|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
So how do you know the Rosetta stone was made where it was found? Because we know a lot about trade and technology from the time period. We also know the source material for the stone.
Apart fromt he fact that same inventions were invente at different palces at different and at same times, your argument falls apart. You are desperately grasping for straws. You are now trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians had LASER TECHNOLOGY. LOL. Grow up.
So how do you know the same does not apply for lasers? And how do you know lasers could not have produced such marks on teh Rosetta stone? This is a RETARDED question. You know it. The fact that you actually posted it is an insult to this forum.
How would they know that the stone was actually not a replica? I mean, I can, right now, go into my backyard, and take a stone, and chisle some egyptian characters on it. Yes, but you CAN'T buried it in context at an undisturbed archaeological site.
How do you know the Rosettas tone is a carving in the first place? Maybe it just looks like it? 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.
Wrong. I never said that. Improbable events constantly happen. Almost any event has low probability. What's the chance a person is going to win a lottery? 1 to a million? Even less? But it happens. What I'm sayign is that events that are specified and have low probability do not happen by chance. Not just low probability itself. 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.
Yes, such short words do, but what about longer ones? What about the words "PROFESSIONAL"? Can you randomize that one so that every single time you will get a meaningful word? No you can't. 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.
The same goes for the DNA. It's long, very long. Human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. That's 6 billion bits of information, minimum! And not all sequences are functional. Only a tiny minority of all possible permutations of nucleotide combinations have meaning. Not all sequences code for biological functions. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
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.
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:
It will be clear from the context whether D signifies the full pattern (D, *) or merely it's first component.
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*.
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 ?
quote: You are making no sense. We don't need an improbability inflated by unspecified details. Why would we ?
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.
quote: Here's that quote again (TDI p165)
...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.
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: 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: Here's that quote again (TDI p165)
...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.
So THAT is the probability we want to compare to the UPB.
quote: Which is one of the reasons why simple patterns are better. They are easy to detach from the observed event.
quote: Unfortunately you did indeed claim that nearly all beneficial mutations increased genetic entropy, and offered sickle-cell as your first piece of evidence.
quote: You are simply wrong about genetic entropy. Genetic entropy is abut reproductive fitness, not some poorly-defined and unquantifiable concept of "genetic information".
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".
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Granny.
If you want a better view of the issues raised by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, there is a thread open on the topic. Perhaps you will be the first to explain why the RLN takes the peculiar route that it does. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MikeDeich Junior Member (Idle past 4588 days) Posts: 24 From: Rosario, Argentina Joined: |
My argument was actually irony. You've just wasted your time writing that post. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Brad H
Raz a lot of your comments I recently covered with Taq and Wounded King, so if you would, please glance over those and if there is something that you said in this post that I didn't address, please let me know. 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:
Message 939 of 951 (544696)
... 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.
Sure thing Raz. First, I couldn't tell by your post if the Nature article was citing any case study of an actual experiment done with Phasmatodea, or if it was entirely just another speculative story based on attempts to piece together the past. It did note some speculation in the portion that you quoted. (...wings were derived secondarily, "perhaps" on many occasions.) My emphasis added. My point of course is I was asking for an example of "observed" added new information to the DNA and not someone's surmising that that is what occurred. ... 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.
With reply to your comment about what can cause certain adaptive traits such as wings to appear, disappear and reappear, I can think of a couple just off the top of my head. In HS my old biology teacher once explained that a group of flying beetles migrated to a small island. Strong winds would cause the flying beetles to keep getting knocked into the sea, however some offspring born with a genetic defect couldn't fly. The defect actually caused them to be able to survive in that environment and thrive. However any members born with ability to fly would continue to be blown out to sea and die. However if the species were thrust back into a main land environment, they would eventually revert back to the fliers being the dominant ones in the population. You will excuse me while I chuckle a bit here. Here's the history of this issue with your comment in the middle:
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. 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.
Another example of how these things work is the famous Peppered Moth that always gets brought up in these debates. Within any species there are often trillions of varieties of alleles that natural selection has to work with. 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.
Brad :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. Raz: ... Curiously what you know, what you believe, what you think, and what you deny, are completely irrelevant to what occurs in the real world. ... ... I was expressing a fact. The fact that I have not heard something. ... So when I say I have never heard of something, I am merely leaving it open for the possibility that one of my opponents might actually have more information than I on that subject. And if that be the case I am welcoming them to enlighten me. So we are back to the walkingstick in Message 809:
quote:Comments in pink added for emphasis. Now remember your claim:
Brad :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. 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
This is the more realistic model where at times natural seelction works in removing almost all mutations. But some stay and over time accumulate. And on average this leads to the genetic meltdown. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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: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: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: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: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:Well show me how many meaningful permutations you can get with that word. We know of one. Now let's hear some more. quote:I see nothing that is screwed up here? What are you talking about? quote:Too bad you miss all my important points, that I post, and repost, and repost again, and again... quote:Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC And just to be sure, can you tell me how exactly do you know there has been life for billions of years on Earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
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. 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*. quote:Again, page 136. quote:As you can clearly see quote:You don't apply * to regular but to bold 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. 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. 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! 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. quote:What more? In this calculation, it only includes the flagellum. The one that consists of 0 proteins. quote:Please tell me, do you know why the UPB exists, and how do we use it? quote: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: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: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: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: 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. 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...
quote: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: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Naw... I actually choose not to. You see I have the most posts on this topic. I think I made my point clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It's a slab of stone in the dirt there is no context.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In fact we know that you didn't mean that. But we can agree that the only functin actually tested for was lost.
quote: D is not used as an abbreviation for D*. It is used as an abbreviation for (D,*). They are not the same thing.
quote: 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 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: 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 !)
...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.
quote: 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)
...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.
quote: 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: Wrong again. On the basis of this specification, neither would be CSI since there are less than 300 bits of specified information.
quote: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):
...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.
quote: 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: 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:
It is well known that whens,the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below ≈ 1/4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ≈ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G ,in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G< s/E2>< 1/4Ne. Mutations within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome.
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: 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: 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: 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: That is just assertion. Remember to listen to the professionals. They agree with me, you know.
quote: No, you haven't. In fact you said that you didn't need the numbers, And you were wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024