What exactly is ID?

I've explained all this to you. You may find that you look like less of a clown if you read my posts before replying to them. As I have explained, if the population is sufficiently large, genetic meltdown will not occur. But you must know that what you are saying is false. Therefore you are a liar.Let me talk you through this again. I have a BSc in mathematics and computer science, and a PhD in math. And you, let's be fair, are a drooling idiot talking nonsense about a field of mathematics that you have never taken the trouble to study.That's the fundamental cause of the fact that I am right and you are ludicrously, contemptibly, drivelingly, droolingly, pathetically, hopelessly wrong.Because you have never spent any time studying the subject that you're being wrong about. Since you have never studied optimization theory, how the heck do you think you can be right about it? Are you just hoping that if you talk whatever crap comes into your head, you'll turn out to be lucky? If so, let me advise you that this didn't happen. Because you didn't take the time to study optimization theory, everything you say about it is complete shit. I have explained that. If there was any aspect of it that you didn't understand, please feel free to ask me supplementary questions. I have already apologized for reducing you to hysteria. It was not my objective to break your mind --- rather, I just wanted to make you less dumb about math. When you lie about this subject, do you have the least shred of a scrap of an iota of hope that you will actually deceive me? See my previous posts. Do try to understand them.Do you know how much I usually get paid per hour for explaining math to people? For you, you poor little guy, I do it for free, and yet in return all you do is rave and dribble. You poor little failure. Yes, but not particularly by comparing myself to a drooling halfwit. I am good at math compared to other people who are good at math. I feel proud of my abilities without comparing myself to a disgusting and contemptible failure such as you. The reason why you are wrong is that you do not know what the No Free Lunch Theorem says.You should really try to find out. Earth to mad person. You do not know more about math than me. You know less about math than me. This is why I am right about the No Free Lunch Theorem and you are a prize exhibit of a puffed-up halfwit drooling out moronic nonsense about a subject that he has never even tried to understand.Everything you say about the No Free Lunch Theorem has been a stupid ignorant mistake, and until you try to find out what the theorem says, this state of affairs will continue. You are lying to me, about me.You poor stupid sniveling halfwit. The one that I have pointed out to you. In this thing called "reality". You should pay more attention to it. I never said any such thing --- and although I have a low view of your intellect and indeed your sanity, I am fairly sure that you are dimly aware that I have never said any such thing.Therefore, you are a stupid, disgusting, ridiculous, degraded liar. No, of course not. Again, let me allude to the fact that you are vaguely sentient. I have never troubled myself to form an opinion on that subject.I know that you are a liar and a fool. Whether or not you are a Christian is a matter for you. Try to remember that when you drool out insane lies about me, then I know that you're wrong.When you drool out idiotic filth like this, I am perfectly aware that you are only debasing and degrading yourself. As you know perfectly well, you disgusting sniveling little liar, I have never said anything of the sort. You find it funny to tell stupid lies?Well, each to his own. I find that I can mock you by telling nothing but the truth. That's one of the great things about being right. This is, of course, not true. Of course I understood it. Specifically, I understood why it was the halfwitted droolings of a moron who'd never been bothered to study the subject that he's being wrong about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Did I once call you a "Jew Wizard"? No.Designer = Creator = Yahweh = The One True God = Jahovah = The Great Jew WizardThey are all interchangeable terms.You are the one who's presenting Dembski's arguments as valid. Dembski has made is clear that the designer is the Fundamentalist Christian God (aka Jew Wizard).Do you not see the difference between my saying "God is a Jew Wizard" and you saying "You stupid Muslim-Hindu"? See this is exactly the sort of language that'll earn you a time out. One in one sentence you managed to call me "childish" and tell me "you started it!"Kettle? I've got Mr. Pot holding on line one. He says he's calling about your color. I think someone needs a time out.

I've explained all this to you. You may find that you look like less of a clown if you read my posts before replying to them. As I have explained, if the population is sufficiently large, genetic meltdown will not occur. But you must know that what you are saying is false. Therefore you are a liar.Let me talk you through this again. I have a BSc in mathematics and computer science, and a PhD in mmath. And you, let's be fair, are a drooling idiot talking nonsense about a field of mathematics that you have never taken the trouble to study.That's the fundamental cause of the fact that I am right and you are ludicrously, contemptibly, drivelingly, droolingly, pathetically, hopelessly wrong.Because you have never spent any time studying the subject that you're being wrong about. Since you have never studied optimization theory, how the heck do you think you can be right about it? Are you just hoping that if you talk whatever crap comes into your head, you'll turn out to be lucky? If so, let me advise you that this didn't happen. Because you didn't take the time to study optimization theory, everything you say about it is complete shit. I have explained that. If there was any aspect of it that you didn't understand, please feel free to ask me supplementary questions. I have already apologized for reducing you to hysteria. It was not my objective to break your mind --- rather, I just wanted to make you less dumb about math. When you lie about this subject, do you have the least shred of a scrap of an iota of hope that you will actually deceive me? See my previous posts. Do try to understand them.Do you know how much I usually get paid per hour for explaining math to people? For you, you poor little guy, I do it for free, and yet in return all you do is rave and dribble. You poor little failure. Yes, but not particularly by comparing myself to a drooling halfwit. I am good at math compared to other people who are good at math. I feel proud of my abilities without comparing myself to a disgusting and contemptible failure such as you. The reason why you are wrong is that you do not know what the No Free Lunch Theorem says.You should really try to find out. Earth to mad person. You do not know more about math than me. You know less about math than me. This is why I am right about the No Free Lunch Theorem and you are a prize exhibit of a puffed-up halfwit drooling out moronic nonsense about a subject that he has never even tried to understand.Everything you say about the No Free Lunch Theorem has been a stupid ignorant mistake, and until you try to find out what the theorem says, this state of affairs will continue. You are lying to me, about me.You poor stupid sniveling halfwit. The one that I have pointed out to you. In this thing called "reality". You should pay more attention to it. I never said any such thing --- and although I have a low view of your intellect and indeed your sanity, I am fairly sure that you are dimly aware that I have never said any such thing.Therefore, you are a stupid, disgusting, ridiculous, degraded liar. No, of course not. Again, let me allude to the fact that you are vaguely sentient. I have never troubled myself to form an opinion on that subject.I know that you are a liar and a fool. Whether or not you are a Christian is a matter for you. Try to remember that when you drool out insane lies about me, then I know that you're wrong.When you drool out idiotic filth like this, I am perfectly aware that you are only debasing and degrading yourself. As you know perfectly well, you disgusting sniveling little liar, I have never said anything of the sort. You find it funny to tell stupid lies?Well, each to his own. I find that I can mock you by telling nothing but the truth. That's one of the great things about being right. This is, of course, not true. Of course I understood it. Specifically, I understood why it was the halfwitted droolings of a moron who'd never been bothered to study the subject that he's being wrong about.

I've explained all this to you. You may find that you look like less of a clown if you read my posts before replying to them. As I have explained, if the population is sufficiently large, genetic meltdown will not occur. But you must know that what you are saying is false. Therefore you are a liar.Let me talk you through this again. I have a BSc in mathematics and computer science, and a PhD in math. And you, let's be fair, are a drooling idiot talking nonsense about a field of mathematics that you have never taken the trouble to study.That's the fundamental cause of the fact that I am right and you are ludicrously, contemptibly, drivelingly, droolingly, pathetically, hopelessly wrong--- because you have never spent any time studying the subject that you're being wrong about.Since you have never studied optimization theory, how the heck do you think you can be right about it? Are you just hoping that if you talk whatever crap comes into your head, you'll turn out to be lucky? If so, let me advise you that this didn't happen. Because you didn't take the time to study optimization theory, everything you say about it is complete shit. I have explained that. If there was any aspect of it that you didn't understand, please feel free to ask me supplementary questions. I have already apologized for reducing you to hysteria. It was not my objective to break your mind --- rather, I just wanted to make you less dumb about math. When you lie about this subject, do you have the least shred of a scrap of an iota of hope that you will actually deceive me? See my previous posts. Do try to understand them.Do you know how much I usually get paid per hour for explaining math to people? For you, you poor little guy, I do it for free, and yet in return all you do is rave and dribble. You pathetic little failure. Yes, but not particularly by comparing myself to a drooling halfwit. I am good at math compared to other people who are good at math. I feel proud of my abilities without comparing myself to a disgusting and contemptible failure such as you. The reason why you are wrong is that you do not know what the No Free Lunch Theorem says.You should really try to find out. Earth to mad person. You do not know more about math than me. You know less about math than me. This is why I am right about the No Free Lunch Theorem and you are a prize exhibit of a puffed-up halfwit drooling out moronic nonsense about a subject that he has never even tried to understand.Everything you say about the No Free Lunch Theorem has been a stupid ignorant mistake, and until you try to find out what the theorem says, this state of affairs will continue. You are lying to me, about me.You poor stupid sniveling halfwit. The ones that I have pointed out to you. In this thing called "reality". You should pay more attention to it. I never said any such thing --- and although I have a low view of your intellect and indeed your sanity, I am fairly sure that you are dimly aware that I have never said any such thing.Therefore, you are a stupid, disgusting, ridiculous, degraded liar. No, of course not. Again, let me allude to the fact that you are vaguely sentient. I have never troubled myself to form an opinion on that subject.I know that you are a liar and a fool. Whether or not you are a Christian is a matter for you. Try to remember that when you drool out insane lies about me, then I know that you're wrong.When you drool out idiotic filth like this, I am perfectly aware that you are only debasing and degrading yourself. As you know perfectly well, you disgusting sniveling little liar, I have never said anything of the sort. You find it funny to tell stupid lies?Well, each to his own. I find that I can mock you by telling nothing but the truth. That's one of the great things about being right. This is, of course, not true. Of course I understood it. Specifically, I understood why it was the halfwitted droolings of a moron who's never been bothered to study the subject that he's being wrong about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He mutated the Beta lactamase protein to se when will it lose it's function. What other functions does it have except this one?

---

I don't know. And neither do you. Nor do you know if the mutated versions developed other functions. And the reason that you don't know is that Axe didn't do the tests to find out.

quote:

---

Whatever you said is not what Dembski said. You can't even tell the difference between the specification and a fabrication, so why would I trst you. I don't believe anything you say. You claim to have read TDI. If you really did, can you give me the definition of spceification, exactly it was written in TDI?

---

Of course the truth is that we don't disagree on the definition of a specification. You know as well as I do that the specification that you are using is a fabrication since it's main basis is the actual event.Since I am away from home without my copy of TDI I cannot give exact quotes at present. But since the definition is not a point of contention that hardly matters.

quote:

---

How can it be wrong? Dembski himslef said it that way?

---

Dembski says that a pattern has to be definable independantly of the actual event. His seperability criterion. Your "specifcation" is not and cannot be defined independantly of the event. Thus it is not a valid specification.

quote:

---

I increased the chance by 20%, what more was I supposed to do?

---

fortunately your attempt was not THAT bad, but it still grossly overestimated the complexity. What you need to do is to work out how many sequences are no more than 20% different.

quote:

---

They are irrelevant because of the difference in their complexity. We are than dealing with totally different machines. Which have more or less CSI. If they have the same complxity, than calcualting flagellums CSI is the same as calcualting their CSI.

---

In other words they are irrelevant because you are NOT using the specification of a "bi-directional propellor". So that specification (which is valid by Dembski's criterion) is also irrelevant. It's introduction is nothing more than an attempt to pretend to be following Dembski's method - because you know that you are using a fabrication.

quote:

---

Than what did you bring up? Salt crystals, that's the same.

---

We discussed the specification of a salt crystal. If you want to claim that snowflakes are the same, that's your claim. I don't have to support anything you say.

quote:

---

We are setting aside that now. You see that doesn't help you. Becasue of two reasons. First is that growth does not create information itself. It only unpacks the already existing information. So yes, we do have to calculate the whole structure when it's funished.

​

And second, you would have to account for the information of the growth information and mechanisms. Which means that this reduces teh probability of the flagellum nd the growth mechanism arising without design. This goes totally against your claim.

---

The second point IS my claim. It help me because it shows that what you SHOULD be attempting to do is to apply Dembski's method to the mechanisms underlying the growth of the flagellum - instead of doing completely the wrong calculation on the flagellum structure or the genes.

quote:

---

As I just said above, This does not help you in any possible way. This would just increase the amount of information, and decrease the chance.

---

If you can't work out why the fact that you are going against Dembski's method helps me, then you would have to be very stupid.

quote:

---

You don't get it. I'm not saying that two deleterious mutations may not act as a beneficial, unlike where one deleterious mutation would just be deleterious. I'm saying that that does not help you because that still leads to degradation of genetic information in the genome, which leads to genetic entropy.

---

Of course you are writing complete nonsense. The question is whether a reduction in fitness in one respect may be offset by an increase in fitness in some other respect. Obviously it is possible for that to occur.

quote:

---

Completely WRONG! This is why you fail to understand what genetic entropy is, and how it works.

​

Genetic entropy is NOT about beneficial VS deleterious mutations! It's about accumulation of ANY mutations.Beneficial mutations still degrade genetic information and cause genetic entropy.

---

Your assertion that beneficial mutations lead to genetic meltdown and extinction is just your opinion. YOu won't find it in any scientific study. And of course, the fact that the comment you were responding to did not even mention beneficial mutations. Instead it talked about the REMOVAL of deleterious mutations which would obviously act against accumulation.

quote:

---

Yes it does. Becasue if mutations can't be eliminated 100%, they will logically accumulate!

---

Of course that's wrong. To prevent accumulation all that is required is that the rate of removal equals the rate of entry. Natural selection simply needs to be efficient enough that the balance point is reached before genetic meltdown occurs.

quote:

---

Look at this picture. This is from a paper by Motoo Kimura. He has shown that some mutations are nearly neutral. They are in the shaded area. They have such a small effect on fitness that they do not get selected, and they keep accumulation in the population.

---

I have already answered that point. By definition the effect on fitness is the same as the force of selection against the mutation. Complete invisibility to selection is complete neutrality. The fact that selection against them is weak means that many will accumulate before the balance point is reached. However, because the effect on fitness is equally weak that is not necessarily a problem - a population can tolerate many without suffering a major loss of fitness.

quote:

---

In otehr words, you already made up your mind and you don't care what anyone who des not agree with you has to say...

---

No. It means that I trust the opinion of people who know what they are talking over the opinion of people who don't - and don't care.

When has it done so?

But my dear PaulK. This is true. This is obviously true. It can be demonstrated as true as a simple matter of logic. Even a child could see that this is true. For a grown man to fail to see the truth of this extraordinarily obvious proposition, he would have to be mentally handicapped or insane.A man would have to be grotesquely mentally dysfunctional not to realize the self-evident truth of your statement.And yet you persist in trying to explain it to a creationist.

I was hoping another moderator might step in, but it is the holiday season and I don't think the other moderators are around, and this is rather blatant and extreme, so I'm going to begin moderating this thread.This is from the Forum Guidelines:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Any rule 10 violations from you that appear after this post will bring a 24 hour suspension.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I actually knew a Hindu-Muslim at one point.

​

Really he had just added Allah to his collection, you know? Had a bit of mosque decor up against the east wall of one room, facing Mecca, in between some voudun guys on one side and Yahweh and three Jesuses on the other. Basically every once in a while, when he got the yen, he liked to kneel on his prayer-rug there and bang his head against the ground and chant some Arabic. Not 5 times a day though, closer to 5 times a year.

​

I told him that sort of thing was just going to get him killed. He said "Yes, yes, it is so. Many times already I have been killed." A shrug and a sly half-smile, and he was off, burning incense to the Laughing Buddha and polishing his Kali again.

---

Good for you.

quote:

---

Uhm, no, it's about the deleterious ones. Hence the name.

---

Wrong! Did you read Stanford's book "Genetic Entropy"? No obviously you didn't. If you did, you would know that beneficial mutations also deteriorate the information of the genome.

quote:

---

The neutral ones don't do much of anything, again hence the name.

---

Yes, that's right. And that is precisely why they are the worst kind of mutations. It's becasue they do such a small amount of damage, that they are effectively neutral to natural selection. So they keep accumulating.

quote:

---

Oh, if they pile up long enough you get an emergent property, which may be good or bad, but nature just kills it.

---

No, you don't. That is basicly a genetic drift. Which is random chance. An nobody sane would argue that evolution occures by random chance. You get nothing by random chance, except an increase in entropy.

quote:

---

As long as the population is big enough to where the genes involved aren't the sole representatives, the species gets right over it.

---

Fine. What it the number of individuals that completely stops gentic entropy? Let's hear it.

quote:

---

I've explained all this to you. You may find that you look like less of a clown if you read my posts before replying to them.

---

No. You didn't. You very well know that.

quote:

---

As I have explained, if the population is sufficiently large, genetic meltdown will not occur.

---

Explain why. You just said it wont occure. Now explain why.

quote:

---

But you must know that what you are saying is false. Therefore you are a liar.

​

Let me talk you through this again. I have a BSc in mathematics and computer science, and a PhD in math. And you, let's be fair, are a drooling idiot talking nonsense about a field of mathematics that you have never taken the trouble to study.

​

That's the fundamental cause of the fact that I am right and you are ludicrously, contemptibly, drivelingly, droolingly, pathetically, hopelessly wrong.

​

Because you have never spent any time studying the subject that you're being wrong about. Since you have never studied optimization theory, how the heck do you think you can be right about it? Are you just hoping that if you talk whatever crap comes into your head, you'll turn out to be lucky? If so, let me advise you that this didn't happen. Because you didn't take the time to study optimization theory, everything you say about it is complete shit.

---

You know very well that you stole all your diplomas. Admit it already.

quote:

---

I have explained that. If there was any aspect of it that you didn't understand, please feel free to ask me supplementary questions.

---

Cite me the part where you explained it.

quote:

---

I have already apologized for reducing you to hysteria. It was not my objective to break your mind --- rather, I just wanted to make you less dumb about math.

---

But you don't know math. Nobody could have made you less dumb by any method of teaching in the first place.

quote:

---

When you lie about this subject, do you have the least shred of a scrap of an iota of hope that you will actually deceive me?

---

I'm not trying to deceive you, I'm trying to show you that you are wrong.

quote:

---

See my previous posts. Do try to understand them.

​

Do you know how much I usually get paid per hour for explaining math to people? For you, you poor little guy, I do it for free, and yet in return all you do is rave and dribble. You poor little failure.

---

But you don't know math. That's your problem.

quote:

---

Yes, but not particularly by comparing myself to a drooling halfwit. I am good at math compared to other people who are good at math. I feel proud of my abilities without comparing myself to a disgusting and contemptible failure such as you.

---

Naw, you are useless in life, and you know it.

quote:

---

The reason why you are wrong is that you do not know what the No Free Lunch Theorem says.

​

You should really try to find out.

---

What does it say?

quote:

---

Earth to mad person. You do not know more about math than me. You know less about math than me. This is why I am right about the No Free Lunch Theorem and you are a prize exhibit of a puffed-up halfwit drooling out moronic nonsense about a subject that he has never even tried to understand.

​

Everything you say about the No Free Lunch Theorem has been a stupid ignorant mistake, and until you try to find out what the theorem says, this state of affairs will continue.

---

No, you don't. You know nothing. The least of is math.

quote:

---

You are lying to me, about me.

​

You poor stupid sniveling halfwit.

---

Arte you describing your mother?

quote:

---

The one that I have pointed out to you.

---

Which ones are those?

quote:

---

In this thing called "reality". You should pay more attention to it.

---

Show me exactly where.

quote:

---

I never said any such thing --- and although I have a low view of your intellect and indeed your sanity, I am fairly sure that you are dimly aware that I have never said any such thing.

​

Therefore, you are a stupid, disgusting, ridiculous, degraded liar.

---

You extrapolated in a way which is the same as saying that 100+100 does not equal 200.

quote:

---

No, of course not. Again, let me allude to the fact that you are vaguely sentient.

---

You know how that feels don't you?

quote:

---

I have never troubled myself to form an opinion on that subject.

​

I know that you are a liar and a fool. Whether or not you are a Christian is a matter for you.

---

Again, describing your mom with those words, are you?

quote:

---

Try to remember that when you drool out insane lies about me, then I know that you're wrong.

​

When you drool out idiotic filth like this, I am perfectly aware that you are only debasing and degrading yourself.

---

Naw, I think a person that give birth to you has degraded itself even more than that.

quote:

---

As you know perfectly well, you disgusting sniveling little liar, I have never said anything of the sort.

---

You made the same category mistake.

quote:

---

You find it funny to tell stupid lies?

​

Well, each to his own. I find that I can mock you by telling nothing but the truth. That's one of the great things about being right.

---

You know for having a PhD, why aren't you doing soemthing smart, instead hanging out on forums all day long? Do you find that funny?

quote:

---

This is, of course, not true.

​

Of course I understood it. Specifically, I understood why it was the halfwitted droolings of a moron who'd never been bothered to study the subject that he's being wrong about.

---

Oh, yes it is, so let me repost it. Let's see if you'll reply this time.Here you go: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:

---

Did I once call you a "Jew Wizard"? No.

---

No, and I don't care. Simply using that name is just plain retarded.

quote:

---

Designer = Creator = Yahweh = The One True God = Jahovah = The Great Jew Wizard

---

This is retarded. I can also say that evolution is Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

They are all interchangeable terms.

---

As interchangeable as evolution is Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

You are the one who's presenting Dembski's arguments as valid.

---

Because they are.

quote:

---

Dembski has made is clear that the designer is the Fundamentalist Christian God (aka Jew Wizard).

---

No he didn't. He said that there is no evidence from design itself to point to the designer. But that his PERSONAL BELIEF, which he said has nothing to do with the evidence for ID, is that it's God. So you are confusing two totally distinct things.

quote:

---

Do you not see the difference between my saying "God is a Jew Wizard" and you saying "You stupid Muslim-Hindu"?

---

Both are irritating. I don't care if you get offended, you started it.

quote:

---

I don't know. And neither do you. Nor do you know if the mutated versions developed other functions. And the reason that you don't know is that Axe didn't do the tests to find out.

---

It ws totally useless. It didn't do anyting. If it did, that we would have seen some changes.

quote:

---

Of course the truth is that we don't disagree on the definition of a specification. You know as well as I do that the specification that you are using is a fabrication since it's main basis is the actual event.

​

Since I am away from home without my copy of TDI I cannot give exact quotes at present. But since the definition is not a point of contention that hardly matters.

---

Use google.books. You have the TDI and NFL there.

quote:

---

Dembski says that a pattern has to be definable independantly of the actual event. His seperability criterion. Your "specifcation" is not and cannot be defined independantly of the event. Thus it is not a valid specification.

---

Than expalin to me me what is my specification. How is this "my" specification different than Dembski's?

quote:

---

fortunately your attempt was not THAT bad, but it still grossly overestimated the complexity. What you need to do is to work out how many sequences are no more than 20% different.

---

What is that supposed to mean?

quote:

---

In other words they are irrelevant because you are NOT using the specification of a "bi-directional propellor". So that specification (which is valid by Dembski's criterion) is also irrelevant. It's introduction is nothing more than an attempt to pretend to be following Dembski's method - because you know that you are using a fabrication.

---

Yes, I am using that specification. I clearly pointed out to you that the differenceis in the complexity. If there is some other flagellum composed of more or of less proteins, than it's adifferent amount of CSI.

quote:

---

We discussed the specification of a salt crystal. If you want to claim that snowflakes are the same, that's your claim. I don't have to support anything you say.

---

Yes, tehy are the same. Both are produced by natural laws. Both have no specification, both are not designed.

quote:

---

The second point IS my claim. It help me because it shows that what you SHOULD be attempting to do is to apply Dembski's method to the mechanisms underlying the growth of the flagellum - instead of doing completely the wrong calculation on the flagellum structure or the genes.

---

No, that's a side event. That is a totally different event. That even does NOT account for the origin of flagellum's information. It only account for the expression of that inforamtion. It's origin is somewhere else.

quote:

---

If you can't work out why the fact that you are going against Dembski's method helps me, then you would have to be very stupid.

---

How am I going against his method?

quote:

---

Of course you are writing complete nonsense. The question is whether a reduction in fitness in one respect may be offset by an increase in fitness in some other respect. Obviously it is possible for that to occur.

---

But even if that happens, and yes I say it can happen, it still degrades the information in the genome! And that is what causes the genetic entropy. not the loss of fitness itself. Genetic entropy can be increasing, while teh fitness is increasing too!

quote:

---

Your assertion that beneficial mutations lead to genetic meltdown and extinction is just your opinion. YOu won't find it in any scientific study. And of course, the fact that the comment you were responding to did not even mention beneficial mutations. Instead it talked about the REMOVAL of deleterious mutations which would obviously act against accumulation.

---

NO IT'S A FCAT! I just gave you an example! Sickle cell is a BENEFICIAL mutation! Yet id degrades the information in the genome by making red blood cells less efficient!

quote:

---

Of course that's wrong. To prevent accumulation all that is required is that the rate of removal equals the rate of entry. Natural selection simply needs to be efficient enough that the balance point is reached before genetic meltdown occurs.

---

And that will only happen if the population is infinite in size!

quote:

---

I have already answered that point. By definition the effect on fitness is the same as the force of selection against the mutation. Complete invisibility to selection is complete neutrality. The fact that selection against them is weak means that many will accumulate before the balance point is reached. However, because the effect on fitness is equally weak that is not necessarily a problem - a population can tolerate many without suffering a major loss of fitness.

---

You answered it, but you were wrong! Natural selection is not perfect. It is affected by noise. By non-hereditary noise. Which increases genetic drift. Therefore, mutations that are nearly neutral, meaning slightly deleterious are still invisible to natural seelction.The graph shows just that. If you disagree with it, show me the one that agrees with you.

quote:

---

No. It means that I trust the opinion of people who know what they are talking over the opinion of people who don't - and don't care.

---

So you do not trust Motoo Kimura, becasue he is ignorant and he doesn't care?

quote:

---

It ws totally useless. It didn't do anyting. If it did, that we would have seen some changes.

---

How exactly can you "see" functions without testing for them ?

quote:

---

Use google.books. You have the TDI and NFL there.

---

Even if that is true it doesn't change the fact that we aren't arguing over the definition. You just refuse to apply it.

quote:

---

Than expalin to me me what is my specification. How is this "my" specification different than Dembski's?

---

Of course you haven't bothered to actually give your specification. All I know is that it includes either the protein or the gene sequences for the 50 proteins in the E Coli flagellum, modified by a factor that is supposed tollow for the 20% variation allowed by Axe.

quote:

---

What is that supposed to mean?

---

It mean that you have to calculate the number of sequences that are no more than 20% different from each of the 50 proteins or genes (whichever Axe used) that make up the E Coli flagellum. Or you could do the sensible thing and give up - because even if you include the correct factor the whole calculation doesn't do you any good anyway.

quote:

---

Yes, I am using that specification. I clearly pointed out to you that the differenceis in the complexity. If there is some other flagellum composed of more or of less proteins, than it's adifferent amount of CSI

---

You are wrong again. If TDI really is on google books you ought to read and understand it. Then you might not keep making so many mistakes. Or maybe not, because you will find sections of it harder to read than anything I've written.Anyway, you can't have CSI without a specification. The information content belongs to the specification not the particular event. So if the only valid specification you have includes both flagella - as is the case - then the only CSI you have is the same for each.

quote:

---

Yes, tehy are the same. Both are produced by natural laws. Both have no specification, both are not designed.

---

Salt crystals DON'T have the form of a face-centred cubic lattice ? This will be news to a lot of crystallographers.

quote:

---

No, that's a side event. That is a totally different event. That even does NOT account for the origin of flagellum's information. It only account for the expression of that inforamtion. It's origin is somewhere else.

---

So we have to go to the origins of the origins of the mechanisms that grow the flagellum now ? That's OK by me. Produce your specification and get calculating.

quote:

---

How am I going against his method?

---

By not using a valid specification, nor taking all possible explanations into account. Both are mandatory in TDI.

quote:

---

NO IT'S A FCAT! I just gave you an example! Sickle cell is a BENEFICIAL mutation! Yet id degrades the information in the genome by making red blood cells less efficient!

---

One example - especially where the beneficial nature of the mutation is highly qualified - is not sufficient to prove a universal claim. Especially when the claim itself is so vague and wooly.

quote:

---

You answered it, but you were wrong! Natural selection is not perfect. It is affected by noise. By non-hereditary noise. Which increases genetic drift. Therefore, mutations that are nearly neutral, meaning slightly deleterious are still invisible to natural seelction.

---

The only way that the can be truly invisible is to have no effect. That is a simple fact. By definition any deleterious mutation reduces fitness. By definition lower fitness means that the average number of offspring will be lower. And lower fitness individuals producing fewer offspring IS natural selection.

quote:

---

The graph shows just that. If you disagree with it, show me the one that agrees with you.

---

The graph shows no such thing. All it shows is that there are many more nearly neutral mutations then strongly deleterious mutations. That doesn't contradict my views in the slightest. In fact it's exactly what I predicted.

quote:

---

So you do not trust Motoo Kimura, becasue he is ignorant and he doesn't care?

---

At the present time I have no reason to think that Motoo Kimura agrees with your ideas of genetic entropy. If you could produce a genuine quotation which showed that he did I would take the idea a lot more seriously.

Hi Smooth Operator,Hopefully you have seen Message 353. If not please give it a read.The goal of EvC Forum is productive, informative, on-topic discussion in a civil fashion. This is the last warning. After this point I'll be issuing 24 hour suspensions to those in this thread who seem to be working against this goal. Those who think they may have posted in violation should go back and edit any suspect messages before I see them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sort of like when you have a hard drive with 100mb of data and you add another 1mb of data, you've seriously reduced the amount of data by -1%.You can't have it both ways SO. Either adding a new "good" mutation is ADDING or it's SUBTRACTING. Those two words, being opposite, can't mean the same thing.