KF Sums it Up Nicely

_{Barry Arrington

August 17, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

DWG:

I see:

Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct.

Stop right there, we are dealing with an empirical situation. No inductive or empirical fact or principle can be established beyond possible contradiction. To demand such a proof for a case where you should know better is selective hyperskepticism, here a form of question-begging. That’s like the rhetorical fast move played by Darwin when he spoke of a like condition.

That boils down to demanding a default you have no right to.

What inductive evidence can and does support is that there are two observed sources of highly contingent outcomes under more or less similar conditions: chance and choice.

It further supports that in every case where we directly can see the cause of functionally specific complex information, in this case digitally coded algorithmic or otherwise semiotic info, this is by intelligent choice.

We can then take up the analysis of chance based random walks in a config space of sufficient complexity, to see why that should be so for complex and functionally specific patterns. Namely, there is too much haystack, you can only make a relatively tiny sample, and there is just too little needle.

Sampling theory — notice, not an exact probability calculation [which is not at all necessary for the conclusion to be all but certain . . . cf. here on] — tells us, with maximum likelihood, you will get hay not needle under such circumstances. Indeed, that sort of analysis is the foundation of the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics.

This is what your side is really doing:

a: in the teeth of a base of billions of test cases across 5,000+ years of recorded history where we directly and routinely observe the ONLY directly known source of digitally coded complex functionally specific information,

b: Where also the only observed alternative to choice for highly contingent outcomes is intelligent choice,

c: With the needle in the haystack search challenge also being on the table,

d: It is being insisted that — to save an a priori commitment to materialism now being imposed on the definition of science and its methods —

e: The bare logical possibility that chance can throw up any contingent pattern must hold the default unless a logically certain disproof can be produced,

f: This in a context where it is already known that no scientific — empirical and inductive — conclusion can be shown to demonstrative certainty.

In short, you are insulating an a priori from empirical test, which is the same as saying that it is not a scientific claim.

Do you really want to turn science into applied materialist philosophy?

That is what you are doing.

If you are doing so, then the rules change.

We have every right to expose how you rigged the game, and to call you out as materialist ideologues and fellow travellers hiding in the holy lab coat and pronouncing ex cathedra statements as a new magisterium.

I suggest that you do not want to go down that a priori materialist ideology road.

Comments

Surely correlations are scientific.Mung_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

F/N: It seems we are dealing with a drive-by slander attack. For record, I have no control of moderation at UD, nor has MP to my knowledge been banned. I suspect, the notion of undue banning for mere disagreement is being promoted as a smear, where in fact there has been a huge problem of abusive behaviour up to and including hate sites by objectors. Let that shameful record of the likes of TWT et al and enablers such as Petrushka, speak for itself. Dr Liddle, why do you tolerate slander at your site, TSZ? Please think about what you are enabling. KFkairosfocus_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Looks like a definite chirp, chirp, chirp.kairosfocus_{August 21, 2012
August
08
Aug
21
21
2012
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Chirp, chirp, chirp?kairosfocus_{August 21, 2012
August
08
Aug
21
21
2012
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

PS: In addressing UB by preseting an alleged summary of UB and the design view, MP gives another illustration of the problems, at 149 in the Craig crushes Ayala thread (it is also reproduced elsewhere):
X1. All irreducibly complex systems are designed. [--> Misrepresentation, cf Behe, who talks of the challenge to Darwinian mechanisms] X2. All semiotic systems are irreducibly complex. X3. Therefore, all semiotic systems are designed. [--> Misrepresents the actual case: it is sufficiently complex complex organisaiton and information that function linguistically, algorithmically or cybernetically that are in actual view] Y1. A system involving representation(s) and protocol(s) is a semiotic system. [--> Distorts by failing to give context: symbols imply a system of representaiton and a protocol for communication, codes implies language and language is universally observed -- where we can see the source -- to come from mind. Similarly, algorithms are purposive and linguistic, involving in our experience mind, so there is a reason for an inductive inference that is not hasty.] Y2. Protein synthesis involves a representation and a protocol. [--> in fact we have digital data storage in DNA, the algorithmic transcription process involving several C-chemistry cellular nanomachines, the gated transfer of these to the ribosome, the similarly algorithmic code based step by step assembly of protein chains, the chaperoned folding and the Golgi apparatus etc for routing and more. This is a case of ducking the key details by making a simplistic summary. What do we know about automated, control tape driven assembly plants?] Y3. Therefore, protein synthesis is a semiotic system. [--> of a very high degree of complex, spscific functionality] Z1. All [--> functionally specific, complex] semiotic systems are designed (by X3). [strawman alert] Z2. Protein synthesis is a [--> FSCI-based] semiotic system (by Y3). Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed [--> per inference to best, empirically warranted explanation].
This makes the matter look like an a priori assumption is being used to ground the claim that semiotic -- effectively, meaningful coded symbol using -- systems are designed. It does o by misrerepresenting the conditions under which design thinkers argue for the routinely and only observed source of such semiotic systems as we see being made. In addition, it misrepresents what design thinkers form Behe on have argued concerning irreducibly complex systems. let me cite Behe from Darwin's Black Box, to first and foremost clear the air:
What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. [DBB, p. 39]
Angus Mengue gives one pivotal reason for that, namely the need for such all-or-none functional systems to meet the following five criteria, explained with reference to the flagellum but of much wider applicability:
For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met: C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function. C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time. C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)
In short the challenge to suggested exaptation or co-option by chance to fit together and work, points to the issue that IC systems exhibit significant functionally specific complexity. A simple analysis of getting alternative possible configs by chance, or simple familiarity with the tight specificity of replacement car parts, will show the basic problem: we are looking at specified complexity barriers. In addition, MP et al routinely ignore the issue that we have vast experience of IC systems, and how they are caused. Consistently, by design. That is, we have good reason -- taking in the previous remarks just above -- to see that both IC and FSCO/I are empirically reliable signs of design as best causal explanation. To overturn that, as Newton pointed out, all that is required is to provide sound empirically observed counter-examples. Needless to say,the sort of verbal gymnastics we keep on seeing from objectors to design theory inadvertently testifies to the basic problem: such counterexamples are strangely unforthcoming. So, once we see that we are dealing with FSCO/I and IC in that context, we see why there is an inference to best explanation -- and notice how consistently an abductive argument along the same lines that broader scientific investigations of a great many things we do not directly observe routinely proceeds is being willfully misrepresented as a question-begging deductive one in the teeth of repeated correction -- namely, we have good reason to infer from sign to the signified cause. Just as we routinely infer from deer tracks to deer as the responsible best explanation, never mind the abstract possibility that some unknown animal somehow could have the same tracks, or someone somehow could be faking etc. So, we correct the same errors yet again. Now see if there is any reasonable responsiveness to the correction. That will tell us a lot about what we are dealing with. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: While we await MP's answer to the root challenge, the following exchange with Joe as clipped at 43 above, will show some of the strawman tactics and demand for Darwin by default that are going on:
[Joe:] Living organisms exist. Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms. Living organisms fit the criteria for designed objects. Living organisms were designed. [MP:] How have you determined that Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms when you don’t know how living organisms originated? On what are you basing this claim? Sure, we know intelligent beings like us can (potentially) create life. That does not mean that that’s how it happened and to do that you’d have to do as I suggest, rule out any alternatives. And to do that you’d have a complete knowledge of physics and knowledge of the trajectory of every particle in the universe.
A few notes: 1 --> The background is of course that per a massive body of experience, we observe causal patterns in our world that trace to mechanical necessity (law), to randomness leading to stochastic distributions (chance) and to intentional intelligently directed configuration (design). 2 --> In fact, in say physics, we have large bodies of theory that address the first two and the related studies in engineering and computer science and information theory are riddled through and through with the third. 3 --> Next, we can observe and study the processes in action and see the pattern of traces they leave, noting -- as could be explored here on in context [also cf. here and here on] as MP was invited to read but has plainly ignored -- the differences between, say:
i: heavy, unsupported objects near earth's surface tend to fall at 9.8 N/kg ii: if such an object is a fair die, it can be dropped and will tumble to read values from 1 to 6 more or less per a flat distribution, or we could generate text at random using various mechanisms iii: such a die may also be loaded, which could bias outcomes, or it could be manually set to a value, or of course text can be intelligently generated as is this post
4 --> Now it turns out that these processes often have characteristic consequences, most notably degree of contingency and how the space of possibilities is sampled. 5 --> Necessity leads to natural regularities, of low contingency. That is how we establish laws like the law of falling objects. 6 --> From large experience, high contingency traces to chance and/or choice. For instance, consider a black box that emits successive bits on an output line:
|| BLACK BOX ||--> o/p bit train . . .
7 --> We may not examine the box but we may infer on its innards and mechanisms from its output. (Way back, I recall a class exercise in IPS on such a BB, duly painted black.) 8 --> Similarly in a lot of science, there are many things we cannot directly observe, but must infer on from observable traces. Star physics is a classic, since Newton and before. 9 --> Now, BB is monitored, and across time seems to give bits that are 1/0 in no particular order, and in a long fast train. Along the way we hit on the bright idea of hooking it up to adevice that searches for ASCII text patterns. Lo and behold, some short word matches occur, and after a time, "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" [per Wiki], we find 24 matching characters:
RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...
10 --> BB has emitted a fairly long text string, evidently by chance! But, such a string is well within the FSCI threshold of 500 bits or about 72 ASCII characters of 7 bits each. The explanatory filter expects this. 11 --> Now, lo and behold, one morning we find that BB has emitted the ASCII text string for this comment. 12 --> Should we assign that to chance also, or rule out an intelligent source, save only if:
you’d have to do as I suggest, rule out any alternatives. And to do that you’d have a complete knowledge of physics and knowledge of the trajectory of every particle in the universe.
13 --> Well, maybe I am a random BB, but the same obviously extends to the posts by MP. 14 --> That is, we can see the self-referential absurdity, in a world where MINDS -- as opposed to brains -- are inherently not observed. (We infer mind from the behaviour of certain bodies, as say the Glasgow Coma Scale discussed here highlights.) 15 --> We thus see the selectively hyperskeptical demand for an evolutionary materialist Darwin default, and how it leads to self-referential incoherence. (Cf here at IOSE.) 16 --> A more reasonable approach would ask, how can we tell the difference, reliably. The simple answer is to impose a joint criterion of functional specificity AND complexity. That puts us in a domain where we have a sufficiently large space of possibilities that islands of function will be deeply isolated making it maximally unlikely that chance based random walks will hit on shores of such islands, per the well known pattern exhibited by chance samples of populations. 17 --> The reality of such islands of function is commonly challenged, but it should be fairly clear to the unprejudiced and reasonable inquirer, that where we have multiple parts that in effect form a pattern of nodes and arcs that must be well matched, properly places and integrated to function, only very limited ranges of arrangements will work. 18 --> WLOG, and courtesy AutoCad etc, that can be reduced to arrangements of string structures: . . . -*-*-*- . . . 19 --> That means the random text test has astonishingly broad relevance. 20 --> As a useful rule of thumb, our solar system of 10^57 or so atoms is our practical universe, and for fast chemical reaction rates as step-size, a space for 500 bits will be sufficiently large that by estimate the sample size will be comparable to one straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 LY on the side. If such a stack were superposed on our galaxy ( comparably thick) centred on Earth, and such a sample were made, with all but certainty the reliably predictable outcome -- at a level of assurance comparable to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, statistical grounding -- would be: straw, not anything else. 21 --> So, MP's demand is in effect that we swallow a statistical miracle -- actually, an astonishingly long train of such -- in preference to inferring design when we see the actual relevant BB's output: the digitally coded information system in the heart of cell based life, which starts at about 100,000 bits and goes on to billions. 22 --> The reason for that is obvious: a priori materialism, or being a fellow traveller to that. 23 --> That is why there is a repeated strawmannish projection of question-begging conclusion jumping [in the teeth of repeated correction as can be seen in this and other recent UD threads], and it is the reason for demanding what MP knows no empirically based investigation can deliver: an absolute proof by elimination of all alternative possibilities. 24 --> It is also the evident reason why MP has studiously avoided discussing the logic of warranting knowledge claims by provisional inference to best, empirically grounded explanation leading to inferring credible cause on empirically reliable signs. 25 --> But the problem for MP here is that this is the key scientific method for studying origins and many other cases where we cannot make a direct observation. And, it is quite clear from MP's general level of discussion that s/he knows this or should know this. (Hence the MORAL challenge MP faces, of willful neglect of duties of care to truth and fairness. And this problem reminds us of the issue that evolutionary materialist ideology, since the days of Plato in The Laws, Bk X, has been notorious for opening the door to ruthless nihilistic factions and their cynical notion that might and manipulation make 'right.') ___________ Okay, something to chew on while we wait for MP to actually seriously address the merits. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2012
August
08
Aug
20
20
2012
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

mphillips needs to read the papers he links to. In order to refute my claim pertaing to the fixation of a (beneficial) mutation, mphillips linked to "The spread of a beneficial mutation in experimental bacterial populations: the influence of the environment and genotype on the fixation of rpoS mutations." here The fixation of rpoS mutations
Despite the magnitude of the fitness advantage conferred by rpoS mutations in high-RpoS strains under glucose limitation, none of the eight populations studied so far became 100% rpoS. The proportion of rpoS+ bacteria decreased to below 1% in some populations, but the rpoS+ sub-population was stably maintained. Indeed, in all chemostat cultures studied, the proportion of rpoS+ bacteria recovered within 100 generations to become >30% of the population (Maharjan et al., 2006). An important question arising from these findings is if such very strongly beneficial mutations as in rpoS do not lead to complete fixation, is it likely that any mutation in a large bacterial population purges diversity? The ever-increasing complexity of long-term populations almost to the level of individuality (Papadopoulos et al., 1999; Maharjan et al., 2007) suggests a negative answer to this question. The universality of this conclusion will of course depend on data with other cell types and experimental systems.
No fixy, no laudry...Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

If all ID has going for it, as Joe seems to say, is that what appears random might not be random after all then, well I guess ID is not anti evolution after all.
That's not all but it is more than your position has
But then again you’ve all just seen Joe deny that it’s impossible for a beneficial mutation to become fixed in a population without intelligent design.
Why do you lie? That is not what I said, you are demented. Besides "beneficial" is a relative word as what is beneficial one day may not be the next. Then there are competeting benefits, cooperation and behavioural changes that must also be accounted for.
And you presumably have evidence for this that beats everything discovered from the 60?s to today?
Nothing has been discovered that refutes what I said.
I can provide links to where people are studying exactly the question you already, somehow, known the answer to.
Doubt it but go ahead, what are you waiting for? But please read the article I cited.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

mphillips, choking on mutation fixation:
Incorrect. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2674819/
Umm that is a MODEL, not the real world. See-Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590, for a glimpse of what one can expect in the real worldJoe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

The fitter = more reproduction = non-random as fitness is correlated to survival therefore the state of genome is correlated to fitness is correlated to survival.
How does that make it non-random, especially when fitness is not always correlated to the state of the genome? Whatever is good enough and that is random.
I’ve got you arguing simultaneously two opposing points of view.
LoL! You only think you do. As I said I was trying to figure out what YOUR nonsensical point was and as it turns out you didn't have one.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

F/N: Do I need to explicitly note that the sort of tactics Alinsky espoused have now spread far and wide in our civilisation, and are part of why it is mortally wounded and bleeding out? (HINT: As in, what happens when "everybody" begins to violate key maxims that help hold society together, per Kant on the CI.)kairosfocus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

PWS: MP, the problem is not with disagreeing with my views, it is with putting strawmannish caricatures of them into my mouth then insisting on ignoring corrections then repeating the same mischaracterisation, which after a time becomes clearly the Alinsky tactic of slanderous mockery; which does indeed have a serious moral component, having to do with willful neglect of duties of care; and those victimised by such have a right to object, FYI. So, now can you kindly stop the further strawman tactics, and show us that you can accurately present what I have to say, as a first step to a civil, reasonable discussion? (Surely, that is not too much to ask, if you really have a sound case on the merits and if I really am so obviously wrong on all counts as you want to suggest.)kairosfocus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, let us take a simple, illustrative example of the problem. In a world of AutoCad files and the like, MP wants me to set up a calculation to estimate the complex, specified information in the schematics for a building, apparently imagining that unless I can do this and any number of other things on demand, what I have to say can be dismissed as evidently wrong-headed, ignorant and stupid or else evil or insane effusions (that is plainly there in context). That is sadly revealing of a major attitude problem leading to a gross error, as obviously, all one really would have to do is read off the DWG file size. That would serve handily as an estimate, in bytes or bits, per your preference. And, in a computer age it is an obvious fact that MP did not need to make a dramatic scene over, if there was a genuine intention to understand. Let's put it this way: any entity that can be digitally represented can be reduced to a collection of addressable strings of bits. That is how computer memories work, and it is the basis for the use of the sort of stacked string map of a config space I gave above in answer to yet another MP challenge. of course, the problem with a space of 2^500 strings, is that it swamps the atomic and temporal resources of our solar system to attempt to search it blindly.kairosfocus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

MP: It seems that you are insistent on a strawman caricaturing tactic, and if I point out and correct it, you think that I am the problem. That speaks volumes. None of it to your benefit, I am afraid. I am trying to deal with the underlying problem, which unless it is resolved, will simply block any real progress. As for my ignoring what you have said, has it ever dawned on you that I have repeatedly started from a major point of misrepresentation on your part, and have corrected it over and over again, only to see it repeated. What is that telling me about whether you really care about duties of care to be accurate and fair? (And BTW, just above you have twisted my context and words in responding to DWG into pretzels. I spoke to a definite, well-known problem of an Alinskyite agenda, and I spoke in correction that those who are the victims of willful slander have a right of reply. How dare you twist that into an imagined personal attack!) Let me be direct, as nothing else seems likely to get through: you are putting words and thoughts in my mouth that do not belong there. You are refusing to address the foundational issue of how we can reasonably infer about the past we cannot observe, by working back from what causes the sort of signs that we can observe. When I point this out, again and again you take occasion to further twist my words. That tells me that you are working in bad faith -- no-one working in GOOD faith would so repeatedly ignore specific and well warranted correction; most likely that bad faith is driven by a blinding emotion such as ignorant rage or else by being part of a willfully deceitful agenda. Now, I ask you, one last time, please step back from what you are doing and think again. I have already asked you to address the issue of warranted inference on reliable sign. I have provided you a link. If you do not come to a clear understanding of what that is about, you CANNOT understand what design thinkers are speaking about and what they mean. I don't care if you choose to disagree with the point just yet (though that has onward implications that may surprise you), I simply ask: can you accurately sum up what such thinkers are saying about inference on such signs, and why they say it? If, after you have seen that, you disagree, why? Then, tell us what that implies for the whole scientific enterprise of researching the past of origins, which we do not see, or inferring say the composition and inner behaviour of stars, which we cannot ever directly examine. Then, tell us you overall conclusion. I trust this will help you find a way back form the sort of confrontation that otherwise lies ahead. For, to speak in willful disregard for the truth and fairness, hoping that what you say will be taken as though it were the truth, to whatever advantage, is a very serious and improper thing to do, MP. There is a short, sharp little word for such behaviour, one that you would probably imagine is a personal attack, when it would only be an accurate description and correction. And right now, that is the road down which you are quite plainly headed. KFkairosfocus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

The spread of a beneficial mutation in experimental bacterial populations: the influence of the environment and genotype on the fixation of rpoS mutations. The spread of beneficial mutations through populations is at the core of evolutionary change. A long-standing hindrance to understanding mutational sweeps was that beneficial mutations have been slow to be identified, even in commonly studied experimental populations. The lack of information on what constitutes a beneficial mutation has led to many uncertainties about the frequency, fitness benefit and fixation of beneficial mutations. A more complete picture is currently emerging for a limited set of identified mutations in bacterial populations. In turn, this will allow quantitation of several features of mutational sweeps. Most importantly, the 'benefit' of beneficial mutations can now be explained in terms of physiological function and how variations in the environment change the selectability of mutations. Here, the sweep of rpoS mutations in Escherichia coli, in both experimental and natural populations, is described in detail. These studies reveal the subtleties of physiology and regulation that strongly influence the benefit of a mutation and explain differences in sweeps between strains and between various environments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18073783 Of course, I can't prove the negative that what the research showed was not secretly directed, or that what appeared to be random mutations were not in fact random at all but the only person that seems to be a problem for is Joe. If all ID has going for it, as Joe seems to say, is that what appears random might not be random after all then, well I guess ID is not anti evolution after all. But then again you've all just seen Joe deny that it's impossible for a beneficial mutation to become fixed in a population without intelligent design. Yet we see that all the time, and I just liked to such a study. If you really were following the evidence where it leads then you'd consider studies like this as significant. No doubt Joe requires absolute proof that his wife has not poisoned his coffee in the morning also.
Only by design or via a severe bottle-neck.
And you presumably have evidence for this that beats everything discovered from the 60's to today? Why are you holding onto it? Why not release it? Otherwise it seems to me you are just saying that, making it up if you will. I can provide links to where people are studying exactly the question you already, somehow, known the answer to. Why not give them a call, save them all that time and money?mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Just how is survival and reproductive success non-random?
You said it yourself
If one dies due to some genetic mishap but leaves 1000s of offspring that individual is more “fit” than a healthy individual that leads a long life who only leaves 10.
The fitter = more reproduction = non-random as fitness is correlated to survival therefore the state of genome is correlated to fitness is correlated to survival.
Only by design or via a severe bottle-neck.
Incorrect. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674819/ I could add more but I know you deny the validity of "On the Probability of Fixation of Mutant Genes in a Population." and that's from the 60's so what's the point in bringing anything later up.
Design, duh.
So ID is pro design? That it?
So you are too much of a coward to make your point. Got it.
I've made my point. I've got you arguing simultaneously two opposing points of view.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Is there anything else included that you’ve failed to mention?
It shouldn't need to be mentioned. Obviously in order to reproduce one needs to survive to do so, duh.
Suddenly for a process with only random inputs and outputs we’ve got a lot of non-random information. Survival. Reproductive success.
Cuz you say so. Just how is survival and reproductive success non-random?
So you are agreeing that in a population should there be an individual that has a beneficial mutation that it will tend to spread in the population and eventually every member of the population will carry it?
Only by design or via a severe bottle-neck.
I know you said ID is not anti-evolution but I think you’ve just thrown the baby out with the bathwater Joe.
Cuz you say-so- got it.
Remind me, if ID is not anti evolution what is it pro?
Design, duh. IOW mphillips, I was trying to figure out what your nonsensical point was seeing that you were too much of a coward to actually make it.
Well, I’m asking on what basis are you judging the “broken” gene to be broken if individuals with it are much fitter then individuals without?
So you are too much of a coward to make your point. Got it.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Joe,
And survival is included in “reproductive success”- so what was your point?
Hmm. Is there anything else included that you've failed to mention? Suddenly for a process with only random inputs and outputs we've got a lot of non-random information. Survival. Reproductive success.
Always did. Again what was YOUR point? YOU made it seem as if I was incorrect when I said fitness = reproductive success. You even spewed a bunch of nonsense and provided a link- what for?
So you are agreeing that in a population should there be an individual that has a beneficial mutation that it will tend to spread in the population and eventually every member of the population will carry it? Even despite the fact that sometimes that individual will trip over a log and die thus that mutation vanishing with that individual? I know you said ID is not anti-evolution but I think you've just thrown the baby out with the bathwater Joe. Remind me, if ID is not anti evolution what is it pro?
IOW mphillips, I was trying to figure out what your nonsensical point was seeing that you were too much of a coward to actually make it.
Well, I'm asking on what basis are you judging the "broken" gene to be broken if individuals with it are much fitter then individuals without? Simple question really.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

kariosfocus,
Are you even aware of how insistently you are caricaturing my views and those of others, or of how irritating that becomes, when such is laced with implicit personal attacks?
Actually I'm not. How could I be, you've ignored almost every thing I've said and question I've asked. You said
We have every right to expose how you rigged the game, and to call you out as materialist ideologues and fellow travellers hiding in the holy lab coat and pronouncing ex cathedra statements as a new magisterium.
And given that you were addressing DWG you've no problem with personal attacks. That that's just from this thread. I've seen many where you imply all sorts of things about people and their motives.
All of this comes straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals playbook
Or perhaps that's what it feels like to be wrong on many fronts?
Or, are you willfully and knowingly — as apropaganda act — distorting the views and smearing the character of those you disagree with, for purposes that obviously are otherwise indefensible?
I don't know that I'm distorting your views - please tell me how am I doing so? Am I smearing your character? Well, give that I'm calling you on claims that you've made I guess you could say I am. For indefensible purposes? I don't think so. For example, I'd like to write a program that would calculate the CSI in building scematics, as yo claim can be done in principle here:
Of course the digitised charts that specify the cathedral or the shack could in principle be used to quantify the CSI involved, especially to show that it is obviously well beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. (The same could be done per a nodes and arcs plot of Mt Rushmore.)
If it's "of course" possible then what is stopping you telling me, in pseudocode, how it could be done "in practice"? I'd much rather talk about that to be honest. At least a program can be examined and argued over.
Let’s ask one basic question: do you understand what inference to best, empirically grounded explanation in light of tested reliable signs is about?
Yes, it's about asking just exactly the right question so you get the answer you wanted to get all along.
If you don’t know what it is, and do not care enough for fairness to those with whom you differ, to get such things straight, that is bad enough.
But that's exactly what I'm trying to do when I ask you to relate your "needle in a haystack" example (in fact it's the crux of your argument) to actual biology. And when you totally ignore that.... <blockquote(I invite you to again look here, taking particular note of the deer track photo, and taking time to think about what you see there.) I invite you to submit me a link that supports a claim that you make where demonstrably impartial knowledgeable people have had a chance to critique your work. I need not elaborate on what you would be doing if you know better but insist on distorting those who hold views you object to. Mote? Eye? I don't "object" to your views, what I object to is your behavior. You make a claim, I ask you about it, I end up labeled a immoral radical.
Until that is resolved, it is pointless trying to discus merits.
Well, could you link me to where you have attempted to do so rather then just regurgitate another one of your talking points or links back to your geocities website?
But, you need to know that you are setting yourself up to be a poster child of how some objectors to design theory caricature what they object to.
Good for you.
I ask you to correct yourself, before I have to take stronger measures in correction.
What, like answering a direct question with a direct answer? Please.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

IOW mphillips, I was trying to figure out what your nonsensical point was seeing that you were too much of a coward to actually make it.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Suddenly, reproductive success = fitness again.
Always did. Again what was YOUR point? YOU made it seem as if I was incorrect when I said fitness = reproductive success. You even spewed a bunch of nonsense and provided a link- what for?Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

No, it’s based on both the reproductive success and the ability to survive. You can’t reproduce if you have not survived, can you?
And survival is included in "reproductive success"- so what was your point?Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Dude, YOU were the one who questioned me when I said fitness = reproductive success. And like the coward you are you have refused to explain yourself
You said:
BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA- fitness is based on reproductive success- it is an after-the-fact assessment.
Then I said
No, it’s based on both the reproductive success and the ability to survive. You can’t reproduce if you have not survived, can you?
then you said
If one dies due to some genetic mishap but leaves 1000s of offspring that individual is more “fit” than a healthy individual that leads a long life who only leaves 10.
Who said anything about leading a long life? The ability to survive comes before reproduction becomes relevant. Until you've survived to reproductive age your ability to reproduce is irrelevant. So therefore your healthy individual that leads a long life is less fit as it's about to be out-competed by the young sickly ones. It'll vanish like it never existed, unless we got a peek at a fossil fragment. No disagreement there. The fact that it lived a healthy long live will be of no comfort when it's out-competed by sheer population numbers and all members start to carry the "broken" gene. That you think it's significant that it lived a "long life" is irrelevant. Joe, a question. Why do you suppose so many things go wrong with people in their old age? Most things you might visit the doctor for don't apply to the under 40's but 100's of different conditions apply after. It's almost like long life and health after the ability to reproduce has not really been selected for strongly You, Joe, then said:
The point of that is if someone were to take at look at the genomes only one should be able to see the gentic defect in the organism that had 1000s of offspring and a clean genome in the other, and that person would say the second organism was the fittest.
Yet you now say
Dude, YOU were the one who questioned me when I said fitness = reproductive success. And like the coward you are you have refused to explain yourself
Suddenly, reproductive success = fitness again. Nice. Yet your criteria when looking at the genome alone is "clean" and "defect". Hardly as easily measurable as "ability to reproduce". Hence my question, - look at some genomes and tell me just by looking at them which are "fitter". Give me some specific empirical examples of what you mean. The fact that you perceive a gene as "broken" means you think there's a "original" unbroken version of it. Yet what you fail to realize is before that "unbroken" version is another version, perhaps slightly different, stretching back through unimaginable time all the way back to the origin of life. I really do think your lack of imagination is your main problem. To solve a problem you first have to be able to imagine solution's. Your imagination stopped at "I make things, thinks make by people too".mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

MP: Are you even aware of how insistently you are caricaturing my views and those of others, or of how irritating that becomes, when such is laced with implicit personal attacks? Are you so willful in ignorance that you cannot yield to repeated correction? Or, are you willfully and knowingly -- as apropaganda act -- distorting the views and smearing the character of those you disagree with, for purposes that obviously are otherwise indefensible? Let's ask one basic question: do you understand what inference to best, empirically grounded explanation in light of tested reliable signs is about? If you don't know what it is, and do not care enough for fairness to those with whom you differ, to get such things straight, that is bad enough. (I invite you to again look here, taking particular note of the deer track photo, and taking time to think about what you see there.) I need not elaborate on what you would be doing if you know better but insist on distorting those who hold views you object to. Until that is resolved, it is pointless trying to discus merits. But, you need to know that you are setting yourself up to be a poster child of how some objectors to design theory caricature what they object to. I ask you to correct yourself, before I have to take stronger measures in correction. KFkairosfocus_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

measuring information- choke on that
Don’t link, do.
Sed the coward who can't do anything:
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character — or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author’s productive intention — is constituted by an author’s actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact
When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain? If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains. For example:
aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants
A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity. Now what do we do when all we have is an object? One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. The point is that you have to capture the actions required and translate that into bits. That is if you want to use CSI. However by doing all of that you have already determined the thing was designed Now you are just trying to determine how much work was involved. But anyway, that will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains- Data collection and compression (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control). CSI is a threshold, meaning you don't need an exact number. And it is a threshold that nature, operating freely has never been observed to come close to. Once CSI = yes you know it was designed. On Shannon Information and measuring biological information:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand? Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).
Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with. And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information. And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum. Moving on-
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.

In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”
With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance: from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.
Here is a formal way of measuring functional information: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007). See also: Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003). original posts can be found here, here and hereJoe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

How can you judge fitness by looking only at the genome and without considering how the genome will interact with the environment?
Dude, YOU were the one who questioned me when I said fitness = reproductive success. And like the coward you are you have refused to explain yourselfJoe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

How have you determined that Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms when you don’t know how living organisms originated? On what are you basing this claim?
Science.Joe_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Living organisms exist. Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms. Living organisms fit the criteria for designed objects. Living organisms were designed.
How have you determined that Necessity and/ or chance cannot account for the origins of living organisms when you don't know how living organisms originated? On what are you basing this claim? Sure, we know intelligent beings like us can (potentially) create life. That does not mean that that's how it happened and to do that you'd have to do as I suggest, rule out any alternatives. And to do that you'd have a complete knowledge of physics and knowledge of the trajectory of every particle in the universe. Which you don't have, obviously. So how have you ruled it out? Perhaps it's because we've never seen life spring into being in a beaker of chemicals in the lab? Or in some warm pond somewhere? Lol.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Joe,
measuring information- choke on that
Don't link, do. What is the "information" in your past post? Quantify it. Now do the same for your "broken" gene and the "perfect original garden of eden" version. Show that the two are different.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Joe,
The point of that is if someone were to take at look at the genomes only
How can you judge fitness by looking only at the genome and without considering how the genome will interact with the environment? Sure, you can add arbitrary constraints as you like in order to make your point but you've moved so far away from reality that it's meaningless. And anyway, if you were just looking at the genome the only way you could tell that a gene was broken in the first place was if you know what it's "supposed" to look like.
But anyways obviously you can’t follow along…
What's your actual point Joe? And does anybody else here agree with Joe?
Ya see mphilips you challenged me when I said fitness = reproductive success- explain yourself, coward.
If fitness = reproductive success then the "broken gene" is fitter and you've just disproved your own point.mphillips_{August 19, 2012
August
08
Aug
19
19
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply