What exactly is ID?

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.

Who invented the word "complex?" Is it ever used to describe something simple? What about the word "specific?" Does anyone own it? Or how about "information?" Did Dembski invent it?So what difference does it make who points out that something possess all three qualities? That term shouldn't vary depending on who uses it, should it? My point here is to take the focus off of the person who coined the phrase, and put it on the actual concept.(I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had to say that!)

Cute come back Chip. No I actually meant someone who would actually have a real reason to believe in it and accept it as opposed to those who just promote it because they're afraid of the only alternative.BTW, would going on the sixth year of extensive study of the issue count?

I am not sure that I fully understand your question here Vacate. It seems like you are asking why would I hate God should I discover that He never existed. If I did in fact discover that the Bible was false, that is exactly what that would mean. I have looked at all the major religions and found that only Christianity stands alone when it comes to historical, archaeological, scientific, and prophetic accuracy. But that's a different thread.By the way I am not on any edge of conversion here. I am so confident that the truth lays in that which I have placed my faith, that I can make such a bold statement. How many atheists can say that. Besides, someone wise once told me that it is impossible to know the truth unless you love the truth. I love the truth so much that I would abandon all for it.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

You bet, Author. And let me thank you for asking me so politely. I appreciate that very much. First let me apologize to all, there were only two specific posts in this thread where I gave the same example of csi. I had thought there were more but I must have been thinking of another thread. I alluded to the precise arrangement of nucleotides in DNA in post 541, and then as you said, I stated that example again in Message 542. When you say that Paulk already replied to that post, yes there was an acknowledgment that he read the post. But I disagree that he genuinely replied. He claimed I was "confusing two different concepts," but never bothered to point out how exactly. In fact, in my post I had pointed out how even evolutionists refer to the code in DNA as information. And then I proceed to explain that there is in fact a meaningful way to measure the amount of information. I also even pointed out how scientists at SETI would consider information, not near as complex (if received from outer space), to be from an intelligent source.I think that is what is truly ironic about this whole thing. Scientists will accept that ET might be the origin of a simple string of prime numbers, but those same scientists would turn around and look at a complex program in the DNA of a cell and say, "It formed from random unguided processes and natural selection." Then Paul goes on to draw the line in the sand and says its either Dembski's way or my way. Firstly I don't respond well to impoliteness. Secondly I know where that tactic leads Author. If side with some scientist that they think is a quack, then they proceed to throw up a barrage of attacks against the person to make him look like a quack, and thus they leave the impression that anything that came from that person is invalid. Therefore I refuse to acknowledge or align myself with any persons. If I hear an argument that I find valid, I will present it and insist that it be rebutted on the merits of the argument alone.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe you refer to my message 579 here. I think there has been some misunderstanding here Paul. I apologize for not being more clear. You had stated... To which I replied... Merely meaning that, I do have examples of csi (nucleotide arrangement), and I had already given them as an example. Again I don't either align myself with nor do I distance myself from Dembski or any other ID scientist. If my terms bare a striking resemblance to or are taken from something I may or may not have read or heard one of them say, I don't know or really care. I know when I use an English word, I always mean it in the sense that it is most often used in the English speaking population. And when, on rare occasions, I mean something else I usually try to clarify as to what I mean.So just for the record let me clarify what I mean when I say Complex Specified Information. I am referring to anything of a highly intricate nature that is arranged in a specific order to serve the sole purpose of relaying instructions to another system, through the activation of one possibility to the exclusion of several others.Percy mentioned that you were looking for me to give a method by which one can recognize csi as opposed to purely natural phenomenon. Like some kind of meter that we can plug into any situation and see the needle swing left for natural or right for intelligent. First we have to understand that intelligence is the ability to make a choice and that information from that intelligence is the choice of activation of at least one possibility to the exclusion of several others. And that activation must be recognized to mean something by both the transmitter and the receiver. And finally for a third party (humans) to detect that information, we also have to be able to understand the meaning of the conditions that were activated. I mentioned logs on a beach, the other day, arranged to read, "Marooned... please send help." If I were from China and did not speak a word of English, the logs would appear to be arranged in purely a random order to me. So detecting csi is not as simple as having a meter we can hook up, but it is detectable nonetheless. And as I said before, we have detected a high degree of csi in the DNA code of all living organisms.Edited by Brad H, : No reason given.

Choice is required in the origin of the information. However if an intelligent source forms a system that mechanically transmits the information, and a receiver that mechanically receives the information and utilizes it, then choice is not necessary with in the two mechanical systems. That was what I meant when I used the Wikipedia article which said, "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. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind." However choice can still be detected as the originator of the information by observing the direct interactions between the mechanical transmitter and receiver, even if the systems have self replicated and we are only able to observe the ancestors of the original systems. We can still recognize specific patterns being utilized to create specific conditions, to the exclusion of several others, that are received and utilized for a specific function. All other systems that we have ever observed in the whole of human history, that produce specified information, required an ability to make a choice. Therefore we can logically conclude that a choice was required (and detected) to form the specified information in DNA. Choice is the main ingredient necessary for intelligence. Intelligence is what is necessary to produce complex specified information. If we want to detect intelligence we have to detect the ability to choose. One way to detect that is by looking for a condition that was activated to the exclusion of several other conditions, in such a way that the condition has a significant meaning to both the transmitter and the receiver. It does not matter what medium is used to transmit the information as long as it is understood by the transmitter and the receiver to mean the same thing. When we hear someone belch we normally don't recognize it as the transmission of information. However I have a buddy who can belch the alphabet. If information can be transmitted in belches, I have no problem saying it can be transmitted within organic material such as nucleotides. In this case we have a mechanical transmission, a medium, and a reception taking place, of csi, which is evidence for choice/intelligence.

No, I am saying that (a) intelligence is required for the origination of information, and (b) it is not necessary for the continued transmission of information. And that does fit the Wiki def. The nucleotides precise arrangement influence development of the organism. One pattern influences the development of another with out the need for intelligence to be present. The changes we "know" that occur in the DNA are just as you said, changes with no sign of a designer. But they are not changes that can explain its origin as a whole to begin with. You mention atibiotic resistance. What actually transpired in these cases is the antibiotic has removed most of the bacterial population except for a few hardy individuals who have a recessive resistant gene. This gene heretofore not employed and not expressed in the population, now lets the survivors suddenly flourish in an atmosphere that has exterminated their relatives. This situation will often reverse over time as a new medicine kills the first survivors. But the point to this scenario is that the bacteria maneuver only with the genes already in the gene pool, or genetic combination's normally appearing after conjugation, and not with true mutations. Likewise in the peppered moth situation, natural selection maneuvers back and forth between already existing alleles in the gene pool population.These are not cases where an altogether new gene has been "written" by random processes into the DNA code. These adaptive features can only explain the survival of the species, but not the existence of the species. In fact they would even fit well into a creationist model as a "design" feature for the purpose of survival.

Hi traderdrew,
Thankyou for your kind comments. I realized I wasn't articulating my possition very well so I am taking some time to "circle my wagons" and regroup. I'll be back on the pitching mound.

Hi Taq, thank you so much for your comments. I apologize for taking so long getting back with you. I had realized that I was not explaining my position very well with regards to information so I spent some time examining just where I was failing in my articulation. I’ll get into that more in my next post. With regards to your comments above, I was wondering if you could cite exactly where in the paper they state which nucleotides in the chromosomal DNA of the bacteria had an addition of protein information? I couldn’t find it in the portions of the paper you linked me to. I should point out also that of course beneficial mutations occur. No one is denying that at all. What I am saying is that all mutations which occur (beneficial or detrimental) are the result of loss of information or loss of specificity or in other cases insertions and deletions. Also as I said, changes in populations occur as a result of already existing alleles in the gene pool, with of course the exception of some bacteria which appear to have been designed to effect change within the plasmid DNA. But in all other organisms it is always a manipulation within the existing genes and not an example of added information to the chromosomal DNA of an organism. This is what we would need to see in order to convince an open minded skeptic, like my self, that molecules to man evolution is possible.

Good question Taq. I'll be the first to admit here that I am only a layman and know very little about actual DNA sequences. But I can tell you what I have read and been told about it. For instance I think that it was Yockey who wrote that the genetic code is constructed to function with the same principles found in modern communication and computer code. I don't know how to speak Spanish, but my Spanish speaking friend tells me that the phrase, "Glorioso es el nombre de Hesus Christo," is a phrase that relays information that is specific and complex. Just because I personally don't speak Spanish doesn't mean that its not true. Biologists have known since the 1960's that the ability of the cell to build functional proteins depends upon the precise sequence of DNA bases.

I would say that there are some very distinguishing characteristics between living organisms and crystals. Organisms have both very complex and very specified information while crystals lack complexity and also polymers lack specificity. I would greatly disagree here. Most mutations are very detrimental to the organism. And the one's that are beneficial are not the result of added information to the chromosomal DNA. In most cases when you file off a tooth on a key it will no longer unlock the lock. But on rare occasions it will start unlocking several locks. But what has actually happened is the key has lost specificity, and that doesn't explain how all the teeth got arranged in the specific order they are in to begin with.

Lets make a deal here Nuggin, as gentlemen. No matter how much I may disagree with your beliefs, out of respect for you I will never compare them to children's fantasy, and I would appreciate it if you would cease from doing the same. If you are in agreement then just let me know and I will go ahead and reply to your arguments. Otherwise...I guess we have no more to discuss.

Why yes...yes I am On the basis of Shannon theory

True
And the number 26496739727, which I just punched in at random, carries the same amount of complex information as this number 18003287448. The difference is that the first is much less specific than the second. The first has no specific information while the second, when decoded on any common telephone key pad, has a very specific message. The first one has as many eliminated possibilities as the second, and therefore they are equally as complex, but only one serves a specific function when dialed.