What exactly is ID?

I.e. beneficial ones. 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?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. You figured out how to measure "genetic information yet? So crappy that it prevents its carriers from dying of malaria.Yeah, that's how crappy it is. But this is only true of small populations, as we know.

If you really don't know anything about Lenski's experiments, I suggest that you read up on them before discussing them further. 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. 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?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Likewise, we observe that living creatures are always the product of reproduction with variation, and are never poofed into existence by a mythical invisible godlet. No, of course not. We have, on the other hand, seen things (they're called organisms) with complex, specific, information formed by biological processes, which are, of course, not random. This is indeed the logical conclusion that all biologists have reached. Actually, the magical poofing thing is neither logical nor likely.The logical conclusion from seeing that all organisms are produced by natural processes is that all organisms are produced by natural processes.But some people find this concept remarkably hard to grasp.

If you find my points unanswerable, you are of course under no obligation to try to answer them.The particular point to which you are objecting (but not, I note, answering) is particularly unanswerable --- that if creationists pretend that the alternative to design is "purely random processes", then they are at best profoundly ignorant of biology, and at worst deliberately deceitful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, scientists do like to use the correct definition for scientific terms.The fact that scientific illiterates sometimes misuse these terms is no excuse for imitating them. Scientific illiterates make a lot of mistakes about science. This is a consequence of their scientific illiteracy. This is of course, not in general true. Once more you seem to be substituting the baseless beliefs of scientific illiterates for the observations made by scientists.

Well, I'm not so sure of that. European scientists started off with supernatural assumptions about creation that excluded naturalistic concepts. But when they discovered that they were wrong, they changed their minds. Their supernaturalist presuppositions may have delayed them from grasping the truth, but it did not prevent them from doing so.

Ooh, but Dembski is one step ahead of you.A snowflake, he explains, is not an example of CSI being formed by natural processes.Why not? Because, he explains, contrary to appearances, it has no CSI.And how did he determine that? Well, it can have no CSI --- because it was formed by natural processes. As he explains: "such shapes form as a matter of necessity simply in virtue of the properties of water".What a genius that man is, to be sure.I follows that, in general, to find out whether an object has CSI we must first know whether it was designed or produced by natural processes ...

Unless, of course, someone made it in a laboratory, which they can.Two of these are natural, and two are a product of design. See if you can tell which is which. Just to clarify, how do these criteria apply to:(a) The Mona Lisa
(b) The Mandelbrot set
(c) An elephant
(d) Cancer
(e) An industrially useful design produced by a genetic algorithm
(f) The artificial organisms that evolve in TIERRA
(g) RNA species produced by mixing Q-β replicase with ribonucleotides
(h) The same species after they've evolved
(i) The lac operonEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Something has gone badly wrong with the formatting of this post.

But the phrase now ineluctably refers to one particular concept.If, sojourning in the town of Wellington, you invented a dish of which the main component was beef, then you would be ill-advised to market it as "Beef Wellington", because this might even render you liable to prosecution.Or if you thought up a theory which was general and involved relativity in some way, then it would still be misleading to refer to it as "the general theory of relativity", because that phrase has been taken by Einstein to refer to his idea. It could only cause confusion.It is possible that it is your aim to cause confusion, but I have always charitably assumed that creationists do that by accident.I suggest that at the very least you refer to your new concept as "Brad-H-CSI", or BHCSI for short, to make it clear that you are not discussing the same concept that everyone else partaking in this debate knows by the name CSI.I also suggest that you please, pretty please, tell us how to measure it. What I should like from you is some method where I put in a sequence of DNA bases and get out a measure of BHCSI. Thank you.Until then, you've got nothing. You've got a sort of pop-science explanation of the sort of thing that you'd like to be talking about, without having the thing itself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.