What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

... in small populations ...

---

What's a small population?

quote:

---

... in small populations.

---

What's a small population.

quote:

---

The very experiment you cite shows that researchers were unable to produce genetic meltdown if the genetic bottlenecks that they repeatedly artificially induced consisted of 300 or more individuals.

---

Yes, in the TIME THAT EXPERIMENT TOOK PLACE IN! Why do you think the meltdown would not have occured if the experiment lasted longer? What magic would ahve saved the population? Do you know the name of that magic?

quote:

---

Thanks for proving that you're wrong, it saves us the trouble.

---

No, what I proved is that you do not know math.You think that 1+1=2, and that 10+10=20, but no, 100+100 DOES NOT EQUAL 200.Why? What is the sifference?

quote:

---

Evidence?

---

You want me to show you tests for ALL THE MILLIONS of species that exist on Earth? Nothing like that has been done. But if you have even a bit of common sense you would extrapolate from the results that we do have.

quote:

---

The people who disseminate the fairy-tale of "genetic entropy" have made it clear that they are talking about near-neutral mutations, the fixation rate of which is to a good approximation independent of population size.

---

We just do not know. We can't estimate that. There is nothing wrong in not knowing something. If you are interested in the ultimate truth, better go and deal with philosophy.

quote:

---

This is hardly a point on which you are likely to be able to deceive me, since I know many people with whom I am in agreement on the definition of evolution.

---

Yet not with others. And since you do not know ALL people in the world, don't say you agree with all of them.

quote:

---

You appear to be lying to me about me. Really, how do you think that's going to work out?

---

Define what is small and we'll see.

quote:

---

The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones.

---

So? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.

---

No, this will never happen. But let's assume that it will. Again, so what? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

This is a particularly stupid lie to tell to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in mathematics.

---

OMG!!! You have a PhD in math and you found my explanation of NFL har do understand! LOL! I can't believe to what kind of people PhD's will be given today! This is laughable!

quote:

---

Has information been gained, or simply been moved about?

---

Obviously, moved from point A to point B.

quote:

---

If it's simply been moved about, then apparently moving information about is all that's required to solve optimization problems, and it is not necessary for evolution to generate information in order to work.

---

The information has been gained in point B by moving it from point A. And at this particular problem, evolutionary algorithm was suited well to do it's job, and it has done it just fine.

quote:

---

If it has been gained, then your argument fails.

---

Wrong. Because the algorithms do not create new information. They simply move it from point A to point B. You see, in order to solve a particular problem by an algorithm, you have to give it problem-specific knowledge. Meaning, you have to pick the righ algorithm for a specific problem.And now the question arises, how do you pick teh algorithm? Well, obviously, you have to have some information about the problem, to pick the right algorithm. And the fact it that amount of information, is NEVER less than simply knowing the answer you wre looking for by the algorithm in the first place. Therefore, the information gets conserved, and the NFL theorem is shown to be true. So in order to pick the right algorithm, you already had to know the answer for picking the right algorithm. Which means that you had the information all along. And by picking the right algorithm to do the job, you provided new information, by providin problem-specific information.

quote:

---

I said --- "off-the-shelf". Random search is good for any optimization problem. It's one size fits all.

---

You can't just randomly pick an algorithm every time to do te best job.

quote:

---

Again, if it is possible to solve optimization problems just by "transmitting" information, then apparently this is all evolution needs to do to solve optimization problems.

---

True. But, the question is, where did evolution get the information to solve the problem in the first place?In other words, you are claiming that the laws of nature are set up in such a way that the mechanism of random mutations, and natural selection, is an algorithm that works better than average and can input new information from nature into the genomes of living organisms. Fine, but we know that that information was not created, but transmited from nature by the algorithm of evolution. So the question of the origin of information is still not clear. How did you get the right structure of the universe and the natural laws for evolution to work?Let me demonstrate the vertical NFL theorem for you. You see this is the problem. You have a search space of 4 possible solution. And you have to find the target. How are you going to find it? So, to find a target we have 3 possible explanations. 1.) Chance, 2.) Algorithm, 3.) Intelligence.If you use random search, that is chance, the chances of finding it are 1/4. Which is fine if you have all the time you want. But what if you didn't have enough time? You would ahve to use an algorithm. An algorithm can be something like, 1, 2, 3, 4. Or, 2, 1, 4, 3, etc.We both agree that on average they are all equally good. The first algorithm will work best if the target is in the box no. 1. Becasue that's the first place it will be looking at. It will be the wors if the tharget is in number 4, because that is the last place it will be looking at. The similar goes for the second algorithm. It will give out best results if teh target is in number 2, and the worst if the target is in number 3.So, now if for some reason, chance alone is nto enough, and you have to resort to an algorithm to find your target, you come into a problem. And here is where the vertical NFL theorem kicks in. If you say you have an algorithm to find the target, than you have to explain how you found the algorithm in the first place. And search for that algoritm by chance is not easier than searching the original target. Becasue as you can see, there is an exponential riese in sequence space when searching for all the possible algorithms! Now the chance of finding the right algorithm is 1/24!So, again, you have to find the right algorithm. How are you going to do it? 1.) Chance, 2.) Algorithm, 3.) Intelligence. So an obvious conclusion is that if chance can't help you find the original target, it's not going to help you find this one eitehr becasue the initial chances were 1/4 and now the chances are 1/24. Therefore, chance is precluded.The second answer is yet a higher order algorithm to find this one. Obviously this one is wrong, becasue that will jsut generate an even higher order search space. So we have an infinite regress if we invoke another algorithm.And the third and last answer is - intelligence. This is obviously the best answer since we know intellignece can create information on it's own. Therefore, to trace inforamtion to it's ultimate source, we invoke an intellignece.To put this in evolutionary perspective. If you invoke evolution to explain information in genomes of living organisms, you have to explain how you got just those laws right in the first place. Meaning you would have to claim that out of ALL possible combinations that the universe could be existing in, we just happen to be living in one that evolution works in, by chance! Which is a stupid answer anyway.That is why an intelligence is a better explanation.

quote:

---

My goodness, you really don't understand the No Free Lunch Theorem at all, do you?

---

Of course I do, why do you keep embarassing yourself? You are the one who has a PhD yet does not know how simple functions work.

quote:

---

Well, it's your lucky day, since I explained it in my post #165. Read it over, and if there's anything there you don't understand, get back to me and I'll talk you through it.

---

Your post is obviously wrong. You said that when someone claims that one algorithm on average does not outperform other, that he is actually claiming that it can not in any way outperform it. Wrong, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that in order to do that, it has to take into account problem specific knowledge.

quote:

---

But until you know what it is, I suggest you stop talking about it, or you will continue to produce inadvertent moments of comedy such as this.

---

You should have gotten your PhD in a clown school. You really are funny.

quote:

---

The assumption that only design can produce CSI.

---

It's not an assumption. It's the only observed cause that can. When you show me some other that can, than feel free to propose it.

quote:

---

Your daydreams are not evidence.

---

Basicly what you said now is that 10+10=20 but 100+100 do not equal 200.

quote:

---

You appear to be repeating yourself, so let me do the same.

​

The larger the population, the greater the edge beneficial mutations have over deleterious ones.

​

Beyond a certain population size, therefore, the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations will exceed the rate of fixation of deleterious ones.

---

And let me repeat myself once more.No, this will never happen. But let's assume that it will. Again, so what? Does that completely stop genetic entropy, or does it just slow down?

quote:

---

Technically, I suppose that's true --- since genetic drift is statistical in nature, there's always some risk. But if it's quadrillions to one against, we may for practical purposes neglect it.

---

No, it doesn't matter what the odds are, becasue the end result is always teh same. The entropy is going only one way. And it doesn't matter if it happens in 10 generations, or 100, or 1000, or million, or 100 million generations, or in a quadrillion generations, it's still happening, and the end result is genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

Are you talking here about the papers you linked to which proved you wrong about genetic entropy?

---

How exactly do they prove me wrong?

quote:

---

I believe he does indeed realize that this is one of the shortcomings of ID. I think that's why he's taunting you with it.

---

That's like saying that not being able to explain the origin of life is a shortcoming of the evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

This falsehood is off-topic --- if you wish to be wrong about the fossil record, start a new thread. This thread is for you to be wrong about genetic entropy and to pretend that you understand the No Free Lunch Theorem.

---

It can also be for discussing the fossil record. And for yout o show off your worthless PhD. Like I said, you should have went to a clown college.

quote:

---

Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?

---

Wait so you are actually telling me that I'm a Christian? Well than fine, you're a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

You appear to have been driven literally insane with rage.

---

Actually, I'm laughing while I'my typing this!

Meaning "the fossil record is false if time does not occur chronologically". That's the argument from douchebaggery. The Rosetta Stone can be examined and reproduced. It could be clay with pressed symbols, it could be clay formed through a mold, it could be hard stone etched by scrapping, it could be hard stone which was chissled - EACH of those processes leaves evidence. We can examine the evidence and recreate the stone using similar techniques. It's called experimental archaeology.Therefore we DO know the mechanism.In the case of ID you can't even confirm that there IS a mechanism. You allege design out of laziness and proclaim it "Jew Magic Beams" then wipe your hands and pretend you are done. ID ASSUMES there is design - but can't prove it.
ID then ASSUMES there is a designer - because one must exist if there is design (which remains an unproven assumption).
ID then ASSUMES There is a mechanism through which the designer (which is ASSUMES exists) did the designing (which it ASSUMES happened).That's 3 MAJOR assumption and NO evidence to support any of them. ID CAN'T detect marks of design if it doesn't know HOW or WHAT did the designing!You can't determine that something was made through a process unless you know what the process is that made it.You can't determine that a designer designed something unless you know what this designer is and how they design.You can't determine that a design was made unless you know what designs and how it designs.It's a house of cards and each card is made of tissue paper.You have NOTHING but a circular argument. Really? Let's review: IF doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how falling gets implemented because IF assumes there is a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical necessity. If we detect falling, it means also that there was a intelligent faller and a mechanism that was used to implement the falling.Given your statement and my statement above explain to us the difference between "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Design"....what you can't? Didn't think so. I'm significantly more educated than yourself. Animism is not evolution. Animism states that everything has a spirit, including rocks and water.Show me where evolution says anything about inanimate objects evolving. Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Oh, you wanna play? Okay. What is a meltdown?
What is "occurred"?
What is an experiment?
What is "longer"? What is "1"?
What is "not"?
What is "EQUAL"? What is "show"?
What is "tests"?
what is "Earth"? What is "slow"?
What is "down"?...See how helpful your method is in debate.If you want to have a discussion, we'll be happy to do so on your terms.Go ahead and define in detail every single word you are using and prove to us that they are what you say they are.Otherwise, your arbitrary use of a subjective word like "down" is completely meaningless.Let's see if we can't bring this entire discussion to a screeching halt over your personal douchebaggery.

quote:

---

Of course we can't know anything of the sort. Different properties may be tolerant of differing amounts of change.

---

We know that if we change enough of the structure, the proteins become worthless in any way.

quote:

---

YOU SAID SO! It is really very simple. If Dembski's measue of information is wrong - and you said that it was - the whole thing falls apart.

---

But I never said it was wrong.

quote:

---

Well obviously to do the calculation you must do the calculation. What we mustn't do is to do a different calculation that will very likely produce an inflated result.

---

And we never did that. I increased the chance of the flagellum forming as much as I could.

quote:

---

But you aren't using that specification in your calculations. What you are using is based directly on the actual structure of the E Coli flagellum. So it is a fabrication.

---

A fabrication is when an observed pattern does not match any other pattern.A specification is when an observed pattern matches some other. E. Coli's flagellum matches another pattern. Therefore it's not a fabrication, but a specification.

quote:

---

You're just assuming they aren't different. Why don't you give me a source that actually supports your claim ?

---

You are the one who is claiming they are different. And if they are different, they are irrelevant to our discussion.

quote:

---

I didn't say anything about snowflakes. You introduced them to the discussion for no apparent reason demanding that I give a specifciation. Therefore - since the reason is a complete falsehood - I decline.

---

You are the one who brought them up and claimed they have a spcification. Well, what's their specification?

quote:

---

So we are back to assuming that flagella CAN'T grow. Sorry, but you are wrong. There must be regularities underlying the process of growth. Otherwise it would require an intelligent designer individually assembling each one as Dembski proved.

---

I'm not talking about growth. I'm talking about accounting for the information that is used to build aflagellum. Flagellum's growth does not account for it. Flagellum's growth is the expression of already existing information. What we need to do, is account for how that information comes about in the first place.

quote:

---

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of geology. Let's just say that by a numhber of methods (mainly radiometric dating, but others too) geologists have worked out dates for the depoition of many strata.

---

Too bad those methods are flawed in their initial assumptions.

quote:

---

Because you forgot to mention that you were only considering a subset of deleterious mutations. When we consider the whole set of deleterious mutations it DOES help, because many disadvantages may be offset by other advantages (this is even true in the case of single mutations, such as sickle-cell).

---

How does that help you when you're sterile or stillborn?

quote:

---

No. Your estimate is for ALL deleterious mutations, but you ignore a lot of them so you have to reduce the number (which was too high in the first place).

---

How can I both ignore and include all mutations at the same time?

quote:

---

That is also wrong. Because the slower the rate that dleterious mutations enter the gene pool, the lower the rate of removal that natural selection has to achieve to counter it.

---

Does that completely halt genetic entropy?

quote:

---

In other words, your evidence that deleterious mutations must inevitably accumulate to the point of genetic meltdown is your assumption that such must be the case.

---

No, it's math. Math is proof. It's not a assumption. If it's an assumption that 1+1=2, than you're insane.

quote:

---

So you keep saying, but simply repeating the claim does not make it true. In fact in a large population rare events will occur, and natural selection can work with those rare events to spread the benefits through the population.

---

Natural selection will work better in larger than in smaller populations. But it will NEVER be perfect. Therefore geentic entropy will always occure.

quote:

---

NONE of the papers makes that claim.

---

It doesn't have to, you have have common sense to extrapolate. If small populations have more problems with genetic entropy, than larger populations will have less problems. But tell me how does that mean that some populations will have no problems whatsoever with genetic entropy?

quote:

---

By definition even a slightly deleterious mutation is "visible" to natural selection, and may be removed by it. And, of course, the less deleterious the mutation, the lower it's contribution to genetic meltdown.

---

No. By definition they are effectively neutral. They have such a smalle ffect that natural selection sees them as being neutral.

quote:

---

As for the quote, it simply states that a fragmented population is more like several small populations than one large one. Hardly a surprise - or something that helps your argument.

---

It means that even large populations have problems with genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Well, if you assume that the whole field of statistics is fundamentally wrong, how about the fact that genetic meltdown of a large population has NEVER been observed ?

---

Becasue there was not enough time!

quote:

---

It seems then that the rate DOES matter. Unless the average is well over 1 it is entirely possible that the

---

It matters to what!?!!? To slow down geentic entropy? Yes, it obviously does! That's what I've been saying from the start. But it does not matter to stopping genetic entropy. Becasue to stop it, population would ahve to be infinite in size. Which we know is not true.

quote:

---

The vast majority of which will be neutral. Then there are the benefical mutations. Then there are the deleterious mutations which only carry a normal disadvantage. When we have eliminated all the mutations which your model ignores, how many are left ?

---

Why should we eliminate any mutations? Almost all degrade the genome. Even beneficial ones.

quote:

---

If they are neutral then they aren't deleterious. By definition.

---

NOOOOOOOO!!!. You are clueless about this topic!!!! They are called NEAR NEUTRAL! Or Slightly deleterious.Why?Becasue they have such a small effect on reproduction that they are invisible to natural selection. They are spread around by genetic drift. In other words, by random chance.

For the record, clown college is one of the hardest schools in the US to get into. They accept very few students out of their pool of applications.

You still have not addressed my question, posted at least twice now.If life has been "genetic entropying" for 3.5 billion years now, why hasn't this catastrophic end which you are predicting come about?Isn't it more likely that, in all this time, a stasis has been reached?And isn't it likely that all the mathematical models you have been pushing to prove genetic entropy are wrong in that they fail to reflect reality?Reminds me of the story of a scientist who proved that bumblebees can't fly. That's not a true story, of course, but that seems to be what you are doing--when all you have to do is look out the window and see that bumblebees indeed do fly.You deny being a Christian but most of the causes you are promoting are found only in the bible. A biblical literalist of some kind, maybe? I can't imagine any other place to come up with all the silly nonsense you're pushing.

---

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

I'm going to keep this simple for you and hopefully you can follow along.You are claiming there is a difference between these two things:
"Fabrication" and "Specification".Your definition of each boils down to: "Unique" vs "non-unique".A fabrication is unique. There are no other examples of it.
A specification is non-unique. There are other examples of it.This is predicated on the idea that you have ALL the information which will ever be available to you from the past, present and future. That's simply not reality.If I present you with a pattern out of a collection of patterns which you can not see, you can't tell me whether or not the pattern I've given you is unique or non-unique because you can't see the other patterns.The ONLY thing you can test it against is other patterns you've been presented. You have a limited data set.If I present you with additional patterns, you start to build a bigger data set and patterns which HAD BEEN unique suddenly are no longer unique.However, patterns which are NOT unique never BECOME unique.In other words, of the two columns of evidence - examples only ever move from your column of "unique" to our column of "not unique" and NEVER EVER EVER the other way around.And the more information collected, the more often things move from your column to ours.Yet, you are confident that your column is correct and ours is incorrect because you believe that you have items in your column which will ALWAYS be there no matter how much information is collected.WHY?What experience in the past has given you a reason to believe this?The ONLY thing your claim has ever witnessed is a steady loss of evidence as more and more data is collected.Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY AROUND?If you were right, you should be GAINING evidence, not losing it.Surely, even YOU must admit that you don't have ALL the evidence which could ever be collected.Yet, you are willing to claim that no matter what the future evidence will present, the constant ongoing pattern of you consistently losing examples to us will somehow reverse itself.WHY?Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect the Jew Wizard. Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect Magic Jew Beams.Just look at your claim of unique evidence. It's unfounded.

quote:

---

I'm not an atheist.

---

Than stop acting like one.

quote:

---

Most people who don't agree with you are not atheists.

---

Yes they are. And they are the worst kind of atheists. They are atheistic fundamentalists.

quote:

---

Information theory is no more atheistic than any other branch of mathematics.

---

Did I ever claim that it was? It's atheists that claim that science and math are atheistic.

quote:

---

As I said, if you've already provided the information elsewhere in this thread, then please provide a link. If you need help linking to messages, just ask.

---

You ahd your chance.

quote:

---

In a closed system information cannot increase or decrease. For example, if you're in a room and the window blinds are closed you could not write a description of what is going on outside. In that respect the room is a closed system. Only when you open the blinds and allow information into the room can you write down what is happening outside. Now the room is no longer a closed system because information is entering it from outside.

​

That information in a closed system cannot increase or decrease is a known law of physics directly related to the laws of thermodynamics.

---

I can take a piece of paper and write whatever the hell I want. It will increase the amount of information on that paper. If I write: "Today, Percy is acting like an atheistic fundamentalist." I have increased the amount of information on that paper.

quote:

---

Again, if we consider the observable universe a closed system, then because information cannot increase or decrease in a closed system the amount of information in it could not have increased by 400 bits, not by random chance or intelligence or any other means.

---

Obviously it can by an intelligent intervention. Every single written book is an increase in information.

quote:

---

If you can provide the mathematical equation for calculating CSI in the same way as I have done for Shannon information then I would have something concrete to go on. If it is contained somewhere in your 41-page link (http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf) then please copy-n-paste the relevant equation or equations into your message.

---

It's not a simpe equation. The whole paper is the explanation. You know, just liek Darwin's On the Origin of Species is "one large argument", so is this one.

quote:

---

Aren't you confusing Gitt information with CSI? The words "syntax," "semantics," "apobetics" and "pragmatics" appear nowhere in your Dembski link.

---

I know, I'm just pointing out what Shannon information lacks. I already said in this here topic that Dembski only uses mereology and statistics to define CSI.

quote:

---

But I wasn't speaking of Kolmogorov Complexity. I was speaking of CSI, an invention of Dembski.

---

But I don't see you going on about how Kolmogorov complexity is MADE UP, and is not scientific because it's not computeable. Why not?

quote:

---

Dembski invokes Kolmogorov Complexity as a means of detecting randomness, but the sequence of nucleotides in DNA is not random.

---

Dear GOD!!! Why don't you just shut up for a change!?!? KC is used to tell apart sequences that are more random than other sequences. You can use it to tell how random a sequence is. So yes it can be used on DNA to show that it's not very random, or is very random depending on the sequence.

quote:

---

The sequence is a result of a lengthy process of consecutive selection over many generations across changing environments.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

Demski's CSI assumes that DNA nucleotide sequences are random when they are not. For this reason alone, CSI is bunk.

---

You are proving yourself to be sillier and sillier by teh minute. The point of CSI is to detect something that did not arise by chance, therefore to show that it is NNNNOOOOOTTTTT random!!!Again, why don't you just shut the hell up?

No. He's not a Biblical literalist. He just believes that we've been on a genetic downslide since Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden.

Riiiiight, but you're not here arguing for Biblical literalism. LOL. Why would DNA be random? Sorry, bucko, but you've kind of lost the right to ask for evidence seeing as you yourself have announced quite clearly that you don't need to provide any whatsoever. Who ever claimed that is should be random? Mutations are random. Selection is decidedly not random (that's why we call it "selection").Random data + any kind of filter = NON-RANDOM results.

quote:

---

Meaning "the fossil record is false if time does not occur chronologically". That's the argument from douchebaggery.

---

I never said that. Why do you keep being an atheistic fundamentalist?

quote:

---

The Rosetta Stone can be examined and reproduced. It could be clay with pressed symbols, it could be clay formed through a mold, it could be hard stone etched by scrapping, it could be hard stone which was chissled - EACH of those processes leaves evidence. We can examine the evidence and recreate the stone using similar techniques. It's called experimental archaeology.

​

Therefore we DO know the mechanism.

---

Wrong. We DO NOT know the mechanism. We ASSUME the mechanism. Just because we reproduced something similar to Rosetta stone, that doesn't mean that we actually know the mechanism.

quote:

---

In the case of ID you can't even confirm that there IS a mechanism. You allege design out of laziness and proclaim it "Jew Magic Beams" then wipe your hands and pretend you are done.

---

Wrong you filthy chance worshipper. I rpoclaim design because or reliable marks of design we find on DNA.

quote:

---

ID ASSUMES there is design - but can't prove it.

---

Nothing is proven in science. Id detects design by finding the marks of design.

quote:

---

ID then ASSUMES there is a designer - because one must exist if there is design (which remains an unproven assumption).

---

No, this is a logicaly neccessity. Design requires a designer.

quote:

---

ID then ASSUMES There is a mechanism through which the designer (which is ASSUMES exists) did the designing (which it ASSUMES happened).

---

No, becasue the implementation of design, requires a mechanism to implement it. It is a logical neccessity.

quote:

---

That's 3 MAJOR assumption and NO evidence to support any of them.

---

No, you are just calling them assumption.

quote:

---

ID CAN'T detect marks of design if it doesn't know HOW or WHAT did the designing!

---

That's like saying that you can't detect design in Rosettas tone if you don't know who or how it was designed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that something was made through a process unless you know what the process is that made it.

---

If something was designed, than the process obviously existed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that a designer designed something unless you know what this designer is and how they design.

---

Than you can't also say hte Rosetta stone was designed.

quote:

---

You can't determine that a design was made unless you know what designs and how it designs.

---

Than you can't determine Rosetta stone was designed.

quote:

---

It's a house of cards and each card is made of tissue paper.

​

You have NOTHING but a circular argument.

---

Naw... you are jsut misrepresenting them to look like that.

quote:

---

Really? Let's review:

---

Yes, let's.

quote:

---

IF doesn't try to prove the mechanism of how falling gets implemented because IF assumes there is a mechanism. Why? Because it's a logical necessity. If we detect falling, it means also that there was a intelligent faller and a mechanism that was used to implement the falling.

​

Given your statement and my statement above explain to us the difference between "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Design".

​

...what you can't? Didn't think so.

---

Wrong, becasue falling can be explained by a natural cause called gravity.

quote:

---

I'm significantly more educated than yourself. Animism is not evolution. Animism states that everything has a spirit, including rocks and water.

​

Show me where evolution says anything about inanimate objects evolving.

---

I gave you a link, you should have read it. Native Americans thought people came from animals. So did old Asian and middle Eastern people.

quote:

---

Oh, you wanna play? Okay.

---

Not really. I remember you said you were gonna leave.

quote:

---

What is a meltdown?
What is "occurred"?
What is an experiment?
What is "longer"?

---

Now you're just being pathetic.

quote:

---

What is "1"?
What is "not"?
What is "EQUAL"?

---

You should have learned that in primary school by now.

quote:

---

What is "show"?
What is "tests"?
what is "Earth"?

---

This you should ahve learned at home.

quote:

---

What is "slow"?
What is "down"?

---

Everybody knows that.

quote:

---

See how helpful your method is in debate.

​

If you want to have a discussion, we'll be happy to do so on your terms.

​

Go ahead and define in detail every single word you are using and prove to us that they are what you say they are.

​

Otherwise, your arbitrary use of a subjective word like "down" is completely meaningless.

​

Let's see if we can't bring this entire discussion to a screeching halt over your personal douchebaggery.

---

That's not my method. Do I go arounf asking people to define every single term? No I don't. So why misrepresent me?

quote:

---

For the record, clown college is one of the hardest schools in the US to get into. They accept very few students out of their pool of applications.

---

And you failed to get in so now you are venting yourself online. That's not my problem, you know?

quote:

---

I'm going to keep this simple for you and hopefully you can follow along.

​

You are claiming there is a difference between these two things:
"Fabrication" and "Specification".

---

Yes, obviously there is. And For teh record, I expalined many times what the difference is.

quote:

---

Your definition of each boils down to: "Unique" vs "non-unique".

​

A fabrication is unique. There are no other examples of it.
A specification is non-unique. There are other examples of it.

​

This is predicated on the idea that you have ALL the information which will ever be available to you from the past, present and future. That's simply not reality.

---

No. I'm simply using our current knowledge. That's how science works. I do nto assume I know everything. Science does not give 100% true answers, but instead it deals with approximations.

quote:

---

If I present you with a pattern out of a collection of patterns which you can not see, you can't tell me whether or not the pattern I've given you is unique or non-unique because you can't see the other patterns.

​

The ONLY thing you can test it against is other patterns you've been presented. You have a limited data set.

​

If I present you with additional patterns, you start to build a bigger data set and patterns which HAD BEEN unique suddenly are no longer unique.

​

However, patterns which are NOT unique never BECOME unique.

​

In other words, of the two columns of evidence - examples only ever move from your column of "unique" to our column of "not unique" and NEVER EVER EVER the other way around.

​

And the more information collected, the more often things move from your column to ours.

​

Yet, you are confident that your column is correct and ours is incorrect because you believe that you have items in your column which will ALWAYS be there no matter how much information is collected.

---

Again no. I only know what I know now. I never said that detecting design is 100% accurate. It's reliable enough to be science. But it's not perfect. Neitehr does it have to be perfect. Dembski described the process being like a fishing net. You catch some, and you don't catch others. And that's how science works. It's not perfect, but it's trying to get better. If you don't like it, maybe you should try philosophy.

quote:

---

WHY?

​

What experience in the past has given you a reason to believe this?

​

The ONLY thing your claim has ever witnessed is a steady loss of evidence as more and more data is collected.

​

Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY AROUND?

​

If you were right, you should be GAINING evidence, not losing it.

​

Surely, even YOU must admit that you don't have ALL the evidence which could ever be collected.

​

Yet, you are willing to claim that no matter what the future evidence will present, the constant ongoing pattern of you consistently losing examples to us will somehow reverse itself.

​

WHY?

​

Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect the Jew Wizard. Set aside the fact that you can't define or detect Magic Jew Beams.

​

Just look at your claim of unique evidence. It's unfounded.

---

This just means that we will be more efficient in claiming things to arise by chance or a regularity. Which is fine since we do not need to infer design. What's so bad about it?

quote:

---

Riiiiight, but you're not here arguing for Biblical literalism. LOL.

---

No, I'm not why should I? Even if I was, why should I hide that? How can I know you are actually not a Hindu-Muslim?

quote:

---

Why would DNA be random?

---

DNA is not random.

quote:

---

Sorry, bucko, but you've kind of lost the right to ask for evidence seeing as you yourself have announced quite clearly that you don't need to provide any whatsoever.

---

Except that every single thing I said I provided not only scientific articles for, but my own diagrams. Yeah, righ, I didn't provide evidence.

quote:

---

Who ever claimed that is should be random? Mutations are random. Selection is decidedly not random (that's why we call it "selection").

​

Random data + any kind of filter = NON-RANDOM results.

---

Percy claimed that Dembski applied KC to DNA to show that it's random.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This is a rewording of the actual argument from douchebaggery or: "How do we know that what's real is real?"You're alleging that just because we can evaluate the materials and accurately reproduce the object using methods available at the time - we don't know for certain that it wasn't some "Magical Jew Beam" that did it instead and just made it LOOK LIKE it was done through normal means.If THAT is your standard, then let's just EVERYTHING by that standard.How do you know that gasoline burns when ignited? It COULD just be that every single time it's been tested so far, the "Magic Jew Beams" have been set to "burn".Science operates under a simple assumption: Reality is real.If ID operates under a different assumption, it's not science - it's make believe. No. It doesn't. You can't find "marks" of design if you don't know WHAT LEAVES MARKS or WHAT KIND OF MARKS it leaves!!!It's IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the end result if you don't have ANY idea what sort of process would lead to the end result!If I presented you with a snowflake, would you say it's designed or simply a result of ice crystal formation?If you DIDN'T KNOW about ice crystal formation, what would you say? So, you are claiming: "There is design".
And from this claim, you are deducing there must be BOTH a designer and a mechanism of design.However, you can't demonstrate design. You point to things which you CLAIM are designed, but since you can't tell us HOW things are designed, you have no method of testing it.The CLOSEST you can come to testing it is by saying that it is mathematically improbably that X would exist by chance.However, NO ONE is alleging chance in ANY scenario.
Further, you have NO IDEA how large the probability set it.If the odds of hitting the lotto are 1 in 100 billion and you have 1 ticket you have very different odds than if you have 100 billion billion tickets.Unless you know the data set from which your allegedly improbably design arises you have NO ABILITY to determine if it is likely or unlikely to occur by chance (which - AGAIN - is not the claim that evolution makes in the first place!) That's correct. If I presented you with the rosetta stone and you were completely unfamiliar with writing, rock or the ability to carve rock, you would have no basis against which to determine whether or not it was designed.You would have to have at least one other rock to determine if the markings on the stone were normal for rock or if they were unusual.So, give us an example of a living thing which was NOT designed so we can check it against your claim of design. Really? Apparently you don't know what the word "small" means, but you assume that we all understand your meaning of "down". How is "down" any LESS relative than "small"?YOU are the one setting the standards. YOU have to be the one that lives by them.If you expect us to define every single term for you, you better get off your fat ass and start defining every single term you use.So, either EXPLAIN "down" -or- STOP asking what "small" means. So, you admit that you can't be sure that you detect design, but based on this ADMITTEDLY inaccurate detection method you are willing to assume BOTH a Magic Jew Wizard AND Magic Jew Beams. Seriously?Okay, I'll lay it out AGAIN.You don't have an example of something which you can demonstrate is actually designed.You don't have an example of something which you can check an alleged design against.You don't know what causes design or how it causes it.Your definition of design RELIES ENTIRELY on a _lack_ of additional evidence.To date everything you've present has been proven to be incorrect.AND, the FOUNDERS of your movement have CATAGORICALLY admitted that they are involved in a political movement to put Fundamental Creationism into schools and have NO QUAMS about lying in order to do so.THAT'S what's "wrong" with your claims.

Um, no. Linking Dembski, who's ADMITTED that his goal is to replace science with Christian Fundamentalism is NOT presenting a scientific article.Further, your "diagrams" have been completely erroneous from head to two. All you managed to demonstrate is that you don't understand sexual reproduction. And since you admitted that DNA is NOT random, you've got three options:Dembski is wrong. KC is wrong. Both Dembski and KC are wrong.

quote:

---

This is a rewording of the actual argument from douchebaggery or: "How do we know that what's real is real?"

​

You're alleging that just because we can evaluate the materials and accurately reproduce the object using methods available at the time - we don't know for certain that it wasn't some "Magical Jew Beam" that did it instead and just made it LOOK LIKE it was done through normal means.

​

If THAT is your standard, then let's just EVERYTHING by that standard.

​

How do you know that gasoline burns when ignited? It COULD just be that every single time it's been tested so far, the "Magic Jew Beams" have been set to "burn".

​

Science operates under a simple assumption: Reality is real.

​

If ID operates under a different assumption, it's not science - it's make believe.

---

Well yes, it's a stupid argument I know. But you are the one who used it first. I just used it against you. Because I said that we can detect design both in Rosetta stone and DNA, without knowing who teh designer is. Yet you said we do not know who made the DNA, thereofre we can't say it's designed. By that stupid logic, we don't really know if the Rosetta stone was designed also, since we do not know it's designer. Design implies a designer. If the Rosetta stone is a design, than there was a designer. If DNA is a design, than thre was it's designer too.Also, you are the one who used the argument that DNA could just LOOK designed, but it really isn't. By that logic, the Rosetta stone could also just LOOK designed.

quote:

---

No. It doesn't. You can't find "marks" of design if you don't know WHAT LEAVES MARKS or WHAT KIND OF MARKS it leaves!!!

---

But we do know that. Intellignece leaves behind marks of specified complexity. It's an observed fact.

quote:

---

It's IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the end result if you don't have ANY idea what sort of process would lead to the end result!

---

Yes we can because the end result is observable and we can investigate it. Without knowing how it came about.

quote:

---

If I presented you with a snowflake, would you say it's designed or simply a result of ice crystal formation?

​

If you DIDN'T KNOW about ice crystal formation, what would you say?

---

I'd still say that it was not designed becasue there is no specification on te snowflake.

quote:

---

So, you are claiming: "There is design".
And from this claim, you are deducing there must be BOTH a designer and a mechanism of design.

---

That is the most logical thing to say. If I see a car, I know there was a designer and a mechanism that implemented that design.

quote:

---

However, you can't demonstrate design. You point to things which you CLAIM are designed, but since you can't tell us HOW things are designed, you have no method of testing it.

---

Wrong. We use the explanatory filter and try to find traces of CSI.

quote:

---

The CLOSEST you can come to testing it is by saying that it is mathematically improbably that X would exist by chance.

---

And, we can find if the said pattern exhibits a specification. Therefore, signaling design.

quote:

---

However, NO ONE is alleging chance in ANY scenario.

---

Algorithms don't help you because without problem specific knowledge, NFL theorems equate any algorithm with random chance, including evolution.

quote:

---

Further, you have NO IDEA how large the probability set it.

​

If the odds of hitting the lotto are 1 in 100 billion and you have 1 ticket you have very different odds than if you have 100 billion billion tickets.

​

Unless you know the data set from which your allegedly improbably design arises you have NO ABILITY to determine if it is likely or unlikely to occur by chance (which - AGAIN - is not the claim that evolution makes in the first place!)

---

1:10^120 is the maximum probability of the whole universe. Therefore, no lower chance than that should be considered.

quote:

---

That's correct. If I presented you with the rosetta stone and you were completely unfamiliar with writing, rock or the ability to carve rock, you would have no basis against which to determine whether or not it was designed.

​

You would have to have at least one other rock to determine if the markings on the stone were normal for rock or if they were unusual.

​

So, give us an example of a living thing which was NOT designed so we can check it against your claim of design.

---

I already explained this by the use of my picture. We know from experinece that intelligence creates information. Therefore, simply by knowing that, we infer design from Rosetta stone. And since DNA is information also, we infer design in it too.We do not have to have designed animals to show that they are designed. Becasue DNA is a subset of a larger set called information, for which we know is created only by intelligence.

quote:

---

Really? Apparently you don't know what the word "small" means, but you assume that we all understand your meaning of "down". How is "down" any LESS relative than "small"?

​

YOU are the one setting the standards. YOU have to be the one that lives by them.

​

If you expect us to define every single term for you, you better get off your fat ass and start defining every single term you use.

​

So, either EXPLAIN "down" -or- STOP asking what "small" means.

---

They are all relative terms which can't be used to prove an absolute. You can't use small/large to say when something either starts or stops in absolute terms. You can only say it's more of something or less or something when it's either smaller or larger.

quote:

---

So, you admit that you can't be sure that you detect design, but based on this ADMITTEDLY inaccurate detection method you are willing to assume BOTH a Magic Jew Wizard AND Magic Jew Beams.

---

First of all, nothing is sure in science. And why do you not admit already that you're a Hindu-Muslim, trying to push your religion on us?

quote:

---

Seriously?

​

Okay, I'll lay it out AGAIN.

​

You don't have an example of something which you can demonstrate is actually designed.

---

Any book you see is designed.

quote:

---

You don't have an example of something which you can check an alleged design against.

---

I can check it agains a book.

quote:

---

You don't know what causes design or how it causes it.

---

Sometimes we do. We know how cars, computers book etc. are designed.

quote:

---

Your definition of design RELIES ENTIRELY on a _lack_ of additional evidence.

---

No, it relies on an observable fact that we have seen books, computers, cars, etc. get designed.

quote:

---

To date everything you've present has been proven to be incorrect.

---

And you're a crazy Hindu-Muslim priest.

quote:

---

AND, the FOUNDERS of your movement have CATAGORICALLY admitted that they are involved in a political movement to put Fundamental Creationism into schools and have NO QUAMS about lying in order to do so.

​

THAT'S what's "wrong" with your claims.

---

Yup, a crazy Hindu-Muslim, is trying tu push his religious views on teh rest of us.

quote:

---

Um, no. Linking Dembski, who's ADMITTED that his goal is to replace science with Christian Fundamentalism is NOT presenting a scientific article.

---

Who says so? Since when is he not a credible source? He has published in peer-reviewd scientific journals, you know? Here are just two examples. There are more. Now tell me, how many articles did your crazy Hindu-Muslim fanatics publish? And are we supposed to disregard tehm because they are pushing your religion?Shibboleth Authentication RequestIEEE Xplore - Page not Found

quote:

---

Further, your "diagrams" have been completely erroneous from head to two. All you managed to demonstrate is that you don't understand sexual reproduction.

---

This coming from a crazy Hindu-Muslim priest! You didn't even understand my diagrams.

quote:

---

And since you admitted that DNA is NOT random, you've got three options:

​

Dembski is wrong. KC is wrong. Both Dembski and KC are wrong.

---

Why should any of those be wrong?