10 Categories of Evidence For ID

Jerry's answer to the primate broken vitamin-C gene is that we have oranges.so now we know why oranges evolved eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No one has ever seen it form inside an organism without all the neccessary accessory systems, including primers. There are a number of primases whose job it is to sythesize short strands of RNA to act as primers during DNA synthesis(del Solar, et al., 1998). There are modes of replication, such as rolling circle replication, which do not require rna synthesising primases, but these still require a priming sequence, in this case derived by nicking one of the parental strands of DNA . There is absolutely no requirement for DNA to ever have simply jumped into existence. Can you show me somewhere in the literature where it is suggested that DNA must have suddenly appeared de novo without any genetic precursor?It is also surely significant that the current natural conditions are substantially different from many of those in which DNA is suggested to have arisen.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-12-2005 07:34 AM

Could you explain what you mean by this? Some reference for the source of the number if possible would also be greatly appreciated.TTFN,WK

Jerry also denies the existence of hotspots. So how would he explain the existence of the same mutation in differnet species ?

Interesting response. Thank you. I have a few more questions.1. How do you tell the difference between intelligent selection and natural selection?2. How do you eliminate the possibility that a very strict environment might cause a type of natural selection that looks like intelligent selection? (i.e. an environment that only and always allows the heads side of the coin to be fixed)3. If we somehow show intelligence, how does this refute common ancestry? Changing how things are selected does not change the paradigm that much. If you somehow show all of this is true all that means is that a different selection force is what caused evolution. I don't see how your position is in conflict with the modern theory of evolution yet you keep saying that things like the evolution of the mammalian inner ear are impossible. This seems to be a contradiction in position. Please clarify.Thanks!

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

You've missed the key reason why I provided the example I did. Jerry was claiming that the programmers *must* be providing information to the program about what to design. So I completely removed this possibility from my example - the constraints are provdied by the user.Also, you say this as if it were different in principle from what happens in nature. It isn't. Just as nature provides constraints in the form of temperature, weather, water supply, food supply, predators and so forth, the program provides constraints, too. These constraints are what provides selection, which is one of the two key components of evolution: descent and with modification and natural selection. Following the rules of grammar isn't going to produce a story, or even very many rational sentences. I can see a lot of sentences like, "The tinted cognition drove to the rusty iota." What would be your selection mechanism for choosing the "winners" in each generation?--Percy

historical evidence is the only way: The NS German Shepherd Dog Club, breed history

So, am I right in understanding you want to make this a semantics debate? Well, given that the conditions for life only existed for a mere 2 billion years surely demonstrates how extraordinary they are? After all, in context to the current age of the universe its only a fraction, and in context with the possible total age of the universe when time ceases to pass, it is but a flash of the eye.

You make a few major assumptions in your paragraph or commit errors based on what you seem to be trying to say. Perhaps you can expand on your reasoning so we can better understand your point of view.You seem to be saying that the 2 billion year period is brief, but then relate it to the age of the universe. How are the two related to the subject of this thread in anywaay?You then go one to talk about which seems to have no meaning whatsoever either to this thread or anything else?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Its real simple. I granted jdb that the conditions for life to begin were not conditions we (as human beings) would consider 'normal', or 'ordinary'. Indeed, I described these conditions as being beyond ordinary or extraordinary. I believe that based on our experience of ordinary, prebiotic earth certainly comes under the description 'extraordinary'.Wounded King retorted that he disagrees. The conditions, he says might have been specific, but not extraordinary.I replied that Wounded King and I agreed, the only disagreement we were having was one of semantics. I made the comment that it would probably not be constructive to bicker over semantics.Wounded King then retorted that if the conditions for the origin of life were extraordinary then half the total time of earth's existance was under extraordinary conditions.My final reply, that you responded to was basically giving up and engaging Wounded King at a game of pedantic semantics.No major errors, no misunderstandings, just a pointless waste of thread space discussing one person's objection to the use of a subjective adjective.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 12-May-2005 08:59 PMThis message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 12-May-2005 09:02 PM

quote:

---

You're confusing matter and energy with information. Information is not governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

---

Not really because in most situations information is matter.Can you think of information that is not matter? Boltzmann considered his atoms as information, Shannon's electrons flowing through switching stations were information, the chalk on the blackboard that communicates information is matter, the ink on the paper of a letter is matter, the information stored on computer chips that one sees on the computer monitor while typing is matter, the photons hitting the nerve behind the eyeball telling one how cute that girl is, is matter; the sound waves in the form of moving air hitting the eardrums allowing one to place information into his brain via hearing is matter. And finally, all information that has been communicated to an organism is matter in the form of neurons and the firing process of those cells as the organism processes data and stores information in the brain.How far off would I be Percy, to extrapolate Einstein's formula into I = MC^2??

quote:

---

Genetic algorithms can produce designs untouched by human minds. They do this by harnessing the evolutionary process in a design context. Random errors are created in a population of designs, oftentimes a simulation of sexual sharing of "genes" is employed, and the resulting "offspring" designs are assessed against the design goals. Those that measure up the best are selected to contribute to the next generation. If it helps you understand this, look at it as one member of the class of successive approximation approaches to problem solving.

---

I'm not dissing genetic algorithms as I can see that they have their place in research (I tried to make that clear). But we cannot go so far as to think that the results actually translate into anything we see happening in nature. The people I have debated on this will normally just admit this up front.The problems these create in teaching the subject is that some people actually seem to think that the papers Adami has written using Avida simulations as in calculating entropy in the genome is also applicable to what we find in nature. This is simply nonsense as the simulations do not match real-life studies. So, we are fine here unless someone tries to extrapolate algorithms to real life. If they don't, I don't have a problem. Go for it.

quote:

---

Just saying this indicates you don't yet understand how genetic algorithms work. Here's a brief and very simple example.

​

Let us say we want to build a word guessing program using a genetic algorithm. We define the program's operational behavior from the point of view of the user like this:

​

Print "Please think of a word and I will guess it."

​

User types "OK".

​

Print "How many letters are in the word?"
User types in the number of letters.

​

Program prints out 10 guesses.

​

User types number of correct letters for each guess.

​

If none of the guesses were completely correct, program picks the top five guesses and allows each to produce two offspring, each different from the parent by only a single random letter, then program returns to step 5.

​

If one or more of the guesses is correct, print the word and "Thank you for playing!"
That's how simple it is (naturally it can get much more complicated). In this case the user does the selecting himself. There's no mystery to genetic algorithms. There's no secret information from the programmers.

​

Another way to think of it is like the game of hotter/colder, where you search for an object in the room that someone is thinking of while they give you feedback about whether or not you're getting warmer. You discard your movements that brought a "colder" response, and you continue with movements that brought a "warmer" response. In the same way, genetic algorithms continue building on a design that evaluates as "Better, though still not good enough", while discarding those that evaluate as "Worse" or "Better, but not as good as some others".

---

All of this is well and good, but you seem to be missing my point. This is intelligence. This resembles NOTHING that can be found in nature. Have fun with the programs but don't confuse this with real life. If you do, the next time you get lost in the woods, start playing the hot and cold game with the trees and see how quickly you find your car.

quote:

---

Well put your mind at rest. You won't have to support a negative because quite obviously something happened.

---

On this, we can all agree.

quote:

---

What the theory of evolution actually does is propose a mechanism to explain how it happened, i.e., why fossils appear in the order they do, why life's diversity is spread across the planet in the way it is, etc.

---

But all it does is to propose it. Therefore, thus far, you have an observation. Now what are you going to do experimentally to get this to the hypothesis level? You haven't even done that yet much less reached the theory level.

quote:

---

The creatures of the Cambrian explosion tended to have soft-bodied ancestors that did not fossilize well, though predecessors are slowly being found. But a mammal in the Cambrian would require millions and millions of years of hard skeletoned ancestors that would have fossilized but didn't. A mammal in the Cambrian could not have come about through an evolutionary process. It would represent a serious problem for evolution.

---

It's still silly as there WERE no mammals on earth during that era. You cannot falsify something by proposing an impossibility as the falsification criteria. Did you know I can falsify that God is dead? The next time you are in your bedroom, just conjure up the devil and he will tell you. Can we stay in science here?Anyhow, I saw your point the first time around. But I also hope you grasped mine in that this is such a religiously biased 'science' that it wouldn't falsify anything. People would just back up, pluck a new theory out of the air to explain the mammal much as Gould and Eldredge did with punk eek and keep right on trucking as if no mammal was found there to begin with.

quote:

---

You've drifted off your original point. If you recall, in Message 22 you claimed that evolution wasn't testable or falsifiable.

---

No. Please keep my terms separate. I claimed that Darwinism isn't falsifiable.

quote:

---

What I was saying in the portion you quoted was that this isn't the traditional objection of ID to evolution. Most IDists accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, Behe most prominent among them. Rejecting evolution because you believe it is unscientific makes you a rather unusual IDist.

---

Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.

quote:

---

You've somehow missed the crucial (and obvious) implication. If your claim that information can not be created by natural processes but only only by intelligence is true, then the first intelligence in the universe had to have come about by supernatural means. That conclusion is inescapable. The theistic roots of your ID "theory" are painfully obvious to everyone but IDists.

---

Why could this intelligence not have come from another universe? We don't have to get into metaphysics if one ponders how this could occur through a singularity in a black hole. It may not be so painfully obvious if you discard norms of mundane thinking and go a bit deeper.

quote:

---

As I pointed out earlier, it does not take intelligence to create information.

---

Not simple information. But it certainly does with complex specified information as in the type found in organisms. The latter is simply mathematically impossible.

---

Design Dynamics

and that the probability of a chemical reaction happening is the same on the moon and at one of the hot sulfer vents at the bottom of the pacific ocean.

I would say extremely far of by almost anyone's definition of information.Take the two strings:"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"and"#!/usr/bin/perl
print 'Hello World';"Both occupy the exact same amount of space in the universe but the second most certainly contains more information than the first.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

ever seen the "darwinian poetry" website?http://www.codeasart.com/poetry/darwin.htmlrandom people select one of two "poems" at each stage. it started with purely random words. was the first example that came up today.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

unless you're falling off a cliff