What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

Hi all!

​

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

​

--Percy

---

Hi there Percy!

quote:

---

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.

---

Well now, this depends on what do you mean by "CONFIRMED" design?

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't be silly. I've been around you know? I know a thing or two about nature! I have see, with my own two eyes, how natural causes can move rocks. Yes, that's true they can. Somethimes wind, rain, erosion, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, can and will move rocks. And sometimes, they will make them fall on top of each other. So no, I do not think that these "pyramids" are anything special. They can obviously be explained by a natural process, that simply took a lot of time. Millions and millions of years...

quote:

---

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.

---

You completely misunderstood my argument, didn't you? All those traits are interfeering with how good natural selection will select for mutations. Please explain how does my argument go to pieces. I really want to know.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wht else should I have said when I hear the statement like: "Well than show me the designer!!!!!!" I respond childishly, to childish demands...

quote:

---

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.

---

We first ahve to agree on how we confirm on what is designed. You only accept things that you know are designed in teh first place as teh confirmation. Therefore, excluding design detection right fromt he start. You can't win an argument by a logical fallacy you know?

quote:

---

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

---

As I already pointed out enzymes are not restricted to reacting with a single chemical. It's hardly unusual for an enzyme to react with a number of similar organic compounds.

quote:

---

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

---

What I wrote was perfectly correct English. There's plenty worse in The Design Inference. Unless your reading difficulties only appear when reading somebody who disagrees with you.

quote:

---

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

---

Since the question is whether we are looking at a list of definitions of terms or a set of steps in detecting design, it's irrelevant.

quote:

---

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

---

I've raised no objections to that specification. In fact I keep telling you to use it. And you won't. So, if anyone is objecting to it, it's you. And if you don't object we agree on it, just as I said.

quote:

---

Well than, we are stuck. Now what?

---

I'm happy with the situation. If you can't do the necessary calculations you've got no case. So it is more accurate to say that YOU are stuck.

quote:

---

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

---

Obviously you copied it out without paying any attention to what it said. It is a definition of the term P.

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.

---

Wrong. He specifically says that we need the probability of event D* (i.e. the specification is met) instead of event E. I guess your reading difficulty does extend to The Design Inference after all - and those were really simple sentences.

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)."

---

Two major errors in one ! Firstly we are talking abut Dembski's failure to follow his own method, not one of your many mistakes. Secondly that sentence states that P(D*|H) (the probability that we DO want) can be higher than p(E|H), which means that calculating P(E|H) is no good at all. Higher probability = lower information in Dembski's scheme.

quote:

---

We know frome xperience that it can happen.

---

I think that you mean (to be generous) "extrapolation" since nothing truly equivalent has been done yet.

quote:

---

The growth mechanisms are where the information was inputed.

---

So now you are saying that the Intelligent Designer directly manipulate the growth mechanisms. OK, where is the evidence for that ?

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!

---

Remember that this is your argument, not mine. But if you deny that humans are intelligent designers, you have no examples of intelligent design at all. Your whole argument would collapse. So I guess that you had better agree with me and accept that humans are intelligent after all.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not talking about the presence of simple variation. I am talking about the mutation being held to a particular frequency in various parts of the world.

quote:

---

All frequencies of alleles are kept in an equillibriuam depending on the environment and a lot of other causes.

---

You do realise that saying that natural selection controls the spread of all mutations is a major shift in your position ?

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.

---

I think that I am not misinterpreting you when I interpret "I DO NOT CARE!!!!!" as meaning that you don't care about the point you were responding to.

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.

---

I do know that genetic entropy is meant to cause extinction, not delay it. And the sickle-cell allele - where it is beneficial - contributes to keeping the population going. (Because that is what beneficial mutations DO).

quote:

---

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

---

In other words, you can't produce valid evidence to back up your claim.

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!?

---

Beneficial mutations DO have to be beneficial. If they are beneficial they MUST increase to reproductive fitness because that is the definition of beneficial in this context. And adding to reproductive fitness offsets the loss of reproductive fitness caused by deleterious mutations. It's really, really simple.

quote:

---

Spiegelman's Monster - Wikipedia

---

So you are reduced to citing bare links that don't even support your claim. I suppose that it is better than outright misrepresentation, but not by much.

So you have said. But if the story of evolution is the story of the increase of some mystical quantity that you wish to call "genetic entropy", then that doesn't mean that evolution goes away, does it? I have already exposed your equivocation. Let me do it one more time.By Sanford's definition of "genetic entropy", genetic entropy involves the accumulation of deleterious mutations, which would indeed drive a species into extinction.You know that that doesn't happen. So you have redefined "genetic entropy" so that it involves the accumulation of beneficial mutations. But obviously the accumulation of beneficial mutations will not drive a species to extinction.You're trying to have it both ways. When you want to prove that "genetic entropy" increases, you go with your definition, where beneficial mutations increase "genetic entropy". But then when you want to show that this increase in "genetic entropy" causes extinction, you run back to Sanford's definition of "genetic entropy", where an increase in "genetic entropy" would actually cause extinction. But of course this is not true. This is why you cannot quote Kimura saying one thing that supports creationist shit. Then you would have no trouble linking me to the post in which you did so.Oh, wait, you can't. Because you are lying. Amongst other kinds of mutations, yes. Natural selection selects for beneficial mutations. Duh. This is a beneficial mutation, because it stops people from dying. Duh. Natural selection selects for it. Duh.Is there anything else that is totally obvious that you'd like me to spell out for you? But we know that this is false. It is false by observation, it is false by simulation, and it is false by a few seconds' application of common sense.We know --- you yourself by now must surely know --- that you're talking bullshit. You lost. Now you're just tediously reciting a lie that everyone who's read this thread knows is a lie. You have been proved wrong. Deal with it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you insist on degrading yourself with lies, you should at least try to make your lies convincing, or what's the point?I told you that before you discussed Lenski's experiments, you should learn about Lenski's experiments.This is not particularly an atheist point of view. If you will consult with the nearest pastor, he will say the same thing. Indeed, he may very well point out that one of the Ten Commandments is as follows: Atheists and theists agree that talking bullshit is contemptible. If I point out to you that talking bullshit is contemptible, that is not particularly an atheist point of view. I am aware that you have blurted out this strange falsehood. I also remember how frantically you backpedaled when it was pointed out to you that this is not true. It was most amusing. So, you are now claiming that the mechanism you were talking about was just transposons?Fine. They exist. They are indeed an evolutionary mechanism. Yes, they are one of the many genetic mechanisms that drive evolution.Has it occurred to you that pointing out mechanisms that make evolution work is not an argument against evolution? What evolved was the capacity to do something that no E. coli bacterium could do previously.Once again, the word "duh" springs to mind. I almost feel sorry for you. But not quite.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi everyone. I'm returning to moderation mode in this thread.I have to express my surprise at how rapidly the tenor of discussion deteriorated after Smooth Operator's return. I thought I was making it clear how I interpret and enforce the Forum Guidelines. If anyone can think of ways in which I could improve how well I communicate this message, please post to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.In the meantime, I'm suspending Smooth Operator and Dr Adequate for 24 hours.To Smooth Operator and Dr Adequate: Please, you two, take what I've been saying to heart. If it isn't clear to you what I'm looking for then post questions to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. If upon your return I don't see significant and obvious efforts to conform your behavior to moderator requests and the Forum Guidelines then the next suspension will be for a week.To everyone else: With regard to behavior, few participants are covering themselves with glory in their participation in this thread. When dealing with certain participation styles it takes an even greater effort to maintain self control and keep your attention focused on the topic, on your evidence, on your arguments. It makes it impossible for moderators to do their job when one or two participants drag everyone else into exhibiting bad form. Once that happens there's no way to tell who's responsible. Make each message you compose one you'll be proud of.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

And yet you go against common sense when recognise a natural organism in that exact same way.You are tell me not do exactly what you yourself are doing by infering design.What you seem to be saying is that if it is natural we cannot infer design. Is this what you really mean? If this was true that our ancestors would never have been able to track animals based on the information dstored in the ground in the form of tracks.If this was true our ancestors would never have learnt not to build a habitat next to the shore line when the arrangement of sediment transmits the information that the tide will come in.You are wrong for these reasons. Which would fit on a few DVDs. It's not that much information, you know?

Damn good call, Larni. Just goes to show you that you can find information just about anywhere as long as you know how to interperet it.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

You CLEARLY know that I've got you beat on this issue. Asking that I reword it yet again isn't going to help you escape.Either you CAN or you CAN'T produce an example. You and I (and EVERYONE ELSE READING) know that you CAN'T.Just cop to it so I don't have to repost the question 1,000,000 more times. Now you are claiming you can't tell the difference between: and Really? That's your argument? You don't know the difference? That's the BEST you've got? Because there is no such thing as "good" natural selection. There is simply natural selection. Not good, not bad.Natural selection kills off the weak. Natural selection does not "pick" the best.Either you manage to reproduce or you don't - if you don't, game over. Yes, that much is obvious.Your ENTIRE argument requires that this magical wizard exists yet you tell us it is unfair for us to ask for evidence. As I have stated about 10x now.You CAN NOT determine if something is designed unless you KNOW THE PROCESS by which it was created.Without knowing the PROCESS you CAN NOT DETERMINE what is naturally occurring or unnaturally occurring.CRYSTALS seem "designed" until you know about crystals.
SNOWFLAKES seem "designed" until you know about snow flakes.
WATER RIPPLES seem "designed" until you know about water ripples.I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which SEEM designed but aren't.I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which ARE designed and for which we know the process of how they were made.ALL I am asking from you is ONE example. JUST ONE!!! ONE (1). SOLIMENTE UNO! ONE example of something which IS DESIGNED but for which we don't know how it was made so that we can check you genetic information AGAINST IT.Given the fact that I've presented you with MULTIPLE examples surely in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE you can come up with just ONE little example to demonstrate your claim.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I already pointed out enzymes are not restricted to reacting with a single chemical. It's hardly unusual for an enzyme to react with a number of similar organic compounds.

---

Well good for you. In this case, this was the only known function the enzyme had. And it lost it. Now, if you wish to claim, that it also gained one. Than feel free to show me where it says that.

quote:

---

What I wrote was perfectly correct English. There's plenty worse in The Design Inference. Unless your reading difficulties only appear when reading somebody who disagrees with you.

---

No, I only have problems with your writing.

quote:

---

Since the question is whether we are looking at a list of definitions of terms or a set of steps in detecting design, it's irrelevant.

---

No, it's not, becasue you very well know, that it's the latter. And that's what I've been saying all along.

quote:

---

I've raised no objections to that specification. In fact I keep telling you to use it. And you won't. So, if anyone is objecting to it, it's you. And if you don't object we agree on it, just as I said.

---

And I dod use it. Infact, I quoted the exact same process Dembski used while calcualting the probability of the flagellum forming with that same specification.

quote:

---

I'm happy with the situation. If you can't do the necessary calculations you've got no case. So it is more accurate to say that YOU are stuck.

---

I already did them. The reason we are stuck is because you are asking me for something completely different.

quote:

---

Obviously you copied it out without paying any attention to what it said. It is a definition of the term P.

---

LOL? P is never defined anywhere! Why, becasue it's a mathematical symbol for Probability. Hence the capital P.

quote:

---

Wrong. He specifically says that we need the probability of event D* (i.e. the specification is met) instead of event E. I guess your reading difficulty does extend to The Design Inference after all - and those were really simple sentences.

---

But as I said, E contains D*.

quote:

---

Two major errors in one ! Firstly we are talking abut Dembski's failure to follow his own method, not one of your many mistakes. Secondly that sentence states that P(D*|H) (the probability that we DO want) can be higher than p(E|H), which means that calculating P(E|H) is no good at all. Higher probability = lower information in Dembski's scheme.

---

I really see no problem in that. Where exactly is the problem?

quote:

---

I think that you mean (to be generous) "extrapolation" since nothing truly equivalent has been done yet.

---

Designers design. This is the most general way it could have been said. Therefore, it's true.

quote:

---

So now you are saying that the Intelligent Designer directly manipulate the growth mechanisms. OK, where is the evidence for that ?

---

No, I did not. Why the hell would I say that? The design isn't manipulating anything. When you design the computer it works by itself. You don't work it's internal hardware manually, it's does so automatically. Because it has been designd that way. In teh case of bacteria, the first one was designed in some way. All those we have today are obviously copies of the original one.

quote:

---

Remember that this is your argument, not mine. But if you deny that humans are intelligent designers, you have no examples of intelligent design at all. Your whole argument would collapse. So I guess that you had better agree with me and accept that humans are intelligent after all.

---

I know my argument very well. I'm simply trying to point out flaws in your argument. Becasue the only case of ID you accept is when it is done manually. Which is to silly for words.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about the presence of simple variation. I am talking about the mutation being held to a particular frequency in various parts of the world.

---

And again, that is how A-L-L, yes A-L-L mutations are held in frequencies in certain parts of teh world. Is the frequency of bule eyes the same in Northern Europe as in Asia? Is the frequency of black hair the same in Asia as in Northern Europe? I don't think so. And you very well know, that the same applies to sickle cell as well.

quote:

---

You do realise that saying that natural selection controls the spread of all mutations is a major shift in your position ?

---

Point out the word "natural" and the word "selection" in that quote of mine.

quote:

---

I think that I am not misinterpreting you when I interpret "I DO NOT CARE!!!!!" as meaning that you don't care about the point you were responding to.

---

I said that I do not care about the problems you have, and which are caused by natural selection sucking so much.

quote:

---

I do know that genetic entropy is meant to cause extinction, not delay it. And the sickle-cell allele - where it is beneficial - contributes to keeping the population going. (Because that is what beneficial mutations DO).

---

But in the same time, it's degrading biological functions, and causing genetic entropy.

quote:

---

In other words, you can't produce valid evidence to back up your claim.

---

I already did. I gave you two examples. And now I'll give you a third one. As you can see, bacterial resistance is also gained by loss of efficiency. Now, it's your turn. Show me some beneficial random mutations that work wonders...

quote:

---

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.

---

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html

quote:

---

Beneficial mutations DO have to be beneficial. If they are beneficial they MUST increase to reproductive fitness because that is the definition of beneficial in this context. And adding to reproductive fitness offsets the loss of reproductive fitness caused by deleterious mutations. It's really, really simple.

---

And? What about the byproducts? What are teh byproducts of beneficial mutations? Not only that, but tell me, are there on average more beneficial or deleterious mutations?

quote:

---

So you are reduced to citing bare links that don't even support your claim. I suppose that it is better than outright misrepresentation, but not by much.

---

Becasue I already used that link and explained in few posts ago. Don't you read my other posts?

quote:

---

So you have said. But if the story of evolution is the story of the increase of some mystical quantity that you wish to call "genetic entropy", then that doesn't mean that evolution goes away, does it?

---

Since when is entropy considered mystical? I think that everyone knows about the second law of thermodynamics. Why do you think that the genome does not follow that law?

quote:

---

I have already exposed your equivocation. Let me do it one more time.

---

Nope. What you have shown is that you are really good at misinterpreting everything.

quote:

---

By Sanford's definition of "genetic entropy", genetic entropy involves the accumulation of deleterious mutations, which would indeed drive a species into extinction.

---

No. On average, he considers the accumulation of all mutations to cause the increase of entropy. Go red his book.

quote:

---

You know that that doesn't happen.

---

Yes it does.

quote:

---

So you have redefined "genetic entropy" so that it involves the accumulation of beneficial mutations.

---

I ddin't redefine anything. That was always my definition.

quote:

---

But obviously the accumulation of beneficial mutations will not drive a species to extinction.

---

But obviously it will. Since all well known beneficial mutations do indeed increase the entropy. Sicke cell, HIV resistance and antibiotic resistance also.

quote:

---

You're trying to have it both ways. When you want to prove that "genetic entropy" increases, you go with your definition, where beneficial mutations increase "genetic entropy". But then when you want to show that this increase in "genetic entropy" causes extinction, you run back to Sanford's definition of "genetic entropy", where an increase in "genetic entropy" would actually cause extinction.

---

No. My definition is always one and teh same. On average all mutations increase genetic entropy. Not every single mutation, every single time. But on average they do. Some more than others obviously.

quote:

---

But of course this is not true. This is why you cannot quote Kimura saying one thing that supports creationist shit.

---

Thaw hy did he invent the Neutral theory of evolution? It's becasue he knows that darwinism is false.

quote:

---

Then you would have no trouble linking me to the post in which you did so.

​

Oh, wait, you can't. Because you are lying.

---

The last time I did you simply disregarded my link. I'm not going to bother doing it again.

quote:

---

Amongst other kinds of mutations, yes. Natural selection selects for beneficial mutations. Duh. This is a beneficial mutation, because it stops people from dying. Duh. Natural selection selects for it. Duh.

​

Is there anything else that is totally obvious that you'd like me to spell out for you?

---

But this kind of beneficial mutations destry biological functions! How do you think living beings evolved by that kind of mutations, if their effect was to degrade, and not improve a certain biological function?

quote:

---

But we know that this is false. It is false by observation, it is false by simulation, and it is false by a few seconds' application of common sense.

​

We know --- you yourself by now must surely know --- that you're talking bullshit. You lost. Now you're just tediously reciting a lie that everyone who's read this thread knows is a lie. You have been proved wrong. Deal with it.

---

Well fine than. Show me some evidence of what natural selection can do. How does it preserve the species. Regardless of the size of the population. Show me that the deleterious mutations do not accumulate. Where has such an observation been made?

quote:

---

If you insist on degrading yourself with lies, you should at least try to make your lies convincing, or what's the point?

​

I told you that before you discussed Lenski's experiments, you should learn about Lenski's experiments.

​

This is not particularly an atheist point of view. If you will consult with the nearest pastor, he will say the same thing. Indeed, he may very well point out that one of the Ten Commandments is as follows:

​

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

​

Atheists and theists agree that talking bullshit is contemptible. If I point out to you that talking bullshit is contemptible, that is not particularly an atheist point of view.

---

But I couldn't care less about your opinion. So why should I listen to you?

quote:

---

I am aware that you have blurted out this strange falsehood. I also remember how frantically you backpedaled when it was pointed out to you that this is not true. It was most amusing.

---

If I backpedaled than why am I sticking to it right now?

quote:

---

So, you are now claiming that the mechanism you were talking about was just transposons?

​

Fine. They exist. They are indeed an evolutionary mechanism. Yes, they are one of the many genetic mechanisms that drive evolution.

​

Has it occurred to you that pointing out mechanisms that make evolution work is not an argument against evolution?

---

No they are not an evolutionary mechanism. Random mutations and natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism. Mutations induced by transposons are not random. Besides you can't claim that transposons can account for evolution, becasue that's circular logic. How do you than account for transposons? By evolution? You would than have to account for them by random mutations, for which you have no evidence they produced anything close to a mechanism like a transposon. So no, this is obviously not evidence for a blind undirected process like evolution. But a planed process that is made to help bacteria adapt to it's environment.

quote:

---

What evolved was the capacity to do something that no E. coli bacterium could do previously.

​

Once again, the word "duh" springs to mind. I almost feel sorry for you. But not quite.

---

No. That's liek saying that if you tune your TV to a certain station, that a TV evolved a new function. The new function is watching a program you tuned into. It's something the TV couldn't do before it was tuned to the station. Obviously this in wrong. The TV didn't evolve any new functions. It already had the function, and all teh necessary mechanism to display a certain program on it's screen. It simply had to be tuned to a certain frequency to do so. How many times will you have to tune your TV before it evolves the ability to make coffee? Obviously it will never happen. The same thing goes for the Lenski experiment. The bacteria had everything it needed to degrade the chemicals it needed. A certain gene was fine tuned, and over-expressed to allow the bacteria to do the same thing it has been doing all the time, in the new environment. In this case, in the presence of oxygen. No new functions evolved, they simply got tuned.

quote:

---

You CLEARLY know that I've got you beat on this issue.

---

How could you beat me, when everything you say is a logical fallacy?

quote:

---

Asking that I reword it yet again isn't going to help you escape.

---

I'm not asking you to reword anything. You didn't say anything abot how we confirm design in the first place.

quote:

---

Either you CAN or you CAN'T produce an example. You and I (and EVERYONE ELSE READING) know that you CAN'T.

​

Just cop to it so I don't have to repost the question 1,000,000 more times.

---

But you first have to tell me, how do we agree on something that is confirmed to be designed.

quote:

---

Now you are claiming you can't tell the difference between:

​

Really? That's your argument? You don't know the difference? That's the BEST you've got?

---

Well what's teh difference? Both are a pile of rocks. Both can be explained by chance, wind water and erosion over millions of years. Can they not? If not, why not? I really see no problem in explaining those two pictures by chance.

quote:

---

Because there is no such thing as "good" natural selection. There is simply natural selection. Not good, not bad.

​

Natural selection kills off the weak. Natural selection does not "pick" the best.

​

Either you manage to reproduce or you don't - if you don't, game over.

---

And again, you totally miss my point. I know how natural seelction works. The point is that natural selection will not be effective, in selecting between deleterious and beneficial mutations, becasue there are non-hereditary casues that will interfeer witht he selection. Natural seelction will select based on other traits too, not just on beneficial/deleterious mutations. Here is an example. Say you have 2 individuals of the same species, namely A and B. Let's say that the individual A got a beneficial mutation, and the individual be got a deleterious one. If that was all tehre is, teh individual A would pass his genes on, and the individual B wouldn't. But what if individal B's genome got methylated. Which is a mechanism of epigenetic inheritance, and this caused it to have a differently expressed phenotype, that made the individual B more fit than the individual A. Even when the beneficial mutation that A has is taken into account. Now, natural selection will favor the individual B, and not the individual A. And this will make the individual with less genetic fitness reproduce. His genome is genetically worse than the one that individual A has, but natural seelction favored him. And this is a cause of the inrease in genetic entropy. Now, if this goes on, over a long period of time, the genome of the population is sure to degrade. And not only that. I just gave you one example, and there are 5 other traits that natural selection works on. And they also interfeer with selection for beneficial mutation. On average, they all rutinely override positive selection, and increase genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Yes, that much is obvious.

​

Your ENTIRE argument requires that this magical wizard exists yet you tell us it is unfair for us to ask for evidence.

---

What would be the point of design detection if we already knew the identity of the designer? If we knew the identity, than we wouldn't need design detection in the first place.

quote:

---

As I have stated about 10x now.

​

You CAN NOT determine if something is designed unless you KNOW THE PROCESS by which it was created.

---

That means you can't say that Rosetta stone was desgined.

quote:

---

Without knowing the PROCESS you CAN NOT DETERMINE what is naturally occurring or unnaturally occurring.

---

Therefore, there is no design inference for the Rosetta stone.

quote:

---

CRYSTALS seem "designed" until you know about crystals.
SNOWFLAKES seem "designed" until you know about snow flakes.
WATER RIPPLES seem "designed" until you know about water ripples.

---

Yes, they "seem" designed. And that is why ID would never claim they really are designed. Because they only "seem" designed, and they do not exhibit CSI. And we do nto even have to know how they occure, to say that they are not designed.

quote:

---

I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which SEEM designed but aren't.

---

But what would be the point? Becasue ID never claims that things tht seem designed are really designed.

quote:

---

I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which ARE designed and for which we know the process of how they were made.

---

And agan, what would be the point of that?

quote:

---

ALL I am asking from you is ONE example. JUST ONE!!! ONE (1). SOLIMENTE UNO! ONE example of something which IS DESIGNED but for which we don't know how it was made so that we can check you genetic information AGAINST IT.

​

Given the fact that I've presented you with MULTIPLE examples surely in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE you can come up with just ONE little example to demonstrate your claim.

---

And I already told you. We first have to agree what is a case of confirmed design. I claim that CSI can confirm design. You claim it can't. And that's that. So it seems we are stuck.

Hi Smooth Operator,The posts in this thread tend to be lengthy making it difficult for a moderator to discern where he might best make a contribution, but I think it would help move the discussion forward if you would please provide a link to where you presented the calculations mentioned here: That should help clarify whether you're both thinking of the same calculations, and whether PaulK is asking you now for something different.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It was responses similar to this that resulted in your recent suspension. If you're not going to make an effort to discuss constructively with Dr Adequate then do not reply to him, else your posting privileges will be temporarily suspended again. I'm treating Dr Adequate the same way.Please, no responses to moderator messages in this thread. Please take comments and concerns to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

In Detecting Design we've been discussing ways that scientists have detected design in the past with specific regards to lower paleolithic tools. Since Dembski's CSI formula has only been applied once, to the e-coli flagellum and that application was never defended by the author (who specifically rejected all interest in material application of the CSI formula), we have an opportunity for someone who claims to be capable of applying the CSI formula to real things and determine if they are designed.I'd like to invite the people who make claims that Dembski's notions have any ability to apply to reality to come show us how we could use CSI to resolve the eolith problem. There's a researcher in Australia who could use your help.