What exactly is 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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance.

---

So you are saying that regularity (chemistry and physics) + chance = self replicating machinery?

quote:

---

You didn't say that, you said the stone was made by an intelligence. My hippo isn't intelligent.

---

Which would make us think it didn't make that stone...

quote:

---

Because we have evidence pointing to a likely cause of that intelligence. We have no such vidence for DNA.

---

The likely cause was an intelligence in both causes.

quote:

---

We know information is created by unintelligent things as well. A bird building a nest is creating onformation.

---

Birds are intelligent. Nut much, but they are intelligent.

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly, we do not know anything about him, neither are we interested while detecting design.

quote:

---

But why ignore evidence to do that?

---

I'm not ignoring any evidence. We do not know the identity of the designer of the DNA in living beings. I'm not ignoring anything.

quote:

---

Yes we do, actually. Why else bring it up?

---

That's like saying we have to know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone. And now you will say that we do know that people make things like Rosetta stone.And again, I will point out to you that that is the same thing I am saying when I say that DNA is designed. ONLY IN MORE GENERAL TERMS!!!!Please try to understand that. If you are not able to grasp this simple concept, than please take a look at this picture I made for you. We have two large grey circels. The left circle represents intelligence, the right circle represents information. The black arrow represents a relation that shows that intelligence produces information.Inside each of those large circles we have smaller circles. Small blue circles represent possible candidates that could be intelligent designers. Among those are: Humans, aliens, God, animals, and other unknow intelligent agents... They are enteties that have, or are thought to have intelligence and are capeable of creating information. All these enteties are a subset of the large circle which is intelligence.In the right large circle we have smaller red circles which represent instances of design. Among which are: Books, CDs, DNA, images, and others... All these items in red circels are information, and are thus a subset of the large grey circle. This means they are all a product of intelligence.In other words since intelligence creates information, any of those red circels, which are instances of design, are created by a possible candidate in the blue circle. For instance, humans create books. It is equally valid to say that:"HUMANS CREATE BOOKS"and to say:"INTELLIGENCE CREATES INFORMATION"or"INTELLIGENCE CREATES BOOKS"ALL three statements are true. The only difference is that the second and third are more general. Since humans are a subset of intelligence, and books are a subset of information.In the case of DNA it is equally valid to say that:"UNKNOWN DESIGNER CREATED DNA"and to say that:"INTELLIGENCE CREATED DNA"Because we know that an unknown designer is a subset of intellignece, and DNA is a subset of information.

quote:

---

So is a bird's nest.

---

Exactly. That is why a bird is the designer.

quote:

---

Yes we do.

---

Why?

quote:

---

Of course we do, mankind.

---

No. That is not an identity. That is a generalization. Mankind is not an identity. The name of the individual who made the stone is the identity. Saying intelligence made the Rosetta stone is the same generalization only on an even more broader level.

quote:

---

At least, all evidence points to that.

---

No. No evidence points to it. You are simply assuming it.

quote:

---

know it? No. Infer it from all the available evidence? Yes.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

Then by extension, you can't say DNA is either. Thank you for disproving your own point.

---

I'm trying to show you how wrong your argument is. I only said that to show you that it's invalid. Obviously I do not agree with that reasoning.

quote:

---

If we know it is designed, yes. Do we know this? No.

---

That is why we have the method of design detection which tells us if it is designed or not.

quote:

---

We don't even know that. For by your own admission, information (the rosetta stone) can be created by unintelligent things (my hippo).

---

Philosophically speaking yes. But scientifically no. Therefore, Rosetta stone could not have been made by your hippo. It's are reasonable as saying that your hippo made all life on Earth.

quote:

---

No, but we infer it from the evidence.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

I infer it was human, untill more evidence contradicting that is presented.

---

Infer based on what?

quote:

---

Just like I infer DNA is natural until evidence to the contrary is presented.

---

But no natural law has created anything like DNA, so why would you infer DNA was a natural product?

quote:

---

But you know the characteristics of the individual. You know absolutely nothing about your desigenr, if he even exists at all.

---

Tell em the characteristics of the person or persons who made the Rosetta stone. Was it a male or a female?

quote:

---

Ignoring evidence, and adding unnecesary things in the process.

---

No. You are wrong twice in the same statement.I'm ignoring no evidence. Since there is no evidence that DNA can form naturally. And you do not understand the difference between ADDING ENTETIES and GENERALIZATION. You obviously do not know the differnece.By sayign that an intellignece did something, I'm adding nothing new to the explanation. I'm generalizing becasue intelligence is not something new to a human. Human is a subset of an intelligent agent.A lot of possible intelligent agents exist. Humans are just one possible candidate for an explanation. I'm actually reducing my chances of being wrong. Becasue you actually can be wrong in the case of the Rosetta stone being done by humans. Maybe it was a trained moneky. By saying that an intelligence did it I am reducing my chances of being wrong becasue a monkey is a subset of intelligent causes. Therefore if a trained monkey designed the Rosetta stone, you would be wrong, and I would be correct.

quote:

---

I infer from the evidence the characteristics he would have had.

---

Great. Tell me was he/she/it talkative? Was he/she/it tall? Was he/she/it blonde?

quote:

---

It is a set of chracteristics.

---

Yes, but it's still not an identity. It's a generalization. A subset of intellignet causes. So sayign that an intellignece did it is equally valid. It's more general with less chances of being wrong.

quote:

---

That's not the same thing.

---

Why is it not the same thing? Do you not agree that the explanation only differens in the level of generalization?

quote:

---

You ignore evidence.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

Besides the point. The point is that saying that it was human is not the identity. It would not pass in the court of law.

quote:

---

Now wth DNA absolutely nothing points to an unnatural cause.

---

Heh, well, you see, you are actually the one who is ignoring evidence. DNA is full of CSI. And CSI is the mark of intellignece. So yes, DNA does point to an intellignet cause.

quote:

---

No it doesn't.

---

Of course it has. DNA is an instance of CSI. For an example. human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. Which is about 6 billion bits. It's complexity surpasses 10^120. This number is needed for a random chance to specify 400 bits of information. Anything that is above 400 bits is outside of the reach of our entire universe. Not only that but it is specified in that it conforms to an independently given pattern. Therefore, it's a case of specified complexity, or short - CSI. Which is a reliable indicator of design.

quote:

---

Circular reasoning. You want it to be designed, therfore say it is, and then say it requires a designer.

---

It' snot circular, and I do not "want" it to be designed. I'm simply saying that if we find soemthing that is designed, that simply means that there was a designer.

quote:

---

And again you disprove yourself. If this is true for me, then the same is true for you.

---

No, I do not agree with that reasoning, I'm simply showing you how moronic the argument is.

quote:

---

We have clues pointing us in the direction of natural causes.

---

Show me that evidence.

quote:

---

While we have no evidence pointing in any other direction.

---

Yup, we do. CSI is a reliable mark of intellignece. DNA is CSI.

quote:

---

Then you have to know it is designed, something you already admitted you do not.

---

We infer design.

quote:

---

And in fact, you admitted things that appear designed (the rosetta stone) can be created wothout any design in mind (my hippo).

---

Philosophically yes, scientifically no.

quote:

---

You need to know characteristics of the designer though. Which you admittedly don't know anything about.

---

Why would I need to know the characteristics of the designer?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !

---

Than what is?

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you, YOUR measure of complexity CAN be increaded by the processes of growth. That's why Dembski didn't use it in the TDI.

---

No it can't. That's why I said that's not important. the flagellum is coded for by a number of genes, regardless of how it is assembled.

quote:

---

That would be true if we used Dembski's methods as published in TDI.

---

And we are using those methods. Which others do you think we are using?

quote:

---

But you say that's wrong

---

No, I never in my life said that's wrong. Where the hell did I say it's wrong!? Cite me the part where I said that CSI defined in TDI is wrong!

quote:

---

and we should use a method which allows the eye to have more of your "information" than the genes.

---

What? What the hell are you talking about? What is this my "information" you are talking about? You are making absolutely no sense. I already told you the amount of information stays the same.

quote:

---

So Dembski's measure of information isn't relevant ? Why not ?
We are supposedly discussing Dembski's methods here.

---

Dembski's method is correct and relevat. It is your argument from growth that is irrelevant.

quote:

---

That's not even in agreement with NFL ! NFL includes the arrangement of the proteins as part of the calculation.

---

What's your point?

quote:

---

So your claim is based on the assumption that E Coli is the ONLY bacterium with a "bi-directional rotary propellor" ? And that this must contain 50 proteins even though we know that only 49 are needed for function ? I think that your assertion has some problems. At the least you have to look at other flagella to see if they meet the specification or not !

---

No. I gave the possibility of 20% change, which means 20% of increase in probability of the flagellum forming.

quote:

---

So your ideas about how to calculate the complexity DON'T come from NFL and are in direct contradiction to NFL ? Because they completely disagree with TDI !

---

LOL! Show me one statement in NFL that contradicts any statement in TDI.

quote:

---

So in fact you KNOW that your complexity calculation is completely wrong and liable to result in a false positive. Because - as you have just stated - NFL tells you as much,

---

No.

quote:

---

The easiest way to do it yourself. Implement a simple well-behaved landscape and see how well a simple hill-climbing algorithm does at finding the peaks. Then try it with a completely random landscape.

---

No, that would be a designed algorithm. Evolution is supposed to be non-designed.

quote:

---

Likely because humans are using technology to counter the disadvantages of a lot of minor genetic problems.

---

LOOOLOOOOL!I can't believe you said that!!! That just means that natural selection is USELESS!!! And that we need INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION to remove the deleterious mutations from our genomes.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should actually try reading the paper to find out what it means by "small" ?

---

Why don't you tell me since you seem to be so smart.

quote:

---

No, I'm saying that since you disagree with the whole theory (while citing a paper that supports the theory) YOU should provide the evidence.

---

What drugs are you using? I'm the one who gave you the link to that paper. You are the one who is disagreeing witht he paper not me!

quote:

---

I can say it because it's true. Even if you disagree.

---

But you have no evidence for it. Unlike what I showed you. I showed you a paper that has actually done experiments and has shown genetic entropy to casue extinction.

quote:

---

Wrong! Natural selection selects between more and less fit. Those that have deleterious mutations will be less fit (by definition) and thus less likely to pass on their genes. Proportionately deleterious mutations will tend to do less well and beneficial mutations will do better.

---

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS!!!! Which part of ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS do you have hard time of understanding!?Those who are less fit have MORE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!
Those who are "fit" ALSO HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!!ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!! And even if you select the fit ones, their deleterious mutations keep spreading through the population.

quote:

---

That the problem is in using the data that you wish to apply Dembski's method to, to generate the specification. Using other data is fine.

---

This isn't even English!? What's your first language?

quote:

---

Dembski's CSI of course. The method that we are supposedly discussing.

---

CSI is not a method it's a definition of information.

quote:

---

Hi Smooth,

​

Your diagram assumes the point it is trying to make. For example, by putting DNA on the right hand side it assumes that DNA is the product of intelligence.

---

Hi, no it doesn't. DNA is designed becasue of the marks of design it exhibits, not becasue I say so.

quote:

---

Here's a more useful diagram showing some sources and examples of information:

---

This is is a nice diagram and it represents very well Shannon information and it's possible origin. But keep in mind that when I say "information" I mean CSI, which can't be produced by a natural casue. And since DNA exhibits CSI it can only be produced by an intelligence. All those instances of design I showed in my example are examples of CSI and not just Shannon information.

quote:

---

Anything in reality can be a source of information for us, as long as it can in some way be made apparent to our senses.

​

The central claim of ID is that only intelligence can create information, but this is incorrect. All of reality is creating information all the time, and what humans often do is record that information. For example, if you're keeping a weather log and looking out your window write down that it is sunny, you didn't create the information that it is sunny. You merely transformed the information from one form (the sun shining in the sky) to another (written words on paper).

---

That's true for Shannon information only. CSI's source can only be intelligence.

quote:

---

So if the idea that humans made the Rosetta Stone is the best possible inference, then why are you harping on other inferences? If you can ignore evidence in front of you then all things are possible; which is precisely what you are doing. If you think that aliens and monkeys made the Rosetta Stone then go find some evidence...likewise, if you think Bog in his heaven poofed DNA into being then find some evidence. Ignoring the evidence that exists is just willful ignorance. Failing to take inferences as far as evidence allows makes baby Sherlock Holmes cry.

---

What evidence am I ignoring?

quote:

---

Here's a clue for you: stone carving monkeys and aliens are natural forces that can be expected to leave evidence of their presence. Unfortunately when the archeologists dig they don't find monkeys and alien stone-carving lasers. Likewise when researchers look at origin of life issues they have yet to see any evidence of the guy in the sky or a miraculous event.

---

Monkies and aliens are not natural casues. Natural causes are by definition non-teleological. Since both aliens and monkies are intelligent, they are not a natural cause.

quote:

---

In the absence of supporting evidence an inference is nothing but a WAG.

---

We do have a reason to infer design for both Rosetta stone and DNA.

quote:

---

The trouble is that we do have evidence to support human origins of the Rosetta Stone inscriptions and evidence supporting natural origins of life.

---

Show me that evidence that supports natural origin of life.

quote:

---

To infer design we need knowledge of the designer, without it we are only making up stories to tell the other goat herders.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

I would think that the structural elements are rather important.

---

Structural elements are the proteins which function by the laws of biochemistry. When the structure of proteins gets changed enough their biochemical properties change too. Which leads to loss of biological functions. Which is what Axe's work shows.

quote:

---

And the information content of the genes depends on how THEY formed.

---

Obviously it doesn't. If by chance a word "HOUSE" was formed by droping of ink on a piece of paper, would it's informational content been any different than if the exact same word was written by a person? No obviously not.

quote:

---

I know that you AREN'T following the method of TDI. Your "complexity" calculation has no basis in TDI whatsoever.

---

Than tell em how do we calculate the complexity of an object according to TDI.

quote:

---

Then why do you keep insisting on using a "complexity" calculation that is NOT accepted by TDI ?

---

But that is simply not true. You just keep saying it.

quote:

---

The way you measure information it DOESN'T necessarily stay the same.

---

How does it change? Give me an example.

quote:

---

You're contradicting yourself again. The fact that flagella grow IS relevant to Dembski's method (since it controls the configuration of the proteins). Ignoring it is going AGAINST Dembski's method.

---

No becasue the final flagellum is always in the same configuration regardless of if it has grown or assembled in any other way.

quote:

---

My point is that appealing to Dembski does you no good if you keep disagreeing with him all over the place.

---

Explain how exactly am I disagreeing with him.

quote:

---

So your ACTUAL specification is "no more than 20% different than the E Coli flagelum" which is an obvious fabrication.

---

It's an estimate based on Axe's work.

quote:

---

I said that YOUR statements disagreed with TDI. I leave it to you to say whether they come from NFL.

---

Cite me a statement rom TDI that I have contradicted.

quote:

---

Does NFL agree with TDI or not ? Because neither your use of specification or complexity calculation are sanctioned by TDI.

---

Of course it does.

quote:

---

Actually it is very like a simple hill-climbing algorithm. And we all know that simple things can occur naturally.

---

Yes. Unlikey living organisms which are not simple.

quote:

---

No. If you actually understood what I said you would realise that STOPPING the intelligent intervention that is reducing the effectiveness of natural selection would be enough.

---

Enough for what? Your English is terrible.

quote:

---

Because I'm not going to do you work for you. Especially since you have such difficulty understanding what I say.

---

Becasue your version of English is not supported by my web browser.

quote:

---

The problem is that I'm not disagreeing with the paper at all.

---

Yes, you are. You said that genetic entropy is not a problem for "large" populations.

quote:

---

A paper that specifically says that it is working with small populations....

---

NO. It says that it applies to ALL populations. But smaller populations will experince genetic entropy sooner than larger ones.

quote:

---

And you are ignoring recombination.

---

RECOMBINATION IS JUST SHUFFLING OF ALREADY EXISTING GENES!!!! It doesn't even remove the deleterious ones. It just puts them on another spot in the genome. They still stay where they were.

quote:

---

As well as the fact that life seems to keep on going withot succumbing to genetic entropy.

---

Only if we ignore the papers that I showed you which show that populations can die-out because of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

I think that you mean that it is above your reading grade, since there is nothing wrong with it. Is English YOUR first language ?

---

No, it's not and I never had anyone complain about it. Unlike your English which is unintelligible.

quote:

---

It is certainly not a definition of information !

---

LOL! YES IT IS!The full name Is: "Complex Specified Information"! Yes it's a definition of information! Why the hell are you debating me when you are so clueless about the topic!? You don't even know what you're attacking!Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The concept of CSI is made up.

---

It's made up? You mean it took a person to construct the definition of CSI and it's not a natural thing that all living beings know? Yeah that's true, but so is Shannon Information. It has also been made up. You do understand that before Shannon made it up, there was even no theory of information? So what's your point?

quote:

---

It has no units

---

The units are in bits.

quote:

---

or method of measure,

---

This is the latest and the most improved methods of measuring CSI.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

and the degree to which anything, including DNA, possesses this imaginary quality cannot be determined.

---

Yes it can, see above.

quote:

---

Someone could as easily make up the concept of NSC (Naturally Sourced Complexity) and claim that DNA is natural because of the degree to which it exhibits NSC. Like CSI, NSC has no units or method of measure, but it does have one thing CSI doesn't, a method by which it comes about: through the physical laws of nature which we've observed and know exist, in marked contrast to your designer.

---

True. When you do that come back and present your argument in full detail.

quote:

---

That's the problem with entities like your designer - it's just not possible to tell the difference between the imaginary and something that's never been seen or detected.

---

No, that's what YOU can't do. Other's can.

quote:

---

This is the only time I'm going to reply to a list of one-liners. I understand that you've got a lot of people discussing, but I would rather you not respond than fail to engage my arguments again.

---

I don't like your tone anyway so if you don't feel like talking to me, I advise you to go visit some other topic.

quote:

---

Do I have to quote the whole thread back at you to address a point? You are saying that the Rosetta Stone shows evidence of being designed, but you seem to be drawing a fuzzy line by saying that it could have been designed by aliens or stone-carving monkeys in order to draw a conclusion that we can identify design without knowledge of a designer.

---

I said that becasue it's true. The best possible explanation is that it was designed by humans. But that's it, it's not a FACT it's an explanation which could be wrong.

quote:

---

The problem with this argument is that we have massive evidence of exactly who carved the Rosetta Stone.

---

Well than tell me the name of the person who carved it already!

quote:

---

We can even read it to see that it has a purpose.

---

Yeah it has a purpose, so how does that tell you who the edsigner was?

quote:

---

We know all those things not because the Rosetta Stone stands alone, but because detailed study of Egypt has given us the ability to understand the purpose and context of the Stone.

---

Again, how does that give you the name of the person who made it?

quote:

---

We can't just say anyone could have built it without ignoring all that evidence.

---

WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?!?!

quote:

---

I don't think I'm going to let you get away with that assertion unless you can provide some sort of evidence that intelligence is not natural. By saying they are non-teleological I understand you to mean they are not related to the design of the ultimate cause or have someway set themselves apart from the chain of ultimate causality. I don't even agree that there is an ultimate cause or design. That's what you're supposed to tell us.

---

By natural I don't mean "outside of the universe". I simply mean not reducible to material causes.

quote:

---

Well, you're half-right at least. Care to guess which half? Your evidence for design in DNA is nothing but apologetics. Here's a hint: thought experiments are not evidence. If you have a formula let's see you apply it to some real data and look at the results. I sincerely doubt you'll ever come up with an answer equaling God.

---

I have already shown how we detect design based on the data we have on the flagellum. If you disagree with it, explain why.

quote:

---

We're on a text based message board. If I had the slightest idea that you would fairly evaluate any evidence I showed you I might take the trouble. But no, I'm not going to spoon feed you reality. This thread is about What is ID, not support for abiogenesis.

---

Than why birng it up if you don't want to discuss it?

quote:

---

1: We see direct evidence of the Designer in other ways that are easily linked to the artifact. For instance we find similar artifacts in graves or near paintings depicting the creation or use of the artifact.

---

How do you know that those artifacts you find are the ones depicted? Maybe they just look like them and are actually just done by chance?

quote:

---

2: We can clearly identify the purpose for the artifact. I admit that this is potentially tricky. Maybe the artifact looks like something we recognize and still use but without context there's a possibility we are mistaken.

---

This does nto tell us anything about the designer.

quote:

---

In the case of the Rosetta Stone we have both 1 and 2. We could calculate the probability of it being a human artifact vs the remains of aliens through Bayseian Inference, but sadly there's no data on the alien side of the equation.

---

No we don't since there is only one Rosetta Stone. And you do nto know what it was made for. Maybe it was made to fool somebody into thinking what Egyptian language is like.

quote:

---

In the case of Intelligent Design there is either an assumption of a Designer outside of the design or there is an assumption of purpose which, as pointed out, is open to interpretation.

---

No there isn't. The starting point is the pattern the object exhibits.

quote:

---

DNA evolved because of the marks of evolution it exhibits, not because I say so.

---

What marks are those?

quote:

---

But keep in mind that when I say "information" I mean genetic information, which can be produced by evolution.

---

Where is the evidence for that?

quote:

---

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.

---

What is a small population?

quote:

---

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?

---

Well you are supposed to elaborate on your definition. You are yet to do that.

quote:

---

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

---

No, it's not. Do you have a hard time understanding me?

quote:

---

So what you are saying is that the actual structure of the flagellum has no relevance beyond it's ability to catalyse chemical reactions.

---

Relevance to what?

quote:

---

Again your failure to understand Dembski's method is obvious. According to TDI the information content of an object is based on the probability of it forming without design. So if you want to know the information content of the genes you have to consider how they might have formed. Or in short, you don't get to ignore explanations just becuase you don't like them or because you can't calculate the probability.

---

That doesn't answer my question. Is teh informational content the same or not?

quote:

---

Calculate the probabiliy of it forming without design. That's it.

---

And that's what Dembski did. Your point is?Oh, wait, your point is that it grows. Yeah, I know it grow, and agaon, that's irrelevant because you still need to account for those 50 proteins one way or another. The fact that the flagellum grow is a whole another piece of machinery and a whole lot of new information. So if you think that the probability has increased, it didn't. Because now you have to account for the information that grows the flagellum. Which actually is besides the point.

quote:

---

You don't actually know what TDI says, do you ?

---

You don't know what FOF stands for, do you?

quote:

---

Your measure of complexity is based on random assembly. So your estimate of, say, the information content of a salt crystal would be very high because of the ordered structure. Your estimate of the information in the sodium and chlorine ions in a pool of salt water, and for the sunlight drying out the pool would be rather lower.

---

Which information? CSI? No. Because salt crystals do not have an independently given pattern. They have no specification, therefore they have no CSI.

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you that means that growth is the MOST relevant explanation since it is the non-design explanation with the highest probabiliy, You might even be able to legitmately ignore all the others (you can certainly ignore random assembly !).

---

LOL! That's like saying that cars are NOT designed becasue they are assembled by machines. Cars are designed and so are the machines that assemble them. The same goes for the flagellum and the machinery that assembles it.

quote:

---

Haven't I provided enough examples ?

---

You did, but they are all wrong.

quote:

---

Like I said, it's a fabrication. Axe didn't even LOOK at flagella, let alone consider the differing possible structures or numbers of proteins they might use. You are explicitly limiting the specification to variations of the E Coli flagellum, using variatiosn of the same 50 proteins. That is NOT the specification you said you were using and it is a clear fabrication.

---

He didn't need to! His woork was on protein in general. We extrapolate this finding on the flagellum becasue it's also made of proteins.

quote:

---

Here's the first sentence of the abstract:

---

Yes, that mean that smaller populations are more at risk of experiencing the genetic meltdown. If you actually understood what is happening you would know that the same thing goes for any population. But if the population is larger, more time will be needed for the effect to happen. If you disagree, please expalin what is a "large" population, and how can tehy escape genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

I guess you disagree with the paper you cite:

---

The papers clearly says that it MAY, which means they are assuming, and it says AMELIORATE, which means it reduces, not removes the effect.In otehr words, genetic entropy is still going on, but a a slower pace with that mechanism in place.

quote:

---

And here we see your poor understanding of English. In the real English language the term "Complex Specified Information" would refer to a specific subset of information - that which is "specified" and "complex". It cannot therefore be a definition of information.

---

I don't care what you say, Dembski defined it as "Complex Specified Information". Because it's complex and specified. Yes, it is a subset of what information is. Because there are a lot of definitions of information.

quote:

---

Good. Now, the inference made on the available evidence regarding DNA is that it has a natural origin. Case closed (again).

---

No, becasue 1.) You have no evidence of natural forces eve creating DNA. 2.) DNA exhibits CSI which is a mark of design.

quote:

---

No. I'm saying chemistry and physics don't need "chance".

---

Oh I see. Well that's just the problem. You are claiming that natural laws have self-organizing properties. Which is, as much as we know false.This here paper explains the difference between self-organization and self-ordering. Life is organized, ice cristals are ordered. Big difference. Natural laws have minimal complexity and they can produce self-ordered patterns like ice cristals. But they can not produce organized patterns like living cells. There simply is not information in those laws to build such a pattern.

quote:

---

Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural law propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or computational halting. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information.]

---

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=...

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You said it could have. That's all that is needed to tear down the "it must have been designed" argument.

---

Philosophically yes, scientifically not. If we are going to talk philosophy, than your hippo could have done anything. A car, a house, the Earth, the whole universe. He could have even done your mom, and so you came about.

quote:

---

No. The likely cause in one instance was humans. In the other one it was chemistry and physics.

---

Where is the evidence that DNA comes about by natural causes?

quote:

---

Ok, then how about worms making patterns in sand. Are worms intelligent?

---

Maybe. But we can for sure say bacteria and viruses are not.

quote:

---

But you would need to if you wanted to know if something is indeed designed.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

I was referring to your further generalization regarding the stone. You have to ignore evidence to do that.

---

No I'm not ignoring any evidence. Because saying that rosetta stone is designed by people is the subset of a statement that the Rosetta stone was designed by an intelligence.

quote:

---

We don't. And I didn't say that. We have to know the characteristics of what designed it though, else we wouldn't know if it was deigned.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

No it isn't. For you have absolutely no evidence of DNA being designed, other then your wanting it to. It's a great big circle you're arguing here. The designer exists because DNA is designed. Why is DNA designed? Because it has a designer. Round and round it goes.

---

Wrong. You are constantly misinterpreting me. I never said that. I said that DNA is designed becasue it exhibits CSI, which is a mark of intelligence.

quote:

---

See Percy's post for a rebuttal. Again, you assume DNA is designed without actually showing it is.

---

That's not a rebuttal that was a joke.

quote:

---

An unintelligent designer. Or worms making patterns in the sand...

---

Birds are intelligent.

quote:

---

Because how else are we to know he can create DNA?

---

By detecting CSI.

quote:

---

It's a set of characteristics.

---

But it's not an identity. If you are saying that we need to know the identity of the designer to infer design, than you can't infer that Rosetta stone was designed, because you don't have the identity of the designer. Set of characteristics are not the identity.

quote:

---

And you'd have to ignore evidence to do that.

---

No, becasue humans are a subset of inteligent agents. Saying that Rosetta stone was designed by an intelligence is a more general term of saying that it was designed by humans. Both are true.

quote:

---

Wrong. All evidence points to it, while no evidence points to anything else.

---

Show me that evidence.

quote:

---

The evidence that humans use writing, and that humans write in stones.

---

Yes they certainly do. But how do you knwo that the Rosetta stone is a writing in stone? Maybe it's just another piece of rock that only LOOKS like writing in stone?

quote:

---

And in doing so have shown your own argument to be false as well. Again, thank you.

---

So by not agreeing with you, I am also not agreeing with myself?

quote:

---

And in the process invalidated your own position. I really can't thank you enough.

---

How is that possible when your argument is opposite to mine, and I disagreed with you?

quote:

---

Then why bring it up, if you think your own reasoning is false?

---

I brought it up to show you that it's invalid. An I certainly do nto disagree with myself.

quote:

---

Would this method by any chance involve the process of simply asserting something to be designed? Because that is what you're doing.

---

Nope it has something to do with calculating the probability of the pattern arising by chance,a nd finding the matching pattern that it exhibits.

quote:

---

Changing the goalposts are we? You agreed that something that looks designed can arise by pure chance. Your argument is dead with that admission.

---

I'm not changing the goalpost, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you will not twist my argument. But you did.

quote:

---

Then why did you agree it could?

---

See above.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it could have, and you agreed. Also, you're asserting the same thing with your designer.

---

When you said that it could have made the Rosetta stone, than it's as if you said that it made life on Earth. Liek I said, he could have alos made you. Maybe he is your dad.

quote:

---

That humans use writing and that humans write in stones.

---

How do you know Rosetta stone is writing? Maybe it just looks like it?

quote:

---

The evidence.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

Because all evidence points in that direction.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

Most likely male.

---

How do you know that?

quote:

---

Not really no. You're ignoring evidence that DNA came about naturally, and adding this unnecessary designer.

---

Where is the evidence that ic could have?

quote:

---

All evidence points to the fact it can.

---

Show me that evidence.

quote:

---

So, you're not adding a designer?

---

No because if a human designed the Rosetta stone he is the designer.

quote:

---

In this case you are.

---

What else did I add?

quote:

---

A subset? And how do you know what all the subsets are?

---

I don't know, neither do I have to know. I know that humasn are since they are intelligent.

quote:

---

Undoubtedly. What's your evidence for them?

---

Animals are intelligent. Aliens are hypothetical.

quote:

---

So are unintelligent causes, and even pure chance, by your own admission.

---

No, that's a twist of my argument.

quote:

---

Based on nothing whatsoever.

---

Based on the fact that intellignece creates information.

quote:

---

And so can you.

---

Of course, but I have less chance of being wrong.

quote:

---

You even admitted that with my hippo example. You yourself even said it could've been by pure chance.

---

No. That is a misrepresentation of my argument.

quote:

---

Maybe it was a pooping hippo with three horns on its butt.

---

How doy ou know it isn't that or a monkey?

quote:

---

While ignoring the unintelligent causes you admitted could've made it as well.

---

No. That is a misrepresentation of my argument.

quote:

---

And if a pooping hippo did it, we would both be wrong.

---

Nope since animals are intelligent.

quote:

---

No idea. He was most probably human though.

---

So you admit that you don't know the identity of teh designer of teh Rosetta stone, yet you infered the design without it.

quote:

---

It's much more then you have, however.

---

How?

quote:

---

No, for then you are ignoring evidence.

---

No becasue saying that I hold a piece of metal in my hand is equally valid as saying I hold a hammer in my hand. I'm not ignoring any evidence. One explanation is more specific than the other that is all. I didn't ignore that I was holding a hammer in my hand I just described it in a more general way.

quote:

---

Nope. Pooping hippo.

---

He is also intellignet. Unless you are claiming he is not, than you are stepping into philosophy.

quote:

---

No. You add unnecessary agents, and ignore evidence.

---

What unnecessary agents am I adding and what evidence am I ignoring?

quote:

---

The evidence that points to a natural cause for DNA.

---

Show me one.

quote:

---

Did I say it would? Nor is it relevant to the point. The point is we can tell it's a human because we know the characteristics of a human.

---

No we can't. You only assume it was a human.

quote:

---

So, DNA is full of made up stuff, which was made up to be able to say that DNA must have been designed.

---

It's as made up as much as any otehr definition of information liek Shannon information that tells you how much space is taken up on your HDD.

quote:

---

It's an instance of hippopoop.

---

Based on what did you come to that conclusion?

quote:

---

So, creatures with more base pairs then humans don't exist?

---

Who said the don't? And what does that have to do with my argument?

quote:

---

It's full of hippopoop, and that is a reliable indicator of non-design.

---

Explain your method in detail. Where is it explained? On the otehr hand I can link you to my method. Can you do the same for your?http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

You assert it is designed, however, and then say it therefore requires a designer. You have not shown it is designed, nor have you produced any designer capable of designing it.

---

I have, based on the method above.

quote:

---

You don't agree with your own reasoning? Then why bring it up?

---

That's not my, that's your reasoning.

quote:

---

Have you got a while to read?

---

None of those point to an actual DNA or RNA being made by natural force. Those articles are at best hypothetical, not real evidence. And what they are all concerned with is how the material itself formed. Which is not what is important. What is important is how the nucleotides that makde the DNA got their sequence just right so that they would specify biological functions. None of those articles explains that.

quote:

---

Hippopoop is a reliable mark of unintelligence. DNA is hippopoop.

---

Show me where your method is explained.

quote:

---

No, you assert design.

---

No, we infer design based on this method. If you disagree witht he method, explain why.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

Scientifically as well. I don't know any scientist that would sy it is impossible for a hippo with three horns on its butt to have pooped out the Rosetta stone. They will be quick to point out however, that no evidence points to that conclusion, and that until it does such things should be disregarded.

---

Maybe because such enteties do not exist.

quote:

---

Because else you can't say what he designed.

---

Neither can I say what he desigend even if I knew his characteristics. Do you know what a person did just by looking at him?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

CSI is made up because it is not based upon observations from the real world. Shannon information, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, Maxwell's laws, etc, are not made up because they developed out of observations of the real world with whose laws they are consistent.

---

You are getting funnier by the minute! You should be a clown, you know?Let me qute you Leslie Orgel who coined the term "specified complexity". As you can clearly see, he based his conclusion on observable patterns. Particulary those that are observed in living organisms, to come up with the notion of specified complexity.

quote:

---

In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

---

Specified complexity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

CSI is measured in bits? And you have a reference that shows you how to calculate CSI? Then could you please show us the calculation for the CSI of something, preferably something simple?

---

The link I showed you has the calculation. Take a look at it.

quote:

---

For instance, how much CSI is in the single DNA codon AGT?

---

Obviously there is ZERO CSI because it's complexity does not exceed 400 bits.

quote:

---

How would you contrast it with the CSI for a tiny fragment of rock with three minerals in a row, say, quartz-calcite-magnetite?

---

I wouldn't because all those patterns exhibit 0 CSI.

quote:

---

I only ask in order to focus attention on the inability of anything from Dembski allowing you to perform this simple task, one that I've done many times at this forum using Shannon information. If you'd like to see it again just ask.

​

This is why your diagram is false when it defines DNA as an example of design. No one's ever researched the relationship between CSI and intelligence,

---

You have no right to say that untill you showed me exactly what is wrong with definitions in this here link.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

plus CSI is based upon the false assumption of instantaneous formation of structures that actually took billions of years to evolve (this is the 10120 coefficient that appears in Dembski's equations).

---

Wrong. Even if they evolved that would just mean that CSI was transfere from point A to point B. Since evolution is supposed to be an algorithm and algorithms do not produce CSI, but only transfer it. That's what NFL theorem is about.

quote:

---

Since there is no empirical nor even theoretical foundation for CSI, classifying things like DNA and books as being instances of design based upon their CSI is completely bogus.

---

And I will again tellyou that you have no right to say that untill you showed me exactly what is wrong with definitions in this here link.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

I'm sure the people here would be delighted to discuss with you the details of Dembski's CSI calculation to the extent you understand them, so whenever you're ready to start presenting his method in this thread then please proceed, by all means.

---

Sure, tell me what exactly do you want to know.

quote:

---

No kidding! You can tell the difference between the imaginary and the undetectable! Could you explain for us how you do this?

---

Imaginary things do not exist, undetectable things do, but we can't detect them. Liek the radio waves before we could detect them. They were here we just couldn't detect them.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.