Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 121 of 1273 (539582)
12-17-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Huntard
12-17-2009 4:45 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
I wouldn't know, nor would I claim to know any of that, nor would any scinetist, if all he had as information was the writing on the paper.
Than you do see how the same applies for the Rosetta Stone?
quote:
It could have been pooped out by a hippo with three horns on his butt as well....
Very unlikely, but yes, it could have. Not only that but it could have just happened by chance. Like you belive that self replicating machinery does.
quote:
Yes, that's how science works. We work with the data we have. Since there is no evidence of any aliens ever having visitred this planet, we assume it was created by the only intelligence we know capable of producing it: man.
Exactly. And that's called the inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is that a human intelligence did it. But if we are going to go into more general terms, an intelligence did it. Since we do not know which. That humans did it, is after all an assumption.
But nevertheless, even thoug we do not actually know who designed the Rosetta Stone, a design inference was made. That is the main point to remember.
quote:
We infer that because it has written language on it, we know people used in the past. And we know people wrote on stones.
Yes, but let's be more general. What we see on the Rosetta stone is information. And we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information. Therefore, we infer design from the Rosetta stone. And we do the same for DNA because it's information as well. And as I said before, since we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information, we infer the Rosetta Stone, and DNA is designed.
quote:
No, nor does anyone claim they would. That's science for ya, tentative. We go with the best assumption we have untill more evidence is available that shows otherwise.
So you agree with me that we do not need to know who the designer was to infer design?
You infered the Rosetta stone was designed because people write letters. To put it into more general terms, people use intelligence when they write and that's how they create information.
So here is my reasoning. Since we know that when intelligence acts, information is created, I infer that whan we find information we found design.
So, when we find something like the Rosetta stone, we found something that was designed. The same goes for any information including DNA. The best explanation is that it was designed.
quote:
So, if you have evidence for this intelligent designer, show it, and we can then discuss whether or not he designed life on this planet.
I just explained it above. Life is based on DNA. DNA is information. Intelligence creates information. Therefore, we infer life was designed.
quote:
Untill then we go with the explanation that is simplest: Life arose by natural means and evolved by natural means.
Where is the evidnece life can come about naturally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 4:45 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Tanndarr, posted 12-17-2009 6:54 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 5:15 AM Smooth Operator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 122 of 1273 (539588)
12-17-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 4:19 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
What's certain is that you can't on average change the protein beyond 20%. Anything else is a complete loss of function.
Actually that isn't certain in this case. Especially when one of the proteins can be entirely absent.
quote:
Of course they are relevant. They show that you can't get new CSI by the use of algorithms. Algorithms are only used to transmit CSI.
Which just shows how little you understand CSI. The definition of CSI ensures that algorithms can't produce it.
quote:
Nope, I told you, it's about 20%
Then I guess that you should have looked it up instead of coming up with bullshit figures.
quote:
You missed the point of the entire book. First of all, it doesn't matter that bacteria grow flagellums. The information they have to grow one still has to be acounted for. Teh reason Dembski got that number is that because without prior knowledge any algorithm is as good as any other averaged over all fitness functions, including random chance. Therefore, the number is correct. Evolution is not going to help you because it's an algorithm without prior knowledge. Unless you want to calim it actually does have prior knowledge. But in that case you have to explain where it got it.
In other words the whole point of the book is to avoid dealing with the real question (you have just admitted that I was correct and it is the origin of the mechanisms that grow flagella that is important, not the flagellum itself) and to misrepresent the NFL theorems as saying that evolution can't work.
quote:
The best possible estimate is 20% change. That would amount to chnace of 1:10^14770. Therefore, that's still way over 10^120.
So you can't do maths either. If we use your 20% figure there are a huge number of substitutions possible for each of the 50 proteins. And you get to multiply them all together because you can use any combination. Of course it doesn't matter because dembski's doing completely the wrong calculation anyway.
quote:
That's not the point. We are talking about transmition of CSI here, for which algorithms are very well suited. The question is, is evolution well suited to transmit the CSI from nature into living organisms.
No, we're talking about WHETHER the flagellum is CSI in the first place.
quote:
Yes, you answered it, by simply asserting it. Where is the evidnece evolution can actually do it?
Wrong. I explained why evolution can do better than chance.
quote:
What misinterpretations are you talking about? And what "certain circumstances" are you talking about?
The question of whether genetic entropy is a problem for a species depends on the mutation rate and the effective population size. Any idea that it is a general problem outside of the mathematical limits that result from those factors is a misinterpretation.
quote:
But the point is that not every observed pattern is a specification.
No. The point was that "specifications" derived from observed patterns are NOT the same as specifications derived without observation, and Dembski's separability criterion fails to deal with the problem.
quote:
Of course it hels, that is why it's here for.
Thanks for admitting that there is more to dsign detection than Dembski's limited (and often impractical) method.
quote:
What are you talking about? What positive design hypothesis is Dembski avoiding?
So you don't understand Dembski's design inference AT ALL ? Why try to defend a method when you don't understand the most basic part of it ? Let's put it simply. When dealing with Mount Rushmore and the Rosetta Stone we immediately form positivie hypotheses about how they were produced. Involving people and chisels, for instance - and we can compare those with the alternatives and see which comes up best. Dembski doesn't do that. Design is left as the default choice with no suggestion about who or how or why. Which is why real design detection has rather less to do with Dembski's methodology than he would like you to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 4:19 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 2:27 PM PaulK has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 123 of 1273 (539601)
12-17-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
12-17-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Actually that isn't certain in this case. Especially when one of the proteins can be entirely absent.
Yes, and on average, the change is 20%, all changes included.
quote:
Which just shows how little you understand CSI. The definition of CSI ensures that algorithms can't produce it.
I know it can't be produced, but it can be transmited by an algorithm. So when we see something we think is designed, the question is is it just expanded by an algorithm, or is it real CSI.
quote:
In other words the whole point of the book is to avoid dealing with the real question
No, the real question is can CSI be created by an algorithm. The answer is no.
quote:
(you have just admitted that I was correct
No, I never said that. And you are not correct.
quote:
and it is the origin of the mechanisms that grow flagella that is important,
What is important is where did they get their information from to grow a flagellum in the first palce.
quote:
not the flagellum itself)
Yes the flagellum itself too, because it is simply the expanded informatoin stored in the bacteria before it grows the flagellum.
quote:
and to misrepresent the NFL theorems as saying that evolution can't work.
It's not a misrepresentation. That's how things are.
quote:
So you can't do maths either. If we use your 20% figure there are a huge number of substitutions possible for each of the 50 proteins. And you get to multiply them all together because you can use any combination. Of course it doesn't matter because dembski's doing completely the wrong calculation anyway.
I just noticed I posted the wrong number. It was supposed to be 1:10^2363. This whole number includes all 50 proteins and all their possible changes.
quote:
No, we're talking about WHETHER the flagellum is CSI in the first place.
It conforms to an independently given pattern and it's complexity is 10^2363 after we calculated the possible change in the structure. Therefore, yes, it's CSI.
quote:
Wrong. I explained why evolution can do better than chance.
No, you just asserted it.
quote:
The question of whether genetic entropy is a problem for a species depends on the mutation rate and the effective population size. Any idea that it is a general problem outside of the mathematical limits that result from those factors is a misinterpretation.
You didn't even bother to click on the link, let alone read the article. The article is an empirical study of the accumulation of mutations. Not just a mathematical model. Here is another one. Not only does it show mutations accumulating, but it shows populations going extinct. I'm sorry you can't get around this. Evolution does not work. Populations die becasue of genetic entropy.
quote:
By tracking the fitness decline of ligase ribozyme populations with bottleneck sizes between 100 and 3000 molecules, we detected the appearance and subsequent fixation of both slightly deleterious mutations and advantageous mutations. Smaller populations went extinct in significantly fewer generations than did larger ones, supporting the notion of a mutational meltdown. These data suggest that mutation accumulation was an important evolutionary force in the prebiotic RNA world and that mechanisms such as recombination to ameliorate genetic loads may have been in place early in the history of life.
Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC
quote:
No. The point was that "specifications" derived from observed patterns are NOT the same as specifications derived without observation, and Dembski's separability criterion fails to deal with the problem.
That is not a problem that is meaningless drivel. How do you intend to acquire knowledge about a pattern unless you observe it?
quote:
Thanks for admitting that there is more to dsign detection than Dembski's limited (and often impractical) method.
No, I never said that. You keep misinterpreting everything I say.
quote:
So you don't understand Dembski's design inference AT ALL ? Why try to defend a method when you don't understand the most basic part of it ? Let's put it simply. When dealing with Mount Rushmore and the Rosetta Stone we immediately form positivie hypotheses about how they were produced. Involving people and chisels, for instance - and we can compare those with the alternatives and see which comes up best. Dembski doesn't do that. Design is left as the default choice with no suggestion about who or how or why. Which is why real design detection has rather less to do with Dembski's methodology than he would like you to believe.
This is something that is totally irelevant to design detection, because we do not need to know the tools that were used to design something.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2009 12:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2009 3:23 PM Smooth Operator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 124 of 1273 (539606)
12-17-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Yes, and on average, the change is 20%, all changes included.
For enzymatic activity.
quote:
I know it can't be produced, but it can be transmited by an algorithm. So when we see something we think is designed, the question is is it just expanded by an algorithm, or is it real CSI.
quote:
No, the real question is can CSI be created by an algorithm. The answer is no.
Aside from the amusing juxtaposition, it hardly seems worth writing a book to deal with a matter which trivially follows from the definition of CSI given in a previous book.
quote:
No, I never said that. And you are not correct.
quote:
What is important is where did they get their information from to grow a flagellum in the first palce.
And the contradictions just keep on coming !
If you are interested in the information involved in growing a flagellum then you need to look at how it grows. Working on a basis of random assembly ignoring the regularities underlying process is just going to give you the wrong answer.
quote:
Yes the flagellum itself too, because it is simply the expanded informatoin stored in the bacteria before it grows the flagellum.
In other words once we account for the information involved in producing the flagellum we've accounted for the information in the flagellum too. That's not a good reason for looking at the flagellum.
quote:
It's not a misrepresentation. That's how things are.
Unfortunately for you, it is a misrepresentation and it isn't how things are.
quote:
I just noticed I posted the wrong number. It was supposed to be 1:10^2363. This whole number includes all 50 proteins and all their possible changes.
You mean that it includes your estimates for those. Of course there are all those other flagella out in the world to consider, too and the possible variations of those and other ways of producing motion. And even if you included all those you still wouldn't have a number that meant anything because you're ignoring the fact that flagella don't just assemble randomly.
[quote] It conforms to an independently given pattern and it's complexity is 10^2363 after we calculated the possible change in the structure. Therefore, yes, it's CSI. [quote] Except that isn't the complexity. You haven't got close to a valid calculation of the complexity. If you wanted to argue that flagella can't grow, so they must be individually assembled by the Intelligent Designer you could claim to have calculated the complexity. You;d be wrong but at least you'd have made a bad attempt at the right calculation. Which is more than you or Dembski have managed for the E coli flagellum.
[quote] No, you just asserted it. [quote] Simply repeating your error doesn't help you.
quote:
You didn't even bother to click on the link, let alone read the article. The article is an empirical study of the accumulation of mutations. Not just a mathematical model. Here is another one. Not only does it show mutations accumulating, but it shows populations going extinct. I'm sorry you can't get around this. Evolution does not work. Populations die becasue of genetic entropy.
And it agrees with what I said. SMALL populations are vulnerable to genetic entropy.
quote:
That is not a problem that is meaningless drivel. How do you intend to acquire knowledge about a pattern unless you observe it?
You could have a theory that predicts it. This is the way science often works, You take observations to build a theory and then test it against observations that had not previously been made.
But that isn't the point. The point is that that since there are many patterns which look designed the probabiblity that you see A pattern that looks designed will always be significantly higher than the probability of seeing the specific pattern that was observed. Dembski originally failed to take this into account, and has yet to adequately deal with the problem.
quote:
No, I never said that. You keep misinterpreting everything I say.
So you DON'T think that background knowledge is helpful in identifying design. Please make your mind up.
quote:
This is something that is totally irelevant to design detection, because we do not need to know the tools that were used to design something.
So your reason for saying that background knowledge isn't helpful is that it isn't absolutely essential. Not a very good - or rational - reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 2:27 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 4:17 PM PaulK has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 125 of 1273 (539612)
12-17-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
12-17-2009 3:23 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
For enzymatic activity.
Which is what is going on when proteins interact with other chemicals.
quote:
Aside from the amusing juxtaposition, it hardly seems worth writing a book to deal with a matter which trivially follows from the definition of CSI given in a previous book.
No it's not. Because something that we see could be a product of an algorithm, yet we mistook it for CSI.
quote:
And the contradictions just keep on coming !
If you are interested in the information involved in growing a flagellum then you need to look at how it grows. Working on a basis of random assembly ignoring the regularities underlying process is just going to give you the wrong answer.
I'm not interested in how it grows. I'm interested in how the bacteria that grows it got the information to grow it in the first palce.
quote:
In other words once we account for the information involved in producing the flagellum we've accounted for the information in the flagellum too. That's not a good reason for looking at the flagellum.
Yes it is because you have to measure the information first. You have to know what you want to account for. It's like saying that we do not need to account for the information in people's limbs because people grow limbs.
quote:
Unfortunately for you, it is a misrepresentation and it isn't how things are.
Explain why.
quote:
You mean that it includes your estimates for those. Of course there are all those other flagella out in the world to consider, too and the possible variations of those and other ways of producing motion. And even if you included all those you still wouldn't have a number that meant anything because you're ignoring the fact that flagella don't just assemble randomly.
No, it's not my estimate. It's Dembski's calcualtion coupled with Axe's research. And no, we are not looking for other flagellums now. We are looking at this one. Other's are irrelavant righ now.
quote:
Except that isn't the complexity. You haven't got close to a valid calculation of the complexity.
Explain why.
quote:
If you wanted to argue that flagella can't grow, so they must be individually assembled by the Intelligent Designer you could claim to have calculated the complexity. You;d be wrong but at least you'd have made a bad attempt at the right calculation. Which is more than you or Dembski have managed for the E coli flagellum.
Their gorwth doesn't help you one bit. It doesn't matter how they are assembled. What matters is the amount of information that is required to construct one.
quote:
Simply repeating your error doesn't help you.
Cite me the part where you showed that evolution works bettern than random search.
quote:
And it agrees with what I said. SMALL populations are vulnerable to genetic entropy.
No. It doesn't agree with you. You said that genetic entropy is non-existant and that it's a misinterpretation. The article claims that it exists.
If you think that larege populations, whatever you define large to be, don't suffer from genetic entropy than you are wrong. It's like saying that 1+1=3. Smaller popultations suffer from entropy moer than larger populations. That's obvious. But that doesn't mean that you will make the the entropy go away by simply increasing the population. The entropy stays.
And the reason is becasue all individuals are mutants. And we pass 100% of our genetic material with good and bad mutations. Therefore whoever gets selected, both beneficial nad deletarious mutations stay in the population and accumulate.
quote:
You could have a theory that predicts it. This is the way science often works, You take observations to build a theory and then test it against observations that had not previously been made.
Hello!? I said without an observatio! You just said that you first have to make an observation.
quote:
But that isn't the point. The point is that that since there are many patterns which look designed the probabiblity that you see A pattern that looks designed will always be significantly higher than the probability of seeing the specific pattern that was observed. Dembski originally failed to take this into account, and has yet to adequately deal with the problem.
This is a meningless statement. The statement: "Probability of observing patterns that only look designed is higher than observing patterns that are observed" is meaningless.
quote:
So you DON'T think that background knowledge is helpful in identifying design. Please make your mind up.
Of course it is.
quote:
So your reason for saying that background knowledge isn't helpful is that it isn't absolutely essential. Not a very good - or rational - reason.
When did I say that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2009 3:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2009 5:02 PM Smooth Operator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 1273 (539619)
12-17-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 4:17 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Which is what is going on when proteins interact with other chemicals.
Which isn't relevant to structural uses of proteins.
quote:
No it's not. Because something that we see could be a product of an algorithm, yet we mistook it for CSI.
That point, too is dealt with in TDI.
Of course if you tried to calculate the complexity without taking the lagorithm into account you might make just that mistake. Like for instance calculating the complexity of a biological structure on the basis of random assembly, ignoring the fact that - in reality - it grew.
quote:
I'm not interested in how it grows. I'm interested in how the bacteria that grows it got the information to grow it in the first palce.
To find that out it's no good just looking at a flagellum without thinking about how it grows.
quote:
Yes it is because you have to measure the information first.
No. You need to gather the data you need to measure the information before you measure the information.
quote:
You have to know what you want to account for. It's like saying that we do not need to account for the information in people's limbs because people grow limbs.
Unfortuantely the information measure is based on the (possible) ways that a flagellum could form - not on ignoring the way that it DID form and assuming that random formation is the only alternative to design.
quote:
Explain why.
I already have.
quote:
No, it's not my estimate. It's Dembski's calcualtion coupled with Axe's research. And no, we are not looking for other flagellums now. We are looking at this one. Other's are irrelavant righ now.
Really ? Please produce the specification and explain why it only covers the E Coli flagellum and not all the others out there.
quote:
Explain why.
This is why TDI is better than NFL. NFL gives you a hopelessly inaccurate view of CSI. To calculate the complexity you need to know the probability of meeting the specification considering ALL POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS,. Ignoring possible explanations is going against the method and just asking for false positives.
quote:
Their gorwth doesn't help you one bit. It doesn't matter how they are assembled. What matters is the amount of information that is required to construct one.
Which means looking into the probability of the mechanisms involved in the growth forming - including through evolution. A bit hard to do that without finding out what those mechanisms actually are.
quote:
Cite me the part where you showed that evolution works bettern than random search.
The fact that the real fitness landscape doesn't look like the typical random landscape of NFL and is therefore more amenable to incremental searches.
quote:
No. It doesn't agree with you. You said that genetic entropy is non-existant and that it's a misinterpretation. The article claims that it exists.
No, I didn't. I said that it isn't a problem in general. And the paper doesn't show that it is.
quote:
If you think that larege populations, whatever you define large to be, don't suffer from genetic entropy than you are wrong. It's like saying that 1+1=3. Smaller popultations suffer from entropy moer than larger populations. That's obvious. But that doesn't mean that you will make the the entropy go away by simply increasing the population. The entropy stays.
Well you can't prove that by looking at a paper specifically about SMALL populations.
quote:
And the reason is becasue all individuals are mutants. And we pass 100% of our genetic material with good and bad mutations. Therefore whoever gets selected, both beneficial nad deletarious mutations stay in the population and accumulate
But that is where natural selection (and recombination) come in. There are factors working against the accumulation of bad mutations
quote:
Hello!? I said without an observatio! You just said that you first have to make an observation.
Then you are misunderstanding the point you are trying to argue against.
quote:
This is a meningless statement. The statement: "Probability of observing patterns that only look designed is higher than observing patterns that are observed" is meaningless.
If that is your understanding of the point I am trying to make then I strongly suggest that you read more carefully.
quote:
Of course it is.
So a method that leaves background knowledge out IS missing something that is useful in design detection ?
quote:
When did I say that?
In your last post. I even quoted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 4:17 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 4:47 AM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 1273 (539634)
12-17-2009 6:45 PM


So ... basically, ID is just like creationism only now they're wrong about math too?
I don't see why they need a new name for it. Will they start calling it a new name again if they manage to work being wrong about electricity* into their mishmash of nonsense?
Besides, weren't they already wrong about math? Does the name "Werner Gitt" ring any bells?
* I specify electricity because this is now the only major branch of scientific knowledge that I have not yet seen a creationist be contemptibly wrong about.

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 128 of 1273 (539636)
12-17-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 11:45 AM


Design of the Rosetta Stone
Pardon me for jumping in, but I think your Rosetta Stone analogy needs to be rethought:
quote:
I wouldn't know, nor would I claim to know any of that, nor would any scinetist, if all he had as information was the writing on the paper.
Than you do see how the same applies for the Rosetta Stone?
quote:
Yes, that's how science works. We work with the data we have. Since there is no evidence of any aliens ever having visitred this planet, we assume it was created by the only intelligence we know capable of producing it: man.
Exactly. And that's called the inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is that a human intelligence did it. But if we are going to go into more general terms, an intelligence did it. Since we do not know which. That humans did it, is after all an assumption.
The generalization that it took intelligence to create the stone is true, but you can only stop there by willfully ignoring the remaining evidence that tells us humans created the Rosetta Stone.
The Rosetta Stone isn't the only evidence we have. There are hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of other documents and inscriptions in the languages of the Rosetta Stone, many of them including pictures showing humans writing and carving inscriptions on stone. In other words we have lots of corroborating evidence that humans make things like the Rosetta Stone and none that aliens do.
An inference that ignores any available evidence is likely to be less precise than one that uses all the evidence. Don't you agree?
Likewise, science is the accumulation of evidence and drawing conclusions that best support everything we can find. Sometimes you have to step back from looking at that one little tree and notice that it's part of a mighty forest bigger than you can possibly imagine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 11:45 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 4:54 AM Tanndarr has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 129 of 1273 (539638)
12-17-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
As I suspected, I wasn't following your argument properly.
I had the idea, when reading your comments about Mount Rushmore, that you were talking about some hypothetical future edifice, once the sharp edges and tool marks had eroded away and the various plaques decribing its construction and tour guides yammering on about it were gone. Someone standing off in the distance could still see several big heads, but there would probably also be people who argued that it was just an illusion formed by natural processes, the way they do when Elvis appears on a burnt pop-tart, for example.
In such a case we ought to be able to go in there and do some science and settle the question as to which view was true, and I had the idea that you were saying that this was similar to the science Dembski was describing in relation to biological systems. You were making more sense to me than you ever had before.
But now I see that this was all in my head. You were talking about the actual Mount Rushmore we have right now! As with the Rosetta stone, the main point of your argument is that inferring design has nothing to do with an opinion about who the designer might be, it could be Charlton Heston or Mork or whoever. This is part of the wedge strategy: religious interpretations being forbidden in public education due to the separation of church and state, the question of who the alleged designer may be must be left open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 4:26 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 5:02 AM Iblis has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 130 of 1273 (539650)
12-18-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by PaulK
12-17-2009 5:02 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Which isn't relevant to structural uses of proteins.
The only problem is that it is the most important thing. The enzymatic activity obviously depends on the structure of enzymes.
quote:
That point, too is dealt with in TDI.
Of course if you tried to calculate the complexity without taking the lagorithm into account you might make just that mistake. Like for instance calculating the complexity of a biological structure on the basis of random assembly, ignoring the fact that - in reality - it grew.
Agaon, wrong. Growth has nothing to do with it. There is an X number of genes needed for ANY single trait on any single living organism. They all grow. Growth has nothing to do with reducing complexity, the information is still there, before, and after the growth.
Human eye is coded by X number of genes before and after it has grown. The amount of information is always the same.
quote:
To find that out it's no good just looking at a flagellum without thinking about how it grows.
Wrong, it's irrelevant. We are not interested at how it works. It's irrelevant to us. Every single body part on the human body grows, so what?
quote:
No. You need to gather the data you need to measure the information before you measure the information.
The data is already gathered. We need 50 proteins to build a flagellum.
quote:
Unfortuantely the information measure is based on the (possible) ways that a flagellum could form - not on ignoring the way that it DID form and assuming that random formation is the only alternative to design.
It is irrelevant how it is formed. The flgellum forming by random chance, or bacteria growing it has the same problem of accounting for the information contained in 50 proteins. We need to account for where the information in those 50 proteins came from. Regardles of how a flagellum comes about.
quote:
I already have.
Cite me the part where you explained it.
quote:
Really ? Please produce the specification and explain why it only covers the E Coli flagellum and not all the others out there.
Flagellum's specification is defined as: "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", and it consists of 50 proteins. Any other flagellum that does not match this pattern or complexity is irrelevant to us, becasue than we would be dealing with another case of CSI.
quote:
This is why TDI is better than NFL. NFL gives you a hopelessly inaccurate view of CSI.
What are you talking about? TDI defines the design inference process the same way as in NFL.
quote:
To calculate the complexity you need to know the probability of meeting the specification considering ALL POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS,. Ignoring possible explanations is going against the method and just asking for false positives.
Yes, and that's how it's explained in NFL too.
quote:
Which means looking into the probability of the mechanisms involved in the growth forming - including through evolution. A bit hard to do that without finding out what those mechanisms actually are.
Meaningless. You still have to account for the existance of the information of exactly 50 proteins. Regardless of it forming by chance or growing. You still have to account for those 50 proteins.
quote:
The fact that the real fitness landscape doesn't look like the typical random landscape of NFL and is therefore more amenable to incremental searches.
You are simply saying it! Show me the evidence that it actually works.
quote:
No, I didn't. I said that it isn't a problem in general. And the paper doesn't show that it is.
Yes it is problem in general! Why wouldn't it be? Why are human genomes special? What you are basicly saying is that ONLY tested animal experience genetic entropy, and ALL OTHERS do not! Explain why ALL OTHER animals have special genomes that do not deteriorate.
quote:
Well you can't prove that by looking at a paper specifically about SMALL populations.
What the hell does "small" mean anyway? Something that is small is small in relation to something larger than itself and large in relation to something smaller than itself.
The point of the papaer is that smaller populations will experience genetic entropy faster than larger ones. And that goes for ALL species. Are you saying that the scientists should ahve tested ALL species on the face of the Earth before you would be convinced that all genomes are deteriorating?
The smaller populations will deteriorate more quickyl, the larger ones slowly. This goes for everyone. Including people.
quote:
But that is where natural selection (and recombination) come in. There are factors working against the accumulation of bad mutations
Didn't you just read what I wrote? Do you simply type in whatever pops into your mind!? Do you understand English language?
NATURAL SELECTION CAN'T HELP YOU!!!
Natural selection selects between MORE AND LESS MUTATED! It doesn't select between mutated and non-mutated. Do you understand what that means? It means that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on teh palnet is a mutant and has both deleterious and beneficial mutations. So when sellection occures, those that get selected still pass on their deleterious mutations and this is the cause of accumulation of deleterious mutation in populations!
The only way you could save a population is to pick out every single nucleotide. But natural selection doesn't do that. Natural selectionw orks on the level of the whole genome. Either the whole genome gets passed on or it doesn't. Individual nucleotides DO NOT get selected out. And that is why slightly deleterious mutations accumulate.
quote:
Then you are misunderstanding the point you are trying to argue against.
What exactly did I misunderstand?
quote:
If that is your understanding of the point I am trying to make then I strongly suggest that you read more carefully.
No need to because you are making no sense.
quote:
So a method that leaves background knowledge out IS missing something that is useful in design detection ?
And which method would that be?
quote:
In your last post. I even quoted it.
And I told you that that is not what I meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2009 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2009 6:06 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 131 of 1273 (539651)
12-18-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tanndarr
12-17-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Design of the Rosetta Stone
quote:
The generalization that it took intelligence to create the stone is true, but you can only stop there by willfully ignoring the remaining evidence that tells us humans created the Rosetta Stone.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm merely saying that it's an assumptions that humans made it. Because it could ahve been a trained monkey that chiseled that stone. We only assume humans did it. Yes, it's the best possible inference, but I just want to point out that when we are dealing with a design inference we can not reliably say who did it.
quote:
The Rosetta Stone isn't the only evidence we have. There are hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of other documents and inscriptions in the languages of the Rosetta Stone, many of them including pictures showing humans writing and carving inscriptions on stone. In other words we have lots of corroborating evidence that humans make things like the Rosetta Stone and none that aliens do.
True, which makes it the best possible explanation for the Rosetta Stone to be a human product. But that still does not exclude a trained monkey or an alien as possible designers of that stone. Unlike the natural forces which we excluded fromt he start and called that rock designed in the first place.
Becasue people, monkies and hypothetical aliens are all intelligent, yet natural forces are not. So we instantly made a design inference without knowing the identity of the designer, and excluded natural forces from being an explanation.
quote:
An inference that ignores any available evidence is likely to be less precise than one that uses all the evidence. Don't you agree?
Yes, but I said, to infer design, you do not need to know the identity of the designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tanndarr, posted 12-17-2009 6:54 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Tanndarr, posted 12-19-2009 9:18 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 132 of 1273 (539652)
12-18-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Iblis
12-17-2009 8:08 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
But now I see that this was all in my head. You were talking about the actual Mount Rushmore we have right now! As with the Rosetta stone, the main point of your argument is that inferring design has nothing to do with an opinion about who the designer might be, it could be Charlton Heston or Mork or whoever. This is part of the wedge strategy: religious interpretations being forbidden in public education due to the separation of church and state, the question of who the alleged designer may be must be left open.
Yes, that's it. We do not know who the designer is, of anything we didn't see get designed. And it's useless to talk about it if we are only concerned with the detection of design. Someone who is concerned about the identity of the designer, may very well look into it, but ID is not concerned with that.
Like I said before, if you were walking down the street and came across a piece of paper that had "Mark wrote this" written on it. You would not be able to say that that piece of paper was actually not written by a person named John. Design inference simply does not tell us reliably teh identity of the designer.
Imagine if that piece of paper had written on it: "This was written by George Washington, the first president of the United States."
Any sane person on the face of the Earth would conclude that that writing on that piece of paper was a product of intelligence. It was designed, no mistake about it. But, the same sane person would not conclude that it was done by George Washington, because he is obviously dead for quite some time now. Therefore, all talk about the identity of the designer, from looking at the design itself is meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Iblis, posted 12-17-2009 8:08 PM Iblis has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 1273 (539653)
12-18-2009 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
Than you do see how the same applies for the Rosetta Stone?
Yes. However, no one is claiming that it is absolutely certain it was made by humans. It is however the most likely scenario, there is no evidence that it's origin is anything else but human.
Very unlikely, but yes, it could have. Not only that but it could have just happened by chance. Like you belive that self replicating machinery does.
I don't believe self replicating machinery happens by chance alone.
Exactly. And that's called the inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is that a human intelligence did it. But if we are going to go into more general terms, an intelligence did it.
No, my hippo isn;t intelligent.
Since we do not know which. That humans did it, is after all an assumption.
An assumption based on all the available evidence. And untill evidence shows up that points to something else, that is what we'll go with.
But nevertheless, even thoug we do not actually know who designed the Rosetta Stone, a design inference was made. That is the main point to remember.
Because we know things like this are designed by humans.
Yes, but let's be more general.
Why?
What we see on the Rosetta stone is information. And we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information.
We know human intelligence creates information. We also know a whole bunch of other unintelligent things create information.
Therefore, we infer design from the Rosetta stone.
We infer human design, becuase we know humans create things like that.
And we do the same for DNA because it's information as well.
No. We know of no intelligence that would create DNA as information. Therefore we do not infer intelligence.
And as I said before, since we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information, we infer the Rosetta Stone, and DNA is designed.
No, since again, we don't know of any intelligence that would create DNA. Your analogy is false.
So you agree with me that we do not need to know who the designer was to infer design?
Not personally. But we must have evidence of the designer existing. Like we do with the rossetta stone. We know jumans exist, we know they use language and we know they write it in stone. We know nothing of your DNA making designer, if there even is such a thing.
You infered the Rosetta stone was designed because people write letters. To put it into more general terms, people use intelligence when they write and that's how they create information.
Yes. Now, what do we know of the DNA designer?
So here is my reasoning. Since we know that when intelligence acts, information is created, I infer that whan we find information we found design.
Wrong. First we need to know what this intelligence is that creates such information. Without that we have no way of knowing if it is indeed a product of intelligence.
So, when we find something like the Rosetta stone, we found something that was designed. The same goes for any information including DNA. The best explanation is that it was designed.
No it isn't. The best explanation is that untill we have an intelligence capable of designing DNA, we infer it doesn't need an intelligence.
I just explained it above. Life is based on DNA. DNA is information. Intelligence creates information. Therefore, we infer life was designed.
Wrong. Untill we have the designer, we infer nothing of the sort.
Where is the evidnece life can come about naturally?
We're working on it. Think again of my first sentence, it is the most likely scenario that it arose naturally, since we have absolutely no evidence of a DNA desigenr. So, where is your evidence for this DNA designer? Untill you provide that, we can ignore that as a possibility, because it needlessly complicates things.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 11:45 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:39 AM Huntard has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 134 of 1273 (539657)
12-18-2009 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Huntard
12-18-2009 5:15 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Yes. However, no one is claiming that it is absolutely certain it was made by humans. It is however the most likely scenario, there is no evidence that it's origin is anything else but human.
Exactly. Design inference was made without knowing the identity of the designer. The best possible explanation is that it was humans. But still, it's an assumption.
quote:
I don't believe self replicating machinery happens by chance alone.
What else was there?
quote:
No, my hippo isn;t intelligent.
What does that have to do with the statement that generalization of human designing action is intelligent action?
quote:
An assumption based on all the available evidence. And untill evidence shows up that points to something else, that is what we'll go with.
That's true. The point remains that we inferred design without teh identity of the designer.
quote:
Because we know things like this are designed by humans.
Exactly! And again, to say it in more general ways, we know information is created by intelligence.
quote:
Why?
So we can infer design without knowing the identity of the designer.
quote:
We infer human design, becuase we know humans create things like that.
That is an assumption. We do not need to make that assumption if we are more general and we just say that an intellignece made that stone.
quote:
No. We know of no intelligence that would create DNA as information. Therefore we do not infer intelligence.
We don't kave to know an intelligence that would create DNA. In general DNA is information. Intelligence creates information, therefore the best explanation is that DNA was created by an intelligence.
quote:
No, since again, we don't know of any intelligence that would create DNA. Your analogy is false.
We do not need to know that! We don't know any intelligence that made the Rosetta Stone either. You say people write on stone slabs. That is true, but do you know any intelligence that actually made the Rosetta stone? No you don't. Therefore, you can't say Rosetta stone is designed.
quote:
Not personally. But we must have evidence of the designer existing. Like we do with the rossetta stone. We know jumans exist, we know they use language and we know they write it in stone. We know nothing of your DNA making designer, if there even is such a thing.
We do not need to know that. Because design is evidence for a desginer in the first place.
quote:
Yes. Now, what do we know of the DNA designer?
Nothing except that it was intelligent. We do not know anything about the designer of the Rosetta stone. You simply assume it was human. Let's grant the idea that it was. So what? That's not an identity. Saying a human did it is not an identity. The identity would be to know the individual, or individuals that did it. But you do not know that.
In other words you are generalizing, adn saying it was designed by humans. I am doing the same thing, only I'm generalizing even more.
quote:
Wrong. First we need to know what this intelligence is that creates such information. Without that we have no way of knowing if it is indeed a product of intelligence.
No we don't. You don't know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone. Saying it was a human is not an identiy. The name of the person is the identity. You generalize and say it was a human. I do the SAME THING and generalize even more and say it was an intelligence.
Imagine a murder case. If you want to find out if a person died by a natural cause or it was murdered, and you want to accuse someone, you can't just say that the person was killed by a human. You need to identify the person who killed the dead person. You need the identiy, not just say it was a human.
The point still remains that you can infer that a person was killed without knowing teh identiy.
quote:
No it isn't. The best explanation is that untill we have an intelligence capable of designing DNA, we infer it doesn't need an intelligence.
But it has marks of design. And since design has for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
quote:
Wrong. Untill we have the designer, we infer nothing of the sort.
Therefore you can't infer design of the Rosetta stone becasue you do not know teh identity of the designer. Human did it is not an answer.
quote:
We're working on it.
So you have no evidence?
quote:
Think again of my first sentence, it is the most likely scenario that it arose naturally, since we have absolutely no evidence of a DNA desigenr.
Non sequitur. Absence of evidence for one hypothesis is not evidence for another. But in this case we have evidence for one hypothesis. The marks of design in DNA have for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
quote:
So, where is your evidence for this DNA designer?
Design implies a designer.
quote:
Untill you provide that, we can ignore that as a possibility, because it needlessly complicates things.
No, you can't ignore it because I said already that you do not need to know the identity of the designer to infer design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 5:15 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 8:34 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 135 of 1273 (539658)
12-18-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 6:39 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
Exactly. Design inference was made without knowing the identity of the designer. The best possible explanation is that it was humans. But still, it's an assumption.
It's an inference made on the available evidence. We know humans use writing, we know they write in stones. We don' know of anything else that uses writing or writes in stones, ergo, we conclude it was made by humnas. And until other evidence is presented, that will be the explanation.
What else was there?
Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance.
What does that have to do with the statement that generalization of human designing action is intelligent action?
You didn't say that, you said the stone was made by an intelligence. My hippo isn't intelligent.
That's true. The point remains that we inferred design without teh identity of the designer.
Because we have evidence pointing to a likely cause of that intelligence. We have no such vidence for DNA.
Exactly! And again, to say it in more general ways, we know information is created by intelligence.
We know information is created by unintelligent things as well. A bird building a nest is creating onformation.
So we can infer design without knowing the identity of the designer.
the exact identity perhaps, but not the general characteristics of the designer. We can't do any such things for your designer. We know absolutely nothing about him, let alone if he exists at all.
That is an assumption.
Based upon all the available evidence.
We do not need to make that assumption if we are more general and we just say that an intellignece made that stone.
But why ignore evidence to do that?
We don't kave to know an intelligence that would create DNA.
Yes we do, actually. Why else bring it up?
In general DNA is information.
So is a bird's nest.
Intelligence creates information, therefore the best explanation is that DNA was created by an intelligence.
There is plenty information created without intelligence. You even admitted it when you said that the stone could be pooped out by a hippo with three horns on its butt. That's not an intelligent cause for the stone.
We do not need to know that!
Yes we do.
We don't know any intelligence that made the Rosetta Stone either.
Of course we do, mankind. At least, all evidence points to that.
You say people write on stone slabs. That is true, but do you know any intelligence that actually made the Rosetta stone? No you don't.
know it? No. Infer it from all the available evidence? Yes.
Therefore, you can't say Rosetta stone is designed.
Then by extension, you can't say DNA is either. Thank you for disproving your own point.
We do not need to know that. Because design is evidence for a desginer in the first place.
If we know it is designed, yes. Do we know this? No.
Nothing except that it was intelligent.
We don't even know that. For by your own admission, information (the rosetta stone) can be created by unintelligent things (my hippo).
We don't know any intelligence that made the Rosetta Stone either.
No, but we infer it from the evidence.
You simply assume it was human.
I infer it was human, untill more evidence contradicting that is presented. Just like I infer DNA is natural until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Let's grant the idea that it was. So what? That's not an identity. Saying a human did it is not an identity. The identity would be to know the individual, or individuals that did it. But you do not know that.
But you know the characteristics of the individual. You know absolutely nothing about your desigenr, if he even exists at all.
In other words you are generalizing, adn saying it was designed by humans. I am doing the same thing, only I'm generalizing even more.
Ignoring evidence, and adding unnecesary things in the process.
No we don't. You don't know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone.
I infer from the evidence the characteristics he would have had.
Saying it was a human is not an identiy.
It is a set of chracteristics.
The name of the person is the identity. You generalize and say it was a human. I do the SAME THING and generalize even more and say it was an intelligence.
That's not the same thing. You ignore evidence.
Imagine a murder case. If you want to find out if a person died by a natural cause or it was murdered, and you want to accuse someone, you can't just say that the person was killed by a human. You need to identify the person who killed the dead person. You need the identiy, not just say it was a human.
Not all mureder cases are solved, you know. It all depends on the available evidence. Same with the stone. All evidence points to a human origin. Now wth DNA absolutely nothing points to an unnatural cause.
The point still remains that you can infer that a person was killed without knowing teh identiy.
Yes. Because of the evidence, and because we know humans kill other humans.
But it has marks of design.
No it doesn't.
And since design has for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
Circular reasoning. You want it to be designed, therfore say it is, and then say it requires a designer.
Therefore you can't infer design of the Rosetta stone becasue you do not know teh identity of the designer. Human did it is not an answer.
And again you disprove yourself. If this is true for me, then the same is true for you.
So you have no evidence?
We have clues pointing us in the direction of natural causes. While we have no evidence pointing in any other direction.
Non sequitur. Absence of evidence for one hypothesis is not evidence for another.
Exactly... This is true for you as well... Again, thank you.
But in this case we have evidence for one hypothesis.
We do indeed. Everything points to a natural cause.
The marks of design in DNA have for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
There are no marks of design in DNA.
Design implies a designer.
Then you have to know it is designed, something you already admitted you do not. And in fact, you admitted things that appear designed (the rosetta stone) can be created wothout any design in mind (my hippo).
No, you can't ignore it because I said already that you do not need to know the identity of the designer to infer design.
You need to know characteristics of the designer though. Which you admittedly don't know anything about.
{ABE}: Anyway. We can fill entire books about this subject. That has however become completely unnecessary because you admitted that things that you think look designed (the roseta stone) can be created by a completely designless and unintelligent process (the pooping of my hippo), or indeed, even by chance alone. In short, we're done here, you admitted that DNA can arise by pure chance, or by an unintelligent, designless process. In other words, that there is absolutely no ground for claiming it must have been designed. Thank you, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Edited by Huntard, : Added last bit

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:39 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 1:34 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 140 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:58 PM Huntard has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024