What exactly is ID?

Hi Brad H,[p]Once again before I reply to you, I am going to ignore our detractors and have an ID debate or discussion between you and me. I really don't have the time for endless debates on the net anyway. You can describe it as redundancy. I would imagine (not scientific but common sense) that redundany is specified but there should be a line or at least a grey area between what can be described as somewhere between redundant and complex. That is supposed to be 400 bits which Smooth Operator told me and I think the formula is -log2 of 10^120.My intutition told me Dembski's description is not quite adequate but I am slowly investigating ways it can be improved upon. I have a couple of links on the web I need to investagate later. Of course there are plenty of harmful mutations. There is only one that was beneficial that I can think of and that was the nylonase enzyme for a certain type of bacteria. However, it could very well mean the frameshift that occurred to produce that new nylonase enzyme was part of a larger designed system allowing adaptations. For one thing, no start or stop codons (inbetween the information) were created in the frameshift.The other beneficial mutation was the sickel cell but as we all know it has a big disadvantage. I'm not sure if C Harlem was an example of adding information. There is a hypothesis that says brewer's yeast formed or evolved by doubling its entire genetic code and then erasing some of it.Adding information is theoretically possible but the real question is, are these example adequate enough to create new types of body plans and adequate enough to evolve the existence of something like a whale from a hyaena like mammal? Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer explain why they don't think so.Here is a video where you would want to listen to Stephen Meyer's presentation just after Richard Sternberg ended his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRV8_L8Lmzg&feature=relatedListen to the part about the sequences in proteins. One thing his book "Signature in the Cell" pointed out is the active site in an enzyme is very small compared to the overall size of the enzyme protein. The amount of functional information is very small compared to the total amount of information in the protein.Another thing, there are protein to protein binding sites where proteins are bound together in order to work as teams. According to Mike Behe, you can't just randomly mutate them together one step at a time because the each particular bond isn't strong enough. I think lipid bonds and hydrogen bonds play parts in it as well as the specified shape of the parts that fit together. My detractors may say I am relying on Behe as an authority but that doesn't counter the evidence in itself.There are 10,000 protein binding sites in the average cell. I would think this would call for specified information in order to accomplish this.This was all off my memory and there could easily be an error on my part in the above.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I also wanted to make sure ID proponents know our perspective is complimentary (not inferior) to the materialistic paradigm of gradual evolution.Our critics say we are science stoppers and we stop all inquiry. In the true sense of the definition of science (as the way they define it), I would have to agree with them. But to infer a designer on our part does not answer the hows and the whys. ID proponents can investigate possible ways in the hows and then speculate about the whys.Take the example of the recurrent largynal nerve found in humans and giraffes among other mammals. From their perspective, it is a design flaw that serves no better purpose than a direct route. I could say this is a science stopper in itself and it stops inquiry!!! By assuming it is a design flaw, theoretically all inquiry will stop from investigating the reasons why or the possible reasons for the what may appear to be an unusual configuration of the nerves.I realized this from the debates and you see, I believe I have something to contribute to the subject since I tend to think differently from most people.

Hi Wounded King,If it was any other evc participant with a materialist bent of mind, I probably would have just deleted your the email and not given it any thought. You on the other hand have taken me to school on this forum. It's true. I have respect for your knowledge as a scientist and you are like a Goliath in these debates for me. Considering the sheer numbers of neo-Darwinists and naturalists on this forum and the amount of minds I have to debate with, it puts me on the defensive and steers me in ways were I may not wish to go. I have been there and done that. I need to discipline my time. I spend a lot less time one on one with individual design proponents and I can learn what they see also. I found it interesting that our debates (with you and a couple of others) did "not" persuade me much further toward your paradigms but it actually strengthened my paradigm. No I am not saying that at all. There is a time for everything and intuition and common sense may or may not compliment actual knowledge and research. That is your hypothesis and since you accuse me of appealing to an authority as though other scientists never do this or appeal to the work of other scientists, I suggest you prove your hypothesis in the lab yourself King! Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Actually I think this quote (just below) from the Pandas and People article is more relevant to me than the one you posted. It would seem logical to me to measure the specificity of an object first and then compare those objects to others. After you have many comparisons and references then, you can start to determine what is complex and what is not and the possible grey areas inbetween.Dembski's writing is conflicted on the subject of whether the system's specification comes before or after the determination that the system is complex. For example, in his infamous explanatory filter it is quite explicit that the determination of the system's complexity comes before the determination that it is specified. In other places, however, specification comes first.Much of the rest of that article is smoke and mirrors in my opinion. It would be interesting to see if or how you can reconcile science with your religious views other than the principle of NOMA which doesn't do the trick if, I was to assume we have learned enough about reality through science. There is the quote from the book of Genesis "The earth bought forth life" which could be interpreted as a very simple explanation of evolution.

I really can't see any significant difference. Labeling something as peer review after it has been published doesn't seem to be any different from (your quote) - "a body of research of various scientists working in this field strongly suggests that it is true."Stephen Meyer published his peer reviewed article but it created a firestorm. From there people believe what they wanted to believe from the rumors and possible outright lies about what happend after it was published. It is reasonable to assume there are other scientists who do not wish to attempt to publish their views because I have seen there are those who do get upset. I have received a very small amount of anger myself (other than the internet) and I have spoken to a doctor (who also was an ID proponent) who told me, intelligent design is a good term if you wish to start a fight and he would rather not talk about it with other professionals.I have broken my silence long enough.

In other words, you agree with me.

Sorry, it is called the "recurrent laryngeal nerve". So much to remember, so little time. Yes, I was researchers at Duke University according to a report emailed to me from Dr. Mercola years ago. It stuck in my mind because I had an interest in the evolution / ID debate years ago. This time I just checked the internet to see if I remembered it right.HTTP 429However, do you really think you can convince the dogmatic neo-Darwinists?I can also argue their reference to the eye is a lame argument. Their recurrent laryngeal nerve is a better argument against design. I tested myself for the blind spot months ago. Turn the page that allows you to test for it a little bit clockwise or counterclockwise and the spot reappears. You never would notice it if one of your eyes was closed without testing for it. Our inverted retina is a space saver relative to the verted retina. Many evolutionists won't even consider that verted retinas are more susceptible to being damaged by light. It may have been no accident that the lights were off in the salt water tank in the Florida Aquarium, where I was last summer. It was the only tank with a celaphopod. Stephen Meyer was apparently correct that the human eye is an example of what engineers call constrained optimization.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.