What exactly is ID?

Well I should let you know I have never heard Dembski's version of csi. I did likely pick up the term from one of his associates though. But common sense should tell you that just because something has a visual pattern that we can recognize, does not equate to information. Ripple marks left by waves on a beach or beautiful crystal formations in the depths of a cave do not transmit bits of data that can be received and used. The precise arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA strand however do transmit bits of data that are received and used. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins has even been quoted as saying that the information in the DNA of a single celled amoeba is greater than that of a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Here's a recap of something I posted on another thread. See if this helps.Richard Dawkins has been quoted as having once said that the DNA of a single celled amoeba has more information than a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. obviously in order for him to make such a claim, there must be a meaningful way to identify and measure information. Wikipedia says: "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information." The article also explains that information can be measured by measuring "the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021" Therefore in DNA, information refers specifically to the measurable algorithmic patterns in which the nucleotides are arranged, and specifically the number of bits of the shortest program that computes that sequence. It is also important to note that it is not necessary for information (in this case) to be mentally received and appreciated by a receiver in order to be classified as information. Another example of information might be when scientists study the signals sent by a honey bee to others in the hive (by way of his dance), or those sent by a dolphin (with its movements and high pitches), they determine the complexity of the information in much the same way. SETI researchers likewise conclude that if a single string of prime numbers were to be detected being transmitted from deep space this would also be a much higher algorithmic measurement then regular space noise. So much so that they would deem such a transmission as being intelligent in origin. Likewise the information in DNA is considered more and more complex as the bits of computable data become higher and higher when computing the algorithm patterns of the nucleotides of the genes in the DNA of an organism. When we compare that information measured in DNA, with say the information found in one book like an Encyclopedia Britannica, we find it is truly much more complex. One thousand times more complex, according to Dawkins. This brings me back to my original question. In order to transition from fish to creatures with legs, there would have to be a tremendous adding to and building up of information in the chromosomal DNA of an organism. So in order to biologically prove this was even possible we would have to have at least one observed example of a mutation adding new information to the DNA. Not just "copies and repeats" but actual new information that forms a new and novel function.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

quote:

---

Here's a recap of something I posted on another thread. See if this helps.

---

Only in that it shows that you are confusing two very different concepts. It is in part Dembski's fault for his misuse of the term "complex", and his use of "information" is certainly not that expressed in the Wikipedia article you quote. Your whole quote has got nothing to do with Dembski's CSI at all.So, it's time to make your mind up. Are you going to talk about your information argument which belongs in another thread (since it isn't from the ID movement) and certainly does NOT rule out natural patterns or are you going to talk about Dembski's CSI ?

But that doesn't mean that it was magically put there by a Jew Wizard using Jew Beams.There is a myriad of information contained in the sediment off the mouth of the Mississippi river telling us tons of information about weather patterns back through time.There's even MORE information stored in the ice caps telling us atmospheric conditions back thousands of years.Were these things magicked into place by the Jew Beams as well?

If we provided you with evidence that there has been DNA mutations which result in new information and new novel functions will you admit that your entire argument is fraud?OR will you simply say, "I don't care, I'm going to heaven when the rapture comes and you all are going to hell?"Give us a heads up so we know exactly how much bullcrap to expect from you before we do our work.

Mmm, I specifically asked him to argue that one in this thread. My bad, where did I go wrong? Have we not been begging both of the other live proponentsists to quantify genetic information for us? And this guy is trying to do it using actual scientific terms, too.Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was exclusively for Jew/Wizard baiting.

Hi all!Now that Smooth Operator is temporarily dormant, I'm going to return to normal participation until the situation changes.--Percy

Please, everyone, don't make personal comments, keep the focus on the topic.And about the topic, given the thread's history, information seems a legitimate topic here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I'm really starting to get bored with your intentional idiocy.

---

Now now, don't let your atheism get the better of you. We know that atheists can't help themselves and will throw a fit when they are losing their mind. But at least keep an appearance.

quote:

---

Give us an example of something that someone/something has designed - PROVEN DESIGN (not alleged) - where we have ABSOLUTELY no idea HOW it was done.

---

Science doesn't deal with proof. I think everyone knows that. Or atleast should know if he has any intention in discussing scientific matters.

quote:

---

For example: The pyramids. They piled rocks up. That's how it was done.

---

How do you know that, were you there?

quote:

---

Find us ONE example of something where we can't explain what happened and you WIN this debate.

​

-OR-

​

Alternately, PROVE the existence of the Giant Jew Wizard -or- his magic Jew Beams and you WIN this debate.

​

Either way. Give it your best shot.

---

My intention was not to win anything. But I won a long time ago anyway...

quote:

---

With the exception of humans in the last few hundred years, can you name some examples of a species where MOST of their offspring survive to reproduce?

​

You can't.

​

That's because if any species REGULARLY had MOST of their offspring survive to reproduce, they would exponentially expand their population and over take the world.

​

The idea that "on average" more bad mutations happen than good implies that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of a population survives to reproduce EVERY TIME and therefore EVERY MUTATION is passed on.

---

No, it's called the Kimura distrubution. I already posted the picture of a graph that shows how mutations are distributed.

quote:

---

That's NOT reality.

​

In REALITY (you should join us here) things DIE before they reproduce.

​

In REALITY if you have a bad mutation, chances are you aren't going to survive and therefore WON'T pass on that mutation.

---

That's not really true, since natural selection sucks badly. There is noise involved which natural selection can't overcome. So in reality, genetic drift is what operates most of the time. Mutations either good or bad, get passed on almost randomly. That is because there are non-heritable variations that interfeer with natural selection. They are as follows:1.) Environmental variation.
2.) Interaction of the environment with the genotype.
3.) Epigenetics
4.) Epistasis.
5.) Dominance.
6.) Homeostasis and cyclic selection.All of these variation overshadow natural selection. And that is why it's not efficient. So a view that those with beneficial mutations survive, and those witht deleterious do not, even on average, is childish, and simplistic.

quote:

---

In REALITY if you have a good mutation, chances are you ARE going to survive and therefore WILL pass on that mutation.

​

The AVERAGE of how many of each time of mutation occurs AT BIRTH is completely worthless if not ALL members are passing on their genes.

---

See? That's what I'm talking about. This is childish and primitive view of natural selection. It doesn't work like that. Even if it was real, so what? ALL, and I do mean ALL individuals are full of deleterious mutations. Theri own, and those that they inherit from their parents. So how is natural seelction going to help tham even if they get a beneficial mutation, since they are already full of deleterious ones? And the best part is, even some beenficial cause genetic entropy. You can't win this one...

quote:

---

I.e. beneficial ones.

---

It doesn't matter how you call them. You can call them holy mutations if you want. They still increase genetic entropy.

quote:

---

So if increase in genetic entropy can go hand in hand with adaptive evolution, then your claim that genetic entropy increases is not an argument against evolution, is it?

---

Obviously it is, becasue when the entropy reacehs a critical level in the population the population is dead.

quote:

---

The claim of biologists is that evolution takes place, not that there is a net decrease in some mystical property known as "genetic entropy" that some guy on some internet forum keeps failing to define.

---

That's what you say. Kimura said otherwise. He was not "some guy on some internet forum" you know...

quote:

---

You figured out how to measure "genetic information yet?

---

A looong time ago...

quote:

---

So crappy that it prevents its carriers from dying of malaria.

​

Yeah, that's how crappy it is.

---

And what do they get in return? Totally inefficient blood flow system. Are you telling me that evolution works by this kind of mutations?

quote:

---

But this is only true of small populations, as we know.

---

No this is only true for all population. But it's more pronounced in smaller ones.

But after 3.5+ billion years genetic entropy shows no signs of eliminating millions upon millions of species that are now thriving worldwide--most of which are thriving just fine in spite of your belief in the "fall" and your attempt to link that to genetic entropy.Genetic entropy = Yawn!The "fall" = Myth.And you are still ignoring these inconvenient facts even though I've posted them a half dozen times. That's OK. The rest of the folks reading the thread know you are ducking the issue.

---

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

quote:

---

No, you don't know that. Was it tested for other functions ?

---

It has only one fuction from the start LOL! WTF are you talking about???

quote:

---

You stated that the pattern was satisfied by 50 proteins. This is not true. You could have a molecule of each of those 50 proteins and still not satisfy the pattern - or even come close to it. What is the case is that there is at least one structure built from molecules of those 50 different proteins which satisfies the pattern. And this latter is what I brought your attention to.

---

I don't understand what this means? Does anyone understand you? WTF are you saying? Speak English!

quote:

---

If you bothered to read on you would have seen that they were used to express the conditions that a valid specification must meet. And knowing what those letters refer to is essential to understanding those conditions.

---

Is than in turn specification used for making coffee? Baking a cake, or detecting design!?

quote:

---

Can you tell me then, what your objection to using "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" as the specification ? I've raised none, so if there is a disagreement you must be the one objecting to your own suggestion.

---

I used that statement first. And I have no problem with it. Unlike you...

quote:

---

No, basically I don't want to waste my time working on something that is not my job - and is a complete waste of time anyway. I have already produced an example which demonstrates the problem. Which is far more than you have managed.

---

Well than, we are stuck. Now what?

quote:

---

The only thing your quote proves is that it is a definition of a term and not part of a step by step method of detecting design !

---

A definition for what? How to fix a car? How to build a house?

quote:

---

Obviously you didn't bother to read about the Caputo case as I advised, since you would have found statements like:

​

All three from page 165 which I specifically advised you to read.

---

Well duuuuh!!! He is simply saying that the even of small probability also has to be specified. Not jsut that it has no be imporbable. Yes, we already know that. The improbability itself is not enought. Event has to have small probability and has to be specified.

quote:

---

The big one is failing to calculate D* - the probability of the specification being met.

---

I did calculate that since E entails D*. It says so right on the same page you quoted from."Since D delimits E, E entails D* and hence P(E|H) =< P(D*|H)."

quote:

---

We haven't seen that happen either.

---

We know frome xperience that it can happen.

quote:

---

You argued that there was an analogue of the growth process - an automatic process with no active intervention by the designer for EVERY possible event. This leaves no way to for the designer to do anything - even input information.

---

The growth mechanisms are where the information was inputed.

quote:

---

No, that's YOUR assertion not mine. I've never said anything of the sort. In my logic the motions of the pen are essential and they can not be explained in terms of a purely automatic process like the growth of the flagellum. You are the one who claims otherwise.

---

Why not? The whole human body is simply an automatic process? It grew from an embryo, it was obviously not designed! And now this purely automatic process is moving a pen and writing on a piece of paper. No design here!And what about a purely automatic computer? It is moving automaticaly, so would you say that it didn't need a designer?

quote:

---

So you assert that pens and hammers and chisel are automated devices which operate themselves with no sign of intelligent control. Sorry, I don't believe it.

---

What intelligence are you talking about? Humasn are purely automated machines that were made by a high probabiltiy process from an embryo. And these fully automated, non-desiged machines are using pens and hammers and chisles to perform a job. Nope, no design, or intellignece involved.

quote:

---

Actually you are wrong, at least with regard to sickle-cell. Sickle-cell is selected against every time the frequency goes above the optimum for that region. It's in a dynamic equilibrium (a term you might recognise from previous discussion) rather than spreading uncontrollably.

---

Well again, Duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh!!!!All mutations work like that! Not all people have blue eyes, Not all people have brown or green eyes, not all people have blond or red hair. Not all people are tall, etc... All frequencies of alleles are kept in an equillibriuam depending on the environment and a lot of other causes. Sickle cell is no different. But the fact still remains. The mutation is fixed in a large amount of people in a certain population. It got selected for, it's here and it's staying here. Its beneficial right now. And thast's that. That's how evolution works. It selects anything that works at teh moment. And if that is how it has always been. Than nothing could have evolved by this crappy process.

quote:

---

Obviously you do not care for facts which undermine your argument. The point is that sickle-cell is hardly an unqualified beneficial mutation and thus a poor example for your assertion that beneficial mutations almost all result in reduced function.

---

Stop misinterpreting me. I never said that. I said it's an exmaple of a beneficial mutation that degrades biological function. As do a lot of other beneficial mutations.

quote:

---

But it doesn't show that at all. The fact that sickle-cell is kept in equilibrium indicates that natural selection is rather more efficient than you give it credit for.

---

No, all mutations are kept in equilibrium. ALL of them. Depending on teh environemnt. Some will spread more, some less.

quote:

---

Remember that genetic entropy is supposed to drive a population to extinction. But sickle-cell is helping maintain the population in the areas where it is beneficial - and natural selection is doing a fine job of preventing it from spreading out of control. That doesn't sound at all like genetic entropy to me.

---

That is because you do not know what genetic entropy is. You don't know how it works, what it represents or anything else about it. Sickel cell is helping people survive int he short run. Genetic entropy works in the long run. Yes, the people survived now, but their biological function got degraded. Now imagine another mutation liek sickle cell that gave them imunity to some other disease. Which liek the sikle cell degraded yet another biologicl function. And than another, and another. And if you keep this up for a long enough time, they are going to lose enough functions to be either sterile, or stillborn. Which is when the population dies...

quote:

---

"Pretty much all of them" isn't ALL of them either. So we have established that I correctly represented your position. And your evidence consists of two examples, at least one of which is quite unusual.

---

No you didn't. You keep misrepresenting me. Anyway, show me a beneficial random mutation. Any random mutation that does not reduce the efficiency of a biological function. I dare you.

quote:

---

The scientific way would be to either produce an argument demonstrating the point, which does not rely on examples or to do a controlled survey of mutations (taking care to make sure the selection criteria do not bias the result), taking in a statistically significant selection of mutations. Producing two examples - at least one obviously cherry-picked is far from adequate.

---

I'm waiting. Show me beneficial random mutations which do not degrade the biological function one single bit.

quote:

---

You seem to have the real world and your theory confused. In the real world, beneficial mutations have to actually be beneficial. If your theory can't even accept that, then your theory is in trouble.

---

Oh but they are beneficial. The only question is, what else do they do except increasing reproductive fitness? Do they cause by-products?

quote:

---

This is all just assertion. Beneficial mutations must at least partially offset the effects of deleterious mutations, and we can tell that just from the definitions.

---

LOL! No. No they do not HAVE TO do anything you iamgine them to. Why the hell would they HAVE TO do that? Show me where that is happening? In real life, or in the lab. Where are these holy beneficial mutations offsetting deleterious ones all the time. Where!?

quote:

---

Indeed that is your assertion, but all through the many posts of our conversation you have yet to produce the evidence which shows that to be true.

---

Spiegelman's Monster - Wikipedia

quote:

---

If you really don't know anything about Lenski's experiments, I suggest that you read up on them before discussing them further.

---

And the atheism kicks in again.

quote:

---

That is a peculiar use of the word "we". You will find that most people posting on this thread do not share your bizarre confusion about how evolution works.

---

That's becasue everyone has their own definition of evolution, as I already said...

quote:

---

Well, thanks for daydreaming up another evolutionary mechanism, but we've already got plenty, and they actually exist. Whereas you have, of course, no evidence for the existence of this imaginary mechanism, let alone for your claim that it performed this impossible Lamarckian feat.

​

Does your fantasy include an explanation for why this imaginary mechanism took so long to kick in, and why it did so in only one of twelve clonal lines, or are your daydreams not that elaborate?

​

Incidentally, this mechanism whereof you speak ... is it intelligent or unintelligent?

---

Transposons are not imaginary. Even if this was a simply random mutation, it stills hows that the bacteria itself didn't evolve any new biological functions. It original biological function was do digest cytrate. It's current function is to digest cytrate? What evolved? Nothing. A gene got overexpressed so that the machinery that digests teh cytrate can degrade in the presence of oxygen. This is an example of fine tuning. Not evolving something new. Its like tuning your TV to the right station to get a clearer image. How many times do you have to tune it to another station before you evolve another, bigger and better TV? Obviously, it will never happen.

No worries, I wine a lot myself. And whine. And keen, and wail, and moan. Mostly though I howl and gnash my teeth Yep yep, I don't recommend that you exclude any possibility you can imagine a way to test for in your hypothesis. But do note that "supernatural" phenomena are horrifically dicey when it comes time to take a picture or repeat your experiment. Are they? Link me to some hypotheses with predictions, experiments, and peer-reviewed replicable results. Good good, but allow me to stress for you that the information itself isn't binary, that is bits. Though you can feel free to count it that way, in comparison with other information that can be digitized. But it's actually a variation of quaternary, with the variant being a way to distinguish coding in RNA from DNA. Ask me, anyone, if you need more of this. You do understand, however, that the sun and other stars are sending us complex information about where the heavy elements of which we are constructed come from? And that back in 2003 we managed to finally notice messages from the Red Rectangle nebula explaining where our original pre-nucleic acid scaffolding could be found? These don't appear to be coming from intelligent beings, but rather from the hot gas itself, in a perfectly natural manner. But they are very complex, and quite specified, and, of course, information.

Fine, give me an example of something that someone/something has designed - CONFIRMED DESIGN (not alleged) where we have ABSOLUTELY no idea HOW it was done.Are you going to tell me that science doesn't deal in confirmation?I can grab a thesaurus and ask you this question 1,000 different ways - you can try and dodge them all but it's just going to demonstrate to everyone what type of person you really are. Ahh, the argument from douchebaggery. No, I wasn't there when the pyramids were built, however since they are a pile of rocks, I do know that rocks were piled upon one another to create them.The fact that you DON'T understand the technology of placing one rock on top of another is, frankly, predictable. Not even close.Natural Selection has the one and only trump card in the game - reproduce or don't.ALL the variation you listed REQUIRES reproduction to occur. If you DON'T reproduce, you are OUT of the game.Therefore your entire argument is blown to pieces. Again. By the exact same point. Again. Well, we tried treating you like an adult and what we got back was:"Were you there?"So now that we know you think and act like a child, we will treat you like one. No, I can't get you to admit that I've won.In the end it's obvious to everyone. Most likely even to you.And, just for the record, you still haven't come up with a single example of something you can show was designed but which no one can explain how it was designed.So, magic Jew beams or no, your argument is still a load of crap.