|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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: THe DI's original analysis is available at A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover withPlaintiffs’ 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: They do describe the methodology a little:
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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. 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:{emphasis added}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024