What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

CSI is made up because it is not based upon observations from the real world. Shannon information, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, Maxwell's laws, etc, are not made up because they developed out of observations of the real world with whose laws they are consistent.

---

You are getting funnier by the minute! You should be a clown, you know?Let me qute you Leslie Orgel who coined the term "specified complexity". As you can clearly see, he based his conclusion on observable patterns. Particulary those that are observed in living organisms, to come up with the notion of specified complexity.

quote:

---

In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

---

Specified complexity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

CSI is measured in bits? And you have a reference that shows you how to calculate CSI? Then could you please show us the calculation for the CSI of something, preferably something simple?

---

The link I showed you has the calculation. Take a look at it.

quote:

---

For instance, how much CSI is in the single DNA codon AGT?

---

Obviously there is ZERO CSI because it's complexity does not exceed 400 bits.

quote:

---

How would you contrast it with the CSI for a tiny fragment of rock with three minerals in a row, say, quartz-calcite-magnetite?

---

I wouldn't because all those patterns exhibit 0 CSI.

quote:

---

I only ask in order to focus attention on the inability of anything from Dembski allowing you to perform this simple task, one that I've done many times at this forum using Shannon information. If you'd like to see it again just ask.

​

This is why your diagram is false when it defines DNA as an example of design. No one's ever researched the relationship between CSI and intelligence,

---

You have no right to say that untill you showed me exactly what is wrong with definitions in this here link.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

plus CSI is based upon the false assumption of instantaneous formation of structures that actually took billions of years to evolve (this is the 10120 coefficient that appears in Dembski's equations).

---

Wrong. Even if they evolved that would just mean that CSI was transfere from point A to point B. Since evolution is supposed to be an algorithm and algorithms do not produce CSI, but only transfer it. That's what NFL theorem is about.

quote:

---

Since there is no empirical nor even theoretical foundation for CSI, classifying things like DNA and books as being instances of design based upon their CSI is completely bogus.

---

And I will again tellyou that you have no right to say that untill you showed me exactly what is wrong with definitions in this here link.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

I'm sure the people here would be delighted to discuss with you the details of Dembski's CSI calculation to the extent you understand them, so whenever you're ready to start presenting his method in this thread then please proceed, by all means.

---

Sure, tell me what exactly do you want to know.

quote:

---

No kidding! You can tell the difference between the imaginary and the undetectable! Could you explain for us how you do this?

---

Imaginary things do not exist, undetectable things do, but we can't detect them. Liek the radio waves before we could detect them. They were here we just couldn't detect them.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

quote:

---

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.

---

Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution. And while you're at it, define evolution.

quote:

---

Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you problems?

---

None. Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"?

quote:

---

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.

---

That will be true once when you told me exactly what is wrong with this here article.http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf

quote:

---

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.

---

That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else?

quote:

---

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 ?

---

The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power?

quote:

---

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.

---

Let's go for the third time. Is the informational content the same or not?

quote:

---

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.

---

Well duuuuh!!!? It's 50 proteins! That is the informational content!

quote:

---

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.

---

What does it specify?

quote:

---

It is the information content that is low, because the probability of slat forming crystals is high.

---

If it has high probability, than that pattern is not attributed to design but to regularity - i.e. natural law.

quote:

---

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.

---

But in this case Dembski would claim that cars are designed even if they were assembled by machines. Becasue information was needed in the first place to program the machines to construct cars, and to build the machines themselves.

quote:

---

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

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it means small populations wii die out sooner than large populations. Explain to me why exactly would large populations not die from genetic entropy. WHY?Since you are so clueless an illogica, I made yet another picture for you. Here you go. This here picture represents the effects of genetic entropy leading to genetic meltdown.People represent the population. Green numbers represent beneficial mutations, red numbers represent deleterious mutation, and black number represent 25 and above mutations which I choose as a threshold for the genetic meltdown.Now, our population starts in Gereation 1, with 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. The person has his offsprin which inherit 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. And since DNA replication machinery isn't perfect, they will gain some more beneficial and deleterious mutations. On average there will always be more deleterious ones.Now blue people represent those that get selected for by natural selection. Grey ones that are crossed out do not reproduce. In generation 2. 2 people have reproduced because the had the most beneficial and least deleterious mutations. And they spread both their deleterious and beneficial mutations to their children.So in generation three we have the same thing. Yet now, we have reached those who got 25 or more deleterious mutations which makes their genomes defective enough to cause them to be either still born, or sterile. They obviously do not reproduce anymore.This goes on untill generation 7 when the whole population has suffered a genetic meltdown.Now, what I want you to do is to tell me, HOW EXACTLY IS INCREASEING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION GOING TO MAKE THIS EFFECT OG AWAY!!?!?!? HOW!?

quote:

---

In other words they agree with me !

---

No, they don't. They said genetic recombination will SLOW DOWN genetic entropy, and you said that it will HALT IT. Big difference.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. They never said that.

quote:

---

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

---

I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming you becasue you misrepresent everything.

Why is "genetic meltdown" suddenly a problem after 3.5 billion years?And why is it such a favorite subject for IDers?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Let's start with the definition: Evolution is change in gene frequency across a population over time.Extremely simple and awful hard for you to claim it doesn't occur, since it's OBSERVABLE.As to how (vestigial genes) show evolution:
The presence of the genes themselves don't demonstrate evolution, they are remnants of evolutionary change. However, the presence of these genes is predicted by evolution, fits the evolutionary model, couldn't possibly have been known to exist prior to the evolutionary model being put forth.As such they are strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.More importantly, however, is this: These genes can not be explained in ANY WAY by either Creationism or ID. Neither claim makes any predictions about non-used remnant fragments found in different populations which co-exist in descendant populations.Like MOST of the evidence we'll discuss, the "Magic" lobby simply can't address it while evolution not only can explain it, but actually predicts it's presence AHEAD of time. Population size is dependent on a number of factors, some of which would be longevity and reproductive rates. A "small population" of elephants which reproduce slowly would have a different number of members than a small population of rats.The point of discussion when referring to "small population" is how frequently individuals are breeding with other individuals with whom they are closely related. Think cousins.The smaller the population, the more frequently closely related individuals interbreed, the more a particular gene can be expressed.This is why isolated populations (island evolution) produces rapid and unusual changes while mainland populations tend to change slower. The article claims an intelligent causation but offers no explanation is to who/what this "intelligence" is and by what method it could "cause" the things it claims were caused.Attributing an alleged pattern to an imaginary source using imaginary powers to generate it is childish at best.Until Dembski can present a testable MECHANISM through which this alleged design occurred, there's really no discussion to be had.Anyone can pretend that anything could be caused by some unknown, unknowable, undescribed and unmeasurable force.When I turn the key to my car, an undetectable invisible faerie who lives in my spark plug fires off a magical lightning bolt which ignites the fuel. Prove me wrong. You can't. It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove me wrong because I stated that the magical being is undetectable. My claim is just as valid as Demskis and it didn't take me a whole bunch of $20 words to dress it up. It is often those who understand the least that claim they fully understand. The fact that you think you understand what other people are discussing on the forum is not evidence that you actually understand. It could simply indicate that you know so little that you aren't even aware of the factors you don't understand.

I can't believe that I have to state something THIS obvious but...Large populations NEVER die out. _ONLY_ small populations can go extinct.I'll demonstrate:If you have a population of widgets that's only 10 in number and 90% of them die off, you are left with only 1. No reproduction is possible and the species dies out.If you have a population of 1,000 widgets and 90% of them die off, you are left with 100 widgets. If 90% of them die off, you're left with 10 widgets. Now you no longer have a large population. You instead have a small population.In ALL cases of extinction, there is a "last" individual to die. That "last" individual represents a SMALL population.As for genetic entropy, each individual member of a population is subject to natural selection which is a STRONG force fighting against harmful entropy. As a result, there is a constant weeding out of any negative genetic changes. Thus a large population could split into two different successful populations, but that large population will never splinter into a million different non-breeding individuals as a result of genetic drift. That's simply not reality.As for your picture, you've failed on a number of levels. First, you are not introducing any genetics from spouses. Second, you are assuming that ALL mutations positive and negative get passed on in each generation. Third you are assuming that there is an insanely high rate of both positive and negative mutation with absolutely no consideration no neutral mutations. Fourth, you are assuming that there is no gene duplication. And all of that's just off the top of my head.So, in your make believe, not based on reality, picture you've created, your non-realistic population dynamics lead to extinction of a non-sexually reproducing population. Sounds like you and Demski are made for each other.When you decide to deal with the real world, we can talk science. In imagination land, you can design any scenario you want and pretend that the Jew Wizard makes it work.

Hi Smooth Operator,Well, I'm completely convinced by your theoretical argument. Now please explain to me why E. coli - which has a generation time measured in days (sometimes even minutes), and does not reproduce sexually - is not extinct due to this disasterous genetic fate you've so neatly outlined?Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power?

---

Even if they work by catalysis (and I would want to research that !) the proteins which provide the power are not in the whip.

quote:

---

Let's go for the third time. Is the informational content the same or not?

---

If you are having problems understanding my answers, perhaps you should ask for clarification. BEcause there are some important points there.

quote:

---

Well duuuuh!!!? It's 50 proteins! That is the informational content!

---

That's not the base 2 log of a probability, so obviously it isn't Dembski's information content.

quote:

---

What does it specify?

---

The structure of a salt crystal, obviously !
If you want to know what the specification would be, simply read up n the descriptions of the structure.

quote:

---

If it has high probability, than that pattern is not attributed to design but to regularity - i.e. natural law.

---

Almost right - it is because of natural laws that the probability is high. That is you have to include the natural law explanation when measureing the information of salt crystals.

quote:

---

But in this case Dembski would claim that cars are designed even if they were assembled by machines. Becasue information was needed in the first place to program the machines to construct cars, and to build the machines themselves.

---

But he can't do it by ignoring the presence of the machines. He has to work on the origins of THAT information. (Which os a
No, it means small populations wii die out sooner than large populations. Explain to me why exactly would large populations not die from genetic entropy. WHY? [/quote]We know for a fact that life has been around for a long time without going extinct, which strongly indicates that it is not so big a problem as you think.Your picture simply illustrates your assumptions. You offer no reason as to why the numbers should come out as you say. Also it seems that you don't even allow for the effects of beneficial mutations to counter the effects of detrimental mutations. Which makes your picture "stupid and illogical". And the numbers are just made up, to (and way too high).The difference between large and small populations is that natural selection is more effective in large populations. (It's statistics, chance effects are always greter in small samples). Natural selection will tend to make detrimental genes less common, and beneficial genes more common (rememebr it is the individuals with the best mix of genes in each generation that contribute most offspring).

quote:

---

No, they don't. They said genetic recombination will SLOW DOWN genetic entropy, and you said that it will HALT IT. Big difference.

---

Except that I didn't say that it would halt it.

quote:

---

Wrong. They never said that.

---

As I pointed out, they clearly impilid that large populations could not be driven to extinction by genetic entropy.

quote:

---

I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming you becasue you misrepresent everything.

---

Except that you DID try to blame Dembski for your own silly mistake. And it certainly isn't my fault that you tried to say that CSI was a definition of information.

quote:

---

Let's start with the definition: Evolution is change in gene frequency across a population over time.

---

Great. You do know that this change does not imply or produces common descent of all life as a necessity?

quote:

---

Extremely simple and awful hard for you to claim it doesn't occur, since it's OBSERVABLE.

---

I like your definition. It's observable, and it happens.

quote:

---

As to how (vestigial genes) show evolution:
The presence of the genes themselves don't demonstrate evolution, they are remnants of evolutionary change. However, the presence of these genes is predicted by evolution, fits the evolutionary model, couldn't possibly have been known to exist prior to the evolutionary model being put forth.

​

As such they are strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.

---

Evolution predict everything, therefore evolution predicts nothing. If evolution can accont for both outcomes (working and vestigial genes which are polar opposites) with the same mechanisms, than it predicts nothing and is useless.If you predicts that tommorow will eitehr rain or will not rain, you have effectively predicted nothing. The same goes for evolution. Genes will either work, or they will be vestigial. This isn't a prediction, it's a copout.

quote:

---

More importantly, however, is this: These genes can not be explained in ANY WAY by either Creationism or ID. Neither claim makes any predictions about non-used remnant fragments found in different populations which co-exist in descendant populations.

​

Like MOST of the evidence we'll discuss, the "Magic" lobby simply can't address it while evolution not only can explain it, but actually predicts it's presence AHEAD of time.

---

Genetic entropy is what causes defective genes that lose their function. Since biological functions are only transmited by matter, and imperfectly at that, and do not arise by it, ID predicts that biological functions will deteriorate.

quote:

---

Population size is dependent on a number of factors, some of which would be longevity and reproductive rates. A "small population" of elephants which reproduce slowly would have a different number of members than a small population of rats.

​

The point of discussion when referring to "small population" is how frequently individuals are breeding with other individuals with whom they are closely related. Think cousins.

​

The smaller the population, the more frequently closely related individuals interbreed, the more a particular gene can be expressed.

​

This is why isolated populations (island evolution) produces rapid and unusual changes while mainland populations tend to change slower.

---

Basicly you agree with me that the words "small" and "large" are relative when applied to population sizes?

quote:

---

The article claims an intelligent causation but offers no explanation is to who/what this "intelligence" is and by what method it could "cause" the things it claims were caused.

---

Exactly. Because the article claims that it can detect design without knowing all those things you mentioned.

quote:

---

Attributing an alleged pattern to an imaginary source using imaginary powers to generate it is childish at best.

---

True. Which is why the article I linked to, does not do that. It attributes observable patterns to a well known cause called intelligence.

quote:

---

Until Dembski can present a testable MECHANISM through which this alleged design occurred, there's really no discussion to be had.

---

Sorry, ID doesn't work liek that. It's about the detection of design, not about it's mechanisms of implementation. A totally different field of investigation should do this job. Just liek evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution is not supposed to explain that. Evolution is about how life develops, not how it originates. We have abiogenesis research to tell us about how life originated. The same goes for ID, it does not have to talk about the mechanism of design implementation, just as evolution does not have to account for origin of life.Actually random mutations, naturala selection and common descent could have been the mechanism that design of life got implemented by. But that would be another theory that should deal with that, not ID itself.

quote:

---

Anyone can pretend that anything could be caused by some unknown, unknowable, undescribed and unmeasurable force.

---

True. That is why my article does not do that.

quote:

---

When I turn the key to my car, an undetectable invisible faerie who lives in my spark plug fires off a magical lightning bolt which ignites the fuel. Prove me wrong. You can't. It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove me wrong because I stated that the magical being is undetectable. My claim is just as valid as Demskis and it didn't take me a whole bunch of $20 words to dress it up.

---

Well this is so wrong I don't even know where to start.First of all, you named your source. You said it was a fairy. Obviously you have no evidence for that. ID does not name the designer, becasue it has no evidence for it's identity.Second, ID does not claim teh effects are undetectale. The marks of design are very detectable. They are called specified complexity.And third, ID does not claim that soembody should prove it wrong. It has the burden of proof on itself. That is why we have a method to eliminate design called the Explanatory Filter. First step is to show that a pattern can be attributed to a regularity, which means a natural law. If such a pattern arises by a natural law, than the design hypothesis is falsified. If it is shown that a pattern does not arise by natural law than we go to step 2. Next step is to show that we can account for a pattern by chance. If we can show that, than again, the design hypothesis is falsified. If it can not be shown, than we infer design, as the last resort.

quote:

---

It is often those who understand the least that claim they fully understand. The fact that you think you understand what other people are discussing on the forum is not evidence that you actually understand. It could simply indicate that you know so little that you aren't even aware of the factors you don't understand.

---

Does this apply to you too?

quote:

---

Large populations NEVER die out. _ONLY_ small populations can go extinct.

---

What is a "small" and "large" population? Didn't you basicly say in your previous post that it's a relative term?

quote:

---

If you have a population of 1,000 widgets and 90% of them die off, you are left with 100 widgets. If 90% of them die off, you're left with 10 widgets. Now you no longer have a large population. You instead have a small population.

---

Why is 1000 a "large" population and 10 a "small" population?

quote:

---

In ALL cases of extinction, there is a "last" individual to die. That "last" individual represents a SMALL population.

---

Oh, so only 1 individual is a "small" population? But above you said that 10 individuals are a "small" population.

quote:

---

As for genetic entropy, each individual member of a population is subject to natural selection which is a STRONG force fighting against harmful entropy.

---

This is an assumption. Do you have any evidence that natural selection is strong enough to remove all effects of genetic entropy?

quote:

---

As a result, there is a constant weeding out of any negative genetic changes.

---

This would be correct if it was not wrong. Rats have aworking GULO gene that let's them synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, Chimps and Guinea pigs do not. Their GULO gene is defective. Obviously evolution did not weed out that mutation. Therefore, your assertation that natural seelction weeds out ANY negative genetic changes if flawed.

quote:

---

Thus a large population could split into two different successful populations, but that large population will never splinter into a million different non-breeding individuals as a result of genetic drift. That's simply not reality.

---

If the deleterious mutations keep accumulationg, than obviously it will.

quote:

---

First, you are not introducing any genetics from spouses.

---

It would be to complex and would fit the image size. But it doesn't help you anyway. I assumed that the offsprng inherits both parent's genetic material. The inherit both deleterious and beneficial mutations, and the count of both increases.

quote:

---

Second, you are assuming that ALL mutations positive and negative get passed on in each generation.

---

No, I'm not ASSUMING it, I KNOW it. Parents pass 100% of their genetic material to their offspring.

quote:

---

Third you are assuming that there is an insanely high rate of both positive and negative mutation

---

I did it for the sake of simplicity. Do you expect me to draw a million generations?

quote:

---

with absolutely no consideration no neutral mutations.

---

Which are by definition neutral and don't do anything. Actually there are no 100% neutral mutations. The so called slightly deleterious, or almost neutral mutations are the ones that are effectively neutral and can't be weeded out by natural selection. It's becasue their effect is to weak. Therefore, they are the ones that accumulate the most and are causing most of genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Fourth, you are assuming that there is no gene duplication.

---

Again, was I supposed to draw the whole process of DNA transaltion!? DNA duplication does not help you in any way, shape, or form. What do you intend to gain by duplicating genes?

quote:

---

And all of that's just off the top of my head.

---

Which are possibly the worst argument I heard in my entire life. Your arguments consist of telling me that I did nt draw enough details, and telligen me that I didn't include totally worthless mechanisms that which will either only slow down genetic entropy or won't do anything at all.

quote:

---

Hi Smooth Operator,

​

Well, I'm completely convinced by your theoretical argument. Now please explain to me why E. coli - which has a generation time measured in days (sometimes even minutes), and does not reproduce sexually - is not extinct due to this disasterous genetic fate you've so neatly outlined?

---

Because it takes a lot of time for that to happen. You don't expect them to be dead in 7 generations like in my picture do you?

Seems like 3.5 billion years isn't enough for the "genetic entropy" to create any problems.So why worry?And you didn't answer my question about why IDers are so fond of genetic entropy.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Even if they work by catalysis (and I would want to research that !) the proteins which provide the power are not in the whip.

---

It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum.

quote:

---

If you are having problems understanding my answers, perhaps you should ask for clarification. BEcause there are some important points there.

---

So, what's the answer. Please do clarify.

quote:

---

That's not the base 2 log of a probability, so obviously it isn't Dembski's information content.

---

Than that would be log2p(10^2954) for the whole flagellum. And if we include Axe's work, than we have log2p(10^2363).

quote:

---

The structure of a salt crystal, obviously !

---

Can you specify that structure without observing the event that forms the structure? If not, than it's not a specification.

quote:

---

Almost right - it is because of natural laws that the probability is high. That is you have to include the natural law explanation when measureing the information of salt crystals.

---

Yes, and we do. And that is why salt crystals are not designed.

quote:

---

We know for a fact that life has been around for a long time without going extinct, which strongly indicates that it is not so big a problem as you think.

---

LOL, no, you ASSUME it's been here for a long time. Care to show me any evidence for that? And even if it was. It would just mean that it takes longer for the meltdown to occur.

quote:

---

Your picture simply illustrates your assumptions.

---

Name me ONE assumption.

quote:

---

You offer no reason as to why the numbers should come out as you say.

---

Which number exactly do you have problems with?

quote:

---

Also it seems that you don't even allow for the effects of beneficial mutations to counter the effects of detrimental mutations.

---

LOL! How in God's name would that help you? For God's sake, it doesn't matter if you evolve wings or infra red vision, or you evolve te ability to run 200 km/h, if you are sterile or still born!!!Obviously those beneficial mutations will be useles if you're dead or you can't pass on your great evolved traits! Please think before you speak!

quote:

---

Which makes your picture "stupid and illogical".

---

I wonder who is stupid an illogical for making ZERO valid arguments agains the picture I made.

quote:

---

And the numbers are just made up, to (and way too high).

---

You see? This is the effect of genetic entropy on you. You can't say anything that has any grounding in reason. Of course they are made up! I even said so at the start. I made them like that to demonstrate how genetic entropy leads to genetic meltdown. Did you expect me to make a picture representing 10.000.000 generations?And the best aprt is, you did not explain how a larger population will fix this. Please do. Make a picture or explan how by increasing the population will you make the genetic entropy go away. Go on, do it, or shut up already.

quote:

---

The difference between large and small populations is that natural selection is more effective in large populations.

---

No kidding Einstein!?!?!?

quote:

---

It's statistics, chance effects are always greter in small samples). Natural selection will tend to make detrimental genes less common, and beneficial genes more common (rememebr it is the individuals with the best mix of genes in each generation that contribute most offspring).

---

Again... SO THE HELL WHAT!?How does that help you? How does that FULLY STOP genetic entropy? It doesn't! It just slows it down, but it doesn't stop it! Even the best offspring have deleterious mutations and they pass them on to their offspring, and the deleterious mutations still accumulate. Which means that the geentic entropy still exists, and at aslower pace is still leading to a genetic meltdown.If you disagree make a new picture that models your magic natural selection at work! Show me how large populations effectively stop ALL genetic entropy! I'm waiting!Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

Correct. "Common descent" is not a conclusion which arises from the definition of evolution alone. It arises instead from the evidence.Just like the Earth traveling around the Sun does not arise from the definition of gravity alone. The problem here is your failure to understand the mechanisms involved.Chickens have a gene which codes for teeth. Chickens also have a gene which codes for a beak. The teeth gene activates first, then gets overwritten by the beak gene.If a chicken did not have the teeth gene, it would still have a beak. The beak gene arose later.However, the teeth gene is still present.The presence of a teeth gene is completely unexplainable using ID/Creationism. There is NO reason for its presence.The same is true for a chicken's long tail which grows, then shrinks, during embryotic development.Evolution explains these factors.Evolution does not predict "rain and/or no rain".Evolution would have a HELL of a time explaining why a chicken embryo developed an exoskeleton and then lost it. Or why a chicken would share absolutely no DNA with any other bird. The first case would imply a relationship evolution does not predict between chickens and crabs, the second would imply a lack of relationship which evolution does predict between all birds.I suspect that you know this and are being deliberately dense as though making simple mistakes on your part would somehow convince me or others to throw out established science and embrace witchcraft. I think that you should reassess that strategy as it is extremely unlikely to work. And nylonese alone disproves that claim. As does the E. Coli/Citrate experiments. As does the fossil record. Etc etc etcIn science, a single failed prediction is reason to reassess your claim. In the case of ID/Creationism, every single prediction to date has been demonstrated to be wrong.How many times are you willing to be wrong before you rethink your position? I will go a step further and state that the words "small" and "large" are _ALWAYS_ relative. And that's ridiculous on its face.I'm going to change a couple words and present the same sentence."Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because gravity and weather patterns shaped the lava and ash as it erupted.""Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because the designer shaped the lava and ash as it erupted.""Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because Harry Potter and wizard magic shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."Now, I believe #1 is correct. You believe #2 is correct. You, however, don't believe that #3 is correct. But #2 and #3 are the _EXACT SAME SENTENCE_.If you can't name the force nor give a mechanism through which the force has acted, nor give examples of the result of the force, nor make predictions about future actions from the force, nor adequately explain the existing evidence allegedly left behind by the force then YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. Obviously this is another example of you being deliberately dense because you don't want to concede the point.Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life because life must exist and be able to reproduce in order for evolution to occur.ID doesn't explain the mechanism of ID because it's make believe.Can you not tell the difference?If IDers don't want to explain the origin of life, I won't force them. However, they are specifically claiming that functions are occurring yet they can't describe those functions. That's a big fail.Further, you claim that IDers only job is to detect design, however they don't have a testable method by which a person can determine if a new thing is either designed or not.If I presented you with a perfect sphere, you could not tell me if it was magically designed by the Jew Wizard, cosmically designed by the Silver Surfer, or simply a piece of lava the dripped into water. It treats "intelligence" as a noun. Intelligence is not a noun, it is an adjective.If you treat it as a noun are you saying that it is a being.This being can not be seen, nor detected, nor described, etc etc etc. Therefore it is make believe. Now you are claiming that the designer (let's just call him the Jew Wizard since we all know that's what Demski is saying) "designed" using evolution.So rather than allowing the observable, measurable and detectable solution which does NOT requiring adding in a layer of magic, you are suggesting that we arbitrarily add in the Jew Wizard just to make the people at the ID institute feel better?Why not have Intelligent Gravity? Gravity is the force two masses have on one another at a distance as overseen by a Jewish Wizard.Why not have Intelligent Fire? Fire is the release of energy as carbon molecules are combined with oxygen when stared at by a Jewish Wizard.How are these claims BETTER science by adding in Jewish Wizard Magic to the equation? Dembski HAS stated FOR THE RECORD that the Designer is the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST GOD. (aka Jew Wizard)YOU are linking Dembski's paper, therefore YOU are backing his claim. You can't have it both ways. But they can not quantify nor define this complexity. Nor can they detect the CAUSE of this complexity.AND, before you start "Jew Wizard" is not the CAUSE of complexity. "Jew Wizard" is the SOURCE of the Cause. The cause is "Magic Jew Beams".Until you can measure the Magic Jew Beams in action, you don't have a cause. Except that that is NOT what you do. Behe was forced to admit ON THE STAND that all of his claimed IR features were NOT IR. If inferring design is a LAST resort and you've incorrectly inferred design MULTIPLE times, then you are getting to your LAST resort entirely too early.You need to do more steps. For example. AN EXPERIMENT.Again, let me remind you that NO ONE on your side of the debate has ever even attempted to do an experiment to test your claims. Nor do they intend to.Edited by Nuggin, : fixing

Hi Nuggin, good to see you around. You do realise that Smooth Operator does not believe that the Earth does travel around the Sun???