What exactly is ID?

Why not? That's about as good an answer as I can provide. That's just the way evidence suggests things worked out. Not sure if I follow this exactly. I'm not sure if you are saying ID does or does not provide a blueprint. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

---

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

Thanks very much CS. From the Wiki site it appears that the largynal nerve does have a useful function relative to the voice. When damaged, the voice is affected adversely.

Because it is an unavoidable situation. Those that do not have the instinct nor the ability to survive and reproduce don't. Those that do have the instinct to survive and reproduce do. How can the results of this process be anything other than a bunch of species who have survival instincts and a drive to reproduce?As for ID, I guess it depends on the designer in question. There are a whole range of designers that people have put forth over the years. At one end we have the deist type god who started the universe and then walked away from it. Then there is the long list of interactive gods who are worried about everything from masturbation to what type of cloth you are wearing. Take your pick.

It isn't the nerve itself that is the problem, no one has said that the RLN is a functionless vestigial feature. The issue is why it goes miles out of its way to loop around the aortic arch, even in Giraffes.You are trying to counter an argument no one was making.TTFN,WK

Iblis-
"Why not?Seriously, the deep meaning you are looking for isn't the business of the class you are trying to insert it into. Science can tell us what, how, even when and where. But it isn't its job to tell us why, not in the sense that you mean. The best "why" science can come up with is, which particular aspect of mutation or natural selection caused this change or that extinction."I understand the basic principle of evolution means the change from one generate to the next, but I also hear terms like "natural selection", "instinct", and "survival of the fittest" in connection to and explanations of evolution.So I ask you, what is the driving force behind evolution? Why change at all?

An odd question in a thread asking what ID is, but briefly, because reproduction is imperfect change is inevitable. Almost every reproductive event includes at least one mutation. Mutations are the ultimate source of variation. As soon as there are differences then there will be differential reproductive success. Life will produce more of whatever variations are most successful - in fact, that's the definition of success, contributing more offspring to the next generation. We call this process that results in getting more of whatever variations produce the most offspring competition.--Percy

Hi Buz,If you want a better view of the issues raised by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, there is a thread open on the topic. Perhaps you will be the first to explain why the RLN takes the peculiar route that it does.Mutate and SurviveAbE; Oops! Forgot to post a link; Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

These terms each have different meanings which can be used in conjuction with evolution or independently."Natural Selection" within evolution is, at it's most simple, "If you die before you reproduce, you don't reproduce." People often mistake it as selecting FOR something when in fact it's really selecting AGAINST. Natural Selection isn't "picking winners" it's picking off losers. The ones who don't get picked off "win"."Instinct" within evolution, generally refers to behaviors which are hardwired into genetics. You would need to be trained to make an igloo, however a bird does not need to be trained to make a nest. Nest building is an instinct."survival of the fittest" was originally an economics term which evolutionary biology has coopted. It describes the same function as Natural Selection but from the "cup is half full" side. The best suited for their niche survive and reproduce.As for "why" it all happens? Who cares? Really.We don't ask "why" the Earth orbits the Sun. Not on a philosophical level. Any answer given would be at best a wild guess and at worst a part of a religious agenda designed to control people.

That claim makes absolutely no sense given the context.You are claiming that an ALL POWERFUL being with INFINITE KNOWLEDGE and TIME who created LITERALLY EVERYTHING, including the RULES by which things work is forced to "constrain" his design!!!That's a load of crap and it flies directly in the face of the entire basis of your argument.

quote:

---

While I'm sympathetic to the view that some changes in the genes are not 'recognised' by NS I can't help but wonder about ancient lineages such as crocodiles: they are immune to this 'genetic entropy?

---

"Ancient" in what way? I see no reason for all major divisions of life being equally old, meaning designed at the same time. You on the other hand believe there are millions of years of time between some animals. I personally know of no reason where you would get the idea of such a long period of time. Let alone use this idea, not a fact, but an idea agains something as clear and very well tested like genetic entropy.

quote:

---

I will only comment that you were interested enough in the claim that it had lost ALL function to try to dispute the point.

---

For the trillionth time - ALL KNOWN FUNCTIONS -.

quote:

---

Wrong ! D* = the set of bidirectional rotary motor-driven propellers". Your 10^20 is Dembski's estimate of the number of four-level concepts, as your quotes showed.

---

LOL, I can't believe this! D* is not a set of any kind. D* is the descriptive pattern. There is no ihnstance of the word "set" anywhere! Stop making things up! Do you, even know, do you have even faintest idea of what these "four-level concepts" are? No obviously you don't.

quote:

---

2.) A descriptive language D.
4.) A pattern D whose correspondence * maps D to E.

​

TDI - Page 144.

---

There is no word "set", anywhere. D is the descriptive language. D* is the pattern that describes the event E. Remember that.Some more quotes...

quote:

---

... but rather for formulating simultaneously botha a description D and a map * that maps D to E (i.e. a pattern that delimits E) so that there is no question...

​

TDI - Page 155.

---

Again, it's a pttern. D* is a patternt. Not a SET of patterns, but a pattern.The bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is the pattern D*. It consists of 4 concepts. As I quoted they are bidirectional", "rotary", "motor-driven" and "propeller". Each of those concepts has the complexity of 10^5. And since there are 4 of them. Their full complexity is 10^20.Therefore, D* = bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller = 10^20.

quote:

---

No, and the probability of getting some "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" - the probability that we actually want - is different from both of them.

---

Exactly, it's different. So tell me, why in the world would you wan't to include the complexity of some other hypothetical flagellum into the calculation of the known flagellum that consists of the known 50 proteins? When it's obvious that their differenceis in complexity are going to yield different results. A flagellum that would have a omplexity of less than 400 bits, but would correspond to the pattern bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller, would not even make it in the calculation, becasue it's complexity is too low, and it would be automatically attributed to chance, not design.

quote:

---

Where "Yes, exactly" means "No". All you have done is repeat the same grossly erroneous claim. 10^20 is Dembski's estimate of the number of 4-level concepts, of which
bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller is one.

---

What are the "4-level concepts"? And how is bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller one of them?

quote:

---

No, the probability of E is not important. Only the specified information matters. And that is derived from the probability of D*.

---

That means that it doesn't matter that soem flagellum has 50 proteins,a nd other has 1.000.000 proteins. Their complexity is teh same according to you.

quote:

---

You can't even get the probability of rolling two 6s on 2 dice correct. It's 1/36. Besides that your whole argument deals with irrelevancies. We want to know the probability of getting ANY "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller", not one using a particular number of proteins, because the number of proteins is not part of the specification,.

---

Wrong example. Yes, 1/36 is the correct number. Anyway, by claiming that their complexity is not important you are clearly wrong. Becasue that's liek saying that it's the same probability of getting one 6, and geting two 6s. Or that a probability of a 50 protein flagellum is teh same as the probability of a 1.000.000 protein flagellum. But it's obviously not. The lower the probability, the higher the complexity. Which means the overall CSI is higher.

quote:

---

Do you want my help or not ? If you want it then all you have to do is to provide the information I ask for. Remember I'm only doing this as a favour to you. If you can't be bothered to look up the details of the calculation then there's no reason why I should.

---

We discussed this before. I don't care anymore becasue you keep pretending you don't understand wha I'm talking about.

quote:

---

I'm afraid that it does. Look up Dembski's definition of specification again.

---

Simle patterns are not specifications. A snowflake is a simple reoccuring pattern, which is not a speification. Becasue you have to first look at the snowflake to know the pattern. If the snowflake was int eh shape of a car, than it would be a specification.

quote:

---

I will observe again that you cared enough to try to argue against it. Even if you did not care enough to actually address the reason why it is unusual (which is the dodging). And in fact there is a reason why you should care. If sickle-cell is not a typical example of a beneficial mutation it cannot be used as such.

---

It doesn't matter if it is tipical or not. The point is, it got selected by natural selection, and by doing this, the genetic entropy increased. Showing that naturral selection is not perfect, and does not remove ALL mutations that degrade the genetic information.

quote:

---

Of course this argument is absurd since it equates increasing fitness with declining fitness. And your main example - sickle-cell is atypical, and so can't be used.

---

Yes, it can be used BECAUSE IT HAPPENED! It happened in the real world! It's how things work. I don't care what kind of vision you have of mutations. Sickle cell is real and it degrades biological functions and it got selected by natural selection. And tell me, how in the world did I equate increase and decline in fitness.

quote:

---

The field of statistics would disagree with you. It is a fact that given a large population (of samples) noise will tend to average out - because it is random.

---

But in your case, the large enough population is infinity. Which you do not have. Therefore, there is no noise averageing.

quote:

---

I'm not arguing for a "full removal of mutations". Just a dynamic equilibrium where the number of deleterious mutations maintained in the population falls short of mutational meltdown. The other problem is that you are now assuming that drift dominates to the point where there is no selection at all. I suggest that you produce evidence for this bold claim.

---

I already cited articles that show how slightly deleterious mutation cause genetic meltdown. And no, there is no such thing as a dynamic equilibrium. Because that would mean that at soem point natural seelctionw ould have to work at 100% efficiency, ann at some point under 100%. And we know that it NEVER gets to 100%.

quote:

---

(And yes, I know that you didn't mention correlation because I know that I brought it up. Because you need correlation to avoid the averaging effect of large populations.)

---

No, I need no correlation? What would correlation do for me?

quote:

---

Wrong again. 100% efficiency would produce guaranteed removal of all deleterious mutations when in fact some can reach fixation. Unfortunately accumulation requires more than that - it requires that there cannot be a balance point, where the rate of removal of deleterious mutations equals the rate at which more enter the gene pool. However, by your own admissions all surviving organisms must at least be close to such a point (because the rate of accumulation must be very, very slow to explain why life still survives). And if it is that close the evidence offered so far cannot tell us that the balance point has not been reached in at least some species.

---

The balance point is where natural selection removes all mutations that come into the gene pool. Which means that it works at 100% efficiency at that specific point in time. Which we know is not possible.

quote:

---

I will reply to your comments on the monster only to point out that I make no admissions. I simply decline - in deference to the preferences of the site owner - to add another subject to this discussion.

---

Becasue you know that it is phisical imposibillity for something that is cnstantly getting shorter, to get longer in the same time.It's like saying that reducing a number by one, 1-1 -1-1-1 etc... you will eventually end up with a larger number than the one you started with.

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you, SO, it's absolutely true. Look it up. Or better yet, page back a few pages and read the dozens of posts where people lay this out for you in painstaking detail.

---

And I cited an articel that shows that the the words and notions of "Intellignt Design" were used way before this controversy over courts.

quote:

---

You are confusing the "modern ID movement" and the term "ID" as though they were the same thing. They are not. Just like modern medicine is not the same thing as original medicine.

​

There was NO ID movement 100 years ago. It wasn't until Creationism was handed a number of resounding defeats that they simple copies and pasted the word "Creationists" with "Design Proponents" and pretended it was a different term. "CDesign Proponentsists" -- Look it up.

---

They are not the same thing. I never said they were. Is imply said that the core ideas are the same. Which is my main point.

quote:

---

Because you saying "I know a guy who's Hindu and an ID supporter, but you don't know him - he lives in Canada" isn't evidence.

​

You are claiming that ID is NOT a wing of Christian Creationism, therefore there should be PLENTY of NON-Christian ID supporters.

---

Fuller is not a thiest in any sense. He is an secualr humanist. More or less an atheist. And no, I do not care if there a a lot or not non-Christian supporters of ID. How do I know that evolution is not an atheistic conspiracy? Prove it!Anyway, you also have people like, Bradly Monton, who is an atheist, that supports ID as a scientific discipline.Bradley Monton: Atheist argues that design is serious scientific theory – Uncommon Descent

quote:

---

THAT'S your great "non-Christian" ID supporter? LOL. A guy who admits to supporting Christian ideas and labels himself a secularist to provoke a response.

​

Talk about fail x fail.

​

You got HOSED on this one.

---

You can be supportive of any ideas, even Christina ideas without being a Christian. And no, Fuller is no Christian.

quote:

---

1) Can you name the mechanism of your Creationist/ID claims? NO
2) Can you name ANY other examples of ANYTHING designed where we have no mechanism? NO.
3) Can you name ANYTHING in which your design detection technique can detect design where we don't know how it was designed? NO.
4) Can you name someone who supports your claims who is NOT a Creationist? NO.

---

1.) That is becasue we can not detect the mechanism of design. ID detects design itself.2.) Yes, I can, the Rosetta stone. We do not know how it was designed, or by whome.3.) Yes, it can in biological machines like the flagellum.4.) Yes, Steve Fuller who is NOT a Creationist, not even a Christian. Being supportive, of Christian ideas does not equal being creationist or a Christian. And also people like Bradley Monton...

quote:

---

But what is the DATA SET.

​

You are saying that the BRMDP is unlikely to the order of 10^20.

​

Let's pretend for a second that you are correct.

​

If we said, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, what will it take to make a BRMDP. The answer would be 10^20.

​

However, that's NOT what's happened.

​

What's happened is we have an ENORMOUS DATA SET called: "Everything which has ever been produced by biological life billions of years it has existed on Earth".

​

So from the data set of "EVERYTHING EVER" you are taking ONE item and saying "Wow, it's improbably that this one item existed".

​

It's improbably to 10^20.

​

Okay. How many items are there in the "Everything Ever" data set? 10^50? 10^500?

​

If it's equal to or greater than 10^20, then the result is INEVITABLE and therefore nothing to even bother taking note of.

---

Wrong. The flagellum is unlikely on the order of 1:10^2954. The 10^20 is the complexity of teh pattern described by the flagellum. And since there were at most 10^120, bit operation in whole of universe sinc the supposed Big Bang. There was not enought ime to specify something liek a flagellum, by natural forces alone.

All the way back in Message 108 you wrote:

quote:

---

You see, by modifying the already existing protein with mutations, untill it loses all function we can know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.

---

But this mess with PaulK all started in Message 118:Here's all your guys's one liners from, like, 50 messages: You did change your position...Now back to your original quote:

quote:

---

You see, by modifying the already existing protein with mutations, untill it loses all function we can know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.

---

If it doesn't loose all function but just the known ones, the can we know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.??Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Hide very deep nested quote (thanks for testing the software). Click on peek to see it.Edited by Admin, : Replace hide with de-nested quotes.

And you know the difference between the vague notions expressed in the past and the political movement of the present. So, let's stop with the pretending. I can call myself an African American to get on black people's nerves. However, by any real standard, no outsider would call me African American because I'm not.Fuller ADMITS that he calls himself a secular humanist in order to get on people's nerves.Now YOU are being just as dishonest by repeating the claim. Because it makes testable predictions which non-atheists can confirm.Also, the Pope isn't Atheist. This sentence is non-sense. You can not detect design without determining mechanism. I've demonstrated why this is true. You've failed to offer a single example to refute my demonstration. All you have is a vague notion that you think you can refute it with an equation written by an admitted Creationist. Sure we do. It is markings carved in stone using tools, it was made by a human.Contrast that with the claim - "A magical wizard used Jew Beams to poof things into existence via Magic Juice!"Can you tell the difference? You claim that it is "detected design" because you assume that it is designed. You assume that it is designed but you "detect it" as being designed.That's circular and false. Publishing work in support of Christian Creationism DOES make you a Christian Creationist. Here's a quote by Brad Monton on his website discussing his book: His argument is NOT that ID is valid, but rather that the debate over it is valid. I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. You are citing him as an example of an atheist Creationism supporter. He is not.That's 0 for 2. Wanna keep trying? I'm going to pretend your math is right and STILL show you how you are wrong.The unlikelihood of the flag is X (we'll use your number) ONLY in comparison to a singular predicted outcome.What is the likelihood of getting a "6" on a die that I roll. 1 in 6.
What is the likelihood of getting a NUMBER on a die that I roll. 100%.Same action, different results.A die was rolled. (the universe is here)
A number came up (molecules arranged themselves in a particular way)
What was the likelihood of THAT happening?100%The fact that YOU are now reading the number and declaring it unlikely doesn't change the facts.You are saying, "Wow! A three! How unlikely!"
But if it were a different number you would say: 'Wow! A one! How unlikely!"In the case of the flagellum, you are saying "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"However if the flagellum never existed and instead some other outcome occurred (let's say a donut shape) you would say "Wow! Look at this ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME! How unlikely!"You are drawing a bulls-eye around the bullet hole. That's the Texas Sharpshoot Fallacy.By the way, I know ABSOLUTELY that you are going to completely take all of this out of context or simply ignore it. Why? Because this is like the 5th time someone here has pointed this out to you and you STILL keep making the same false claim.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Aghhh, what have you done??? You've broken ***EVERYTHING***