|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad H Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
So you do agree with Dembski's version of CSI? Round in circles, much? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad H Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
So you DON'T have any observed instances of CSI in life to use as evidence, because nobody had worked out how to properly apply Dembski's method to living things. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3926 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Are you going to talk about your information argument which belongs in another thread 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi all!
Now that Smooth Operator is temporarily dormant, I'm going to return to normal participation until the situation changes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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:How do you know that, were you there? quote:My intention was not to win anything. But I won a long time ago anyway... quote: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 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: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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It doesn't matter how you call them. You can call them holy mutations if you want. They still increase genetic entropy. quote:Obviously it is, becasue when the entropy reacehs a critical level in the population the population is dead. quote:That's what you say. Kimura said otherwise. He was not "some guy on some internet forum" you know... quote:A looong time ago... quote: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:No this is only true for all population. But it's more pronounced in smaller ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It has only one fuction from the start LOL! WTF are you talking about??? quote:I don't understand what this means? Does anyone understand you? WTF are you saying? Speak English! quote:Is than in turn specification used for making coffee? Baking a cake, or detecting design!? quote:I used that statement first. And I have no problem with it. Unlike you... quote:Well than, we are stuck. Now what? quote:A definition for what? How to fix a car? How to build a house? quote: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: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 know frome xperience that it can happen. quote:The growth mechanisms are where the information was inputed. quote: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: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: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: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:No, all mutations are kept in equilibrium. ALL of them. Depending on teh environemnt. Some will spread more, some less. quote: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: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:I'm waiting. Show me beneficial random mutations which do not degrade the biological function one single bit. quote:Oh but they are beneficial. The only question is, what else do they do except increasing reproductive fitness? Do they cause by-products? quote: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:Spiegelman's Monster - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:And the atheism kicks in again. quote:That's becasue everyone has their own definition of evolution, as I already said... quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3926 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I'm terribly sorry Iblis, if you thought I was wining. No worries, I wine a lot myself. And whine. And keen, and wail, and moan. Mostly though I howl and gnash my teeth
I was just trying to answer the question raised about 99% of scientists accepting evolution(universal common decent). I was pointing out that when you exclude one possibility from the start (without good cause), you are left with only trying to find answers that work with what is left. But what if the exclusion turned out to be the answer Iblis? Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? I think so. 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.
BTW, ID people actually are doing "that" Are they? Link me to some hypotheses with predictions, experiments, and peer-reviewed replicable results.
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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. 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.
How do you know that, were you there? 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.
All of these variation overshadow natural selection. 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.
This is childish and primitive view of natural selection. It doesn't work like that. 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.
You can't win this 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024