Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
25 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, xongsmith (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 50/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 316 of 396 (584855)
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


CASE CLOSED!
One more thing I would point out in all of the backlash to my conversation on intelligent design, we lost sight of the original challenge. I did match and meet the requirements as set forth by the originator of this thread. And that was to demonstrate some sort of ID experiment. And even though getting someone to actually define "what qualifies as science," was like getting teeth pulled, I did demonstrate how the theory of ID does qualify as as scientific theory. I actually even presented several examples of ID experiments, some of which had even been published in mainstream science journals. Therefore for all intents and purposes...CASE CLOSED!

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by AZPaul3, posted 10-04-2010 1:04 PM Just being real has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 317 of 396 (584860)
10-04-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: CASE CLOSED!
CASE CLOSED!

Typical creationist. Get your teeth kicked in then declare victory anyway.

Yes, the case is closed. You and your creationist brethren have shown us all that you have no idea what science is or how it works. Your "examples" were all failures, as has been abundantly shown.

Enjoy your hollow victory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 2:24 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 318 of 396 (584876)
10-04-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
JBR writes:

You appear to be deviating into error with this first line of your reasoning by confusing "containing" specified complexity with "producing" specified complexity.

Surely all organisms contain it, according to you. Therefore, your observations should tell you that all known intelligent designers contain it.

JBR writes:

Note that unintelligent agents can easily be the containers for specified complexity. But only an intelligent source can be the original producer of apc.

This is exactly what you have not established. You are assuming your conclusion. That's not science.

You have assumed that the "apc" (or "specified complexity") that is contained and exhibited by unintelligent organisms is the indirect product of intelligent design in order to prove that to be the case. Microorganisms (and bees) do not intelligently design their own communication systems.

Surely you can see what a basic mistake that is.

It's also impossible to attempt to explain "specified complexity" from observation by evoking intelligence, because observed intelligence is packed full of specified complexity however you define it, thus leaving "specified complexity" unexplained, and merely pointing out that it can produce itself, which we all know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM bluegenes has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 319 of 396 (584887)
10-04-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:47 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just being real writes:
Several precise mathematical laws have been formulated by computer scientists which express the Law of Conservation of Information.

References?

Just being real writes:
This law states that within certain limits the amount of information in a computer in its initial state (counting software and hardware) equals or exceeds the amount of information in its final state.

For sure, that is not the statement of any "precise mathematical laws."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:47 PM Just being real has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 320 of 396 (584898)
10-04-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just being real writes:
Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA.

Which method?

Your previous paragraph gave two methods, one due to Shannon, the other due to Chaitin. And they don't give the same answer. Moreover the Chaitin method depends on having an agreed UTM, and you have not specified which UTM you are using. Generally, the choice of UTM is not important if one is looking at the asymptotic information density for infinite strings. But DNA is very finite.

And then you say "it is indeed abstruse information." Yet as far as I know, neither Shannon nor Chaitin used "abstruse" as a technical term.

Just being real writes:
One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition). Or another example I like is the combination lock.

Did either Shannon or Chaitin say how their theories of information relate to Mount Rushmore, or how they relate to combination locks? Or did any other scientists working with their definitions of information, connect them to Mount Rushmore or to combination locks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 396 (584916)
10-04-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Just writes:

Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA

And if you applied the same method to the digits of irrational transcendental numbers such as e or pi, what would you conclude? When these numbers show up in our analysis of objects, do we conclude that the objects are designed? Are raindrops designed? Is radioactive decay evidence of design?

On the other side how many bits of information does it take to represent a pointy stick?

quote:
One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition).

I do not see how this supports your theory. It's just an analogy that may or may not stretch to being able to distinguish designed objects from evolved objects. Perhaps all biological objects are evolved and apc correlates with some other aspect.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8087
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 322 of 396 (584922)
10-04-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
How do you test an an easily observable phenomena?...

How do you test a claim that extends to every instance of APC that has ever occurred? Have we observed every instance where APC was produced? No.

Can you test to see if humans produce APC? Yes. However, extending this observation to EVERY instance of APC can not be supported.

Likewise abstruse particularized communication has never been observed forming by naturally unguided processes. (note: I said formed and not copied or reproduced)

So if I observed random mutations producing a novel protein that exhibits APC would that falsify your hypothesis?

Perhaps this is an argument from the negative, but it is still an observable fact none the less.

Not unless you can observe every single instance where APC is produced.

Quote: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail because they lack specificity." -Leslie Orgel (biochemist) "The Origins of Life,"

So how do we determine if something has specified complexity or not? What experiments can we run to establish this?

The capacity to carry complex information is only the half of it. It's ability to function depends on the precise sequential arrangement of the base nucleotides within the DNA.

So if I demonstrated that two proteins have the same function but differ in their amino acid sequence will this disprove your hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 323 of 396 (584925)
10-04-2010 5:48 PM


Tell me.....
JBR, is this ground "designed?"

Yes, or no? Does your five-year-old agree?


  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8087
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 324 of 396 (584926)
10-04-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:47 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Several precise mathematical laws have been formulated by computer scientists which express the Law of Conservation of Information. This law states that within certain limits the amount of information in a computer in its initial state (counting software and hardware) equals or exceeds the amount of information in its final state.

So if we are able to show that Shannon Information can increase due to blind evolutionary mechanisms will this falsify ID?

These genetic algorithms at first appear to solve the information problem, but in truth after closer analysis, it is only at the expense of the programmers first supplying information about proximity to target sequences, selection criteria, or loops of precisely sequenced instructions.

It is the same information supplied by the environment in evolution. When a DNA binding protein evolves and upregulates a needed protein then those mutations are selected for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:47 PM Just being real has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31462
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 325 of 396 (584927)
10-04-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Jbr writes:

You are certainly welcome to your opinion "that it is worthless information," but when it comes to identifying and choosing between something having an intelligent source or a natural unguided source, I am free to disagree with you.

Then perhaps you can explain what value the designer adds?

Jbr writes:

My five year old can look at all of those items you mentioned above and tell me if they were formed by intelligence or by unintelligent. He would probably use different wording but the principle and the way in which he assesses them is identical. He does NOT have to know how any of those things were made just to tell me that they must have an intelligent source. And that is all we are talking about here jar.

Some of us are older than five.

You understand that at five much of what he does know is useless.

As your child grows up he will learn, hopefully, how the things works, and then he will have so useful information.

But what is the value added to a car by there being a designer?

What is the value of the designer?

It works.

Now once people understand the processes that resulted in the critter "car", they can duplicate the process, make more cars, make better cars.

The designer is only relevant as a historic footnote OR in the case of product liability suits unless you can provide so actual worth or value for your alleged "Intelligent Designer"?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 326 of 396 (584930)
10-04-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Hi JBR,

I would point out that most (not all) of the so called positive mutations occur on the bacterias plasmid DNA.

This seems to be no more than a pointless distractionary tactic on your part. You admit, implicitly, that if not all the mutations were in plasmid DNA, then at least some were in the chromosomal DNA. This is a non-point. The point is that an unguided biological process can originate and new trait. No designer needed, contrary to your claims.

And lets face it, it make sense that a designer would have designed bacteria this way when you consider that they are not just able to up and migrate when a food source ends.

You miss the point; the bacteria originated new function all on their own. They required no designer to do it for them. Clearly, biological processes are capable of producing complexity and diversity on their own. To claim that this shows the ingenuity of their designer is a perverse argument. What it actually shows is that no such designer is needed.

And finally I would point out that even if they could eventually come up with an experiment which showed that it was at least possible for random mutations to be the cause of pushing life foreword to its current state, this would still be a long way from explaining how the code for the first DNA molecule could have formed to begin with.

You are trying to change the subject; the origin of life is not the issue here. However, the observed fact that biological complexity can arise through an unguided process scarcely argues against a naturalistic chemical origin of life.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 4:02 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 327 of 396 (584933)
10-04-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The one and only example I gave was the tobacco plant. Your "rebuttal" was "it is just well designed.". Try again. Also, for the hundredth time, please define your term.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1997 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 328 of 396 (584972)
10-04-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Hello JBR,

Just being real writes:

Alright, let me attempt to define this again more exhaustively.


Ok.

Just being real writes:

abstruse: hard to understand because of being extremely complex, intellectually demanding, difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge; "the professor's lectures were so abstruse that students tended to avoid them"; "a deep metaphysical theory"; "some recondite problem in historiography"

particularized: directed toward a specific object; "particularized thinking as distinct from stereotyped sloganeering"

Communication: a process of transferring information from one entity to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules.


Definitions of the words: abstruse, particularized and Communication. Not a definition of APC.

Just being real writes:

Scientists calculate the capacity of a pattern (for example in DNA) to communicate complex information using Shannon equations. Where (I) is information, and (p) is the occurrence of a particular sequence, and (n) is the length of nucleotides examined.

I = -log2 p and p=(1/4)n


An equation related to the transmission of information.

Just being real writes:

The view of information as a message came into prominence with the publication in 1948 of an influential paper by Claude Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication." This paper provides the foundations of information theory and endows the word information not only with a technical meaning but also a measure. If the sending device is equally likely to send any one of a set of N messages, then the preferred measure of "the information produced when one message is chosen from the set" is the base two logarithm of N (This measure is called self-information).
A complementary way of measuring information is provided by algorithmic information theory. In brief, this measures the information content of a list of symbols based on how predictable they are, or more specifically how easy it is to compute the list through a program: the information content of a sequence is the number of bits of the shortest program that computes it. The sequence below would have a very low algorithmic information measurement since it is a very predictable pattern, and as the pattern continues the measurement would not change. Shannon information would give the same information measurement for each symbol, since they are statistically random, and each new symbol would increase the measurement. 123456789101112131415161718192021 (see Wikipedia on information)


Descriptions of possible ways to measure information entropy.

Just being real writes:

Using this method for measuring information communicated in the DNA strand we can see that it is indeed abstruse information, but there is another element to understanding information in DNA. As I pointed out in an earlier post, polymers can also be said to have abstruse information, but they lack particularization or specificity.


A statement that DNA and polymers 'can be said to have information'.

Just being real writes:

IDists have successfully quantified specificity as being any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.


A definition of specificity.

Just being real writes:

One example that I have found useful that I picked up was that of tourists standing and observing Mount Rushmore. They recognize the faces from independent patterns (pictures from history books) which in turn initiate a specific response (recognition).


A description of facial recognition in action.

Just being real writes:

Or another example I like is the combination lock. When the correct combination is entered into the lock it produces a specific function response. In this case the lock does not require intelligence to understand the information, but the observer can still recognize the design by his independent understanding of how locks function. I must stress that the key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object. Otherwise any conferred specificity can merely be contrived rather than real.


A description of learned behaviour and how it might relate to specificity.

.
.
.

I still do not see a definition of APC.

Edited by Panda, : Typos

Edited by Panda, : tysop

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not yet responded

BarackZero
Member (Idle past 3138 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 329 of 396 (585900)
10-10-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
09-01-2010 8:59 AM


hooah writes:

Given the influx of IDists/creationists touting a separate form of science and differentiating between "secular" science and "ID/creation science", I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science".

All that is required would be something that any one of us could do at home with household materials, as there are hundreds of thousands of "secular" experiments we can do.

Given the influx of IDists/creationists touting a separate form of science and differentiating between "secular" science and "ID/creation science", I propose they provide us with some experiments that would be in accordance with said "ID/creation science".

All that is required would be something that any one of us could do at home with household materials, as there are hundreds of thousands of "secular" experiments we can do.

Here is a site that is full of simple experiments that anyone can do: science is FUN DAMMIT!

My main goal for this is to get the anti-science crowd to appreciate what science is and for them to stop thinking that it is something out to get them.

BarackZero responds:

I scarcely know where to begin to respond, since you have packed so much disinformation and spin into so compact a space.

There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.
The origin of the word "science" is the Latin word, scientia, meaning "knowledge." In this context, "knowledge" means an appreciation, an understanding of reality, of truth. What passes in one era for "knowledge" or science has been overturned countless times in the past. So we see that scientia, or science, has long been transitory.

Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, famously declared in about 1899 that "heavier than air flight is impossible for humans."

This was science's absolute best. Dissenters would of course have been ridiculed there as they are here on EvC.

A scant eight years later, Lord Kelvin's "science" was overturned by two bicycle mechanics, whose credentials would have been cause for mocking and scorn and laughter by, oh Omnivorous, to name but one.

Then there is your remark directed at the "anti-science crowd."

Yes, and aren't THEY/WE "ignorant." Why would a group so profoundly scientific and intellectual as this even allow dullards to enter, if not for the jolly sport they offered all of you as you skewer them relentlessly, if only by putting your words in THEIR/OUR mouths, as you did with "anti-science".

I propose these experiments for Darwinists:

1. Try to read and think about what others say here at EvC, for a change. It's scientific. It's courteous. It demonstrates a tolerance that is exceedingly rare for groups such as this.

2. Don't be condescending, and hateful, here or elsewhere. I doubt that even half of you can live up to such a standard. It would take your help and support, and that would require courage. You would have to stand up to all your Darwinist pals, and I have yet to see such an event, anywhere.

3. Since Darwinists trivialize statistics solely in order to defend the indefensible position demanded by The Theory, please shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly, at least 8 times. You can even do this in your mind if you wish, it's so very simple. Now lay out the entire deck sequentially on the table and count the number of tries it takes you to get ace through king of clubs, followed by ace through king of diamonds, followed by ace through king of hearts, followed by ace through king of spades. Note that these are ordered from lowest to highest (in the style of lowball poker) and alphabetical order.

It is said to be oh so simple, because, after all, this sequence is "just as probable as any other." Only it ISN'T any other. Let that sole, unique card sequence be representative of an amino acid sequence in a polypeptide. Nothing else will work. Nothing.

Assume that some polypeptide of 200 components in length would require a similar number of shuffled attempts to achieve, i.e. randomly. Oh but they're not "random" except to the extent of random mutations. I know, I know.

Now for each stage where a precursor is "selected" through the sieve you all know so very well, please provide some plausible use for that intermediary. What does it do to help the organism survive better? Each step requires this function - this survival mechanism.
So name them, however many thousands that will be.

Those are your experiments. Won't that be fun science!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 09-01-2010 8:59 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by hooah212002, posted 10-10-2010 11:15 AM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 3:04 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 332 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 3:21 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 330 of 396 (585910)
10-10-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 10:05 AM


Perhaps you could try and use the quote boxes like every other poster on the site so your replies don't look like a jumbled mess of horse shit? Also, maybe you could address the topic instead of crying foul about "darwinists".

I scarcely know where to begin to respond, since you have packed so much disinformation and spin into so compact a space.

Perhaps you could point out my "disinformation and spin"?

There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.

Then you DO have an experiment validating ID or using the ID/creation method? If so, where is it? Surely your card tricks aren't all you can come up with. You do realize that attempting to discredit evolution does nothing for ID/creationism, right?

There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.

Perhaps you should take your own advice by actually reading the thread you are responding to.

Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, famously declared in about 1899 that "heavier than air flight is impossible for humans."

What does this have to do with anything?


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 10:05 AM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019