Existence of God

Creationists are apparently unaware that the original papers on PE are filled with positive evidence for transitions, not just the negative evidence of empty gaps and missing links. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all creationists are unaware of these matters. Eldredge & Gould and subsequent followers did some real fancy tap-dancing to conceal the fact that PE was a necessary evil. Even so, even to this day many evolutionists do not agree with the introduction of PE just as many did not appreciate the embarrassment caused by Goldschmidt's HM proposal.

​

My point was that the theory (until Goldschmidt, Eldredge & Gould) did not "allow" what the mounting evidence continued to support - very rapid appearance with little-to-no transitionals. So, how was this fixed? Oh, I know, let's introduce a NATURAL mechanism that allows us to retain our materialistic-based theory, allows us to exclude the necessity of a God, and allows us to be 'rationally' justified in so doing. Yeah... that'll work.It is in fact the fast pace and local nature of the rare species-to-species level transitions that provide such evidence. So, because there isn't evidence then... that proves it!
Oh, I see... that's how it works.So PE was not, despite the common misperception of creationists, built entirely on the evidence of fossil "gaps"; rather, it is based on the pattern of change that is found: fine gradations occur quickly and locally, thus are rare (but still occasionally found). I do believe that you've just answered my question with a resounding (albeit a bit cryptic) NO!

​

Thank you... I'll rest my case on this point.

​

Joralex

"WTF is this?!!! Admit this is just a made up measurement so you can sound intelligent. "All sound and fury signifying nothing"" Ahhhhh... the sounds of ignorance.

​

You know, even the fool, when silent, is counted as wise. Of course, such advice comes too late for you.

​

If you don't know, ASK - that's much better than accusing people of making stuff up to "sound intelligent".

​

Go and sin no more.

​

Joralex

CSI is a term used in the ID community. Joralex can be forgiven for thinking that those folks do know what they are talking about. Uh, I would be part of that "community" so I guess 'I' don't know what I'm talking about either. Oh well...

​

From the tone of your post I take it that you are also clueless regarding ID, CSI and related topics. Why not ASK rather than blast away at what you don't understand? Seems to be a common feature among Naturalists.However, I have yet to see it defined in a way that can be used. You sound like you have some formal education so what's your problem in understanding such a straightforward definition? Are you just trying to poison the well?

​

'Complex' as in the number of 'bits of information' and this in turn measured by the 'probability of an event' such as a particular arrangement. All of these things are purely mathematical and scientific - no theology here - so, what's your problem?

​

'Specified' as in correlating with a criterion that is independent of the event itself. For instance, ink on paper may be specified or unspecified. There is nothing in the chemistry or physics of the paper-ink that would explain a particular pattern.

​

For example, if you randomly splattered some ink on the paper the pattern that you just created would be highly complex (e.g., try reproducing that exact pattern) yet there would not be any specification (there is no independent criterion that a random splattering of ink may be correlated to... from math/information theory we know that stochastic independent events do not correlate : r^2 --> 0 as I(bits) increases).

​

Now use the same amount of ink to write a few Elizabethan sonnets following the rules of English grammar. Your end product may be correlated to the independent criterion of English grammar and Elizabethan sonnet structure.

​

Now there is a pattern on the paper that is both complex and specified. We'll have to see if a definition appears here now.
Do NOT hold your breath. You may now breath deeply.

​

Joralex

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and/or2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? Good questions - sorry I missed them earlier.

​

I won't even try to provide here a comprehensive answer since these are very profound questions. However, I do wish to make a brief comment about the core issue here - at least as far as I see it.

​

Are creationists rationally / scientifically justified in our position or, as your questions appear to imply, must we abandon our position because of the fact that certain limitations exist today and may always exist?

​

If we have to abandon our position, then so do Naturalists and for the same cause. Stated differently, ultimately we must all stand on faith given the epistemological limitations that are always present.How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we1) do not currently understand but may in the future. Understanding something doesn't eliminate (or establish) whether or not it's been intelligently designed.

​

Regardless, ID systems are recognized by the presence of CSI. God is arrived at in a very straighforward manner : huge quantities of CSI are present in nature and neither chance, natural laws, or combinations thereof are able to explain the origin of this CSI. So what are the options?How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand? Same reasoning as above. We may never be able to understand it, but we are certainly able to detect / recognize it as an ID system.

​

Joralex

Let's turn it around - would the notions of general and special relativity EVER have been proposed if it weren't for an intractable difference between the predictions of Newtonian physics and actual observation of celesital objects? In consistent fashion, you have either missed the point or are twisting the argument so as to not concede the point.

​

The point wasn't how science advances through new discoveries/observations. The point is that evolution shall be retained rgardless of any discrepancy that may appear. It shall be retained because it represents the ONLY alternative to a Creator. Any discrepancy that appears will either be shelved as a "problem to be later solved... as new evidence comes in" OR it will be 'solved' by the introduction of some ad hoc 'scientific' hypothesis (such as Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster notion - what else do you think Goldschmidt was doing?). Such actions are at the essence of irrefutability.

​

One other point : Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity do not present a metaphysical challenge (certainly not on a first-term basis). OTOH, the evolutionary paradigm presents not just a scientific observation, but extends that observation into metaphysical realms. This is the point that people such as yourself either cannot see or refuse to see (because that would be the end of your game).

​

In short, your analogy is very poor - comparing earth worms to space shuttles.Since the answer is probably "no", can we assume therefore that you reject all modern physics in favor of the "invisible angels" theory? If not, why not? Why do you give physics a pass on refining their models through change, and not evolution? Is it because evolution uniquely challenges your personal faith? If so, how is that evolution's problem? Answered above.

​

As to "how is that evolution's problem" - it isn't.
Neither is it Hinduism's problem that it challenges the sovereignty of Jesus Christ... nor is it Buddhism's... nor Taoism's... nor Snake Worshipping... nor Scientism's... nor Materialistic Positivism's... nor Naturalism's... nor any other METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM'S problem.

​

Catch the meaning?You seem insistent on condemning only evolution for acting just like science - Not so... read above.revising theory in the light of new observation. We all "revise" upon learning. That's not the point and you know it.So which is it? Does science change in the light of new data, or is it supposed to remain static and dogmatic, like your religion? In the things of God there are absolutes - these things are "static". In the transitory, natural, Fallen world we find that things never remain the same. Furthermore, man will always operate on imperfect and incomplete knowledge - this demands that we are constantly revising what we thought was the case. God, being omniscient, has no need for "revisions".

​

You are again comparing parakeets to bazookas - hardly appropriate.

​

Joralex

Kudos to Joralex, for answering a question! Now, let us pray, he will cease to dodge issues about the eye. I always answer - you just don't understand or don't like what you hear.
Sorry, I can't help that.Also, can you please explain what you feel this has to do with life? You have to ask this?

​

Consider a "simple" organism - an amoeba dubia. Would you happen to know the information content in this amoeba's genome? Stated differently, a human has about 3.3 billion base pairs in its genome. How many base pairs does an amoeba dubia have?

​

Now, do you know of any living organism that does not have a very specific sequence of base pairs in its DNA, said sequence determining that organisms' natural characteristics? FYI, that sequence is, by definition, CSI.

​

That is what this has to do with life.Am I correct in assuming that you think that DNA is "complex specified information"? If so, why do you feel that it is as such? Yes. For reasons that I've already presented in previous posts and here.

​

Joralex

This suggests that "complexity" and "Shannon information" are identical. Is that true? I have to ask since there are separate attempts to define a quantifiable concept of "complexity". This is felt to be needed since the Shannon information content of a random string is very high but it is not intuitively felt to be what we are talking about in terms of "complexity".If "complex" is something more than Shannon information will you clearly distinguish the two?"Specified"
'Specified' as in correlating with a criterion that is independent of the event itself.As I read you example the sonnet is "specified" because it can be read using a set of rules that are "specified" separatly from the particular ink pattern.Is it true then that something may have "speicificity" quantified? How would I calculate the "specificity" of an particular pattern of words or letters? How about a particular pattern of ink which may or may not be close to letter forms?Can you know carry this over to where it applies to evolution? Does it? Or does it only apply to abiogenesis? I'm going to make an assumption (for me, a large one) that you are genuinely interested in learning this matter.

​

In the interest of time and not re-inventing the wheel, I refer you to The Design Inference by William Dembski. Everything that you ask here is addressed in that work.

​

Let me direct your attention to something that you may (or not) be aware of. In his book Steps Towards Life, Manfred Eigen said (corrrectly) that the fundamental problem in origin-of-life research is that of explaining the origin of information. This problem is at an impasse for Naturalists since it is commonly accepted that neither chance nor natural laws are capable of generating information although the evolution diehards insist that it IS possible (without saying how). Their error (partly understandable) is that they are applying the strict statistical (Shannon) definition of information and not the more comprehensive (and correct) view.

​

OTOH, the only observation that is confirmed time and time again is that CSI is always the result of an intelligent agent. Therefore, the inference '(CSI) --> (Intelligent Agent)' is rationally justified whereas '(CSI) --> (natural events)' is totally without support (unless it is assumed that it happens).

​

You mention Shannon and the bottom line is that Shannon addresses a very limited perspective (the statistical aspect) of information since he was interested only in the transmission and storage of information. Shannon was not "wrong" - he was merely looking at a single aspect of information - there are several others.

​

Today, the concept of information is being expanded/revised as problems such as AI and origin-of-life are being researched. These investigations are part of what have shed light on the kinks in evolution's armor. Information is not as simple a concept as it once appeared to be.

​

Joralex

The Design Inference is expensive and probably hard to find - it may even be out of print. I very much doubt that Joralex has read it (his recent misrepresentation of the explanatory filter certainly shows that he lacked even a basic understanding). I was lucky enough to find a remaindered copy. I see you have the two-step down to an art form, PaulK : Open mouth... Insert foot!

​

I've read the Design Inference several times and I've corresponded with Bill Dembski on the matter. You shouldn't really speak when you don't know what you're talking about.To make things simple Dembski uses improbability as his measure of information (the base 2 logarithm of the inverse of the probability to get to "bits" - so 2 bits is a probability of 0.25). It is not the same as Shannon information at all. Have you read Shannon's original work? (I have - I even have my own copy). Do you know what you're talking about above? (It doesn't look like it).

​

Probability measures may be transformed into complexity measures and, from Shannon's work on communication theory, this is done via the 'inverse log base 2' transformation. This, in turn, may be appropriately labeled as an 'information measure', keeping with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory. This is what Dembski has done and your statement above is, thus, totally incorrect.

​

Let's see a retraction, please.Specification is a description which is (supposedly) independant of the data being considered.The fact is that nobody has done the specification let alone calculated the relevant probabilities for DNA. Any claim that DNA is an example of CSI is pure speculation. Not true but then since you've misunderstood the foundation it's easy to see why you cannot understand beyond this.

​

Joralex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability measures may be transformed into complexity measures and, from Shannon's work on communication theory, this is done via the 'inverse log base 2' transformation. This, in turn, may be appropriately labeled as an 'information measure', keeping with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say "from Shannon's work on communitcation" "complexity measures" may be transformed from probability measures. However, I don't have any reference to Shannon talking about complexity. Could you give the formulat for "complexity" then. If you read again you'll see that I do not say that Shannon talks about complexity. Dembski explains the point fairly well in pages 94-96 of his book (The Design Inference).

​

The bottom line is that probability and complexity correlate with each other. All it requires is a 'calibration' of some kind (depending on the situation) and that's it. A good example (taken from Dembski) is that of opening a safe (combination unknown). Dembski (rightly) concludes that the likelihood of opening the safe (by chance) and the complexity of opening the safe are mathematically equivalent.You say that Dembski has kept "with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory". Does this mean that PaulK is wrong and that Dembski is using Shannon information but perhaps with a mathematical transformation applied? Are you seeking to defend PaulK or are you seeking to understand this subject?

​

As I've already stated, the Shannon definition of information is solely for engineering purposes since this was his only objective. Shannon himself says (in his The Mathematical Theory of Communication) that "... semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem." Shannon is correct in this.

​

However, these other aspects of communication (vocabulary, syntax, semantics, etc.) are most definitely NOT irrelevant to the overall information problem that, IMHO, represents the Waterloo of the evolutionary paradigm.Could you show this transformation? This would demonstrate conclusively that PaulK is wrong when he says "It is not the same as Shannon information at all.
". As impressive as Shannon's work was, it was left to others to 'flesh-out' many of his ideas. Shannon based his work primarily on results from Nyquist and Hartley. It was Hartley that pointed out that the 'natural' choice as an information measure in a message is a logarithmic measure and base 2 was selected merely as a convenience (since it is very easy to transform from base 2 to any other base by simply multiplying by some constant).

​

Shannon and Dembski both employ that same standard.

​

For some of the above-mentioned 'fleshing-out' see A.I. Khinchin's Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory.Could you discuss the specification of DNA? All I have ever seen on the web discussion this seems to think that a specific sequence is the only one to be considered. I mentioned earlier that I believe this to be wrong in that many, many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes. Yes, many are possible just as many books may be written with the same characters and syntax-semantic rules.

​

No one is disputing that "many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes" but this does not in any way imply non-specificity. Try randomly mixing the words of Shakespeare's King Lear and tell us what the result is. Similarly, eliminate the specification from any DNA sequence and see if the organism remains defined as such.

​

Try also Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science and Theology by Dembski - probably easier to get than the other.

​

Joralex

"Would it help you if I started a new thread on "Questions Unanswered by Joralex re: the evolution of the eye"?" I have a far better suggestion for you, Zhimbo, and for anyone else that feels that I've "sidestepped/ignored" your questions. But first a disclaimer :

​

I've been talking to people such as yourselves (materialists, Atheists, Naturalists, Agnostics... etc...) for many years and a common trait is that when the Christian furnishes one answer then another question takes its place... answer that new question and another takes its place... round-n-round she goes, ad nauseum. This is not a good use of time - for me or for you. I refer to it as 'hoop-jumping' -- keep the guy jumping through endless hoops (i.e., answering endless questions) so that he cannot be anywhere else doing some real good to people that are genuinely seeking the greater truth.

​

Questions will always remain - I personally have a zillion of them. The point is that a verdict (i.e., a decision) is required in spite of not having ALL of the answers. After this the appropriate action must follow that verdict.

​

I often perceive among the aforementioned people that the questions are nothing more than a front... a justification for remaining in their present position : "Well, you see, God, I had to be intellectually honest and I had all these questions and I couldn't just 'blindly' believe in you until ALL these questions were answered... surely you can understand this, right, God?"

​

I ask you, how many answers will it take? How many questions are out there?

​

End of disclaimer...

​

My suggestion, if you really want to pursue answers to some of your questions, is to contact me directly.

​

I believe in the courtesy of well-thought-out responses and taking the time to do so. I will try to find the time to respond to whatever comes my way.

​

Joralex

I am uninterested in contacting you directly, when this forum exists for the express purpose of such a discussion. Your honor, I rest my case.There is no personal information involved, so there is no benefit to discussing these issues privately. Whose talking about getting "personal"? The idea is to have a scholarly, private setting where interruptions from scoffers don't get in the way.The questions are direct and simple. Superficial treatment of these matters is a great part of the problem, Zhimbo.My questions are aimed at understanding and clarifying your argument, and whether specific systems are consistent with your claims. Many of them are "yes" or "no" questions, as far as I can tell. How wrong you are! A 'yes' or 'no' answer to many of these question is about as superficial - and utterly useless - as one can get. With such an approach/attitude, it is no mystery to me why you and many others like you remain in their present state.

​

Try seeking deeper, Zhimbo - much deeper - and you'll have some measure of success.

​

Joralex

In the interest of feeling comfortable that this would be worth your time (and mine), precisely what is the point that you are trying to make/advance?Joralex

You didn't really answer my question. I know perfectly well what my position is... it is your position that isn't clear. Specifically, you obviously don't agree with my view but my question to you was exactly what is it that you disagree with... what is it you are trying to advance as an alternative?The 'general' answer is, of course, related to materialistic Naturalism, but you are about to find that you are out of gas if you expect science, and science alone, to support your position.I'm available now but I will be on travel from the 14th (Friday) through the 17th (Monday).Here is the relevant excerpt from my previous post: "The argument for the evolution of the eye typically begins with some cell becoming light-sensitive and then evolving through various stages until 'complex vision' is attained. There are at least two problems with this argument:

​

1. The simplest eye known is not "simple" at all. Even those that are 'reconstructed' from (supposed) ancient fossil evidence (e.g., Trilobites) are highly complex, although they (supposedly) go back 1/2 billion years. So, did the complexity of the Trilobite eye evolve very quickly, as some have suggested, in less than 1/2 million years?
If so, where are the intermediate stages of the highly complex Trilobite eye?

​

Of course, the "solution" here is to say that no 'intermediates' have been preserved in the fossil record for us to examine."What is your answer to this, Zhimbo?"2. In any evolutionary theory that I am aware of (excluding 'hopeful monsters'), the simultaneous emergence of multiple, complementary, 'positive' mutations is regarded as a no-no. For example, Theropods didn't just wake up one day with wings, did they? No, as per the theory they had to acquire the various features leading to flight in stages - feathers, muscles, etc.

​

Consider this, of what use to a organism is a fully-formed eyeball? Let's put a fully-formed eyeball on a corn stalk and see what happens.

​

Allow me to spell this out since it is the crux of my argument : there are scores of items (I refer to their combined total as the 'infrastructure') that must be in place to sustain the eyeball and also to make it of any use.

​

Let me revert to "the most primitive" example that is often cited - this is from the PBS site :""Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera." "Here's the rub : without the ability to process the information that this light-sensitive spot acquires, that "sight" is completely useless. And how is information processed if there isn't a connection from the receptor to the processor?

​

Let me stop right there. At this point alone, there had to be three simultaneous subsystems in order to make the whole useful in any way. [BTW, if this sounds a bit like irreducible complexity, that's no accident].

​

Let's get back to the main point - do you know the number or chemical, structural, biological, genetic, and other subsystems that comprise the infrastructure to produce sight by a complex eye (Trilobites, birds or humans)?

​

If you believe that the 'eye evolved' then you must, I presume, begin with the most primitive "eyeball" (note the quotes) imaginable - a 'light-sensitive spot'.

​

But a light-sensitive spot constitutes a detector ONLY (1).
The data that has been detected must now be transmitted (this requires a channel - an "optic nerve") (2)
to a 'processor' of sorts (a 'brain') (3)
that can then interpret this signal and THEN the organism must react to this signal in some way (e.g., "evade a predator") (4) (otherwise, the acquired signal offers no evolutionary advantage at all).

​

ALL of this infrastructure (1, 2, 3, 4 and more) - however primitive you may want to imagine it - had to be in place simultaneously for, if not, then the 'light-sensitive spot' would have been as useful as a lead balloon (figuratively speaking).

​

But, hold on a second - the simultaneous emergence of complementary features in an organism isn't Kosher by neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, or any other evolutionary scenario."What is your answer to this, Zhimbo?Joralex

The summary of my positions on the two points are:1. There are simpler systems. I'll save them for the "real" debate. I can't wait to see what you call "simpler".2. Each component can be useful in its own right, and thus do not need to all arise at once to be useful. Thus, "simultaneous emergence" is not an issue. You're already in trouble and don't even know it.

​

You may present your 'case' first.In a nutshell. Do you want to debate here (or rather, the Evolution of the Eye thread) or in a forum free from interference, to insure a focused debate? That seemed to be a concern of yours, and sometimes a structured format is helpful in discussion. Definitely in an interference-free environment. Interference is my main objection. Let me know where you end up and how to find it.

​

Joralex