What exactly is ID?

With the exception of humans in the last few hundred years, can you name some examples of a species where MOST of their offspring survive to reproduce?You can't.That's because if any species REGULARLY had MOST of their offspring survive to reproduce, they would exponentially expand their population and over take the world.The idea that "on average" more bad mutations happen than good implies that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of a population survives to reproduce EVERY TIME and therefore EVERY MUTATION is passed on.That's NOT reality.In REALITY (you should join us here) things DIE before they reproduce.In REALITY if you have a bad mutation, chances are you aren't going to survive and therefore WON'T pass on that mutation.In REALITY if you have a good mutation, chances are you ARE going to survive and therefore WILL pass on that mutation.The AVERAGE of how many of each time of mutation occurs AT BIRTH is completely worthless if not ALL members are passing on their genes.

I.e. beneficial ones. So if increase in genetic entropy can go hand in hand with adaptive evolution, then your claim that genetic entropy increases is not an argument against evolution, is it?The claim of biologists is that evolution takes place, not that there is a net decrease in some mystical property known as "genetic entropy" that some guy on some internet forum keeps failing to define. You figured out how to measure "genetic information yet? So crappy that it prevents its carriers from dying of malaria.Yeah, that's how crappy it is. But this is only true of small populations, as we know.

quote:

---

Yes, we do know that. It was a Beta-Lactamase enzyme. It was the only function it had.

---

No, you don't know that. Was it tested for other functions ?

quote:

---

Please do tell me what is the difference in meaning between our two statements.

---

You stated that the pattern was satisfied by 50 proteins. This is not true. You could have a molecule of each of those 50 proteins and still not satisfy the pattern - or even come close to it. What is the case is that there is at least one structure built from molecules of those 50 different proteins which satisfies the pattern. And this latter is what I brought your attention to.

quote:

---

And what will tehy be used for? Making coffee? Baking a cake, or detecting design!?

---

If you bothered to read on you would have seen that they were used to express the conditions that a valid specification must meet. And knowing what those letters refer to is essential to understanding those conditions.

quote:

---

I dont' think we have, please tell me what it is.

---

Can you tell me then, what your objection to using "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" as the specification ? I've raised none, so if there is a disagreement you must be the one objecting to your own suggestion.

quote:

---

Basicly you don't know what you're talking about. You simply don't accept my numbers and that's that.

---

No, basically I don't want to waste my time working on something that is not my job - and is a complete waste of time anyway. I have already produced an example which demonstrates the problem. Which is far more than you have managed.

quote:

---

The statement I quoted shows I was right. Now you show me where in the Caputo case example, has Dembski said anything that would support your claim. It clerly says that it is estimating the probability of teh event E, not of the specification. Where is the quote anywhere in TDI that says otherwise. I'm waiting.

---

The only thing your quote proves is that it is a definition of a term and not part of a step by step method of detecting design !Obviously you didn't bother to read about the Caputo case as I advised, since you would have found statements like: All three from page 165 which I specifically advised you to read.

quote:

---

Fine. Explain where he went wrong.

---

The big one is failing to calculate D* - the probability of the specification being met.

quote:

---

The designer inputed the original information. The mechanisms are just expressing at transmiting it.

---

We haven't seen that happen either.

quote:

---

When did I say they don't do anything? They input the original design, and than natural laws modify that information.

---

You argued that there was an analogue of the growth process - an automatic process with no active intervention by the designer for EVERY possible event. This leaves no way to for the designer to do anything - even input information.

quote:

---

No, becasue by your logic, the person holding the pen isn't doing the designing, the pen is!

---

No, that's YOUR assertion not mine. I've never said anything of the sort. In my logic the motions of the pen are essential and they can not be explained in terms of a purely automatic process like the growth of the flagellum. You are the one who claims otherwise.

quote:

---

Handwritten documents were done by a pen, and Mount Rushmore was done by a hammer and chisel.

---

So you assert that pens and hammers and chisel are automated devices which operate themselves with no sign of intelligent control. Sorry, I don't believe it.

quote:

---

Your point is what again? Look, it doesn't matter. Bot mutations happened, and they didn't go away. They constantly get selected FOR, not AGAINST.

---

Actually you are wrong, at least with regard to sickle-cell. Sickle-cell is selected against every time the frequency goes above the optimum for that region. It's in a dynamic equilibrium (a term you might recognise from previous discussion) rather than spreading uncontrollably.

quote:

---

I DO NOT CARE!!!!!

---

Obviously you do not care for facts which undermine your argument. The point is that sickle-cell is hardly an unqualified beneficial mutation and thus a poor example for your assertion that beneficial mutations almost all result in reduced function.

quote:

---

Soemthing that will confer slight reproductive advantage like sickle cell, will be favored by natural selection! And we both know that sickle cell is a crappy mutation which reduces the biological function of red blood cells. So yeah, that just means that natural selection sucks, and ill keep accumulating mutations like the sickle cell.

---

But it doesn't show that at all. The fact that sickle-cell is kept in equilibrium indicates that natural selection is rather more efficient than you give it credit for.

quote:

---

On the contrary, it has everything to do with genetic entropy. It shows that even beneficial mutations cause geentic entropy. Not all mutations are always beneficial. Not all mutations are always deleterious. It all depends on the environment. And teh fact remains that natural selection will under certain circumstances select those mutations that destroy genetic information, thus leading to genetic entropy.

---

Remember that genetic entropy is supposed to drive a population to extinction. But sickle-cell is helping maintain the population in the areas where it is beneficial - and natural selection is doing a fine job of preventing it from spreading out of control. That doesn't sound at all like genetic entropy to me.

quote:

---

You clearly quoted me where I said ALMOST all. Not ALL of them. Which means that even beneficial do, but not ALL.

---

"Pretty much all of them" isn't ALL of them either. So we have established that I correctly represented your position. And your evidence consists of two examples, at least one of which is quite unusual.

quote:

---

How many do you want? A million examples? A trillion examples? An infinity of examples? What will it take to convince you?

---

The scientific way would be to either produce an argument demonstrating the point, which does not rely on examples or to do a controlled survey of mutations (taking care to make sure the selection criteria do not bias the result), taking in a statistically significant selection of mutations. Producing two examples - at least one obviously cherry-picked is far from adequate.

quote:

---

In theory yes, in the real world no. Sorry, life is not a theroy. We are not living in a theory, but in the real world.

---

You seem to have the real world and your theory confused. In the real world, beneficial mutations have to actually be beneficial. If your theory can't even accept that, then your theory is in trouble.

quote:

---

I neevr said that they CAN NOT do that. Yes they can! Hello? Are you even listening to what I'm saying? Yes, beneficial mutations can do that. But on average, they won't. And that's what matters. What they'll do on average. They will not, offset deleterious mutations, and repair the genetic damage.

---

This is all just assertion. Beneficial mutations must at least partially offset the effects of deleterious mutations, and we can tell that just from the definitions.

quote:

---

And on average, genetic entropy increases, not decreases.

---

Indeed that is your assertion, but all through the many posts of our conversation you have yet to produce the evidence which shows that to be true.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

If you really don't know anything about Lenski's experiments, I suggest that you read up on them before discussing them further. That is a peculiar use of the word "we". You will find that most people posting on this thread do not share your bizarre confusion about how evolution works. Well, thanks for daydreaming up another evolutionary mechanism, but we've already got plenty, and they actually exist. Whereas you have, of course, no evidence for the existence of this imaginary mechanism, let alone for your claim that it performed this impossible Lamarckian feat.Does your fantasy include an explanation for why this imaginary mechanism took so long to kick in, and why it did so in only one of twelve clonal lines, or are your daydreams not that elaborate?Incidentally, this mechanism whereof you speak ... is it intelligent or unintelligent?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the real world genetic entropy has been shown to be a failed hypothesis.If 3.5 billion years is not enough time for life to be "entropied" out of existence then perhaps this entropy doesn't even exist in the real world, eh?You keep making the same unfounded assertions, with no evidence to back them up, and I keep posting this one inconvenient fact--which you ignore.Don't you think you should address the issue that has sunk your Titanic rather than arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I would say that it is based more on the most logical conclusion than on a prediction...wouldn't you? We make any and all conclusions base on already existing human experiences. We know the temperature that water needs to be below to freeze, by previously observing that temperature over and over. And we can spout off its boiling point. We can put together a pretty accurate model of where stars and planets will be at certain times and dates in the future based on previous human observation. We developed the theory of gravity based on observation of its effects on objects. The most logical conclusions are always the one's that are based on the most observed events. When I hold a book out in front of me and release it I don't expect it to float away into the sky because I have observed earths gravitational pull, pull things down all of my life. Therefore the most logical conclusion would be that the book was going to fall down.Likewise in all of our human experience, no one has ever observed anything with complex, specific, information, form by random processes, but it always requires an intelligent source. So the most logical conclusion, when csi is observed, is not that it was formed by some random process but rather that it likewise required an intelligent source. ID proponents don't care if you are not comfortable with the ramifications of this fact. We merely think that the most logical conclusion is the most likely conclusion.

Its 'specified', not 'specific'...But csi is a crock. There's nothing scientific about it.There's no method to determine one thing as csi as opposed to another thing that is not. When csi is observed... exactly. It can't be observed because there's no method to determine if it is, in fact, csi or not.

Dr Adequate, I am so sorry that you resorted to this kind of name calling so soon in our conversation. I had been looking forward to a spirited conversation with you. But alas, my policy is to immediately disengage any and all communication with someone when they employ such childish, abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. However you should know that I am very forgiving and a good heart felt apology will make it all go away.

---

I would rather inspire one, than impress a thousand.

Please let moderators handle moderation issues. I already addressed this, please see Message 507.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You are comfortable with the theory of evolution then?The "most logical conclusion" is that the theory of evolution best covers the observed events (facts). This is the conclusion reached by about 99+% of biological scientists and other professionals in the relevant fields.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Likewise, we observe that living creatures are always the product of reproduction with variation, and are never poofed into existence by a mythical invisible godlet. No, of course not. We have, on the other hand, seen things (they're called organisms) with complex, specific, information formed by biological processes, which are, of course, not random. This is indeed the logical conclusion that all biologists have reached. Actually, the magical poofing thing is neither logical nor likely.The logical conclusion from seeing that all organisms are produced by natural processes is that all organisms are produced by natural processes.But some people find this concept remarkably hard to grasp.

If you find my points unanswerable, you are of course under no obligation to try to answer them.The particular point to which you are objecting (but not, I note, answering) is particularly unanswerable --- that if creationists pretend that the alternative to design is "purely random processes", then they are at best profoundly ignorant of biology, and at worst deliberately deceitful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Again it depends on what meaning you pour into the term "evolution." I am sure that you agree that those 99+ scientists (I question it being that high) all start with the assumption that only natural causes can account for biological life. I remember hearing about a murder in a rural county where a sheriff's wife was found stabbed to death. In most murder cases like this the husband is always one of the main suspects. However all of the investigating deputies in this case started with the notion that no matter what, their boss was not the killer. Therefore they eliminated one of the chief suspects before the investigation even started, and greatly skewing the outcome. So when you say that 99+ scientists conclude evolution (ie naturalism) to be the only explanation for biological life, I can't help but wonder if science is really best served by majority rules?

If you are going to debate scientists it would help a great deal if you used scientific terms correctly. The meaning of the term "evolution" is very clear--to scientists--and it does not include origins of life.Evolution is change in the genome, which over time adds up, and one of the results we see is speciation. That's why Darwin titled his book, The Origin of Species rather than The Origin of Life.This mistake on your part renders the rest of your post moot.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Of course not, it's academic acceptance that is quantified by majority. Every working scientist is out there trying to investigate something that the majority doesn't follow yet and/or disprove something believed to be true. This is how the scientific method works.But if you want to do it, you have to do it with hypotheses, predictions, experiments, and replicable results. Rhetoric won't cut it. Sure, this or that looks wonky, so? Someone is hammering away at those rough edges as hard as they can, hoping for the Nobel prize or at least some good publication. If evolution is so wrong, there must be a million parts of it that are wrong. Pick out any one of them, form a new hypothesis, make a prediction based on the hypothesis, do some experiments until you are confident in your results, publish and wait while others replicate them, rinse and repeat.The ID people aren't doing that. They, like you, are whining about naturalism and materialism and the morale of society like this was a pep rally instead of the science club. Weren't you saying somewhere that you could quantify genetic information? If so, please do it here, we need it bad in this thread. All our IDists are flat-earthers and Jedi disciples and such thus far, someone who could do real information theory would be an excellent addition to the topic.