|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This has popped up on facebook, posted by some IDologist on "Daily Wire":
quote: quote: Computer science is not biology (he even says he is not a biologist in the video), and math cannot change reality. There are a number of PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times) in the video, and the monitor, Peter Robinson, has no apparent knowledge of biology either. Other participants are David Berlinski and Steven Meyer, both of the Discovery Institute. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Reduce width of YouTube video.by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined:
|
Thread copied here from the Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ... thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What upsets me is when IDologists make IDotic arguments.
Firsts the probability argument. They say it is a 1 in 1070 probability to assemble a protein molecule by molecule. Let's cut that in half -- each half then has a 1 in 1035 probability to assemble by their argument. Now reassemble them: there is a 1 in 4 chance of making the "right" connection so that's:
(1 x 1035 + 1 x 1035) x 1/4 = 5 x 1034 repeat for each half segment and you get:
{(1 x 1017.5 + 1 x 1017.5) x 1/4} x 1/4 = 3.9528 x 1016 This is a significant reduction in the probability of actually assembling a protein, and quite obviously there are a large number of ways for molecules to assemble rather than one at a time, making the probability a meaningless argument. Second Gelernter argues that it is impossible to make all the changes at the correct time during the development of a fetus to change a sheep into a horse ... in one generation. This is known as the hopeful monster concept and it is a strawman argument: evolution does not theorize speciation happening this way, and biologists would be quite surprised to see such an event. When arguing against evolution it behooves you to thoroughly understand evolution theory and processes, rather than use misinformation and misrepresentations. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Remove spurious "^" Edited by RAZD, : Note to admin: I add the "spurious ^" intentionally so that when the numbers are copied they don't look like 1035 or 1070.by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
The common thread to all IDiot arguments is to tear down evolution using personal incredulity instead of supporting ID using actual science.
Then the IDiots complain about how the scientific community ridicules or ignores them. My heart aches with their pain. The skies are darkened by the unconscionable mockery these poor souls must endure at the hands of godless reality. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 668 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
The professor also argued that intelligent design is a serious theory that cannot be shooed away by anti-religious sentiment.
So the claim that ID is not religious goes out the window."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Meanwhile they rake in money from their book sales to the gullible.
Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
I'm not going to waste an entire hour listening to ID BS, especially if it's as brain-dead stiupid as you describe it.
I don't care how "learned" Gelernter's name claims him to be (German: lernen, lernte, gelernt), as a computer scientist he should know better than others the old dictum, GIGO ("Garbage In, Garbage Out") *. The output of your program can only be as good as the program and the data inputs: if your program is fouled up or you input crap data, then the results will be fouled up and crap. Or to a mathematician modeling something in the real world, your calculations depend on your model, so if you build a slap-dash fouled up model, then your results will reflect that. Building crap models and using them to throw a lot of big numbers at the audience is one of the oldest "creation science" tricks to confuse and deceive its audience, one which IDologists use fully -- it's easy to refute most YEC claims, but ID claims are more difficult because of all the obtuse pseudo-mathematics you have to wade through and counter (not to mention that your countering would also go over most people's heads). I should give Gelernter a listen before addressing his claims, but it's not worth sitting through an hour of that crap (I've had to sit through Hovind videos to find a specific claim and I have no desire to undergo such torture again). Do you have the timemark for when he makes his claims so that I can respond to what he's actually saying? Barring that, I have to go with your descriptions. For example, what does he mean by "to assemble a protein molecule by molecule"? Are we talking about DNA base pairs, triplets of which form codons which translate for amino acids? Or are we talking about amino acids which chain to form proteins? Are we talking about the original proteins or modern proteins, or does he not realize that there's any distinction? Also, is he talking about only one single attempt to form a (¿modern?) protein in such a single-step selection manner (see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker)? Or is he allowing for a large number of parallel attempts such that the attempt would succeed if even just one individual attempt succeeds, meaning that the overall attempt would fail only if each and every individual attempt fails. Refer to my page, MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS), where I analyzed the probabilities in MONKEY, my implementation of Dawkins' WEASEL program (again from Blind Watchmaker):
Another treatment of this is on my page, THE "RANDOM" PROTEINS ARGUMENT, in which I responded to a typical creationist probability claim about the chances of a modern protein just falling together randomly -- my impression is that this is what Gelernter is also trying to argue. Several problems with that:
Did I misunderstand Gelernter's arguments? If so, then please give us the timemarks so I can get the straight skinny. {FOOTNOTE *: We DSes (US Navy Data Systems Technicians, disestablished in the 1998) saw GIGO, "Garbage In, Garbage Out", as being depicted in our rating symbol: The helium atom is used in the rating symbols for all electronics ratings (not technically correct, but far easier to embroider than a copper, silicon, or germanium atom). The three arrows pointing in represent inputs and the arrow pointing out represents output. This image is of a metal pin. When embroidered on a rate badge, the input arrows are solid and the output is just an outline (empty). We would interpret that to mean that the input arrows were the unprocessed "garbage in" and the output arrow was the processed "garbage out." TRIVIA:The rating symbol for Electrician's mate is a globe of the earth. Here is why that is. The creation of rating symbols happened around 1921. The Navy team went to each rating community and asked about equipment or tools or anything else that would symbolize what that rating did. At that time, many light bulbs were spherical and were called "globes" (as opposed to our current talk of an oniony shape, "bulb", or the German "Glhbirne", "glowing pear"). So when the team spoke with the Electrician's Mate the response was "a globe", which the team misinterpreted. By the time the mistake was discovered, it was too late to correct it.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 206 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
RAZD writes: What upsets me is when IDologists make IDotic arguments.Firsts the probability argument. They say it is a 1 in 10^70 probability to assemble a protein molecule by molecule. What upsets me is when anti-IDologists make strawman arguments. The 1 in 10^70* probability has nothing to do with assembling a protein. It is not relating to any molecule by molecule assembly issue. Go read Gelernter's article. Even in his layman's terms, he explains what the probability is referring to quite well.
Gelernter argues that it is impossible to make all the changes at the correct time during the development of a fetus to change a sheep into a horse ... in one generation. No, that is not what his argument was. He was just commenting on, again in fairly layman's terms, how early in the developmental cycle that any changes (mutations) would have to be done to express any major change in an organism, and invariably when we see those changes done they are fatal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
So then show us! Point us to your sources. Quote from them.
I am not going to sit through an hour-long video filled with BS. I explicitly asked for a timemark so that I could hear Gelernter's argument itself. If you have something to show us, then show us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What upsets me is when anti-IDologists make strawman arguments. Curiously, I am happy to be corrected, but you have not really done that yet. Please supply your supporting material. Especially if you have it in print. I found the video a real snooze-fest of PRATTS and misinformation, so I may have mixed some of it up. Videos are not the best conveyors of information, and I prefer print versions. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The 1 in 10^70* probability has nothing to do with assembling a protein. It is not relating to any molecule by molecule assembly issue. Go read Gelernter's article. Even in his layman's terms, he explains what the probability is referring to quite well. Curiously I searched through the video to the part in question, and I was slightly incorrect. Starting at 12:25 is they are talking about assembling a protein, not molecule by molecule but with 1 of 20 amino acids adding them one by one, and the number they give is 1 in 1 x 10^77 (not 1 in 1 x 10^70). Gelernter at 13:20+ talks of building a string of beads one by one adding an emerald, a ruby and an opal ... using the DNA code to make the protein. So now we in essence have the probability of assembling the DNA with that code, and still in the molecule by molecule calculation mode, given the context of the discussion. So I believe the critique I made of the improbability calculation is still valid. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
The 1 in 10^70* probability has nothing to do with assembling a protein. Gelernter was citing Douglas Axe’s work
quote:Axe put his bogus number machinations at 1077. Of course Gelernter not being a strong mathematician and having seen Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt where Axe’s work was quoted just regurgitated Meyer’s treatment of Axe’s work. Gelernter was not aware, apparently, of the errors in Axe’s work, or, more likely, didn’t care any more then Meyer’s did.
Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function Gelernter’s article celebrating his conversion to a cdesign proponentsists is a love note for Stephen Meyer’s rejected views. This grand display of creationism bringing an illustrious scientist, who was already predisposed toward religious supernaturalism, to their side is more of a desperate plea for attention than a celebration of an intellectual victory. Shades of James Watson and Fred Hoyle going off the deep end late in their careers.
David Gelernter Makes a Fool of Himself Again Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 206 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
f
dwise1 writes:
So then show us! Point us to your sources. Quote from them.RAZD writes: Please supply your supporting material. Especially if you have it in print. The impetus for the video was due to an essay by David Galernter in the Claremont Review of Books. Gelernter's essay is at:
Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books
With regards to the probability argument, the primer to it starts under the heading "Mutations" where he talks about creating a protein from a modest-sized, 150 long amino acid chain. Then the argument falls under the heading "Building a Better Protein" where he lays out the beginning mathematics:
quote: What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? The estimate is 1 in 10^77----- Curiously I searched through the video to the part in question, and I was slightly incorrect. Starting at 12:25 is they are talking about assembling a protein, not molecule by molecule but with 1 of 20 amino acids adding them one by one, and the number they give is 1 in 1 x 10^77 (not 1 in 1 x 10^70).
Sorry, I'm kinda not buying it. Your search is proceeding in a weird fashion or you are just not paying attention. Yes, at 12:25 Galernter starts talking about the "math" problem laid out in the code of DNA->Amino Acids->Protein process, but the 1 in 10^77 probability number doesn't come up until 17:17. Before that point, Galernter waxes poetic about the "number of ways you can arrange" his 'beads', but he doesn't mentioned any calculation yet. Meyer takes over discussing the metaphor at 15:12. Peter Robinson (host) then asks the pertinent question at 15:38 -
quote: To which Meyer responds:
quote: Meyer then goes on to expound on the numbers and finally at 17:17 lays out the probability: 1 in 10^77 Galernter then picks up again at 18:00 and ties it to his beads metaphor again.
TL : DR - just watch 12:02 - 19:22 of the video for the specifically relevant content or up to 22:20 if you want the full discussion on this topic. Can you stomach 10 minutes of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The impetus for the video was due to an essay by David Galernter in the Claremont Review of Books. Gelernter's essay is at:
Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books
Thanks for the link.
With regards to the probability argument, the primer to it starts under the heading "Mutations" where he talks about creating a protein from a modest-sized, 150 long amino acid chain. Technically you should be providing quotes instead of just link references. I get tired of old PRATTs rehashed in emperor's new cloths, and misinformation. Note this misinformation:
quote: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model, so this statement is false. And he goes religious ...
quote: More misinformation:
quote: ... but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve. What that new habitat was, occurred when the ocean pH changed (due to oxygen being produced by algae iirc) and it became possible to make calcite shells. The Cambrian fossils are almost all shelled creatures, the pre-Cambrian fossils do not have shells. Having shells provides an obvious survival advantage, and those that had shells had an open habitat to inhabit: rapid evolution. Standard. Darwinian.
quote: Except they are no longer missing and more are being found every year. Way to keep up with the times. Getting to your referred section:
quote: One by one. As he further explicates on the video ... The old improbable probability numbers game/s ...
quote: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way; mutations occur in a number of ways of many different length segments from whole gene copying to single inserts. The numbers prove nothing, and never will, because the model is wrong. One example of how biology actually works is polyploidy which results in new species in one generation. Mostly found in plants, though it does occur in animals. Other more standard examples of speciation are also known. It seems that nature has no problem contradicting the mathematical model ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added thread linkby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1
|
I always find it funny when these no experts posit some sort of grand take down of TOE and all it takes is one random person of an internet forum to totally blow their arguments out of the water.
Great job, but people like WookieB and Galernter are way to full of themselves and their religious beliefs to even conced the possibility that they are wrong and have no idea what they are talking about. It is also quite telling where this article was published. Claremont Review of Books is the journal of the Claremont Institute a very radical right wing propaganda outfit.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024