Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:59 AM
22 online now:
NosyNed (AdminNosy), PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
464748
49
5051Next
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 721 of 752 (607411)
03-03-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:27 PM


Re: et all
quote:

So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong. Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?

Of course the problem domain we are concerned with is NOT written English language so even if Dembski's and Gitt's methods worked there, there is no reason to think that they would necessarily be good when applied to biology.

In fact it is easy to come up with a method better than Dembski's - instead of leaving design as the default hypothesis, to be assumed whenever a result appears sufficiently interesting we could make design a positive hypothesis to be compared with other explanations. Doing so also avoids the problem that Dembski's method requires probability calculations which may not be practical in non-trivial cases.

And Gitt's method is only applicable to genuine languages, so for any other field any workable method would be better !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:27 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 722 of 752 (607414)
03-03-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 719 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:47 PM


Really stupid assertions
havoc writes:

To quote Dembski: Events of fleetingly small possibility do not occur by chance.

Dembski does make some really stupid statements doesn't he.

What are the odds of lightning striking a particular leaf in a field?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:47 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:28 PM jar has responded

Perdition
Member (Idle past 1317 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 723 of 752 (607416)
03-03-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:50 PM


Re: et all
Can you differentiate the difference between the english language and random key strokes?

I can differentiate between them because I have been trained to know how the English language works. I could not, however, necessarily differentiate between the Cletic language and a bunch of random keystrokes (I think the Celtic language IS just a buynch of random keystrokes, but that's neither here nor there). Nor could I differentiate between Arabic script and some strange little swirls on a piece of paper.

The thing is, in DNA, there really is no such thing as random keystrokes. any 3 nucleotides will code for something, so any combination of nucleotides will make something "legible" to the RNA that "reads" it. Thus, the correct question you should be asking is, can you differentiate between the English language, and the English language. If you can, I'm quite impressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:50 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:49 PM Perdition has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 724 of 752 (607418)
03-03-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:27 PM


Re: et all
havoc writes:

So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong.

We shouldn't really be saying Dembski and Gitt are wrong. It's more the case that their ideas are undemonstrated. The only people claiming to have successfully applied the concepts of Dembski and Gitt information to demonstrate the existence of a designer are Dembski and Gitt, and their approaches are not the same.

Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?

You haven't even shown us that you have a way of doing this, yet. Show us the approach we should use to tell that this is gibberish:

Ston ta havre och ter havre och sm lamm ter murgrna.

And this isn't:

Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy.

You also haven't successfully made the case that this is a problem for evolution, which is the topic of this thread. We've observed evolution in action, we know how it works, even quite a bit about how it works at the molecular level. If there's a designer mucking around in there he must be very, very subtle, but even if he does exist the processes of evolution are still very real and observable processes. How would proving the existence of the designer be a problem for evolution that we can see happening?

Knowing that there was a designer (which would probably involve developing an understanding of how he carried out his changes) would force us to reinterpret evolutionary history with an eye toward figuring out what things evolution did and what things the designer did, but it wouldn't mean there's no such thing as evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:27 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 2833 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 725 of 752 (607419)
03-03-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Huntard
03-03-2011 3:33 PM


Re: et all
How do we measure this "specified complexity"?

I have given you two different ways purposed to measure information content or specified complexity. You guys dont like them and have poked holes in these arguments. I have seen no one point to a better way to measuer it.

Actually it is hard to get any of you to admit that there is any difference in random information (random keystrokes) and specified complexity (like the English language).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2011 3:33 PM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:37 PM havoc has responded
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 03-03-2011 4:37 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 745 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 5:34 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 726 of 752 (607420)
03-03-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by havoc
03-03-2011 3:27 PM


Re: et all
So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong.

Actually, you've also heard why.

Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?

Knowing how to read English has always worked for me. But as I pointed out, this has no general application. In particular, I can't use this skill to distinguish between a DNA sequence that was designed, one that was evolved, and one that was produced by rolling four-sided dice.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 3:27 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 2833 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 727 of 752 (607421)
03-03-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by jar
03-03-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Really stupid assertions
Dembski does make some really stupid statements doesn't he.

What are the odds of lightning striking a particular leaf in a field?

This would be explaind by Dembskis Law filter. The nature of lightning would cause it to strike somewhere. There is nothing intrinsic in DNA that causes it to code for one thing over the other. To take your analogy further you should look for lighting to repeatedly strike a corn field in a way that leaves a picture of Darwin scorched in the field. Then you would have a point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 4:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 4:41 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 733 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:45 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 748 by Briterican, posted 03-03-2011 6:19 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 2833 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 728 of 752 (607422)
03-03-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 4:27 PM


Re: et all
Knowing how to read English has always worked for me.

So there is a difference but since it doesnt fit well with your theory you just leave it alone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:42 PM havoc has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 729 of 752 (607423)
03-03-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:20 PM


Re: et all
I have given you two different ways purposed to measure information content or specified complexity.

Well, no you haven't.

A method for measuring the information content of a string involves an algorithm where you take a string as an input and get a number as an output.

Actually it is hard to get any of you to admit that there is any difference in random information (random keystrokes) and specified complexity (like the English language).

The difference in that particular case is that one is random keystrokes and the other is in the English language.

Where do we go from here?

---

Incidentally, what if I wrote a program that would randomly combine English words into sentences constrained by English grammar (which I could do in a matter of minutes). Would the sentences so produced have a designer? Would they have specified complexity? Could you tell whether they had specified complexity just by looking at them, or would you have to know whether they were produced by (a) my computer program (b) an intelligent albeit Surrealist poet?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:20 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 730 of 752 (607424)
03-03-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:20 PM


Re: et all
havoc writes:

I have given you two different ways purposed to measure information content or specified complexity.

Do you mean you've *claimed* there are ways to measure specified complexity? Or do you mean you've *shown* us how to actually calculate specified complexity? If the latter then I somehow missed it, and could you cut-n-paste the technique for calculating specified complexity into your reply? Thanks!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:20 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 731 of 752 (607425)
03-03-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Really stupid assertions
havoc writes:

Dembski does make some really stupid statements doesn't he.

What are the odds of lightning striking a particular leaf in a field?

This would be explaind by Dembskis Law filter. The nature of lightning would cause it to strike somewhere. There is nothing intrinsic in DNA that causes it to code for one thing over the other. To take your analogy further you should look for lighting to repeatedly strike a corn field in a way that leaves a picture of Darwin scorched in the field. Then you would have a point.

Too funny.

Guess what, we don't see the picture drawn by lightning and we don't see DNA coding for some pre-determined output either.

Neat isn't it.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:28 PM havoc has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 732 of 752 (607426)
03-03-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:36 PM


Re: et all
So there is a difference but since it doesnt fit well with your theory you just leave it alone?

I have never "left alone" the difference between the English language and gobbledigook. Indeed, permit me to observe that you are verging on the latter.

What you mean by my "theory" in this context is obscure. It is you who are being asked to develop a theory, or at least a coherent hypothesis.

But more obscure yet is the relevance of all this to the question of design detection in DNA. How is my ability to recognize English useful in recognizing whether a certain DNA sequence was produced by design or evolution?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:36 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 733 of 752 (607427)
03-03-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Really stupid assertions
This would be explaind by Dembskis Law filter. The nature of lightning would cause it to strike somewhere. There is nothing intrinsic in DNA that causes it to code for one thing over the other. To take your analogy further you should look for lighting to repeatedly strike a corn field in a way that leaves a picture of Darwin scorched in the field. Then you would have a point.

What if we repeatedly (beyond explanation by chance alone) find that the points struck by lightning tend to be elevated above the rest of the local landscape? And what if we repeatedly (beyond explanation by chance alone) find that the DNA sequences prevalent in nature are those that would be favored or at least tolerated by natural selection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:28 PM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 2833 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 734 of 752 (607428)
03-03-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Perdition
03-03-2011 4:06 PM


Re: et all
The thing is, in DNA, there really is no such thing as random keystrokes

Realy so mutation is no longer random? Answer carefully your entire world view hangs in the balance.

I could not, however, necessarily differentiate between the Cletic language and a bunch of random keystrokes (I think the Celtic language IS just a buynch of random keystrokes, but that's neither here nor there). Nor could I differentiate between Arabic script and some strange little swirls on a piece of paper.

So we did not know that hieroglyphics were language before finding the Rosetta stone? You guys are punishing yourselves to avoid the obvious. Language is language and code is code only because of specified complexity and nothing intrinsic in DNA would lead to this occurrence. And every known code has a code maker. This is just a fact of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Perdition, posted 03-03-2011 4:06 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 739 by Percy, posted 03-03-2011 5:02 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 741 by Perdition, posted 03-03-2011 5:06 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 742 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:15 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
havoc
Member (Idle past 2833 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 735 of 752 (607429)
03-03-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 4:37 PM


Re: et all
Incidentally, what if I wrote a program that would randomly combine English words into sentences constrained by English grammar (which I could do in a matter of minutes). Would the sentences so produced have a designer? Would they have specified complexity? Could you tell whether they had specified complexity just by looking at them, or would you have to know whether they were produced by (a) my computer program (b) an intelligent albeit Surrealist poet?

Yes you an intellegent person could creat program that results in specified complexity. However an earth quake at the scrabble store will never write a novel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2011 4:55 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 744 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:26 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 747 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 5:37 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 749 by Perdition, posted 03-03-2011 6:58 PM havoc has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
464748
49
5051Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019