one is a human one. The human one is different and is unable to synthesize Vitamin C. Threfore, the information was reduced, becasue the function of synthesizin vitamin C is lost.
quote:
It affects it when the HBs forms polymers, but the actual individual haemoglobin molecules retain their normal binding affinity (Bonaventure et al., 1999.
Loss in polymer affinity is enough to say it's a loss.
quote:
This is what I'm talking about, you make a totally subjective judgement call that undercuts the validity of your whole approach. You are totally divorcing the concept of biological information from what we identify inc complex evolved systems, it isn't a question simply of having some form of molecular function, it is about wider biological function in terms onf environmental interactions, which resistance to amlaria would certainly qualify as.
Well than you simply have a wrong definition of a biological function. If you are going to equate the workings of a flagellum with an inability of malaria to infect the body, be my guest, but that approach is invalid.
It's like equating the working of a HDD with a broken HDD and claiming that borken HDD has gained a new function. And the new function is the resistance of viruses it could have caught over the internet.
quote:
As to looking at nucleotide changes to quantify the loss, this is no answer at all, you could have just as many changes with no effect on function whatsoever.
Which just means there was no loss. Where seems to be the problem? If you change the sequence and you find there was no loss of function, than that means that the amount of information remains the same.
quote:
I'm quite happy to accept that the mitochondrial genomes of larger mammals with small effective population sizes may be subject to genetic meltdown. What I dispute, and this paper does nothing to support, is the contention that this is a universal trend in all genomes, or even all vertebrate genomes. The paper certainly doesn't demonstrate the inevitability of genetic entropy leading to extinction.
Of course it doesn't, becasue it's not supposed to. I need you to extrapolate on that a bit. If you throw a rock in a lake, it's going to make waves. If you throw it in an ocean, it's probably going to make waves also.
No matter the population, the effect is the same, you just need to extrapolate it. No genome is special, they are all based on the same basic principle. If one species is shown to deteriorate, than there is no reason to think millions of other species are not going to. My question to you is, why do you think other genomes are so special that they would not deteriorate over time?
quote:
I see that you still don't understand that graph, it doesn't say anything about changing the accumulation of mutations, it talks about the difference epistatic effects have on the fitness effects of cumulative mutations. The point is that the steep drop off in the negative synergistic epistasis line means that the accumulation of only a few mutations will produce a non-linear change in fitness and consequently a non-linear change in selective pressure against the carrier.
Which means that less mutations will accumulate in the population. Still, the obvious drop in fitness is obvious. I know what the graph shows. It shows that with the larger numbers of mutations, the synergistic epistasis model is more efficient.
Now again, I need you to extrapolate. If we clearly know that all individuals are mutants with deleterious mutations, and we include synergistic epistasis as the model of natural selection that is in operation, it will simply mean that mutations accumulate. Yes, at a very much slower pace, but they still accumulate.
quote:
This is the sort of vague definition I am talking about. This doesn't tell us how to measure information at all. All it does is let us identify the extreme case where the gene completely loses its function. Have you settled on the Hazen/Szostak form of 'functional information', if so you should bear in mind the limitations they themselves identify with their approach.
I am not using their definition, and as I already told you, I never was. I simply argued that it existed, that is all.
My preference was always Dembski's CSI. Which is obviously quantifiable. If we have a, let's say a flagellum that is coded for with 800 bit sequence. Now I know there is a lot more bits needed to code for a flagellum, which is actually 4,639,221 base pair long, but I'm making it easier to understand.
So, we have this 800 bit sequence, we also denote it as a: "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller". Becasue that is the patternt it maches, which makes it specified, and also since it is more than 400 bits long, it constitutes complex specified information - CSI.
Now we notice mutations that makes a part less functional, or even removes it, such as if the pattern that still works, is now described as: "bidirectional rotor", which would imply that it lost it's tail.
We would than simply count the remaining base pairs, which describe this remaining pattern, and conclude that, let's say 750 bits of information code for the remaining parts. This means that 50 bits of information are lost.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 12-15-2009 11:52 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by traderdrew, posted 12-16-2009 12:00 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2009 12:28 AM Smooth Operator has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 103 of 1273 (539442)
12-16-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Hi Smooth Operator,
For a change, you will get no fighting or debate from me in this post. I was thinking Dembski's CSI was partly arbitrary although, I do not know how he came up with the number of 400.
I was trying to think of another way to describe information formed by intelligence. I would think this complex information is complimentary to other parts. (Not repetitive and redundant information, as pointed out by Stephen Meyer).
Take the example of a postage stamp. The serrated edges might imply design but it is a form of redundancy. The image on the stamp refers to an actual object and this part of the stamp is not redundant. What is the word I am looking for?
Something that is complimentary is a part of a whole such as a part of an engine or a flagellum.
Coherence is another word I have been tossing around in my mind but it doesn't describe the relationship of an image of a postage stamp to the actual 3D subject or object the image portrays.
Any thoughts of a new definition of information arising by intelligence?
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 12:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-16-2009 12:51 AM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 1273 (539443)
12-16-2009 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Smooth Operator
12-15-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
My preference was always Dembski's CSI. Which is obviously quantifiable. If we have a, let's say a flagellum that is coded for with 800 bit sequence. Now I know there is a lot more bits needed to code for a flagellum, which is actually 4,639,221 base pair long, but I'm making it easier to understand.
So, we have this 800 bit sequence, we also denote it as a: "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller". Becasue that is the patternt it maches, which makes it specified, and also since it is more than 400 bits long, it constitutes complex specified information - CSI.
While Dembski;s CSI MAY be quantifiable in simple cases, that isn't the way to do it. You've made two big assumptions (that the actual sequence is the only way to get the function and that the sequence is assembled entirely randomly). Neither is likely to be true in a real case. You need to calculate the probability of the specification being met in the absence of design - and you haven't done that.
Also, you've hit the big flaw in Dembski's CSI in that a specification based on the observed pattern is NOT the same as a specification produced without that knowledge. Dembski has recognised the problem by won't to the best of my knowledge has not yet found a way of dealing with it (and probably won't bother because the practical problems of using CSI in biology were already insurmountable rendering the whole thing utterly useless to ID).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-15-2009 12:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-16-2009 1:08 AM PaulK has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 105 of 1273 (539445)
12-16-2009 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by traderdrew
12-16-2009 12:00 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Hi Smooth Operator,
For a change, you will get no fighting or debate from me in this post. I was thinking Dembski's CSI was partly arbitrary although, I do not know how he came up with the number of 400.
Hi traderdrew! What do you mean by arbitrary?
The number 400 isn't arbitrary though. It's the -log2 of 10^120. That is the number of bit operations teh observable universe could have performed in about 15 billion years on all the elementary particles it has, which is 10^90. Since to fully search a sequence space of 400 bits is 10^120 bit operation, or trials, that means that random chance in the whole universe could have only produced 400 bits of information.
quote:
Take the example of a postage stamp. The serrated edges might imply design but it is a form of redundancy.
Do you mean becasue of it's repetitiveness? Yes, that is true, it's redundant. Something like that is explained by Kolmogorov complexity. You use the shortest possible pattern to describe the object.
For an example, the sequence "111111111111" can be described as: "Repeat "1" 12 times.
Also something like this: "010101010101" can be described as: "Repeat "01" 6 times".
Unlike "01110010100" which isn't compressible like the two sequences above, and it's shortest description is it'self: "Copy 01110010100".
Therefore, the edges have a very easy to describe pattern. Let's say there are 40 ridges on a post stamp. The easiest way to describe that pattern is: "Repeat ridge 40 times." Therefore, it's a very simple pattern.
quote:
The image on the stamp refers to an actual object and this part of the stamp is not redundant. What is the word I am looking for?
Something that is complimentary is a part of a whole such as a part of an engine or a flagellum.
Coherence is another word I have been tossing around in my mind but it doesn't describe the relationship of an image of a postage stamp to the actual 3D subject or object the image portrays.
Well it seems you are looking for what Dembski described as "specification". An independently given pattern that describes the object we are looking at. For the flagellum, that description would be: "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller"
quote:
Any thoughts of a new definition of information arising by intelligence?
You can always look at the work of Werner Gitt. His approach is a more general one. His definition consists of more levels than Dembski's but it's not quantifiable. Dembski's CSI is defined by Mereology and Statistics. While Gitt's is defined by: Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by traderdrew, posted 12-16-2009 12:00 AM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024