Help me understand Intelligent Design

Some points:
1) An IC system has been directly shown to evolve. Therefore the whole argument that if a system is IC it can NOT evolve is wrong. It only take one example to destroy the whole idea. If you haven't seen the discussion of this system then I wonder what you are reading here. You find it and ask questions.2) The claim by IDers is that an IC can NOT evolve, that there is NO way, NO how period. As soon as someone can "imagine" ANY pathway where by an IC system could evolve this claim is shown to be wrong. The refutation stands whether or n ot the suggested path is the actual one or not.3)Several of the claimed IC systems put forward by IDers have been shown to exist in other organisms MISSING some part or parts and WORKING. Therefore they have shown that they might have some flaws in their criteria for even picking IC in the first place.As for you step by step notes above: The ID claim is that there is NO possible way for some systems to evolve. When there is ANY possible way for them to evolve the claim is busted. The ID claim is vulnerable enough that it doesn't take a detailed specific path to show it is wrong. It's vulnerbility is based on it's claim of total impossibility by any means of any kind in any way at all. It is so totally comprehensive that it is broken by any hole in it like a overblown ballon.

I don't think it is correct to generalize so much. It appears to me (but I'm a bit confused by them) that some IDers accept ALL of the descent with modification of ALL organisms (even humans from "apes"). They just don't think that mutations plus selection could have done all of it. There are, they seem to say, a few places where something else had to be at play. Where those places are and why seems to shift around a lot but that's the story that I think I see.

Note the change of topic title

Please note that AM use the word "selection" in his last sentence above but you were both talking about "mutations". It is necessary to read more carefully.Crash, your first to answers in your post don't really contribute much. There is no need to for you to reassert your views any more than it helps to have AM doing it.AM seems to have, earlier, given some example of purpose for mutations but he seems to be simply defining purpose as "result". Why don't you get the definition of "purpose" clear before you attempt to carry on? That working is unnecessarily inflamatory. Instead try:
"I have never heard of such a thing please supply the source of your infomation".(PS I have read of fireflies synchronizing their flashes so it doesn't seem to me to be totally out to lunch. It also doesn't seem to mean a darn thing in this discussion)

I suggest that you post some of them in an appropriate thread. There are only about 3 or 4 basic claims by the IDists that I've seen and they have been shredded here before. Do you have an claim and rebuttal where you find the rebuttal weak? Post the pair. Some of us have a "thing" about dishonesty.

I thought you started here saying you needed to and wanted to learn somethings. It is clear that you need to.Please explain, in some detail, the quoted statement of yours above. I do not understand what reasoning leads you to say that cumulative selection is a pre-condition of NS.

CS is cumulative selection. Why would you say CS is cumulated mutations (CM??)?What is the dividing line between a "micro-mutation" and some other kind?I think "NS" can take over on just one, smallest possible mutation. Why do you think some kind of cumulation is needed before NS can happen?It is clear that you need to learn things about evolutionary theory and molecular biology. That is apparent. We all need to learn about a lot of things. It isn't an insult until you demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to learn.

This appears to be an answer to the micro-mutation question. It ignores: I noticed no such demonstration. Perhaps you can spell it out for simply for me?I don't understand your juxtiposition of "only mutation is needed" and "without the effects of cs.... improbable". Can you explain that more step-by-step too.

No, actually not at all clear.You say CS involves mutation. In just exactly what way does it do that. Selection operates on whatever is there. What is there may have come about through mutation but I don't see why that is relevent in the context of this discussion.Perhaps you can supply a helpful summary of the situation?
Go back to the Fisher quote and point out how this ties in with it. It would help everyone if we reposted the quote in it's entirty.The point that PaulK is making is that if you discuss probabilities you must discuss the cumulation of selection events. CS isn't anything separate or different from NS it is just the application of NS over time.Perhaps you can explain to me why there is any confusion over this?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-11-2005 08:03 PM

Do we need to go to an "expert"?What is selection? It is the winnowing of the gene pool by differential reproductive success. It doesn't happen to matter in this context if it is natural or "artificial" or whatever.If selection occurs repeatedly then the changes in the gene pool that it results in will cumulate. Do we have a problem with that?The cumulation of many selection events has a direct relevance to producing "unlikely" events. Do you have an objection to that?I agree and will modify my view. CS is not, in this context (or the widest picture) congruent with individual selection. For larger scale change to accumulate there will need to be additional mutation events taking place between the cumulating selection events.To that degree only is CS different from simple repeated NS.I can't find the quote from Fisher. It would be useful after all this time to summarize where we are at. I might half get it but I need you to restate the logic in your own words in one place.My understanding is this:You are claiming something is highly improbable (specifically a bug ending up looking like a leaf IIRC). You seemed to be, at the start arguing that a mutation to produce this is highly unlikely. No one disagrees with that. What PaulK has pointed out that you don't need such a highly unlikely event at all. All you need are many, many resonable likely events combined with many, many trials and the effects of selection on those.The cumulative effect can produce what in a single step would appear to be unlikely. In fact, it can produce any number of very unlikely outcomes because it "tries" a huge number of outcomes and discards many of them. {iAny[/i] final outcome is very unlikely but one is still going to occur.If you have any problems with this it would be useful if you would spell them out in much greater detail than you have been.

But one that seems to come down to "I don't see how it is possible."I'm afraid that isn't much of an argument against it.It's going to have to be simplified for you perhaps let's try again:An analogy might be in order to explain how CS can produce an apparent EHDI.Let's take a very large oak tree it has grown and branched for centuries and now has a large number of terminal twigs. Let's say there are 100,000 end twigs on this tree.Now let's have an ant start to walk up the tree. I dunno what's gotten into this ant but he has a "thing" about getting a better view so he always tends to move upward. When he comes to a branch point he randomly moves one way or the other. Finally he arrives out on the edge of the tree. The odds of him reaching this point are only 1 in 100,000. It's arrival has (for our purposes) an EHDI.The ants arrival is our leaf mimic on the tree of it and it's nearer relatives. (Remember there are 1,000,000's of insects). This particular group of "ants" have tried out and arrived at ALL 100,000 twigs. Suddenly the fact that our one ant arrived at a paritcular twig while still having an EHDI isn't so surprising.In fact our analogy breaks down when we realize that the tree doesn't consist of just the 100,000 end twigs we see. It also consists of a much, much larger number of "no twigs" -- all the spaces where there isn't a twig. This gives our "ant" a much, much higher EHDI.However, the much, much larger number of "no twigs" was "prunded" out by the equivalent of NS. The final number of twigs it the result of the cumulation of all the NS that has gone one.So we have a potentially huge number of places for a living thing to end up (twigs and non-twigs). But we have two things going on:
1) We have selection pruning all the spaces between branches and twigs as we go along.
2) We have many more than 100,000 "ants" climbing the tree.With these two processes operating an outcome with an EHDI will still happen. The statement is not that it "can only be". The fact is only that the processes can produce the apparent design without a sentient "ultimate designer".The EHDI is only an appearance when looking after the fact. This is exactly analogous to the oft used lottery example: with enough tickets someone is going to win. An event of EHDI occurs in spite of the high improbability. It really isn't all that complicated to see this.

Does your posting this mean that you are willing to argue about these topics and yet have so little idea about the subject at hand that you can't answer this silly creationist question yourself?

Because some people seem to have a very difficult time getting it.The rest of your post doesn't seem to say much as far as I can tell.You seem to keep repeating that there is an EHDI problem in evolution but ignore the responses discussing it.

I don't think it helped one little bit.You put that right after the request for the mechanism etc for ID. You then wander all over the map in a run on paragraph without touching on it.Random change to the genome through a variety of known mechanisms is a viable base for neo-darwinism. Now someone suggests that this isn't correct and offers a theory of ID. You were asked for the mechanism behind this. You haven't touched on it in the slightest way yet.In addition: This shows that you don't get the point of the analogy. It is a fairly weak one in any case. The selection of the letters is done in a very simply minded manner but it shouldn't be taken as thinking NS is selecting against anything pre-programmed. It is selecting against what happens to "work" in the current environment.Any analogy is only useful for showing a point. The point of this one is to show that random change AND selection can produce unlikely outcomes. Argueing that this isn't support for evolutionary biology as a whole is missing the point of the analogy and misunderstanding the use of analogies in general.If you wanted to improve this to make it a teeny tiny bit more representative you'd make the selection based on the sentences closeness to any valid english (or ANY languages) word AND on closeness to gramatical correctness ( even to push it further closeness to making sense) but not based on a specific sentence.This would improve the analogy somewhat but loose the point that the current analogy is trying to help make and be confusing to attempt to show.I've forgotten but don't you have a physics background? It is surprising to me given that background that you seem to have such problems with some pretty straight forward reasoning.

Perhaps you should state clearly what you think his point was. You miss MY point! If you wanted an analogy that was a bit closer to biological evolution then you might make such a change. However that isn't the point that Dawkins is making. I'll let you have a go at clarifying you understanding of the point he IS making and we can discuss it. Let's have a look at the paragraph in detail. First one would have to show that randomness should be removed. You haven't done that. All the available evidence is that mutations occur in a way that is not specfically predictable. I suspect we will have to, again, fuss with a definition of "random" before continueing on this vain. Does what? Explain anything? Not that I've noticed. In this context "random" is a description of the outcome of the detailed mechanisms. It is NOT equivalent to ID in this context however. What is equivalent to ID here would be "quantum mechanics" or "the rules of chemistry". So what? As noted above this comparison is not valid. In the biologists case "it" is chemistry. If as you say it is God then the whole idea of ID being science evaporates and we can all retire from the argument. The ID claims that we can see design and should consider that. Nuggin is asking for how this design is implemented -- that is what is the mechanism. There hasn't been one put forward. I don't understand this bit. Please elaborate. Since ID is claiming to be attempting to be a scientific what does all this have to do with the discussion here? Well, we have been discussing this for days. There isn't any hint that you have understood any of the discussion. You may conclude what you want. I suggest you improve your understanding before reaching a conclusion.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-19-2005 01:13 PM

You don't know what case he was trying to make. He makes the case he is actually talking about just fine. The language analogy becomes way to cumbersome if you try to extend it to explaning biological evolution.What he is trying to show is that a very improbable event (20 or 30 letters in a particular order) is entirely possible if there is selection involved. That is all the point being made.His climbing mount improbable is a better analogy for the big picture. This has already been explained a number of times.One more time, but briefly, it is becoming apparent that you aren't going to get it.I think your whole argument is that the probility of an outcome (like a leaf bug) specified in advance is low.However, there is no outcome specfied in advance so that argument doesn't make any sense at all.ABE I do happen to agree that randomness is not the mechanism itself. Random is a description of the result. The mechanisms are those of chemistry.ID is, if I read you right, a description of the result also; that is a "design".Now Nuggin asked for the mechanism. This thread is about supplying that. Care to summarize?All I've seen you say is that something is improbable. As noted above it is only ridiculously improbable if it is a single, specified outcome with a very few trails. That is not the case here.Did I miss any of the rest of your argument?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-19-2005 03:35 PM