I will have to read Dembski's rules. I never read his book.
It is generally a good diea to know what you're talking about before debating it.
Are you interested in making this hard on me in an attempt to discredit what I think is the obvious? Superficially, it is obvious that things like orderly sequencing such as the palm tree example or specific messages that serve specific functions are not something that has been produced by forces within chaos. The debate stems from this. Sometimes I get the impression that some of you are trying to escape metaphysical reality. "See no CSI, hear no CSI."
Define orderly sequence.
Is 123456789 any more orderly, from a non anthropocentric view as the exact sequence 182746235?
Why? What are the odds of that exact sequence of numbers forming compared to the exact sequence of the other numbers forming?
They're exactly the same. But in evolution, we're not talking about a specific series of number, we're talking about any series of numbers. IDist tend to look at things from the end point and say, "What are the odds that random chance would take us from Point A to Point B?"
You're quite right when you say the odds are slim. But you're missing the point. The organism started at Point A. It ended up at another point. What are the odds the organims would end up at a point different from A? 100% What are the odds it will end up at any specific point? Slim, but it had to end up somewhere, and no matter where it ends up, the odds of it having gotten there are slim, but that doesn't mean it was directed.
If you drive out of your driveway and take random turns down random roads, you'll end up somewhere. Now, if you stopped and tried to calculate, based on where you started, the odds of you having gotten to where you are, it would be astronomically small, and even smaller as the length of time you drive went up. However, that doesn't mean you were consciously picking where you went, its just that you had to end up somewhere, and all specific spots were improbable.
How would the information you provided disprove ID? Darwin's theory says that we got here by some sort of fluke doesn't it? How would it disprove convergent evolution? [...] I would say that natural selection would explain part of it.
Well, every mutation is a fluke, yeah, but whether that fluke gets passed on to successive generations is not. If the fluke happens to help, or at least doesn't hurt too bad, it has a greater chance of being passed on.
For convergent evolution, you have two different animals who are faced with similar problems. They can't do anything until a fluke (mutation) happens. Does this mutation help them solve the problem?
No? Well, it doesn't get passed on.
Yes, a little? Then my kids will have this slightly better chance of reproducing, and maybe, they'll have another fluke and we can see if that one helps or not.
The fact that getting from a branch of one tree to a branch of another, without climbing down and back up, has only a couple possible solutions considering the starting positions. You have skin, bones, muscles, and limbs. You can either try and make the limbs into wings, but those don't work much better than limbs until they're strong enough to create the lift necessary, so those probably won't get selected for (though they may not get selected against, either), but an expanded slip of skin could act as a parachute, and at least slow a fall, even if it's not much of one, so it would get selected for.
The fact that multiple species solve a similar problem with a similar solution isn't tough to believe. In fact, if it didn't happen, that could be used as better evidence for ID, since a designer wouldn't be constrained by the previous designs, he wouldn't have to reuse designs.
So, yeah, natural selection is the thing in evolution that factors out the randomness.
DNA contains specific arrangements of information that produce specific effects.
But DNA isn't trying to get thos effects. Any combination of DNA (assuming the start and end codons) will create an "effect." Some effects work better, and are thus passed on. Some don't work as well, so they don't get passed on. We (and indeed all life on the planet) are a circumstance of the better working effects getting passed on, with new ones being tested every time there's a mutation.
For example, let's take your DNA string: TA GC AT TA CG CG AT GC TA
Assuming the start and end codons, this will create a protein of some sort. What that protein does once it's created will depend on it's size and shape. As long as it doesn't hurt the organism's chance at reproducing, it has a chance to be paossed on.
Perhaps, a mutation occurs that changes the first AT group to a TA group. Now, the protein produced will be different, and the effects of that protein will again depend on the size and shape of the protein. Will the new one do something that helps the organism? Only time will tell.
I wouldn't say that DNA is trying. I would say a better analogy would be comparing it to code within computers. Where did the code in computers come from? We all know the answer. It came from an outside intelligence. You can't place a jumbled amount of unspecified information inside the hardware of a computer.
But we write code in computers to get a specific result. If all we want is a result, we can put jumbled code in and something will happen, even if it's everything grinding to a halt. That would mean the random code entered wasn't a good one, so we throw another random code in, does it do something more than shutting everything down? No? We try another one. Does this do something better? Yes, just barely...we got the computer to make a bleep sound before shutting down.
This is one of the biggest thing to try and get over from a religious/creationist/IDist viewpoint. WE ARE NOT THE INTENDED OUTCOME! We just happen to be the outcome, out of all the infinite possibile outcomes, that exist.
With so many different possibilities, it appears that it has more flexiblity than specific molecules inside crystals. Crystals may appear to be designed but their organization appears to be very redundant.
You're right, it does. In fact, there are multiple codons that code for the same amino acid, so for some mutations, the end result would be the same. So, yes there is redundancy and flexibility, but that doesn't mean it was intended, or designed, that just means that a more flexible framework allows for more flexible patterns, and can create multiple possibilities that a crystal can't, and thus a crystal can't be alive or reproduce or anything. Flexibility and redundancy are things we would expect from a natural occurence that creates the diversity we see. A designed set of "blueprints" would need far less redundancy and flexibility, since a designer could wrinkle out all the unknowns and pare down the required elements.
I have read that both Richard Dawkins and Bill Gates has stated that the information in DNA is uncannily like the information in a computer.
True, but for one thing, they're using it as an analogy from something we understand very well (since we created it). It's easy to take the analogy too far, and get confused on parts that don't match what they intended.
For another, the fact that we mimic natural processes in technology is for a couple reasons. 1) We can see that it works by looking at nature. 2) There are a finite number of ways, using natural laws, to solve a particular problem. Just like with convergent evolution, the fact that we stumble upon the same or similar solutions as nature isn't surprising.
A thought in my mind: It sure is easier to be a Darwinian evolutionist than to be a proponent of ID. Basic Darwinism is so seductively simple and you can extrapolate concepts from it that transcend away from the theory.
I would agree with this, but that's for many reasons. The theory is so simple and elegant, as all "good" theories are and can lead to many ways to test it (predictions and extrapolations that can be tested and verified or tossed) and that confomrs to all the evidence rather than trying to cherry pick. I'm not saying you're deliberately cherry-picking. I don't know you or how your mind works or why you believe ID, but there are a lot of problems with ID that don't exist for Evolution. The people formulating these concepts are clearly cherry picking and either being deliberatly untruthful, or are lying to themselves. The math behind CSI just doesn't come out, it requires disproven ideas or conflation of terms. The lay people (the ground troops of ID, if you will) do not have the mathematical background to realize this, and conflation just makes things harder for someone not well versed in the science to see the errors.
Right now you and I appear to be on OK terms and so I will be cool.
I hope so, and I hope you enter this debate with an open mind. The people who disagree with you may come off as gruff or condescending or arrogant, but that's because they usually are the mathematicians or scientists who have worked their entire lives at this, and someone who comes up to them attempting to "teach" them about their own field of study and then makes fallacious arguments comes off as condescending and arrogant as well.
But these wouldn't ONLY represent random mutations, they respresent a relatively intelligent designer seeking the best solution.
Not if we keep throwing in random changes to the original code. It's only an intelligent designer if we stop and try to figure out a change that will create something better. The random changes are the same as mutation, the deciding if the change is a good thing or not is the same as natural selection. But the analogy obviously breaks down because what we're doing isn't the same as DNA replication and transcription, but as a general overview of evolution, it works pretty well.
There is so much information involved here. Darwin's simplistic way can make it seductive but the truth involves complexity. I think Lynn Margulis described Darwinism as something like sweet sugary candy but if fails to explain things when certain questions arise. It is so complex that science is learning new things all of the time. There is so much complexity that any one of us can subconciously filter out information especially if it doesn't interest us as much.
Well, part of it is that what Darwin proposed 100 years ago has been changed and refined as we learned more about the world. His idea said nothing about genetics or mutation, per se. So, saying Darwinism is perhaps a bit outdated, as we don't revere what Darwin did, but instead have changed what he did and come up with a better process to explain the same things he did. His idea was just the starting board, and in fact, wasn't even a unique idea. A number of other scientists at the time were formulating and coming up with much the same idea.
Much the same that we don't call everyone who believes in gravity a "Newtonist," partially because his ideas have been refined and changed, most dramatically by Einstein, but also because gravity isn't controversial, so there are no "points" to be made by rebranding your opponents. The Republicans do this all the time, talking about the "Democrat Party." The correct term is the Democratic Party, and by misnaming them, they have shown their disrespect for the positions and the people by acting as if it't not important to get the term right.
My approach to these debates comes form irrationality of the mind. We tend to see patterns that don't exist and we make the wrong decisions at times. Why? Our irrational behavior gets in the way. But science is supposed to help us see through our irrational behavior. I remain unconvinced that it does.
Well, you're right that people get stuck in patterns and ruts and can't always see outside of their paradigm. But the process of science, with the requirement of replication and peer review. The use of mathematics that anyone with enough math knowledge can double check, and the fact that many people work on the same problems, with their ideas competing in the literautre ensures that the best answer generally shakes out.
If you know of a better way to try and weed out human biases, let me know. It could lead to a better process for determining the nature of the universe.
Sit down and day trade the S&P 500 or another highly liquid market with no trading system for as long as you can.
This doesn't weed out human bias at all. In fact, it makes human bias and "hunches" the sole means of making decisions, and as you've so astutely implied, it won't work for very long before I fall on my face, or worse, in debt.
I don't see how any of this has to do with evolution vs ID. You're the one talking about probabilities, saying that it's so improbable for evolution to work that it didn't. I'm the one saying, yes it's improbable, but so is everything that's even remotely complex, especially when you look at it from the end result.
So, I would test the girl, despite it being improbable. You, as an IDist would say, it's so improbable for you to be infected that you aren't. Then, after the test comes back, you would say, well, the test was flawed, since the probability of her being infected is so low, despite the evidence in front of me, I'll continue to believe that she is not sick, and I'll use that 5% error as wiggle room.
My rational thought thinks, do Darwinists not approach science with the perspective that a creator does not exist? Is this not an equally flawed premise? Any rational mind sees that a creator isn't involved with everything that goes on, at least in the way that we can see.
"Darwinists" (and here, I use the term in the way I think you mean it, and not in the way it comes across to those of us who understand that using it is a perjorative that need not be employed by honest debators) do not assume that a creator does not exist. They start from the premise that the only thing we can discover by empirical means are things that can be measured by empirical means. I know that sounds like a tautology, but since you seem to be missing the point, it needs to be restated. A creator cannot be seen by empirical means, and all the best scientists out there have not seen any evidence of one using empirical means. The only people who do claim to see such evidence are ignoring the studies that contradict their views, use math in a false and misleading way, and have a preconceived notion that a creator (god) must exist, and so need to believe that what they find is evidence of that creator.
So, I follow evidence to where it leads, whether or not it contradicts with my original belief on what it would show. You start from the premise a god exists, and everytime someone shows you that your reasoning is flawed, you come back with more flawed reasoning.
In short, you need to match the conclusion to the evidence, not the other way around. And someone without the training in a particular field should not deign to teach people who do have the years of study.
Are you sure about that? Why is it then when somebody who lets an article on ID such as Stephen Meyer's article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, gets intimidated, expelled or fired? I will repeat that I think the powers on the top are hiding something. Some people just don't want to admit that this as probable.
I'm not well versed on this case, but it appears that the reason he was fired and "intimidated" was because he didn't follow the rules of getting an article into the journal, not because of the content of the article. It sounds like he didn't have the article peer reviewed, quite probably because any time an IDists claims are peer reviewed, it turns out they miscalculated or conflated terms to make their argument stronger to the lay person, but can't fool actual scientists.
It couldn't be that other models have continuously failed to explain the evidence exceptionally well?
It can't be that explaining that past citing only natural causes and phenomenon is a closed loop that doesn't allow any room for an intelligent designer?
You have yet to show something that isn't explained well by evolution, but is by ID. On the contrary, we have tons of things that are not even attempted to be explained by ID that are explained by evolution. What is the ID explanation for bacterial resistance to antibiotics?
For a "new" theory to supercede an old one, it has to explain everything the old one does, at least as well, and then make predictions the old one doesn't, and then those predictions need to be shown to be true. So, what predictions does ID make that are contradicted by evolution, and what experiments have been done to show that the ID prediction is true and the evolution one is not?
And one one of the rules is, don't let any article that supports ID into the journal???
Not at all, unless the article covered content that was not related to the field of the journal. For instance, an ID article about biological functions would not be allowed in a Physics Journal. Not because it's ID, but because it's not Physics, it's biological.
As for this case, the article wasn't peer reviewed, which is against the rules. Whewther it's ID, evolution, or fairy dust, the article HAS to be peer reviewed.
I have things I can mine. Here is just one of them. Let's just assume that PaulK is correct with debunking CSI. It probably doesn't matter because DNA is more like CMSI (complex multilayered specified information). It has information that overlaps in more than one way. It is inside "Signature in the Cell" but that term wasn't used. "Signature in the Cell" isn't about CSI. It is more about abiogenesis theories.
Ok, but evolution explains DNA, well enough for 99.9% of the biologists in the world, so you have to show us where ID explains DNA better than evolution. Claiming that CSI or CMSI can't evolve is a claim, show me why it can't. The math Dembski uses is woefully incorrect, so I want you to show me, yourslef, what stops evolution from producing DNA. Show your work please.
I have no problem with it. Michael Behe addressed it.
In your own words...what is it?
From the top of my head, ID predicted that there are uses for junk DNA and there are at least 10 of them. ID also predicted that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and it has proven it. (Do you want references?) An extrapolation from Darwinism made a certain amount of evolutionists believe that devolution doesn't occur but that wasn't true.
Evolution predicts uses for junk DNA, too. What prediction contradicts evolution?
Yes, I want references, because as far as I can tell, evolution has proved that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. So, how is your "proof" better than our "proof"? AGain, show your work.
Um, define devolution? All evolution means is change, so how can you have a loss of change? If something changes, it's evolving, regardless of what "direction" you think it's going in. The word devolution has no meaning in biology, just like, technically, decelleration has no meaning in physics. You can have negative accelleration, but decelleration doesn't really mean anything.
I was just reading the article. It is in the online archives in Discovery Institute's website. It is an article about biology.
Ok, but I was just using the biology/physics example as an illustration that it wasn't the fact it was ID that got him in toruble, it was the fact that he didn't follow the rules.
It is right for you to ask me for it but I just told you that I have to mine for it.
That's fine. Take all the time you want.
I might be one of the most honest people around here.
That's quite a claim. I, however, think that I am the most honest person here.
Apparently some people predicted it would but some evolutionists were skeptical. Here is a quote from a famous professor:
The designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. (Ken Miller, 1994)
True, but the fact is, it was predicted. And, it is also a fact that there is some DNA that is not currently being used, much like an appendix.
I can turn this around on you. Show me how evolution can evolve the complex messages within messages of DNA.
Well, the current evolutionary idea would be that it started with very simple messages, and as replication and natural selection worked to pass on mutations, the message would necessarily get more complex.
Is the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C not devolution? The gene is broken. Behe has also stated that E.coli has devolved in "The Edge of Evolution". The bacteria casted away genetic information apparently for the purposes of saving energy.
Nope, that's just evolution involving the loss of an ability. As humans, we have lost many abilities that our ancestor species had, but we have also gained many other abilities. That's just how it works.