Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:46 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle (2 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5657
58
5960
...
85NextFF
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2204 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 856 of 1273 (544354)
01-25-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by traderdrew
01-25-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Sticking your fingers in your ears
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!

I do not contend that all functional sites have only ever evolved once, my point was that given other scientists have already performed experiments showing that, and we have substantial comparative genetic data suggesting it is wide spread, such functional domains are swapped between genes creating chimeric proteins (see Hallast et all, 2005) there is no need for each binding site to always evolve de novo. So the fact that this occurs is already well established, I don't need to do the research myself because I look at the published research where it has already been done.

If you extend the 'argument from authority' to cover all previous published academic research then no progress could ever be made in any field as everyone would have to repeat every previous foundational experiment from scratch.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by traderdrew, posted 01-25-2010 12:54 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 857 of 1273 (544360)
01-25-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Straggler
01-25-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
The Hindu link you provided talk about how their religions are in AGREEMENT with evolution. That's not Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is "Evolution didn't happen and could not have happened. It was done by magic instead."

The Hindus are saying: "The universe started because of X, then evolution occurred."

X =/= the "Intelligent Designer" since they are not saying that X had specific guided individual input on life.

Meanwhile SO, Dembski and his cronies are saying the exact opposite - that the Jewish Wizard used magic Jew beams to specifically guide evolution from point A to point Z.

Having some vague notion of a greater power is not "ID".

Further, your claims about people who are very "non-religious" and were happy to accept design is really on par with people who are "non-racist" but don't want black people living in their neighborhood.

They need to take a harder look and resolve the conflicting ideas they have compartmentalized.

Corner one of them and have this conversation:
You: Are you religious?
Them: No.
You: But you believe that there was a power which designed the universe.
Them: Yes.
You: What was that power?
Them: I don't know.
You: Was it a human?
Them: No.
You: Was it in the Universe when it designed the Universe?
Them: No. It couldn't have been.
You: Did it use normal powers we find in the Universe to create the Universe?
Them: No. It couldn't do that either.
You: So, it pre-dates the Universe and has powers beyond that of the Universe.
Them: Yes.
You: Immortal?
Them: Well, if it predates time, then I guess it has to be.
You: So, immortal, limitlessly powerful and outside of the normal realm of existence.
Them: That about sums it up.
You: And how would you describe "God".
Them: Well, he'd be immortal, limitlessly powerful and... hey! Wait a second, I AM religious after all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 3:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 4:05 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 858 of 1273 (544362)
01-25-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 857 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
The Hindu link you provided talk about how their religions are in AGREEMENT with evolution. That's not Intelligent Design.

Actually it was about the various Hindu aproaches to evolution. Both accepting and denying.

Intelligent Design is "Evolution didn't happen and could not have happened. It was done by magic instead."

To what extent? Are theistic evolutionists who think evolution hapened as is evidenced but that God sort of helped it along to reach the desired outcome (i.e US in God's image) - Are they creationists? IDists? What about Behe and his irreducible complexity at the molecular level theory? That accepts evolution it just doesn't accept random mutation as the mechanism (much like theistic evolution to my mind). He is surely one of IDs most famous theorists?

The Hindus are saying: "The universe started because of X, then evolution occurred."

No. Not all. From the previous link - "Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas. An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis"

Having some vague notion of a greater power is not "ID".

But having some vague notion that nature demonstrates design from a higher intelligence is. Yes?

Do yopu really dispute that there are millions of people who believe this without necessarily accepting any of the Jewish wizard stuff you are so determined to accuse them of?

Further, your claims about people who are very "non-religious" and were happy to accept design is really on par with people who are "non-racist" but don't want black people living in their neighborhood.

Well it depneds what you mean. If they don't follow, advocate or believe in any particular religion but just believe that "there must be something" because "it can't all just be random" is that religious?

I am partially inclined to agree with you but that they are in denial to some extent but that doesn't at all mean that they believe in a "Jewish wizard". Or that they are creationists.

They need to take a harder look and resolve the conflicting ideas they have compartmentalized.

Quite possibly. But that still doesn't make them advocates of the Jewish wizard you keep referring to as the defining aspect of creationist thinking.

The arguments of ID are agnostic about the designer even if those making the arguments are not. Why won't you confront the actual arguments and leave the conflations and ad-hominem to the creos?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 3:44 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 859 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 4:43 PM Straggler has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 859 of 1273 (544364)
01-25-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 858 by Straggler
01-25-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
Are theistic evolutionists who think evolution hapened as is evidenced but that God sort of helped it along to reach the desired outcome (i.e US in God's image) - Are they creationists? IDists?

No. Again, it is about the _mechanism_.

These people are not saying that "magic!" is the source of change. They are not saying that "magic!" directs change.

What about Behe and his irreducible complexity at the molecular level theory?

Behe is, works for, sells books and speaking engagements to, Christian Fundamentalists. His claim is that Jew Beams from the great Jew Wizard are responsible for assembling the genetic code.

He may word it _SLIGHTLY_ different, but the argument boils down to that very quickly.

No. Not all. From the previous link - "Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas. An exception to this acceptance is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis"

So, "Dark Blue Jew Wizard" sums up their position.

But having some vague notion that nature demonstrates design from a higher intelligence is. Yes?

Do yopu really dispute that there are millions of people who believe this without necessarily accepting any of the Jewish wizard stuff you are so determined to accuse them of?

No. If there is design, then there must be a MECHANISM of said design. If that mechanism is "Magic!" be it "Blue Magic" or "Jew Magic" it's Creationism.

Anyone out there claiming to support design but NOT support Blue/Jew Magic is simply lying to either you or themselves.

If they don't follow, advocate or believe in any particular religion but just believe that "there must be something" because "it can't all just be random" is that religious?

Yes.

The arguments of ID are agnostic about the designer even if those making the arguments are not. Why won't you confront the actual arguments and leave the conflations and ad-hominem to the creos?

Because the people making the arguments are completely disinterested in any sort of factual logical basis behind their arguments. They are making the arguments for socio-political reasons. They are making them under the assumption that Lying for Jesus is OKAY and therefore it doesn't matter what they make up.

Trying to confront someone who has no basis in reality with facts is just a waste of time. You'll never convince them. You'll never even get them to actually acknowledge any of your facts as being facts.

Their political goal is: "Spread confusion and misinformation".

The public is too stupid and too lazy to sort out fact from fiction.

Since you are obligating yourself to the slower, harder path of fact, you'll quickly find that you've been left in the dust.

Basically, you are saying: "Let's put out the fires with water."
I'm saying: "Let's find and kill the idiot who is starting the fires."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 4:05 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 866 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-25-2010 7:18 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 871 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2010 6:28 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 860 of 1273 (544368)
01-25-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:07 AM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Brad H writes:

Nucleotides are arranged to effect the proteins in such a way that an eye is built, or fingers and finger nails, or a beating heart.

The nucleotides in DNA are no more arranged for a specific effect than lottery numbers are drawn to get a specific winner. You are specifying after the fact.

What we see with DNA is a continuous record of winners. The environment doesn't know which sequence of DNA to pick. The organism doesn't pick which mutations will be occur in it's germ line cells. The offspring doesn't choose which of these mutations it will inherit. The whole process of evolution is completely blind to DNA sequence, and it works just fine.

Better yet, look at my avatar. Can you point to the bits of information in that picture? If you saw the same arrangement of string on the floor would you call it information? Better yet, if you saw my avatar represented with string next to the word "SOS" written in string which would you say contains information?

However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.

Meet the Nylon Bug:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

This bacteria evolved a new enzyme capable of breaking down nylon oligomers. This new enzyme arose by the insertion of a single base resulting in a new reading frame.

Can you explain why an insertion of a new base resulting in a new enzyme with novel function constitutes a loss in information?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:07 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:41 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 861 of 1273 (544369)
01-25-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 796 by Brad H
01-24-2010 3:00 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
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.

It's not in the paper. If you notice the dates of publication these papers were written before DNA was fully understood. Nonetheless, their observations (i.e. the Lederbergs, Luria, and Delbruck) were spot on. They observed the emergence of a new, beneficial mutation in the absence of selection for that mutation. It is an unavoidable conclusion from the data.

Since then the mutations are well understood. For bacteriophage resistance, the mutations which confer this phenotype occur in the tonB gene (ton refers to T-1 phage, the phage type used in the original Luria-Delbruck experiment). For antibiotic resistance there are a host of different mutations which confer resistance, and these occur at the same rate whether or not the antibiotic is present. It's not as if the bacteria have an antibiotic sensor protein that automatically mutates a specific region of DNA when it senses antibiotic.

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.

Then evolution does not need a gain in information in order for it to occur. All evolution needs is a change in variation due to mutation, and that is exactly what is observed. If we were to observe every mutation occuring from the first life to current humans you would conclude that every single DNA change is a loss in information.

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.

You might as well claim that you need to see magical gravity pixies in order to accept that planes can fly. Evolution works just fine without needing an increase in what you call "information" just as a plane flies just fine without magical gravity pixies.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by Brad H, posted 01-24-2010 3:00 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:41 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 862 of 1273 (544370)
01-25-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 805 by Smooth Operator
01-24-2010 12:16 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Everyone who knows anything about the history of the modern ID movement knows this is not true.

Really? From the Discovery Institute themselves:

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

http://libcom.org/...dge-document-intelligent-design-exposed

Read the whole thing, and then tell us with a straight face that the ID movement has nothing to do with replacing science with their view of christianity. And remember, this was an internal memo at the Discovery Institute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-24-2010 12:16 PM Smooth Operator has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 863 of 1273 (544372)
01-25-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 797 by Brad H
01-24-2010 3:35 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
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.

And your point is? Humans mimic many things that occur naturally.

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.

They claim no such thing. DNA sequences can sustain many changes without affecting protein function. On the flip side, a single mutation can change the protein's function drastically, a single mutation can produce a functional protein from a previously non-functioning DNA sequence, etc. All of these have been observed.

Again, you are specifying after the fact. You are telling us about how improbable the order of the cards are after the shuffle. You are telling us that lotteries have to be designed so that specific people can win. You are drawing the bull's eye around the bullet hole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 797 by Brad H, posted 01-24-2010 3:35 AM Brad H has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 864 of 1273 (544374)
01-25-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 848 by Straggler
01-25-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR - teaching science and philosophy
Hi Straggler, well I've noted that your position is often closer to mine than you may think, there's just one bug-bear where this breaks down, and that really is about where you draw the (thin) line between what you think is reasonable and what I think is reasonable.

I really don't want to start another dispute between you and I but in a thread called "What is ID" I have to take the opportunity to ask the following:

Where do you think ID starts?

I've followed your posts without reply, for similar reasons. I've been thinking of a new ID thread for me on this, but have been waiting for the current crop to cool down (or run down) before jumping in.

In the meantime you (and anyone else interested) can look over Is ID properly pursued? for one of my (older) perspectives. I find it curious that the normal ID crowd does not want to discuss this issue.

It may also clear up some other issues for you ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:14 PM Straggler has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 865 of 1273 (544380)
01-25-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by Straggler
01-25-2010 2:20 PM


prediction?
Hi again,

Given that ID has been around so long in one form or another and that it seems like almost second nature for us as a species to invoke a purposeful designer wherever we see order or function in nature - I would hazard the guess that it wil be another form of ID repackaged to appeal to the masses.

Given that the DI has backed away (beat a hasty retreat?) from getting their curriculum in the schools, and the various comments about philosophy and the philosophy of science, I think they may try an approach along those lines - they can say to scientists that it's philosophy and to (gullible) believers that it's about how science is done.

If they do, this will get around the not-in-science-class issue.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 2:20 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 872 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2010 7:41 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 866 of 1273 (544386)
01-25-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 859 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
Nuggin writes:

The public is too stupid and too lazy to sort out fact from fiction.

Not lazy and stupid so much as simply following their emotions. It just feels better to believe that there's Someone In Charge Out There.

I doubt that most folks spend a lot of time thinking about ID per se. Likewise, they probably don't spend a lot of time concerning themselves with theological issues. "Christian" is just a default position, at least in America it seems. It's the path of least resistance.

Given the choice between living in an unpurposed universe, vast and absolutely indifferent. and living in a special world made just for human beings, watched over by Someone Who Has a Special Plan For Your Life, I wager that choice number two will come out way ahead every time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 4:43 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 867 of 1273 (544390)
01-25-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:07 AM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Hi again Brad, you seem to be settling in a little here, and I'd like to echo Buzsaw about staying around.

Lets get real here Raz, if I copied and pasted material here, obtained from another web site and I used your logic that they were all brand new letters that only exist here for the first time, how long do you think I would last before I got booted for plagiarism? A copy of something does not explain its origination.

Curiously, DNA does not need to worry about plagiarism suits, which is a good thing, seeing how often it plagiarizes itself.

Indeed, let's get real: DNA is composed of strings of amino acids in a very restrictive alignment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna

quote:
Chemically, DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription.

The DNA double helix is stabilized by hydrogen bonds between the bases attached to the two strands. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are attached to the sugar/phosphate to form the complete nucleotide, as shown for adenosine monophosphate.

These bases are classified into two types; adenine and guanine are fused five- and six-membered heterocyclic compounds called purines, while cytosine and thymine are six-membered rings called pyrimidines.[8]


So along any strand you have A, G, C, or T in various repeating patterns. DNA is so long, generally, that all the patterns of A with A, G, C or T on each side of it are already present somewhere, as are all the patterns with the other bases in the center. There just is not that many different patterns available for DNA at the molecule to molecule level.

Basically this means that the claim that any mutation is just a repeat of some section elsewhere is mundanely true, no matter what the effect of the change is on the organism metabolizing food, reproducing and surviving. Being mundanely true means that it has no predictive power on what can and what cannot evolve as a result.

No matter how you cut the mustard, any point insertion will duplicate a segment of DNA elsewhere in the strand ... so there is nothing new eh?

Wrong. The difference lies in what the various sections of DNA do -- either in replication, organism development, or in normal production of proteins within the cell.

In Message 825 I asked you whether 123456789 and 1213456789 have the same information, and you blanked. The problem for you is threefold:

  • that the additional number is indeed an increase in information, in the normal information theory meaning, thus any point insertion is indeed an increase of information,
  • that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other of these mutations necessarily violates your "no increase in information" position,
  • finally, when we talk about DNA rather than just numbers, we can have a section of DNA that codes for a protein being interrupted by this insertion, changing the protein output.

This final point means that a new function is derived for this section of DNA regardless of whether the specific pattern was found elsewhere. Let me quote another poster here:

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.

Taq Message 863: They claim no such thing. DNA sequences can sustain many changes without affecting protein function. On the flip side, a single mutation can change the protein's function drastically, a single mutation can produce a functional protein from a previously non-functioning DNA sequence, etc. All of these have been observed.

This modified protein production is enough to cause deleterious (deadly) effect on a growing organism, or a neutral effect in the current ecology, or a beneficial effect ... let me quote Taq again:

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.

Taq Message 861: Then evolution does not need a gain in information in order for it to occur. All evolution needs is a change in variation due to mutation, and that is exactly what is observed. If we were to observe every mutation occuring from the first life to current humans you would conclude that every single DNA change is a loss in information.

In other words, what you claim could be mundanely true, yet it would also be incapable of restricting evolution in any way shape or form, and thus it becomes (is) a useless concept of no predictive value to science in any way.

As an example, let me quote another post by Taq

However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.

Taq Message 860: Meet the Nylon Bug:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
This bacteria evolved a new enzyme capable of breaking down nylon oligomers. This new enzyme arose by the insertion of a single base resulting in a new reading frame.

It does not matter that this occurred as a point mutation or a "frame shift", as Traderdrew would have it in (Message 817), as you will notice that what he says"

... 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. ...

Is precisely what I predicted above: mundanely true but irrelevant to the ability of evolution to adapt to new ecological conditions. It is still a beneficial mutation, it still adds to the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, which is all that evolution requires to be true. The "larger designed system" is evolution.

Yes and how many thousands of years do you suppose that rocks and sticks have existed?

Irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss ages of things, we can do that at the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, as I believe I have recommended before. Once you can explain all the correlations we can then get down to a common understanding of the age of the earth in this and other discussions. Until then you are just avoiding this issue.

Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?

Actually yes Raz, I am. But I am not stating that they always happen without genetic changes. There are actually a number of mechanisms that can bring about changes in a populations traits.

Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6920/index.html


http://www.nature.com/...nal/v421/n6920/abs/nature01313.html
quote:
The evolution of wings was the central adaptation allowing insects to escape predators, exploit scattered resources, and disperse into new niches, resulting in radiations into vast numbers of species1. Despite the presumed evolutionary advantages associated with full-sized wings (macroptery), nearly all pterygote (winged) orders have many partially winged (brachypterous) or wingless (apterous) lineages, and some entire orders are secondarily wingless (for example, fleas, lice, grylloblattids and mantophasmatids), with about 5% of extant pterygote species being flightless2, 3. Thousands of independent transitions from a winged form to winglessness have occurred during the course of insect evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a flightless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any pterygote lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between nerves, muscles, sclerites and wing foils are required to accommodate flight4. Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.

Now notice that I will allow the blockage of wing formation to occur by a mutation, and that this blockage can be reversed by removing the mutation, and that a subsequent mutation can block it again, creating the pattern seen, however this is precisely the scenario (2) given above:

quote:
2. that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other mutations violates your "no increase in information" position,

I await your explanation.

However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.

Argument from ignorance or denial. Curiously what you know, what you believe, what you think, and what you deny, are completely irrelevant to what occurs in the real world. Your opinion cannot affect reality.

And that is the only thing (as far as biological evidence goes) that can convince any reasonably minded skeptic of universal common decent.

I prefer the term open minded skeptic, however you mean what might convince you IF we can convince you that such evidence exists. Calling yourself a "reasonably minded skeptic" means nothing to me until you show that you are equally skeptical of creationist and IDological claims. If you swallow unreliable creationist or IDological claims, like complexity, information and irreducible complexity, yada yada, without any skepticism, then you are not skeptical in the real sense. See Pseudoskepticism and logic:

Message 1: http://en.wikipedia.org.../Pseudoskepticism#Pseudoskepticism
quote:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.

Message 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
quote:
False claims of skepticism
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[6] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".

Many creationist and IDological claims belong in the discredited category, claims like a young earth, irreducibly complexity, and specified complexity ...

An open minded skeptic, on the other hand, allows that what they are skeptical of may be true.

Thus far in all of the history of the human experience we have only observed this kind of csi formed by intelligent causes and therefore we conclude that the csi observed in DNA must also have an intelligent cause.

Aside from the (repeated) argument from ignorance, let me introduce you to a little diagram of mine:

This is the logical fallacy of

All A is B
B
Therefore A

Also known as affirming the consequent.

Logical fallacies are not things that open minded skeptics use for forming conclusions about reality.

I'll let others discuss with you whether or not a single example of "csi" exists as defined by Dembski -- see critique by Jason Rosenhouse here:

quote:
Every aspect of this argument is mistaken, as shown by numerous philosophers and scientists since Dembski first presented his ideas. Dembski's claim that CSI is both well-defined and reliably indicates design is highly dubious, but here I will only address the problems with applying his ideas to biology.

Which Jason does with ease. Your reference to CSI is precisely what I mean about swallowing IDologist claims without any real skepticism.

But on the other hand, on this thread we are discussing ID. Intelligent design proponents suggests that information in the DNA code of all living organisms is highly complex and highly specified.

Curiously, I am an intelligent design proponent - I am a deist - the original kind. As a deist, I suggest to you that there is no conflict at all between evolution from the first cell to the present day and the basic concept of intelligent design (properly pursued), nor do I need to play semantic games with reality. If you want to discuss this issue more, I'll be happy to oblige. You may also want to read Is ID properly pursued? for some background.

What I suspect, given your avatar and several comments, is that you are not a real ID proponent, but a creationist wearing second hand ID clothes - that you will choose creationism over ID when they contradict - so many "IDologists" do, sad to say. A real ID proponent, in my humble opinion, does not need any creationist baggage.

Enjoy.

ps -- thanks Taq for your posts.

Edited by RAZD, : another Taq quote

Edited by RAZD, : englis


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:07 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 868 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2010 10:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 875 by traderdrew, posted 01-26-2010 12:11 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 939 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:42 PM RAZD has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 868 of 1273 (544396)
01-25-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 867 by RAZD
01-25-2010 9:15 PM


ID vs. ID
A real ID proponent, in my humble opinion, does not need any creationist baggage.

You are confusing two different IDs.

One, as has been pointed out on this thread, vanishes into antiquity most likely to the very origins of religious thought. That is apparently what you are referring to.

The other is clearly a recent construct "designed" by creationists/fundamentalists with a very specific purpose in mind--to sneak religion back into the public schools, this time (hopefully) masqueraded more effectively than creation "science" was.

And then along came Dover. (Whoops! Back to the drawing board!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 9:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 18376
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 869 of 1273 (544407)
01-26-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 847 by traderdrew
01-25-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Sticking your fingers in your ears
traderdrew writes:

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!

The argument from authority is, "This is true because scientist X says so."

The argument from authority definitely is not, "This is likely true because the body of research of various scientists working in this field strongly suggests that it is true."

Citing evidence and research published in the peer-reviewed literature is the opposite of the argument from authority. It is the epitome of, the zenith, even, of how we hope people support their positions here at EvC Forum, surpassed only by doing and submitting for peer-review one's own original research.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by traderdrew, posted 01-25-2010 12:54 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by traderdrew, posted 01-26-2010 12:26 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18376
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 870 of 1273 (544408)
01-26-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 835 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Numbers
Brad H writes:

I know that the specificity is not Shannon theory, only the complexity is.

Just as a side note, Shannon information is not a measure of complexity.

Brad H writes:

I think you are mistaking what I mean Percy.

I understand exactly what you mean, and other people have already addressed it, so I didn't bother making the point again, but it would probably help make my position more clear to you by telling you that the sharpshooter analogy is precisely the error you're committing. You're drawing a false analogy between on the one hand looking up a specific phone number for a movie theater (the target), and on the other (allow me to choose an example) a protein essential for life in some organism, and you then conclude that the protein must have been targeted, too.

That's the sharpshooter analogy. You're looking at a protein and, in essence, drawing a target around it as if it were the actual intentional goal of some intelligent being. You think the mere existence of the essential protein is proof that such an intelligent being must exist and must have carried out actions that resulted in the design of the protein and the insertion of the required DNA into the organism's population.

It is the nature of human beings to find purpose and meaning in existence, and IDists making this mistake when they think they're doing science is just human nature. People do the same thing throughout the natural world, not just in biology. For example, that Earth's orbit is in just the right place neither too close nor too far from the sun and with a minimal ellipticity is cited by some as evidence of God's handiwork.

But you can keep going, and some people do. The presence of the ozone layer protecting us from ultraviolet rays could be God's handiwork. The presence of the Earth's magnetic field protecting us from most cosmic rays could be evidence of God's handiwork. That it rains to water our crops could be evidence of God's handiwork. That you're warm and comfortable in your home could be evidence of God's handiwork.

And they're right, yes it could be evidence of God's handiwork (or intelligent designer, if you prefer), but if you're doing science then you have to develop evidence that that's what happened. You're not going to get anywhere with mistakes like the sharpshooter fallacy. You have to come up with actual evidence. Evolutionary mechanisms explain the distribution and diversity of life around us now and in the past, and if it wasn't evolutionary mechanisms but something else then you need evidence of those other mechanisms. For instance, find something in some species' genome somewhere that couldn't possibly be part of any nested hierarchy. Find evidence of the mechanisms used by intelligent designers to effect change in genomes of the populations of living organisms.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:20 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:42 PM Percy has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5657
58
5960
...
85NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019