What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

In fact we know that you didn't mean that. But we can agree that the only functin actually tested for was lost.

---

Since you can't read my mind, you do not know what I meant. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me what you call this loss. the loss of all functions, the loss of all known functions, or loss of one tested functions. It's irrelevant. What was tested for was lost, yes, let's agree on that and let's move on.

quote:

---

D is not used as an abbreviation for D*. It is used as an abbreviation for (D,*). They are not the same thing.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

As you can clearly see the pattern is (D,*). D is a description (not an event). D* is the event described. And D is sometimes used as a shorthand for (D,*) - but never for D*.

---

Yup, I agree. Therefore, (D,*) = "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20.

quote:

---

You only have to look at it to see that that is wrong. It is D* (with no bolding). Therefore * is being applied to the description D.

---

Description as in descriptive language, or a pattern? Which one do you have in mind?

quote:

---

It makes perfect sense, and I already explained why. If we use the specification "more heads than tails" for a given run of coin tosses we want the probability of getting any of the sequences that fit that specification. We don't want the probability of that particular sequence.

---

Okay, but if you take the amount of throws as the compllexity of the event, say 10, than it is obvious that all those events are equally probable.this does NOT, however apply to the flagellum that has 50 proteins, and the one that has 1.000.000 proteins. Becasue it is harder for the more complex one to match the pattern. Therefore, we do the calculation separately.

quote:

---

...the event that needs to have small probability to eliminate chance is not E, but D*.

---

I agree. E is irrelevant. D* is what we are looking for. In this case, D* is the flagellum consisting of 50 proteins. And it's complexity is 10^2954.

quote:

---

The target event is D* (that is the whole point of the specification - to define the target). So if we want to calculate the probability of hitting the target we want the probability of D*. And that is what we need to infer design:

---

Yes, I totally agree. But you also have to compare how hard is it for that complexity of the event that mathces the pattern, that is, the event D*, to hit the patternt D*. And you have to make sure that it's more than 1/2. Check out the chapter "The magic number 1/2" on the page 190. It explains that you have to use botht eh complexity of the pattern and the event that matches that pattern and compare them to see if it's over or under the number 1/2.

quote:

---

S(T) is available specificational resources. p(T|H) would be the probability of meeting the specification (i.e. p(D*|H)). Here's what it says about T (p18)

---

Listen, we have already established that S(T) is actually the complexity of the pattern (D,*) which is 10^20.

quote:

---

Moreover, given a natural language (English) lexicon with 100,000 (= 10^5) basic concepts (which is supremely generous given that no English speaker is known to have so extensive a basic vocabulary), we estimated the complexity of this pattern at approximately ϕ S(T) = 10^20 (for efiniteness, let’s say S here is me; any native English speaker with a some of
knowledge of biology and the flagellum would do).

---

Yup. S(T) is the complexity of the pattern. The pattern is "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20. We already established that. Let's not go over this again.And yes, P(T|H) would be P(D*|H), which is the event that matches the above mentioned pattern. D* in this case is the 50 proteins large flagellum, whose complexity is 10^2954.

quote:

---

Wrong again. On the basis of this specification, neither would be CSI since there are less than 300 bits of specified information.

---

The one with 500 bits would be CSI, becasue you need 400 bits in order for an event to qualify as CSI.

quote:

---

Yes, I do know. It is supposedly a probability set so low that we cannot expect a single specified event of this probability to occur in the lifetime of the universe. Unspecified events - and more importantly sequences of events = of arbitrarily low probability can and will occur. That is why Dembski says (TDI p165):

---

Great. Tell me, how to we than use UPB, when we want to infer design.

quote:

---

And of course your argument was completely wrong. How can increases in fitness fail to offset decreases in fitness ? Genetic entropy is about reducing fitness, beneficial mutations increase fitness.

---

Again, you are nto specific enough. You are dancing around the point. Don't do that. Which fitness are you talking about? Reproductive fitness? Yes, it can be increased by benficial mutations. Beneficial mutations like sickle cell that increase reproductive fitness in Africa, yet int eh same time reduce geentic information.

quote:

---

If you really listened to them you would know that they didn't agree with you. Firstly Kondrashov say that (effective) population size is important. That is what Ne is. Secondly Kondrashov does not say anything about beneficial mutations contributing to genetic entropy. He is (correctly) talking about the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations.

---

My points are as follows:1.) You are wrong.2.) Size is important, becasue the larger the population size, there is less of an increase of genetic entropy.3.) I never said he said anything about beenficial mutations increasing genetic entropy. I said that he said that you can't just invoke beneficial mutations to reduce geentic entropy. And he said just that. Read his last statement. It says this:

quote:

---

This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.

---

See? You can't invoke beenficial mutations to save the population and remove genetic entropy.

quote:

---

The only point regarding beneficial mutations is that they are not sufficient to offset the problem.

​

So no, the professional clearly doesn't agree with you.

---

LOL. But that was my point! My point is, as stated above, that you CAN NOT simply invoke beneficial mutations to remove genetic entropy! And Kondrashov said just that. And even you said so, right? You agree with me that this is true?If so, than it seem that the professionals do agree with me after all.

quote:

---

In other words you think that your interpretation of an analogy dictates Sanford's meaning ?
You're going to need to do better than that if you want to claim that Sanford is talking about anything other than the same accumulation of deleterious mutations that the Kondrashov paper refers to. None of your other quotes offer any support for your position either. In fact it seems like you are actually avoiding any quote that would clearly state what Sanford means.

---

Actually I quoted the parts where he says that genetic entropy is about the reduction of genetic information. And now I'm going to quote the part where he said that beneficial mutations degrade the genome also.

quote:

---

The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information (apart from fine-tuning), the literature would be owerflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am not convinced there is one crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial, but most of these mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it. For illustration some of us (like me) would view a broken car alarm as "beneficial". However, such random changes, although they might be found to be "desirable", still represent a breakdown and not the creation of a new functional feature. Information decreases. This is the actual case, for example, in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell functions are routinely lost. The resistant bacterium has not evolved. In fact it has digressed genetically and is defective.

​

John C. Sanford - "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of The Genome" page 17.

---

There you go. He said that beneficial mutations casue degradation of information int he genome. Oh, and please stop accusing me of lying.

quote:

---

Of course the issue here is not chance "making things worse" the question here is whether the "noise" interfering with selection tends to even out over large numbers. The first sentence of the Kondrashov abstract referred to above clearly indicates the importance of population size in controlling deleterious mutations. Listen to the professionals. They agree with me, you know. So your argument makes no sense and the conclusion is contradicted by a reference you yourself put forward.

---

Chance is very important becasue it casues the loss of information in the first place.And what Kondrashov said supports me, not you. He said that large population sizes reduce teh increase of genetic entropy, but they do nto completely remove it. And also, he said that you can't remove genetic entropy simply by invoking beneficial mutations.

quote:

---

That paper contradicts you. It explicitly points out the importance of population size. Your only quote relating to infinite populations only states that there is a balance point that can be more easily calculated given an infinite population,.

---

How does it contradict me. Tell me exactly how does this paper contradict me?The papaer said that the balance can be reached when we have an infinite population. And it NEVER EVER mentioned any calculation. It plainly says that it's about an equilibrium that exists when the population has an infinite amount of individuals. Stop inventing words.

quote:

---

That is just assertion. Remember to listen to the professionals. They agree with me, you know.

---

No, it's not. It's primary school math. Either something decreases, increases, or is in perfect equilibrium. There is no fourth choice.So, either the mutations increase, as they always do, or they are removed totally if you have a perfect selection, or they are in equilibrium if you have an infinite population. You DO NOT have perfect selection, and you DO NOT have an infinite population. Therefore, they increase.

quote:

---

No, you haven't. In fact you said that you didn't need the numbers, And you were wrong.

---

Maybe you missed them. Let me repost them again. Here you go:Let's say that 50 is the threshold to genetic meltdown. The population starts out with 0 mutations.00 - start
05 - Less than 100% efficiency
08 - Less than 100% efficiency
15 - Less than 100% efficiency
00 - 100 % efficiency09 - Less than 100% efficiency
17 - Less than 100% efficiency
25 - Less than 100% efficiency
00 - 100 % efficiencyAs you can see, the dynamic equilibrium is maintained by natural selectiona times working below 100% and at some times at 100%. At some times, mutations accumulate, but than, natural seelction removes all of them. And this is how the population keep on going. But his is not possible.A more realistic model is this, where natural selection works at less than 100%, and at other times at almost 100% and almost all mutations are removed. But soem stay00 - start
04 - Less than 100% efficiency
07 - Less than 100% efficiency
11 - Less than 100% efficiency
02 - Almost 100% efficiency08 - Less than 100% efficiency
10 - Less than 100% efficiency
15 - Less than 100% efficiency
17 - Less than 100% efficiency
05 - Almost 100% efficiency09 - Less than 100% efficiency
15 - Less than 100% efficiency
22 - Less than 100% efficiency
26 - Less than 100% efficiency
31 - Less than 100% efficiency
11 - Almost 100% efficiency15 - Less than 100% efficiency
24 - Less than 100% efficiency
28 - Less than 100% efficiency
31 - Less than 100% efficiency
14 - Almost 100% efficiency18 - Less than 100% efficiency
22 - Less than 100% efficiency
28 - Less than 100% efficiency
32 - Less than 100% efficiency
39 - Less than 100% efficiency
15 - Almost 100% efficiency20 - Less than 100% efficiency
29 - Less than 100% efficiency
34 - Less than 100% efficiency
38 - Less than 100% efficiency
41 - Less than 100% efficiency
17 - Almost 100% efficiency20 - Less than 100% efficiency
25 - Less than 100% efficiency
31 - Less than 100% efficiency
38 - Less than 100% efficiency
44 - Less than 100% efficiency
50 - meltdownThis is the more realistic model where at times natural seelction works in removing almost all mutations. But some stay and over time accumulate. And on average this leads to the genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

My position:
Design is only design if you can determine FACTUALLY that the object was MADE not naturally formed. The _ONLY_ way to determine this is if you know the mechanism used to create the object.

​

My example: Circles can be created by design or by nature. Unless you know how the circle was made, you can not determine if it is an example of design.

---

And you can not know HOW it was made unless you saw it get made. Therefore, you have no method of design detection.

quote:

---

Smooth's position:
Since magic is undetectable, we can attribute magic as the mechanism of design for any and all objects and can't be proven wrong.

​

His example: The Rosetta stone was created magically by laser wielding Ancient Egyptians randomly shooting lasers in all directions.

​

He asks us to extend this fantasy to all of "Creation" citing Jew Magic as an undeniable source of everything we see around us.

---

Obviously this is not my position.My position is that intelligent agency can leave certain patterns that natural causes can not. The pattern in question has got to be both complex and specified. We know from our experience that when we find large amounts of specified complexity, that an intelligence has played a role. For example, in writing, sculptures, machines, or electronics. Those are all instance of design, therefore, of specified complexity.We have never observed natural causes produce such patterns, therefore, when we find such patterns in nature, we should not atribute them to natural causes, but to causes that are known to produce tehm. We than use the inference to the best explanation, and explain those patterns as instances of design, that is, a product of an intelligent agency. Becasue we know that such patterns can in all other cases be explained that way.

quote:

---

If I have to read your mind to understand your posts there is no point in you posting anything.
The fact is that you have explicitly argued for the claim that ALL function was lost, not just the known function and from that we can conclude that that is really what you meant.

---

And I explained that that is becasue only one function was known to exist, and it was lost.

quote:

---

"bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is just plain D. And neither it. not D*, nor (D,*) equal 10^20 which is the estimate of the specificational resources given a four-part concept.

---

"bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is the four-part concept. It consists of 4 concepts, those four words. And since D is short for (D,*). Than "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = (D,*) = 10^20.

quote:

---

When I refer to the description, D, I do not mean the descriptive language D or the pattern (D,*). So the answer is that I mean neither.

---

There is no such thing as the description D. There is a pattern D.

quote:

---

I do not take the number of throws as the complexity of the event. And in fact it doesn't have much effect on the probability unless the number of throws is both even and low (the probability is 0.5 for any odd number of throws and the lowest probability is 0.25 for 2 throws - a difference of 1 bit in the extreme case).

---

What? Of course that's the complexity of the event. 2 throws are more complex than 1 throw. 10 throws are more complex than 2 throws.

quote:

---

What is more the number of proteins in the flagellum is NOT a number of attempts. It is an unspecified detail of that particular "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller, just as the exact sequence of heads and tails is an unspecified detail in my coin-toss example.

---

Unless it matchess the pattern.

quote:

---

I thought that the specification was "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. There is no mention of 50 proteins there. D* - the specification considered as an event would be something like "getting a bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller.
Either you are using some other specification you haven't mentioned (and one that smells of fabrication) or that isn't D*. Which is it ?

---

Yes, I'm uing the same specification as always. And teh 50 proteins are mentioned in NFL.

quote:

---

So then we need to calculate the probability of D*. Which means that either you need a valid specification for the calculation you want to use, or you need to do the calculation for the specification we agreed - "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. Whichever you prefer.

---

We already have everything.D = "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20.
D* = 50 protein flagellum = 10^2954.

quote:

---

It's the specificational resources, no matter what else Dembski or you call it.

---

I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what I or you say. But it matter a lot what Dembski says. And he says it's hte complexity of the pattern.

quote:

---

The pattern is not the specificational resources and the description is not the pattern - and it isn't the specificational resources either.

---

Neitehr does Dembski talk about that. You are the one who is talking about it. I gave you a quote where he said that 10^20 is the complexity of the pattern.

quote:

---

No, it wouldn't for reasons we've already gone into.

---

The reason is that you simply don't agree.

quote:

---

Wrong, you need 400 bits of SPECIFIED information to be CSI. Unspecified events aren't CSI no matter how many bits of "complexity" they have.

---

Yes, I know that. I'm trying to explain to you that there is no combining going on.

quote:

---

To give the simple answer. You find a valid specification that includes the event. You calculate the probability of meeting the specification. If that probability is less than the UPB (2^-400) then you infer design.

---

Great! How do we find the probability of the event?

quote:

---

Of course we are talking about reproductive fitness. And since genetic entropy is about reproductive fitness and not some vague notion of "genetic information" fitness gains from beneficial mutations can and do counteract the fitness loss of deleterious mutations. Just how hard is that to understand ?

---

But you are wrong. Sanford said it's about degradation of genetic information. that can, but it does not in every case decrease reproductive fitness.

quote:

---

1) What am I supposedly wrong about ?

​

2) I am glad that you admit the importance of size, however you still have to deal with the fact that the experts do not think that genetic entropy is a problem for large populations. (All your quotes from experts deal with small populations)

​

3) Kondrashov does not say that beneficial mutations play no role, simply that they are not sufficient to deal with the problem, given the numbers he is using for effective population size and mutation rate etc.

---

1.) Almost everything.2.) I have ALWAYS said that larger sizes do help, but do not remove entropy completely. And no, I specifically showed you where it says that it's the problem for large populations as well. Once more.

quote:

---

Here we have shown that accumulation of deleterious mutations may be a significant threat to large metapopulations and would be expected to exacerbate the effect of habitat loss or fragmentation on metapopulation viability. From a genetic perspective, a single large fragmented metapopulation is much more vulnerable to extinction than a panmictic population of the same overall number of individuals. Because the interaction between mutation accumulation and metapopulation demography is synergistic, an assessment of metapopulation viability based only on demographic forces is especially likely to underestimate the risk of extinction.

---

There you go. It's talking about a large population.3.) And I never claimed that he said that! I claimed that he said what he said! And that is that beneficial mutations are not enough to remove genetic entropy! Which is what he said.

quote:

---

My point was that beneficial mutations did play a role, and that your argument ignored that. Kondrashov does not deny that.

---

And again, you are wrong. I never said that. Again, for the trillionth time. Beneficial mutations do play a role. But they are not enough. Do you understand me now? They are not enough to remove genetic entropy completely. It still increases. Kondrashov says so, do you agree with that or not?

quote:

---

Actually you didn't because not one of your quotes mentioned "genetic entropy" at all. They were just the old creationist "information loss" argument (which is best described as meaningless).

---

They do not have to mention it! The whole book is about genetic entropy! It doesn't have to be mentioned in every statement!

quote:

---

The point is that "loss of information" without loss of fitness is not going to force a species into extinction. "Loss of information" with a gain of fitness is more likely to save a species from extinction.

---

Wrong! Biological information is what performs all the biological functions. Without biological functions, living organisms can't do what they do. When they loose enough of the functions, they die! How can a non-functional lungs save a population from extinction?

quote:

---

Because it explicitly states that the risk of extinction comes from the effect of fragmentation lowering the effective population size.

---

That doesn't contradict me. It still means that only when the population is not fragmented, and is infinite in size, that equilibrium exists.

quote:

---

It does NOT say that equilibrium can only be achieved with infinite population size, only that the equilibrium level is independent of the mutational effect with infinite populations size.

​

And in fact they do calculate this equilibrium level in their work.

---

Yes, which means that the mutations do not affect the population becasue it's infinite in size. So it can't go extinct.

quote:

---

quote:
No, it's not. It's primary school math. Either something decreases, increases, or is in perfect equilibrium. There is no fourth choice.

​

So, either the mutations increase, as they always do, or they are removed totally if you have a perfect selection, or they are in equilibrium if you have an infinite population. You DO NOT have perfect selection, and you DO NOT have an infinite population. Therefore, they increase.

​

Or they are in equilibrium with a finite population. You haven't offered anything to rule that out yet.

---

How would that happen. Explain how?

quote:

---

No, I didn't miss that. But it doesn't show anything because it begs the question. It simply assumes that less than 100% effectiveness equals accumulation (which is what it is supposed to show). However, even delayed (but certain) removal is less than 100% effectiveness, and you also need to count the loss of deleterious mutations due to drift. As I said, to deal with the issue you need real numbers, because they control the equilibrium level.

---

What's the fourth option!? There is eitehr equilibrium, increase, or decrease! What else is there?And the drift does not help you! The drift is random. And since there are more deleterious than beenficial mutations, while drift is in operation, as much deleterious mutations are lost, more will be accumulated. Becasue tehre is no selection to specifically remove them. On average, they will accumulate. Selection is invoked to remove them in the first place. If there was none, they would accumulate on their own.

quote:

---

If you _honestly_ believed this you would never consume anything you did kill and prepare yourself. You would NEVER take medicine. You would NEVER ride in a car or heaven forbid a plane.

​

This is the argument from douchbaggery. It is absolutely worthless. It is the last ditch effort of people who've been cornered and had their entire argument destroyed.

​

Like Godwin's law, Nuggin's Law is quite simple:
"The longer you argue with a Creationist, the more likely it is that they will say 'How do you know? Were you there?'. At that point, the debate is over. They are out of ideas. You win."

---

You can claim that you "won" as much as you like, but that does not make it so.If you found a piece of paper with writing on it on the road. How would you know that the what it was written on it was done by a typewriter or a printer? Obviously you wouldn't know. Yet you would still conclude it was designed. Therefore, you can't detect the mechanism of design, yet can infer design.

quote:

---

And that's retarded since you can not distinguish between what is naturally caused and what is not since you have NO MECHANISM.

---

I do not need a mechanism to tell me that Mounr Rushmore was designed. I do not even know what tools they used, and neitehr do you. You don't even know how many people worked there. And if you didn't know MR was designed. You would still infer design. Without knowing the mechanism.

quote:

---

Those are all examples of things for which you have mechanisms.

---

Great, how does that stop me from seeing their patterns, and infering from other objects, for which I do not know the mechanism, those same patterns? It doesn't.And no. Not al books or electronics, wer done by the same mechanism. Do you know, and can you explicitly tell me step by step rpocess of how a particular digital watch is made? NO YOU CAN'T!

quote:

---

They are also examples of things which are NON-living and NON-reproducing.

---

Which is irrelevant.

quote:

---

How would you know? You can't identify what a "cause" is, therefore you can not determine what is "produced" by these unknowable "causes".

​

No mechanism = no predictions about what the mechanism CAN or CAN NOT do.

---

Any undirected nautral cause. Any natural law. Never did tehy produce anything like people produce.

quote:

---

Translated: We thEn use the ASSUMPTIONS to the PREDETERMINED POLITICAL GOAL, and explain those patterns as THE WORK OF A JEW WIZARD.

---

No. What I said.

quote:

---

Let's look at the oft cited example of arrowheads. We can determine from the evidence how they were made. We can find the quarries where the flint was harvested. We can find shards of flint in these same quarries that were produced during their manufacture. We can even find discarded arrowheads that were thrown out because they were manufactured incorrectly. There are even university level classes that teach students HOW these arrowheads were made, and this knowledge was derived from the evidence found in these ancient quarries and from arrowheads themselves.

​

Part of detecting design is determing HOW something is made.

---

But it's not reliable. They could as well been planted there, and you couldn't tell. You have no method of detecting that. Wether planted later or not, the best explanation is that they were there from the start. And you have no mechanism to tell apart those which were put there later.

quote:

---

So much for letting it drop !

​

Anyway, thanks for admitting that I was right about what you said , and that I did NOT need to read your mind.

---

I can't drop something that you are insisting on, while in the same time, that thing is not true. And it ain't.

quote:

---

Just because Dembski uses D sometimes to mean the D component of (D,*) and sometimes to mean (D.*) does not mean that they are the same thing. So, no, D does not equal (D,*). "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is just D, not (D,*). And neither is equal to 10^20

---

However you look at it, "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is the pattern. For which you claim that it's D. Fine, let it be D. But it's complexity is 10^20.

quote:

---

Yes there is - it's the D in the pattern "(D,*)".

---

Wait, so now you admit that (D,*) is the pattern? Please, make up your mind already.

quote:

---

Do I need to remind you that we want the probability of D*, not the probability of the unspecified event ? Do I need to point out that this example proves exactly that ? Do I need to repeat that the probability of meeting the specification I gave - P(D*) - is at least 0.25 regardless of the number of throws ?

---

Yes I know that. You do not have to remind me. I'm just saying that more throws are more complex than less. Do you agree with that or not?

quote:

---

Since we're talking about the details which AREN'T part of the pattern, they can't match it.

---

Which details are those?

quote:

---

OK, then 50 proteins are NOT part of D*. D* is "getting a bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller - no mention of 50 proteins there. Whether it is mentioned in NFL doesn't matter if it isn't mentioned in the specification.

---

It's so very importhant. You actually agreed on this. This here is your quote:

quote:

---

p(T|H) would be the probability of meeting the specification (i.e. p(D*|H)). Here's what it says about T (p18)

---

These are your words. You agreed that the probability P(T|H) is P(D*|H). And I agree also. And as we all SHOULD know, P(T|H) is the 50 protein part flagellum. How do I know? Because Dembski says so. Read carefully.

quote:

---

It follows that —log2[ 120 10 ϕ
S(T)P(T|H)] > 1
if and only if P(T|H) < 140
2
1 10− , where H, as we noted in section 6, is an evolutionary chance
hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms and T, conceived
not as a pattern but as an event, is the evolutionary pathway that brings about the flagellar
structure (for definiteness, let’s say the flagellar structure in E. coli). Is P(T|H) in fact less than
140
2
1 10− , thus making T a specification? The precise calculation of P(T|H) has yet to be done.
But some methods for decomposing this probability into a product of more manageable
probabilities as well as some initial estimates for these probabilities are now in place.33

---

See, he says that a precise calculation has yet to be done, but a manegable one already exists. And he points to the reference number 33. Which when you go and look it up, is the chapter 5.10 of his book The No Free Lunch. And guess what is that chapter called? It's called "Doing The Calculation". Yes, and in this chapter he finely discusses how to get the number 10^2954, and clearly says that the flagellum consists of 50 parts.Therefore P(T|H) = P(D*|H) = 50 protein part flagellum = 10^2954.

quote:

---

That doesn't even make sense. 10^20 considered as an event is 10^2954 ?

---

No. 10^20 is teh complexity of the pattern. As I already quoted THREE TIMES already! I'm not going to do it again.

quote:

---

Dembski also says that it's the specificational resources.

---

So it's both. FIne?

quote:

---

But the combining is to eliminate the unspecified information. So if you agree that we shouldn't count it then you have to agree with the combining.

---

WHAT!?

quote:

---

We don't want the probability of the event, just the probability of meeting the specification. And in the case of the flagellum I have no idea of how to calculate it. And neither does Dembski.

---

LOL WRONG! Of course you need the probability of the event!? How are you going to know if the probability of matching the patternt witht he specified event is small enough to infer design!? That's the whole point of design detection and you're missing it!

quote:

---

In that case can you quote him actually saying that ? Because you didn't.

---

Fine, I will do it now. Even though this is just stupid. I mean the whole book is about geentic entropy and how information is degrading... Just buy the book okay?

quote:

---

Genetic entropy - This is a fundamental biological principle. Apart from intelligent intervention, the functional genomic information within free-living organisms (excluding viruses) must decrease. Like all other aspects of the world we live in, the "natural vector" within the biological realm is degeneration, with disorder consistently increasing over time.

​

Page 217.

---

There you go. The functional genomic information is decreasing. This is genetic entropy. No buts about it.And look at something else. Like I have been saying all along, genetic entropy does decrease reproductive fitness, but not ALWAYS. Because biological functions are not exactly 100% correlated with reproductive fitness. Sanford says teh same thing in this quote here.

quote:

---

As fitness declines due to mutation accumulation, the genomic background itself will be changing. In reference to selection for a given nucleotide, there will be rpogressively more and more noise from all the other segregating mutations which are accumulating. While some aspects of environmental noise will scale with fitness (this diminishes proportionaly as fitness declines), soem aspects of environmental noise will not scale with fitness, e.g noise due to natural disasters. This latter type of noise, which does not diminish in concert with fitness decline, will grow progressively more disruptive to selection as fitness declines. Continuously increasing noise cannot be effectively neutralized by noise averaging.

​

Page 204. and 205.

---

It seems as thoug I was right. Genetic information is not perfectly correlated with reproductive fitness and noise averaging is not going to effectively remove genetic entropy.

quote:

---

And it says that it is only a problem when fragmentation REDUCES the effective population.
Therefore it doesn't support you.

---

Those things always happen in the nature. It's like saying that something only happens when people eat or walk. They always do that.

quote:

---

If you were agreeing with me all along, then why were you arguing ?

---

I'm not agreeing with you. This is what you said:YOU: "You are claiming that beneficial mutations dont' help!"
ME: "No. I said that they do help, but they do not remove genetic entropy completely."
YOU: "No you said that they do not hel at all."
ME: "No, I said that they DO help, but not enough to completely stop genetic entropy."
YOU: "No, you said they simply don't help at all..."
ME: "No, I did not!"
YOU: "Yes you did..."
etc...
etc...See?

quote:

---

They do have to mention it if they are saying that this information loss IS genetic entropy.
Which is the point you were supposedly trying to argue.

---

Which is true as I quoted above.

quote:

---

Which only covers "losses of information" that negatively impact fitness. Not those that increase fitness.

---

WRONG! Totally wrong! Decrease in genetic information can increase reproductive fitness, precisely becasue the correlation is NOT perfect. Examples: sickle cell, bacterial resistance, HIV resistance.

quote:

---

It does contradict you because it makes it clear that the problem only exists for low effective populations sizes.

---

Ahem. The article talks about LARGE populations.

quote:

---

By selection and drift removing deleterious mutations from the population at the same rate as they arrive. Thus we have an equilibrium without selection being 100% effective.

---

But that by definition is natural seelction at 100%. Which is impossible. Look. Tell me, what is te unit of selection? Is it a nucleotide, a gene, a chromosome, or the whole genome? What gets evaluated by natural selection before it reproduces?I'll tell you. The whole genome. That is the unit of selection. Therefore, some organisms that are more fit than others might as well carry some deleterious mutations with them. And on avrage they will. Natural seelction does not look at the singl nucleotide to evaluate the organism. It looks at the whole genome. So even those who are more fit are going to carry their deleterious mutations into the next population. And genetic entropy increases.

quote:

---

Wrong. The more deleterious mutations in the population the faster drift will remove them. That is one of the factors that your "example" didn't take into account.

---

But on average it won't remove all. Neitehr will tehre be an equilibirum, they will accumulate. Look, natural seelction is invoked in the first place to remove deleterious mutations. Without it, genetic entropy is even faster. You can't turn the table and say that genetic drift is better than natural selection. It's not. Without natural selection a species is doomed even faster.

quote:

---

I could tell you if it was a printer or a type writer. I could tell you if it was a laser printer, an ink jet, a dot matrix or a daisy wheel. I could tell you if it was the original or a xerox.

​

And that's all if the printer is working absolutely perfectly. If the printer has a slight flaw, I can tell you much more about it.

​

If it was done on a type writer, the FBI crime lab could tell you which brand, a range of model years for that brand _AND_ if they actually found the type writer, they could prove it was produced on that particular machine.

​

This is just another example of you citing a subject you know NOTHING ABOUT and then claiming that because YOU KNOW NOTHING about it, no one can.

​

AND, the whole basis of your argument is FALSE.

​

You are claiming that if I had a piece of paper with writing on it, I couldn't tell you the mechanism involved. Then you NAME two mechanisms which could produce it.

​

Do you get that?

​

Do you see HOW that is different than what you are claiming?

​

You are ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE _____ANY_____ MECHANISMS!!!

​

None. Not "can't choose between two which are testable and reproduceable".

​

You have NO mechanism save "Jew Magic" which you already admitted you don't believe exists.

---

Yes, that's why all those people who send death threats are so easily identified. Obviously NOT! If you design a death threat in such a way to mimich a particular mechanism or a tool, you can't detect the original mechanism or the tool that it was done with. So your mechanism of design method fails.

quote:

---

Again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance. You can WATCH FILM of them creating it. I'm sure there is a museum at Mt. Rushmore which LITERALLY HAS SOME OF THE TOOLS USED!!!

​

Further, YOU DO KNOW there are mechanisms for shaping rock. You've SEEN them in use.

​

You do NOT KNOW that there are Jew Beams. No one ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has EVER seen ANYTHING LIKE JEW BEAMS in use.

​

Therefore NO MECHANISM. No mechanism = no design.

---

The point is that even if I didn't see them do it, and I didn't, I could still say it was designed.

quote:

---

Can you give us examples of "other objects" for which NO ONE knows the mechanism?

​

Remember, WE are not restrained by your EXTREMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.

---

Almost all biological structures.

quote:

---

Not are we limited by my knowledge. Someone, somewhere can tell you EXACTLY step by step how ANY given digital watch was made.

​

Hell, there is a TV SERIES called "How It's Made" which WALKS YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS for TONS of different objects.

​

Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean it's MAGIC!!!!

---

But even if we didn't know the mechanism we can say that a watch is designed. I don't know how ANY watch is designed. Or a car, or a computer. neither do I, nor do you know the detailed process or the mechanism of designing a watch. Yet if you found one on teh street you would claim it was designed. Why? Remember, you do not know the mechanism!

quote:

---

Do you HONESTLY not know the difference between GRAVITY and JEW MAGIC?

​

I've give you a hint. I can TEST and measure GRAVITY. You CAN NOT test nor measure JEW MAGIC.

---

Neither did I claim that I can. Now show me where has a natural cause produced anythign like a computer.

quote:

---

That's why it's called "translation".

​

Someone call Abe Lincoln to come and free this guy. I've been owning him so long I think I gotta give him 40 acres and a mule.

---

That's a good one! You never responded to any of my scientific arguments, so now we are arging semantics. So what happened to that Vertical NFL theorem I was talking about? Did you ever reply to me on how you would go around that? No, you didn't. And yous ay you own me? LOL, anyone?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Things that happen in the natural world leave evidence behind. Things that are made up like fantasy and magic do not leave evidence behind.

---

Exactly. I agree. That's why we have no traces of single celled organisms evolving into people in the process that took about 3.6 billion years.

quote:

---

So unless your theory of ID is fantasy or magic, however it happened must have left evidence behind. That's all Taq is saying, that if life today is the product of some intelligence then that intelligence should have left evidence behind of how it created life.

---

That's like saying that when you find a watch in the forest, that if that watch was designed, the person who left it there MUST HAVE HAD left notes on how he made the watch. Ummm... why? Why should he have left that?

quote:

---

One thing's for sure. The only intelligent designer we know of, namely us, the watchmakers of Paley fame, does not create designs in a nested hierarchy.

---

Actually intelligence can do just that. Folders on a computer are done in just that way. There are folders within folders, and files within folders. There is a nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

We do have those traces. They are in our genomes. We share tRNA's and other features and these are signals consistent with shared ancestry.

---

First of all, common ancestry isn't even shown to be possible. Common features are also consistent with spontaneous formation of all life and the whole 3 minutes ago. But so what? Is that alos the evidence that everythign came into being 3 minutes ago? Obviously not.In short. If you want to say that shared features are evidence for evolution, than first you have to show that common ancestry is possible, second you have to show that darwinian evolution can account for those shared features and than, that those features are the product of darwinian evolution.

quote:

---

An examination of the watch will tell you how it was made. Close examination of the gears can tell you if they were forged or cast. You can examine the connections between metal parts to see if they were soddered, and using different techniques you may even be able to tell when it was soddered and where it was soddered. You can use isotope analysis to determine which batch of alloys was used to make different parts. You can even use the composition of different dyes and materials to determine it's place and time of origin. Of course, it would be even easier to look at the maker's mark.

---

You can't do that. That's impossible. The question still remains, how do you know that that watch is not the product of random natural forces? Maybe it just looks like it was designed.Let's say your examintation turnes out positive the idea that the gears were soddered. Tell me, what method do you have to show that the gears aren't simply a product of random chance and are only amde to look likt they were soddered?

quote:

---

Folders from a single project can be found in different trees within the nested hierarchy resulting in a violation. Computer files are not arranged in a nested hierarchy by shared commonalities. You are just as likely to find a Word file in all lineages or scattered here and there. Computer files do not fall into a nested hierarchy, and there is no reason that they should. Life DOES fall into a nested hierarchy, and design can not explain this (or rather, design does not predict any pattern of homology). Evolution can explain this pattern of homology.

---

Folders on a compter can be folded into one. They do not have to be, but they can be made into one. That's my point. An intelligent agent can do that if he chooses so.And acutally, life does not fall into a perfect nested hierarchy.

quote:

---

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life, says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality, says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

​

...

​

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

​

...

​

Conventionally, sea squirtsalso known as tunicatesare lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another, Syvanen says.

​

...

​

For example, pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.

---

A Primer on the Tree of LifeEdited by Admin, : Fix quote.

quote:

---

You indicated that the only important thing was the known function - which we agree occurred. All I did was make it clear that you earlier had argued for loss of ALL function. And you turn around and start trying to argue for the loss of ALL function again.

---

1-1= 0 does it not? If the enzyme had one known function, and it lost it, than how many has it left? Obviously, the correct answer is ZERO. Meaning, no functions are left, meaning, all functions are lost.

quote:

---

It's the description D, not the pattern (D,*). And the "complexity" is just the specificational resources. It certainly ISN'T the probability of D*, which is what we want.

---

I know it's not. So stop mentioning it. Do you, or do you not agree that the "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is the pattern D, whose complexity is 10^20, just as Dembski said?

quote:

---

If you are referring only to the completely irrelevant unspecified complexity, then yes. But that only supports my point - we do not want nor care about that complexity. It is only the specified complexity which is never less than 0.25 for the specification - which is why that specification can never indicate design.

---

Okay, so you agree that more throws are more complex than less throws. Fine, let's move on from here.If you agree that more complex objects have higher complexity, than you also agree that a flagellum consisting of 1.000.000 proteins, has a higher compexity than the one consisting of 50 proteins, right?

quote:

---

The 50 proteins and their structure in the case of the flagellum. Probably some details of their arrangement, too. For my example with the coins the exact sequence - which is what your "complexity" above refers to.

---

Yes, that's the complexity I'm talking about.

quote:

---

In other words Dembski didn't completely botch the calculation in NFL - because Dembski says so. Unfortunately for you he did botch it. The calculation in NFL is NOT the probability of getting a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellor" or even close as should be quite obvious. The fact that it uses details which clearly aren't in the specification is a dead giveaway.

---

What the hell are you talkign about? What did he do wrong?

quote:

---

It's quite simple. if we want p(D*) we want the probability of getting ANYTHING which satisfies the description D. So we combine the probabilities of everything which satisfies D.
So either you agree to the combining, or you disagree that we want the probability of D*.

---

But you do understand that the probability of a 50 protein falgellum will be different than a 1.000.000 protein flagellum?

quote:

---

The probability of matching the pattern - which is what Dembski's method uses to infer design - is the probability of D*.

---

And I agree with that! When I say "event" I don't mean E, I do mean D*. Because D* is teh event, but not just any, it's the event that delimits the pattern D.So, yes, I agree with Dembski. You need both the complexity of the pattern D, and the probability of the event D*.

quote:

---

But only if the noise is increasing. So THAT "noise" is not genetic drift. Do pay attention to the context.

---

Again, WHAT?

quote:

---

No, it doesn't always happen. Populations can increase in size. They don't have to get fragmented to the extent that mutational load is a problem.

---

Yes, they do increase in size, but the genetic variability stays the same regardless. And yes, they do alwasy fragment. Just look at how peope have spread around the world.

quote:

---

Yes. I see that you are now agreeing with me that beneficial mutations DO help and that you were wrong to leave them out of your diagram.

​

Perhaps instead of trying to cover up your mistakes you should try harder to avoid making them in the first place ?

---

You are the biggest liar I have ever seen on any forum ever. Do you nto remember this picture I made!?!?!?! I specifically said that green numbers are benefitial mutations. And I have ALWAYS been sayign that they help somewhat. But that you can't invoke them to completely remove genetic entropy. You are either insanely senile, or you are deliberately lying.

quote:

---

With a LOW effective population size. Which is exactly the point I made.

---

How exactly does that help you? Show me the quote in the article that agrees with you.

quote:

---

So what you are saying is that less than 100% effectiveness is by definition 100% effective.
I don't think that makes much sense. It's quite clear that not all deleterious mutations are removed, and not all of those that are removed are removed by selection, so selection is obviously less than 100% effective.

---

No, I never said that. If natural seelction is working at less than 100% effectiveness, than it's obviously LESS than 100% effective. And that means that not all deleterious mutations will get removed.

quote:

---

With a large population size and genetic mixing from sexual reproduction there will be selection for and against individual alleles. Only in the case of pure clonal reproduction would it make sense to say that the whole genome was the unit of selection. Because without that the whole genome doesn't survive. It is just a feature of one individual.

---

This is physically impossible. Do you honestly think that individuals pass just portions of their genome to the offspring? No, they pass on everything. So the unit of selection is the whole genome. Natural selection can not select a single nucleotide.

quote:

---

But I am not saying that drift is better than selection. I am saying that drift AND selection both remove deleterious mutations. Obviously together they will remove more than selection alone !

---

Exactly. Yes they will. But not ALL of them. And that is the reson geentic entropy exists. Because natural selection, and any other mechanism you can come up with are not perfect. So the information must decline.

quote:

---

Now you are just flailing. Clearly you don't know anything about this topic. You shouldn't have used it as an example - especially when arguing with someone who in fact does know a lot about this topic.

​

Try and find a better example. This one, for you, is an epic fail.

---

Nope. It's a great example. Just think of those people that cut the letters from newspapers and glue them on a piece of paper tho make the death threats. How do you know if that was cut with a knife or scissors, or something else? You don't.

quote:

---

Seeing or not seeing something get made is not the determining factor in detecting design. It's the ability to determine the MECHANISM used.

​

If you DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM, you _CAN NOT_ distinguish between NATURALLY OCCURING THINGS and DESIGNED THINGS.

​

I've already given you SEVERAL EXAMPLES of NATURALLY OCCURRING THINGS which _APPEAR_ designed. You have YET to come up with a single example of something which IS design but for which there can be NO mechanism.

​

That's because you _CAN'T_ give anything as an example. And you know it. Anything which you _know_ is designed was created using a mechanism you can identify.

​

The _ONLY_ example you can come up with is the very thing you are claiming.

​

So, it's SPECIAL PLEADING. Therefore FAIL.

---

Wrong. If you find an rock in the ground. And it looks like an arrow head, how do you know it's really an arrowhead, and not just a random piece of rock? Knowing how arrowheads are made is not going to help you. Because the rock you find in the ground can simply look like it was designed. How do you tell if it is designed or not?

quote:

---

Which are completely explained through naturally occurring mechanisms which we can detect, measure and reproduce in the lab.

​

If we have a NATURAL solution to a problem, there is no reason to invoke BOTH a SUPERNATURAL JEW WIZARD _and_!! His MAGICALLY JEW BEAMS.

​

You don't have a mechanism. We do. The end. You lose.

---

Really? Explain how the ATP synthase came about.

quote:

---

If this is honestly true, then you are pretty fucking stupid.

​

Seriously. You've NEVER looked under the hood of a car? You've never see the inside of a clock? You've never gone into your computer to replace RAM?

​

No wonder you think everything is magic. You haven't got the first clue how ANYTHING works.

​

What's next? "How does a pencil work?" "How do we know a sandwich was made?"

​

You need to stop posting on the internet and go get some REAL WORLD experience.

---

Really now, am I bothering you that much? Just agree with me than. My point is that I don't have to know how something works to know that it was designed. When you saw a car for the first time in your life, did you know how it was made? Did you know how it works? Do you even now know EXACTLY how it works, and how it's made? No you don't. But even now, and before you would infer that it was designed, even before youever saw it.

quote:

---

Of course I do. Not only do I know the mechanism of watch construction, I know the mechanism of the construction of ALL the PIECES in the watch.

​

Are you _HONESTLY_ saying that you don't have the first clue how a small metal gear could be created? How a glass lense could be created? How things could be assembled one piece at a time?

​

Are you actually making these claims? Are you retarded? Or are you simply being dishonest?

---

It doesn't matter if you know how they COULD be created! You ahve to know how EXACTLY they are created. If you don't know that, than you don't know the mechanism.But that was not my question anyway. My question was that, if you didn't know how it was made. Would you still infer design?

quote:

---

I don't have to. I'm not the one claiming that computers were created by natural causes. YOU ARE.

​

If YOU can't come up with an example, that's not MY PROBLEM - it's MY POINT!!!

---

Yes, you are. You are claiming that living cells were created by natural causes. They are the same thing as a computer. So yes, please do show me where natural forces created anything like that.

quote:

---

Since this thread is about developing a clear picture of what ID is, why don't you tell us how ID explains the recorded history of change over time that you allude to here.

---

It doesn't, becasue ID is not about that. It's a science of design detection. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

---

Yet ANOTHER example of you not knowing what you are talking about. Geez, dude. This is getting bad.

​

Scissors cut from both sides, for short distances and generally straight. Knives cut from one side and can swerve as they slice the page.

​

Forensics can show whether or not it was scissors of a knife, and if it's an older pair of scissors, they can match the scissors to the cut.

​

You lose. AGAIN.

---

What if a guy took two knives, and cut the paper from both sides? It would look like it was done with scissors. But than again, you are totally missing the point.The point is that you have no design detection method. You only have a design detection method. Which i so-so. I'll elaborate on that later on.

quote:

---

Seriously? You couldn't pick a WORSE example. I have a degree in Archaeology and flintnap as a hobby.

​

You can ABSOLUTELY distinguish between an arrowhead and an arrowhead "shaped" rock.

​

Bifacial flaking does not occur in nature. It BARELY occurs when people try to do it. It's TRICKY as hell.

​

MULTIPLE bifacial flakes running down the length of a flint core requires hours of precision work. Work for which...

​

...wait for it...

​

WE HAVE A MECHANISM!!!

---

You are missing the point again. How do you know that what you are seeing is actually a product of design, and not chance. How do you know that what you are seeing, in this case bifacial flaking, is actually not just a product of natural forces? It may just look like bifacial flaking. But in reality it's just a product of wind and erosion over a long period of time.Let me explain to you why your method is not a method of design detection, but a method of mechanism detection.You see, your method already presuposes design. It can not detect it. It has to first presuppose design, and than, it moves on, to infer the mechanism by which the said design was implemented. The reason why your method can not infer design is because it already depends on design being there. Your method has no way of telling apart designed things, from things that were made by undirected natural forces, which just look like designed.Here is an example. I say that a cell is like a computer. I say that because it is an information processing machinery. Than from that, I infer design. You than come along, and say that this is false. The reason is, that the cell is actually not liek a computer, and is not an information processing machinery. it just LOOKS like it. You claim that it has been modeled by evolution over long periods of time, therefore, it's not designed, but only looks designed.Fine. But than, I turn around, and say. Well, you see, the Rosetta stone, is not designed also. It has been modeled by natural forces, liek wind, water, erosion, over time. And it just LOOKS like it has been designed. So it's not really designed. So you can't say that since you knwo that chiseled rocks are human made, that Rosetta stoneis also. Because it's not designed in the first place. It just looks like it's been designed. It just looks like it has been chiseled. So there is not design to infer in the first place.So your method of detecting design by knowing the mechanism of design is flawed, precisely becasue you can't tell apart objects that are designed from those that just seem designed in a particualr way. If the Rosetta stone was designed, you could apply your method to infer what mechanism was used. But not before you actually know if it was designed or not. And you dont' know. Becasue your method does not tell yout hat. As I said before, your method presupposes design.

quote:

---

That may be your "POINT" but your __CLAIM__ is that NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW SOMETHING WORKS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE DESIGNED.

​

And _THAT_ is ABSOLUTELY false.

​

Every single example you have given has been created by PEOPLE who KNOW what they are creating and are using mechanisms which can be reproduced.

​

Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean THEY are ignorant.

---

But even before I knew anything about cars, or computers, I knew they were designed. So my argument stands. I don't have to know anything about them to know they are designed. And I'm the one doing the design detection, not t he people who made them. They are irrelevant in the rpoces of design detection becasue they are the designer. The rpocess of design detection is done by those who are ignorant of how the object in question came about. Not by those who do know. What would be the point of infering design if you already know the object is designed?

quote:

---

No. The mechanism of watch creation, even watch piece creation is OBSERVABLE. It can be (and is) recreated on a regular basis.

---

But if you don't know the mechanism, you can still infer design. It doesn't matter if it's observable or not. If you don't know the mechanism precisely, you simply do not know it. Yet you can still infer design.

quote:

---

The same is NOT true for Jew Wizard Jew Beams. They have _NEVER_ been observed. They have _NEVER_ be recreated.

​

You are just PRETENDING that they exist to explain away shit you are too lazy to learn.

​

You're entire argument so far is this:

​

"Cars, watches, random notes and arrowheads were all created by a magical Jewish Wizard using Jew Beams because I, Smooth Operator, wasn't there when it happened."

​

That's, as Sarah Pallin would say, "FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!"

---

It's obvious to anyone here that this is not my argument, and never was...

quote:

---

FUCKING RETARDED.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

But if ID is nothing more than design detection then it has no explanatory power. How can it replace evolution if it can't explain everything that evolution already explains? It would be like trying to replace your automobile with a bicycle.

---

It would be like math replacing biology. Truly meaningless. That is why ID is not, has never, and will never replace evolution. It does not even try to replace evolution, because it can't. It's not supposed to.ID is not even trying to expalin all that evolution is supposed to explain. ID is a science of design detection and is distinct from the theory of evolution which it does not try to replace. Where you came up witht he idea that ID is trying to repalce evolution is beyond me.Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life we see today. ID is about design detection. These are two totally different fields of inquery.

quote:

---

But okay, if that's what ID actually is, design detection, then I guess the question asked by this long thread has finally been answered. Now if only ID could actually *do* design detection.

---

I think it can quite well.

quote:

---

And an unknown number plus one minus one plus an unknown number is an unknown number.

---

Yet I specifically said that I'm only talking about known functions.

quote:

---

I only agree that the number 10^20 is Dembski's estimate of the specificational resources.

---

Than explain to me, why the hell did Dembski say this:

quote:

---

Recall the following description of the bacterial flagellum given in section 6: bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. This description corresponds to a pattern T. Moreover, given a natural language (English) lexicon with 100,000 (= 105) basic concepts (which is supremely generous given that no English speaker is known to have so extensive a basic vocabulary), we estimated the complexity of this pattern at approximately ϕ
S(T) = 1020

---

It CLEARLY, and in PLAIN ENGLISH says that bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is the pattern, and that it's complexity is 10^20. Which part do you not understand quite well? Do you want me to call Dembski on the phone to approve of this or something!? What else do you want?And s for specificational resources:

quote:

---

For a less artificial example of specificational resources in action, imagine a dictionary of 100,000 (= 105) basic concepts. There are then 105 1-level concepts, 1010 2-level concepts, 1015 3-level concepts, and so on. If bidirectional, rotary, motor-driven, and propeller are basic concepts, then the molecular machine known as the bacterial flagellum can be characterized as a 4-level concept of the form bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. Now, there are approximately N = 1020 concepts of level 4 or less, which therefore constitute the specificational resources relevant to characterizing the bacterial flagellum.

---

Since bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller consists of 4 parts, whose individual probability is 10^5, multiplying that up leads us to 10^20. This is as previously stated teh complexity of teh pattern. And int eh same time the relevant specificational resources for specifying the pattern in question. So it's both, just as I've been saying all along.

quote:

---

No, I don't agree because the "complexity" is produced from a probability calculation and we don't know what the results of the two calculations would be. It is likely that the one needing more proteins would be less probable, but it isn't certain.

---

Explain the logic behind saying that getting 6 with one die is less complex than getting 1.000.000 6s with 1.000.000 dice. And than in turn sayignt that getting a 50 protein flagellum is NOT less complex than getting a 1.000.000 protein flagellum.

quote:

---

He didn't calculate the correct probability. Or even anything resembling the correct probability. That's what he did wrong.

---

Why? What's wrong with the calculation found in NFL?

quote:

---

But do you understand that since both wil fit the pattern we need the probability of getting either of them ? Or any other flagellum.

---

No we do not. We need only one. In this case the 50 protein one. If we were interested in the million protein one, we would calculate only his probability.Using your logic, tell me, how the hell you you use this formula 10^120 ϕ S(T)P(T|H) < 1/2? What numbers go where?

quote:

---

The "noise" in the quote is not the "noise" of genetic drift that we were talking about earlier.

---

quote:

---

The "noise" in the quote is not the "noise" of genetic drift that we were talking about earlier.

---

It doesn't matter which noise it is. It's still noise and it's not averaging out. Any noise is bad. Some will scale with fitness some will not. And the noise that is not scaling increases genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Except that you DIDN'T allow them to offset the fitness loss. Which they do.

---

They do offset it! But by so little it's not even measureable. And certainly not enough to stop genetic entropy. Yes, you can slow it down, I've been sayign it all along. But you can't stop it.Take a look at this article. It specifically talks about large sexually reproducing organisms. Which as you can see are also in danger of mutational meltdown. Note however that the authors are only concerned with reproductive fitness. They do not take into account that genetic entropy is building up becasue of deterioration of genetic information. They are only concerned with reproductive fitness itself. Yet, they show that large populations can also go extinct.

quote:

---

When a new mdividual is formed (independently of the reproduction process) it inherits harmful iuutations. Moreover, new mutations are acquired even in the genetic code formation, most of them deleterious ones. This might lead to a time decay in the mean fitness of the whole population that, for long enough time, would produce the extinction of the species.

---

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/...53/PDF/ajp-jp1v5p1501.pdf

quote:

---

It helps me because it shows that the article agrees exactly with what I said. Mutational load is only a problem with a low effective population size.

---

Where does it say that?

quote:

---

You obviously don't know much about reproductive biology. Sexually reproducing species get only HALF the genome of each parent.

---

I KNOW! The point is that while reporducing, the parents DO NOT pick and choose which nucleotides they will pass on to their offspring! They send everything. The whole genome. And after that, the offspring is the mix of those two genomes. Therefore, natural selection selects on the level of the genome. Not on the level of the single nucleotide. Which means that even if a certain individual has beneficial mutations, the deleterious that he might also have, go right to the offspring thogether with the beneficial ones. Natural seelction can not select out individual deleterious nucleotides.

quote:

---

Of course, since you have no sensible measure of "genetic information" any such statement is pure speculation.

---

Exacept that CSI is a fine measure. The only problem is that you don't get it. Anyone who claims that 50 protein flagellum is the same in complexity as a 1.000.000 protein falgellum can't understand CSI, nor Shannon information for that matter. Even in Shannon information those two are distinct.