Defence of Intelligent Design

How exciting! Whatever here has decided to start a round of my favorite forum competition:The Bare Assertion Game! Okay, okay... now it's my turn..."All Christians are secretly addicted to masturbation!"There, see how fun it is to make bare assertions?!?! Who wants to be next?

Sure it does. Natural selection is a filter that selects for better designs that arise through random mutation/descent with modification. The processes of descent with modification and natural selection have even been formalized in the form of genetic algorithms that themselves design better nozzles and analog circuits. Show me. I suspect you have a very distorted idea of what a transitional fossil is. Do you understand that according to evolutionary theory, basically every fossil is a transitional? The form of every presently existing species represents the transition between the form from which the population has evolved and the form to which it will evolve next. I doubt that Darwin himself fully grasped that notion, but the mistakes of Darwin are irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory.Blessings,
::
(...who suspects he's made a mistake thinking that rational arguments would carry any weight with this particular opponent...)[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

A variety of things... I know this is nitpicky, but I saw Dan already correct you and I have to admit it really bothers me too.The bible is not an interpreting thing. It is the thing you interpret. As such, the bible doesn't "infer" anything. It implies things. You might infer such-and-such from the bible, but the bible itself doesn't do any inferring. I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and let this go as a typo. Are you seriously linking to a site that purports to describe the "culture, people, language and technology" of Atlantis as an authority on paleontology?Please answer that question directly.

So many misconceptions, so little time... sigh...Oh well... once more into the breech... So, if I am understanding you correctly, then the version of intelligent design to which you subscribe is entirely undifferentiable from the tenets of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory? (BTW - "undifferentiable" means that you can't tell them apart). If you don't believe them to be so, what testable differences are there, according to you?Also, exactly what information did you omit with your use of "etc..." or is it just there to make it look like you have more to say? What need? So you're saying that the Cambrian explosion didn't happen? But aren't you arguing that the fossil evidences do have a common designer? So what? What part of "transitional" implies "non-functional"? Why would we expect to see that? But you just said that the fossil evidence didn't show such evidence. Which is it? Sure there is. It's called heredity and genetic sequencing. We know how genes are passed through time, and we know that genes in the present contain more "information" than the ones in earlier history. I have access to a great post that addresses this common creationist misconception, but I'll have to look for it. If I find it, I'll start a new topic.

This was an excellent post originally by lucaspa on Christian forums:

quote:

---

The general formula for information -log2(M/N) where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, N is the number of possible choices, and M is the number actually chosen. So, say you are a telegraph operator and you choose between a dot and a dash. So the formula is -log2(1/2) and you have an increase of 1 bit of information.

​

Now, apply this to some examples in natural selection:
1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.

​

2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

​

3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

​

Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.

---

Note that the equation used is the one implemented by William Dembski, a creationist, so it's validity is not in question.EDIT: I think it is also important to note that you've conceded that "micro"evolution occurs, meaning that you don't doubt that selection operates. Therefore, since selection must result in an increase in information, your position that microevolution occurs but information does not increase is internally inconsistent.Also, I'd like you to please describe for me the barriers which you believe exist that would prevent many many "micro" evolutionary changes from amounting to a "macro" evolutionary change.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

I don't care what you feel, I care what the facts are, and the fact is that if you have a fraction of a population selected because of an advantage, then you have an increase in information. Now I know that you didn't understand a single point made within the post I quoted. That or you didn't even read it. It's not about copying, its about selection. I know you believe this, and the fact is that when selection operates, information increases. Your position that selection operates yet information decreases has been shown to be mathematically impossible.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

Mutations are actually increases in information, and I'l show you why.Imagine we have a genetic code symbolzed by this sequence right here:00000001Now, a perfect duplicate of this gene would not necessarily increase any information, we would just have more of the same like:00000001 and 00000001However a mutated copy would increase information. We would have, for example:00000001 and 00000011Where we once had X and could make infinite copies of X without increasing information, we now have X and Y. The new information is in the distinction between X and Y, since they are not the same.

So now your position is not that information doesn't increase, but that the undeniable increases that I've demonstrated are simply never "positive"? Please then, supply us with a rigorous mathematical definition of "positive" resp. "negative" information and accompany that with the approriate formul (<--) that describe the dynamics governing changes in "positive/negative" information.Short of that I think you're just blowing smoke up our collective asses. Let me make this abundantly clear: greater information does NOT equal superior function or better fitness. The growth of genetic diseases as a consequence of selection is still an increase in information. It might not be "positive," as you've called it, but now you're doing the creationist goal post shuffle. Information, objectively speaking, is neutral. It is only more or less, not better or worse.BTW - If more genes are not more information, then why are less genes less information? I suspect you're reasoning resembles the following:1.) Information cannot increase.
2.) Where information increases, see #1.Thanks for wasting everyones time, and have a lovely weekend.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

I see that I was right, you're just blowing smoke up our collective asses.If you wish to redeem yourself of any sort of respectible image on this forum, I suggest you rigorously define your concept of "information" so that it can be properly scrutinized. You might consider the equation that actually calculates information (-log2(M/N)) and explain how the selection of one successful gene out of a population of 2 or more variations is not an increase of information in mathematical terms.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-23-2004]

Of course you don't see it -- you're completely ignorant!Information is a quantity, and as such it is subject to mathematical description. As I already proved, when selection operates, information increases. All you've rebutted me with is "No, sir, I don't believe you!"Well I'm sorry that you're incredulity's poster-boy -- that doesn't make me wrong. BUT I JUST SHOWED YOU HOW SELECTION CREATES INFORMATION!!!! JonF already exposed your ignorance (which I suspect is deliberate) in regard to this.

Seriously, dude, if you ever want to get yourself out of the hole that you're already in, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Intelligent Design is NOT -- repeat NOT -- a fact for the simple reason that no design has ever been demonstrated. Sure, IDers are quite wont to CLAIM that such-and-such is design, but calling a dog a duck will never make the dog quack.The reason ID is not a fact is that you cannot show that any organism's physical characteristics correspond to any design because you do not have access to the original design. We know that cars and buildings are designed because we do the designing, and we have the plans, and we know the methods.... NONE of these are features of ID with respect to biological organisms. Evolution happens. That is a fact as much as it's a fact that walking happens. If you don't think that many many "micro" evolutionary changes can add up to a "macro" evolutionary change, then please describe for us the barrier that you think exists which prevents this and how we might test for the existence of that barrier.You seem to think that there is a real difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, but there isn't. "Macro" evolution is simply many many "micro" evolutionary changes all taken together. If I ran a marathon, the "macro" runing I accomplished was over 26 miles, but I got there through many many "micro" steps. Your position is that even though humans can walk and run uninhibited ("micro" running), nobody ever completes marathons ("macro" running). What would prevent it? Define "kind" in a way that we might test the features of a given organism and appropriately categorize it in it's "kind." How is this a problem, according to you?

So the fossil record must indicate then, that elephants outran velociraptors in the race for higher ground as the flood waters rose? Not just some elephants, mind you. ALL of them. Is it your contention that this is what happened? How do you explain it?