A Simple Gene Origination Calculation

_{PaV
July 27, 2008

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.

Here’s the link to the abstract.

Comments

DaveScot, It was Daniel King, not sparc, who used KF's name on this thread and then later apologized (at 50). From sparc's post (at 116) it appears that he is unaware that the two names have any connection. He cites a blog entry under the offending name only because it pertains to the subject at hand (the definition of FCSI) and mentions the author's name of that entry. It was KF, and not sparc, who connected the two names via his objections at 118.Tom MH_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

without being too "strawmanish" could I refer GEM of TKI back to my post at #110?
So perhaps you two could give me a list of lifeforms and the amount of FCSI in each?
I would honestly like to know. KF as you have pushed the FSCI button, could you provide such a list?RitaFairclough_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
Next, every time we represent the DNA information as “GCAT” strings, we are translating it into another digital coding system, here, alphanumeric characters. GCAT is of course in turn routinely expressed in binary digital bits, expressed in voltages, light pulses or magnetic states.
You have misunderstood my point. I'm saying that one human language can be translated into another imperfectly. DNA (GCAT) is digital and always will be, is it not? Even if expressed in analog languages it can be translated in totality, what you refer to is simply changing the format of representation. A simple cypher if you will. If you know the "code" you can obtain a perfect retranslation even if the data is represented in voltages, light pulses, magnetic states or smoke signals. My point (and Hofstaders) is that a poem can be in one language, say French, then translated into German by somebody and then translated into French again by somebody else. Hofstader actually did this, in various ways. This cannot be done with DNA
That is, we see the smooth transfer of information from one language and expression to another.
And my point is really the opposite can happen with languages. And so this is one way that DNA can be said to differ from language. How many wars are a result of a botched translation? And don't forget that in each language the poem was still a poem, but represented in a different way. Yet it still worked. Does DNA perform the function of DNA when represented in any other way then via deoxyribonucleic acid?RitaFairclough_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Sparc, You were warned about using KF's name and even apologized for it so I know you read the warning. And this right after I decided you were trustworthy enough to remove from the moderation list. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Adios.DaveScot_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
If the islands of function are sufficiently separate, random walks [or the equivalent] away from an island of functionality will also with absolutely overwhelming probability, exhaust available search resources.
GEM, I like your term FSCI. It seems to more tightly define the characteristic that we see in DNA than the more general CSI term does. I also like the island analogy. I think that it accurately describes the challenge of finding new functionality. I think you are right. I think that the fact that DNA is FSCI makes a strong case for it being designed. However, please allow me to play devil's advocate for a post. There remains to be a challenge. That challenge resides in the word "if" in the quote above. The issues are: 1 - How big are the islands of functionality. Surely DNA has demonstrated an ability to describe a functional component within a vastly larger island of functionality than, say, software languages. (I remember once printing out an error report 6 pages long, caused by a single missing semicolon). 2 - What is the frequency of islands. Are we talking the thousand islands here, or the middle of the Atlantic? 3 - Is the neo-Darwinan search truly random. Let me suggest that it is not. Consider for instance the duplicate gene, duplications being one of the common mutational events. The duplicate is now subject to mutation. If it falls off of its island of functionality, no-one cares. However, it is now searching for new shores. But its search is out from where it is. I would think that with functionality, as with oceans, one is much more likely to find an island near another island than one is via randomly sticking a pin in a map. 4 - Does the sea-level change. If I see a person stuck on an island in the ocean I need not conclude that he got their via a boat. He may have walked there during low tide. Allen MacNeill spoke of a large lake that had never had fish in it. When a small group of fish made it into the lake, they soon split into multiple species. Why? In that land of plenty there were lots of custom niches, and the land was generous to even some level of dysfunction within mutations. Ie, it was like the sea level had dropped, more islands were exposed, and more land bridges were exposed. The question remains, could it be that even though DNA is well described as containing FSCI, it is still the product of simple natural processes? I suggest that this can only be determined by carefully analyzing the data, the size and frequency of islands, the proximity of islands to other islands, and the effects of hydrodynamics (tides, sea-level changes etc.)bFast_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem:
First, nucleotides have been allowed to join without any guidance whatsoever. WHen they do, they preferentially join in 2?-5? linkages rather than 3?-5? linkages. That is, they do not even form RNA.
Reference, please.Daniel King_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

PS: Linkkairosfocus_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Rita: I have used a descriptive, clarifying term, and have identified its roots in the natural development of OOL studies, at the turn of the 1980's. That should be quite enough to show that the term is useful, which makes who does or does not commonly use it or near-enough terms utterly irrelevant. And, debating terminology will not resolve the underlying issue. That issue is that we can easily enough see that certain information bearing entities are functionally specified [they function and are fairly sensitive to perturbation), and are sufficiently complex [high information storage capacity] that the resulting configuration space isolates the functional islands to a point where chance-based trial and error searches from arbitrary [as opposed to intelligent] start points are maximally unlikely to arrive at first function per available search resources. [Cf my thermodynamics based discussion here (and the onward linked one in TMLO) if you want more details.] By contrast, we know that, routinely and reliably, intelligence produces such FSCI-bearing entities. So, we have excellent reason to infer from FSCI to intelligent action as its key causal factor. Thus, the mere fact that DNA is an instance of FSCI is good reason to infer that its best explanation is intelligence. That is, DNA is evidence that there was intelligent design involved in the origin [and major diversification] of life. That may be unpalatable for those committed to one species or another of evolutionary materialistic thought, but it is what the evidence and inference to best explanation per constraint of said evidence, warrant. Worse, the trend of the discovered evidence is that the degree of complexity involved in DNA etc is much more than we already discern. (Think of what is happening on epigenetics and on so-called junk DNA.) So, we are back at what GP has highlighted in 114: the root issue is philosophy and institutional dominance of philosophically linked materialistic worldview agendas, not the verdict of untrammelled science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

GP; Re 114: excellent post! GEM of TKI PS: It is one and the same Robert Shapiro indeed.kairosfocus_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Now, on FSCI: I find it interesting to observe the various side-debates on the meaning and usage of this fairly obvious sub-set of CSI: FUNCTIONAL specification as a case in relevant point of complex specified information. I therefore again draw our attention to the basic, unmet [and often distracted from . . .] challenge put by PaV in the post at the head of this thread:
As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.” Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.
In short, the evidence is that the search resources available the evolving Drosophila genome across time were inadequate to arrive at the observed variations in the Genus, and indeed, to originate the underlying DNA set itself [which I gather is about 180 mn base prs, or about 360 Mbits of information storage capacity]. In short, this is a case in point of the issue of FSCI in action. In that light, a few remarks on points on FSCI, some [with all due respect to whomever it may concern] corrective: a --> There is no subtle distinction between terms to play around with, just the obvious point: specification of complex information is most obvious and objective when the information has to function in a working entity. b --> And, anyone who has had to debug a complex software program will attest to just how vulnerable to perturbation or accident such FSCI is. c --> In short, we are looking at very limited zones of situationally/contextually required function in the wider configuration space possible for the relevant information storing capacity. d --> Indeed, at just 500 - 1,000 bits or so of information storage capacity, we overwhelm the chance-based search resources of the observed cosmos across any credible estimate of its lifetime. (And, mechanical necessity -- the third item from the causal factor triad: chance, intelligence, necessity -- is associated with low contingency, e.g. as discussed above and in the always linked, heat + fuel + air --> fire. High contingency situations are explained by inference to chance and/or intelligence as a consequence. Cf. classic statistical hypothesis testing for a well-known example, where the null hyp is often a chance hyp and the alternate is deliberate i.e. intelligent action.) e --> Intelligent designers, by contrast with chance, use imagination, skill and insight to drastically cut down the zone of search. In turn, that is why the detection of FSCI is a good test for agency: [1] highly contingent, so not a result of mechanical necessity; [2] [functionally] specified beyond the credible reach of available chance-based searches, so not mere chance; [3] i.e., FSCI, so, intelligent design. [4] Thus, FSCI is empirical evidence pointing to design as its best explanation, and if we wish our scientific theories and wider worldviews to be empirically adequate, we should therefore reckon with that fact. f --> As I already documented above, when leading OOL researchers were looking at the characteristics of the macromolecules of life across the 1970's, they came up with the point that such molecules show complex specification, and that the specification is functional. CSI is therefore more generic, FSCI is more specific and is a relevant subset of CSI. g --> As to quantification, we easily enough can quantify information storing or transmitting capacity, ever since Shannon and co. Functionality is observable and in principle quantifiable, though that may be situationally specific. Vulnerability to loss of function is equally observable and quantifiable at least on a case by case basis, as software developers know all too painfully well. h --> In particular, let us first look at a simple vector quantification: (x, y, z), where x -- information storage capacity [bits], y -- observed functionality [1/0], z -- sensitivity of function to perturbation (we could use a percentage metric relative to observed peak performance). We can then plot FSCI in a 3-D space, highlighting that there is a threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity. i --> And, since FSCI is a strict subset of CSI, the more sophisticated quantification of CSI developed by Dembski et al, e.g. cf here, also applies. Notice that my simplistic 3-d view above is in effect a stage to the fuller quantification. (In short the "how do you measure CSI" argument is too often a strawmannish dismissal in the teeth of the fairly easily accessible facts. But in this field, sadly, there are a lot of very publicly prominent critics who say what they think they can get away with, even though they know or should know better. It is therefore no surprise to see that many are confused by such academic discourtesy or worse.) j --> The obvious next point is that we easily enough can know what FSCI is and in fact routinely use it all the time, most familiarly in IT systems, such as even to post in this blog thread. k --> So, we further know that routinely, FSCI is produced by intelligence, and we have no case where its cause is known and the source is not intelligence. l --> Thus, provisionally -- per classic scientific induction, we may see that FSCI is a characteristic of intelligence and/or is sourced in intelligent design and action. That is not to "equate" FSCI and intelligence but rather it is to state its reliably known SOURCE. [Which is exactly what I explicitly stated previously, and linked on!] m --> As to irreducible complexity in the context of FSCI, I note that in many situations where FSCI is a relevant inference, the complexity is not just a matter of being beyond so many bits, and the specification is not just a matter of gradual loss of function as we vary across a range. There may often be an irreducible core of components, where the removal of any one causes catastrophic loss of function; as anyone having had to troubleshoot serious electronics systems can fervently testify to. Thus, there is a clear tie-in to Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity. n --> So, we may, per GP's suggestion many months ago, imagine a vast pacific ocean, with islands and archipelagos of functionality. Once we are onshore of an island, we may climb up to peak perfoirnmance, but before we can do so we have to arrive on its shores. We may hop from one island to another in an archipelago at random if we have sufficient search resources [cf here the Bahamas], but we have to be IN the archipelago first. And, a random walk search from an arbitrary start-point in the ocean is maximally unlikely to reach to any island or archipelago. o --> In short, we can first directly see the OOL problem: getting to first biofunction in a context of vast config space. [This is not just a matter of an as yet unsolved problem [of 150 years standing], it is the sort of issue that is the statistical premise of the second law of thermodynamics: cf my always linked, appendix 1. And, we already know that ther eis a routine and reliably observed source of FSCI -- intelligence. So, what is really at work is an imposed worldview level roadblock, in blunt terms: commitment to evolutionary materialism that has hijacked the name, "science."] p --> We can next see the body-plan level macroevolution problem: If the islands of function are sufficiently separate, random walks [or the equivalent] away from an island of functionality will also with absolutely overwhelming probability, exhaust available search resources. q --> We also see why significant mutations will be relatively rare, as event eh numbers posed by the researchers cited by PaV point to. This of course also dovetails with the observed sudden appearances, relative stasis and sudden disappearances that are the notorious and longstanding observed characteristic pattern of the fossil record. ++++++++ In short, the issue of FSCI goes to the heart of where the evidence points: design. But, design in the context of OOL and OO body-plan level biodiversity are plainly not very compatible with the institutionally dominant adherence to evolutionary materialism, thus the controversies. GEM of TKI PS: I repeat, the information in DNA is digitally coded [4 states per element in the informational macromolecule's chain], algorithmically functional information. Here is Wiki on DNA:
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information . . .
This is instantiation, not analogy, and notice how the concept of functionally specified complex information fits in ever so naturally, as the OOL researchers of the '70's indicate. Next, every time we represent the DNA information as "GCAT" strings, we are translating it into another digital coding system, here, alphanumeric characters. GCAT is of course in turn routinely expressed in binary digital bits, expressed in voltages, light pulses or magnetic states. That is, we see the smooth transfer of information from one language and expression to another. (We could even conceptually at least implement a program that would read and implement GCAT strings by making proteins per specifications -- a protein printer if you will. Of course such is a long way off, but a simulation is probably currently feasible.)kairosfocus_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Moderators: I have to first bring to your attention Sparc at 116. For, for a SECOND time in this thread, my personal name has been used without permission. This, in a context where it is notorious that ID thinkers are subject to "expelling" and where on my part there is a definite spamming problem. [I have kept up a link to contact information in my personal site for responsible use.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

Rita (sorry to hear you hit moderation, though I'm not surprised.)
I’m not saying there is no validity to FCSI, in fact I’m interested in learning more about it and have asked for a few examples already. I’m just saying that it seems like a concept that has yet to meet with widespread acceptance.
FSCI is a term that doesn't have very wide acceptance. However, the concept has been on the table for a long time. The concept of CSI is a foundational concept of the ID movement. The CSI that is of particular note is the "functional" subset. I think that the term FSCI clarifies the issue, however the issue has been clearly defined for a long time prior to the GEM's clarifying terminology.bFast_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

RitaFairclough:
From what little research I’ve had time to do so far on this it seems that most of the web pages talking about FCSI are either this website or Kariosfocus’ website.
Maybe you didn't look hard enough: In addition to FSCI you will find Functionally Specified, Irreducible Complexity (FSIC)developed by [name deleted] here in comment 161 which seemingly is similar to FSCI but not identical. It would be interesting if [name deleted] shows up here to discuss the differences between FSCI and FSIC with Kairosfocus. In the meantime you may permutate FSCI and google the results.sparc_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem, The idea that an unsolved problem in science is an argument for the existence of a deity is attractive to many. Given that a deity created life on this planet, would it not be an act of devotion in the tradition of Kepler, Newton, and Einstin to continue efforts to discover how the deity brought that marvel about?
I read the article by Kacian et al. that you quoted. It is not the one I was looking for.
Let us know when you find it.Daniel King_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Daniel (81 and 82),
It’s the naturalistic OOL researchers that engage in speculation against the evidence.
Hardly. Their speculations are grounded in chemistry and geology. The crux of the matter is that their speculations are subject to experimental test.
I am curious as to how one can transmute "subject to experimental test" into "grounded in chemistry", without actually passing the experimental test, or more precisely while, as far as we can tell with science, failing the experimental test. On the other hand,
But what may not always be appreciated is that we now have direct evidence for intelligence causing genetic change.
Intelligence, yes. Human intelligence.
What is that supposed to mean other than that no other than human intelligence can exist (or at least can have interacted with matter), and that human intelligence cannot have existed at the time of the origin of life? I'll grant that the latter part of the question should receive an affirmative answer, as if humans exist, then life exists, so the origin of life has to come before humans exist, by definition. But can we be that sure that there is no other intelligence than us humans? It appears that any pathway, regardless of how much experimental evidence seems to indicate its practical impossibility, is preferable to postulating an intelligence if that intelligence might lead us in the direction of the supernatural. I will say this, though. If that is your sentiment, you have company. Robert Shapiro (I believe the same one whom kairosfocus quoted as a leading OOL researcher), in Origins, A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, states (p. 130),
Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder.
Interpreted, that means, "I will not believe in God regardless of the evidence." At this point one realizes that one is not discussing science, but rather philosophy. When evidence doesn't matter, we are no longer in science. I read the article by Kacian et al. that you quoted. It is not the one I was looking for. The quotes you gave indicate that the research the article reported was not targeted at finding longer RNA products from shorter initial reactants. Rather it was targeted at getting not just shorter products, which by that time was known to happen, but to get a unique product that could be sequenced. But if you read the article, you will note that there were previous articles where the experiments that discovered that RNA would shorten were reported, and those articles are of interest. (Also I need to re-read Shapiro's Origins.) In fact, even in this article, the eventual goal of a longer RNA molecule is explicit:
These experiments resolved an interesting dilemma of precellular evolution. THey permit one to see, at least dimly, how selective pressures could have forced replicating nucleic acids to greater length and complexity (11), a necessary prelude to the invention of cells and subcellular components as aids in replication.
Now ask yourself, have you ever read of experiments that actually resulted in longer RNA strands from shorter initial ones? Why would that be? Your argument about analogies is built on a fallacy about science. Science, by and large, is not about logically proving anything. It is about amassing evidence that tends to support, or undermine, theories. Thus arguments that are not logically probative may still have weight. Let me give you two examples, one of which can be properly labeled an argument from analogy. First, you should be familiar with statistical tests. The acceptance of the null hypothesis does not disprove the possibility that the real value of a variable is only slightly different from zero. There have been numerous papers that got negative answers when the experiments were simply not sensitive enough to measure the difference that was later actually measured. That is what meta-analysis is all about. On the other hand, the acceptance of positive results at the p=0.05 level is an explicit admission that accepting results like this will wrongly reject the null hypothesis, on the average, one out of every 20 times. Thus science is commonly not about proof, but about evidence. The second is more pertinent. In medicine, we commonly study patients, find out how they respond to drugs, procedures, etc., then assume, based on analogy that other patients will respond similarly. We know that this is not always the case (the placebo effect and the study effect being two exceptions), and yet we accept the studies as evidence of how unstudied patients will respond. We presume that the unstudied patients will behave analogously to the studied ones. This is evidence, but not logical proof. Likewise, the fact that computer code is similar to DNA code is evidence, but not proof, that they have a similar origin. Your insistence otherwise is mixing up evidence and proof. In fact, nobody would be fooled by the argument from analogy if it did not have some basis in fact. If it had no validity whatsoever, people would figure that out and the argument would never be used. Evidence is different from logical proof. You quoted me and said, "Evidence against. Please provide some." The original paragraph that you quoted one sentence from dealt with the formation of RNA and read as follows:
You apparently agree with me that random formation of enough RNA to code for protein is extremely unlikely. The problem is that there is no known way to get sufficiently specific non-random sequences without intelligent guidance. That isn’t to say that there will never be any known way in the future. But keep in mind that we are looking for “evidence”, not “speculation”. Right now the evidence is against such a non-random pathway
RNA has been "spontaneously" polymerized in two ways. First, nucleotides have been allowed to join without any guidance whatsoever. WHen they do, they preferentially join in 2'-5' linkages rather than 3'-5' linkages. That is, they do not even form RNA. Secondly, they can be joined by RNA polymerase. It is debatable whether this can be considered intelligent guidance, as whether such a complex molecule as RNA polymerase can spontaneously form from amino acids is itself doubtful, and has not been observed in nature. But leaving that aside, what is created is apparently mini-Spiegelman monsters. Remember the goal that I set in the paragraph that you were querying. It was to "get sufficiently specific non-random sequences" to "code for protein". These mini-monsters apparently only code for some 14-16 amino acids, not counting stop and start codons. That is not enough length to code for protein, let alone enough specificity. Thus it is fair to say that we have evidence (not proof, as I made clear) that is against the idea that there is a non-random pathway to obtain RNA that codes for protein. But your question reveals a deeper philosophical bias. which needs to be addressed. In your original comment for this particular discussion (57), you claimed that we "assumed" that "speculation" could answer certain questions, instead of "testing empirically". In the paragraph I quoted above, I pointed out that in the matter of a non-random pathway for generating RNA that would be specific enough in its sequence to be functional as riblsomes, t-RNA, codes for aminoacyl-t-RNA synthetases, etc., there was no evidence for such a pathway. Thus the pathway remains speculation. In fact, the evidence was against it. I have given reasons why, IMO, the evidence is in fact against such a pathway. But what you fail to realize is that even if I were wrong, the evidence would still not point toward such a pathway. Belief in such a pathway in the absence of positive evidence would still be "speculation". If belief in the polymerization of RNA in ways that are (a) non-random and (b) directed towards useful sequences in creating life from non-life, does not have positive experimental evidence backing it up, then it is not evidence-based but faith-based. Your assumption seems to be, in contrast, that as long as we can't definitively prove that there isn't a non-random way of producing useful (for the purpose of producing life) RNA, that this theory should be given preference. That's only true if one starts out with faith and requires science to definitively prove that faith wrong. But that's precisely what fundamentalists are accused of doing. Are you a naturalistic fundamentalist?Paul Giem_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Rita, I am probably wasting my time but do agree that design exists?tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

bFast
That said, the burden of proof lies squarely in the lap of the Darwinist to demonstrate that FCSI is possible without intelligence
From what little research I've had time to do so far on this it seems that most of the web pages talking about FCSI are either this website or Kariosfocus' website. As such, is it really a worthwhile strategy, a worthwhile way to spend time inventing a concept and then challenging people to knock it over and then claiming victory when it does not happen? I'm not saying there is no validity to FCSI, in fact I'm interested in learning more about it and have asked for a few examples already. I'm just saying that it seems like a concept that has yet to meet with widespread acceptance (if a quick google is any guide anyway) and perhaps efforts to promote it outside the small circle that is already using it would be more effective then simply using it as a stick to be darwinists with. Just my thoughts!RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

I forgot, you are new to this. Do you know what DNA is and what it does?
I take your condescending attitude to mean that you are not interested in answering my questions. Sorry to have bothered you, I should have realised that you simply wanted to talk like a teenage stoner about "design man, DNA IS designed, you test DNA for design and it comes back YES!". It was you who said, quite matter of factly as if it were an everyday occourence
the method use to do this is taking tested means of determining design, applying them to DNA and having them come back as a yes answer.
And I simply want more details on how that was done, because between me and you I've not heard about that and before I believe it I'll want more then some anon msg board person telling me it's so. Citations please! :)RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

bFast, GEM of TKI
Biology shows FCSI
Do different lifeforms have different amounts of FCSI? Or does all living things have the same amount? If the amount is different is it possible for you to tell me what amounts various organisms have of FCSI? I guess a flagellum is the obvious first one but I suppose the trouble is anything that I might pick other then that likely has not had the analysis done on it. So perhaps you two could give me a list of lifeforms and the amount of FCSI in each? I would find that very interesting reading! If in fact the amount is the same, then does FCSI really tell us anything useful about biology after all?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Rita, you asked for an example of an event that when conditions are right does not happen with certainty and I gave you one. the method use to do this is taking tested means of determining design, applying them to DNA and having them come back as a yes answer. I forgot, you are new to this. Do you know what DNA is and what it does?tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

You don’t believe in chance? Roll dice. If they are honest you will not know with certainty what the results will be.
What does that have to do with it?
it is merely a event which, when conditions are right, will happen with a certainty.
You mention nothing about chance? Does chance not affect some events, i.e those that "will happen with a certainty"? Can you or can you not give me an example? So far the answer appears to be no. Which, to me, invalidates a large part of your argument. Also I would note that you can still be conned even with honest dice if the thrower is skilled and very much more so when the crooked thrower has control of the envrioment too. Fair dice do not mean a fair chance. Thanks for the link. Dr Dembski says
Science faces a crisis of basic concepts. The way out of this crisis is to expand science to include design.
Tribune7, I would like to know about the analysis with regard to DNA that you mention in comment #102. Please tell me some specifics.
the method use to do this is taking tested means of determining design, applying them to DNA and having them come back as a yes answer.
Who, where, when? Where did they publish?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

GEM of TKI #89:
What is being “stoutly resisted” is not [a] the concept FSCI, but [b] the issue that the only — and routinely — observed source of functionally specific, complex information [and for that matter, after all the debates, CSI in general] is intelligence. And, there is abundant evidence of such stout resistance here at UD and elsewhere.
I think that it is an unfair leap to say that FCSI = intelligence. We know that intelligence can cause FCSI, we see it all of the time in our technological world. I also agree with you that biology shows FCSI. However, the question raised by the Darwinian model is whether FCSI is achievable via non-intelligent means. While UDers would agree that FCSI is not possible without intelligence it is not fair argument to use FCSI = intelligence as a premise in this debate. That said, the burden of proof lies squarely in the lap of the Darwinist to demonstrate that FCSI is possible without intelligence. Premise, Biology shows FCSI. Premise FCSI is the regular product of intelligence. Premise, no known mechanism other than intelligence has been shown to produce FCSI. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that FCSI is the product of intelligence until another mechanism is demonstrated. BTW, I like the term FCSI. It seems that a tighter definition than CSI is more effective in describing that intriguing phenomenon that is going on in life. Daniel King, "I’m curious: what do you mean by a “higher resolution copy”?" My understanding of RNA replicators is that they have a very high rate of copy errors. If the average copy is 80% like the original, but a new (evolved) RNA replicator was able to produce copies where the average copy was 90% like the original, I would refer to that as "higher resolution".bFast_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Rita start with this from 1998. Can you give me an example of an event that when conditions are right happens with certainty and an example of an event that when conditions are right does not happen with certainty? You don't believe in chance? Roll dice. If they are honest you will not know with certainty what the results will be.tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

it is merely a event which, when conditions are right, will happen with a certainty. Hence you would rule out design.
I would say that all events, designed or otherwise fulfill that criteria. Can you give me an example of an event that when conditions are right happens with certainty and an example of an event that when conditions are right does not happen with certainty?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Basically the method use to do this is taking tested means of determining design, applying them to DNA and having them come back as a yes answer.
Interesting. Where can I read about this analysis with regard to DNA? Now that DNA has been, according to what you say, identified as a designed artifact what next? What follows from that?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

It turns out it’s simply a natural event, similar in somce ways to Old Yeller, I'm still traumatized by that movie. :-)tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Rita-Have you never been told it’s rude to answer a question with a question? That was one of my points, Rita. Go and look at what I wrote to which you initially responded. When you get a chance, you ask your alien host about it. It turns out it’s simply a natural event, There is a conception held by many new to ID (or familiar with it via hostile sources) that it is about proving God. It's not. What it is, though, is showing that design is the best explanation, as of now, for life. Basically the method use to do this is taking tested means of determining design, applying them to DNA and having them come back as a yes answer. These methods include filters and probability calculations but also much, much more much of which relates to characteristics of information and design. Note: to accept ID you have to admit that design exists and has quantifiable characteristics. The best place for details is Dembski's Design Inference website, for which you can find a link at the top of the page. Now, with regard to your aliens, there are just three things things that can explain any event: chance, necessity (not nature), and design. With standard design searches, chance and necessity are filtered out before design is considered, so you would see this amazing thing and your alien guide would say it is merely a event which, when conditions are right, will happen with a certainty. Hence you would rule out design.tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Tribune7
Do designed objects have exclusive characteristics?
Tribune7, if you were transported to alien lands and left to wander round their high technology landscape, perhaps you would encounter a thing the like of why you had never seen. It amazes you, it's intriciate design, you can't to work out what it does but it's obviously doing something, all the lights and liquids moving about. When you get a chance, you ask your alien host about it. It turns out it's simply a natural event, similar in somce ways to Old Yeller, a regular geological event but being on a alien planet surrounded by alien artifacts you were unable to tell. Your "reference" points are missing. You say that your list of "exclusive characteristics of designed objects" would save you from making this mistake. How?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

tribune7, Have you never been told it's rude to answer a question with a question? Rather then start with the passive-aggressive stuff perhaps you could either a) Answer the question (links are fine) b) Ignore me. This board seems busy and so I don't see why you would take time out simply to gloat you know more then me. Move onto the substantial debate and ignore my ignorant questions already!RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Me--If no, how does one determine whether unfamiliar objects are designed? Rita--How do you determine that? Rita, how long have you been lurking on UD? One day? two days? What’s your methodology? OK, one day.tribune7_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next