Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,502 Year: 6,759/9,624 Month: 99/238 Week: 16/83 Day: 7/9 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 608 of 1273 (542483)
01-10-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by Brad H
01-10-2010 8:37 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
In fact, in my post I had pointed out how even evolutionists refer to the code in DNA as information.
Well of course. In science, "information" does not mean "information created by an intelligent source". Indeed, it doesn't mean that in normal English.
And then I proceed to explain that there is in fact a meaningful way to measure the amount of information.
And I would still be grateful if you would elaborate on this theme.
I also even pointed out how scientists at SETI would consider information, not near as complex (if received from outer space), to be from an intelligent source.
I think that is what is truly ironic about this whole thing. Scientists will accept that ET might be the origin of a simple string of prime numbers, but those same scientists would turn around and look at a complex program in the DNA of a cell and say, "It formed from random unguided processes and natural selection."
And I'll tell you something else "truly ironic". Scientists attribute simple crude notches in a stick to an intelligent cause:
... but show them something beautiful and complex like this:
... and they attribute it to purely natural causes.
How silly of them! ... oh, wait, they're right, aren't they?
In the particular case you instance, we understand how natural processes are responsible for genes. But a sequence of primes coming from outer space would be inexplicable.
Indeed, it would be inexplicable in the genome. Find me a sequence of DNA that encodes the first thousand primes, in a format as follows:
TAATAAATAAAAATAAAAAAATAAAAAAAAAAAT ...
... and I shall freely confess the absence of any naturalistic explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 8:37 AM Brad H has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 614 of 1273 (542566)
01-10-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by Nuggin
01-10-2010 12:31 PM


Re: snow flake
Agreed, I'll start a new thread.
Can I expect to see you there Brad?
Why should you? For once I am in agreement with the moderators.
If Brad H wants to go off topic, that's no reason why we should help him to do so.
He can if he likes. He should indeed start a new thread if he can't cut it on this one. But that's up to him.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Nuggin, posted 01-10-2010 12:31 PM Nuggin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 629 of 1273 (542600)
01-11-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by Smooth Operator
01-11-2010 3:38 AM


Re: Genetic Entropy
The fact that all mater tends to disorders is equally well applied to the genome.
I guess it is equally false whatever you're talking about.
If you really know damn-all about thermodynamics, I suggest that you study thermodynamics.
Stop me if I'm going to fast for you.
That's great. Now you can tell us all about it. Well than, please do tell us why in the world is the genome the only entety in the universe that does not follow the 2nd law.
As I have told you, there is nothing in genetics, least of all the existence of the genome, which implies that one can construct a refrigerator without a power source.
By saying there is not genetic entropy, yes, you are claiming just that. Because that means you are sayign that the 2nd law, does nto applie to the genome.
No I am not.
Listen carefully.
Your fantasy of "genetic entropy", which you cannot define, has nothing to do with the theory of thermodynamics. If you called it "genetic weight", it would have nothing to do with the theory of gravity. If you called it "genetic electrical charge", it would have nothing to do with Maxwell's equations.
The fact that you have chosen to describe your vague and nebulous fantasy in terms that have real meaning in a real science does not magically mean that your daydream has anything to do with that science.
No. To be precise, he means the degradation of biological functions. Mostly casued by nearly neutral mutations, than deleterious mutations, and last by some beneficial mutations. And I know what I'm talking about because I actually have the book. Do you?
I know that you are not telling the truth, because I have read what Sanford has to say.
Your error is a different error from Sanford's error. He may be completely wrong --- in fact, let's not beat about the bush, he is --- but he is nowhere near being as hopelessly, ludicrously wrong as you are.
Of course we do, but on a smaller scale.
Of course we don't. This is why you are unable to produce any evidence for your fantasies.
I have the book, I knwo what he is talking about.
Then why can you not quote Sanford saying the same thing as you are?
Oh, oh, I know. Because his trash is different from your trash.
Tell that to all the extinct species around the world. Why do you think they are extinct? Becasue evolution works as you think it does, or becasue it doesn't?
Because it works exactly like I think it does. Which is why there are species that are not extinct.
Anyone who know anything in biology knows how to measure the amount of genetic information. Any biological function encoded in the genome is measured in bits. Any event that decreases the original function, is the increase in entropy.
So, you're back to a definition of genetic entropy whereby the increase of this quantity, which you are unable to measure, is not opposed to evolution and is in fact an inevitable consequence of it.
He is an evolutionist, not a creationist. But not a darwinist. Do you think that the word "Evolution" EQUALS "darwinian evolution"? Well, you see, no it doesn't. There are many different theories of how evolution works. And you are the one who is claiming that the darwinian one is the true one.
If you tell me falsehoods about what I am claiming, you will not succeed in deceiving me.
Kimura disagreed with that.
Like Kimura, I agree that there were things that Darwin didn't know. And, like Kimura, I think that creationism is bullshit.
Don't mind if I do.
I wouldn't mind if you did.
Put up or shut up.
Great. Now show me some evidence. Where does this happen in real life, and how good is it.
It's so good that the "genetic meltdown" in Sanford's fantasies does not in fact happen.
1.) You know life is billions of years old becasue...?
... of this stuff called "evidence"
2.) Even if it was it would just mean that the mechanism that keep life going are efficient enough to keep it going for such a long time. But that doesn't mena the entropy is not building up.
Well, if you want to fantasize that one day this genetic meltdown will take place, feel free. But this fantasy does not contradict the actual history of life on Earth.
Or a more simple explanation would be that I never backpedaled in the first palce.
This explanation, while it might be "simple", or even downright retarded, is not congruent with the facts.
No. Heritable change is not an evolutionary mechanism.
You inadvertently said something true.
Heritable change is not an "evolutionary mechanism". Heritable change is evolution. Any mechanism by which it takes place is an evolutionary mechanism.
Incidentally, do you have any evidence for your claim that the particular evolutionary mechanism involved was a transposon, or is this just something you made up?
But that is false becasue it didn't happen.
If you wish to retreat into hysterical denial about plain facts in biology, then may I suggest that this board is perhaps the very worst place for you to do so?
The bacteria couldn't do something. Then they could, as a result of a genetic change. This is evolution.
I had to show you an analogy, to explain to you how confused you are.
You had to talk gibberish to pretend that I was confused. I am not confused. This is why you couldn't argue with what I actually said, but had to argue with some incoherent trash about televisions which you made up in your head. Because as you well know, you're not going to get anywhere arguing with people about genetics, a subject of which you are pitifully ignorant.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:38 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 634 by Admin, posted 01-11-2010 8:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 650 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 631 of 1273 (542604)
01-11-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by Brad H
01-11-2010 7:26 AM


Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
No, I am saying that (a) intelligence is required for the origination of information ...
That is not, of course, the definition of "information" used in science, or in mathematics, nor indeed in the English language as it is usually spoken.
I therefore suggest that to avoid ambiguity we should call this new property Brad-H-information.
Now, do you have any evidence that there is any Brad-H-information present in the genome of any organism that has not been the subject of genetic engineering?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Brad H, posted 01-11-2010 7:26 AM Brad H has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 632 of 1273 (542605)
01-11-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by Brad H
01-11-2010 7:26 AM


Antibiotic Resistance
The changes we "know" that occur in the DNA are just as you said, changes with no sign of a designer. But they are not changes that can explain its origin as a whole to begin with. You mention atibiotic resistance. What actually transpired in these cases is the antibiotic has removed most of the bacterial population except for a few hardy individuals who have a recessive resistant gene.
Bacteria can have recessive genes now?
And here was I thinking that they were haploid.
This gene heretofore not employed and not expressed in the population, now lets the survivors suddenly flourish in an atmosphere that has exterminated their relatives. This situation will often reverse over time as a new medicine kills the first survivors. But the point to this scenario is that the bacteria maneuver only with the genes already in the gene pool, or genetic combination's normally appearing after conjugation, and not with true mutations.
But this is demonstrably untrue: such evolutionary events can be observed when we know for certain that the gene in question was not present in the original line.
---
I have a question for you. You have obviously spent no time whatsoever researching the subject that you're talking about. So why are you talking about it? You can only hope to be right about anything by sheer good luck. Consequently, you must inevitably bear false witness over and over again, as you have done in this post. Does this not bother you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Brad H, posted 01-11-2010 7:26 AM Brad H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by Admin, posted 01-11-2010 8:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 636 by Wounded King, posted 01-11-2010 9:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 637 of 1273 (542620)
01-11-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 634 by Admin
01-11-2010 8:39 AM


Thermodynamics
When you say "Stop me if I'm going to fast for you," it sounds like you're about to launch into an explanation of how Smooth Operator misunderstands 2LOT and what the proper understanding is, but you never actually do that. You say you've actually studied thermodynamics, something I think very few, even here, can legitimately claim, so I think we'd all benefit if you would fill in the blanks.
Well, the obviously false proposition that "all matter tends to disorder" is simply not a tenet of thermodynamics any more than the obviously false proposition that "all elephants ride unicycles" would be. I don't think I have to give everyone here a crash course in thermodynamics to point out that the theory of thermodynamics does not imply stuff that is blatantly untrue.
However, as luck would have it I have written an article, here, explaining what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says. You notice how long it is and how much math there is and how many diagrams are needed?
So it's quicker just to point out that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean whatever crazy counterfactual crap Smooth Operator chooses to make up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by Admin, posted 01-11-2010 8:39 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by Admin, posted 01-11-2010 1:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 643 by Iblis, posted 01-11-2010 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 646 by Parasomnium, posted 01-11-2010 5:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 639 of 1273 (542626)
01-11-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by Admin
01-11-2010 8:46 AM


Re: Antibiotic Resistance
More generally, you're doing pretty much what Smooth Operator is doing, noting where you disagree while offering little in the way of explanation.
The difference is that anyone can look up the words I'm using and find out their meaning, whereas what Smooth Operator means by "genetic entropy" is currently known to at most two persons: himself and God.
The major difference between you two is that your objections are based on actual science, but given that you tend not to fill in the scientific background ...
Damn, I forgot to post an introductory course in genetics.
Now if only there was some other way in which Brad H could find out the meaning of the words he's employing. Suppose, for example, that he had at his very fingertips a vast yet easily searchable compendium of human knowledge in which he could easily find out the meaning of such basic concepts as what it means to say that an allele is recessive.
Don't go there. Being mistaken and lying are two different things.
I never said otherwise.
But there are cases where negligence is as culpable as intent. Suppose that I was to toss a coin to decide whether or not to say that you were an arsonist ... and then again to decide whether to accuse you of burglary ... and then again for drunk-driving ... and so forth all the way through the statute book.
Now, I have no idea whether or not you have in fact committed any crimes, or if so which ones, so I would not be saying things that I positively knew to be false. But on the other hand if I adopted such a procedure it would be well-nigh miraculous if I managed to avoid giving false testimony against you.
Surely the commandment against bearing false witness does not just mean that we should merely avoid saying things that we positively know to be false --- surely it means that we should make some sort of effort to make sure that our testimony is true. If we try our best, and fail, that's one thing. If we don't try at all, that's another.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Admin, posted 01-11-2010 8:46 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 640 of 1273 (542627)
01-11-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by Wounded King
01-11-2010 9:34 AM


Re: Antibiotic Resistance
While you are obviously correct to bring up the difference between the traditional mendelian concept of recessive genes in sexual poulations in contrast to an asexual haploid organism I think there is a case to be made for potential forms of recessive inheritance in bacteria.
The obvious one is the presence of multiple forms of genes in plasmids outside of the central bacterial genome. This could easily allow for the presence of a gene whose phenotype was suppressed in the presence of other 'allelic' forms of the gene.
The other possibility is for multiple copies of a particular gene to be present in the bacterial chromosome. When similarly a particular 'allelic' form may have its phenotypic effect masked.
Well, it's a fine point. But I don't think that talking about an allele being recessive makes much sense unless you're talking about homologous chromosomes.
Suppose that the same scenario you visualize for bacteria was true of two (or, depending on how you look at it, four) genes that I have, one on chromosome 3 and the other on chromosome 17. Would the words "dominant" and "recessive" really apply to the interaction of the genes on non-homologous chromosomes?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that that wasn't what Brad H meant.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Wounded King, posted 01-11-2010 9:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 660 of 1273 (542751)
01-12-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 650 by Smooth Operator
01-12-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Genetic Entropy
I'm listening. Explain what's wrong with my description.
That it's wrong. It's as though you said: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that there's a unicorn in my backyard playing the trombone".
Well, no it doesn't.
Pace Percy, I don't think that I have to teach you a beginner's course in thermodynamics to explain to you why that is not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.
But genomes still do not degrade right? There is no genetic entropy?
If we use Sanford's definition, then genetic entropy does not occur except in very small populations.
This just shows you do not know, you actually still don't know what gentic entropy is supposed to be. It's teh deterioration of genetic information in the genome.
I note that your reply was not an answer to anything that I actually said.
This leaves me with a problem. How do I converse with someone who is not actually talking to me?
I guess I'll just taunt you once again with the fact that you cannot quantify "genetic information" or "genetic entropy".
Very well, let's see what Sanford has to say about that...
I have already acknowledged the fact that Sanford is wrong. My point is that mistake is different from your mistake.
You have quoted him talking halfwitted nonsense about beneficial mutations. Very well then, I admit that he is a stupid liar. But the mere fact that he is a stupid liar does not prove that his definition of "genetic entropy" is in agreement with yours. The mere fact that he is a stupid liar does not in itself prove that you and he are in agreement.
This article claims you can't invoke beneficial mutations to save the mopulation. Even the large mammalian populations.
No it doesn't.
This is why you can't quote any part of that article that supports your fantasies.
I just did, above. I can't wait to see what you have to say to that...
That your trash is different from Sanford's trash.
No, they are not extinct YET. But it seems that they will follow those that are extinct.
Yes, according to you this might happen if we wait ten billion years.
But even if this daydream was true, it would not contradict reality.
How is it not opposed to evolution?
If your definition of increase of genetic entropy includes every event that biologists claim has taken place, then you are not arguing against biology.
It's not a falsehood. You do seem to think that darwinism equals evolution.
You are still telling me blatant falsehoods about my own opinions, and you will never succeed in deceiving me.
Do you also agree with him that darwinism only, can not account for all diversity of life on Earth?
Where did Kimura write that "darwinism only, can not account for all diversity of life on Earth"?
Actually, that's an unfair question, since the moderators have decided that your repeated and ridiculous untruths about Kimura are off-topic. I suggest that if you want to tell blatant, absurd, and libelous falsehoods about Kimura, you should start a new thread.
What about those links I posted that actually showed the genetic meltdown occure?
Your links showed strong experimental evidence that genetic meltdown does not occur except in populations which have been artificially reduced in size.
But this kind of evolution can not be extrapolated to be evidence for a darwinian evolution leading from a single cell to a human.
I guess that's why I never in any way said or implied that it could.
Mybe it wasn't. I don't know if it was. But I do know of cases where bacteria aquired nylon digestion by transposons, so I said that it could be caused by one this time also. It doesn't really matter to my argument if it really happened that way.
We are already aware that facts don't affect your arguments.
I never said you are confused.
Your statement is of, course, untrue. Here is the post where you said that I was "confused".
I find you people hard to understand. Obviously, you need to deny reality --- you're a creationist. But you go further than that --- you gratuitously deny reality. You make false statements when you know that you're going to get caught and exposed.
Obviously, everyone reading this thread knows that your statement is false. You know that your statement is false. And, this is the thing that I don't quite understand about people like you --- you know that everyone else knows that your statement is false. You can be absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, that everyone reading this thread will know as a matter of complete certainly that you are not telling the truth.
So, why do you do it? This is the question that eats away at me. You know that everyone reading your posts knows that what you are saying is not true. So why bother saying it? The only conceivable function it serves is to let people know that you hate the truth. But surely that is not your objective. It is surely not your goal to persuade people that you should be an object of contempt and mockery.
So ... so why do you do it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 650 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:23 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1081 of 1273 (547706)
02-21-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1079 by Smooth Operator
02-21-2010 6:58 PM


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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-21-2010 6:58 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2010 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1085 of 1273 (547764)
02-22-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Smooth Operator
02-21-2010 6:55 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Smooth Operator, posted 02-21-2010 6:55 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1117 of 1273 (548600)
02-28-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1116 by anglagard
02-28-2010 5:57 AM


Re: What Has ID Done for Me?
They've given you hours of free entertainment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1116 by anglagard, posted 02-28-2010 5:57 AM anglagard has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1130 of 1273 (548967)
03-02-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1122 by Smooth Operator
03-02-2010 4:59 PM


Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
I see you basicly have no more arguments. You are not arguing with me anymore, nor with Dembski, nor with the whole mathematical community.
I don't think he was ever arguing with "the whole mathematical community", since the whole mathematical community has not been swindled by cdesign proponentists into agreeing with their nutty dogma. In fact, I can't think of a single mathematician who's been duped by Dembski other than Dembski himself.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-02-2010 4:59 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1179 of 1273 (550356)
03-15-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1169 by Smooth Operator
03-13-2010 12:54 PM


Re: ID and the Designer
ID wanting to, or not wanting to redefine science, or adhering, or not adhering to methodological naturalism, has nothing to do with the fact that both ID and SETI, which is basicly a subset of ID, claim that you can't get for the design to the designer.
If SETI is "basically a subset of ID", why do you never hear the people involved in SETI reciting the nonsense that Behe or Dembski come out with? It is perfectly possible to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence without telling dumb lies about biology or spouting discredited nonsense about "irreducible complexity" or making dumb mistakes about information theory.
As a matter of fact, the methodology of SETI is necessarily opposed to creationist beliefs. For they try to distinguish between signals which are the product of intelligence and signals which are just the product of, for example, quasars. But according to creationist dogma, the signal of a quasar is just as much a product of intelligence --- indeed, of supreme intelligence --- as the sort of things that the folks at SETI are looking for.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1169 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-13-2010 12:54 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1228 of 1273 (551720)
03-23-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1224 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2010 12:46 PM


Re: CSI & Genetic Entropy discussions
Rememer too, this is the guy from Stormfront...
Really?
Is there anything he's not wrong about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2010 11:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024