Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 136 of 1273 (539677)
12-18-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Huntard
12-18-2009 8:34 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance.
I really think this is an interesting place to mine. So what is it about either chemistry or physics that enables the first self-replicating cell to form? Which particular abiogenesis hypothesis do you subscribe to?
I think we can eliminate much of this dribble such as a rosetta stone coming out of a rhino butt with three horns if we go there.
I don't think a bird is creating information when it is building a nest. The bird is shaping what is already there. It is creating a certain type of order. There is no new digital code being created in this process. However, the nest (apparently it depends on how you define information) is shaped by an intelligence.
I was going to sit on the side lines watching Smooth Operator and PaulK but I don't want to see you people wear Smooth out.
I think one of the most important points this debate boils down to is whether the digital code in the cell could have resulted from the laws of physics and chemistry or if it defies it and therefore, we could infer it as the result of intelligence.
It seems to me PaulK believes there are certain properties in a protein that need to be specified for function but, he seems to believe the assemblage of the proper chemical constituents would have self-organized in a way to form the first life. There are more questions. Can physics and chemistry explain the first cell. The book "Signature in the Cell" devoted hundreds of pages that says "No it can't. That is why Dean Kenyon said, "We haven't the slighted chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells."
If people like PaulK are right, then why don't we place all of the right chemical constituents with the right conditions into some sterile environments and let life form all over again?
In the defense of materialistic science, we shouldn't assume that our known laws of physics and chemistry can't produce the first cell. I understand that. However, I think for many forum participants here, it isn't about science, it is about protecting a belief system or planting the seeds of destroying one.
If you wish to we can continue this in the adjacent thread "The Grand Theory of Life"
EvC Forum: The Grand Theory of Life
Edited by traderdrew, : Just inserting more "complex specified information"
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 8:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 2:50 PM traderdrew has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 137 of 1273 (539686)
12-18-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
traderdrew writes:
I really think this is an interesting place to mine. So what is it about either chemistry or physics that enables the first self-replicating cell to form? Which particular abiogenesis hypothesis do you subscribe to?
Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now.
I think we can eliminate much of this dribble such as a rosetta stone coming out of a rhino butt with three horns if we go there.
That was actually to prove a point. One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is.
I don't think a bird is creating information when it is building a nest.
Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...?
The bird is shaping what is already there. It is creating a certain type of order.
So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there.
There is no new digital code being created in this process.
Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however.
However, the nest (apparently it depends on how you define information) is shaped by an intelligence.
I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell? )
I was going to sit on the side lines watching Smooth Operator and PaulK but I don't want to see you people wear Smooth out.
Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process.
I think one of the most important points this debate boils down to is whether the digital code in the cell could have resulted from the laws of physics and chemistry or if it defies it and therefore, we could infer it as the result of intelligence.
Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own.
It seems to me PaulK believes there are certain properties in a protein that need to be specified for function but, he seems to believe the assemblage of the proper chemical constituents would have self-organized in a way to form the first life. There are more questions. Can physics and chemistry explain the first cell. The book "Signature in the Cell" devoted hundreds of pages that says "No it can't. That is why Dean Kenyon said, "We haven't the slighted chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells."
That's an argument from authority.
If people like PaulK are right, then why don't we place all of the right chemical constituents with the right conditions into some sterile environments and let life form all over again?
Because we don't know yet what those components are and what the ideal environment for them is. One thing it certainly wasn't is sterile.
In the defense of materialistic science, we shouldn't assume that our known laws of physics and chemistry can't produce the first cell.
I agree.
However, I think for many forum participants here, it isn't about science, it is about protecting a belief system or planting the seeds of destroying one.
It's only ever been about that. At least, in my experience.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 1:34 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 4:01 PM Huntard has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 138 of 1273 (539690)
12-18-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Huntard
12-18-2009 2:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now.
In other words, you have "faith" that it's actually inevitable but you don't know what those conditions that don't involve intelligence are in order to make it possible.
One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is.
It doesn't mean it isn't either if science can't explain it through some sort of spontaneous generation, RNA first, or self-organization model.
Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...?
The height, structure, depth, width are part of descriptions which help describe the nest. The strength is partly determined by its chemical structure which has its foundations in DNA.
So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there.
You know that before a language was engraved on the stone, it existed as an ordinary stone. The linguisitic symbols on it have an orderly, specified and complimentary relationship.
Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however.
Why are we arguing what is obvious? I am simply pointing out the difference between building a nest and part of the foundation of DNA.
I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell?
Well then, maybe you can create a better nest than a bird if you have a better brain than a bird? :-)
Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process.
No I don't think so. There is still that 400 bits of CSI information that remains unanswered. PaulK can say it doesn't exist but he isn't accounting for the growth onto the original information or how that information can self-organize into specified complimentary parts of an overall whole and the relationship of all the parts in the entire whole. For self-replication to exist, don't you need machinery among other things? Don't you need things such as hydroporins on the surface of the cell in order to regulate water flow and other things to help regulate what comes into and out of the cell? How does it all deal with potential hypothetical problems? I'm sure I can think of many other questions.
Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own.
The digital code of DNA - PubMed
Also, look up Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis.
That's an argument from authority.
And that quote of yours is not science. If it was science then you should be able to refute Dr. Dean Kenyon with scientific fact. Then again, you don't disagree with my statement that much of this debate isn't about science around here.
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
Religion has been around for thousands of years and Darwinism has been here for 150 years. A theory such as Darwinism can be rationalized into something that serves evil. Religion has a head start but the Nazis had their roots in Darwinism - "Survival of the Fittest".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 2:50 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 6:07 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 4:09 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 156 by Huntard, posted 12-20-2009 5:02 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 139 of 1273 (539694)
12-18-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 4:01 PM


Aquaporins
I mistakenly calle them "hydroporins" in my previous post. They are "aquaporins". Maybe this should be a new topic around here.
I suppose they were just there in the first living cell? Lucky it had them. Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell?
We should just assume they weren't designed. Right?
The aquaporins - PMC
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 4:01 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2009 10:20 AM traderdrew has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 140 of 1273 (539699)
12-18-2009 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Huntard
12-18-2009 8:34 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
It's an inference made on the available evidence. We know humans use writing, we know they write in stones. We don' know of anything else that uses writing or writes in stones, ergo, we conclude it was made by humnas. And until other evidence is presented, that will be the explanation.
I agree.
quote:
Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance.
So you are saying that regularity (chemistry and physics) + chance = self replicating machinery?
quote:
You didn't say that, you said the stone was made by an intelligence. My hippo isn't intelligent.
Which would make us think it didn't make that stone...
quote:
Because we have evidence pointing to a likely cause of that intelligence. We have no such vidence for DNA.
The likely cause was an intelligence in both causes.
quote:
We know information is created by unintelligent things as well. A bird building a nest is creating onformation.
Birds are intelligent. Nut much, but they are intelligent.
quote:
the exact identity perhaps, but not the general characteristics of the designer. We can't do any such things for your designer. We know absolutely nothing about him, let alone if he exists at all.
Exactly, we do not know anything about him, neither are we interested while detecting design.
quote:
But why ignore evidence to do that?
I'm not ignoring any evidence. We do not know the identity of the designer of the DNA in living beings. I'm not ignoring anything.
quote:
Yes we do, actually. Why else bring it up?
That's like saying we have to know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone. And now you will say that we do know that people make things like Rosetta stone.
And again, I will point out to you that that is the same thing I am saying when I say that DNA is designed. ONLY IN MORE GENERAL TERMS!!!!
Please try to understand that. If you are not able to grasp this simple concept, than please take a look at this picture I made for you.
We have two large grey circels. The left circle represents intelligence, the right circle represents information. The black arrow represents a relation that shows that intelligence produces information.
Inside each of those large circles we have smaller circles. Small blue circles represent possible candidates that could be intelligent designers. Among those are: Humans, aliens, God, animals, and other unknow intelligent agents... They are enteties that have, or are thought to have intelligence and are capeable of creating information. All these enteties are a subset of the large circle which is intelligence.
In the right large circle we have smaller red circles which represent instances of design. Among which are: Books, CDs, DNA, images, and others... All these items in red circels are information, and are thus a subset of the large grey circle. This means they are all a product of intelligence.
In other words since intelligence creates information, any of those red circels, which are instances of design, are created by a possible candidate in the blue circle. For instance, humans create books. It is equally valid to say that:
"HUMANS CREATE BOOKS"
and to say:
"INTELLIGENCE CREATES INFORMATION"
or
"INTELLIGENCE CREATES BOOKS"
ALL three statements are true. The only difference is that the second and third are more general. Since humans are a subset of intelligence, and books are a subset of information.
In the case of DNA it is equally valid to say that:
"UNKNOWN DESIGNER CREATED DNA"
and to say that:
"INTELLIGENCE CREATED DNA"
Because we know that an unknown designer is a subset of intellignece, and DNA is a subset of information.
quote:
So is a bird's nest.
Exactly. That is why a bird is the designer.
quote:
Yes we do.
Why?
quote:
Of course we do, mankind.
No. That is not an identity. That is a generalization. Mankind is not an identity. The name of the individual who made the stone is the identity. Saying intelligence made the Rosetta stone is the same generalization only on an even more broader level.
quote:
At least, all evidence points to that.
No. No evidence points to it. You are simply assuming it.
quote:
know it? No. Infer it from all the available evidence? Yes.
What evidence?
quote:
Then by extension, you can't say DNA is either. Thank you for disproving your own point.
I'm trying to show you how wrong your argument is. I only said that to show you that it's invalid. Obviously I do not agree with that reasoning.
quote:
If we know it is designed, yes. Do we know this? No.
That is why we have the method of design detection which tells us if it is designed or not.
quote:
We don't even know that. For by your own admission, information (the rosetta stone) can be created by unintelligent things (my hippo).
Philosophically speaking yes. But scientifically no. Therefore, Rosetta stone could not have been made by your hippo. It's are reasonable as saying that your hippo made all life on Earth.
quote:
No, but we infer it from the evidence.
What evidence?
quote:
I infer it was human, untill more evidence contradicting that is presented.
Infer based on what?
quote:
Just like I infer DNA is natural until evidence to the contrary is presented.
But no natural law has created anything like DNA, so why would you infer DNA was a natural product?
quote:
But you know the characteristics of the individual. You know absolutely nothing about your desigenr, if he even exists at all.
Tell em the characteristics of the person or persons who made the Rosetta stone. Was it a male or a female?
quote:
Ignoring evidence, and adding unnecesary things in the process.
No. You are wrong twice in the same statement.
I'm ignoring no evidence. Since there is no evidence that DNA can form naturally. And you do not understand the difference between ADDING ENTETIES and GENERALIZATION. You obviously do not know the differnece.
By sayign that an intellignece did something, I'm adding nothing new to the explanation. I'm generalizing becasue intelligence is not something new to a human. Human is a subset of an intelligent agent.
A lot of possible intelligent agents exist. Humans are just one possible candidate for an explanation. I'm actually reducing my chances of being wrong. Becasue you actually can be wrong in the case of the Rosetta stone being done by humans. Maybe it was a trained moneky. By saying that an intelligence did it I am reducing my chances of being wrong becasue a monkey is a subset of intelligent causes. Therefore if a trained monkey designed the Rosetta stone, you would be wrong, and I would be correct.
quote:
I infer from the evidence the characteristics he would have had.
Great. Tell me was he/she/it talkative? Was he/she/it tall? Was he/she/it blonde?
quote:
It is a set of chracteristics.
Yes, but it's still not an identity. It's a generalization. A subset of intellignet causes. So sayign that an intellignece did it is equally valid. It's more general with less chances of being wrong.
quote:
That's not the same thing.
Why is it not the same thing? Do you not agree that the explanation only differens in the level of generalization?
quote:
You ignore evidence.
What evidence?
quote:
Not all mureder cases are solved, you know. It all depends on the available evidence. Same with the stone. All evidence points to a human origin.
Besides the point. The point is that saying that it was human is not the identity. It would not pass in the court of law.
quote:
Now wth DNA absolutely nothing points to an unnatural cause.
Heh, well, you see, you are actually the one who is ignoring evidence. DNA is full of CSI. And CSI is the mark of intellignece. So yes, DNA does point to an intellignet cause.
quote:
No it doesn't.
Of course it has. DNA is an instance of CSI. For an example. human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. Which is about 6 billion bits. It's complexity surpasses 10^120. This number is needed for a random chance to specify 400 bits of information. Anything that is above 400 bits is outside of the reach of our entire universe. Not only that but it is specified in that it conforms to an independently given pattern. Therefore, it's a case of specified complexity, or short - CSI. Which is a reliable indicator of design.
quote:
Circular reasoning. You want it to be designed, therfore say it is, and then say it requires a designer.
It' snot circular, and I do not "want" it to be designed. I'm simply saying that if we find soemthing that is designed, that simply means that there was a designer.
quote:
And again you disprove yourself. If this is true for me, then the same is true for you.
No, I do not agree with that reasoning, I'm simply showing you how moronic the argument is.
quote:
We have clues pointing us in the direction of natural causes.
Show me that evidence.
quote:
While we have no evidence pointing in any other direction.
Yup, we do. CSI is a reliable mark of intellignece. DNA is CSI.
quote:
Then you have to know it is designed, something you already admitted you do not.
We infer design.
quote:
And in fact, you admitted things that appear designed (the rosetta stone) can be created wothout any design in mind (my hippo).
Philosophically yes, scientifically no.
quote:
You need to know characteristics of the designer though. Which you admittedly don't know anything about.
Why would I need to know the characteristics of the designer?
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2009 8:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 12-19-2009 8:51 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 12-20-2009 5:52 AM Smooth Operator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 141 of 1273 (539724)
12-19-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
The only problem is that it is the most important thing. The enzymatic activity obviously depends on the structure of enzymes.
It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !
quote:
Agaon, wrong. Growth has nothing to do with it. There is an X number of genes needed for ANY single trait on any single living organism. They all grow. Growth has nothing to do with reducing complexity, the information is still there, before, and after the growth.
Unfortunately for you, YOUR measure of complexity CAN be increaded by the processes of growth. That's why Dembski didn't use it in the TDI.
quote:
Human eye is coded by X number of genes before and after it has grown. The amount of information is always the same.
That would be true if we used Dembski's methods as published in TDI. But you say that's wrong and we should use a method which allows the eye to have more of your "information" than the genes.
quote:
Wrong, it's irrelevant. We are not interested at how it works. It's irrelevant to us. Every single body part on the human body grows, so what?
So Dembski's measure of information isn't relevant ? Why not ?
We are supposedly discussing Dembski's methods here.
quote:
It is irrelevant how it is formed. The flgellum forming by random chance, or bacteria growing it has the same problem of accounting for the information contained in 50 proteins. We need to account for where the information in those 50 proteins came from. Regardles of how a flagellum comes about.
That's not even in agreement with NFL ! NFL includes the arrangement of the proteins as part of the calculation.
quote:
Flagellum's specification is defined as: "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", and it consists of 50 proteins. Any other flagellum that does not match this pattern or complexity is irrelevant to us, becasue than we would be dealing with another case of CSI.
So your claim is based on the assumption that E Coli is the ONLY bacterium with a "bi-directional rotary propellor" ? And that this must contain 50 proteins even though we know that only 49 are needed for function ? I think that your assertion has some problems. At the least you have to look at other flagella to see if they meet the specification or not !
quote:
What are you talking about? TDI defines the design inference process the same way as in NFL.
So your ideas about how to calculate the complexity DON'T come from NFL and are in direct contradiction to NFL ? Because they completely disagree with TDI !
quote:
Yes, and that's how it's explained in NFL too.
So in fact you KNOW that your complexity calculation is completely wrong and liable to result in a false positive. Because - as you have just stated - NFL tells you as much,
quote:
You are simply saying it! Show me the evidence that it actually works.
The easiest way to do it yourself. Implement a simple well-behaved landscape and see how well a simple hill-climbing algorithm does at finding the peaks. Then try it with a completely random landscape.
quote:
Yes it is problem in general! Why wouldn't it be? Why are human genomes special? What you are basicly saying is that ONLY tested animal experience genetic entropy, and ALL OTHERS do not! Explain why ALL OTHER animals have special genomes that do not deteriorate.
Likely because humans are using technology to counter the disadvantages of a lot of minor genetic problems.
quote:
What the hell does "small" mean anyway? Something that is small is small in relation to something larger than itself and large in relation to something smaller than itself.
Perhaps you should actually try reading the paper to find out what it means by "small" ?
quote:
The point of the papaer is that smaller populations will experience genetic entropy faster than larger ones. And that goes for ALL species. Are you saying that the scientists should ahve tested ALL species on the face of the Earth before you would be convinced that all genomes are deteriorating?
No, I'm saying that since you disagree with the whole theory (while citing a paper that supports the theory) YOU should provide the evidence.
quote:
Didn't you just read what I wrote? Do you simply type in whatever pops into your mind!? Do you understand English language?
NATURAL SELECTION CAN'T HELP YOU!!!
I can say it because it's true. Even if you disagree.
quote:
Natural selection selects between MORE AND LESS MUTATED! It doesn't select between mutated and non-mutated. Do you understand what that means? It means that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on teh palnet is a mutant and has both deleterious and beneficial mutations. So when sellection occures, those that get selected still pass on their deleterious mutations and this is the cause of accumulation of deleterious mutation in populations!
Wrong! Natural selection selects between more and less fit. Those that have deleterious mutations will be less fit (by definition) and thus less likely to pass on their genes. Proportionately deleterious mutations will tend to do less well and beneficial mutations will do better.
quote:
What exactly did I misunderstand?
That the problem is in using the data that you wish to apply Dembski's method to, to generate the specification. Using other data is fine.
quote:
No need to because you are making no sense.
It makes perfect sence if you understand. But you obviously can't be bothered.
quote:
And which method would that be?
Dembski's CSI of course. The method that we are supposedly discussing.
quote:
And I told you that that is not what I meant.
But since you are busy contradicting yourself that doesn't mean much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 4:47 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 3:11 PM PaulK has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 142 of 1273 (539732)
12-19-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 6:58 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Hi Smooth,
Your diagram assumes the point it is trying to make. For example, by putting DNA on the right hand side it assumes that DNA is the product of intelligence. Here's a more useful diagram showing some sources and examples of information:
Anything in reality can be a source of information for us, as long as it can in some way be made apparent to our senses.
The central claim of ID is that only intelligence can create information, but this is incorrect. All of reality is creating information all the time, and what humans often do is record that information. For example, if you're keeping a weather log and looking out your window write down that it is sunny, you didn't create the information that it is sunny. You merely transformed the information from one form (the sun shining in the sky) to another (written words on paper).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:58 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 3:18 PM Percy has replied

Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 143 of 1273 (539733)
12-19-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 4:54 AM


Re: Design of the Rosetta Stone
quote:
The generalization that it took intelligence to create the stone is true, but you can only stop there by willfully ignoring the remaining evidence that tells us humans created the Rosetta Stone.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm merely saying that it's an assumptions that humans made it. Because it could ahve been a trained monkey that chiseled that stone. We only assume humans did it. Yes, it's the best possible inference, but I just want to point out that when we are dealing with a design inference we can not reliably say who did it.
So if the idea that humans made the Rosetta Stone is the best possible inference, then why are you harping on other inferences? If you can ignore evidence in front of you then all things are possible; which is precisely what you are doing. If you think that aliens and monkeys made the Rosetta Stone then go find some evidence...likewise, if you think Bog in his heaven poofed DNA into being then find some evidence. Ignoring the evidence that exists is just willful ignorance. Failing to take inferences as far as evidence allows makes baby Sherlock Holmes cry.
True, which makes it the best possible explanation for the Rosetta Stone to be a human product. But that still does not exclude a trained monkey or an alien as possible designers of that stone. Unlike the natural forces which we excluded fromt he start and called that rock designed in the first place.
Here's a clue for you: stone carving monkeys and aliens are natural forces that can be expected to leave evidence of their presence. Unfortunately when the archeologists dig they don't find monkeys and alien stone-carving lasers. Likewise when researchers look at origin of life issues they have yet to see any evidence of the guy in the sky or a miraculous event.
Yes, but I said, to infer design, you do not need to know the identity of the designer.
In the absence of supporting evidence an inference is nothing but a WAG. The trouble is that we do have evidence to support human origins of the Rosetta Stone inscriptions and evidence supporting natural origins of life. To infer design we need knowledge of the designer, without it we are only making up stories to tell the other goat herders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 4:54 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 3:23 PM Tanndarr has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 144 of 1273 (539739)
12-19-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 6:07 PM


Re: Aquaporins
Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell?
you really think that those working in abiogenesis suggest that the first "cells" came ready prepared with advanced "machinery" such as aquaporins??? No wonder you have no ability to understand how abiogenesis could be naturalistic. The first cell membranes would have been permeable to small molecules, impermeable to large molecules. That is all. Do I really need to explain how this could be possible?
This is as basic and confused as creationists asking for evolution to show new limbs appearing in a generation, completely failing to appreciate that the terapodal bodyplan hasn't significantly changed in 400 million years

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 6:07 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 10:36 AM cavediver has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 145 of 1273 (539750)
12-19-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by PaulK
12-19-2009 6:06 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !
Than what is?
quote:
Unfortunately for you, YOUR measure of complexity CAN be increaded by the processes of growth. That's why Dembski didn't use it in the TDI.
No it can't. That's why I said that's not important. the flagellum is coded for by a number of genes, regardless of how it is assembled.
quote:
That would be true if we used Dembski's methods as published in TDI.
And we are using those methods. Which others do you think we are using?
quote:
But you say that's wrong
No, I never in my life said that's wrong. Where the hell did I say it's wrong!? Cite me the part where I said that CSI defined in TDI is wrong!
quote:
and we should use a method which allows the eye to have more of your "information" than the genes.
What? What the hell are you talking about? What is this my "information" you are talking about? You are making absolutely no sense. I already told you the amount of information stays the same.
quote:
So Dembski's measure of information isn't relevant ? Why not ?
We are supposedly discussing Dembski's methods here.
Dembski's method is correct and relevat. It is your argument from growth that is irrelevant.
quote:
That's not even in agreement with NFL ! NFL includes the arrangement of the proteins as part of the calculation.
What's your point?
quote:
So your claim is based on the assumption that E Coli is the ONLY bacterium with a "bi-directional rotary propellor" ? And that this must contain 50 proteins even though we know that only 49 are needed for function ? I think that your assertion has some problems. At the least you have to look at other flagella to see if they meet the specification or not !
No. I gave the possibility of 20% change, which means 20% of increase in probability of the flagellum forming.
quote:
So your ideas about how to calculate the complexity DON'T come from NFL and are in direct contradiction to NFL ? Because they completely disagree with TDI !
LOL! Show me one statement in NFL that contradicts any statement in TDI.
quote:
So in fact you KNOW that your complexity calculation is completely wrong and liable to result in a false positive. Because - as you have just stated - NFL tells you as much,
No.
quote:
The easiest way to do it yourself. Implement a simple well-behaved landscape and see how well a simple hill-climbing algorithm does at finding the peaks. Then try it with a completely random landscape.
No, that would be a designed algorithm. Evolution is supposed to be non-designed.
quote:
Likely because humans are using technology to counter the disadvantages of a lot of minor genetic problems.
LOOOLOOOOL!
I can't believe you said that!!! That just means that natural selection is USELESS!!! And that we need INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION to remove the deleterious mutations from our genomes.
quote:
Perhaps you should actually try reading the paper to find out what it means by "small" ?
Why don't you tell me since you seem to be so smart.
quote:
No, I'm saying that since you disagree with the whole theory (while citing a paper that supports the theory) YOU should provide the evidence.
What drugs are you using? I'm the one who gave you the link to that paper. You are the one who is disagreeing witht he paper not me!
quote:
I can say it because it's true. Even if you disagree.
But you have no evidence for it. Unlike what I showed you. I showed you a paper that has actually done experiments and has shown genetic entropy to casue extinction.
quote:
Wrong! Natural selection selects between more and less fit. Those that have deleterious mutations will be less fit (by definition) and thus less likely to pass on their genes. Proportionately deleterious mutations will tend to do less well and beneficial mutations will do better.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS!!!! Which part of ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS do you have hard time of understanding!?
Those who are less fit have MORE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!
Those who are "fit" ALSO HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!!
ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!! And even if you select the fit ones, their deleterious mutations keep spreading through the population.
quote:
That the problem is in using the data that you wish to apply Dembski's method to, to generate the specification. Using other data is fine.
This isn't even English!? What's your first language?
quote:
Dembski's CSI of course. The method that we are supposedly discussing.
CSI is not a method it's a definition of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2009 6:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2009 4:02 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 4:03 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 146 of 1273 (539751)
12-19-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
12-19-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Hi Smooth,
Your diagram assumes the point it is trying to make. For example, by putting DNA on the right hand side it assumes that DNA is the product of intelligence.
Hi, no it doesn't. DNA is designed becasue of the marks of design it exhibits, not becasue I say so.
quote:
Here's a more useful diagram showing some sources and examples of information:
This is is a nice diagram and it represents very well Shannon information and it's possible origin. But keep in mind that when I say "information" I mean CSI, which can't be produced by a natural casue. And since DNA exhibits CSI it can only be produced by an intelligence. All those instances of design I showed in my example are examples of CSI and not just Shannon information.
quote:
Anything in reality can be a source of information for us, as long as it can in some way be made apparent to our senses.
The central claim of ID is that only intelligence can create information, but this is incorrect. All of reality is creating information all the time, and what humans often do is record that information. For example, if you're keeping a weather log and looking out your window write down that it is sunny, you didn't create the information that it is sunny. You merely transformed the information from one form (the sun shining in the sky) to another (written words on paper).
That's true for Shannon information only. CSI's source can only be intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 12-19-2009 8:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 12-19-2009 9:11 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 3:51 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 147 of 1273 (539752)
12-19-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Tanndarr
12-19-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Design of the Rosetta Stone
quote:
So if the idea that humans made the Rosetta Stone is the best possible inference, then why are you harping on other inferences? If you can ignore evidence in front of you then all things are possible; which is precisely what you are doing. If you think that aliens and monkeys made the Rosetta Stone then go find some evidence...likewise, if you think Bog in his heaven poofed DNA into being then find some evidence. Ignoring the evidence that exists is just willful ignorance. Failing to take inferences as far as evidence allows makes baby Sherlock Holmes cry.
What evidence am I ignoring?
quote:
Here's a clue for you: stone carving monkeys and aliens are natural forces that can be expected to leave evidence of their presence. Unfortunately when the archeologists dig they don't find monkeys and alien stone-carving lasers. Likewise when researchers look at origin of life issues they have yet to see any evidence of the guy in the sky or a miraculous event.
Monkies and aliens are not natural casues. Natural causes are by definition non-teleological. Since both aliens and monkies are intelligent, they are not a natural cause.
quote:
In the absence of supporting evidence an inference is nothing but a WAG.
We do have a reason to infer design for both Rosetta stone and DNA.
quote:
The trouble is that we do have evidence to support human origins of the Rosetta Stone inscriptions and evidence supporting natural origins of life.
Show me that evidence that supports natural origin of life.
quote:
To infer design we need knowledge of the designer, without it we are only making up stories to tell the other goat herders.
Explain why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Tanndarr, posted 12-19-2009 9:18 AM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tanndarr, posted 12-19-2009 9:23 PM Smooth Operator has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 148 of 1273 (539754)
12-19-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Smooth Operator
12-19-2009 3:11 PM


l
quote:
Than what is?
I would think that the structural elements are rather important.
quote:
No it can't. That's why I said that's not important. the flagellum is coded for by a number of genes, regardless of how it is assembled.
And the information content of the genes depends on how THEY formed.
quote:
And we are using those methods. Which others do you think we are using?
I know that you AREN'T following the method of TDI. Your "complexity" calculation has no basis in TDI whatsoever.
quote:
No, I never in my life said that's wrong. Where the hell did I say it's wrong!? Cite me the part where I said that CSI defined in TDI is wrong!
Then why do you keep insisting on using a "complexity" calculation that is NOT accepted by TDI ?
quote:
What? What the hell are you talking about? What is this my "information" you are talking about? You are making absolutely no sense. I already told you the amount of information stays the same.
The way you measure information it DOESN'T necessarily stay the same.
quote:
Dembski's method is correct and relevat. It is your argument from growth that is irrelevant.
You're contradicting yourself again. The fact that flagella grow IS relevant to Dembski's method (since it controls the configuration of the proteins). Ignoring it is going AGAINST Dembski's method.
quote:
What's your point?
My point is that appealing to Dembski does you no good if you keep disagreeing with him all over the place.
quote:
No. I gave the possibility of 20% change, which means 20% of increase in probability of the flagellum forming.
So your ACTUAL specification is "no more than 20% different than the E Coli flagelum" which is an obvious fabrication.
quote:
LOL! Show me one statement in NFL that contradicts any statement in TDI.
I said that YOUR statements disagreed with TDI. I leave it to you to say whether they come from NFL.
quote:
No.
Does NFL agree with TDI or not ? Because neither your use of specification or complexity calculation are sanctioned by TDI.
quote:
No, that would be a designed algorithm. Evolution is supposed to be non-designed.
Actually it is very like a simple hill-climbing algorithm. And we all know that simple things can occur naturally.
quote:
LOOOLOOOOL!
I can't believe you said that!!! That just means that natural selection is USELESS!!! And that we need INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION to remove the deleterious mutations from our genomes.
No. If you actually understood what I said you would realise that STOPPING the intelligent intervention that is reducing the effectiveness of natural selection would be enough.
quote:
Why don't you tell me since you seem to be so smart.
Because I'm not going to do you work for you. Especially since you have such difficulty understanding what I say.
quote:
What drugs are you using? I'm the one who gave you the link to that paper. You are the one who is disagreeing witht he paper not me!
The problem is that I'm not disagreeing with the paper at all.
quote:
But you have no evidence for it. Unlike what I showed you. I showed you a paper that has actually done experiments and has shown genetic entropy to casue extinction.
A paper that specifically says that it is working with small populations....
quote:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS!!!! Which part of ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS do you have hard time of understanding!?
Those who are less fit have MORE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!
Those who are "fit" ALSO HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!!
ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!! And even if you select the fit ones, their deleterious mutations keep spreading through the population.
And you are ignoring recombination. As well as the fact that life seems to keep on going withot succumbing to genetic entropy.
quote:
This isn't even English!? What's your first language?
I think that you mean that it is above your reading grade, since there is nothing wrong with it. Is English YOUR first language ?
quote:
CSI is not a method it's a definition of information.
It is certainly not a definition of information !
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 3:11 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 149 of 1273 (539764)
12-19-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by PaulK
12-19-2009 4:02 PM


Re: l
quote:
I would think that the structural elements are rather important.
Structural elements are the proteins which function by the laws of biochemistry. When the structure of proteins gets changed enough their biochemical properties change too. Which leads to loss of biological functions. Which is what Axe's work shows.
quote:
And the information content of the genes depends on how THEY formed.
Obviously it doesn't. If by chance a word "HOUSE" was formed by droping of ink on a piece of paper, would it's informational content been any different than if the exact same word was written by a person? No obviously not.
quote:
I know that you AREN'T following the method of TDI. Your "complexity" calculation has no basis in TDI whatsoever.
Than tell em how do we calculate the complexity of an object according to TDI.
quote:
Then why do you keep insisting on using a "complexity" calculation that is NOT accepted by TDI ?
But that is simply not true. You just keep saying it.
quote:
The way you measure information it DOESN'T necessarily stay the same.
How does it change? Give me an example.
quote:
You're contradicting yourself again. The fact that flagella grow IS relevant to Dembski's method (since it controls the configuration of the proteins). Ignoring it is going AGAINST Dembski's method.
No becasue the final flagellum is always in the same configuration regardless of if it has grown or assembled in any other way.
quote:
My point is that appealing to Dembski does you no good if you keep disagreeing with him all over the place.
Explain how exactly am I disagreeing with him.
quote:
So your ACTUAL specification is "no more than 20% different than the E Coli flagelum" which is an obvious fabrication.
It's an estimate based on Axe's work.
quote:
I said that YOUR statements disagreed with TDI. I leave it to you to say whether they come from NFL.
Cite me a statement rom TDI that I have contradicted.
quote:
Does NFL agree with TDI or not ? Because neither your use of specification or complexity calculation are sanctioned by TDI.
Of course it does.
quote:
Actually it is very like a simple hill-climbing algorithm. And we all know that simple things can occur naturally.
Yes. Unlikey living organisms which are not simple.
quote:
No. If you actually understood what I said you would realise that STOPPING the intelligent intervention that is reducing the effectiveness of natural selection would be enough.
Enough for what? Your English is terrible.
quote:
Because I'm not going to do you work for you. Especially since you have such difficulty understanding what I say.
Becasue your version of English is not supported by my web browser.
quote:
The problem is that I'm not disagreeing with the paper at all.
Yes, you are. You said that genetic entropy is not a problem for "large" populations.
quote:
A paper that specifically says that it is working with small populations....
NO. It says that it applies to ALL populations. But smaller populations will experince genetic entropy sooner than larger ones.
quote:
And you are ignoring recombination.
RECOMBINATION IS JUST SHUFFLING OF ALREADY EXISTING GENES!!!! It doesn't even remove the deleterious ones. It just puts them on another spot in the genome. They still stay where they were.
quote:
As well as the fact that life seems to keep on going withot succumbing to genetic entropy.
Only if we ignore the papers that I showed you which show that populations can die-out because of genetic entropy.
quote:
I think that you mean that it is above your reading grade, since there is nothing wrong with it. Is English YOUR first language ?
No, it's not and I never had anyone complain about it. Unlike your English which is unintelligible.
quote:
It is certainly not a definition of information !
LOL! YES IT IS!
The full name Is: "Complex Specified Information"! Yes it's a definition of information! Why the hell are you debating me when you are so clueless about the topic!? You don't even know what you're attacking!
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2009 4:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 4:00 AM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2009 5:12 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 150 of 1273 (539776)
12-19-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Smooth Operator
12-19-2009 3:18 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Hi Smooth Operator,
The concept of CSI is made up. It has no units or method of measure, and the degree to which anything, including DNA, possesses this imaginary quality cannot be determined.
Someone could as easily make up the concept of NSC (Naturally Sourced Complexity) and claim that DNA is natural because of the degree to which it exhibits NSC. Like CSI, NSC has no units or method of measure, but it does have one thing CSI doesn't, a method by which it comes about: through the physical laws of nature which we've observed and know exist, in marked contrast to your designer.
That's the problem with entities like your designer - it's just not possible to tell the difference between the imaginary and something that's never been seen or detected.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-19-2009 3:18 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-20-2009 7:10 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024