Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 186 of 1104 (847896)
01-29-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by WookieeB
01-28-2019 6:21 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Beyond being a "designer" and everything the meaning of that word entails, there is nothing else being said about....a designer.
You said something else about your designer in Message 158:
The only characteristic it would attempt to infer is qualities directly related to a design paradigm. Thus, if someone was designing a semiotic system, and it displayed the many checks and error-correction mechanisms that DNA has, then it would be very unlikely to be a system that generated or allowed a significant amount of junk (per the evolutionary explanation). It's just a matter of normal design constraints. Which leads to the conclusion that there would more likely be less junk rather than more junk in the system.
What are "normal design constraints" and why do you assume your designer is subject to them? No definition of "designer" entails anything like that
"a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail".
"one that designs: such as. a : one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure urban designers a theater set designer. b : one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design"
"a person who devises or executes designs, especially one who creates forms, structures, and patterns, as for works of art or machines"
"One that produces designs"
So what else does "designer" entail? Citation required, of course.
ABE
The simplest definition I could think up on the spot for a designer: the activity of an intelligent mind to realize a functional goal.
I have no problem with that definition. I see it doesn't even mention "normal design constraints" necessarily being applicable. So you are assuming characteristics of your designer with any support.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by WookieeB, posted 01-28-2019 6:21 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 01-29-2019 6:02 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 194 of 1104 (847961)
01-29-2019 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by JonF
01-29-2019 9:12 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
At this point it's painfully obvious that ' "designer" and everything the meaning of that word entails' and "normal design constraints" mean "acts just as I imagine a human designer would".
So your "prediction" boils down to "assuming the designer wouldn't put in junk DNA, I predict the designer wouldn't put in junk DNA".
Very impressive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 01-29-2019 9:12 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 6:36 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 197 of 1104 (847972)
01-29-2019 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by WookieeB
01-29-2019 6:36 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
It makes sense to me that neither of us have any defensible clue about what your designer would choose. Life operates with junk DNA, therefore your designer put it in or put in the possibility of it developing.
As I wrote a few days ago, Slartibartfast designed fjords with krinkly edges because they have such a baroque feel. How do you know your designer doesn't just like the baroque feel of junk DNA and doesn't care about any other aspects of it? (Need a hint?)
Maybe you could figure out the answer this time.
ABE Don't claim that the notion of junk DNA is dying without evidence and an understanding of how ENCODE defined "function".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by WookieeB, posted 01-29-2019 6:36 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 236 of 1104 (848493)
02-07-2019 9:22 AM


Recommended background reading

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2019 10:14 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 260 of 1104 (849050)
02-22-2019 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.
The history of any of the movement is relevant evidence.
It seems that new papers are coming out weekly that put another nail into the old evolutionary explanations and the ID paradigm is becoming stronger.
Name some of those papers.
(Just to point out that you can't).
No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
No knowledgeable person has claimed that random mutation and natural selection alone account for the complexity of life in the last 50 years or so.
Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to hiim by the ACLU.
Which is common and accepted practice. But you don't have the facts right, of course. One 6,004 word section was, according to one analysis, 90.9%. copied from the brief. That's 17% copied in the 32,830 word ruling. According to another arguably more rigorous analysis the percentage copied was 48%. I can't dig that up right now, it'll take a day or two, IIRC Ellsberry had a very good discussion of issues with the 90.9% figure.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 272 of 1104 (849089)
02-24-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Dover is so overblown by evolutionists. It figures though, since the scientific support is fast waning, they have to rely on a federal judge giving a legal decision as their new science authority. Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to him by the ACLU.
Not that it'll affect you, but here's what Wesley Ellsberry wrote at Text Comparisons: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
quote:
OK, so here is a list of numbers and what they mean for stuff being discussed here.
90.9% . This is the number the Discovery Institute has settled on as representing how much of the KvD decision.s section on whether ID is science (let.s call it .KvD-IDsci. for short) was copied from the plaintiff's proposed findings of fact section dealing with the same topic (ppfof-IDsci). How did they get that? Somebody at the DI eyeballed it and said that.s close enough. If they tasked someone else to do it again, there is no guarantee that the number would remain the same.
70% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in KvD-IDsci taken from ppfof-IDsci when using parameters of a minimum of 5 words in a run and up to 2 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This is a liberal matching criterion.
66% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in KvD-IDsci taken from ppfof-IDsci when using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This is a conservative matching criterion, and the standard one I use for text matching.
48% . the proportion of text copied by KvD-IDsci to text not copied there *100 in ppfof-IDsci, using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This one has confused at least one person, who seems to have thought that this was another number applied to the analysis of KvD-IDsci. Instead, this number indicates how much of ppfof-IDsci was used by Judge Jones, not how much of KvD-IDsci came from there.
38% . the proportion of copied text to uncopied text *100 in the KvD decision taken from the plaintiffs.s proposed findings of fact when using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. The whole ruling has quite a bit of text that did not come from the PPFOF.
35% . the proportion of text copied from the complete KvD decision to text not copied there *100 in the full ppfof, using parameters of a minimum of 10 words in a run and up to 4 words being changed, skipped, or deleted. This number indicates how much of the full ppfof was used by Judge Jones in his complete decision, not how much of the decision came from the ppfof.
THe DI's original analysis is available at A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
. They acknowledge that there is no reason why Jones should not copy the proposed findings of fact:
quote:
Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.
Nonetheless, the extent to which Judge Jones simply copied the language submitted to him by the ACLU is stunning. For all practical purposes, Jones allowed ACLU attorneys to write nearly the entire section of his opinion analyzing whether intelligent design is science. As a result, this central part of Judge Jones’ ruling reflected essentially no original deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on Jones’ part. The revelation that Judge Jones in effect “dragged and dropped” large sections of the ACLU’s “Findings of Fact” into his opinion, errors and all, calls into serious question whether Jones exercised the kind of independent analysis that would make his “broad, stinging rebuke”27 of intelligent design appropriate.
They do describe the methodology a little:
quote:
This percentage was calculated by using MS Word’s “Word Count” function to determine the word count for all of the sections of the Kitzmiller decision that were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The resulting number (5,458) was then divided by the total number of words in the section on “Whether ID is science” (6,004; this number was also determined by MS Word’s “Word Count” function)
IOW Ellsberry is correct; they subjectively determined "verbatim or nearly verbatim" and then divided the word count of the proposed findings of fact by the word count of the "copied verbatim or nearly verbatim" part of the decision's findings of fact. This obviously does not take into account the critical question of how the words were arranged, or whether all of the proposed findings of fact were "copied". E.g. all the times "the" occurred in the proposed findings of fact and in the

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 273 of 1104 (849101)
02-24-2019 3:43 PM


Behe busted lying in "Darwin's Descent"
At Coyne and Polar Bears: Why You Should Never Rely on Incompetent Reviewers Behe posts table S7 from Liu, S., et al. 2014. Population genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation in polar bears. Cell 157:785-794 to prove that all mutations are harmful, which he claims he proved in Darwin's Descent.
But at Behe: Responding to the Polar Bear's Fat - #10 by evograd - Peaceful Science evograd points out that Behe extracted only what he likes from the table. At AtBC Occam's Aftershave posts a portion of the table with the parts that Behe removed circled:
Naughty, naughty Behe!

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 12:31 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 281 of 1104 (849125)
02-25-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by WookieeB
02-25-2019 12:32 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation (free registration required)
Also the many propoosed pathways such as Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Can you demonstrate any issues with that?
Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?
How about anything IC - ribosome, ATP synthase, eye, DNA transcription or replication, kinesin, or the always popular flagellum.
Complex - relates to odds, Shannon information.
Specified - matching a pattern (or function) that is independent of the properties of the medium.
So "complex specified information" is a synonym for "irreducibly complex"? Then why have two labels?
And we know of many ways IC can evolve and have at least one example. So therefore CSI can evolve?
BTW evolution can and does produce Shannon information. Evolution of biological information. Also see an information theory expert at Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory:
quote:
Shannon's theory is a probabilistic theory. Shannon equated information with a reduction in uncertainty. He measured this by computing the reduction in entropy, where entropy is given by -log2 p and p is a probability. For example, if I flip two coins behind my back, you don't know how either of them turned out, so your information about the results is 0. If I now show you one coin, then I have reduced your uncertainty about the results by -log2 1/2 = 1 bit. If I show you both, I have reduced your uncertainty by -log2 1/4 = 2 bits. Shannon's theory is completely dependent on probability; without a well-defined probability distribution on the objects being discussed, one cannot compute Shannon information. If one cannot realistically estimate the probabilities, any discussion of the relevant information is likely to be bogus.
{emphasis added}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by WookieeB, posted 02-25-2019 12:32 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 7:19 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 291 of 1104 (849180)
02-27-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by WookieeB
02-27-2019 12:31 PM


Re: Behe busted lying in "Darwin's Descent"
Whoops, you're right ; he didn't claim that all mutations are harmful.
But I stand behind my accusation of lying. He claims to have presented the "relevant part" of the table. The entire table is relevant. As Nathan Lents wrote at Darwin Devolves: Behe Gets Polar Bear Evolution Very WrongDarwin Devolves: Behe Gets Polar Bear Evolution Very Wrong:
quote:
First of all, as shown in Table 1 of the paper, APOB harbors the second most strongly-selected set of variants, not the first, but we can let that one slide....
quote:
{Behe} They determined that the mutations were very likely to be damaging -that is, likely to degrade or destroy the function of the protein the gene codes for..
Some of them, possibly. Definitely not all of them or even most of them, as I’ll soon explain....
The two columns that Behe cut off contain the results of a different algorithm for predicting the effect of the mutations. You will notice that this algorithm makes different predictions for many of the mutations, describing many more of them as “benign” and many more of them “possibly” rather than “probably” damaging....
In Behe’s defense, he doesn’t explicitly say that he’s presenting the whole Table. So he isn’t lying exactly. Instead, he says that he is presenting “the relevant information” from the Table. I find this deeply misleading. This whole discussion is about the nature of adaptive mutations in the evolution of species and Behe’s arguments is that most of them are damaging. By presenting only the mutations that are predicted to fit that argument, he is intentionally leaving out evidence that is contrary to his position.
After all, what is the purpose of showing the chart at all? To show that some mutations that drove polar bear evolution are damaging? He didn’t need a chart to make that point and no one would argue with that. I suspect that if the unaltered Table S7 gave the impression that the overwhelming number of adaptive mutations were damaging, Behe would have shown the whole thing.
In reality, Table S7 does not give that impression at all, and so he slices it up with surgical precision so that he can present “the relevant information,” that is, the information that appears to support his position. And, at least when it comes to APOB, even the selectively edited information probably doesn’t support his position either, regardless of what the predictive algorithm says, as I (and the study’s authors!) explain above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 12:31 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 293 of 1104 (849200)
02-28-2019 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by WookieeB
02-27-2019 7:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
The item is not even IC.
Why not? What could be removed leaving a functional system? (Behe's pathetic attempt to ignore the fact it is part of a system notwithstanding.)
CSI relates to IC, but they are not the same things.
You were asked for a definition on CSI and you said IC.
How is IC defined and measured?
Your example didnt work.
That's what you and Behe claimed.
because we can realistically estimate the probabilities of Shannon information.
Really? Let's see a few examples. (BTW it's probability *distribution*, not probability.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by WookieeB, posted 02-27-2019 7:19 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024