What exactly is ID?

I've asked you 4 times now to give us an example of something we can use to CHECK YOUR METHODOLOGY against.You've ducked and dodged.You want to use CSI to determine if it's designed. Fine. Use it. Use NCIS, Use Law & Order for all I care.Now, answer the question:YES or NO, CAN you give us an example of something which was designed where no one has ANY idea how it was created so we can check you claims about life AGAINST it?OR, are you arguing that the ONLY thing that CSI can be used to predict is life created by the wizard AND the ONLY thing we don't need mechanisms for is life created by the wizard?That's a pretty odd coincidence.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

The fact that you call this quantity that you can't actually quantify "genetic entropy" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with actual entropy as dealt with in the laws of thermodynamics. Although you have not come close to defining it, I'm fairly sure that when you do it won't be measured in joules per kelvin. You are wrong. Only a small proportion of people have ever studied thermodynamics. I happen to be one of them. I am, in fact, quite sure that nothing in genetics implies the possibility of constructing a fridge without a power source. As counter-arguments go, that isn't one. What he means by genetic entropy is the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And yet we don't see it happening except in artificially small populations. But it was never Sanford's. No, Smooth Operator. It is not "obvious" that the accumulation of beneficial mutations will drive a species to extinction. Until you are capable of quantifying genetic entropy, that statement is no more meaningful than saying that beneficial mutations increase the wibbly-wobbly-woo.What we do know, however, is that by definition beneficial mutations increase the fitness of the organism. But of course he does not, which is why, as I pointed out, you can't quote him saying one thing supporting creationist tripe. I see that Percy has already called you on this.Put up or shut up. By purifying selection. We observe that life does in fact still exist after billions of years. Then you have an inordinately long-winded way of showing how little you care. Apparently you've backpedaled on your backpedaling.Consistency is the last thing I should ever accuse you of. They cause heritable changes. They are an evolutionary mechanism. No it isn't. It's like saying that the lineage has undergone genetic changes which gave them a new and adaptive function. Which it has.If you are really unable to argue with me, then don't. Making up rubbish about televisions and arguing with that is no substitute.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'll stick with the claim that we don't know if the mutated version had any function or not.

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words you didn't use it, That, after all, is the major error in Dembski's calculations that I have already pointed out.

quote:

---

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

---

As I have already shown your calculation was incorrect, and you have continually tried to get me to do the work for you. Thus your assertion is false - you have not done the necessary calculations.

quote:

---

But as I said, E contains D*.

---

You didn't say that at all. You said that D* contains E - which is correct (it is required by the DELIM condition). And because E is only a subset of D* you must - as Dembski says calculate the probability of D*, because the probability of E is irrelevant.

quote:

---

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

---

Any person who actually understands the issues should be able to see that by overestimating the information you run the risk of false positives. Indeed your method makes it very easy.For instance given a sequence of 501 coin tosses we could use the specifications "more heads than tails" or "more tails than heads". Since the probability of the sequence itself is below the Universal Probability Bound using your method we should conclude that it is designed. Using Dembski's method we see that D* has a probability of 0.5 (for either specification) and inferring design is idiotic.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't know why you said: However, it is clearly not the same as saying that the information was input at the creation of the first bacterium, which is what you are saying now

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course that is incorrect. What I stated was that you can only usefully apply Dembski's methods to the points where the intelligent designer actually gets involved. It cannot be applied to cases where all the work is done by unintelligent processes. You responded by claiming that under that rule we could never find design, implying that the intelligent designers never get involved. (If they do get involved, then your counter-argument completely fails).

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course you are completely wrong - as well as contradicting your own arguments. No, it is not true that all mutations are held at fixed frequencies by natural selection. Some spread, some die out - whether by natural selection or by genetic drift.

quote:

---

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

---

At this point I must point out the importance of context. I stated that the sickle-cell was held at fixed frequencies by natural selection. You responded that the same happened to all mutations.

quote:

---

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

---

I am sorry that you so badly misunderstood my argument. I accept your explanation that your statement was an error on your part.

quote:

---

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...

---

In other words you still have insufficient evidence to make a valid argument. Although do go on looking into the development of antibiotic resistance. You might find some information that surprises you (although probably not on a creationist site).

quote:

---

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?

---

There is little need to be concerned about byproducts when the net effect is beneficial (and therefore - by definition - contributing to the survival of the species). The average numbers also tell less than the complete story. Do not forget that beneficial mutations tend to spread and deleterious mutations to disappear - and the greater the effect of the mutation, the stronger the tendency.

quote:

---

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

---

No, I don't. And if you had it would be far better to link to the explanation instead of simply posting a bare link. However, since the link did not support your claim, it hardly matters. The Spiegelman Monster did not suffer from genetic entropy at all - it did not go extinct, it simply became more efficient at replication. So your chosen example disproves your point - beneficial mutations and natural selection completely defeated genetic entropy.Edited by PaulK, : Cut-and-paste problem.

Once again you use an example which only someone with no idea what they are talking about would use to show a loss of efficiency. Binding to streptomycin is not a function of the ribosome, binding to the ribosome is rather a function of streptomycin. So it is not necessarily a loss of efficiency for the ribosome to change its structure to reduce the binding affinity to streptomycin. You have to use a crazy sort of logic to portray a mutation which has no effect other than to reduce the affinity between the ribosome and streptomycin as a loss of function/efficiency for the ribosome.The reason this is such a dumb example is that there are perfectly good examples of streptomycin resistance mutations which have genuinely deleterious side effects, including the production of strains which were essentially streptomycin dependent (Springer et al., 2001).TTFN,WK

Yes I am going to talk about complex and specific information which does rule out natural patterns.

No, your absolutely right Nuggin, it doesn't mean that. Very good. I'm so proud of you.Buuuuuttttt it does mean that the best and most logical conclusion based on the whole of human experience so far, is that it was formed by an intelligent source. But you gave it away in your own words Nuggin. They are recorded "patterns" that we humans can use as information to tell us what might have been going on, but it is not complex specified information that was put there for the sole purpose of our use. That's not the case with DNA code. It's specific arrangement is for the purpose of building cell structures. But you aren't suggesting that that is why that information even exists are you?Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

Actually Nuggin, if someone were to reasonably present to me one example of a mutation that added new information to the chromosomal DNA of an organism, that had a positive effect on it's ability to survive, OR just one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils demonstrating smooth transition between two major forms, then that means that the Bible would be wrong. Specifically the book of Genesis. But if the book of Genesis were proven wrong then that would mean that, because in the New Testament Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the book of Genesis (creation account), therefor Jesus would in effect be wrong. And if Jesus was shown to be wrong in even one thing, then that would mean He is not Lord of all and my faith in Him was in vain.If you present me with the above evidence, as asked, then I will toss my Bible in the trash and never again darken the door way of another church. I would become a hard line evolutionist and atheist. But let me just say that I have a personal relationship with Christ and know beyond any doubt that this will never happen. That would be like someone trying to prove to me that my Dad was never born. The fact that I know him and have a personal relationship with him proves to me that there is no possible way that someone could prove he was never born.

quote:

---

Yes I am going to talk about complex and specific information which does rule out natural patterns.

---

In that case you have to use Dembski's CSI. And then you run into the problem that you have no known examples to use as evidence.

Yes I do and I have already given those examples several times and demonstrated why. If you have a rebuttal I am all ears.

quote:

---

Yes I do and I have already given those examples several times and demonstrated why.

---

This is completely false. Firstly there are no examples for you to give. Secondly having reviewed your contributions to this thread I can find no post where you make any attempt to demonstrate that anything is CSI in Dembski's sense. I can find a post where you deny knowing of Dembski's definition (despite using Dembsk's term CSI), I can find a post where you use a definition of "information" completely different from Dembski's CSI.So no, I cannot even find a post which contains a failed attempt at such a demonstration - or even indicates that you know what Dembski's definition of CSI actually is.

quote:

---

If you have a rebuttal I am all ears.

---

Here's is my rebuttal. So far as I can tell you gave no examples of Dembski's CSI in living beings, nor did you offer any argument to demonstrate the existence of Dembski;s CSI in living beings.Are you really listening ?

Yea!! And punch him in the nose for not doing it the way you said he had to do it. Obviously your way is the right way 'cause a book said so. God be damned if he does something different.Before you start burning books can you please define "hard line evolutionist"? Is that much like those crazed militant gravitationalists or even more frightening the Cult of the germ theory of disease? Those folks really really believe in the evidence!

That would be a person who "not only is a customer, but also owns stock in the company."

So you say. But in order to prove this you must prove that natural causes cannot produce whatever you mean by "complex and specific information".Which means, amongst other things, that you must prove that evolution cannot produce "complex and specific information".You cannot take this as an axiom when arguing against evolution, because it is the very thing that you are trying to prove.

My intent here is not to make any defenses for Dembski's use of the term csi. He doesn't own or have a patten on the term. I have pointed out that there is observable csi in living organisms and that it can be quantified and measured.

He did, however, invent it.If you mean something different from Dembski, then I suggest that you think of a different phrase to describe it. Please go right ahead and tell us how.