While it is true that the highest levels of csi, so far, have only been observed coming from humans as the source, it is not true that humans are the only observed source of csi.
But I have a huge problem agreeing with you simply because you have not defined CSI, nor given a method or algorithm for detecting csi.
A simple birds nest with its circular bowl shape and also lined with soft feathers, would never be considered to have been formed by random processes.
Would it not? What are you defining as random processes? Would the formation of say the Amazon and its delta be considered random? Is the complexity exhibited by the Amazon delta not greater than that of a bird's nest? Why would one have csi and not the other?
Since we have not even begun to scratch the surface of fully comprehending the complexity of the DNA molecule, (based on observation) such a sophisticated code can be concluded to have originated from a highly intelligent source. One that is much more intelligent than humans.
Nonsense - the DNA molecule is actually very simple. It is made up of four basic blocks. Each block has a level of complexity, but none more so than many naturally occuring organic molecules that we see floating through space. As a code, it is far less complex than many man-made codes that we use in IT and communications technology. And so my conclusion here is that if there is any design, it is design that could be accomplished by far less intelligence than we currently exhibit. Perhaps you meant to discuss something more than just DNA?
(It should be stressed that it cannot be wholey regarded as a code, as there are (I believe rare) instances where the chemical structure of the bases have an affect beyond their base representation - this is entirely to be expected in an evolutionary paradigm, yet as design it stinks - as any competent programmer would tell you)
As for your request on calculating information, we have to recognize that there are many different forms of information, but not all information is complex and not all information is specific.
The random letters "gbdxuvms," calculate to carry much more complexity than do the two letters "hi," but those two letters are much more specific and mean more to us than the other eight letters do.
Please describe the algorithm by which you come to this conclusion regarding the complexity and the specificity. What process must I go through to determine that "hi" is more specific than "gbdxuvms,", and how much more specific is "hi" than "he" or "ho" or "hu"?
Specificity requires that both the sender and the receiver recognize a signal to mean something.
So it is impossible to measure the specificity of a piece of information? Specificity requires the entire system of sender, information sent, and receiver? Excellent. So what is this system in the case of the bird's nest, and again, how do we measure the specificty?
The more complex and specific the signals are, the more intelligent the source must be.
We recognize that the arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA molecule is complex.
But I still do not know how you are measuring specificity. So I cannot agree with you. How complex is the Amazon delta? And how specific is it?
Even evolutionist Richard Dawkins agrees that the amount of information in the DNA of a single celled amoeba is greater than 1000 sets of encyclopedias.
Does amount relate to complexity? Or to specificity? Or to neither?
However most microbiologists also recognize that not only is it very complex, but it is also very specific.
Do you have the definitions that they are using to measure this complexity and specificity?
From my YEC point of view, I do not understand why you think there needs to be an ID explanation for the skulls?
ID was "designed" specifically to reintroduce Christian theology back into the public schools, thereby to counter the theory of evolution and "materialistic scientific theories."
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
So, since ID is providing "a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories" we need to see what explanation ID has for those skulls. What is ID's scientific alternative?
They are not evidence for anything, specially genetic change, therefore why do you want an ID explanation?
If there is no ID explanation, how do you know they are not evidence for anything? You must have some explanation for those skulls that demonstrates they are not evidence.
Secondly I should point out that (as far as I know) Intelligent Design scientists do not study paleontology. That's because ID is the theory that biological organisms exhibit all the tell tale signs of being intelligently designed, which would mean the theory does not directly address fossils. That would be like asking big bang proponents to explain why honey bees die after they sting. I am sure that someone in the big bang camp, who knows something about entomology, could easily answer that question but it is not related to the big bang.
There seems to be a lot of subjects that ID "scientists" don't study, eh? But they sure seem to be full of opinions in those fields. Look at the writings of the various PR flacks from the Discovery Institute for examples. Seems like every scientific finding that is announced gets a "rebuttal" from one of those folks.
Likewise fossils are not directly related to ID. Except if you are trying to present them in a supposed progression and claiming that they are evidence of human development. but then you would have to prove that they are evidence of human progression before it would become necessary for ID to explain that progression.
But that is the problem for ID--those fossils are presented as a progression, and they are evidence for evolution! That is what this squabble is really all about, the rejection by creationists, and hence IDers, of evolutionary theory. So, since ID rejects current scientific explanations for those skulls, what is the ID explanation? And what is the basis for that rejection?
But if it can be easily demonstrated they are not in any way evidence of human development then no explanation is required. And no I am not saying there was no change, what I am saying is that there is no evidence of "human" change.
Fine. Document this statement, and show how it is "easily demonstrated" that the skulls don't show human development. What evidence do you have?
And while you are at it, show how ID "theory" accounts for the scientific evidence and offers an alternate explanation "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (That should make for some interesting reading.)
Likewise, you and other IDers must have some evidence that these skulls do not document "human" change. I'd like to see that evidence (although I think you rely on religious belief at this point, and that you have no scientific evidence.)
You have yourself talked into a corner here. You seem to want to have it both ways, and it simply won't fly.
And that is still another reason why ID is exposed as religion lite, rather than a fledgling science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Wow, I haven't seen the "I don't do your homework for you" response in a long while. I should point out to all that what you are actually saying is: "Evolution is true because of the evidence of walkingstick gene mutation, but I am not going to prove the gene mutation really took place, that's on you."
In other words you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. It is an easy matter to actually look up the information, but it seems you cannot be bothered.
Sorry my poker friend, I call. You say you have a full house, so now its your job to show me your cards. Your abstract is not evidence for anything. Note the below quote.
Sorry, I called your bluff first -- you know, the one where you said information was only lost? The one where you said you had an explanation for the wings to no wings to wings changes, one that did not involve the addition of information?
RAZD Message 809: Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
RAZD Message 825: Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes? ... Again, either new "information" is involved or "information" is irrelevant to what can and cannot evolve. There are many such experiments.
RAZD Message 867: Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post): Nature - Not Found I await your explanation.
RAZD Message 952: You will excuse me while I chuckle a bit here. Here's the history of this issue with your comment in the middle: What I was asking for was an explanation for a mechanism that was not genetic. What you have suggested is a genetic mechanism: a genetic mutation for wingless beetles being selected as an adaptation to an island ecology that leads to improved survival and reproduction. So we are back to the walkingstick in Message 809: Now I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you. Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.
RAZD Message 990: So now we have obvious genetic changes, good. Now let's connect that with your previous claims: Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function. So you have backed away from the non-genetic explanations of phenotypic change, and we are back, once again, to the walkingstick evidence originally provided in Message 809: By your latest admission, this is now either falsified, OR the "information" concept involved is rendered irrelevant to evolution. So do we get an admission that either information must have been added at one of these events or that the concept of "information" involved is useless in predicting what can and what cannot evolve? Again, I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.
RAZD Message 1011: You are still not paying attention. First, this does not use any fossil evidence, as the evidence is genetic, and second, the diagram includes 39 living species in the order Phasmatodea, and this includes several genera and family groups within the order. This is not comparable to your beetle species, which only lost wings. You have not explained this yet in any way that can account for what is shown in the diagram Again, the diagram is a cladogram based on genetic analysis. Here is the abstract for the article again: Nature - Not Found Please also note what I said in Message 867 about reversing mutations: So if we see an on again off again situation, where you are not dealing with the change in the proportions of existing alleles in a population (as in the peppered moths), then you have the situation #2 above. This is the condition we see with the walkingsticks: there are a few species where the female is wingless and the male has wings, but none of the remaining species in the diagram have a mixture of some with wings and some without wings in their populations. So far you have not convinced me that "information" as you define it - something that is always lost - is worth consideration as any critique of what can or cannot evolve.
RAZD Message 1035: Hi again Brad H, still avoiding the issues? This is just more conflict avoidance behavior. Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. I have given you the available information on the web, and if this is not sufficient for you, then the onus is on you to look up the source document in your local library. Here is the source information again: Nature - Not Found Certainly there is no restriction on making the various changes in DNA other than the survival and breeding of the organism involve. Curiously, this means that evolution can proceed unhindered by your claims of "information loss" and "no new information" -- reality is once again unaffected in any way by your opinion.
The astute reader will note that your bluff has been called seven (7) times (eight including this one), and that you have consistently avoided the issue.
What we have here is continued avoidance of actually showing something\anything that makes a valid argument for this.
quote: "The evolution of wheels was the central adaptation allowing people to escape predators, exploit scattered resources, and disperse into new niches, resulting in radiations into vast numbers of wheeled automobiles. Despite the presumed evolutionary advantages associated with full-sized wheels, nearly all automobiles have many partially wheeled or wheelless lineages, and some entire orders are secondarily wheelless, with about 5% of extant types being roller less. Thousands of independent transitions from a wheel form to wheelless form, have occurred during the course of automobile evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a wheelless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any auto lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between barrings, axles, brakes and wheel bushings are required to accommodate controlled rolling. Here we show that automobiles diversified as wheels were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that 're-evolution' of the wheel has had an unrecognized role in auto diversification."
I used almost verbatim the exact same language in the above quote as you did in yours. My tale sounds silly only because you and I both know that wheels were designed and not evolved.
Which only proves that it is a bad analogy because it is incapable of matching reality. What you in essence are saying is that because you cannot explain the wings to no wings to wings changes, your are now insinuating that they were designed instead of evolved.
In other words, because you will not admit to yourself that information must be increased here, and that you believe this cannot occur without design, that therefore design must be involved.
Sorry, poor logic is still poor logic. Avoiding the issue is still avoiding the issue.
Which is the claim that if God created certain features to "look old," then who's to say that God did not just create everything last Thursday, complete with vivid past childhood memories and all? Well in answer to that I reply, yes that is exactly what this is LIKE.
Whatever fantasy you like to believe is now fully explained by Bradology: if the evidence is inconvenient, it is because god made it that way just to fool you.
The astute reader knows that you are avoiding the issue, and that these excuses to avoid it are rather pathetic conflict avoidance behaviors. Pathetic in, pathetic out. Let me leave you with these definitions:
The onus is on you to prove your point, and to do that you need to do the necessary homework to provide the proper substantiation for your argument.
You have failed to substantiate your argument in any way.
Therefore, either "information" is added or "information" is irrelevant.
So you have proven that you have no argument to explain the wings - no wings - wings changes in the walkingsticks, and are not interested in finding the truth.
Now lets deal with this poor pathetic excuse for logic:
The difference between "pond scum" and "people" is that there are different arrangements of those same four basic DNA elements, so either these differences are not "new" information or insertion of any of the four basic DNA elements into a strand of DNA can produce "new" information ...
Yes, and a stop sign uses 4 of the same 26 letters that can be found in Darwin's book, Origin of Species. But obviously a lot of new information must be added to the four letters STOP to convert it to an intelligible book.
And rather obviously, when it comes to DNA you do not have 26 letters, only the 4 base groups, A, G, C and T. What you spell is constrained to combinations of those letters.
Therefore you analogy fails even before it begins, because it is incapable of representing reality.
Amoebas to amphibians evolution ...
Try again, amoebas are modern organisms ... the word you are looking for is eukaryote. Amoebas are eukaryotes, but they did not necessarily evolve into amphibians, there being a whole world of eukaryotes to "chose" from. Not all eukaryotes are amoebas.
... requires information that codes for eyes, limbs, reproductive organs, brains, lungs, blood vessels, etc... to be added.
And you have failed to show any reason to think that such "information" either cannot evolve or (whatever it is) is significant to what can evolve. If in doubt, read Message 1068.
That is what I am talking about that we do not observe.
Because you won't look at it doesn't mean that others can't see the evidence. If in doubt, read Message 1068 again.
Biology should show this process taking place at least in some small way.
It has. Numerous times. Evolution - the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations in response to ecological opportunity - is observed in every species living today, in the historical record, in the fossil record and in the genetic record. Evolution has also been observed to result in speciation - the division of parent populations into genetically isolated daughter populations - and this results in the formation of nested hierarchies of common descent. For example, the evolution of the mammal ear from the reptile ear is clearly documented in the fossil record of the therapsids.
Again, either "information" can evolve or the term is meaningless when talking about what can and what cannot evolve.
. Its not just the adding of more letters, but the very specific arranging of the letters, that needs to be explained as well.
AAANNNDDD ... mutation and natural selection happen to explain that very well. Ergo no problem for evolution.
quote:The difference is that OTHER PEOPLE are a lot smarter than you and have actually taken the time to learn a little something about what they are discussing.
Your extremely limited understanding of science, logic and, frankly, honesty, puts you at a severe disadvantage when dealing with the real world.
Your limitations are NOT the limit of other people's knowledge. The fact that you need me to explain that to you is pretty damn telling.
Believe it or not, this is the exact way I would describe you. Wow, what a coincidence. Or is it... design?
quote:Because wind erosion effects certain rocks in certain ways. Again, your limited knowledge of the natural world completely derails the conversation.
I know that they affect them in certain ways. My question is, how do you know, that BY CHANCE, wind, water and erosion, didn't leave the marks just like those that people would leave when modeling stones? How do you know that chance was not the cause?
quote:No. It's a statement. You are STATING that the Rosetta stone was created naturally (or via Jew Magic) and YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Therefore you are LYING.
You are DISHONEST.
And YOU KNOW you are lying.
Which means you KNOW you've LOST the DEBATE. Because there's NO REASON to lie if you think you are winning.
I know that the Rosetta Stone was designed. That is, I don't concluseively know. But I infer design. By MY method.
The question is, how do YOU know? What is your method of design detection? How does your method tell you that the Rosetta stone was designed? HOW!?
quote:That is the argument from douchbaggery.
How do _YOU_ know that it was actually Jew Magic and not something that happens to be EXACTLY LIKE Jew Magic but technically is not?
How do _YOU_ know that when you are typing a letter the computer is sending the message to the forum and not simply presenting a completely random sequence of letters which happen to follow a milisecond behind the exact buttons you happen to be pushing even though it's technically not related?
How do _YOU_ know that YOU know anything rather than it just being a trick to make you THINK you KNOW something that you only think you know because you don't know that you know what is not known without the trick of knowing who knows how you know it?
IT's all BULLSHIT.
That ENTIRE FORM OF ARGUMENT is an acknowledgement that you have LOST THE DEBATE.
Yeah, this is out of your league... But never mind, I'll keep having fun with you becasue it makes me laugh...
You see, you are totally clueless about what the argument is. You have never heard about a thing called the hypothesis testing. Or in this case the statistical hypothesis testing, which is used to falsify the chance hypothesis.
A standard method is called the Fisher method.
quote:A statistical hypothesis test is a method of making statistical decisions using experimental data. In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase "test of significance" was coined by Ronald Fisher:
The point of this method is to tell apart designed events from chance events. The fact that you think that my question is an "argument from douchbaggery" shows you should keep quiet about this. But, please do keep embarrassing yourself. Again, you need a method that is going to tell you if something was designed or not. To do that, you have to reliably remove the posibility that a chance had any cause in bringing about the event in question.
Dembski's design detecting method is a generalization of Fisher's method. Which is widely used in... well... EVERYWHERE! And you would have know that if you read NFL, or actually had the faintest idea about what we are talking about.
So once again, just for you. Tell me, what is your method of design detection? What is your method of hypothesis testing? How do you falsify the chance hypothesis? Does any of this ring a bell? Nope? Didn't think so...
quote:And the design inference you are using comes from Dembski who admits to being a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Bible.
Your point is? Nevermind, you have no points.
quote:So, since he KNEW about the BIBLE before he did his design inference, the KNEW that it was designed. Therefore, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT ABOVE, the inference is NULL AND VOID.
You lose. Again. For the 12th time.
Wrong. ID does not and can not point to the Bible, or any other book. Dembski said that many time. His personal belief has nothing to do with his science.
But let me turn this around on you...
You're an atheistic fundamentalist. Your starting position is that life is not designed. So you coclude that life is not designed, even before you made any experiments? How could you?
quote:Which is what I said. And it's wrong - and you know it's wrong.
For this to be wrong, we would have to invent new unknown functions. Why would we want to do that?
quote:Of course that isn't true. You can't work out the probabilities just from the number of proteins.
Uh, yes you can. That's liek saying you can't work out the probabilites of what number you are going to get just from the number of dice you have. Yes you can.
quote:I'm not inventing anything. I'm just pointing out that there can be factors that you simply haven't taken into account.
YES I KNOW! There can be an invisible pink unicorn playing with proteins when we are not looking!!!! There can be a light blue invisible unicorn magicaly increasing the probability of the flagellum forming every time the amount of protein reaches 1.000.000. There can even ba a green witch that adds wings to the flagellum when we are not looking, and takes them off every time we look.
SO THE HELL WHAT!?
If you have no evidence for any of that, you don't get to include those things in the calculation. If we had it your way, NO SINGLE STATISTICAL CALCULATION COULD EVER be performed. How do you know that some magic doesn't influence a coin thrown in Germany to fall heads 75% more than tails? How do you know this is not the case? You don't. But if you have no evidence for such a thing you don't even consider it. And you go with what you have.
quote:Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. We aren't talking about the design of search algorithms, we are talking about calculating the actual probabilities.
LOL! The algorithms are used to search a sequece space. They are the ones that increase the probability of an event to occure. The point of the article is that when we are calculating a probability in any point in teh search space, we are supposed to use uniform probability unless we have knowledge otherwise. And since we don't, we go with uniform probability. Meaning that, results of throwing 1 die is less complex than throwing 5 dice, and a 50 protein flagellum has a higher probability than a 1.000.000 protein flagellum. Anything else is plain lunacy.
quote:It seems clear enough. Dembski's method requires the calculation of the probability of meeting the specification (the probability of D*). Dembski didn't do that. What more is there to say ?
That what did he do?
quote:Since the "noise" IS the "genetic entropy" it can''t be a cause of it. This is what happens when you don't care about understanding the material you are quoting.
WTF are you talkibng about!?!? Noise is NOT the geentic entropy!!! Are you insane!? I gave youa quote from Sanford himself. Here I'll do it again.
quote:Genetic entropy - This is a fundamental biological principle. Apart from intelligent intervention, the functional genomic information within free-living organisms (excluding viruses) must decrease. Like all other aspects of the world we live in, the "natural vector" within the biological realm is degeneration, with disorder consistently increasing over time.
Page 217.
STOP EVADING THE FACTS!
quote:Selection Interference - The phenomenon where selection for one trait in a population confounds the selection for another trait in the same population.
Page 223.
This is noise. This is the noise that makes selection less than 100% effective, which is one of the causes of genetic entropy.
Again, STOP inventing your own definitions. And stop evading facts! If you think I'm making this up than go buy the book yourself!
quote:Well no. I've never argued that it couldn't under some theoretical conditions be a problem for a large effective population. If you're prepared to accept that it might possibly, in theory, be a problem for some large populations - and no more, then we can close this down.
You were constantly saying that it's NOT a problem for large populations. Obviously it is. Anyway, this isn't my main argument however you look at it. I simply used genetic entropy tto show you that evolution does not work. Why?
Because if life originated in a form of abiogenesis, the initial population of ONE, would obviously be a small population. Whatever would that hypothetical thing be it wouldn't last long. And even if it did develop few replicated instances of itself, being that it's still a small population, it would be killed by genetic entropy. So however you look at it, if you agree that genetic entropy destroies small populations, than it's obvious that those small populations would never even have the chance to become large in the first place. Let alone evolve into something else! That's my main argument. That darwinian evolution is not suited for increasing biological complexity.
quote:Well, no. Usually the material you quote DOESN'T support you.
But really you are missing the whole point of the paper. It 's arguing that conservationists need to try to avoid letting a population fragment because that can significantly increase the risk of extinction. If extinction was inevitable anyway, and the fragmentation of the metapopulation was not relevant there wouldn't be any point in the paper at all.
Once more, with style. Please, would you be so kind, to point out the lines in the article that support your position?
quote:Both "reasons" are completely bogus and have nothing to do with my argument. I suggest that you go back and read it again since you obviously didn't understand it..
What's wrong with my arguments?
quote:As I have pointed out, this is incorrect. Using the genome as the unit as selection is simply silly for the reasons I have already given.
You gave no reason whatsoever! You simply asserted it! How in the world are you going to tell me that natural selection PICKS OUT THE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS ONE BY ONE FROM THE GEONOME!!?!? This is not sane!
quote:Strictly speaking, you can't. As I said CSI is binary - either something is CSI or it isn't. You can have bits of information or even specified information but not CSI, because the C is the probability bound. Anything over the bound is Complex, anything under it is not. And that's all there is to it.
And the morte compelx something is, the more bits it has. Therefore, you can have 400, 500 or 1000 etc... bits of CSI. But not 300.
quote:Of course it can't be done and it hasn't been done. That's why you can't come up with a valid example.
You simpy say that my valid examples are not calculated the way they should be and that's your whole argument.
quote: At one point you supported your claim by saying that "bears and alligators do not and can not reproduce." It seems that it is your impression that universal common ancestry cannot be true unless distinct species can reproduce with each other. Rest assured that this is not an implication of universal common ancestry. Do you have any objections not based upon this or other misunderstandings and lack of knowledge?
It seems you are the one not understanding my argument. I never said that distant species should reproduce if CD is true. I simply said that they have never been seen to reproduce. So why should we BELIEVE that they once could? Based on what evidence? I haven't seen any.
He claims that CD is consistent with the idea that those animals long ago could reproduce and that they lost that ability over time as they became more distant. So? The fact that they can't reproduce is alo consistent with the idea that they NEVER could reproduce in the first place!
So which one shall we prefer?
quote:If ID is only design detection and is not a theory with explanatory and predictive power, then why are you arguing against universal common descent in a thread about the definition of ID?
I never said that distant species should reproduce if CD is true. I simply said that they have never been seen to reproduce. So why should we BELIEVE that they once could? Based on what evidence? I haven't seen any.
I'm sure everyone is puzzled why you're asking for evidence for something that no one has ever claimed happens. Distant species should never reproduce with each other, and no one on either side of the discussion believes that they should. Common ancestry is not a claim that distant species should be able to reproduce.
Common ancestry is an interpretation of the fossil and genetic records that indicate that species that are now distant were once the same species. Organisms of the common ancestral species could most certaintly reproduce because they were of the same species. To emphasize this point let me address what you say next:
He claims that CD is consistent with the idea that those animals long ago could reproduce and that they lost that ability over time as they became more distant. So? The fact that they can't reproduce is also consistent with the idea that they NEVER could reproduce in the first place!
That bears and alligators share a common ancestor is not a claim that long, long ago in the depths of time bears and alligators could reproduce. As you trace bear and alligator evolution back through time the predecessor species become more and more similar until finally they are the same species. That ancestral species is neither bear nor alligator but something very different from both.
But it seems that this discussion of common ancestry is irrelevant. I thought you were discussing it because you thought it had something to do with ID, but it turns out you're discussing it only because "he brought it up." If you think ID has no bearing on common ancestry, then the next time someone brings it up just tell them that it's not relevant to the topic.
quote:I'm sure everyone is puzzled why you're asking for evidence for something that no one has ever claimed happens. Distant species should never reproduce with each other, and no one on either side of the discussion believes that they should. Common ancestry is not a claim that distant species should be able to reproduce.
Neither did I ask for that evidence. I asked for the evidence that they ONCE, a LONG TIME AGO, could have reproduced. Not now, a long time ago, when they hypothetically could.
quote:Common ancestry is an interpretation of the fossil and genetic records that indicate that species that are now distant were once the same species.
It's an interpretation based on no evidence. I could also say that I interpret the fossil record and the genetic record to have formed 3 minutes ago from nothing in just this state that we currently observe. My explanation is consistent with observation. But is it an acceptable theory? No, it's not. Why? Because I have ZERO evidnece for something like that. Just as you have ZERO evidence that very distant species today could have reproduced a long time ago.
quote:Organisms of the common ancestral species could most certaintly reproduce because they were of the same species.
Uh, where's the evidence? A horse, and a polar bear. You claim that they were once related. OK, where's the evidence?
quote:That bears and alligators share a common ancestor is not a claim that long, long ago in the depths of time bears and alligators could reproduce. As you trace bear and alligator evolution back through time the predecessor species become more and more similar until finally they are the same species. That ancestral species is neither bear nor alligator but something very different from both.
Is this a story, a just so story, or is this supported by some kind of evidence? Can you show me a hypothetical ancestor of those two species? How did he look like?
quote:But it seems that this discussion of common ancestry is irrelevant. I thought you were discussing it because you thought it had something to do with ID, but it turns out you're discussing it only because "he brought it up." If you think ID has no bearing on common ancestry, then the next time someone brings it up just tell them that it's not relevant to the topic.
No, it's fine by me. I like the discussion to be as broad as possible. However, ID is clearly compatible with CD. Michael Behe accepts both ID and CD. So no, there is no problem in accepting both.
It seems you are the one not understanding my argument. I never said that distant species should reproduce if CD is true. I simply said that they have never been seen to reproduce. So why should we BELIEVE that they once could? Based on what evidence? I haven't seen any.
Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.
Common descent with modification does not imply that, once diverged, distinct species could reunite into one. Once diverged, they can never reunite. Never ever.
Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
SO continues:
He claims that CD is consistent with the idea that those animals long ago could reproduce and that they lost that ability over time as they became more distant. So? The fact that they can't reproduce is also consistent with the idea that they NEVER could reproduce in the first place!
That is not the claim of Common Descent. If you back far enough, the ancestors of bears were very different and back even further, they weren't even mammals. And the alligator's ancestors weren't alligators either. If you go back far enough in your time machine, eventually you find some primitive animal whose descendants began to slowly divide into isolated reproductive groups, and eventually one of the paths down these isolated branches led eventually to bears and, among the many others paths of divergence, one of them led eventually to alligators. This primitive animal is the common ancestor, but it is not a bear and it is not an alligator. When this primitive animal was alive, there were no such things as bears and alligators.
Now, despite your claim that reproductive inability is also consistent with a past that never occurred, it has no value to the argument of CD, which has never been falsified to date, after 150 years of increasingly more accurate scientific investigation. Every single verified study has supported nested hierarchy with it's evidence.
No, it's fine by me. I like the discussion to be as broad as possible.
Here at EvC Forum we try to keep discussion on-topic. You've been given a lot of leeway in this thread, please don't abuse it.
According to you ID is a method of design detection with no broader implications or predictive ability. Unless you have something to add to that I think you're done.
quote:Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.
Even when they were one species a long time ago?
quote:Common descent with modification does not imply that, once diverged, distinct species could reunite into one. Once diverged, they can never reunite. Never ever.
Why not? have you ever heard of convergent evolution? Where totally distinct species converge to look very similar? If evolution was true, than I can see no problem in distinct species converging an becoming exactly alike and reproducing again. What exactly is stoping two distinct species from reproducing again?
But this is besides the point. I never said that they should reproduce again. I simply said that they can't do it now, and unless we have evidence that they once could we are not going to simply assume that they could.
quote:That is not the claim of Common Descent. If you back far enough, the ancestors of bears were very different and back even further, they weren't even mammals. And the alligator's ancestors weren't alligators either. If you go back far enough in your time machine, eventually you find some primitive animal whose descendants began to slowly divide into isolated reproductive groups, and eventually one of the paths down these isolated branches led eventually to bears and, among the many others paths of divergence, one of them led eventually to alligators. This primitive animal is the common ancestor, but it is not a bear and it is not an alligator. When this primitive animal was alive, there were no such things as bears and alligators.
Great story! Now all you need to do is show me the evidence! Now, you didn't just make that story up in your head right as we speak, now did you? You do have the evidence, right?
quote:Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
Why?
quote:Now, despite your claim that reproductive inability is also consistent with a past that never occurred, it has no value to the argument of CD, which has never been falsified to date, after 150 years of increasingly more accurate scientific investigation. Every single verified study has supported nested hierarchy with it's evidence.
Neitehr has CD any value to the theory that everything was created in it's present state 3 minutes ago. And this awesome theory has also never been falsified.
Unlike the nested hierarchy of all life. You must be new here. Please observe the following links I already shown few days ago.
quote:Hillis (and others) may claim that this problem is only encountered when one tries to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships of microorganisms, such as bacteria, which can swap genes through a process called horizontal gene transfer, thereby muddying any phylogenetic signal. But this objection doesn’t hold water because the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:
Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirtsalso known as tunicatesare lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another, Syvanen says.
quote:The gorilla/chimp/human tree (5—8 million years ago). Whereas genomic analyses have shown that at the species level, chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives [24], many of the genes and genomic segments examined have followed different evolutionary paths [24—26]. Specifically, analyses of almost 100 genes (under two different optimality criteria) show that ~55% of genes support a human-chimpanzee clade, 40% are evenly split among the two alternative topologies, with the remaining genes being uninformative [25,26] (Figure 2A). Similarly, whereas 76% of PICs from a genome-scale survey support a human—chimpanzee clade, 24% of PICs disagree
quote:For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life, says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality, says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.
...
The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.
...
Conventionally, sea squirtsalso known as tunicatesare lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another, Syvanen says.
...
For example, pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.
quote:
For this to be wrong, we would have to invent new unknown functions. Why would we want to do that?
No, it must merely be possible that there are unknown functions. Since that *is* possible it is not valid to infer that loss of the one function tested for is loss of all function in every case.
quote:
Uh, yes you can. That's liek saying you can't work out the probabilites of what number you are going to get just from the number of dice you have. Yes you can.
No, it isn't like that at all. We know how to do the calculation for dice. We don't know how to do the calculation for completely unspecified proteins - because it can't be done without more information.
quote:
YES I KNOW! There can be an invisible pink unicorn playing with proteins when we are not looking!!!! There can be a light blue invisible unicorn magicaly increasing the probability of the flagellum forming every time the amount of protein reaches 1.000.000. There can even ba a green witch that adds wings to the flagellum when we are not looking, and takes them off every time we look. SO THE HELL WHAT!?
I was thinking more of evolutionary relationships between the proteins - with each other and with other proteins in the organism or that might be acquired by the organism - and the lengths of the proteins. 1,000,000 slightly different proteins might be more probable than 50 hugely long proteins, all completely unrelated to each other and anything else . I could probably think of more factors if you actually bothered to show the calculations.
quote:
LOL! The algorithms are used to search a sequece space. They are the ones that increase the probability of an event to occure.
And in the example we are considering, which algorithms would they be ?
quote:
The point of the article is that when we are calculating a probability in any point in teh search space, we are supposed to use uniform probability unless we have knowledge otherwise. And since we don't, we go with uniform probability. Meaning that, results of throwing 1 die is less complex than throwing 5 dice, and a 50 protein flagellum has a higher probability than a 1.000.000 protein flagellum. Anything else is plain lunacy.
In other words you take the article as support for your position that we shouldn't bother trying to do things right, we should just do them your way. Unfortunately he is talking about the performance of search algorithms, not the calculation of probabilities in a specific case.
quote:
That what did he do?
A completely bogus and irrelevant calculation.
quote:
WTF are you talkibng about!?!? Noise is NOT the geentic entropy!!! Are you insane!? I gave youa quote from Sanford himself. Here I'll do it again.
In other words by giving a quote which doesn't include the word "noise" you think that you can show that a different quote didn't use the word "noise" to describe genetic entropy.
quote:
You were constantly saying that it's NOT a problem for large populations. Obviously it is.
No, that isn't obvious at all. Theoretical models aren't reality.
quote:
Because if life originated in a form of abiogenesis, the initial population of ONE, would obviously be a small population. Whatever would that hypothetical thing be it wouldn't last long. And even if it did develop few replicated instances of itself, being that it's still a small population, it would be killed by genetic entropy. So however you look at it, if you agree that genetic entropy destroies small populations, than it's obvious that those small populations would never even have the chance to become large in the first place. Let alone evolve into something else! That's my main argument. That darwinian evolution is not suited for increasing biological complexity.
But it doesn't inevitably destroy even small populations. The cheetah population has suffered from a severe genetic bottleneck (at one point probably reduced to a single pregnant female). And subsequent hunting has made their problems worse. But they're still around.
quote:
Once more, with style. Please, would you be so kind, to point out the lines in the article that support your position?
Would you like to explain the relevance of a fragmented metapopulation in the article if it does NOT make a species more vulnerable to mutational meltdown ?
quote:
What's wrong with my arguments?
The fact that they dont address what I'm saying at all.
quote:
You gave no reason whatsoever! You simply asserted it! How in the world are you going to tell me that natural selection PICKS OUT THE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS ONE BY ONE FROM THE GEONOME!!?!? This is not sane!
It's also not what I said. What I said is that the gene is a better choice for the "unit of selection" than the genome. And I gave reasons. Now if you want crazy we can take your assumption that the unit of selection must either be the whole genome or individual nucleotides. Anybody who knows about genes would know that that was wrong.
quote:
And the morte compelx something is, the more bits it has. Therefore, you can have 400, 500 or 1000 etc... bits of CSI. But not 300.
No, they are not bits of CSI, because CSI is having more bits than the threshold. That's what the "Complex" refers to (I know it's misleading but that's Dembski for you).
quote:
You simpy say that my valid examples are not calculated the way they should be and that's your whole argument.
quote:Here at EvC Forum we try to keep discussion on-topic. You've been given a lot of leeway in this thread, please don't abuse it.
No problem sir, I always follow the rules!
quote:According to you ID is a method of design detection with no broader implications or predictive ability.
I never said that. ID can be used in may other sciences to detect possible instance of design.
quote:Unless you have something to add to that I think you're done.
Please note that other people on this very same thread are talking about CD also, not just me. This whole thread has been very broad. And it seems people are having a very good time.
quote:Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.
Even when they were one species a long time ago?
When they were one species (the parent species) then they were not the distinct (daughter) species.
They become distinct species by becoming incapable of interbreeding.
quote:Common descent with modification does not imply that, once diverged, distinct species could reunite into one. Once diverged, they can never reunite. Never ever.
Why not? have you ever heard of convergent evolution? Where totally distinct species converge to look very similar? If evolution was true, than I can see no problem in distinct species converging an becoming exactly alike and reproducing again. What exactly is stoping two distinct species from reproducing again?
Convergent evolution does not imply that they become genetically similar, only that the external traits are similar. Inside they are quite different.
Here we have a marsupial and a placental mammal that have converged on a common phenotype:
The sugar glider is genetically closer to the kangaroo than it is to the flying squirrel, and the flying squirrel is genetically closer to a bear than the sugar glider. Even their skull bones are different, the one being typical of placentals and the other being typical of marsupials.
Without the superficial external appearance, fossilized specimens would not be confused one with the other.
But this is besides the point. I never said that they should reproduce again. I simply said that they can't do it now, ...
Which makes it simply irrelevant. The definition of species is reproductively isolated populations, so there is no point in saying they can't -- it is mundanely true.
... and unless we have evidence that they once could we are not going to simply assume that they could.
And as has been pointed out, the common ancestor is older than the species in question, and thus there never was a time when evolution would say that they could reproduce across species boundaries.
It is a very simple concept. Here is a simplified version:
Great story! Now all you need to do is show me the evidence! Now, you didn't just make that story up in your head right as we speak, now did you? You do have the evidence, right?
quote:The Theropsids or "beast (mammal) faces" constitute an evolutionary lineage that developed a special opening, the synapsid arch, for attachment of jaw muscles, giving a superior bite and permitting adaptive radiation during the late Carboniferous. These basal forms evolved through the primitive pelycosaur stage, to the therapsids or mammal-like reptiles, and finally the mammals themselves. Pelycosaur, therapsid, and mammal represent three evolutionary grades in a single progressive evolutionary axis. The therapsids, as forms transitional between basal amniote and mammal, can be thought of as occupying the same evolutionary space as the dinosaurs, which are transitional between reptiles and birds, do.
quote:During the Triassic period, at the start of the Mesozoic era, there lived a whole lot of animals that were no longer small and insignificant lizard-like forms, but not actually crocs, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, or birds. They used to be called "thecodonts", and the term is still used and is a very good one, even if cladistically rigid. A more precise term might be Basal or Stem Archosauromorphs. Archosauromorphs because this is a clade that includes the Archosauria or "ruling reptiles" and a number of similar types."
Note that many intermediate forms have been omitted for simplicity. Note further that there are fossils of every one of these stages, known, documented, validated.
As any reasonable person can see, the relationship between bear and alligator is very distant, and occurred long before the ancestors of alligators and bears were even the beginning to form a family taxon. The ancestors were not bears nor alligators for most of the time since their common ancestor to the present.
By the time we had URSIDAE and ALLIGATORIDAE in existence their ability to reproduce would be no more likely than modern bears and alligators reproducing.
quote:Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
Why?
It would tend to invalidate common descent of hereditary lineages. Unfortunately, for you, this has not happened.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
