Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 603 of 1273 (542475)
01-10-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by Brad H
01-10-2010 8:37 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
Hi Brad H,
Please do not respond to this message. I'm not looking to become involved in the discussion. It would be inappropriate for a moderator to become a participant in a discussion.
Again, your Message 542 reads like an outline of an interesting hypothesis. It does not seem to be a method by which one could recognize the involvement of an intelligence. For example, you cite prime number sequences as being an indication of intelligence, and regardless of how much merit people think this has, most things, including DNA, do not contain prime number sequences.
Also, you interpreted the Wikipedia article as saying the sequence of counting numbers is predictable and wouldn't indicate intelligence, but I think if SETI detected the sequence of counting numbers coming from space that they'd give serious consideration to the possibility of an intelligent source.
What I think people like PaulK are looking for is a description of a specific process or methodology for assessing the degree of involvement of an intelligence, or at least an example.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 8:37 AM Brad H has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 611 of 1273 (542490)
01-10-2010 10:42 AM


Moderator Request
Hey, evolutionists, could we knock it off with the attitude (you know who you are). This is not a case of a guy who for umpteenth years has been making the same stupid (in your opinion) argument. This is a new guy. Yes, it's the same stupid (in your opinion) argument, but you don't yet know what will happen as he's presented and gradually grasps your own arguments.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 612 of 1273 (542491)
01-10-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 610 by Nuggin
01-10-2010 10:35 AM


Please Take Off-topic Discussion Elsewhere
Hi Nuggin,
I know Brad H started it, but could you please find another thread to pursue this particular avenue? Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Nuggin, posted 01-10-2010 10:35 AM Nuggin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 623 of 1273 (542593)
01-11-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 616 by Smooth Operator
01-11-2010 3:37 AM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Hi Smooth Operator,
Productive discussion on technical topics requires that people be willing to provide information and explain their position. Your approach seems to be to claim that the information and explanations have already been provided. If that is the case and you're really done arguing your position, then please stop posting to this thread.
I'm also at a loss to understand how you can think messages like this one are acceptable after what I posted to you concerning your responses to Dr Adequate and PaulK. If responses like this are not acceptable when responding to them, then obviously they're not acceptable when responding to anybody. The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue where discussions actually get somewhere, and messages like this work against that goal.
In case you'd like to continue discussion I provide this feedback:
Smooth Operator writes:
quote:
I've asked you 4 times now to give us an example of something we can use to CHECK YOUR METHODOLOGY against.
And you can ask me 4 more times, and my answer will be the same. You first have to tell me how do we agree on what is confirmed design, and what is not. BY criteria is CSI, your's is not. So now what?
Nuggin is requesting that you provide an example of the application of *your* methodology. If you would like to continue discussion then since this seems like a reasonable request it would be appreciated if you would do so.
Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:37 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 627 of 1273 (542597)
01-11-2010 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by Smooth Operator
01-11-2010 3:38 AM


Moderator Request to Smooth Operator
Hi Smooth Operator,
I'm requesting that henceforward you respond to the arguments being made rather than slicing people's messages up into short fragments and responding to each fragment. You also usually respond in rhetorical fashion, and you should instead begin responding with information and explanations. Allow me to be specific about a few instances.
Smooth Operator writes:
quote:
But it was never Sanford's.
I have the book, I knwo what he is talking about.
In effect you're saying, "I have the book, you'll just have to take my word for it," and this is just another instance of you refusing to provide information. The only information on the Internet people are able to find does not mention beneficial mutations as a contributor to increasing genetic entropy. Since Sanford's book contains this missing information, and since you are in possession of the book, please provide a relevant excerpt or two.
quote:
No, Smooth Operator. It is not "obvious" that the accumulation of beneficial mutations will drive a species to extinction.
Tell that to all the extinct species around the world. Why do you think they are extinct? Becasue evolution works as you think it does, or becasue it doesn't?
This is a rhetorical response, an expression of skepticism with no information. Please explain how beneficial mutations might drive a species to extinction.
quote:
But of course he does not, which is why, as I pointed out, you can't quote him saying one thing supporting creationist tripe.
He is an evolutionist, not a creationist. But not a darwinist. Do you think that the word "Evolution" EQUALS "darwinian evolution"? Well, you see, no it doesn't. There are many different theories of how evolution works. And you are the one who is claiming that the darwinian one is the true one. Kimura disagreed with that.
I want you to exert more effort staying on topic. These unsupported claims about Kimura and about evolution will now stop in this thread. Kimura accepted descent with modification and natural selection, which is Darwin's theory. If you wish to argue otherwise then take it to the threads discussing Kimura or propose a new thread.
quote:
I see that Percy has already called you on this.
Put up or shut up.
Don't mind if I do.
EvC Forum: Message Peek
The original question was how you measure genetic information. Message 102 doesn't really explain the approach you yourself use, other than an informal one that implies changes in information content from observation of changes in function. The point people are trying to discuss with you is how you measure (not guestimate) information when determining changes in genetic entropy, and they can't do that if you keep saying, "I already explained that," especially when you haven't.
I can spare no more time moderating you. Keep in mind that those who become too big a drain on moderator resources tend to begin drawing longer and longer suspensions just because of concern for our limited moderator resources. Your return to this thread has forced me to recuse myself from participation in a thread where I was enjoying the discussion, and I'm not happy about this, and am especially not happy about your expression of apparent enjoyment of my misery in Message 556.
If I don't see renewed effort at constructively communicating your position then suspension could result.
Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:38 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 628 of 1273 (542598)
01-11-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Brad H
01-11-2010 3:15 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
Hi Brad H,
I'm going to continue to try to clarify for you what I think people are looking for.
Brad H writes:
Merely meaning that, I do have examples of csi (nucleotide arrangement), and I had already given them as an example.
I don't recall seeing these examples, and I expect others may also be having trouble recalling them. Could you please either cut-n-paste these examples into a new message, or provide links to the old messages where you provided them, including enough information to locate them within your messages.
So detecting csi is not as simple as having a meter we can hook up, but it is detectable nonetheless.
People are already aware that you believe CSI is detectable. What they are asking you is how.
And as I said before, we have detected a high degree of csi in the DNA code of all living organisms.
People are already aware that you believe CSI has already been detected in living organisms. What they are asking you for is specifics. Which organisms, what was the method, and how was the method applied?
Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Brad H, posted 01-11-2010 3:15 AM Brad H has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 634 of 1273 (542610)
01-11-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 629 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2010 7:07 AM


Re: Genetic Entropy
Dr Adequate writes:
The fact that all mater tends to disorders is equally well applied to the genome.
I guess it is equally false whatever you're talking about.
If you really know damn-all about thermodynamics, I suggest that you study thermodynamics.
Stop me if I'm going to fast for you.
When you say "Stop me if I'm going to fast for you," it sounds like you're about to launch into an explanation of how Smooth Operator misunderstands 2LOT and what the proper understanding is, but you never actually do that. You say you've actually studied thermodynamics, something I think very few, even here, can legitimately claim, so I think we'd all benefit if you would fill in the blanks. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2010 7:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2010 10:02 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 635 of 1273 (542612)
01-11-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 632 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2010 7:42 AM


Re: Antibiotic Resistance
Dr Adequate writes:
Bacteria can have recessive genes now?
And here was I thinking that they were haploid.
I had a real battle with myself resisting replying to this one, glad you picked up on it, but I doubt this is enough information for Brad H to understand where he has gone wrong. For instance, does he understand what makes a gene recessive, or even what haploid means?
More generally, you're doing pretty much what Smooth Operator is doing, noting where you disagree while offering little in the way of explanation. The major difference between you two is that your objections are based on actual science, but given that you tend not to fill in the scientific background it would not be possible for an uninformed observer to distinguish any difference in merit between your arguments.
I have a question for you. You have obviously spent no time whatsoever researching the subject that you're talking about. So why are you talking about it? You can only hope to be right about anything by sheer good luck. Consequently, you must inevitably bear false witness over and over again, as you have done in this post. Does this not bother you?
Don't go there. Being mistaken and lying are two different things.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2010 7:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2010 11:03 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 642 of 1273 (542635)
01-11-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2010 10:02 AM


Everyone Read This
Hi Dr Adequate,
I don't believe explaining 2LOT principles in layperson's terms is an unreasonable request, particularly when the term "entropy" is being thrown about. If you think the request unreasonable and are unwilling to comply with it then you had best avoid the topic of thermodynamics in this thread.
To everyone,
If your preference is to mock what someone else is saying rather than to explain why it's wrong (with perhaps a side note about why derision might be appropriate), don't bother posting. I've posted over 20 messages to this thread. I think what I'm looking for is pretty clear. If you need clarification please post to Report discussion problems here: No.2 or send me a PM, because I'm not posting any more requests or explanations. It would be stupid of me to continue doing so because obviously no one is paying any heed, or possibly I have lost the ability to express myself in plain English. So I'm expressing myself solely with 24-hour suspensions in this thread for now.
Please, no replies to this message in this thread.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2010 10:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 652 of 1273 (542719)
01-12-2010 8:16 AM


Moderator Suggestion
Smooth Operator's key argument is that both deleterious and beneficial mutations reduce the amount of information in the genome, cause a reduction in function and specificity, and increase genetic entropy. I suggest that both sides keep their posts short and focused on these points.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 662 of 1273 (542757)
01-12-2010 12:27 PM


Dr Adequate's Posting Privileges Removed
Dr Adequate's posting privileges for this forum have been removed.
Smooth Operator, I appreciate the effort you're making as reflected in your quote from Sanford's book, but I also need you to stop responding to sentences and instead respond to arguments. If I see something like this excerpt from Message 650 again you're out:
Smooth Operator writes:
quote:
Then why can you not quote Sanford saying the same thing as you are?
Oh, oh, I know. Because his trash is different from your trash.
I just did, above. I can't wait to see what you have to say to that...
quote:
Because it works exactly like I think it does. Which is why there are species that are not extinct.
No, they are not extinct YET. But it seems that they will follow those that are extinct.
quote:
So, you're back to a definition of genetic entropy whereby the increase of this quantity, which you are unable to measure, is not opposed to evolution and is in fact an inevitable consequence of it.
How is it not opposed to evolution? When did I say that?
quote:
If you tell me falsehoods about what I am claiming, you will not succeed in deceiving me.
It's not a falsehood. You do seem to think that darwinism equals evolution.
quote:
Like Kimura, I agree that there were things that Darwin didn't know. And, like Kimura, I think that creationism is bullshit.
Do you also agree with him that darwinism only, can not account for all diversity of life on Earth?
quote:
It's so good that the "genetic meltdown" in Sanford's fantasies does not in fact happen.
What about those links I posted that actually showed the genetic meltdown occure?
quote:
... of this stuff called "evidence"
Which is?
quote:
Well, if you want to fantasize that one day this genetic meltdown will take place, feel free. But this fantasy does not contradict the actual history of life on Earth.
Are you saying that my idea of genetic entropy is that one day all life on Earth will simply just die out at the same time because of genetic meltdown?
quote:
This explanation, while it might be "simple", or even downright retarded, is not congruent with the facts.
What factsa re you talking about?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 710 of 1273 (543560)
01-19-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by Nuggin
01-18-2010 7:32 PM


Moderator Request
Hi Nuggin,
It would help me out if you could produce the quote again, or at least provide a reference to the message where you quote Dembski equating ID with creationism.
And even with supporting evidence:
If you are going to lie...
Please don't go there.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Nuggin, posted 01-18-2010 7:32 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:16 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 712 of 1273 (543572)
01-19-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Huntard
01-19-2010 7:16 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I had already found those two messages. I was looking for Nuggin quoting Dembski equating ID with creationism.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:16 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:29 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 714 of 1273 (543576)
01-19-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by Huntard
01-19-2010 7:29 AM


Re: Moderator Request
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
There are many arguments one could offer supporting the view that creationism and ID are largely equivalent, and "Dembski said so" is one of these possible arguments, but the quotes Nuggin offered are not unequivocal and do not support Nuggin's accusation of lying. The quotes should be discussed and analyzed rather than people just declaring what they mean.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 8:03 AM Admin has replied
 Message 717 by Nuggin, posted 01-19-2010 11:19 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 716 of 1273 (543578)
01-19-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by Huntard
01-19-2010 8:03 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I disagree. SO disagrees. And if you asked Dembski if he ever equated ID with creationism I'm sure he'd disagree, too. Sounds like something worth discussing.
But not with me, unfortunately. I'd rather participate than moderate, but I'm a moderator in this thread for now.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 8:03 AM Huntard has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024