Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution calculations
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 46 of 92 (184199)
02-09-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 5:57 PM


theoretical vs actual
Hey Dan,
First let me congratulate you on the tone of your well-written post - unfortunately the majority of creationists/IDers that come to the forum are not so thoughtful, so I genuinely hope you stick around a while.
Thank you for your kind redirections. I will gladly repost if there is a more appropriate forum. I am attracted to this site simply because it seems there are so many evolutionists on it.
Hopefully you realize we're suggesting you move your off-topic comments/questions to another thread in this forum, not another site. You can propose a new topic by going to the "proposed new topic" forum (accessible using the pull down menu at the bottom of the page), hitting the "new reply" button, and making your post - admins will then approve or make suggestions. The system helps things stay organized and focused.
I would love to respond to many of your statements, since you seem to have misinformation/misconceptions about some rather clear-cut issues. Instead I'll try to stick to what I see as on-topic:
Creationists would be very impressed if evolutionists would create a mathematical model that would prove the possibility of evolution.
I'll have to disagree with you here, at least for the vast majority of creationists - who I guess would be completely unimpressed by a theoretical model. Keep in mind these are the same people who dismiss enormous amounts of real evidence; also the model would have to conform to a literal Biblical timeline for many of them (6000 or perhaps 4000 years).
1) It would need to identify what constitutes new information by mutation. As far as I know, it is only the intelligent design folks who are proposing these questions and answering it by joining the concepts of complexity and specification.
Unfortunately, such nebulous ideas as "new information" and "complexity" are of little use to science. Again, defining these terms would likely drive the thread off-topic, but think about how "information" or "new information" can be defined genetically, or about how "complexity" can be quantified...
Thus there is a reason that only the intelligent design folks deal with these issues - they are the stuff of philosophy and theoretical models, and not hard science. (Hopefully you realize that "intelligent design" studies have not been accepted into peer-reviewed scientific literature.)
2) It would need to calculate the rate at which such "informational" and "beneficial" mutation occur.
Mutation rates differ based on organism and environment. The outcome of a mutation, be it neutral, deleterious, or beneficial, depends on the organism and the environment. Thus I don't think it is as easy to model a few billion years of evolution as you suggest.
Beneficial mutations do occur in humans and other species, by the way, and there is currently an active thread discussing that topic.
5) It would need to show the number of generations necessary to accumulate the information necessary to produce a human (the most complex creature on the planet.)
Evolution is not directional - that is, it does not proceed from less to more complex; rather it proceeds from less to more fit.
Also, complexity is difficult if not impossible to quantify. As an example, can you demonstrate to me that humans are more complex than chimpanzees? or dolphins? or redwoods?
Unless evolutionists are honestly willing to dialog with the material from creationists/IDers like Dembski and Behe, we will remain like two trains passing in the night
What material? Perhaps you could provide a link or primary reference to the calculations you think scientists should consider. It may be that scientists are uninterested in the ID camp because they haven't produced anything valid, rather than not having ever considered their models. In my experience the majority of ID calculations/models fail immediately because they are based on erroneous starting assumptions, usually biased to produce amazingly low probabilities.
For example, we could discuss in detail:
He further estimates that the probability of evolving the first cell is no better than one in 10 to the 4,478,146 power.
Though, it seems that you are talking about "abiogenesis" here, the origin of life, rather than evolution, which only deals with preexisting life. If this is the calculation I think it is, it may demonstrate how IDers tend to manipulate math to create propaganda - in this case I believe Dembski bases this probability on the assumption that an intact modern cell forms at random. No one in the legitimate abiogenesis field has suggested this to be the case, and models of abiogenesis usually begin with simple replicating chemical reactions. Dembski's argument is the same as suggesting a probability for an elephant to spring fully into form at random - abiogenesis models don't start with an intact cell (or an elephant), but Dembski does to inflate his improbability to impossibility.
What have the evolutionsists done that looks at the actual rates and doesn't simply extrapolate information from differences between pre existing creatures.
See, here is a contradiction, and a problem. You seem to praise the ID camp for theoretically modeling "actual rates", while population genetic studies are apparently less reliable even though they are based on actual physical data.
"Actual rates" need to based on actual data, not theory. What IDers produce are "theoretical rates".
Mathemathical models can be produced that demonstrate that the impossible is possible. Again, I don't see why we need to produce purely "philosophical" calculations when we have real evidence to work from - and I especially don't see why a philosophical calculation should be given more weight than ones based in reality.
Again, welcome to the discussion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 5:57 PM Saddleback has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 8:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 74 by Saddleback, posted 02-11-2005 6:30 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 92 (184200)
02-09-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 5:57 PM


Re: Fundamental Issue: Origin and Formation of Information
Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is less than one in 10 to the 150th power, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history.
How can that bound possibly make any sense?
Lets say that I'm rolling a die with 10^150 sides. You're saing that I'll never, ever roll "42" because the probability is that low?
Not even if I roll the die, say, 10^150 times per second? I would certainly expect to get "42" very often, rolling that fast.
It would need to identify what constitutes new information by mutation.
New information is simply novel genetic sequences. New alleles, etc.
It would need to calculate the rate at which such "informational" and "beneficial" mutation occur.
"Beneficial" is meaningless outside of the context of environment. At the DNA level all sequences are equivalent - benefical or detrimental.
It would need calculate how often such mutations create advantage in the species.
Again, a meaningless question outside of the context of environment. How do you propose to model environment in an equation? The mathematical model you're searching for can't possibly be less simple than the universe.
It would need to show the number of generations necessary to accumulate the information necessary to produce a human (the most complex creature on the planet.)
Most complex? How do you figure? What's your measurement of "complexity"? (What's the unit for "complexity"? "Complexions?")
Finally, it would need to be defensible within approximatley a 4.6 billion year timeframe assuming a propsed evolutionary timeframe.
The timeframe is proposed by geology, not evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 5:57 PM Saddleback has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Saddleback, posted 02-11-2005 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 92 (184203)
02-09-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 4:26 PM


Re: Fundamental Issue: Origin and Formation of Information
However, mutations do not necessarily form information.
Well, yeah, they have to. Every mutation forms new information - novel genetic sequences that the organism did not have before.
Every single one. It's not possible to have a mutation that does not bestow new genetic information for that organism.
Rather, please point to research that would show meaningful information developed by mutation in a creature that is "evolving."
Creatures don't evolve. Only populations evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 4:26 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 92 (184207)
02-09-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Cited research on Benefical Mutations
There is little incentive to convince a Creationist and by Creationist I mean those who support a direct creation of humans. For the most part, it is a unrewarding task. In the second place it's impossible.
Creationists really consist of two distinct and seperate groups. There are the liars, those that head up AIG or ICR, for example, or the televangelists like Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Gene Scott or the folk at TBN. They know that what they are teaching is false but have an economic incentive in continuing to lie to the second group.
The second group are the gullible. They have been sold a line of goods by the Snake Oil salesmen hawking Creationism from the rear of Medicine Wagons. They will eventually evolve on their own to one of two positions. They will decide the on their own to really look at the evidence or continue buying from the Medice Wagon. Eitherway, the it will be something they do on their own, it cannot be driven from outside.
The idea of a calculation to show evolution possible is simply stupid. Evolution happened. It's a fact.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 6:54 PM Saddleback has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 7:41 PM jar has replied

  
Saddleback
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 92 (184210)
02-09-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
02-09-2005 6:51 PM


Re: Fundamental Issue: Origin and Formation of Information
Thank you for your reply. Frankly, I appreciate your primer on the difference between possible and impossible. But if the best evolutionists can propose is the "yes" suggestion that everything is possible because nothing is impossible, you have reduced your argument to a philosophical treatise, but one that fails to account for the value of mathematics in the natural world. While the notion of the impossibility of a mathematical "impossible" may impress you, it will do nothing to impress reasonable people. As a creationist, it seems you are going down a common evolutionary path with no ending. If the probabilities for life in our universe are too improbable, just propose an infinite number of universes.
Statistics and probabilities are an essential part of nearly all scientific studies and necessary to develop the argument's validity. Dembski is making a very clear argument with detailed calculations for all to enjoy and critique. Of course, it must be "lunacy" if he uses valid scientific models and calcualtions to question the foudations of evolution. But for those willing to work within the world where mathematics proves very useful as a determiner of probability, it is very helpful.
I won't address your necessary test of "all possible ways" since evolutionists must already tread on thin ice proposing spontaneous generation from non information in the first place. And I want to keep on track.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 6:51 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 02-09-2005 8:02 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
Saddleback
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 92 (184220)
02-09-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
02-09-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Cited research on Benefical Mutations
Jar:
I appreciate that you find convincing creationsts an unrewarding task. That is the very reason for my appreciation for the many gracious evolutionists who are willing to give their time and thoughts.
However, I would encourage you to be careful about making too quick a categorization lest your categories become your reality, and not reality itself.
Finally, your moniker, "Aslan is not a tame lion." It is clearly a reference to the Christian fiction book "Chronicles of Narnia." It seems like a very Christian moniker for a conclusion. Especially about His untameability. Indeed, Christ/Aslan was/is not tame!
What do you intend it to mean? If you could post directly to me it would be more appropriate. I apologize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 02-09-2005 7:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 02-09-2005 7:55 PM Saddleback has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 92 (184224)
02-09-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Cited research on Benefical Mutations
However, I would encourage you to be careful about making too quick a categorization lest your categories become your reality, and not reality itself.
Ah, the Map is not the Territory.
So true.
Finally, your moniker, "Aslan is not a tame lion." It is clearly a reference to the Christian fiction book "Chronicles of Narnia." It seems like a very Christian moniker for a conclusion. Especially about His untameability. Indeed, Christ/Aslan was/is not tame!
Well, I tend to think I'm a very Christian person. But what does that have to do with the absurdity of Creationism?
The thread is on evolution calculations. If you look at what I posted in Message 10 you will see why I believe such tasks are simply stupid.
We know Evolution happened. The evidence is simply overwhelming. We have a theory, the TOE which has done a remarkable job explaining how it happened. In 150+ years of testing, not only has it withstood all challenges, ever new development has confirmed it. The TOE is an extremely well supported theory.
To return to the idea of mathmatical models, one that shows evolution possible would be as functional as one that shows birds can fly. We can determine that birds fly by observation regardless of the model.
On the otherhand, and that show evolution impossible have about as much validity as one that showed cows can fly or that birds can't. We can determine the facts of either of those propositions through the same act of observation. Cows can't and birds can, regardless of the model.
So it is with Evolution. The facts, the evidence is there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 7:41 PM Saddleback has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Saddleback, posted 02-11-2005 6:47 PM jar has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 53 of 92 (184227)
02-09-2005 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 7:26 PM


Re: Fundamental Issue: Origin and Formation of Information
Went right over your head, huh?
But if the best evolutionists can propose is the "yes" suggestion that everything is possible because nothing is impossible,
That is not the best evolutuionists can propose. Some of the real best that evolutionists propose has already been ignored by you in this thread.
Dembski is making a very clear argument with detailed calculations for all to enjoy and critique.
Yup. And it's been critiqued. It's garbage in, garbage out.
Of course, it must be "lunacy" if he uses valid scientific models and calcualtions to question the foudations of evolution.
No, that would not be lunacy. That would be science. Unfortunately, it's not what Debmbski has done or is doing.
When Dembski first started I thought he was honestly trying to develop a science, and was really interested and wished him well. He's done a lot since then, and each bit has been worse and more riddled with errors than the last. He's a laughing-stock. His calculations are meaningless for so many reasons it's difficult to list them all.
I remembered. BTW, that he has never calculated the probability of a cell assembling, so I would appreciate it if you would post the source of your claim that he did.
Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates and The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance are good critiques. The former summarizes No Free Lunch and, IMHO, everything that Dembski has done:
quote:
In short, No Free Lunch is completely worthless, except as a work of pseudoscientific rhetoric aimed at a mathematically unsophisticated audience which may mistake its mathematical mumbo jumbo for genuine erudition. However, since I have been urged to find something positive to write about it, I am pleased to be able to report that the book has an excellent index.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 7:26 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
Saddleback
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 92 (184237)
02-09-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by pink sasquatch
02-09-2005 7:05 PM


Re: theoretical vs actual
Thank you for your kindness. It is very disarming, and I appreciate your civility.
Creationists would like to see an evolutionary model concerning the probability of evoltuion since then there would be something critiqueable. Do you know of any? Frankly, we do not think evolutionists could create such a model to fit within an "evolutionary" or "geologic" timeframe.
Many creationists hold to a 6000-10000 year earth history because it most closely coincides with the creation account and geneologies in the Bible. I could readily discuss this topic, but believe it is immaterial to a discussion refuting evoltuion. However, if I thought I could have a meaningful discussion of the Bible with an evolutionist, I would welcome it. However, the presuppositions of naturalism is wholly irreconcilable with the Scriptures. The vast number of liberal Biblical scholars who propose naturalistic explanations for Biblical accounts are off their rocker. Simply, the Bible does not fit with naturalism. Hence, to discuss it with a person predisposed to a naturalistic viewpoint usually leads to frustration on both parts. I hope, sometimes it seems against hope itself, that evolutionists could look beyond their naturalistic worldview. I remain hopeful as I am sure you remain hopeful that you can induce some sense in a creationist.
Creationists are convinced that evolution has more holes than swiss chesse. This is not to say that Darwin was not a genius and that natural selection has not been extremely helpful in in explaining the diversity, change, and speication in population groups. Rather, it is that the mechanism for creation of information in evolution is broken. One of the previous posters pointed to his belief that any mutation is new information. Such thinking is false. I cannot get into the details of it now for lack of time, but look at my very fist post for a very cursory explanation.
Information theory is "hard science." It is new, but it is coming like a freight train. While it is applicable to all sorts of fields, creationists are using it to take aim at evolution. And rightly so I believe. Information is of a different property than matter. A hard drive is matter. But the specific alignment of the magnetic fields and their pattern of "1" and "0"s determines the information. A random mustation of the genome does not produce information. It must have a specific ability to convey itself in some meaningful way.
Finally, I am not sure why you say evolution is not directional unless you deny that there is an ability to quantify information. It seems like a nice catch phrase,and perhaps you only mean it in a specific setting. However, Darwin's "on the orgin of the species" seems to try to explain the growth in complexity from goo to you. It is certainly every lay persons understanding and reasonably so.
I'm out of time, and have to take the family to dinner. I'll post later.
Thanks,
Dan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-09-2005 7:05 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 9:01 PM Saddleback has not replied
 Message 56 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-09-2005 9:03 PM Saddleback has not replied
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2005 9:14 PM Saddleback has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2005 8:15 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 92 (184254)
02-09-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 8:29 PM


A model
Creationists would like to see an evolutionary model concerning the probability of evoltuion since then there would be something critiqueable.
It is not very clear what you mean by an "evolutionary model". Perhaps you described what it would look like it might be possible to point something out to you.
I think there are a number of possibilities for this but if you described a bit of what you are looking for it might help.
I might also suggest that before you get into the ToE (the model of how evolution happened you might want to move back to basics first.
Remember it was bible literalists who started down the path that has gotten us to where we are. It might be an easy intellectual journey if you traced their steps. If you jump into information theory and mathematical models (which some of your post hint that you are not ready to deal with) you will only get confused.
How about this order:
1) How old is the earth?
2) How do we determine that?
3) Has life on it remained fixed in form for that time?
4) What was the nature of the changes in the forms of life and at what times?
5) Finally, how might these changes have come about?
It was Bible accepting Christians who worked through all of these things starting about 300 years ago.
Darwin only answered the last question 150 years ago. While question 4 will be ongoing indefinitely.
If you are a YECer and think that the earth is only 6,000 years old then there is not good discussing evolution in any form with you. If I thought the earth was only 6,000 years old I would be rather mystified as to how evolutionary theory could be a reasonable answer.
If you insist on jumping in without the foundations you will be forced to reject what you don't understand or accept things because someone says so without understanding it either. I don't think either approach is a good idea.
(some side notes: I have had enough courses on statistics to recognize the flaws in the Dembski arguments. If you haven't you will have to start there by getting an education in probability calculations. If you keep the excellent tone that you started with then there are many here who can help you along. Everything you are asking about (other than the topic of this thread ) has been discussed a lot in the Intelligenet Design and Origin of Life fora. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 8:29 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 56 of 92 (184255)
02-09-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 8:29 PM


information, complexity, units?
The vast number of liberal Biblical scholars who propose naturalistic explanations for Biblical accounts are off their rocker. Simply, the Bible does not fit with naturalism.
Hopefully you'll realize that the majority of Christian organizations support the Theory of Evolution. It seems you are claiming that the majority of Christians are insane.
I suggest you check out the other threads in the forum - there are plenty discussing if Scripture should be taken literally, or how Scripture can or cannot fit a naturalistic view of the universe.
I hope, sometimes it seems against hope itself, that evolutionists could look beyond their naturalistic worldview.
If they do so in their roles as scientists, they are no longer practicing science, which is based upon the natural, not supernatural, world. Many, if not most, scientists look beyond the natural world all the time, they just cannot do so on-the-job, by definition.
One of the previous posters pointed to his belief that any mutation is new information. Such thinking is false.
Why so, false? Which contains more information?:
ATGGCTGTCGTAA
or
ATGGCTGACGTAA
Information theory is "hard science."
Perhaps, but intelligent design is not, which is what we have been discussing. When information theory is incorrectly applied, it is, well, incorrect.
If you feel that intelligent design is valid science, please reference one piece of genuine intelligent design "science", preferably in peer-reviewed literature.
Rather, it is that the mechanism for creation of information in evolution is broken.
Once you come up with definitions of biological information, we can discuss mechanisms that do (or can) explain its origin.
Finally, I am not sure why you say evolution is not directional unless you deny that there is an ability to quantify information. It seems like a nice catch phrase,and perhaps you only mean it in a specific setting
It is not directional in the sense of "complexity" - why do you think it is? Historically we can put a "directional" viewpoint on a lineage, but the only "direction" of evolution is from less fit to more fit. Since the most fit species on this planet are unicellular, they make up the overwhelming majority of species on the planet.
As has been said before, evolution is a bush, not a straight line.
Regarding the ability to quantify information, perhaps you should start a new thread to explain how it can be done in a biological context, since you seem to have strong (though currently nebulous) views on the subject.
However, Darwin's "on the orgin of the species" seems to try to explain the growth in complexity from goo to you. It is certainly every lay persons understanding and reasonably so.
The average lay person also thinks that evolution states we evolved from chimps, so we shouldn't put too much stock in the average lay person's understanding of science.
The Origin of Species explains the origin of the diversity of life as it currently exists. Whether one puts an human-centric "complexity" viewpoint upon it is their own issue.
Can you address quantifying complexity? You've been asked a couple of times here and I didn't see your response. What is a unit of complexity? How many more units of complexity do humans have than dolphins?
And perhaps to try to get back on thread topic:
You really should provide Dembski's calculations and/or a more detailed defense of them; without such it really is the argument from authority that you suggested it would be called. Perhaps start with listing the underlying assumptions for his calculations, and we can discuss if they are appropriate.
Looking forward to further discussion with you.
_______________________________________
edited to add:
Before you continue to defend Dembski's calculations, you may want to look over the article Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations at the TalkOrigins site. It covers many of the misconceptions and poor assumptions made during "improbability of abiogenesis" calculations by creationists. I'll be interested to see what you think.
This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 02-10-2005 01:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 8:29 PM Saddleback has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2005 8:55 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 92 (184258)
02-09-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 8:29 PM


Information Theory
To help you with some of the discussions on "information":
CSI and Design
A fatal logical flaw in creationism?
Complex Specified Information (CSI)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 8:29 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 92 (184336)
02-10-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Saddleback
02-09-2005 6:39 PM


Re: About the Mathematical Probability of Evolution
Since
a) I am familiar with Dembski's work - which is rarely clear and often shoddy
and
b) I am not aware of Dembski claiming to have constructed such a model.
c) To the best of my knowledge it would be impossible to construct model capable of giving a reliable result (not even an estimate to within a few orders of magnitude)
I do not accept your word that Dembski really has done what you claim.
These are reasonable objections and you have a reasonable answer - to point me at this model. Simply asking me to accept your word will lead me to the conclusion that there is no such model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Saddleback, posted 02-09-2005 6:39 PM Saddleback has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 92 (184374)
02-10-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by pink sasquatch
02-09-2005 9:03 PM


Re: information, complexity, units?
above was
quote:
One of the previous posters pointed to his belief that any mutation is new information. Such thinking is false.
Why so, false? Which contains more information?:
ATGGCTGTCGTAA
or
ATGGCTGACGTAA
For me the answer is in the word, "perversion" but I do not have the ability to turn this word into a biophysics of this moment as of yet,yet it IS odd to me that people are still trying to find serenity now and not trying to line up all the ducks. Obviously some of the disagreement would be cleared up with strict reliance of defintions about "mutation" but indeed this does not clean up all the guts. I do not use the word as rehtoric,even if that is all the ear hears. I am concerned with this difference as NOT one of nationality although the history of the use of it has been so clearly read. This could gett back to something OoOK! might have suggested, when it is not the orangs crossing by wire above the national zoo visitors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-09-2005 9:03 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Parasomnium, posted 02-10-2005 10:22 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 60 of 92 (184386)
02-10-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Brad McFall
02-10-2005 8:55 AM


Re: information, complexity, units?
Brad McFall writes:
For me the answer is in the word, "perversion" but I do not have the ability to turn this word into a biophysics of this moment as of yet,yet it IS odd to me that people are still trying to find serenity now and not trying to line up all the ducks. Obviously some of the disagreement would be cleared up with strict reliance of defintions about "mutation" but indeed this does not clean up all the guts. I do not use the word as rehtoric,even if that is all the ear hears. I am concerned with this difference as NOT one of nationality although the history of the use of it has been so clearly read. This could gett back to something OoOK! might have suggested, when it is not the orangs crossing by wire above the national zoo visitors.
That's all very well of course, but have you considered that it was proviral life-size analyzed genomist of Bornean orangutan infected virus and the bubbles were prolonged order? It was a genomist published with exception of the monkey and the monkey which showed with the similarity removed obstructions from in genomist of the virus what bubbles, but the virus simian SFVora of the phylogen of the analysis that different bubbles hominoids of the virus where the bubble of this of the monkey of old world fz to him a distance which such as evolutionarily him clearly. This you who find propose the development where the interior of the owner which charged established more per much time the period will be independent.
So it's either that or cappuccino.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2005 8:55 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 02-10-2005 2:13 PM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 02-10-2005 4:23 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024