What exactly is ID?

I was actually just parodying your style of argument by unsupported assertion. However, since you ask, vestigial genes would be a good place to start. Or the structure of human chromosome 2. Again, I was indulging in parody. However, since you ask, the evidence lies in direct observation of evolution in laboratories. And then of course there's the laws of genetics ... Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you problems? Quite. And Dembski ... well, "elaborated" would be quite a good word for what he has done. But one cannot say that this has resulted in any sort of operative definition. No. My inquiry was prompted by your ludicrous failure to understand PaulK.Might I suggest that, if English is not your first language, you should take extra-special care to ensure that you really do understand what people are saying before laughing at it for being absurd. Only it might be, as in this case, that the absurdity lies solely in your own incomprehension.

For your refutation to be scientific, I would say "yes". Water molecules are so small that nobody has actually observed them. This is part of what tells me the pores of the cellular membrane are very small.So here are some of my questions:Would the chemical constituents forming proteins, in the first cell, (assuming the first cell didn't have aquaporins but was indeed porous) automatically self-organize into the right type of membrane in order to protect the elegant machinery inside the cell?Are the aquaporins of the cellular membrane the result of self-organizational processes and therefore the result of the spaces between the protein molecules? If this were the case, I would expect to see thousands of them in an orderly arrangement. Or are they the result of unique spatial protein arrangements?

I will remind you many Darwinists also believe in a diety. You can cherry pick quotes from Hilter but that doesn't necessarily elicidate the entire reality.What were Adolf Hitler's ideology and beliefs? - Answers

I think you're right that, "A theory such as Darwinism can be rationalized into something that serves evil." The Nazi's did draw upon ideas from social Darwinism, which in turn drew its ideas from evolution. Nazi ideas also drew strongly upon Christianity. If I understand you correctly, I agree that when evil people employ an idea that it doesn't suddenly make that idea evil.Religion is just one framework among many for the expression of inherent human irrationality. Science is another framework, as demonstrated by creationists, climate-warming deniers and vaccine scaremongers, among many others.--Percy

So where is your scientific evidence? I think you assume someone has figured it out. When I debate you Huntard, I sometimes feel like I am involved in some sort of contorted debate. It makes me wonder if you are trying to grasp for things in an attempt to preserve your idealogy or justify your presence here.I mean you also ask me, "What the hell is CSI information?" Percy says it is something we contrived. Does this really render CSI obsolete? I have asked participants around here, "If CSI doesn't exist in DNA, then what kind of information does?" Is it Shannon information? What other types of measurement and description have people invented besides CSI? Do all of these things really not describe certain things that exist in the world? From a certain point of view, I understand that DNA exists and CSI is conceptual or used as a frame of reference. Maybe language gets in the way.Look at this article below:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=... Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination.All known metabolism is cybernetic — that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.The above article looks like it could have come from the Discovery Institute.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Which is why I quoted him talking specifically creationist nonsense. In what way is that "cherry-picking"? Do you maintain that I'm misrepresenting his views? If so, please supply a teensy-weensy bit of evidence of your own. I supplied actual quotations from Hitler. You just made stuff up in that wonderful way creationists have.Everything I've read him say on the subject demonstrates him to be firmly creationist and in denial of any evolution at all except the "microevolution" that creationists say they believe in.Let's have another Hitler quote, shall we?"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed." --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. You had a point?

Yes. Specifically, how do you measure the quantity of CSI present in a given object. Now you see that's cherry-picking.Let's have a look at a couple of the sentences you missed out: "The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical—chemical world."Does that sound to you like something the Discovery Institute would subscribe to? No? No, it doesn't look much like one of their manifestos to me, either. And yet you say that the article looks like it could have come from them. No. A couple of sentences taken out of context look vaguely like something they might say.Have you actually read the whole article, or did you just settle for cherry-picking the abstract?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not that I can see or care to investigate at this point. What I am saying, using an analogy, no legitimate court of law would listen to only one side of a case whether it be the prosecution or the defense.

Oh no, I didn't miss that. Intelligent Design does not specify the identity of the designer. It does not tell us what type of clothes to wear or what kind of religious services to perform.I believe that Master Yoda seeded the Earth with life. It is up to me to find his signature somewhere in DNA and I am going to find it i'm telling you!!!

quote:

---

Relevance to what?

---

To the functioning of the flagellum in allowing the bacterium to move. Isn't that obvious ?
Are you really going to tell me that the whip is catalysing chemical reactions rather than acting as a propellor ?

quote:

---

That doesn't answer my question. Is teh informational content the same or not?

---

Actually it does answer your question, if you understood it. The point is that you have to deal with the origins - in fact all the possible origins - to calculate the information. The information is the same - but you can't even calculate it without considering origins.

quote:

---

And that's what Dembski did. Your point is?
Oh, wait, your point is that it grows. Yeah, I know it grow, and agaon, that's irrelevant because you still need to account for those 50 proteins one way or another. The fact that the flagellum grow is a whole another piece of machinery and a whole lot of new information. So if you think that the probability has increased, it didn't. Because now you have to account for the information that grows the flagellum. Which actually is besides the point.

---

That is exactly what Dembski FAILED to do, True the information of the genes has to be accounted for, but neither you nor Dembski have made any honest attempt to measure that.

quote:

---

Which information? CSI? No. Because salt crystals do not have an independently given pattern. They have no specification, therefore they have no CSI.

---

Utterly, utterly wrong. The cubic shape of a salt crystal and the organised lattice of sodium and chlorine that make it up is a perfect example of a specification. It is the information content that is low, because the probability of slat forming crystals is high.

quote:

---

LOL! That's like saying that cars are NOT designed becasue they are assembled by machines. Cars are designed and so are the machines that assemble them. The same goes for the flagellum and the machinery that assembles it.

---

It's Dembski's method, not mine. And of course Dembski is content to allow false negatives in his method so failures of that sort are not significant. And certainly no excuse to change the method in a way that would make it more susceptible to false positives.

quote:

---

He didn't need to! His woork was on protein in general. We extrapolate this finding on the flagellum becasue it's also made of proteins.

---

You're right that Axe didn't need to - but you do. And therefore you can\t rely on Axe's work.

quote:

---

Yes, that mean that smaller populations are more at risk of experiencing the genetic meltdown. If you actually understood what is happening you would know that the same thing goes for any population. But if the population is larger, more time will be needed for the effect to happen. If you disagree, please expalin what is a "large" population, and how can tehy escape genetic meltdown.

---

Your understanding of the English language fails again. "...can cause the extinction of populations of small size" implies that the risk is only significant to small populations.

quote:

---

The papers clearly says that it MAY, which means they are assuming, and it says AMELIORATE, which means it reduces, not removes the effect.

---

In other words they agree with me ! Combine that with the fact that they think that larger populations will NOT be driven to extinction by genetic entropy and we see that your interpretation of the paper is thoroughly at odds what what it actually says.

quote:

---

I don't care what you say, Dembski defined it as "Complex Specified Information". Because it's complex and specified. Yes, it is a subset of what information is. Because there are a lot of definitions of information.

---

Go ahead and blame Dembski all you like. It hardly makes ID look good.

Quite so --- no legitimate court of law would have accepted your unevidenced allegation that "the Nazis had their roots in Darwinism" without also taking into account my presentation of the hard evidence showing that this was rubbish.So now people reading this thread can see both sides of the argument, and can see that one side rests on evidence and the other side on stuff you've made up.

You did, in fact, omit those sentences, because they wreck your assertion that the article sounds like it could have come from the Discovery Institute. Oh look, we've got back on topic."The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created."" --- Phillip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement, foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory." --- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

Nail on the head. Here is my favorite quote on this matter http://www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html

1) The early cell membranes almost certainly were not made from the chemical constituents of proteins;and2) what "elegant machinery inside the cell"? The first cells would have had no machinery at all. The next cells would have had rudimentary machinery. You could say that modern cells have "elegant machinery". No idea - Aquaporins probably arose long after the first cells.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.Attention All Participants:One-Liners are good for stand up comedy, but not a debate thread. It is a shame when the reader has to wade a mile up thread to follow a discussion.This is a debate board. Enlarge the argument. Think of the reader who wants to learn, not just snitty, snappy, or witty comebacks. Those do nothing to move the discussion forward.Please try to enlarge upon the arguments.Thanks
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate