Help me understand Intelligent Design

I give you two sequences, in random order, and the information that one of them is the mutated version of the other.Here they are:1. ACTCTAATCC CACTACCACA TGCCATAGCC ATCCTCACTT GTATTCTGAT
2. ACTCTAATCC CACTACCACA TGCCATAGCC ATCCTCAGTT GTATTCTGATDo you think you can:

• point out which is the original and which the mutant?
• tell us how you know whether the mutation is "damage" or merely a "change"?
• formulate what you think could be my point with this exercise?

{edited for spelling}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 12-Oct-2005 03:56 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I understand your point Parasomnium(I think, maybe), but I'm not the one stating that genetic mutation can be both "damage" or "change". I'm only establishing that this is what we're told can happen during the mutation. To no longer call it damage because it's no longer convinient to our definition of random mutation as it pertains to Evolution, is not something you should take up with little old me. I'm only repeating that "damage" can occur, I never said it. But if the term was used, there must be a reason for distinguishing "damage" from "change". I dunno?

But one that seems to come down to "I don't see how it is possible."I'm afraid that isn't much of an argument against it.It's going to have to be simplified for you perhaps let's try again:An analogy might be in order to explain how CS can produce an apparent EHDI.Let's take a very large oak tree it has grown and branched for centuries and now has a large number of terminal twigs. Let's say there are 100,000 end twigs on this tree.Now let's have an ant start to walk up the tree. I dunno what's gotten into this ant but he has a "thing" about getting a better view so he always tends to move upward. When he comes to a branch point he randomly moves one way or the other. Finally he arrives out on the edge of the tree. The odds of him reaching this point are only 1 in 100,000. It's arrival has (for our purposes) an EHDI.The ants arrival is our leaf mimic on the tree of it and it's nearer relatives. (Remember there are 1,000,000's of insects). This particular group of "ants" have tried out and arrived at ALL 100,000 twigs. Suddenly the fact that our one ant arrived at a paritcular twig while still having an EHDI isn't so surprising.In fact our analogy breaks down when we realize that the tree doesn't consist of just the 100,000 end twigs we see. It also consists of a much, much larger number of "no twigs" -- all the spaces where there isn't a twig. This gives our "ant" a much, much higher EHDI.However, the much, much larger number of "no twigs" was "prunded" out by the equivalent of NS. The final number of twigs it the result of the cumulation of all the NS that has gone one.So we have a potentially huge number of places for a living thing to end up (twigs and non-twigs). But we have two things going on:
1) We have selection pruning all the spaces between branches and twigs as we go along.
2) We have many more than 100,000 "ants" climbing the tree.With these two processes operating an outcome with an EHDI will still happen. The statement is not that it "can only be". The fact is only that the processes can produce the apparent design without a sentient "ultimate designer".The EHDI is only an appearance when looking after the fact. This is exactly analogous to the oft used lottery example: with enough tickets someone is going to win. An event of EHDI occurs in spite of the high improbability. It really isn't all that complicated to see this.

That was a good analogy.If only we would be able to more easily book-keep the failed experiments! The picture would look completely different and much easier to grasp.

quote:

---

The statement is not that it "can only be". The fact is only that the processes can produce the apparent design without a sentient "ultimate designer".

---

It can, with an EHDI. This improbability, as a whole, is not really mesured, but it is witnessed by the fact that it's here, so obviously, something must have happened. The EHDI isn't quantifiable otherwise. Fisher stated that it was an EHDI because, based on the understanding of NS, as a process through which things came to be the way they are, the only other explination outside of God, was this Improbability. Because it was and is obvious that based on the rules of NS, for the world to look the way it does today was and is that Highly Improbable, so he called it the way it was. Therefore, Natural Selection is an attempt to provide an explination for the phenomena at hand. For Aristotle and just about every other scientist and philosopher before and after him, the study of the universe was teleological in nature, for Darwin, it wasn't, because it was Natural Selection. Both however, are after-the-fact conclusions. But the latter, encourages the former, greatly. Furthermore, the complexity of the mutation process itself, also, encourages the former conclusion, greatly. Not to mention, that since we have to treat the phenomena as though it were in fact, manufactured, designed, in order to help you work out the functions of the inconvenient word "parts", continues to encourage the former. But the fact, that we can only after-the-fact conclude that it was improbable to happen but it did anyway, discourages the conclusion that it happened by accident. No one is disputing the process necessarely, but rather, the probability that it happened by accident, which is something we can only conclude, after-the-fact. Unfortunately, proving that organisms can and do evolve, in and of itself, does not account for the tremendous mathematical results we reap today. Which is a perfect "illusion of Design" at the highest possible level, under the least possible amount of probability for it happen, if, of course, we wish to claim it did by mere chance.As you said yourself,

quote:

---

The EHDI is only an appearance when looking after the fact.

---

There lies the whole problem as I explained earlier. This is where certain people are going to have a problem.

quote:

---

This is exactly analogous to the oft used lottery example: with enough tickets someone is going to win. An event of EHDI occurs in spite of the high improbability.

---

If we consider that each species and speciation's transitional line represent one winning ticket each, Natural Selection sure gave out alot of winning combinations.I wish lottery companies were actually that generous today, most of us would be millionnaires.

quote:

---

That was a good analogy.

​

If only we would be able to more easily book-keep the failed experiments! The picture would look completely different and much easier to grasp.

---

I totally agree Annafan, then all would be settled. But unfortunatly, we don't. This is why those mean creationists keep pestering about the lack of transitional fossils. We could of course tell them that all species are transitional, but of course we'd be left with the problem of explaning how coacroches and warrior ants for example, have remained exactly the way they are found today since the last 100 million years. That's not very transitional is it?

Sure, there are many ways to be alive. But have you ever considered how many ways there are to be dead?Alhough we may not exactly know the number of species - or better, the number of unique genomes - that actually exist, it is safe to assume that it's huge. Really, really huge.But it's nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, compared to the number of possible genomes.So there are almost infinitely many worthless tickets in your lottery, and an almost negligible number of winners. {edited for spelling}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-Oct-2005 10:20 AM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Note you haven't validated the improbability value as requested in Message 221, which I hereby repeat: Note 1: this explicitly states that without such calculations your claim of improbability is just personal incredulity and unimpressive imagination.Note 2: this explicitly challenges you to provide substantiation for your claim. This means you have to substantiate it or withdraw it and any future reference to "improbability" as a factor.This is not the way open minded investigators approach a topic, it is consistent instead with the narrow minded approach of people who have decided on a conclusion before hand: creationists or other idealogues.Time to prove yourselve and put upOr withdraw (as you have so far on every other item where you have been challenged to provide source for your assertions: not an impressive record, imho).Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*12*2005 04:18 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Sure, there are many ways to be alive. But have you ever considered how many ways there to be dead?

​

Alhough we may not exactly know the number of species - or better, the number of unique genomes - that actually exist, it is safe to assume that it's huge. Really, really huge.

​

But it's nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, compared to the number of possible genomes.

​

So there are almost infinitely many worthless tickets in your lottery, and an almost negligable number of winners.

---

Well, the only problem with this assertion, is that it also contradicts everything your God (Richard Dawkins according to your sig) and his God (Ronald Fisher) have to say about it. They, as I have quoted them both, are the ones saying it is highly improbable, but nonetheless, explanable, due to the fact that it happened. Essentially, that's their reasoning. I'm just reporting their words. I never would have made such a claim of myself otherwise, can you image the backlash and field day fellow forum users like RAZD would have with me if I had done that? It would have been grounds for banning had it not been a direct quote .
The question is now, will you Oh ye Parasomnium, dare, go against the better wisdom of your deity and his deity ?ps: RAZD, you really need to start reading the thread, your demands have been emptly meet. Not by myself mind you, but by the horses' mouths - Dawkins & Fisher. We've all moved along since then...thank you RAZD

I don't think you have posted enough material to adequately judge the quotes you are referring to. As the more typical Creationists prove all the time, it's really not hard to go through some text written by a famous Darwinist/Evolutionist and pick out isolated quotes that seem to say exactly the opposite of what the argument turns out to be, or may be poorly worded in themselves such that they can be easily misunderstood (misused?) without the supporting context.Any anyways, arguments by authority are not really very impressive around here

Then you have completely missed the point of their reasoning. I don't have to. I have it straight from Him: This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-Oct-2005 07:43 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

You have been asked to show the calculations behind the claims about probabilities. You have not done so.It might be a good idea to have a crack at that now.

Does your posting this mean that you are willing to argue about these topics and yet have so little idea about the subject at hand that you can't answer this silly creationist question yourself?

I agree that it has been "emptly" while also noting that context shows you mean "amply" (except that this is actually false).Implied ad hominum attack and not a response to the question. Obviously I do read the other posts if I catch you trying to hide this pitiful response on another reply.This also involves the strawman and equivocation logical fallacies, using the mention of others of improbability in place of your self proclaimed use in specific instances.Thus your answer is full of logical fallacies and is just an attempt to dodge the question.You have not provided the calculation nor the model nor the assumptions in the model and a discussion of what their effect on the outcome is. This was specifically requested.It has also been shown that you misinterpret or misrepresent Fisher.You have failed to substantiate your incredulity.You need to provide the specifics in YOUR understanding with YOUR calculations as applied to the specific instance where you cite improbability, and not by inference or reference.Try again.With feeling.From the top.{added by edit just for clarity} Considering that all I have asked for is substantiation of your points, that your actually providing such should not generate a backlash so much as critical evaluation of the evidence, critical evaluation that would show either (a) that the evidence is good or (b) that it fails to make your case.EnjoyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10*13*2005 10:24 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Well, the only problem with this assertion, is that it also contradicts everything your God (Richard Dawkins according to your sig) and his God (Ronald Fisher) have to say about it. They, as I have quoted them both, are the ones saying it is highly improbable, but
nonetheless, explanable, due to the fact that it happened. Essentially, that's their reasoning. I'm just reporting their words. I never would have made such a claim of myself otherwise, can you image the backlash and field day fellow forum users like RAZD would have with me if I had done that? It would have been grounds for banning had it not been a direct quote . The question is now, will you Oh ye Parasomnium, dare, go against the better wisdom of your deity and his deity ?

---

Why do you tell such lies ?I am certain that Parasomnium does not consider Dawkins a God, nor does he consider Fisher to be a God. Certinly there is no sensible reason to beliueve such a thing.Neither Fisher nor Dawkins agrees with you. Pretending they do and then pretending to present their reasoning is hardly a convincing argument. Even if we assume that you were making an honest mistake (an idea which is hardly credible) we would have to conclude that you were not even sufficiently literate to comprehend the statements that you quote.The fact that you have not been banned despite your frequent and blatant misrepresentations and evasions is testimony to the fact that it is difficult to be banned here. If you had made the assertions themselves all you would have to do is support them or have the honesty to retract them. Yet here you are falsely attributing your opinions to others and you have yet to be banned !