|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The same way Nobel discovered dynamite. You don't test for it because you don't know what you are looking for. It blows up in your face when you get it right. Well, let us know when your face gets blown off, and we'll come and see why it happened. Until then, we know that your claims are refuted both by theory and by observation. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, let's leave aside your fatuous lies, and focus on your mere errors.
Wrong. Fitness is not proportionally corelated to biological functions. That was funny. So, you don't even know the meaning of the words that you're using. "Fitness is not proportionally corelated to biological functions", you say. That is most amusing.
Which means that fitness can go up, and geentic information can go down, which again, pushes genetic entropy up. Thus leading to the genetic meltdown. But Sanford's bibble about genetic entropy and genetic meltdown involves a reduction in fitness leading to extinction. If you are not being wrong about the same thing as him, why are you clinging to the same terms?
And just a minute, are you saying that information is not quantifiable? No, I said that you hadn't quantified it.
Ummm, which definition of information? That's what I'm asking you. As soon as you give me your method for measuring the quantity of "information" in a strand of DNA, I shall prove that your latest blunder is wrong. Until then, your latest blunder is meaningless. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words only functions that produce a violent and obvious reaction under Axe's working conditions would be noticed.
quote: Do you want to take back your definition of specification and try a new one then ? Look, the point you keep on missing is that the complexity is the probability of meeting the specification. So your real "specification" is the fabrication derived from the E Coli flagellum - because that is the is the basis of your attempted probability calculation.
quote: As I told you at the start, not all the terms were defined. (And that would make it somewhat less than the full definition).
quote: Then direct me to the post where you produced it, because I have not seen anything of the sort. In fact all I have seen is incomplete references to the calculations based on a fabrication - I haven't even seen the results of any calculations using the real specification.
quote: In other words if I do your work for you you MIGHT accept it as right. That's not exactly a generous offer. I've already produced an example demonstrating my point. That should be good enough.
quote: Since design does not enter into complexity calculations this is a complete irrelevance. If both fit the specification, both must be considered.
quote: A salt crystal has the structure of a face-centred cubic lattice. There you are, I just described a salt crystal in terms of the specification. And you said it couldn't be done !
quote: Which means that fully describing the event is NOT important. Thank you for conceding your error.
quote: A regularity is any high-probability event. A new E Coli bacterium growing a flagellum would seem to fit. (What proportion of E Coli bacteria are permanantly without a flagellum or acquire one in some other way ?) Of course if you want to argue that it is a low probability event (which is back to the Intelligent Designer individually assembling flagella) and if observation isn't good enough then you are still going to have to take the growth processes into account. Any way you look at it, simply looking at the structure of the flagellum is wrong. You need to calculate the probabilities of explanations for the event, and you cannot do that by simply looking at the event itself.
quote: An example is not a definition. Especially when it is a bad example. Sickle-cell is rather odd as beneficial mutations go (even in the environment where it is beneficial, the homozygous states is deleterious).
quote: That isn't what it says. It makes no mention of noise or anything interfering with selection.
quote: I'm glad that you realise your obvious error now.
quote: As I've already explained it assumes absolute neutrality. Here it is again:
...the molecular changes represented by these differences do not influence the fitness of the individual organism
If you understand the quote at all, it is perfectly clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RCS Member (Idle past 2638 days) Posts: 48 From: Delhi, Delhi, India Joined: |
A Hindu-Muslim? You are bereft of logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13043 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please, everyone, no more accusations of lying. They are personal and off-topic, and they require intimate knowledge of someone else that you are unlikely to have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It needs more than 3.5 billion years? Since we know genetic entropy is inevitable and that it hasn't happened yet, then the obvious conclusion is that the 3.5 billion years is incorrect and that the earth is probably young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
William Dembski, perhaps the most prominent proponent of intelligent design, wrote a book entitled Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. The term "intelligent design" was introduced in its modern sense by Charles Thaxton, the editor of Of Pandas and People, who then went through the draft of his book replacing the words "creation" and "creationism" with the words "intelligent design", and "creator" with "designer". This is just one reason why I don't take your world views to seriously. The following is a cut and paste from an article by William Dembski: Nor can design theory strictly speaking be said to be anti-evolutionist. This may sound surprising, especially since design theorists tend to dislike the term "evolution," viewing it as a weasel word that serves more to obfuscate than clarify. The reason design theorists dislike the word is not because they repudiate every possible construal of it, but because they regard it as a Protean term which, much like the process it describes, adapts itself too readily to any situation. Although design theorists regard the word "evolution" as assuming too many distinct meanings that are too easily confused, the notion that organisms have changed over time hardly upsets them. Design theory places no limits on the amount of evolutionary change that organisms might have experienced in the course of natural history. Consistent with classical views of creation, design allows for the abrupt emergence of new forms of life. At the same time design is also consistent with the gradual formation of new forms of life from old. http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_theologn.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I'm afraid I've lost track of who's one which team.This makes it sound like you AREN'T a creationist, but the slant I got from the above post was that you were. Help clear it up. Creationists would probably be better off abandoning their views in favor of new paradigms. I suggest they interpret Genesis 1 "not" from the paradigm of materialistic thought (a paradigm that interprets it into a linear historical and totally physical framework) but from Einsteinian and non-materialistic quantum physics. Perhaps Genesis 1 is a holographic blueprint expressed in a certain mathematical framework. Day one - light (one dimensional information) Day two - division between dimensions (not just a division of water) Day three - completion of a three dimensional hologram designed for living creatures Day four - introduction of the dimension of time Day five - more chaos? I continue to investigate the whole concept and I don't think I would classify this as intelligent design but I don't think we can neatly classify certain things neatly into categories. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:We don't. How, do you know that there is no invisible pink unicorn hiding in my bedroom? How do you know there is no flying teapot in Earth's orbit? How do you know there are no monsters right behind you right now? Etc... We don't know. And unless we have any ividene that it is that weay, we do not claim it is that way. Therefore, snowflakes are not designed under that design hypothesis.
quote:No, I'm not. You are misinterpreting me. quote:Regularity and intermediate probability falsify th design hypothesis. quote:Any bedroom could be hiding an invisible pink unicorn too. But do you go around and saying that they are really hidden there, unless you have some evidence first? quote:Philosophically yes, scientifically no. quote:You do not understand how science works. First of all science is not about aboslutes. It's not about certainty. You are again confusingphilosophical metaphysics, and science. One deals with absolutes, the other does not. Guess which one does what? As I said, since science does not deal with absolutes, we do not want to prove anything absolutely. And second, we do not prove that something is not. We do not need to go and prove something wrong. I am not supposed to go and inspect a bedroom of a person who claims that there is an invisible pink unicorn there. What he has to do is to provide evidene for what he is claiming is located there. In the same way, if you do not have any evidence a random hill is designed, than untill we have some evidence that it is, we consider the design hypothesis falsified. And we invoke chance and regularity to account for it's surface. Now that's science.
quote:It may not even happen in 6 billion years if the conditions are just right, or 10 billion years, so what's your point? Anyway, do you have any evidnece that life exists for 3 billion years already? quote:Show me one evidence. quote:When entropy will take place? It's happening right now as we speak every second of our lives. And on the other hand. Here is a great example of constant decrease in complexity. As you can clearly see, during the time of the experiment, a bunch of self replicating RNAs got shorther and shorter. Not longer and longer. So please explain how does this not show genetic entropy? And further more, how have these RNAs have supposed to evolve into full-blown living cells, if they kept getting shorter? Not to mention, that they would have had to evolve into people! Spiegelman's Monster - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Drew, what on Earth are you talking about?
This is just one reason why I don't take your world views to seriously. Dr A's post was not about "world view". He presented you with a set of facts. The definitions of "creation" and "intelligent design" from Pandas and People are absolutely genuine. The title of Dumbski's book is genuine. The quote from Johnson is genuine. Here's another;
quote: Where exactly does the oh-so-biased world-view come into it? You have been presented with a set of facts which clearly demonstrate the religious nature of the ID movement. It has been clearly described as a religious movement by it most prominent advocates, the very people who founded the movement. You have it straight from the horses' mouths. What else it there to say other than to admit that ID is a religious movement? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:That's what you say. But than again, what do you know anyway... quote:No, it's not amusing, it's a fact. How many times did I mention sickle cell already? This mutation deforms the red blood cells. Thereby, reducing the amount and effectiveness of a biological function. Which is to transport oxygen to tissue. Yet, in that same time, it increases the fitness because it makes peopple who have this mutations immune to malaria. Thus showing that by reducing some biological functions you can increase fitness. Which means that they are not proportionally correlated. quote:The fitness may go down. It's not 100% neccessary that it goes down. A mutation can make the fitness and genetic information go down. But it doesn't have to. A mutation can also increase fitness and still decrease genetic information. quote:Information is quantified by bits. There, i quantified it. quote:I've already explained this amyn times. No need to go back to it, please move along to something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Unless you got evidence for it, don't claim that it exists. That's how science works. quote:It's not a fabrication becasue we know that the pattern that fits the flagellum, also fits human made artifacts. quote:There is nothing else there. I have the book right infront of me. When you get back home, than please do look it up. quote:And again, I will then tell you, that you should produce better numbers than mine. I'm done calcualting for you. quote:No, I' not going to accept it as right in any way, unless you explain why my method is wrong. And why your is better. quote:If they do not fit the complexity, than they shouldn't. quote:Wrong. Elementary mistake. Look up at what the TDI says! You ahve to be able to describe the salt crystal without recurse at the event. Which means, that you can't say that the salt crystal looks like "face-centred cubic lattice". Because you have just made a recurse to the event you are trying to describe in the first place! You mentioned the salt crystal, you can't do that. quote:The event is the flagellum. That's what's important. quote:No, that's would only apply to laws. The growth mechanism itself is in question of being designed. So you can't say flagellu grows by regularity, since regualrity only means natural laws. If it didn't mean that, than the functioning of the flagellum is also very probable, and could be said to be working according to a regularity. But obviously, that's wrong. quote:I'm going to take it into account when I will want to know if it was designed or not. Now I do not wan't to know that. I'm only concerned with the flagellum. quote:But we are not trying to accoun for it's growth, but for it's existance in general. quote:No it's not odd. You think that's the only example!? Really!? Did you know there are people resistant to HIV? Yup! It's true. And guess what? Obviously, that's a beneficial mutation, right! But the best part is, it's reduces the amount of genetic information, by a deletion, thus making the receptor that HIV uses to enter the cell, inactive! Therefore, it's increaseing the genetic entropy, yet it's a beneficial mutation! The same thing as sickle cell. I told you that beneficial mutations also cause genetic entropy by degrading biological functions, yet you didn't want to believe it, well now you have it. Enjoy.
quote:CCR5 - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The fitness may go down. It's not 100% neccessary that it goes down. A mutation can make the fitness and genetic information go down. But it doesn't have to. A mutation can also increase fitness and still decrease genetic information. So if point mutation 1 decreases genetic information, what happens with point mutation 2, the inverse of point mutation 1?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Unless you got evidence for it, don't claim that it exists. That's how science works.
Those pushing their various religious beliefs in the guise of science (e.g., those pushing creation "science" and ID) should take your words to heart. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I didn't claim that anything existed. I pointed out that YOU didn't have the evidence to back up YOUR claim.
quote: Humans make things out of the 50 proteins used in the E Coli flagellum (or variants within 20% difference) ? Or is it that you still utterly fail to understand Dembski's method despite my repeated explanations ?
quote: I got back today and I have just done so. There is a list of 8 terms and their definitions at the bottom of p144. Exactly what I said was needed. I can only suppose that your copy is defective, with a blank page 144, otherwise you could have found it by simply glancing to the left.
quote: I've already advised you not to bother because the calculation is irrelevant anyway. And it certainly isn't my job to help you, by doing your work for you.
quote: I've already done all that, and your only response is to demand that I do the work for you. Well it's not my problem if your calculations are mistaken and useless. It only undermines your case.
quote: That is not even meaningful. Since you need to consider them all to produce a SINGLE valid complexity figure using the only valid specification you have offered (instead of the fabrication you actually tried to use) there is no question of them fitting or not fitting "the complexity".Let me repeat again: the complexity is the probability of an event matching the specification without design, considering all possible explanations. quote: If you read TDI you would find out that you are completely wrong, as I have already explained. There is nothing wrong with deriving the original pattern from the event (as indeed you have done) so long as it can be reasonably derived without reference to the event (TRACT). And a simple geometric structure, such as a face-centred cubic lattice obviously can be derived without reference to the event.
quote: You are wrong, as usual. All high probability events are classified as being due to regularities. Just check TDI.
quote: You're wrong about the definition of regularity and the rest of your argument is a confused mess, too. It's really very simple. If you don't want to consider the origins of the growth mechanisms then you just have to accept that they exist. If you want to say that THEY are designed then you need to apply Dembski's method to them. (And what if they are not ?)
quote: Then you're stuck with the flagellum being a high probability event, and therefore attributed to regularity.
quote: The immediate origin is the growth mechanisms. Any account more basic than that will be an account of those mechanisms.
quote: Well it IS odd as an example of a beneficial mutation because it can't ever be fixed in a population. And no, I don't think that you can't find a few other examples nor did I suggest that it would be impossible. What I pointed out is that examples are not definitions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024