Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 706 of 1273 (543486)
01-18-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by Smooth Operator
01-18-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Please explain E. coli
This article talks about accumulation of mutations in RNA chains.
Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMC...
This one compare the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations between small and large mammals.
Just a moment...
Interesting articles, thank you. So given that you are presenting these articles as reliable sources, why should we not accept their further information on the differential effects of population size on deleterious mutation accumulation?
(Although, I note, neither of those articles supports your assertion about build up of genetic entropy)
Becasue the size of the population is one of the factors that determines how much mutations will accumulate. If you do not know the initial size, than you also do not know how much mutations will accumulate.
We can still know how many will accumulate in a single genetic line (because E. coli is asexual), that number is at least 7000 - more than one mutation per gene. Why aren't they suffering huge consequences from this problem?
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:31 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:18 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 707 of 1273 (543489)
01-18-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 705 by Smooth Operator
01-18-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Genetic Entropy[quote]On the 649th post of this thread you refer to a link that m
No, it means the accumulations of mutations in a population over time which leads to the reduction in genetic information becasue natural selection is not able to remove them.
But the only deleterious mutations are a problem to the organism and when these are lethal they are weeded out by natural selection.
The increase in 'entropy' in the genes of the organism means more possible combinations/states and thus more variation, not less.
Using the correct definition of entropy as number of states within a system means that genetic entropy is a good thing for variation: increase in entropy; means increase in states; means more variation; means reduced vulnerability to environmental change.
Your 'genetic entropy' is a good thing for fitness of organisms so I'm not really sure what your point is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:33 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:18 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 708 of 1273 (543490)
01-18-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by Smooth Operator
01-18-2010 2:31 PM


Re: l
quote:
That is because it had ONE known function. We will not try to imagine new functions if we are not sure the enzyme has it, now will we? That's unproductive.
Well we're not doing that.
quote:
We know it had ONE function, and it lost that one function, therefore, it lost all functions.
That's illogical. Why can't you just admit that we don't know ?
quote:
But that's besides the point. Even if it had more function, which I wouldn't be surprised it did, that still doesn't refute my point that it lost a known function. Which, I repeat was the point of the experiment. The experiment was to see how many mutations can an enzyme take befroe it loses it's ONE known function.
And nobody has challenged that. So all it means is that you have put a lot of effort into arguing against a fact that you say doesn't matter. Well, why bother ? Why not just accept it and move on ?
quote:
Why would I have to include ALL existing "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers"? That makes no sense. The reason it doesn't make any sense is becasue some patterns that might fit that description could very well be under 400 bits of information. Therefore making our calculation useless in the first place. Why? Becasue we are than not talking about somplex specified information, but simply about specified information, which Dembski said, chance can generate.
So what you are saying is that it makes no sense to follow the method because you think that it might give a result you don't want.
You have to include ALL possible "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers" because all of them fit the specification "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers". Because for a specification D, D* is EVERY possible thing that is delimited by D. That is how it is defined. That is the point of using a specification, to find the specified information. The specification D tells us ONLY that the event is in D*. So the probability of THAT happening is the probability we use for the specified information.
quote:
Therefore, you are wrong. Weare only supposed to include the complexity of the event E, which in this case is the 50 proteins of the flagellum.
As I have already shown it is the probability of D*, not E, that matters - according to Dembski himself. The Design Inference p165.
quote:
Just imagine a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" that has a complexity of 1.000.000.000 bits. You do understand that it has a chance vastly less probable to form by chance than a one consisting of 1.000 bits?
If most of that is unspecified information, it can be ignored. That's the Design Inference - low probability, unspecified results are attributed to chance.
quote:
Like I said, I'm waiting for you to tell me how to do the calculation. I have no reason to stall.
As I said, if you want me to help, you need to give me the details of your original calculation - I need them to help you. Obviously your failure to do so is a mere oversight - since you have no reason to stall. (But don't worry - you still get to do the work).
quote:
Like I said "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is a 4-concept pattern. Every pattern has 10^5 possible patterns. Therefore, the full complexity is 10^20. Now how do we use this? Well simple. We have to show that this pattern is still too improbable to hit by chance. Therefore, we multiply it by 10^120, than with teh complexity of the certain pattern, and that if this number is less than 1/2. Which is true, becasue Dembski says it here.
As I said, Dembski is using a correction factor, based on the number of concepts in the specification. More concepts means using a higher number. (And you will note that your 10^120 figure doesn't show up in either quote. It isn't in the immediate context either.)
quote:
Impossible and useless. We can not go back in time. That's obvious. And it's also useless, because natural causes can only transmit CSI, and not add more of it. So whatever CSI we see in nature, we know that that same amount, or more, was inputted in the first place. Therefore, it's fine to calculate it right there.
I agree that Dembski's method is nearly useless, and practically impossible to apply. That's why nobody bothers to use it. The problem is that what you are calculating isn't the specified information. It's just a useless and irrelevant number.
The fact is that an algorithm or mechanism to generate a result, may be "simpler" (by Dembski's misleading usage) than the result would be if it were generated by pure chance alone.
This is why we don't attribute pulsar signals to design. If we ignored the existence of the pulsar, and only considered pure chance as an explanation for the regular signal pulses we would have to conclude that the regularity of the signal was very unlikely and - inevitably - the sequence of pulses would soon qualify as CSI. If we followed your reasoning we would then conclude that the pulsar had the same "CSI" you calculated and conclude that the signal and the pulsar were designed. But we don't do that. We follow the thinking that I've outlined. We start by working out if the existence of pulsars is likely - and when we decide they are, then that is all we need to attribute the signal to natural causes. The pulsar which produces the signal is "simpler" than the signal would be - if you ignore the existence of the pulsar in calculating the probability of the signal.
quote:
No it's not unusual. That's how natural selection works! It is going to select anything, even those mutations that degrade biological functions if they increase reproductive fitness. That's just how things are.
If it isn't unusual to have a mutation that is strongly beneficial to individuals heterozygous for the allele and very strongly deleterious to those that are homozygous why not produce a few common examples ? Remember to provide evidence that this really is the case.
quote:
No they will not? Why should they be correlated with genetic traits to get passed on?
I don't know. But since your argument doesn't work unless they are, it is only fair to give you the opportunity to make a case for it.
quote:
Therefore, we see here that a non-genetic trait interfeered with positive seletion, and a genetically less fitter individual got selected for by natural selection. This happens all the time in all populations on average with all individuals. Sometimes more, sometimes less ofcourse.
And without the correlation - without a systematic bias - it will go the other way and reinforce selection just as often. That is the point. In a large population, noise averages out. That's statistics for you.
quote:
I'm sorry but no. This is the ultimate question and the ultimate point of Sanfords book. The point is that if the genome keeps deteriorating, and we saw from Spiegelman's experiment that it does just that, that logically could not have evolved in the first place.
Except that it didn't deteriorate. It optimised itself by losing a lot of unnecessary junk. Instead of going into extinction, it was such a great success that it drove it's rivals into extinction. It beat genetic entropy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:31 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:19 PM PaulK has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 709 of 1273 (543515)
01-18-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by Smooth Operator
01-18-2010 2:32 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
He (Dembski) actually always said it's not creationism.
I ALREADY provided you with a quote AND a link to Dembski SPECIFICALLY stating that it's Creationism (including ADAM and EVE).
If you are going to lie, try and do it to someone who hasn't already provided you with the evidence you are denying, you stand a better chance.
I'm not using special pleading, becasue I never claimed that my method only works on creationism.
Fantastic. So, give us an example OTHER THAN the one you are claiming it works for so we can CHECK your methods.
What, APART FROM CREATIONISM, does your claim work for? Remember, you are the one claiming that we don't need to know the mechanism, so please give us an example where the mechanism is unknown.
You can not show me an instance of intelligent design
Funny, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:32 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 6:42 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 757 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 710 of 1273 (543560)
01-19-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by Nuggin
01-18-2010 7:32 PM


Moderator Request
Hi Nuggin,
It would help me out if you could produce the quote again, or at least provide a reference to the message where you quote Dembski equating ID with creationism.
And even with supporting evidence:
If you are going to lie...
Please don't go there.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Nuggin, posted 01-18-2010 7:32 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:16 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 711 of 1273 (543567)
01-19-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 710 by Admin
01-19-2010 6:42 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Admin writes:
Hi Nuggin,
It would help me out if you could produce the quote again, or at least provide a reference to the message where you quote Dembski equating ID with creationism.
He did that in Message 362
Nuggin writes:
Now you're just demonstrating your own ignorance of your side of the debate.
12-24-07
Interview with Dembski.
Here's the link: OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance
Here's the Question and Answer:
quote:
4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
And again in Message 664, where he quotes Dembski (although, without a direct source, perhaps that could be provided.):
Demski writes:
Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 6:42 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:26 AM Huntard has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 712 of 1273 (543572)
01-19-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Huntard
01-19-2010 7:16 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I had already found those two messages. I was looking for Nuggin quoting Dembski equating ID with creationism.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:16 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:29 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 713 of 1273 (543573)
01-19-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:26 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Admin writes:
I had already found those two messages. I was looking for Nuggin quoting Dembski equating ID with creationism.
Isn't that what he's doing when he says: "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
Or am I missing something here?

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 712 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:26 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Huntard has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 714 of 1273 (543576)
01-19-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by Huntard
01-19-2010 7:29 AM


Re: Moderator Request
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
There are many arguments one could offer supporting the view that creationism and ID are largely equivalent, and "Dembski said so" is one of these possible arguments, but the quotes Nuggin offered are not unequivocal and do not support Nuggin's accusation of lying. The quotes should be discussed and analyzed rather than people just declaring what they mean.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 8:03 AM Admin has replied
 Message 717 by Nuggin, posted 01-19-2010 11:19 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 715 of 1273 (543577)
01-19-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I don't know if you want to continue this discussion here, but here goes:
Admin writes:
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
Not all creationists are biblical literalists either. In my opinion saying: "God created/disgned this and that" is creationism. So, if Dembski says that the designer of ID is the christian god, he is saying it is creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 8:37 AM Huntard has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 716 of 1273 (543578)
01-19-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by Huntard
01-19-2010 8:03 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I disagree. SO disagrees. And if you asked Dembski if he ever equated ID with creationism I'm sure he'd disagree, too. Sounds like something worth discussing.
But not with me, unfortunately. I'd rather participate than moderate, but I'm a moderator in this thread for now.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 8:03 AM Huntard has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 717 of 1273 (543586)
01-19-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Request
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
But Dembski clearly is. His 2nd quote states that he believes that Adam and Eve were literal people
Besides, you don't have to use the word "creationism" to conclude that he's a creationist. Dembski thinks the Intelligent Designer *created* life as we know it & he thinks the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.
If that were a connect the dots puzzle it would only have 2 dots and there would already be a line between them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 8:20 AM Nuggin has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 718 of 1273 (543590)
01-19-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by Smooth Operator
01-15-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Nonsensical creationist notions
Exactly. The more time passes, the genetic entropy increases. All populations are getting worse, not better. Because theri biological functions are degrading.
So let me get this straight. Simple unicellular organisms are the acme of evolution while multicellular metazoans are just a degraded version of these unicellular organisms. Is that correct?
No, what this simply means is that evolution doesn't work. I think it's clear to anyone,t hat if evolution requires somehting to be produced for it to work, and if it is observed not to be produced, that we are going to conclude that evolution is not working, and not that it is working.
But we observe evolution occuring and we do not observe what you define as new information. Obviously, evolution does not require this "new information" in order for it to proceed. You have argued your way out of the debate.
How do you know the similar genes are evolved? Aren't you first assuming common descent to be true, to than turn and claim that this is evidence for common descent?
I am assuming nothing. I make a prediction. I predict that if a gene descended from a common ancestor that a phylogenetic comparison should produce a nested hierarchy consistent with the morphological trees. As I have already shown the GFP gene in Glofish causes them to fail this test. We are testing FOR common ancestry, not assuming it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-15-2010 4:15 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:20 PM Taq has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 719 of 1273 (543680)
01-20-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by Nuggin
01-19-2010 11:19 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I'm a moderator, not a participant. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My only point is that there are those who disagree with you and that there's therefore something to discuss.
If you've got your opinion that ID is equivalent to creationism, and if you're not willing to discuss it to the point that someone like SO who disagrees with you is a liar, then since these are discussion threads there's not much more you can contribute on the topic. But if you feel like discussing whether ID is equivalent to creationism then carry on.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Nuggin, posted 01-19-2010 11:19 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by Nuggin, posted 01-20-2010 9:54 AM Admin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 720 of 1273 (543707)
01-20-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Admin
01-20-2010 8:20 AM


Re: Moderator Request
He's not a liar because he disagrees with me. He's a liar because he says that I never posted the quotes - which clearly I did. Twice.
I'd appreciate it if you would turn this attention on his repeated use of word games to avoid answering simple questions or providing evidence to back up his claims.
It seems more than a little one sided that I'm having to prove the existence of an ACTUAL QUOTE which is ALREADY in the thread while he's got free rein to make crap up on the fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 8:20 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 722 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 3:47 PM Nuggin 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