What exactly is ID?

Someone debating you ... says that there are no examples of a certain thing ... and you reply by asking him to provide an example ... of the thing that he says doesn't exist.This is ... odd.

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.

DNA evolved because of the marks of evolution it exhibits, not because I say so. But keep in mind that when I say "information" I mean genetic information, which can be produced by evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

An interesting concession. Oh good grief.Read a biology textbook. Well, in the light of the fact that this doesn't actually happen (except perhaps for really tiny populations) it does indeed sound like we should ignore papers purporting to prove that it ought to. Or mock them. If I say; "Complex Specified Elephants are flurble wurble woo-bing spong", then is that a definition of elephants? After all, the full name is "Complex Specified Elephants". Why the hell would anyone debate with me if they were so clueless about the topic as to deny that that's a definition of elephants?

Good grief.I too am beginning to wonder if English is your first language.

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

1: Introduction to Optimization ProblemsSuppose you have a set of options (call this set X), and suppose that there is a function f (the fitness function) which, for any x which is a member of X, will assign it a numerical value.Suppose that you want to find the member x^* of X such that f(x^*) gives the highest value; and you are allowed to go about this by trying out various values of x and seeing what f(x) is; and you try to use the information you gather in this way to locate x^* (which we shall call the optimum).To be certain that you had found x^* you would have to examine the value of f(x) for every x in X --- that is, you would have to perform a "brute force search" of X. In most cases, this is not practical, because of the size of X; and in the end it turns out to be more economical to look at only certain choices of x, saving valuable time but risking ending up with a suboptimal solution which has a fitness reasonably close to the optimum.Now, (excluding for the effort your algorithm puts into choosing the values of x to examine) the computational cost of your algorithm will depend on the number of cases you examine. If you calculate f(x) for n different choices of x, then we may call this a search algorithm of order n. 2. Random SearchIn a random search of order n, you randomly pick n members of X (call them x₁ ... x_n, calculate the values f(x₁) ... f(x_n), and then pick as your answer that member of x₁ ... x_n which yields the highest value of f.This is not at all a bad way to do a search: for, by elementary probability theory, the expected result is that your solution will lie in the top 1/n^th of X. If n is a hundred, for example, then your solution will (on average) lie (just) in the top percentile of the possible solutions in the whole set X.This very efficient search technique might well put you in mind of evolution, depending as it does on random variation plus selection of the fittest. However, you will note one difference: all the variation is produced in just one "generation", followed by one massive act of selection that culls all but one winner. In that respect it is more like the adaptive immune system --- indeed, the immune system is a natural instance of a random search algorithm, and shows just how effective this technique can be when n is reasonably large. 3. No Free LunchNow, you might contemplate coming up with some cleverer algorithm than that: something which, for the same value of n, will (on average) produce a better solution. This is possible: but only if it happens that f has a structure for which your algorithm is a good fit.Let's take a simple example. Suppose that X is the numbers from one to a million, and suppose that you happen to know that f is drawn from those functions on X such that f(x) = 0 when x is even and such that f(x) > 0 when x is odd. Then armed with that knowledge, you can perform a search which only looks at the odd values of x (and which is otherwise a random search).As we have already noted, a random search of order n will (on average) produce a result in the top 1/n^th of X. But this new and cleverer search, if it has order n, will produce a result in the top 1/2n^th of X.On the other hand, suppose you applied this search technique to a function f which was the other way round --- such that f(x) = 0 when x is odd and such that f(x) > 0 when x is even. Well, then it would produce simply awful results, for its best candidate would have a fitness of 0. And suppose that you applied it to a function f such that the values of f(x) were random with respect to X, then it would on average produce result which were no better or worse than a random search.This simple example illustrates the essence of the No Free Lunch Theorem. If a certain search technique is better than random search when applied to one sort of fitness function, then there must be another sort of fitness function for which it performs worse than random search. There can be no search algorithm of order n which performs better than a random search of order n for every fitness function. 4. Creationist Blunders, Part #1The major creationist blunder concerning this subject comes in two parts.First, they maintain that since the evolutionary process was not designed to be well-suited to the fitness function that it optimizes, therefore it can't be well-suited to this optimization problem.But of course it can: and on the face of it it seems that it is: for evolution works by taking small steps away from existing organisms which were already fit enough to reproduce. Now, it so happens that organisms with similar genomes have similar levels of biological fitness. This procedure therefore at least gives us a strong probability that any given genome in each generation will describe a viable organism, which has evident advantages when you consider the vast proportion of potential genomes that don't describe a viable organism. The evolutionary method of sticking close to what worked in the previous generation might therefore be considered well-suited to the task at hand.We may note in this connection that evolutionary algorithms have been highly successful in solving other problems for which they were definitely not designed, from computer programming to architectural design to the design of electronic circuits. Evolution simply happens to be a good method for tackling the sort of problems that occur in the real world. It would be no better than a random search --- indeed, it is practically guaranteed to be worse --- if it was applied to a random fitness function, but it happens that the sort of fitness functions relevant to the real world are not random.However, creationist maintain that as no-one designed it to be good at solving biological problems (or, for that matter, architectural problems) therefore it mustn't be well-suited to such tasks. (Explaining how something which is obviously true in practice can't be true in principle is one of the quaintest of creationist customs.)Therefore, they conclude, evolutionary processes can't be better than a random search at optimizing biological fitness. The argument seems to be that as the evolutionary method wasn't chosen to be well-suited to the fitness functions, therefore it isn't well-suited to this task, and therefore the fitness functions can be regarded as random with respect to the method. 5. Creationist Blunders, Part #2This brings us on to the second, and even more ridiculous, aspect of the creationist blunder. For it seems that when the typical creationist gets some half-digested notion of the No Free Lunch Theorem into his head, what he understands by "random search" is a search which produces an entirely random member of the set X --- that is, a random search of order 1!But what the No Free Lunch Theorem actually tells us is that, applied to a randomly chosen task, an evolutionary algorithm will be no better (on average) than a random search of the same order. Now, the order of the search is just the number of samples that have been made of the set of all genomes, or, to put it more simply, the order of the evolutionary search so far is the total number of organisms that have ever lived.It is hard to put a figure or even an order of magnitude on this: however, if you consider the facts that there are an estimated 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria alone living today, that they are thought to have been around for 3,000,000,000 years or so, and that they reproduce about once every three days, you begin to get a feel for the hugeness of the figures.On the basis of these figures alone, one would expect a random search of that order to produce as its optimal candidate an organism somewhere in the top tredecillionth of all possible organisms: a degree of perfection that would make an engineer weep. If creationists wish to claim that evolution could do no better than that, let them make the most of it.Creationists wish to denigrate the efficiency of evolutionary mechanisms by comparing them to a random search algorithm. It is worth restating that a random search is very effective. In fact, the No Free Lunch Theorem shows that, on average, there is nothing better. As we have remarked, the adaptive immune system is based on a random search, and one of a much smaller order than one comparable to evolution. Yet this random search produces lymphocytes which appear tailor-made to target specific diseases: doubtless if we had no idea of the mechanism by which they formed, creationists would suppose that a measles-specific lymphocyte was designed to combat measles, and William Dembski would be touting it as an example of Complex Specified Information. 6. Written In JelloThe No Free Lunch Theorem is the brainchild of mathematicians David Wolpert and William Macready. Wolpert has trenchantly criticized William Dembski for his vague blather about Wolpert's theorem in an article entitled ""William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is Written in Jello".One might indeed wonder what the purpose of these vague, imprecise, and fataly flawed arguments can be. They seem to serve several purposes in the creationist movement.First, they give the impression that creationists are at least trying to engage in some sort of science. Why, they even got no less a luminary than David Wolpert, the discoverer of the No Free Lunch Theorem, to disagree with them about what it means! If this seems like a trivial victory, or even a humiliating defeat, remember that during the Dover Panda Trial creationists insisted that Intelligent Design must be a real scientific idea because real scientists had debated with them.Second, it gives the creationist-in-the-street something else to be wrong about. You might think that they have enough to be wrong about, but they can always use more; and the more abstruse it is, the better. They often find themselves in the hopeless position of arguing about biology with people who know about biology, and this is never going to go well for them. How much better if they can argue on a subject about which the average biologist knows no more than they do. Ignorance on both sides levels the playing field. This also accounts for the former popularity of their gibberish about the Second Law of Thermodynamics: but as this has become a standing joke, they need something new.And, related to the previous point, it relieves them from even having to think about biology. The question that a sensible person would ask is whether the mechanisms of evolution can really do all that has been attributed to them, which would involve looking at the reality of mutation, selection, genetic drift, and so forth. This makes creationists uncomfortable --- as well it might. Their avoidance of the words "natural selection" in particular amount to a phobia.Their nonsense about the No Free Lunch Theorem allows them to place a comforting level of abstraction between themselves and reality, for then all their discourse about the theory of evolution can refer only to three very abstract facts about it: it behaves like an optimization algorithm; it is claimed to have produced some degree of optimization; and no-one designed it to do so. They can then ignore all the facts about natural selection, mutation, and all the pesky observations of the real world which so distress and vex them.

I was actually just parodying your style of argument by unsupported assertion. However, since you ask, vestigial genes would be a good place to start. Or the structure of human chromosome 2. Again, I was indulging in parody. However, since you ask, the evidence lies in direct observation of evolution in laboratories. And then of course there's the laws of genetics ... Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you problems? Quite. And Dembski ... well, "elaborated" would be quite a good word for what he has done. But one cannot say that this has resulted in any sort of operative definition. No. My inquiry was prompted by your ludicrous failure to understand PaulK.Might I suggest that, if English is not your first language, you should take extra-special care to ensure that you really do understand what people are saying before laughing at it for being absurd. Only it might be, as in this case, that the absurdity lies solely in your own incomprehension.

Which is why I quoted him talking specifically creationist nonsense. In what way is that "cherry-picking"? Do you maintain that I'm misrepresenting his views? If so, please supply a teensy-weensy bit of evidence of your own. I supplied actual quotations from Hitler. You just made stuff up in that wonderful way creationists have.Everything I've read him say on the subject demonstrates him to be firmly creationist and in denial of any evolution at all except the "microevolution" that creationists say they believe in.Let's have another Hitler quote, shall we?"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed." --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. You had a point?

Yes. Specifically, how do you measure the quantity of CSI present in a given object. Now you see that's cherry-picking.Let's have a look at a couple of the sentences you missed out: "The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical—chemical world."Does that sound to you like something the Discovery Institute would subscribe to? No? No, it doesn't look much like one of their manifestos to me, either. And yet you say that the article looks like it could have come from them. No. A couple of sentences taken out of context look vaguely like something they might say.Have you actually read the whole article, or did you just settle for cherry-picking the abstract?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Quite so --- no legitimate court of law would have accepted your unevidenced allegation that "the Nazis had their roots in Darwinism" without also taking into account my presentation of the hard evidence showing that this was rubbish.So now people reading this thread can see both sides of the argument, and can see that one side rests on evidence and the other side on stuff you've made up.

You did, in fact, omit those sentences, because they wreck your assertion that the article sounds like it could have come from the Discovery Institute. Oh look, we've got back on topic."The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created."" --- Phillip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement, foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory." --- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

I suggested that you were cherry-picking. Which is the same as you said about me, and with less justification. But this seems to conflate two different issues. The notion that life on Earth originated somewhere else and then evolved on Earth to its present diversity (transspermia) is quite different from the proposition that life didn't evolve at all but was specially designed by hyperintelligent aliens.---Incidentally, why they classify Frederick Hoyle as coming from "the world of evolutionary biology" is beyond me. He was an astronomer and he hated evolution. In fact, many of the most popular creationist arguments originated with him. "747 in a junkyard", anyone? "Mutations can't increase information" --- ring any bells? "Archaeopteryx is a fake" --- ever come across that one?--- I don't think it is. Like any other of our major scientific concepts, it's open to examination and challenge. Atheism, certainly. But to call ID a "philosophy" is to accord it a dignity that it does not in fact possess.

Well, this raises a in interesting point.Consider this apple: How do you suppose it came into existence? Well, of course you think it grew on an apple tree.But you didn't see it grow on an apple tree, did you? And you must admit that it could just have been poofed into existence by God for mysterious reasons of his own, couldn't it?Let us admit the philosophical possibility. Nonetheless, the two propositions --- that it grew on an apple tree and that God magicked it into existence can't seem equally good even to the most devout theist. You should prefer the naturalistic explanation, because there is a naturalistic explanation. If you actually saw apples poofing into existence out of nothing, then you would have grounds to seek a supernatural explanation.Now, how does this apply to the sciences that vex creationists? Consider geology, since you brought it up. The reason that we should prefer an actualist explanation is that one exists. Everything in the geological record looks like it was formed by actual processes. Chalk looks like it was formed from coccoliths --- if you look at it through a microscope, you can see the coccoliths! Aeolian sandstone looks exactly like lithified aeolian sand. Flaser deposits look exactly like the deposits that the tide forms on certain beaches. Glacial till looks exactly like the till we can see being deposited by modern glaciers. Turbidites look just like they were deposited by turbidity currents. Coal looks just like compacted peat. And so forth, I think I've labored the point enough.Everything in the geological record looks like the product of actual geological processes, just like the apple looks just like those things that grow on apple trees. What are we meant to make of this?Well, back in the nineteenth century, when this was becoming apparent, a chap called Philip Gosse, who combined Biblical literalism with a knowledge of geology that became painful to him, wrote a book called Omphalos, the theme of which was that the Earth was in fact only 6,000 years old, but that God had created it to look as though the geological record had been formed by the slow action of actual geological processes.Now, in a way you can't argue with that. He could have done, he's God, he moves in mysterious ways. He could have done that just as he could have poofed the apple into existence, complete with what looks exactly like an apple leaf still attached to it.But, as in the case of the apple, one cannot regard the two hypotheses --- actualism and Omphalos --- as being equally acceptable, even if one believes devoutly in an omnipotent God possessed of supernatural powers. We should have to abandon actualism if we had positive evidence for the supernatural, some geological equivalent of watching apples poof into existence. But we don't. So we have to see actualism as superior, and follow wherever it takes us.If we abandon this way of thinking, we abandon science and knowledge altogether. How could one even make a statement such as "the sky is blue today" --- it might be green with pink spots, and God might be using his supernatural powers to make it look blue.

You might as well complain that since the theory of gravity explains both why the book I just dropped fell to the ground and why the Moon doesn't, it's "useless" and a "cop-out".If you really don't understand what the theory of evolution has to say about vestigial genes, then have a look for my recent posts on the subject. It's off-topic here though.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.