Intelligent Design in Universities

You're the one who didn't know what a genetic algorithm was, or its applications. Off topic, and a non sequitur. If you claim your ideas are mainstream science, prove it with mainstream science citations. Or is the IEEE an evil atheist organization ? If the probabilities are equiprobable (Pi = 1/N) , as you assume in your color bitmap example, the equation reduces to the S = k ln W form you used. If you were as good as math as you claim to be, you'd be able to simplify the equation in this way. It's in any undergraduate thermo text (Reif for example).You are computing the entropy of macroscopic states, which is Shannon entropy, assuming equiprobable states. Once again, the 2LOT does not apply to this.You were given the opportunity to refute that assertion, but refuse to, so you failed by default. Well, of course not. If I was as uninformed as you're making me out
to be, you could instantly prove it by citing mainstream work in which Shannon entropy is subject to the 2LOT.You know no such work exists. So you resort to ad hominem non-sequiturs. You don't know what my personal belief system is, and FYI I'm not an academic, so whatever the flaws of modern academia are, don't blame me.

You wouldn't accept any evidence I would present to you if it conflicted with your belief system. "Is not" is your standard retort.I know it reduces to it, but I did not reduce to it. I used Boltzmann's original formula just as it's carved on his tombstone. Observe: There is no way you can honestly twist this into anything other than what it is: Boltzmann's entropy. And if you will read down a bit on that same page you will read his definition of that entropy: "Gain in information is loss in entropy"Hmmmm.....You don't even understand this basics of thermo as you argue with one of it's most famous contributors in which much of the rest of the field is founded on.So he had to be a creationist, don't you reckon? Edited: You won't let me ignore you Doctor, you keep on with the little one liner jabs every page or two, so let's intellectually hash this out.You knew the odds were that I didn't subscribe to the IEEE, so little chance I could come up with a reference from that org, eh'? Now I want you to show how Boltzmann's atoms were not equiprobable in the gas expansion. Because you stated that if they ARE equiprobable then it becomes Shannon entropy and Boltzmann's math won't work anymore. You are totally revolutionizing science, my friend.Prove this before we go on. Please start backing up some of these rediculous statements with some evidence.This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-09-2005 01:37 AM

---

Design Dynamics

Off topic and a non sequitur. You don't know my belief system.Once again, if your assertions are mainstream science, you should be able to find a recent reference in a field unrelated to ID.Instead you invoke Boltzmann, complete with bust. The journals are available in any decent university library. I thought since you were world-class information theorist, you might have some preprints. I can't be the first debate opponent to ask for this. We weren't talking about Boltzmann's work on gases. We were talking about your color bitmap example.Since you can't seem to stay on topic, I'll adpot your tactic and thank you for the conversation.

quote:

---

Off topic and a non sequitur.

---

This is not off topic as it relates back to our previous discussion which simply became an 'is too, is not, is too, is not' exchange on your part.

quote:

---

You don't know my belief system.

---

Well there's something blinding you from science. And it certainly isn't science because you haven't produced any.

quote:

---

Once again, if your assertions are mainstream science, you should be able to find a recent reference in a field unrelated to ID.

---

A reference for WHAT? It's your assertion that:a) I was not using Boltzmann's formula but Claude Shannon's even though I was using the same formula engraved in Boltzmann's tombstone. b) Since I was using Shannon entropy, 2LOT doesn't apply (the most unscientific absolutely ridiculous assertion I've ever heard from one purporting to be a PhD).YOU supply the references to back up your assertions. Please don't expect me to provide references to refute the ones you never supplied to begin with.

quote:

---

Instead you invoke Boltzmann, complete with bust.

---

Right. NOW is there anyway you can twist that into something other than Boltzmann's formula? Hmmm....Settled that one, didn't I.

quote:

---

The journals are available in any decent university library. I thought since you were world-class information theorist, you might have some preprints. I can't be the first debate opponent to ask for this.

---

Right. Like I'm going to drive an hour to a university library and research this claptrap. Sheeze.......

quote:

---

We weren't talking about Boltzmann's work on gases. We were talking about your color bitmap example.

---

I don't even know what color bitmap example concerning Boltzmann that you're talking about. I never posted one. Had you read the university page where I started you would see that I was using Boltzmann's math based on the atoms (matter) in an expanding gas. Not my problem that you won't read the references. I've had trouble with you on this before:PHYS3410 Lecture 5

quote:

---

Since you can't seem to stay on topic, I'll adpot your tactic and thank you for the conversation.

---

As you do every time we get into the sparks of a formal debate. That's fine. But keep this in mind. If you keep up the one-liners directed at me I'm going to start addressing them and at some point the good PhD in applied physics is going to have to debate the dumb IDist or get off the pot, so to speak. Have a great evening.

---

Design Dynamics

I'm afraid that the writer has been misled. ID does NOT use abduction in the same way that science does at all - in fact it doesn't even, really, generate explanations. For example Dembski's Explanatory Filter is purely eliminative - it never considers an ID explanation at all. All it does is reject other explanations. Irreducible Complexity is a (failed) argument against evolution, not an argument for ID. The ID movement refuses to put forward hypotheses about the capabilities and intentions of the supposed designer, which would be required if ID was to generate real explanations.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-09-2005 02:37 AM

Since you never made any such comment I don't see why I should have understood this to be your position. What you did do is moan because someone actually provided you with some references, you then begged off on the grounds that I hadn't provdided the entire text for your perusal. You didn't refuse to comment on papers you hadn't read, simply tried to make an issue of the fact that I provided you with abstracts and links. I'm not quite sure what sort of ludicrous standard of referencing you think should be in operation. Most scientific papers expect you to do your own legwork and go to the library.I did however provide links which would allow you to view the full text if you had sufficient access to a library or a computer network of a university with a subscription. I'm not familiar of any onus for references or citation which require provision of the full text.Your pleas of unavailability are even hollower considering that 2 of the 4 references I cited are freely available online, Both Feng, et a l.(2002) and Hudson, et al. (2003) are avilable to anyone with the competency to click on 2 links. But look!! I've linked directly to the full text now, since you seem either unwilling or unable to follow more than 1 hyperlink.So please explain to us why you couldn't address any of the references or respond to my request for some evidence to back up your claims?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Most scientific papers expect you to do your own legwork and go to the library.

---

On a Web Forum? Yeah, we'll all just stop, drive as long as it takes to the nearest public library, ask for an inter-library loan since I live in a rural area (as compared to many), then I'll wait several weeks to post back to you on this and by that time, the dang thread is dead.Is this your idea of how to debate in this format? No, you can do like everybody else does and post references that people can actually read. It is not up to your opponent to provide the referrences to support your argument YOU have to do that.Now, I see you list two papers. Is there an argument you wish to bring using those references? Then please do so, bringing that argument in your own words and cutting and pasting from those papers to support it.Or do you just expect me to go over there not knowing at all what you are using the papers to show, read them all and hopefully stumble across some point you never made. Think about that.

---

Design Dynamics

1) You claim that - "Random mutations ARE equiprobable as any nucleotide can mutate at any time in the transcription process where mutations normally occur (or any other scenario I can think of). To suggests that transcription stochastically favors certain mutations over others is simply a misunderstanding of biology."2) I suggest that you are wrong and that a variety of muatations are known to have specific preferences, in evidence I provide 4 references all of which detail mutational mechanisms with preferences for specific base substitutions or specific genetic sequences. Two of these have links to freely available full texts of the papers but I provide the abstracts of all of them which clearly support the claim that mutations can show preferences for specific sites and mutations.I appreciate that without access to the full texts you can't evaluate the data and analysis done by these researchers but considering that you have provided abosolutely no shred of support for your own claim I think it is a bit precious of you to try and discount these references on the grounds that you can't fully evaluate all of their data. Funnily enough, those of us that are actually scientifically literate prefer to reference the scientific literature, rather than say gravestones or lecture notes. If you think that all the evidence in the world that counts is available online then you are deluded.If it is going to take you several weeks to read two papers online then I can only conclude you are a very slow reader. Since each and every one of those papers counters your claim you only need to read one to be in a position to admit that you were wrong.If all you want are abstracted elements of the paper then what is wrong with the abstracts???!!?! Yes, on a web forum, if you actually give two hoots about being honest and accurate with your science that is. I admit that I have an advantage since I am based in a university but if you don't have access to or familiarity with the relevant literature then how can you possibly claim to be informed on a topic? One way might be to provide the references which actually support your claim. I have done that. What possible advantage does cutting and pasting loose bits of the full text have over providing the abstracts? How are you going to be better able to evaluate the paper in the absence of the full text? The relevant bits which counter your claim are the entire papers themselves, the existence of a body of scientific literature detailing preferential mutations in a variety of situations falsifies your claim that such mutations are equiprobable. Unless you are claiming that all of these papers have made gross mistakes in the execution of their experiments or analysis of their data, which you can hardly do without reading the full-text to evaluate them.TTFN,WKP.S. Any thoughts on that transciption or replication issue, was it really transcription you were meaning?This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-09-2005 07:17 AM

Delete this:"So you still have trouble reading, what a shame. Let me spell it out for you"And I will address your post. Do not, and our conversation is over again.Thank you.

---

Design Dynamics

Done!TTFN,WK

quote:

---

1) You claim that - "Random mutations ARE equiprobable as any nucleotide can mutate at any time in the transcription process where mutations normally occur (or any other scenario I can think of). To suggests that transcription stochastically favors certain mutations over others is simply a misunderstanding of biology."

---

You contradict yourself. I thought you were arguing that certain mutations ARE favored stochastically over others, And you didn't say HOW I have a misunderstanding of biology. Is everybody just supposed to take your word on this? Develop these points using some evidence from something, if you weren't a post grad student I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.

quote:

---

2) I suggest that you are wrong and that a variety of muatations are known to have specific preferences, in evidence I provide 4 references all of which detail mutational mechanisms with preferences for specific base substitutions or specific genetic sequences. Two of these have links to freely available full texts of the papers but I provide the abstracts of all of them which clearly support the claim that mutations can show preferences for specific sites and mutations.

---

Provide them again here--no abstracts without the papers to show how the abstract is developed. And just the links, you don't need to post entire papers to make it appear you have a long post when you didn't say anything. Then show WHY I am wrong by stating your argument and cutting and pasting the relevant parts of each reference you wish to use to back up those points.Hey. You may be right, but do you think I'm just going to agree with you and give you a debate point you never formulated properly or worked to achieve?

quote:

---

I appreciate that without access to the full texts you can't evaluate the data and analysis done by these researchers

---

Thank you. You have access to a university. Do you then assume that everyone else does? Heck, you're not going to be getting very many debates in public forums like these if you do.*Ad hom section deleted. Understand that ad homs are logical fallacies. You will never win a debate with anyone basing your argument on logical fallacy.*

quote:

---

Unless you are claiming that all of these papers have made gross mistakes in the execution of their experiments or analysis of their data, which you can hardly do without reading the full-text to evaluate them

---

I don't assume or claim anything, I do science. Now present a cogent argument using references people can read or leave me alone. I grow weary of this invective.

---

Design Dynamics

If I didn't reply to one of your posts, I didn't see it, Mick. Unless a post is just fairly stupid, I try to reply to all of them as time allows. Please point me there if you need more data from me.Thank you

---

Design Dynamics

Ummm, I really don't know what to say, now I really am worried that your reading is dubious. That was a direct quote from one of your posts, I was simply quoting your initial claim so you knew exactly what I was addressing. So obviously if I was saying this I would be contradicting myself, since this is something that you said and with which I am disagreeing. The give away was at the start where it said "You claim that-". Well then you shouldn't waste your time, since I am already on my 2nd post-doc position.Your continued repetition of your initial weak evasion is a totally unconvincing argument. And your unwillingness to look at two freely available online papers shows just how much respect you have for actual references to the scientific literature.Of course the main failing is your completely lack of any supporting evidence for your initial claim. Simply claiming that you 'do science' is not evidence that mutations are equiprobable.Perhaps since you made the initial dubious claim you might offer some support for it? Any? At all? I mean, come on, if this really is the case why can't you provide any evidence. Simply pleading that my argument is not formulated quite up to your standards is a pathetic attempt to put yourself forward as scientifically sophisticated while allowing you to avoid actually addressing the issue. Once again, what is wrong with the two freely available texts I already referenced? If you are too lazy to read even one paper then you could always just admit it.In the interests of actually getting anywhere I will pander to your inability.Not all mutations are equiprobable. Therefore transcription increases the likelihood of de-amination causing a C->T transition, by unwinding the double stranded DNA. So we see that there is a bias towards A-T pairs following transitional mutations.As well as the specific base changes not being equiprobable the distribution of the mutations show specific biases, although if you were really thinking of transcription as the major source of these mutations the this is bound to be the case in a crude sense of transcribed genes being more susceptible than untranscribed, however we can see that hotspots are more specific than this. So both induced, i.e. carcinogen binding mediated, and spontaneous, i.e. de-amination, mutational events are equiprobable in neither
their distribution nor in the base conversions that are resultant.Is that the way you like it Jerry?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Is that the way you like it Jerry?

---

Not hardly:"now I really am worried that your reading is dubious.""If you are too lazy to read even one paper then you could always just admit it.""In the interests of actually getting anywhere I will pander to your inability."Why do you think I should take this insulting garbage off you? Go play with someone more on your level. I'm done with you.Thank you.

---

Design Dynamics

Why are you insulted?You totally failed to recognise that a clearly marked quote was something you yourself had said.You continue to complain about my references despite having the full text of two freely available, which is what you said you wanted when you posted to Modulous. I appreciate this was for a different specific paper, but why do you want the whole paper in this instance but not in others?You refuse to address the point I raise unless I frame it in exactly the form you wish, apparently because you don't want to read the relevant papers.In what way is any of this more insulting than your continuous arrogant attempts to instruct me on the 'correct' way of conducting a debate while consistently avoiding actually addressing any point I have raised or providing any actual evidence to support your own claims. Although the onus is surely more on you to substantiate your claims rather than on me to refute them? What I think is that you should try and debate in good faith and make substantive postings addressing the points I put forward in the very first post, or those in the latest one, rather than throwing up this flack barrage of nitpicking persiflage and arrogant condescension. I have put up with a lot of your rubbish in the hopes that you might actually get round to substantiating your claims, but so far you have side-stepped and pussy-footed as much as possible to try and draw attention away from your total lack of evidence.TTFN,WK