Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 1:22 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,046 Year: 12,082/19,786 Month: 1,863/2,641 Week: 372/708 Day: 66/81 Hour: 9/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
495051Next
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
havoc
Member (Idle past 2949 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 706 of 752 (607336)
03-03-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 686 by Granny Magda
03-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Most frogs do have an apical ectodermal ridge. The only ones that don't are a few species of direct developing frogs (i.e. they have no tadpole stage). Other than that, frogs have AERs just like we do and Sarfati is a bungling fool.

Are all frogs vertebrates? Vertebrates have 5 digits because we all have the same ancestor who had 5 digits, correct? In most they develop the same way because that is the way the common ancestors developed? However in some they stopped developing in this way and started developing in a totally different way? Why did natural selection select for this what is the advantage to the frog to develop the same digits in a different way?

I’m not saying that this is evidence for creation just that if you can use homology as proof of evolution than to be honest where there is differences in developmental pathways should be equally proof against evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2011 4:47 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Granny Magda, posted 03-03-2011 11:16 AM havoc has responded
 Message 714 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2011 12:11 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 707 of 752 (607338)
03-03-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:22 AM


Re: goalposts on the run.
As your post seems to have nothing to do with mine, I don't know why you posted it as a reply to mine and quoted my entire post as a preface to it.

Do you admit that there is more information in specifically ordered letters such as and instruction manual than there is in random keystrokes?

That depends on how you're quantifying information, something which you have not yet said.

One could count the number of real words in the sequence, but that would hardly serve as a general method for quantifying information. For example, DNA would be remarkably information-poor by that criterion.

Shannon would measure them the same. This is not how you should measure the information in a code.

And yet Shannon's ideas have provided a useful tool for information scientists, whereas the ramblings of creationists have served only to confuse other creationists --- which is about as useful and necessary as spitting into the Atlantic.

Now if you have a better idea for quantifying information, please tell us. I for one am all ears.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:22 AM havoc has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 708 of 752 (607339)
03-03-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:22 AM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Shannon would measure them the same.

This is not the case. A random set of data would have a higher Shannon entropy than a structured one like an instruction manual. The structure of the language and potentially of the manual's format would mean that it would require less information to optimally convey than would a totally random sequence.

Given that Shannon entropy is already used to identify genomic features in DNA (Stanley et al., 1999; Chen et al, 2005) it seems obtuse to pretend that it can't distinguish between random and structured strings.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:22 AM havoc has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 709 of 752 (607344)
03-03-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Address posts please
Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design.

How about things that evolved? (And which would therefore be the product both of randomness and of natural law, but not of design.) Does it then follow that they would not have specified complexity?

If they do, then specified complexity cannot be the hallmark of design. And if they don't then you'd have to find out if the genome was designed or evolved in order to find out if it has specified complexity.

A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannon’s bits?

It doesn't seem to be a useful concept, as I have already illustrated. Let me illustrate it again.

Dembski proposed specified complexity as a method of detecting design.

Now, consider the following string:

0110010101010001011101011010111001100100010100011110110000010100011101110101

Does it have a designer? Well, apparently that boils down to the question of whether it has specified complexity. So, does it have specified complexity? Well, we can approach this question via Dembski's filter. Which requires me to find out ... oh, wait ... it requires me to find out if it was designed.

If it's a designed message meaning "Meet me behind the old barn at midnight", it has specified complexity. If it was produced randomly by a series of coin-tosses, it doesn't.

We can't use specified complexity as a criterion for discovering the history of a string if we have to know the history of the string in order to know whether it has specified complexity.

---

I note in your own post, the one to which I'm replying, you use "specified complexity" and "design" actually as synonyms. You write "Dembski purposes a filter to determine design or specified complexity", and, having been asked for a method for measuring specified complexity, you answer by proposing an eliminative method of detecting design.

So where does this get us? Introducing a mere synonym for design into the discussion can shed no light on the issue, it can only confuse it. A cynic might suggest that this is why creationists do so.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 AM havoc has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31071
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 710 of 752 (607346)
03-03-2011 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Address posts please
havoc writes:

Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design.

HUH?

I'm sorry but I can't believe that even Dembski was silly enough to make such a statement.

Why would what is left be the result of design?

havoc writes:

A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannon’s bits?

I think specific complexity exists only in the minds of the snake-oil salesmen.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 AM havoc has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 711 of 752 (607372)
03-03-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:55 AM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Hi havoc. I see you have a range of rhetorical questions for me, to which you already know the answers. Let's take a look.

Are all frogs vertebrates?

Yes.

Vertebrates have 5 digits because we all have the same ancestor who had 5 digits, correct?

No. Do you see any fish with limbs havoc? Fish are vertebrates too you know. I think you perhaps mean tetrapods.

Most tetrapods have five digits on their limbs, yes. There are an awful lot that do not though. There are plenty who don't even have limbs. So what?

In most they develop the same way because that is the way the common ancestors developed?

More or less, yes.

However in some they stopped developing in this way and started developing in a totally different way?

Yes.

Why did natural selection select for this what is the advantage to the frog to develop the same digits in a different way?

I have no idea. Perhaps it has something to do with "the ability of the limb to continue distal outgrowth and differentiation following removal of the distal ectoderm", as mentioned in the abstract of the study I cited (Hanken et al 2001).

Why does it matter? Your original argument has already been shown to be hideously, embarrassingly, shockingly, terribly ignorant and wrong. You are now trying to move the goalposts again.

I’m not saying that this is evidence for creation just that if you can use homology as proof of evolution than to be honest where there is differences in developmental pathways should be equally proof against evolution.

Utter nonsense.

The developmental processes of an obscure group of tree frogs are interesting enough, but they make no argument against evolution whatsoever. Comparing these unusual frogs with humans (as Sarfati does) is moronic. Humans are not descended from frogs. Not from any kind of frog, let alone tree frogs. Sarfati's comparison is completely pointless in the first instance, even if his claims about frog AERs were correct, which they are not.

Sarfati claimed that all frogs lack the AER. This is totally false and Sarfati is a pitiful idiot. Most frogs do possess an AER, thus, Sarfati's argument is shown to be the steaming great pile of crap that we have come to expect from him. It is based upon an extraordinarily stupid and ignorant mistake.

If I were you, I would tiptoe discretely away from this one. It's pure bullshit.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:55 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:47 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 712 of 752 (607374)
03-03-2011 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Address posts please
Well that might not be a fair question since I do not know the language of DNA and amino acids.

Then how do you know that it contains specified complexity if you can't even measure it?

However since I do so love these discussions I will try to play along. Dembski purposes a filter to determine design or specified complexity. Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design. “These events are both specified and of vanishingly small probabilities.” “Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.”

Then apply the filter to the DNA sequence I posted in the previous message and show me the results.

A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannon’s bits?

I have yet to see specified complexity applied to DNA sequence in any meaningful way. So far, specified complexity seems to be irrelevant to biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 AM havoc has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 713 of 752 (607375)
03-03-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:09 AM


Re: shakespeare, mutation AND selection
Do you really not get the correlation between my Shakespeare analogy and novel functional information?

You never demonstrated a correlation. You simply asserted one without presenting evidence to back it up.

You claim that mutations can not increase information. When pressed to define "information" you moved to "specified complexity". When asked to measure the specified complexity of a DNA sequence you now claim that you can't do it. So how is it that you could claim that mutations can not increase information/SC when you can't even measure it to begin with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:09 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 12:49 PM Taq has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 714 of 752 (607384)
03-03-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by havoc
03-03-2011 8:55 AM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Hi, Havoc.

havoc writes:

I’m not saying that this is evidence for creation just that if you can use homology as proof of evolution than to be honest where there is differences in developmental pathways should be equally proof against evolution.

Reality check:

The Theory of Evolution is expressly about changes and how they occur over time in populations of organisms. Logically, then, shouldn't ToE expect there to be differences between species and groups?

Likewise, since ToE entails gradual divergence from common ancestors, doesn't this logically require that not everything changes at one time, and that, thus, some similarities between species should linger, even as the species diverge from one another?

So, how could the dichotomous reasoning you employ here possibly make sense? Clearly, ToE expects both differences and similarities.

The key here is the pattern of occurrence of similarities and differences.
The counterarguments you should be employing should be about conflicting patterns of occurrence of similarities and differences, not just about pointing out differences when evolutionists are talking about similarities, or vice versa.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:55 AM havoc has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 715 of 752 (607390)
03-03-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by Taq
03-03-2011 11:43 AM


Re: shakespeare, mutation AND selection
You claim that mutations can not increase information. When pressed to define "information" you moved to "specified complexity". When asked to measure the specified complexity of a DNA sequence you now claim that you can't do it. So how is it that you could claim that mutations can not increase information/SC when you can't even measure it to begin with?

I think his problem is the other way round. According to his "filter" answer a mutation by definition does not produce specified complexity, because it's random. His problem would then be to demonstrate that the genome possesses any specified complexity.

But there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the term, one which creationists play with to confuse themselves. Sometimes they talk as if it's a property of the sequence qua sequence, and sometimes as if it's a property of the history of the sequence. This allows them to forget that they haven't actually taken the necessary step of showing that there is any justifiable inference from the present properties of the sequence to their supposed properties of the history of the sequence; but while they have not established that link, they have established a different and factitious link, namely that they themselves are using the same word for both concepts.

And it doesn't take much to confuse a creationist ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:43 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 1:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 716 of 752 (607396)
03-03-2011 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 12:49 PM


Re: shakespeare, mutation AND selection
I think his problem is the other way round. According to his "filter" answer a mutation by definition does not produce specified complexity, because it's random.

This would seem to be a rather large problem in that it makes specified complexity irrelevant to biology. If a random mutation does result in a novel function that is beneficial to the organism it would not qualify as specified complexity. IOW, evolution can produce the biodiversity we see today without needing to increase specified complexity.

But there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the term, one which creationists play with to confuse themselves. Sometimes they talk as if it's a property of the sequence qua sequence, and sometimes as if it's a property of the history of the sequence. This allows them to forget that they haven't actually taken the necessary step of showing that there is any justifiable inference from the present properties of the sequence to their supposed properties of the history of the sequence; but while they have not established that link, they have established a different and factitious link, namely that they themselves are using the same word for both concepts.

Such is the consequence of starting with the conclusion. They start with the conclusion that the DNA they observe was designed, therefore any function produced by mutations in this sequence were not specified by the designer and therefore can not be specified complexity. They use definitions to exclude evolution from the process at the very start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 12:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 2949 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 717 of 752 (607402)
03-03-2011 3:27 PM


et all
So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong. Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?
Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2011 3:33 PM havoc has responded
 Message 721 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2011 3:52 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 724 by Percy, posted 03-03-2011 4:11 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 726 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:27 PM havoc has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 718 of 752 (607406)
03-03-2011 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:27 PM


Re: et all
havoc writes:

So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong. Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?


You haven't even told us how they differentiate the English language from random key strokes. How do we measure this "specified complexity"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:27 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:50 PM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 725 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:20 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 2949 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 719 of 752 (607409)
03-03-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Granny Magda
03-03-2011 11:16 AM


Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Why does it matter? Your original argument has already been shown to be hideously, embarrassingly, shockingly, terribly ignorant and wrong. You are now trying to move the goalposts again.

No I was just pointing out an evolutionists insistance on homology as evidence for evolution was not warranted

Even Gavin Debeer said:

Because homology implies community of descent from … a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered … [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous … [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes.

You have to believe that the fleetingly unlikely event of just the right mutations led to for example “5 digits” on vertebrate for limbs but then the mechanism was lost and regained in an entirely different way several times. To quote Dembski: Events of fleetingly small possibility do not occur by chance.

Edited by havoc, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Granny Magda, posted 03-03-2011 11:16 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 4:02 PM havoc has responded
 Message 738 by Granny Magda, posted 03-03-2011 4:57 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 2949 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 720 of 752 (607410)
03-03-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Huntard
03-03-2011 3:33 PM


Re: et all
You haven't even told us how they differentiate the English language from random key strokes. How do we measure this "specified complexity"?

Can you differentiate the difference between the english language and random key strokes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2011 3:33 PM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Perdition, posted 03-03-2011 4:06 PM havoc has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4647
48
495051Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019