|
Author
|
Topic: What exactly is ID?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Numbers
I never said that. ID can be used in may other sciences to detect possible instance of design. Perhaps you could expand on this further. Will you show me one other application for the works of Behe or Dembski besides giving false comfort to creationists? Under what circumstances other than deceiving creationists would it be useful to pretend that irreducible complexity can't evolve? When else would it be useful to be hopelessly wrong about information theory? In what other case is it helpful to be wrong about "genetic entropy"?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1082 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2010 10:34 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2396 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Deceiving
Under what circumstances other than deceiving creationists would it be useful to pretend that irreducible complexity can't evolve? When else would it be useful to be hopelessly wrong about information theory? In what other case is it helpful to be wrong about "genetic entropy"?
Those efforts are useful because they are trying to fool those non-creationists who don't know any better. That is the whole intent of creation "science" and its illegitimate offspring, ID. The creationists know they are dishonestly packaging religion in the guise of science. Why else would they call it creation "science" if not to steal the good name of science for their dogma? And when that was discovered and disallowed, why else would they come up with ID--pretending to be science and attempting to hide the religion, when the entire goal of that effort was to sneak religion back into the classrooms? You would think they at least could be honest about it, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2635 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 6.1
|
Common Descent
My brother has already nuked you to death on this, but I feel I should answer your questions as a matter of courtesy.
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? The common ancestor was a completely different species. You are in error when you use the word "they" as in "they were one species". At that time in the past, the "they" did not exist at all.
Why not? have you ever heard of convergent evolution? You are making another error. Convergent evolution NEVER means genetic compatibility for producing viable offspring. The genes, being very different, will not allow it. You are being duped into thinking that because they look similar & occupy similar niches in their ecologies, that the species difference magically vanishes. But RAZD even shows you pictures....
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? Yeah. It's called "Reading this forum completely along with it's references."
quote:Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.
Why? Because it would ruin the theory of common descent, you idiot. Again, I suggest you read this forum in it's entirety.
Neither 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. Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, irrelevant and a childish squeaky toy that should never be used in an argument, even by such luminaries as Straggler himself.
Unlike the nested hierarchy of all life. Cite.
You must be new here. Please observe the following links I already shown few days ago. Look, dude, you can find anything on the internet - you can even find people who believe the sun goes around the earth (oops - off topic). Your little paragraphs you quoted only show that the current picture of the situation has been getting better & better. Things change and scientists accept new findings that change things. The underlying concept remains intact. You are accusing a car built to be able to change direction of travel of actually changing direction of travel!! Oh the nerve of it to change direction of travel!
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23042 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.5
|
Re: Numbers
Smooth Operator writes: quote:
According to you ID is a method of design detection with no broader implications or predictive ability.
I never said that. You mean you never said those precise words? Of course not. But that is precisely what you said. This is from your Message 1031 where you tell me that ID not only does not explain or make any predictions about the history or life on Earth, but also that it is only about design detection:
Smooth Operator in Message 1031 writes: quote:
Since this thread is about developing a clear picture of what ID is, why don't you tell us how ID explains the recorded history of change over time that you allude to here.
It doesn't, becasue ID is not about that. It's a science of design detection. Nothing more, nothing less. You elaborate on how limited ID is in your Message 1038:
Smooth Operator in Message 1038 writes: quote:
But if ID is nothing more than design detection then it has no explanatory power. How can it replace evolution if it can't explain everything that evolution already explains? It would be like trying to replace your automobile with a bicycle.
It would be like math replacing biology. Truly meaningless. That is why ID is not, has never, and will never replace evolution. It does not even try to replace evolution, because it can't. It's not supposed to. ID is not even trying to expalin all that evolution is supposed to explain. ID is a science of design detection and is distinct from the theory of evolution which it does not try to replace. Where you came up witht he idea that ID is trying to replace evolution is beyond me. Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life we see today. ID is about design detection. These are two totally different fields of inquiry. Now in your last message you also say:
ID can be used in may other sciences to detect possible instance of design. So your definition of ID is a way of detecting design in many fields of science that does not have any bearing on the theory of evolution generally or common ancestry specifically. Do I have that right? If I have this right, then please stop discussing common ancestry in this thread. If you'd like to discuss common ancestry then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. --Percy
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Numbers
Even when they were one species a long time ago? This reminds me of a funny cartoon I once saw. A little kid is explaining his idea of history to his big brother. He says: "A long time ago, we all lived in caves. Yes, that includes you."
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Common Descent into a maelstrom?
Ah, yes bro, but will it even cause a ripple on the smooth surface of lake placid under the noon day sun? Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1083 by xongsmith, posted 02-22-2010 3:11 AM | | xongsmith has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10334 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 6.4
|
|
Message 1087 of 1273 (547978)
02-24-2010 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1060 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:54 AM
|
|
Re: Numbers
I am not sure I follow you here Taq. Do you mean to say: If all X are also Y, Therefore all X ARE Y?
If that is what you mean to say then that would not be a logical fallacy. No, that is not what I meant. You are arguing that intelligences produce CSI. You then find CSI and claim intelligence. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI can be produced by something other than intelligence.
So even in humans where two parents differ by only one allele in each of their 23 chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion. More than plenty for natural selection to work with in the existing gene pool to insure survival. But that does not mean that our genetic make up is not incredibly specific to our particular species. And the same argument applies for all the species. You forgot to add in the 150 or so point mutations that occurs in every generation, in addition to a handful of small and large indels. Adding these in and we come to the conclusion that each generation of human will necessarily be different than any generation that has lived before it. The gene pool from one generation to the next is not the same. So how can you claim that DNA is specific to humans when every generation is different from the last?
We observe changes occur only within the existing gene pool. As opposed to non-existent gene pools? What are you trying to say here?
I think you are mistaken Taq. Here's a link to a letter written to and a response from SETI. As you can see, prime numbers are obviously the key in the search for ETI. Prime numbers in what? We can find prime numbers in many things that are of natural origin. For example, tritium has three neutrons and three is a prime number. Therefore, tritium has an intelligent source, right? The prime numbers you are referring to would be embedded in a narrowband radio transmission. The first goal of the SETI program is to find that narrowband radio transmission. Only after they find the signal can they look for prime numbers.
truth of the matter is that intelligence is detected through the same means in the search for ID as it is in the search for ETI, and that's the glaring fact you want to dodge at all cost. So IDers are looking for DNA that produces narrowband radio transmissions?
taq: Those fingerprints do not indicate the DNA sequence of their genome nor their intracellular organization. As for Mars, do you really think that if they do find stromatolite-like deposits on Mars that they will conclude that organisms with DNA identical to modern Earth algae produced those deposits? Brad: I think that is exactly what those who believed the fossils were from Mars thought. They looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, and so they thought they were formed by a duck (figuratively speaking of course). If they found fossils of birds on Mars, why wouldn't they think that the birds were every bit as complex as the ones we have on Earth? Birds and stromatolites are nothing alike. Stromatolites are the excreted waste build up from metabolizing cells. That's it. They have no anatomy and they can not distinguish between the structure of the cells.
Yes, as I said, I've seen the picture. And here again is the accompanying link where the picture originates from with clear implied progression. But that is not even the point. Apart from just randomly attacking evolution as you suggest, I clearly and concisely demonstrated that there is no evidence that these skulls are related and especially not all human. Thus there is no "changes" in DNA for ID proponents to explain. What other people had to say about the picture has nothing to do with it. You still have not offered an ID explanation for the changes in morphology through time. You have not explained why skulls of more recent origin are more like modern humans while older skulls are more like other apes. You have not explained why we don't find modern human features earlier in the chronology. Now you have gone so far as to suggest that differences in morphology are NOT due to differences in DNA. More than plenty for natural selection to work with in the existing gene pool to insure survival. But that does not mean that our genetic make up is not incredibly specific to our particular species. And the same argument applies for all the species.
And to other microbiologists, shared similarity between (how did you put it) "very dissimilar" life forms could also be a clue to a common designer rather than a common ancestor. I mean there is a reason why all wheels are round. This fact does not in any way imply that all modes of transportation which employ the wheel are related, only that round wheels happen to be the best design for "rolling." Not the same. There is no physical law that requires ATG to result in a methionine in the protein. For a wheel to roll it must be round, physics requires it. Also, there is nothing preventing a common designer from using different codon usage for different, and supposedly separate, creations. You might as well use GGG for methionine in birds and ATG in mammals. Why couldn't a designer do this? On top of that, common design does not explain the PATTERN of homology, the nested hierarchy that we keep talking about. Let's approach this from a different prospective. What potential observation would be inconsistent with common design? What combination of characteristics in a fossil would be inconsistent with design? What differences in DNA would be inconsistent with common design? Or are you going to claim that any and all observations, known and unknown, are due to common design? If so, then I can only conclude that common design is a dogmatic belief. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1060 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:54 AM | | Brad H has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1088 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2010 7:05 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 1088 of 1273 (548004)
02-24-2010 7:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1087 by Taq
02-24-2010 1:33 PM
|
|
Lemme help
Hi Taq, lemme help with a little diagram.
You are arguing that intelligences produce CSI. You then find CSI and claim intelligence. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI can be produced by something other than intelligence. What you are talking about is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent quote:
Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
Examples:- If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
- If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
It's popular with people with no formal education in logic. To paraphrase:
You are arguing that intelligence {A} produces CSI {B}. You then find CSI {B}, and claim intelligence {A}. This leaves out the rather obvious possiblity that CSI {B} can be produced by something other than intelligence {notA}. This pretty well sums up all IDologist arguments, from IC on down -- they only work if there is absolutely no {B} that is not {A}. When the typical creationist, IDologist, or other logically challenged person, states something like "we know that{B} produces {A}, therefore any {B} is evidence of {A}" they are assuming that the conclusion is true in their premise. Likewise they normally fail to see that concepts like IC are invalidated by a single example of {B} that is {notA}, and thus needs to be discarded if they want ID to be considered scientific (that's what science does with invalidated concepts). See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for an example of IC invalidation AND the "information is always lost" invalidation. For good sources on logic see: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htmhttp://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.phpFormal fallacy - Wikipedia Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1087 by Taq, posted 02-24-2010 1:33 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5404 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 1089 of 1273 (548027)
02-25-2010 12:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1078 by PaulK
02-21-2010 6:57 PM
|
|
Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
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.
By ALL i mean ALL KNOWN functions. Since it had ONE KNOWN function. You don't get to invent new functions that we do not know of. If you don't know about them, don't make them up. We are talking only about what we do know about.
quote:
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.
We are talking about IDENTICAL proteins. Do you, or do you not understand that? IDENTICAL proteins. There are just more of them. The same thing with dice. Same dice, just more of them.
quote:
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.
Again. IDENTICAL proteins.
quote:
And in the example we are considering, which algorithms would they be ?
Isn't it obvious!? The darwinian evolution.
quote:
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.
Please, bear with me. Okay. Look, yes he is talking about search algorithms. His previous article was called: "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success". But this new article is the foundation for the previous one. Get it? The COI that he is addressing in this new article is short for Conservation of Information. In his previous article Dembski is tryign to show that on average all search algorithms perform equally well over all search spaces. But for this to be true, you have to have uniform probability.
quote:
More generally, all some-to-many mappings of a uniform search
space result in a new search space where the chance of doing
better than p is 50-50. Consequently the chance of doing worse
is 50-50. This result can be viewed as a confirming property of
COI.
See? In any point in search space, the probability is the same. You can't just invent new probabilities. He is talkinga bout the probability is a subspace of the whole search space.
quote:
A completely bogus and irrelevant calculation.
Explain why.
quote:
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.
If in the definition of gentic entropy Sanford said that it's the loss of genetic information. He did not specifically say that geentic entropy is not noise. Why should he? He alo didn't say that genetic entropy is not a HOUSE, or a PLANE, or a BOAT! So by your logic if he didn't say that genetic entropy is not something, we assume it is?
quote:
No, that isn't obvious at all. Theoretical models aren't reality.
I know they are not. But we have FACTS. The facts that small populations die out because of genetic entropy. And we have models that show the same applies to large populations. Why should I not accept them. It's an extrapolation from FACTS. Why shouldn't I do that?
quote:
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.
And they are going to be for a very long time. Yet they have a LARGE, and I do mean LARGE amount of genetic information. Unlike ONE RNA chain somewhere in a pond. Genetic entropy would destroy it, and it would ahve never spread arond. NEVER. But let's use a bit of magic and say that it would. Let us make orselves insane and actually accept the idea that such a chain would actually survive and spread around. Okay, what than? What would have happened? What would darwinian evolution do? Make it more complex? Create new functions? No, it wouldn't. Genetic entropy would not allow that. We have no reason to suppose that it would. Do you have even the faintest, smallest bit of evidence, that is such pupulations of RNA chains, darwinian evolution can increase their functionality? No, you don't. And you very well know you don't. That's why my argument stands. This is basicly what I was saying from the start.
quote:
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 ?
It does make it more vulnerable. Did I ever say that it doesn't?
quote:
The fact that they dont address what I'm saying at all.
Okay than. Please do make a list of your arguments and I'll address them. Something like this: 1.) I say that... 2.) And also... 3.) etc...
quote:
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.
HOW!? HOW!? HOW!? How is a gene a better choice for a selection unit than a genome? Population genetics makes few assumptions to define the population as a gene pool. They claim that genes can be selected for. For this to be true the following assumptions have to be true. Non of them are. So the gene pool view of populations is wrong. Which means there is no selection on the level the gene. 1.) No genetic linkage blocks. 2.) No epistasis. 3.) Infinite population size. 4.) Unlimited time for selection. 5.) Ability to select for an unlimited number of traits. ALL of these assumptions are false. Genes are connected in blocks. Nucleotides do interact. Population sizes are not unlimited, neither is the time for selection. And you can not select for unlimited number of traits at the same time. Under the multiplicative model, Sanford shows that considering the selection pressure of 25% (percent of the population that does not reproduce), the number oftraits you can select for is 300.
quote:
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).
What?
quote:
Because your "valid examples" obviously aren't.
Yet you don't explain why...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1078 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2010 6:57 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1093 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2010 2:49 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied | | | Message 1098 by Taq, posted 02-25-2010 10:35 AM | | Smooth Operator has not replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5404 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 1090 of 1273 (548028)
02-25-2010 12:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1080 by RAZD
02-21-2010 9:06 PM
|
|
Re: Numbers
quote:
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.
Great. Can you tell me what actually happened for them not to be able to reproduce anymore?
quote:
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.
I agree that they are phenotipically different but genetically different. But tell me, if they became phenotipically similar. WHat would stop evolution, to also make them genetically similar. Actually, identical. What is this force that precludes evolution from doing that?
quote:
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.
Oh, but it very relevant. Because if 2 species can't reproduce now, how do you know that those species could have ever reproduced. Basicly, being one species that reproduced.
quote:
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: | ancient reptilian ancestor
|
| common ancestor (reptilian)
/ \
/ \
/ \
therapsids | | still reptilian
/ \ / \
/ | | \
| | | \
/ \ | | |
mamaliforms / | | | / \ crocodilians
(still not (still not
mammals) alligators)
Okay, I get your point. Do you have evidence that this what you have shown, represents what happened with polar bears and chorses? Can you show me their common ancestor?
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.
This is the quote from your article. Let's look at the first statement: "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." Okay, they say that this particular species developed a special opening which later on allowed for a superior jaw. How do they know that? How exactly did they determine that happened?
quote:
And then to THERAPSIDA:
Palaeos: Page not found You can follow the lineage down to CYNODONTIA
Palaeos: Page not found and then MAMMALIFORMES
Palaeos: Page not found then to MAMMALIA,
Palaeos: Page not found and on to EUTHERIA,
Palaeos: Page not found before coming to FERAE, unfortunately incomplete at this time
Palaeos: Page not found So for more on FERAE go to
Ferae - Wikipedia Then to CARNIVORA
Carnivora - Wikipedia And finally to URSIDAE (FAMILY TAXON for all bears)
Bear - Wikipedia
Which is where your bear resides. ... Now we go back to REPTILOMORPHA
Palaeos: Page not found For ALLIGATOR ancestors go to ARCHOSAUROMORPHA:
Palaeos: Page not found
Can you please explain to me how do you know that all these animals are related?
quote:
REPTILOMORPHA
|
| |
SYNAPSIDA |
| |
THERAPSIDA ARCHOSAUROMORPHA
| |
CYNODONTIA |
| |
MAMMALIFORMES CROCODYLOMORPHA
| |
MAMMALIA |
| |
EUTHERIA CRODODYLIFORMES
| |
FERAE |
| CROCODYLIA
CARNIVORA |
| |
URSIDAE ALLIGATORIDAE
I have the same question about this graph also. How do you know that all those species are related. Do you know it? Do you have any evidence for it, or do you simply assume it?
quote:
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.
Speaking of the intermediate forms you presented. I would like to know, how do you tell a specimen is intermediate?
quote:
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.
Actually no. What any reasonable person can see, is that you have made a drawing. That is all. You wrote few names down, and connected tehm with lines. Now, you simply ASSUME they represent their descent. Do you know that, or do you simply assume that? Do you have any evidence for that?
quote:
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.
How do you know that they didn't exist from the start?
quote:
It would tend to invalidate common descent of hereditary lineages. Unfortunately, for you, this has not happened.
So you are sayign that if two different species would be able to reproduce, that are not the same species, that would invalidate common descent? What if it went even higher? What if two different genera reproduced? Surely this would be even worse? Does this falsify common descent? Look at the case of the beefalo. A simple bison (genus Bison), and a simple cow (genus Bos). Their offspring is fertile, and is called teh beefalo. What's up with that? Beefalo - Wikipedia
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1080 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 9:06 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1115 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 8:29 PM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5404 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
Re: Common Descent
quote:
The common ancestor was a completely different species. You are in error when you use the word "they" as in "they were one species". At that time in the past, the "they" did not exist at all.
Yes, they were supposed to be one species. How do you know that? Can you show me any evidence for that?
quote:
You are making another error. Convergent evolution NEVER means genetic compatibility for producing viable offspring. The genes, being very different, will not allow it. You are being duped into thinking that because they look similar & occupy similar niches in their ecologies, that the species difference magically vanishes. But RAZD even shows you pictures....
You missed my point. My question is, why can convergent evolution not make 2 different species genetically similar? What is stopping evolution from doing so?
quote:
Yeah. It's called "Reading this forum completely along with it's references."
I don't have that much time on my hands. Why don't you just point me to some?
quote:
Because it would ruin the theory of common descent, you idiot.
Again, I suggest you read this forum in it's entirety.
Oh, and the theroy of common descent is the ultimate truth which can not be ruined? Thus we can't observe that right? What about the beefalo than?
quote:
Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, irrelevant and a childish squeaky toy that should never be used in an argument, even by such luminaries as Straggler himself.
The same goes for common descent. How do we falsify it?
quote:
Cite.
They were below the statement you responded to with this quote.
quote:
Look, dude, you can find anything on the internet - you can even find people who believe the sun goes around the earth (oops - off topic).
Yes,a nd you can also find people who say that they came from rocks 4.6 billion years ago. Your point is?
quote:
Your little paragraphs you quoted only show that the current picture of the situation has been getting better & better.
Exactly. We are getting more and more knowledge about the world around us. And the idea of a nested hierarchy of all life is a failed idea. It's not getting better and better, it's getting worse.
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.
A Primer on the Tree of Life Does this sound like things are getting better and better for the nested hierarchy of all life? Are you seriously saying that this is BETTER!? If this means better to you, than I don't want to know what you consider as worse...
quote:
Things change and scientists accept new findings that change things. The underlying concept remains intact.
Umm... no. The articel clearly says that the whole idea about the tree of life should be discarded. If you have trouble reading than that's not my problem.
quote:
You are accusing a car built to be able to change direction of travel of actually changing direction of travel!!
No, I'm simply saying that it changed the direction. And that's fine by me...
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1114 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2010 12:44 PM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5404 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 1092 of 1273 (548030)
02-25-2010 12:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1084 by Percy
02-22-2010 8:33 AM
|
|
Re: Numbers
quote:
You mean you never said those precise words? Of course not. But that is precisely what you said. This is from your Message 1031 where you tell me that ID not only does not explain or make any predictions about the history or life on Earth, but also that it is only about design detection:
That doesn't mean it doesn't make any predictions. You specifically asked me about the patterns of how life is distributed geologically on Earth. ID has nothing to say about that.
quote:
So your definition of ID is a way of detecting design in many fields of science that does not have any bearing on the theory of evolution generally or common ancestry specifically. Do I have that right?
Close. When we are talking about common descent and evolution we are talking about darwinian evolution. Which is supposed to remove the designer from the whole process. Which is impossible according to ID. Therefore, we must discuss evolution and common descent. Why? Because darwinism is the idea that we can have design without a designer. ID says the exact opposite. So if we are going to refute on or the other, we are supposed to discuss all the aspects of a theory we are trying to refute.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1084 by Percy, posted 02-22-2010 8:33 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1096 by Percy, posted 02-25-2010 7:28 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied | | | Message 1097 by Taq, posted 02-25-2010 9:57 AM | | Smooth Operator has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17973 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
By ALL i mean ALL KNOWN functions.
That's obviously false for a start.
quote:
Since it had ONE KNOWN function. You don't get to invent new functions that we do not know of. If you don't know about them, don't make them up. We are talking only about what we do know about.
I'm not making up anything. I'm just keeping it to what we DO know about. The known function, the one tested for was lost. Unknown functions - whether existing before or gained as a result of the mutation - were not tested for and obviously could occur in some cases even if they did not appear in this particular set of experiments. So we don't know anything about those other than that they could be present.
quote:
We are talking about IDENTICAL proteins. Do you, or do you not understand that? IDENTICAL proteins. There are just more of them. The same thing with dice. Same dice, just more of them.
The 50 proteins in the E coli flagellum are all distinct. And if the proteins WERE identical there would likely be very little difference in "complexity". (It would be more like all the dice being dice rather than all the dice coming up with a particular number !)
quote:
Isn't it obvious!? The darwinian evolution.
Since you don't actually use evolution in any of your calculations - no, it isn't obvious.
quote:
Okay. Look, yes he is talking about search algorithms. His previous article was called: "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success". But this new article is the foundation for the previous one. Get it? The COI that he is addressing in this new article is short for Conservation of Information. In his previous article Dembski is tryign to show that on average all search algorithms perform equally well over all search spaces. But for this to be true, you have to have uniform probability.
So, according to you, Dembski makes this assumption because the argument needs it. That's not a good reason. And his real reason (he's attempting to provide an estimate of *general* performance with limited information) makes it inapplicable to a situation where we need the real numbers for a specific case.
quote:
Explain why.
I already did.
quote:
If in the definition of gentic entropy Sanford said that it's the loss of genetic information. He did not specifically say that geentic entropy is not noise. Why should he? He alo didn't say that genetic entropy is not a HOUSE, or a PLANE, or a BOAT! So by your logic if he didn't say that genetic entropy is not something, we assume it is?
I'm afraid that is another silly argument, since the English language allows for more than one way to describe a thing. In fact deleterious mutations could easily be described as "noise" in the genome. So merely NOT using the word "noise" in the definition does NOT mean that "noise" can't be used to refer to genetic entropy.
quote:
I know they are not. But we have FACTS. The facts that small populations die out because of genetic entropy. And we have models that show the same applies to large populations. Why should I not accept them. It's an extrapolation from FACTS. Why shouldn't I do that?
Because you only have models that state that large populations can, under some conditions, die out from mutational meltdown. Those models can't tell you if those conditions apply to any real populations.
quote:
And they are going to be for a very long time. Yet they have a LARGE, and I do mean LARGE amount of genetic information. Unlike ONE RNA chain somewhere in a pond. Genetic entropy would destroy it, and it would ahve never spread arond. NEVER. But let's use a bit of magic and say that it would.
Of course the relevant measure is not any "absolute" measure of information. A non-viable embryo cheetah, doomed through mutational meltdown, would still have far more "genetic information" than the single RNA strand. And it wouldn't make the slightest difference.
quote:
Let us make orselves insane and actually accept the idea that such a chain would actually survive and spread around. Okay, what than? What would have happened? What would darwinian evolution do? Make it more complex? Create new functions? No, it wouldn't. Genetic entropy would not allow that. We have no reason to suppose that it would. Do you have even the faintest, smallest bit of evidence, that is such pupulations of RNA chains, darwinian evolution can increase their functionality?
I'm not an expert on RNA life, but there's no clear barrier against increases in functionality. In reality, genetic entropy doesn't even stop increases in functionality occurring and being selected.
quote:
Okay than. Please do make a list of your arguments and I'll address them. Something like this:
1.) I say that...
2.) And also...
3.) etc...
Since you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time, or go back and read it when I asked you to why exactly should I repeat it again ? If you really ant to read it just go back through the chain of posts.
quote:
HOW!? HOW!? HOW!? How is a gene a better choice for a selection unit than a genome?
I already explained. You responded by asserting that I must be assuming that the nucleotide was the unit of selection and that I must be ignoring the random mixing of genes. Neither of which was true at all.
quote:
Population genetics makes few assumptions to define the population as a gene pool. They claim that genes can be selected for. For this to be true the following assumptions have to be true. Non of them are. So the gene pool view of populations is wrong. Which means there is no selection on the level the gene. 1.) No genetic linkage blocks.
2.) No epistasis.
3.) Infinite population size.
4.) Unlimited time for selection.
5.) Ability to select for an unlimited number of traits.
Of course, you are exaggerating here. While idealisations make for an easier mathematical treatment, none of these have to be absolute.
quote:
What?
What I said. CSI is not measured in bits. Information and Specified Information is measured in bits. Complex Specified Information is any Specified Information with more bits than the bound (or has a probability below the bound - which is the same thing).
quote:
Yet you don't explain why...
In fact I keep explaining why. Your calculations keep trying to pull in irrelevant details which aren't part of the specification. That's obviously invalid.
|
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5404 days) Posts: 630 Joined: 07-24-2009
|
|
|
Message 1094 of 1273 (548047)
02-25-2010 5:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1093 by PaulK
02-25-2010 2:49 AM
|
|
Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
quote:
That's obviously false for a start.
So some are left? Which are those?
quote:
I'm not making up anything. I'm just keeping it to what we DO know about. The known function, the one tested for was lost. Unknown functions - whether existing before or gained as a result of the mutation - were not tested for and obviously could occur in some cases even if they did not appear in this particular set of experiments. So we don't know anything about those other than that they could be present.
The point, is that this one was lost. Regardless of what else happened, this one was lost. The point of the article was to show how much you can mutate a particular function before it is lost. That is all.
quote:
The 50 proteins in the E coli flagellum are all distinct.
It doesn't matter. I'm talking about those same proteins. Just more of them.
quote:
And if the proteins WERE identical there would likely be very little difference in "complexity".
First of all, it's not "complexity" it's complexity. And it's obvious that there would be vast differences in complexity. More dies more complexity. More proteins more complexity.
quote:
(It would be more like all the dice being dice rather than all the dice coming up with a particular number !)
It's both. You both have to get the same number. With 1 die, or with 5 dice. If the number you want is 6. It's obviously harder to get number 6 with 5 dice, on every single die, than with just with one.
quote:
Since you don't actually use evolution in any of your calculations - no, it isn't obvious.
Evolution is the chance hypothesis in this case. You don't use it. You calculate the probability based on it.
quote:
So, according to you, Dembski makes this assumption because the argument needs it. That's not a good reason.
No, he does it because that's how statistical calculations are done. If you have no prior knowledge of the sequence space you are searching, you assume uniform probability. Everyondoy does that every single time they do a statistical calculation. When you calculate what the probability of throwin 1 die will be, and you than calculate the probability of throwing 5 dice. You ASSUME uniform probability. But this is the most reasonable thing you can do. And if you don't assume it, if you just impose your own probability, than on average, you will get even worse results. That's why this is a standard procedure in all statistical calculations.
quote:
And his real reason (he's attempting to provide an estimate of *general* performance with limited information) makes it inapplicable to a situation where we need the real numbers for a specific case.
Umm no. Generalization means that this works for all cases. Like General and Special relativity. General relativity does not mean that it does not work when you need specific numbers. It just means that it's a generalization of the principle of relativity extended to non-inertial frames of reference.
quote:
I already did.
Poit out where.
quote:
I'm afraid that is another silly argument, since the English language allows for more than one way to describe a thing. In fact deleterious mutations could easily be described as "noise" in the genome. So merely NOT using the word "noise" in the definition does NOT mean that "noise" can't be used to refer to genetic entropy.
They are the noise. I never said they are not. But the point I'm trying to make is that genetic entropy itself means deterioration of genetic information due to accumulation of mutations.
quote:
Because you only have models that state that large populations can, under some conditions, die out from mutational meltdown. Those models can't tell you if those conditions apply to any real populations.
They were modeling real populations. Not aliens or mythical beings.
quote:
Of course the relevant measure is not any "absolute" measure of information. A non-viable embryo cheetah, doomed through mutational meltdown, would still have far more "genetic information" than the single RNA strand. And it wouldn't make the slightest difference.
The point is that the doomed cheetah lost vital functions. You can keep loosing genetic information and not die out for a very long time. Loosing the ability to produce melanin is not going to doom the population. Loosing hair is not going to doom the population, loosing the ability to produce some vitamins is also not going to kill off the population. But loos of vital information, like those genes that code for reproduction will certainly kill teh population. Genes that code for breathing, if lost, will kill the population. The same goes for digestion.
quote:
I'm not an expert on RNA life, but there's no clear barrier against increases in functionality.
Yes there is. It's called probability. The probability of finding functional biological sequences is too small for the darwinian mechanism to actually find them.
quote:
In reality, genetic entropy doesn't even stop increases in functionality occurring and being selected.
In reality it does just that. Like I said. The probability is to small. Simple RNA chains won't find any new functions. And even if they did, they wouldn't be beneficial enough to actually outperform other and take over the population. What would actually happen is what we saw in the Spiegelman's experiment. The chains would keep getting shorter, and they are the ones that would overtake the population.
quote:
Since you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time, or go back and read it when I asked you to why exactly should I repeat it again ? If you really ant to read it just go back through the chain of posts.
So you refuse? Fine...
quote:
I already explained. You responded by asserting that I must be assuming that the nucleotide was the unit of selection and that I must be ignoring the random mixing of genes. Neither of which was true at all.
Okay fine, forget about that. Explain to me how is natural selection supposed to be working on the level of the gene? How? How are the genes the ones that get selected and not the genome?
quote:
Of course, you are exaggerating here. While idealisations make for an easier mathematical treatment, none of these have to be absolute.
Just remember that I didn't make this up. This is from Sanford himself. He know what he's talking about. But let's say that we will look over the points 3, 4 and 5. You still have 2 FACTS that make your idea of genetic selection false. 1.) Genes are inherited in blocks. These things do not go under genetic recombination. So if one of the genes in such blocks has a beneficial and the other a deleterious mutation, they both get passed on. 2.) Nucleotides do interact. The ENCODE project has shown that genes are polyfunctional and poly constrained. Which means you can start translation of one gene, hop on on to another and finish the translation. You can also read them in the opposite direction. Nucleotides do interact in just such a way. That means, that the gene can not, in any ossible way be the unit of selection. The genome is. The genome gets passed on in full. Natural selection does not pick out the best genes and drops the rest. To claim the opposite is to be in argument with reality itself.
quote:
What I said. CSI is not measured in bits. Information and Specified Information is measured in bits. Complex Specified Information is any Specified Information with more bits than the bound (or has a probability below the bound - which is the same thing).
Something is or is not CSI, that's true. But something can contain more or less CSI. That's also obvious. And since information is measured in bits. CSI is also.
quote:
In fact I keep explaining why. Your calculations keep trying to pull in irrelevant details which aren't part of the specification. That's obviously invalid.
Such as?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1093 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2010 2:49 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 323 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
ENCODE and beyond
1.) Genes are inherited in blocks. These things do not go under genetic recombination. So if one of the genes in such blocks has a beneficial and the other a deleterious mutation, they both get passed on. The idea that genes are not rearranged by genetic recombination is simply wrong. What do you even think genetic recombination means if not that the genes are recombined? The closer genes are to each other the less likely they are to be seperated by crossing over, but that is just a question of probability, it doesn't mean that they can't be seperated, even different regions of the same gene can be recombined. And that is without even beginning to look at other mechanisms which can lead to changes between complementary gene regions.
2.) Nucleotides do interact. The ENCODE project has shown that genes are polyfunctional and poly constrained. Which means you can start translation of one gene, hop on on to another and finish the translation. You can also read them in the opposite direction. Nucleotides do interact in just such a way. That means, that the gene can not, in any ossible way be the unit of selection. All this shows is that you A) don't understand what ENCODE was looking at, and B) dont understand genetics at all. The main problem is that 'unit of selection' is not a very useful term. A single nucleotide change can certainly produce the neccessary phenotypic difference to form a basis for selection to act on. The whole point is that the mixing of different complements of genes within a population's gene pool does allow a degree of seperation between genes allowing us to look at the increase in specific alleles rather than looking at whole genomes. It is impossible to make any sort of case in sexual organisms that whole genomes are inherited. In terms of the ENCODE data what you are talking about is presumably the identified ransripts, the thing is that the ENCODE data showed that the majotrity of the genome is transcribed, but only 5% of it seems to have any sort of selective constraint suggestive of function. This makes it a pretty substantial leap to go from the existence of transcripts to their having a functional role which would be destroyed by any single nucleotide changes. Rememeber we aren't talking about the order of genes being rearranged wholesale on a chromosome, just the mixing of different allelic combination amongst multiple genes. So the other gene that your fusion transcript hops onto will still be in the same place, you'lll just have one nucleotide difference in the transcript, which may or may not translate to any functional difference in the resulting fusion transcript, assuming that it had any activity in the first place. It is important to understand that when the ENCODE project talks about functional areas of the genome they are talking about biochemical function in the context of transcription or identifiable binding sites, this doesn't mean that these regions actually perform any functional purpose in the life of the organism. Indeed one of their conclusions is that there is a large amount of functionally active but selectionally neutral genetic material. ENCODE certainly showed that the transcriptome is much more complex than we would have expeected, but it doesn't show in any way that single nucleotides cannot form a suitable substarte for selection, or that genetic recombination cannot resegrate nearby beneficial and deleterious mutations. Clearly there are deleterious mutations which hitchhike to fixation, but it would be very hard to make a coherent case for any way in which this could happen unless the beneficial mutation they are accompanying outwieghs them. Anyone interested in ENCODe should go to their site they also have their nature paper available as a PDF there which describes their inital findings, including the sort of transcriptional odditites that SO was talking about. TTFN, WK
|
™ Version 4.2