EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

There was a part of me that was trying to help. It is a new day so I'm sorry for the offense. Maybe I went to far. The frustration kind of builds up when I argue with multiple people around here.Forget about Dembski's definition. Unless you want to make the CSI argument as brittle as possible and then attack it.I did give you an idea of what CSI is (in another thread) but you rejected it. I will illustrate it in simplistic form again. Why does it have to be complicated?Mere Complexity - words jumbled randomOrder but redundant information - That That That ThatComplex Specified Information (CSI) - There are a lot of people who don't like traderdrew in the evcforum.netDNA contains specific arrangements of information that produce specific effects.Maybe your problem is that you don't know that each amino acid within DNA has no particular bonding affinities that attach to the sugar phosphate backbone of DNA. It is true that G has to go with C and T has to go with A.So if I can arrange combinations of GC / CG or TA / AT in any combinations inside of DNA, I can get any combination of G,C,T,A that I want. Let me demonstate.TAGCATTACGCGATGCTAWhen I read the information above illustrated vertically, I have the combination TGATCCAGT (left)or ACTAGGTCA (right). These are short patterns representing amino acids in DNA generated ramdomly.I followed the rule that links A with T and G with C but as you can see, when they are arranged along DNA, the combinations can be read on a DNA model when it is read running parallel with the twisting DNA. (Look for a model of a double helix and read the sequences as the spiral along with the twisted backbone.)In order for you to have a functional protein, it has to have a tetiary structure or at least approximately 75 amino acids. In order to get the amino acids that build proteins, each amino acid in DNA has to be expressed in chains of three called condons. So I would need a chain of at least (75x3) = 225 A,C,G,Ts represented by those illustrations above. (This doesn't count the start and stop information at the beginning of the chain and at the end.)

I am sure my example was very simplified.It does seem that you are trying to have a go at me. It seems that you are trying to play the game that I has been used on me before. It says, if I cannot attack the information, attack the ignorance of the person. Never mind that I could have very well reverberated the knowledge of what someone else wrote.If that game doesn't work. Attack traderdrew for playing the role of victim or attack the information by confusing it with more sophisticated material.If you really can refute what I state on a simple level, then why don't you just do it? As Nike says, "Just do it."

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.I was just conducting searches and I found something. It would be fair to include that the information inside DNA creates 20 different amino acids as well as stop condons. I just got this off Yahoo answers:If you were building proteins and could only use each amino acid once, you would have 20 factorial possibilities, thats: 20! = 20 * 19 * 18 ... * 1 = 2,432,902,008,176,640,000

​

That's if you could only use each amino acid once, so you can see how many possibilities there really are.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.Right now you and I appear to be on OK terms and so I will be cool. I suppose you can say that DNA shows a complex form of redundancy. So where would I draw the lines? I will have to contemplate on this further. 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.By the way, I edited the guided transpermia post so it makes more sense now.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.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

But these wouldn't ONLY represent random mutations, they respresent a relatively intelligent designer seeking the best solution. I was being seduced by the dark side when I wrote what you responded too.No seriously, Wounded King was right in mentioning that I was arrogant. I don't know enough to refute most of the things he wrote and I know that I was wrong with one thing. But taking a risk is one way of learning.I'm sure you would agree that psychology has something to do with all of this. Our paradigms and our hermeneutics seem to pick out and filter what we see and this in turn effects how we think.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.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.

You didn't mention that in your computer/tinkerer analogy. That changes things and this steers this debate right back to a basic starting point....pure Darwinism vs. ID. Sit down and day trade the S&P 500 or another highly liquid market with no trading system for as long as you can.

Yes there is that potential debt problem isn't there? Read either one of the two books, "Mean Markets and Lizard Brains" or "Mean Genes". Unfortunately for me, it would make you a better opponent if you can incorporate a higher amount of rational thought into your debate.Consider the following brain teaser:Imagine that you are a doctor and one of your patients asks to take an HIV test. You assure her that the test is unnecessary as only one woman out of a thousand with her age and sexual history is infected. She insists, and sadly the test result indicates viral infection. If the HIV test is 95% accurate, what is the chance that your patient is actually sick?(Don't reply here. Take note of your answer and I will provide the answer sometime later.)In my experience, I tend to find the advocates of ID more rational than the Darwinists.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You are correct in believing that she is not sick. Actually there is a 2% probability of her being sick.Let me give you some examples from this forum of how the study of irrationality has helped me.Someone around here claimed something like, ID research assumes that there was a creator science doesn't work like that and so ID starts from a flawed premise.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.Another one said, "Never say never in science." If you think about it, science says never all of the time. You can extrapolate this from the laws of thermodynamics. It is obvious that if a creator exists, and I believe there is a God, then God went through a certain amount of measures to stay pretty much hidden from our detection. The question is why?I believe that irrationality is connected and related to your biases. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I think it works for me but I am wired differently than many of the evolutionists around here. On the other hand, it is true that games are being played around here and I have been also guilty of playing them. However, the games won't work unless there at least some truth behind the messages.I do give people credit where credit is due. You handed my ass to me on this forum because I was arrogant. Nobody else did that here. That is somewhat a matter of opinion because it depends on how much you can see through the content of the messages. I think most posters underestimate this ability in other people.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I agree. This is true. 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. 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? OK, then I will stop. But I wasn't really attempting to teach you. We can learn things every day and so this is a given. I was attempting to reason with you not that I thought the odds were on my side.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

And one one of the rules is, don't let any article that supports ID into the journal??? 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. I have no problem with it. Michael Behe addressed 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.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I was just reading the article. It is in the online archives in Discovery Institute's website. It is an article about biology. It is right for you to ask me for it but I just told you that I have to mine for it. For not I will continue to have faith that no abiogenesis model can't start it. Is that not honesty? I might be one of the most honest people around 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) I believe in Dawinian evolution also. I have an interest in sealife. I think it is obvious in some cases where you have similar but different species from one location to another much like Darwin's finches. Darwin explains thinks well but it doesn't explain things exceptionally well. I don't think it explains evolution of the flatfish although it did evolve from a symmetrical fish. I don't think it explains IC structures. I has to prove to me that it can explain multilayered overlapping information in the gene. I can turn this around on you. Show me how evolution can evolve the complex messages within messages of DNA.Here is my reference for the TTSS:Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent DesignConsider that the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants . . . which supposedly evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar motility had already evolved. Beyond this, when TTSS genes are found in the chromosomes of bacteria, their GC (guanine/cytosine) content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. Given the fact that TTSS genes are commonly found on large virulence plasmids (which can be easily passed around between different bacteria), this is good evidence for horizontal transfer to explain TTSS gene distribution. Flagellar genes, on the other hand, are usually split into 14 or so operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome suggesting that the code for the flagellum has not been spread around by horizontal transfer. Additional evidence for this comes from the fact that the TTSS system shows little homology with any other bacterial transport system (at least 4 major ones). Yet, evolution is supposed to build upon what already exists. Since the TTSS system is the most complex of the bunch, why didn't it evolve from one of these less complex systems and therefore maintain some higher degree of homology with at least one of them? This evidence suggests that the TTSS system did not exist, nor anything homologous, in the "pre-flagellar era". It must therefore have arisen from the fully formed flagellum via the removal of pre-existing parts - and not the other way around. In fact, several scientists have actually started promoting this idea in recent literature.3-8Now, isn't that just most interesting? - totally unpredictable based on Miller's arguments. Rather, it seems much more in line with the predictions of intelligent design; that what is more functionally complex can indeed degenerate into something that has fewer structural requirements. But, is it just as easy to turn things around and go upstream; so to speak? Not at all. In other words, it is far easier to destroy a car's motility function and still have its headlights work than to go the other way around and get the motility function starting with working headlights. Yet, you won't hear this little interesting fact in Miller's books or lectures. It certainly wasn't brought up by NOVA in their coverage of the Dover trial. Even though the experts presented know of this fact, they probably don't want to present it for fear of confusing their intended audience.Another reference to the TTSS is inside the book "Signature in the Cell". 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.Edit: Just to perhaps help clear up any questions, I am about finished for now. I believe in Darwinian evolution and so does Michael Behe. We don't think it explains everything.I believe in chaos theory so extrapolating from that, multiple possiblities occur in the natural world. I believe that an intelligent designer could have infused information into the genome and the flow of chaos would have disguised it.

Edited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "complex specified information"

If you go back and look at my post, you will see that I didn't say that the flatfish didn't evolve. I was well aware of that link you posted. You see, I do some homework. I wouldn't want to be invested in something if I thought it wasn't true.Rather I would pose questions such as these. What advantage would natural selection have to act on if one of the eyes was displaced but still on one side? I would theoretically believe that the first mutation would have occurred in a single fish. This being the case then, how do the descendants of the first mutant build upon that mutation without being wiped out or repressed by the genetics of normal fish as the genes get passed on? I can use Darwinian conjecture and speculation to help answer my second question. I believe I have a basic understanding of Darwinism. I can think from it. I wouldn't debate it but there would still be some doubt. How would it be a guarantee that the mutation wouldn't be lost?Indeed the flatfish is a unique creature. Contrary to what Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have stated in their books, I think it is a good design. I have observed them in the wild. They are quick and some of them utilize camouflage as they can change their pigments to a certain extent in order to blend in over various habitats. The designs of their mouths seems to have an advantage over skates as they can capture prey above them unlike a skate which would have to be on top of prey in order to capture it. The skate and the flatfish are somewhat apples and oranges and it would be relatively unfair to say that one design is superior to the other.

This will be my last post on this here. I noticed that the moderators wanted to keep this on the topic after I posted my information on the flatfish. An easy answer. What other vertebrate exhibits this sort of asymmetry?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I thought I wasn't going to post but Percy is a moderator so I guess it is fine to post again here. How very interesting.I believe the flatfish design is good for evading certain types of predators. I have swam over flatfish before and I accidentally put my hand on one. Its camouflage was very good over the particular shade of sand. It darted off almost like a bullitt and I was barely able to see what it was. The camouflage probably helps it fool its prey too.I believe there are 500 species of flatfish and some have body designs that are mirror images of others. In other words, I believe some have jaws that face the opposite way.An ID perspective: Once at least two flatfish were designed by a series of mutations, natural selection and evolution could take over and evolve from the new design. "The Edge of Evolution" by Mike Behe stated that new genera were within that zone (among with families and classes, I think?) of the tentative edge of Darwinian evolution. Any thing above what I think is the neutral zone of the edge, (such as new phyla) would call for multiple coherent mutations. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

If you want to debate politics, why not go to a political debate forum? It is not hard to find one on the net.