"Creation Science" experiments.

Now your just intentionally being obtuse. But in keeping with your silly example, had any unicorns ever been observed...ever...and only pink unicorns were reported ever being seen......then yes

You are certainly welcome to your opinion "that it is worthless information," but when it comes to identifying and choosing between something having an intelligent source or a natural unguided source, I am free to disagree with you.My five year old can look at all of those items you mentioned above and tell me if they were formed by intelligence or by unintelligent. He would probably use different wording but the principle and the way in which he assesses them is identical. He does NOT have to know how any of those things were made just to tell me that they must have an intelligent source. And that is all we are talking about here jar.

Alright, let me attempt to define this again more exhaustively.abstruse: hard to understand because of being extremely complex, intellectually demanding, difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge; "the professor's lectures were so abstruse that students tended to avoid them"; "a deep metaphysical theory"; "some recondite problem in historiography"particularized: directed toward a specific object; "particularized thinking as distinct from stereotyped sloganeering"Communication: a process of transferring information from one entity to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules.Scientists calculate the capacity of a pattern (for example in DNA) to communicate complex information using Shannon equations. Where (I) is information, and (p) is the occurrence of a particular sequence, and (n) is the length of nucleotides examined.I = -log2 p and p=(1/4)nThe view of information as a message came into prominence with the publication in 1948 of an influential paper by Claude Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication." This paper provides the foundations of information theory and endows the word information not only with a technical meaning but also a measure. If the sending device is equally likely to send any one of a set of N messages, then the preferred measure of "the information produced when one message is chosen from the set" is the base two logarithm of N (This measure is called self-information).
A complementary way of measuring information is provided by algorithmic information theory. In brief, this measures the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021 (see Wikipedia on information)Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA. As I pointed out in an earlier post, polymers can also be said to have abstruse information, but they lack particularization or specificity. IDists have successfully quantified specificity as being any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition). Or another example I like is the combination lock. When the correct combination is entered into the lock it produces a specific function response. In this case the lock does not require intelligence to understand the information, but the observer can still recognize the design by his independent understanding of how locks function. I must stress that the key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object. Otherwise any conferred specificity can merely be contrived rather than real.

I know that the lifespan of bacteria is exactly why they are the favorite "lab rats" among evolutionists to study and try to show evidence that random positive mutations could very well be the reason of all current life. The problem I have with them for one they seemed to be specially "designed" to be able to adapt novel functions in the absence of food sources. Two examples I cite for this apart from Lenskis ecol i experiments are Dr. Mortlocks experiments on soil bacteria in the 80's, in which they were able to metabolize Xylitol as substitute to their natural food source after it was denied. The other is of course the infamous Nylonase bacteria that was able to metabolize nylon waste (a completely man made substance). I would point out that most (not all) of the so called positive mutations occur on the bacterias plasmid DNA. And of course plasmids occur almost exclusively in bacteria. And lets face it, it make sense that a designer would have designed bacteria this way when you consider that they are not just able to up and migrate when a food source ends. They would require novel ways of metabolizing unconventional food sources in order to survive.And finally I would point out that even if they could eventually come up with an experiment which showed that it was at least possible for random mutations to be the cause of pushing life foreword to its current state, this would still be a long way from explaining how the code for the first DNA molecule could have formed to begin with. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

One more thing I would point out in all of the backlash to my conversation on intelligent design, we lost sight of the original challenge. I did match and meet the requirements as set forth by the originator of this thread. And that was to demonstrate some sort of ID experiment. And even though getting someone to actually define "what qualifies as science," was like getting teeth pulled, I did demonstrate how the theory of ID does qualify as as scientific theory. I actually even presented several examples of ID experiments, some of which had even been published in mainstream science journals. Therefore for all intents and purposes...CASE CLOSED!

Well I waited a few days to see if you were going to post something with a little more substance than this, but no, you left it at that. I have to admit that that "getting my teeth kicked in" comment left me with a tummy ache from laughing so hard. Though I don't particularly care for your colloquialism, in my opinion if anyone "lost any teeth" it was my opposition.As for enjoying any victory, my purposes here are not by any means to make a name for myself or gloat over anyone else. Even if I had the wisdom of all men and angels in my words, what would that profit me if I have no love for those I wish to reach? My intentions are simply to give a reason for the hope that I have within me, for a place I have yet to see, and a home I have yet to lay my head. I realize that I may not change the minds of many, but there are some who pass by and see my posts, that will realize that there are logical reasons to have faith. That you don't have to abandon your brain to put trust in an unseen but real God.

No that's not an assumption, its an observation. We have only observed specified complexity come from intelligent sources. There are no known examples of observed specified complexity originating from a natural unintelligent source. It may very well be that a lightning strike in a pool of goo, created me and you. But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule. You are conflating two separate things here. The fact that biological organisms (intelligent or otherwise) display specified complexity within their makeup, and the fact that only specified complexity has been observed originating from an intelligent source. For example frako mentioned robots displaying a kind of artificial intelligence. Their ability to learn and create specified complexity would be a separate issue from their specified complex construction.It would make no sense to try and say that because a robot is itself constructed in a specified complex way, that their own creation of specified complexity was not real or significant. It is a far different thing for a machine to only run a series of programmed subroutines that allow it to reproduce, than it is to think and produce intentional specified complexity that it was not pre-programmed to do.

Well I understand your desire to trivialize this as a "distraction," but bacteria have a definite biological need to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. As I said, one of the main ways that they appear to have been designed to do this, is through plasmid mutations. And no, I don't at all deny that some have had beneficial mutations take place within the chromosomal DNA. But I think the exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment. A conclusion which is drawn in part by the fact that the mutation rate occurred at a much higher rate than random mutations could produce.And even though most of these chromosomal mutations involves certain environmental conditions that make these mutations phenotypically beneficial, they frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. Therefore they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems, rather than providing a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions.

Aaa...but you are mistaken my friend. You do have to exercise faith in gravity to hold you to the earth. In fact you do it so much that you do not even think about it. You do not walk around holding on to things that are bolted down to the earth. Why is that? It is because you have faith in your experience and knowledge of gravity. If you thought that at any second it could turn off and you would go floating away, then you would behave differently. By the way that may be the way a lot of people define faith, but in the Christian experience, it is defined a little differently. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Heb 11:6Note that this verse describes a person first coming to the understanding that God exists, and then placing their faith in that God, that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. So are we just supposed to have blind faith that God exists? Not at all. The Bible clears that up also. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse Romans 1:20In this verse we are told that God's existence can clearly be seen and understood by studying creation. That means by studying the world and universe around us (science) we can come to an understanding that God exists. After we come to that understanding we then must place our "faith" in Him to please Him. So then our faith becomes not as the world defines it, a blind leap into a dark chasm, but it is a faith based on evidence and logic.

I never said they all do. I said they all have a need to. That's not true. Your statement presumes to know the intentions of the designer. Some species could actually be designed to have an abnormally large amount of offspring to "fail" from our view point because they serve a purpose for the survival of other organisms. For example the mosquito lays thousands of offspring because without it a whole ecosystem would collapse. No I think that burden of proof lays upon the one using the study with the "mutated bacteria" as evidence for natural evolution and a mechanism to demonstrate how life could have arrived. Well go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Your the one trying to pass off ecol i bacteria and others as evidence for how life could have arrived and developed to its current advanced state.But I don't have enough "faith" in the bacteria alone to accept the evolutionary hypothesis. But that's just me.

No it only has a complex pattern on its backside. It is not a specified complex pattern. Here again is how I ----->"DEFINED"<----- a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.The pattern on the back of your spider is very interesting but it does not match any other foreknown patterns fulfilling any specific purpose. My thumb print has an equally very interesting pattern, but it does not qualify as being specific.BTW, had your tobacco plant exhibited a change in flowering times do to outside pressures in its own single life span, and then changed back in that same life span when pressures lifted, then yes this would have been evidence that somehow the plant was demonstrating design. But that's not at all what your article said occurred.

No you keep conflating different forms of specified complexity. One is originated by the organism and the other is just a copied reproduction programmed by some other intelligent source. I can sit here and type a complete sentence and that is specified complexity that I originated. But I have no control over my DNA molecules and what types of cells they build. That is specified complexity, but it came from some other intelligent source. Not from me. The bee ORIGINATES the symbolism that correspond to location of a new food source to the other bees in the hive. But the micro-organisms chemical codes are pre-programmed information that originated from somewhere else. When a burglar smashes in the front door of my house it trips a response that dials a pre-programmed number and notifies authorities of a home intrusion alarm. That does not mean the alarm system originated the information. That's nonsense. When SETI searches the night sky for a transmission coming from deep space, in the form of a set of simple prime numbers, they don't need to know anything about who originated the transmission to know that it would require an intelligent source. All I have to do is show that something has specified complexity in order to detect intelligence.

Hi Boof, good to have you joining us. Note that in post 314 I said: "...there is another element to understanding information in DNA. As I pointed out in an earlier post, polymers can also be said to have abstruse information, but they lack particularization or specificity." Specificity is any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.So specificity may exist, but it just may be that your "aliens" would not yet recognize it. In the case of the nest, the round pattern would of course trigger a "functional" response to the bird, and likewise to any other creature with the ability to understand birds and their nesting patterns. For example the object would be recognized by a snake who knows that it is a good place to look for "bird offspring" as a food source.

That is not a fair claim. The topic of "Creation" or of "Intelligent Design" is by their very nature an "origins" topic. So when one mentions evolution in a contrasting argument to the two, one automatically assumes they are referring to evolution as it relates to abiogenesis. That is to say, the term for evolution popularized in the media which encompasses not only small changes in the population of a biological organism over time, but also the theory of how the first cell formed, and that all life today can be trace back to one universal common ancestor.To claim that I am the one who brought up origins is a very gross distortion of the truth. The very name of the entire web site implies that "origins" will be the underlying topic of discussion. Therefore when an evolutionist, in a debate on intelligent design (brings up Lenski's bacteria studies), one must assume that they are at the very least implying that this is evidence that universal common decent is plausible.If that be the case, then I again assert without hesitation, that the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.

I see that you have dispensed with the subtleties and displayed your true colors. I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen.Just to be clear for you my linguistically challenged friend, apc and csi are for the most part the exact same concepts. With the exception that Dembski tends to promote something about irreducible bological machines under the umbrella of his csi. An argument I don't necessarily hold to. I find that using apc helps to avoid any confusion with people just aching to scratch that itch. Just look how fast you through up his name at the mere notion of similarity.I defined for you the concept, I broke down each word used in the term defining them, and I placed the term in the context of examples. If you still are having trouble getting it... I am at a loss as to how else to communicate it to you. But personally I suspect the trouble is not in my communication skills.