What exactly is ID?

Because we know a lot about trade and technology from the time period. We also know the source material for the stone. You are desperately grasping for straws. You are now trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians had LASER TECHNOLOGY. LOL. Grow up. This is a RETARDED question. You know it. The fact that you actually posted it is an insult to this forum. Yes, but you CAN'T buried it in context at an undisturbed archaeological site. So, you are saying that just because "it looks like it" was carved, that doesn't mean it was actually carved.Basically, the appearance of design is NOT evidence of design.Excellent, you just lost the ENTIRE debate. You are, as always, contradicting yourself.If I pick SPECIFIC numbers for the lottery (which MILLIONS of people do) and win, then that is a SPECIFIED event with EXTREMELY low probability and yet it happens MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR. There are 12 letters in Professional.Using JUST the English anagram generator there are 27,214 workable anagrams.That's stuff you would RECOGNIZE.Of course you are filtering by just ONE factor - your understanding of the words.If you include the ability to decode codes, or other languages, or any other kind of meaning which could be construed from the letters, the numbers jump WAY up.Just because YOU only understand ONE solution does not mean that only ONE solution exists. Wow, you're right, that is EXCELLENT evidence AGAINST intelligent Design.What sort of a retarded genie would screw up SOOOOOOOOOOO bad in his design?

quote:

---

My argument was the same from the start. Only one function was known, it was lost, therefore all functions were lost. Yes, there could be some unknown left, but we are not going to invent them just for fun. The point remains that the KNOWN function is lost. That is my point. Plese continue from this, don't go back to what you think I was saying.

---

Your argument that all function was lost is not logically valid. That the measured function was lost is not disputed. I don't know why we keep having to go around and around on this point with you continually shifting your position when you aren't even making anything of the point.

quote:

---

If you are talking about the regular D than you are right. But if you are talking about the bold D than no. It's a descriptive language.

---

Given that I wrote D rather than D and given that my statement is correct if I meant D and not D it seems clear that I meant D and not D.

quote:

---

And D* is surely not a correspondence of D and 10^20 is the number of four-level concepts. You see, on page 136 it clearly says that regular D is just a shorthand for D*.

---

I am afraid that you are misreading it. It says that D may be used to represent (D, *), not D*. I can see the sentence that you mean, but the following sentence makes it clear:

quote:

---

And * maps regular D to E, not to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. E in this case is the flagellum that consists of 50 proteins.

---

Again you misread it. Just as there are two Ds, there are two Es. The correspondence maps D to E (p144). And the result of applying * to D is D*. NOT E unless E=D*. And in this case the problem is that the E you want to use is NOT D*.

quote:

---

Yous aid that: "It in no way compensates for the fact that the specification describes many things that are not the E Coli flagellum". Which are those specifications?

---

The specification is "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller". There are many things that are "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers" that are not E Coli flagella. Got it ?

quote:

---

It's both! We need both the complexity of the specification, and the complexity of the event. Becasue it is much harder for a lower probability event to mach the same pattern than it is for a higher probability event. That is why we need to include both complexities.

---

You are making no sense. We don't need an improbability inflated by unspecified details. Why would we ?

quote:

---

But it is important becasue a flagellum consisting of 300 bits will not be regarded as CSI, but a flagellum that describes the same pattern and consists of 500 bits will! Obviously we need to take into account their complexities.

---

It's not obvious to me. In fact it is obvious to me that Dembski s right on this point and that the probability of D* is the only one that matters. Unspecified information is irrelevant to identifying design - and anything outside of D* is outside of the specification D.

quote:

---

NO WE DO NOT! Why the hell would we want to combine them!?!!?!!?!?!?!??! A 300 bit flagellum is not CSI in the first place!!! What's tehre to combine? Where did Dembski say anything about combining!?

---

Here's that quote again (TDI p165) Since D* includes BOTH the flagella (and more) you would need to combine their probabilities to get to D*. (And if you find ONE with less than 400 bits of information, the probability of D* will not be low enough so there is no need to continue).

quote:

---

NO WRONG! It's obvious to me now that you misunderstand the whole concept. Why the hell do you think the UPB of 10^120 even exist!? By your logic it even does not have to exist! Obviously it doesn't according to you becasue youa re only taking into account the complexity of the specification!

---

Every time you write by "your logic" you mean some crazy idea that you have. Can you please stop doing that. And, in fact, the position you are disagreeing with is Dembski's.

quote:

---

Yet the point is to compare if the probability if the event that happened is high or low in matching the complexity of the specification! That is why we also need the complexity of the event. How do you do that if you only have one complexity, that of the specification? Obviously, you don't, because you can't!

---

Here's that quote again (TDI p165) So THAT is the probability we want to compare to the UPB.

quote:

---

If and only if it is detachable from the event in question.

---

Which is one of the reasons why simple patterns are better. They are easy to detach from the observed event.

quote:

---

No. I never said that.

---

Unfortunately you did indeed claim that nearly all beneficial mutations increased genetic entropy, and offered sickle-cell as your first piece of evidence.

quote:

---

And you need to be more specific about the fitness. Genetic entropy is primarily about genetic information. The reduction of genetic information. Which I already said is not proportionally correlated with REPRODUCTIVE fitness. Soemthing like a sickle cell mutation can increase REPRODUCTIVE fitness, yet reduce genetic information, thus increasing genetic entropy. So you need to be more specific. What fitness are you talking about?

---

You are simply wrong about genetic entropy. Genetic entropy is abut reproductive fitness, not some poorly-defined and unquantifiable concept of "genetic information".

quote:

---

So you are telling me that 1+1 do not equal 2, right? A reduction is a reduction. Mutations o average reduce genetic information. More in smaller populations, less in large populations. But in any population, reduction still exists. You can not completely remove the reduction by invoking larger population sizes.

---

What I am telling you is that the point you were meant to be supporting was your assertion that the population needed to be infinite for the statistical effects of a large population to significantly reduce the impact of "noise". That has nothing to do with your ideas about "genetic information".

quote:

---

And we extrapolate this to larger popultions too. Becaue there is no reason to think that larger populations will fully remove the effects of genetic entropy. They will reduce them. but never fully remove them. Thus entropy continues to increase.

---

That is simply your opinion. The experts working in the field don't seem to agree. Which is why you never found a paper that actually supported your claim.

quote:

---

The only help for you would be that there was a correlation of all those traits with the genetic traits. If it was correlated that those who have all the good traits, plus the beneficial mutations always got selected, than the noise would not matter. But on average it doesn't happen. There is no correlation on average. And bad and good traits from every source are on average, equally spread through the population. Therefore, noise exists.

---

And in large populations - as I keep pointing out - the effects of noise will be reduced. That is why genetic drift - your "noise" - is weaker in larger populations. That is why I don't need to appeal to correlations - and it would be to your advantage if you could.

quote:

---

The removal of all deleterious mutations is 100% efficiency. If it's not 100% deleterious mutations accumulate.

---

Of course I have already pointed out a case where the removal through selection is not 100% efficient and where not all deleterious mutations need be removed - and yet they do not accumulate. A dynamic equilibrium where the NUMBER of deleterious mutations removed from the population - by either selection or drift - equals the NUMBER of deleterious mutations added to the population.It is not necessary that all be removed, nor is it necessary that selection should do all the work of removal when drift can also assist.

Hi Granny. Thanks to you and Wounded King for the info. Perhaps some day physiology phenomena probing scientists like the ones who figured out that all of the junk DNA and apendixes were'nt useless will figure out a reason for this phenomenon in the by and by.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Your argument was irony? So you're implying that because many evolutionists see ID as a product of creationists, there is an atheist conspiracy causing ToE, without actually believing such a conspiracy exists? People in this forum have posted how creationism was/is the driving force for ID. You can define creationism or ID anyway you please, evolution has only one definition. Maybe I missed the post where you made this profound correlation. You could be a little less vague in all your posts. I have to figure out what you're talking about from a single sentence? You could save us all the time of writing such short posts by explaining yourself better than responses like...I was being ironic you're an idiot for wasting your time! , type bullshit.

Hi Brad,You're changing horses in mid-ride. First you argued that biological structures like proteins are like a phone number that has been specifically chosen, leading to the conclusion that an intelligent being must have intentionally designed and constructed the protein and inserted it into the genome of the population. Now you're arguing that mutation and natural selection are insufficient for producing biological structures like proteins, leading to the conclusion that an intelligent being must have intentionally designed and constructed the protein and inserted it into the genome of the population.But both arguments are wrong. The first is the sharpshooter fallacy. You responded as if you were uncertain what it was, as if I were the first to mention it, but Iblis and Taq had already pointed this out to you. Choosing a protein and labeling it intentionally designed is analogous to shooting at the broad side of a barn then painting a bullseye where the bullet hit. Your "granny" explanation makes clear that you understand the sharpshooter fallacy, and if you think there are incredibly unlikely events in the protein's past that make the very fact that it exists unlikely in the extreme and point to intention and purpose, then you have to find evidence of those unlikely events. Without evidence for why the place where you painted the target is an inevitable consequence of past events, we can only conclude that you painted it where you did because that's where the bullet hit.Your second argument, that mutations and natural selection are insufficient to produce proteins for specific purposes, is just an unsupported assertion. Each generation in a population possesses a large number of new mutations. The worst mutations don't make it to the following generation. The best mutations become fixed within the population. Then the process repeats again in the next generation. By discarding the worst mutations and producing more copies of the best, evolution allows populations to improve their adaptation to their environment. If you think evolutionary change can only produce diminishing adaptation then all you need is evidence of this occurring.Fallacies, misapprehensions about evolution, rhetorical arguments, lack of evidence. That's what you got.--Percy

Hi Smooth Operator,The argument of how impossible it is to really know anything applies equally to both sides of an argument. Please waste no more time on it in this thread. If you have direct evidence against a position then present that.Every time I think it's safe for me to resume participation in this thread you do something crazy again. I'm not withdrawing from participation this time.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Brad H This thread is so fractured into subtopics that I have stopped reading it for the most part. If you can list the particular posts I'll read them. To do this, all you need to do is look at the top of the message where it gives the message number: ... as for your post that I'm replying to here as an example ... and put the number in parenthesis into this dbcode: [mid=544696]It becomes Message 939. This message id number is unique to the message, so I can post that code into any message on any forum and it links to your message #939 here. The original link went to a public pdf copy of the article. Unfortunately I didn't keep a pdf copy and they have since archived it with just the abstract public. Again, my impression is that it is done based on genetic cladogram analysis, and it is entirely possible to find several known instances of divergence but not find all of them - science is tentative, after all. You will excuse me while I chuckle a bit here. Here's the history of this issue with your comment in the middle: What I was asking for was an explanation for a mechanism that was not genetic.What you have suggested is a genetic mechanism: a genetic mutation for wingless beetles being selected as an adaptation to an island ecology that leads to improved survival and reproduction. Please see Peppered Moths and Natural Selection. Yes once again what we have is a change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to changing ecological conditions (and melanic mutations are a common\easy mutation to find). Again, this is a genetic explanation, and not a non-genetic explanation. So we are back to the walkingstick in Message 809:

quote:

---

Second, we have the case of walkingstick insects.

​

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

​

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

​

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.

​

And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.

​

And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

​

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?

​

Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings

​

All by loss of information? Did they 1st lose the information on how to make wings, then 2nd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings, and then 3rd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings? How can you lose information to not do something that you have lost the information to do?

​

We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:

1. Wings
2. No wings = (a) + information_a = Wings + information_a
   IF going from (a) to (b) involves a loss of information then information_a is positive
   
3. Wings = (b) + information_b = No wings + information_b = (a) + information_a + information_b = Wings + information_a + information_b
   IF going from (b) to (c) involves a loss of information then information_b is positive

​

Wings - Wings = information_a + information_b = 0
information_a + information_b = 0
information_a = 0 - information_b

​

Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0

​

Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.

---

Comments in pink added for emphasis.Now remember your claim: So no more island beetles and peppered moth genetics with changes in the frequencies of hereditary traits in a few generations. These are fully established species that undergo continuing speciation where the wing/wingless traits are fixed in the whole population.Look at the graphic again, and note that each branching in the cladogram represents a speciation event.Now I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.Enjoy.

---

Except that it doesn't because genetic meltdown has NEVER occurred.Billions of years of life and no genetic meltdown. And, by your own admission billions of years to go before it could potentially happen.

Have we really established that Smoothie accepts the estimates science has come up with for the age of the earth and the development of the earliest life forms?It seems that he accepts biblical literalism in a number of cases (e.g. geocentrism).Given the hundreds of posts he has made, most of which are chopped up into little snippets, who can tell any more?I suspect that the whole reason for his support of genetic entropy is the biblical belief in "the fall" and devolution from that original "perfect" state.He keeps claiming not to be a Christian, but I don't recall him disavowing biblical literalism. He claims to derive his facts and evidence from science, but the problem for this is, that ca. 99.9% of science contradicts what he is claiming! I really do suspect that he is a biblical literalist trying to "minister to the heathen" here on these threads.Maybe it is because I have suggested this any number of times that he won't respond to anything I post, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Because we know a lot about trade and technology from the time period. We also know the source material for the stone.

---

But nothing has been written about the Rosetta stone, so you know nothing about it from that period. And also, the source material, please. Do you think a Ferrari is made from the matertial that is dug up in Italy? You do know there is such a thing as export and import. Raw material can be imported and a product can be produced somewhere else than where the raw materials were dug up from.

quote:

---

You are desperately grasping for straws. You are now trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians had LASER TECHNOLOGY. LOL. Grow up.

---

Nope, I'm not. I'm showing you that you can't say if they had it or not. I don't believe they did, but I'm using this argument to show you how illogical your position is. By saying that you can't detect design unless you know the mechanism, which is false. Becasue you can't tell the mechanism from design in the first place. Nor the origin, time, or anything else but the design itself.

quote:

---

This is a RETARDED question. You know it. The fact that you actually posted it is an insult to this forum.

---

No it's not. It's like saying that electricity was invented for the first time in Europe, when clearly it was not. The same goes for printing press. So why not for lasers. Again, it's obvious that I don't think Egyptians had lasers. I'm just trying to show you that you can't tell either way. Yet you claim you can.

quote:

---

Yes, but you CAN'T buried it in context at an undisturbed archaeological site.

---

There is no context in the ground. It's a slab of stone in the dirt there is no context. And how would you know teh Rosettas tone is out of context, whatever that was? Why is a pencil and a computer burried together not out of context? Hey, computer are much more advanced writting machines, who would still be using pencils while we have computers? So why is a slab of stone, and a computer burried together out of context?

quote:

---

So, you are saying that just because "it looks like it" was carved, that doesn't mean it was actually carved.

​

Basically, the appearance of design is NOT evidence of design.

​

Excellent, you just lost the ENTIRE debate.

---

No, that's actually your argument. You have no design detection method. You simply claim that the Rosetta stone was designed becasue there are other slabs of stone just like it. And that is all you have, nothing more. So tell me, how do you know Rosetta stone was designed in teh first place? I know people can make chisled stone, bud how do you know Rosetta stone is one? Just becasue it LOOKS like it? How do you know it was not produced by chance?

quote:

---

You are, as always, contradicting yourself.

​

If I pick SPECIFIC numbers for the lottery (which MILLIONS of people do) and win, then that is a SPECIFIED event with EXTREMELY low probability and yet it happens MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR.

---

That is becasue multiple people are playing, and not just once, but multiple time. Therefore, the replicational resources are larger, thus making the event more probable, and thus less complex, thus not being an instance of CSI produced by chance.

quote:

---

There are 12 letters in Professional.

​

Using JUST the English anagram generator there are 27,214 workable anagrams.

​

That's stuff you would RECOGNIZE.

​

Of course you are filtering by just ONE factor - your understanding of the words.

​

If you include the ability to decode codes, or other languages, or any other kind of meaning which could be construed from the letters, the numbers jump WAY up.

​

Just because YOU only understand ONE solution does not mean that only ONE solution exists.

---

Well show me how many meaningful permutations you can get with that word. We know of one. Now let's hear some more.

quote:

---

Wow, you're right, that is EXCELLENT evidence AGAINST intelligent Design.

​

What sort of a retarded genie would screw up SOOOOOOOOOOO bad in his design?

---

I see nothing that is screwed up here? What are you talking about?

quote:

---

Except that it doesn't because genetic meltdown has NEVER occurred.

​

Billions of years of life and no genetic meltdown. And, by your own admission billions of years to go before it could potentially happen.

---

Too bad you miss all my important points, that I post, and repost, and repost again, and again...

quote:

---

By tracking the fitness decline of ligase ribozyme populations with bottleneck sizes between 100 and 3000 molecules, we detected the appearance and subsequent fixation of both slightly deleterious mutations and advantageous mutations. Smaller populations went extinct in significantly fewer generations than did larger ones, supporting the notion of a mutational meltdown.

---

Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMCAnd just to be sure, can you tell me how exactly do you know there has been life for billions of years on Earth?

quote:

---

Your argument that all function was lost is not logically valid. That the measured function was lost is not disputed. I don't know why we keep having to go around and around on this point with you continually shifting your position when you aren't even making anything of the point.

---

By all functions I mean all known functions. Since there is one know function, and it was lost. Meaning, one function is lost, zero are left, meaning all functions were lost.

quote:

---

Given that I wrote D rather than D and given that my statement is correct if I meant D and not D it seems clear that I meant D and not D.

---

I see no problem with that, I just assumed you meant the bold D since you said that D* is not the pattern. But you see, it is, both D* and D are the pattern, becasue D is the short for D*.

quote:

---

I am afraid that you are misreading it. It says that D may be used to represent (D, *), not D*. I can see the sentence that you mean, but the following sentence makes it clear:

---

Again, page 136.

quote:

---

Formally, a pattern may be defined as a description-correspondence pair (D,*) where the description D belongs...

​

...

​

(D,*) is therefore a pattern relative to the descriptive language D and the collection of events E.

---

As you can clearly see is the pattern. And D* is the event that describes that pattern. Which is basicly the specification.

​

quote:

---

Again you misread it. Just as there are two Ds, there are two Es. The correspondence maps D to E (p144). And the result of applying * to D is D*. NOT E unless E=D*. And in this case the problem is that the E you want to use is NOT D*.

---

You don't apply * to regular but to bold D.

​

quote:

---

The specification is "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller". There are many things that are "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers" that are not E Coli flagella. Got it ?

---

Exactly! So why in the world, if wanted to calcualte the complexity of the flagellum, would we want to include all other objects that specify the same pattern yet are not the flagellum? It makes no sense.

​

quote:

---

You are making no sense. We don't need an improbability inflated by unspecified details. Why would we ?

---

I'm not inflating anything! I'm comparing one probability to another. How in teh world are you going to tell if the probability of hitting the target, that is, specifiying the pattern is small enough to infer design? HOW!? If you only have the complxity of the specification, than you can't. You need botht he complexity of the specification, and the event (in this case the 50 protein flagellum) to see if their ration is less or more than 1/2.

​

quote:

---

It follows that if 120 10 ϕ
S(T)P(T|H) < 1/2 or, equivalently, that if χ = —log2[ 120 10 ϕ
S(T)P(T|H)] > 1, then it is less likely than not on the scale of the whole universe, with all replicational and specificational resources factored in, that E should have occurred according to the chance hypothesis H. Consequently, we should think that E occurred by some process other than one characterized by H.

---

The S(T) is the complexity of the specification, the P(T|H) is teh complexity of the event. You need both of them!

​

quote:

---

It's not obvious to me. In fact it is obvious to me that Dembski s right on this point and that the probability of D* is the only one that matters. Unspecified information is irrelevant to identifying design - and anything outside of D* is outside of the specification D.

---

That means you want to combine both objects one with the complexity of 300 and the other witht he complexity of 500 bits. That's illogical. Only one is CSI, the other is not.

​

quote:

---

Since D* includes BOTH the flagella (and more) you would need to combine their probabilities to get to D*. (And if you find ONE with less than 400 bits of information, the probability of D* will not be low enough so there is no need to continue).

---

What more? In this calculation, it only includes the flagellum. The one that consists of 0 proteins.

​

quote:

---

Every time you write by "your logic" you mean some crazy idea that you have. Can you please stop doing that. And, in fact, the position you are disagreeing with is Dembski's.

---

Please tell me, do you know why the UPB exists, and how do we use it?

​

quote:

---

So THAT is the probability we want to compare to the UPB.

---

That is becasue E is the event. But D* is that same event when it conforms to a pattern. Yes, obviously we need that one.

​

quote:

---

Unfortunately you did indeed claim that nearly all beneficial mutations increased genetic entropy, and offered sickle-cell as your first piece of evidence.

---

For all I can it can even be the minority of beneficial mutation that increase genetic entropy. It's not important to me. My whoole argument and point was to show you that you can't simply invoke beneficial mutations to offset the effects of deleterious ones. And that is what I have shown you by showing you sickle cell, HIV resistance, and antibiotic resistance. All those mutations are considered beneficial, yet they increase entropy.

​

And no, I do not care they are "unusual" by your standards. They exists. Which means that just by simply invoking beneficial mutations, you can't offset genetic entropy. You can slow it down by a little bit, but that is all.

​

But why listen to me? Listen to the professionals. They agree with me you know?

​

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? - PubMed

​

quote:

---

In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.

---

See? You can't invoke beneficial mutations to save a population. For three very good reasons. First, obviously, as I've already said, not all beneficial mutations can offset deleterious ones. Becasue they also can cause geentic entropy to increase. Secon reason is the noise the noise. And the third one, is because there is just so damn little of them. Nearly neutral and deleterious aer much more numerous. Therefore,t eh population goes extinct sooner or later.

​

quote:

---

You are simply wrong about genetic entropy. Genetic entropy is abut reproductive fitness, not some poorly-defined and unquantifiable concept of "genetic information".

---

Do you have the book? No you do not. I do. I have Sanford's book, and I know what he is talking about. He compared the genome to a manual and how small random changes to a manual might not do much harm, but over time they will destroy the information in it. His book is full of talk about the genetic information. Let me show you...

​

quote:

---

If the genome must degenerate, then the Primary Axiom is wrong. It is not just implausible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely dead wrong. It is not just a false axiom. It is an unsupported and discredited hypothesis, and can be confidently rejected. Mutation/selection can not stop the loss of genomic information, let alone create the genome! Why is this? It is because the selection occurs on the level of the whole organism. It can not stop the loss of information (which is immeasureably complex) due to mutation, and is happening on the molecular level. It is like trying to fix the computer witht he hammer.

​

Page 147.

​

In opposition to the main thesis of this book, some would like to argue that duplication is the key to understanding how genetic information can increase spontaneously.

​

...

​

Obviously all these types of duplications are deleterious regardless of the scale. They do not increase communication and they obviously disrupt it. How could anyone think that this type of duplication is a realistic method for spontaneous amplification of useful information?

​

...

​

But we have just dedicated most of this book to showing that while selection can clow the mutational loss of information, it can not stop it.

​

Page 193.

---

​

quote:

---

What I am telling you is that the point you were meant to be supporting was your assertion that the population needed to be infinite for the statistical effects of a large population to significantly reduce the impact of "noise". That has nothing to do with your ideas about "genetic information".

---

Thing tend to degrade on average precisely becasue of chance. The biologically relevant sequences ar such a tiny minority of all existing sequences that the genome can describe. So it's obvious that there the mutation will on average always mutate the genome to a position that it will be less and not more functional. The more individuals you have the more chance there will be you will get less deleterious mutations. But always, on average, you will get more deleterious mutation. The only way this could be removed is you had an infinite amount of individuals to mutate.

​

quote:

---

That is simply your opinion. The experts working in the field don't seem to agree. Which is why you never found a paper that actually supported your claim.

---

Actually I did. Just becasue youd on't bother to read my other posts, that doesn't mean I didn't find them.

​

Just a moment...

​

quote:

---

Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction.

​

...

​

In very large, effectively infinite populations, an equilibrium mutation load exists that is independent of the mutational effect (2, 3, 5, 6).

​

...

​

Here we have shown that accumulation of deleterious mutations may be a significant threat to large metapopulations and would be expected to exacerbate the effect of habitat loss or fragmentation on metapopulation viability. From a genetic perspective, a single large fragmented metapopulation is much more vulnerable to extinction than a panmictic population of the same overall number of individuals. Because the interaction between mutation accumulation and metapopulation demography is synergistic, an assessment of metapopulation viability based only on demographic forces is especially likely to underestimate the risk of extinction.

---

As anyone can clearly see, quote no. 2 says that in order for there to be an equilibrium, you need an infinite population. Which you do not have. And also this means that large populations are in danger of extinction too. Because slightly deleterious mutations still do accumulate!

​

quote:

---

And in large populations - as I keep pointing out - the effects of noise will be reduced. That is why genetic drift - your "noise" - is weaker in larger populations. That is why I don't need to appeal to correlations - and it would be to your advantage if you could.

---

Yes, it's true that it is reduced! But not REMOVED! It's REDUCED, not REMOVED!!!

​

Notice the difference much!?

​

If it was removed, than tehre would be no increase in entropy. If the noise is just reduced, than entropy still increases! Less than before, but it still increases!

​

quote:

---

Of course I have already pointed out a case where the removal through selection is not 100% efficient and where not all deleterious mutations need be removed - and yet they do not accumulate. A dynamic equilibrium where the NUMBER of deleterious mutations removed from the population - by either selection or drift - equals the NUMBER of deleterious mutations added to the population.

​

It is not necessary that all be removed, nor is it necessary that selection should do all the work of removal when drift can also assist.

---

And I have shown you in my previous post, with NUMBERS, why this is wrong. You still end up, with the genetic entropy increasign and with genetic meltdown waiting for you.

​

Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your argument was irony? So you're implying that because many evolutionists see ID as a product of creationists, there is an atheist conspiracy causing ToE, without actually believing such a conspiracy exists? People in this forum have posted how creationism was/is the driving force for ID. You can define creationism or ID anyway you please, evolution has only one definition. Maybe I missed the post where you made this profound correlation. You could be a little less vague in all your posts. I have to figure out what you're talking about from a single sentence? You could save us all the time of writing such short posts by explaining yourself better than responses like...I was being ironic you're an idiot for wasting your time! , type bullshit.

---

Naw... I actually choose not to. You see I have the most posts on this topic. I think I made my point clear.

quote:

---

Hi Smooth Operator,

​

The argument of how impossible it is to really know anything applies equally to both sides of an argument. Please waste no more time on it in this thread. If you have direct evidence against a position then present that.

---

Hi there!Well, you see, I agree with you and that is just the reason I'm using this argument. You see, I also think that the Rosetta stone was chisled by Egyptians, the people, not aliens, and sharp tools were used. And, no I do not think they had lasers. But the problem is that Nuggin does not agree with my or your position. He thinks that he KNOWS FOR A FACT what happened in teh distant past. He thinks that he KNOWS FOR A FACT who, why and how made the Rosetta stone. Yet both you and I are of the opinion that we CAN NOT know for sure.And than he turns the table, and says that I can not infer design based on my method, yet he KNOWS FOR A FACT that his method is correct. Obviously this is wrong. I never said I can detect design as a fact. No, I always said that the design detection is an inference, not a fact. And I agree with you that it can not be know for a fact if something is designed or not. And I also know that we can not tell if something was designed by some mechanism or the other.Yet Nuggin does not agree. He thinks he can detect the mechanism of design and tell it as a FACT. That is why I'm using his own logic against him to show him that it's impossible to infer the place of design or the mechanism of design. Only the design itself.Take this for an example. You find a piece of paper in the middle of the road that has written on it:"Hi, I'm John, I wrote this!"Now, you do know, that you can't infer the place or the designer from this piece of paper. There is no, and I do mean, absolutely no way to infer those two thing from this paper! Yet, that is preciselly the opposite of what Nuggin is saying. He say he can! Yet, few things are obvious to anyone here...That a.) that piece of paper was probablly not written in the middle of the road, but somewhere else, and it could have just beed dropped there.
And b.) the guy who wrote that piece of paper, could be named Steve, or Billy, or even Percy! Or it could have been a woman named Jill.You can't infer a damn thing, EXCEPT that it was designed. Yet Nuggin claims the exact opposite. That he can know the place where that paper was designed, and who designed it.So if you are telling me not to catch him on this crazy argument, than so be it. But please do tell him not to claim that he can infer the designer's identity, and the mechanism of design, and the place of design, be the design itself.It obvious that he is wrong.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

You just flunked Archaeology 101 for too many reasons to explain--and that's just based on that one broken sentence!Better stick to creation "science" where facts and logic don't matter, or to biblical literalism, where nothing else matters.When it comes to the real world your claims are EPIC FAIL!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

By all functions I mean all known functions. Since there is one know function, and it was lost. Meaning, one function is lost, zero are left, meaning all functions were lost.

---

In fact we know that you didn't mean that. But we can agree that the only functin actually tested for was lost.

quote:

---

I see no problem with that, I just assumed you meant the bold D since you said that D* is not the pattern. But you see, it is, both D* and D are the pattern, becasue D is the short for D*.

---

D is not used as an abbreviation for D*. It is used as an abbreviation for (D,*). They are not the same thing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am afraid that you are misreading it. It says that D may be used to represent (D, *), not D*. I can see the sentence that you mean, but the following sentence makes it clear:

---

Again, page 136.

​

quote:

---

Formally, a pattern may be defined as a description-correspondence pair (D,*) where the description D belongs...

​

...

​

(D,*) is therefore a pattern relative to the descriptive language D and the collection of events E.

---

As you can clearly see is the pattern. And D* is the event that describes that pattern. Which is basicly the specification.

---

As you can clearly see the pattern is (D,*). D is a description (not an event). D* is the event described. And D is sometimes used as a shorthand for (D,*) - but never for D*.

quote:

---

You don't apply * to regular but to bold D.

---

You only have to look at it to see that that is wrong. It is D* (with no bolding). Therefore * is being applied to the description D.

quote:

---

Exactly! So why in the world, if wanted to calcualte the complexity of the flagellum, would we want to include all other objects that specify the same pattern yet are not the flagellum? It makes no sense.

---

It makes perfect sense, and I already explained why. If we use the specification "more heads than tails" for a given run of coin tosses we want the probability of getting any of the sequences that fit that specification. We don't want the probability of that particular sequence.As Dembski says (yes, it's p165 again !)

quote:

---

I'm not inflating anything! I'm comparing one probability to another. How in teh world are you going to tell if the probability of hitting the target, that is, specifiying the pattern is small enough to infer design? HOW!? If you only have the complxity of the specification, than you can't. You need botht he complexity of the specification, and the event (in this case the 50 protein flagellum) to see if their ration is less or more than 1/2.

---

The target event is D* (that is the whole point of the specification - to define the target). So if we want to calculate the probability of hitting the target we want the probability of D*. And that is what we need to infer design:As Dembski says (TDI p165)

quote:

---

The S(T) is the complexity of the specification, the P(T|H) is teh complexity of the event. You need both of them!

---

S(T) is available specificational resources. p(T|H) would be the probability of meeting the specification (i.e. p(D*|H)). Here's what it says about T (p18) [qs] ...T in [b]P(T|H) is treated as an event (i.e., the event identified by the pattern). [/qs]

quote:

---

That means you want to combine both objects one with the complexity of 300 and the other witht he complexity of 500 bits. That's illogical. Only one is CSI, the other is not.

---

Wrong again. On the basis of this specification, neither would be CSI since there are less than 300 bits of specified information.

quote:

---

Please tell me, do you know why the UPB exists, and how do we use it?

---

Yes, I do know. It is supposedly a probability set so low that we cannot expect a single specified event of this probability to occur in the lifetime of the universe. Unspecified events - and more importantly sequences of events = of arbitrarily low probability can and will occur. That is why Dembski says (TDI p165):

quote:

---

For all I can it can even be the minority of beneficial mutation that increase genetic entropy. It's not important to me. My whoole argument and point was to show you that you can't simply invoke beneficial mutations to offset the effects of deleterious ones. And that is what I have shown you by showing you sickle cell, HIV resistance, and antibiotic resistance. All those mutations are considered beneficial, yet they increase entropy.

---

And of course your argument was completely wrong. How can increases in fitness fail to offset decreases in fitness ? Genetic entropy is about reducing fitness, beneficial mutations increase fitness.

quote:

---

But why listen to me? Listen to the professionals. They agree with me you know?

​

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? - PubMed

​

quote:

---

In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.

---

See? You can't invoke beneficial mutations to save a population. For three very good reasons. First, obviously, as I've already said, not all beneficial mutations can offset deleterious ones. Becasue they also can cause geentic entropy to increase. Secon reason is the noise the noise. And the third one, is because there is just so damn little of them. Nearly neutral and deleterious aer much more numerous. Therefore,t eh population goes extinct sooner or later.

---

If you really listened to them you would know that they didn't agree with you. Firstly Kondrashov say that (effective) population size is important. That is what Ne is. Secondly Kondrashov does not say anything about beneficial mutations contributing to genetic entropy. He is (correctly) talking about the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations.Here are the first three sentences of the abstract - omitted from your quote - which make it clear: The only point regarding beneficial mutations is that they are not sufficient to offset the problem.So no, the professional clearly doesn't agree with you.

quote:

---

Do you have the book? No you do not. I do. I have Sanford's book, and I know what he is talking about. He compared the genome to a manual and how small random changes to a manual might not do much harm, but over time they will destroy the information in it.

---

In other words you think that your interpretation of an analogy dictates Sanford's meaning ?
You're going to need to do better than that if you want to claim that Sanford is talking about anything other than the same accumulation of deleterious mutations that the Kondrashov paper refers to. None of your other quotes offer any support for your position either. In fact it seems like you are actually avoiding any quote that would clearly state what Sanford means.

quote:

---

Thing tend to degrade on average precisely becasue of chance. The biologically relevant sequences ar such a tiny minority of all existing sequences that the genome can describe. So it's obvious that there the mutation will on average always mutate the genome to a position that it will be less and not more functional. The more individuals you have the more chance there will be you will get less deleterious mutations. But always, on average, you will get more deleterious mutation. The only way this could be removed is you had an infinite amount of individuals to mutate.

---

Of course the issue here is not chance "making things worse" the question here is whether the "noise" interfering with selection tends to even out over large numbers. The first sentence of the Kondrashov abstract referred to above clearly indicates the importance of population size in controlling deleterious mutations. Listen to the professionals. They agree with me, you know. So your argument makes no sense and the conclusion is contradicted by a reference you yourself put forward.

quote:

---

Actually I did. Just becasue youd on't bother to read my other posts, that doesn't mean I didn't find them.

​

Just a moment...

---

That paper contradicts you. It explicitly points out the importance of population size. Your only quote relating to infinite populations only states that there is a balance point that can be more easily calculated given an infinite population,.

quote:

---

es, it's true that it is reduced! But not REMOVED! It's REDUCED, not REMOVED!!!

​

Notice the difference much!?

​

If it was removed, than tehre would be no increase in entropy. If the noise is just reduced, than entropy still increases! Less than before, but it still increases!

---

That is just assertion. Remember to listen to the professionals. They agree with me, you know.

quote:

---

And I have shown you in my previous post, with NUMBERS, why this is wrong. You still end up, with the genetic entropy increasign and with genetic meltdown waiting for you.

---

No, you haven't. In fact you said that you didn't need the numbers, And you were wrong.