Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#841  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:03 am

You're equivocating. In any event, GFL would not disagree with me. In that post, he is answering your question regarding why they are called molecular machines by some. I suggest that those who called it such are being less than completely rigorous, probably because they aren't accustomed to having their words twisted by dishonest, credulous people with a dishonest agenda such as yourself. It's much akin to physicists calling entropy 'disorder'. They expect to be better understood.

Anyhoo, as commonly understood, a machine is an artefact, by definition, while the flagellum evolved from an earlier system. Why you keep resting on the flagellum is, in fact, beyond me, because Behe's ignorant guff regarding it has been comprehensively nailed to the wall some time ago, especially the 'irreducible complexity' canard which, even if it were actually true, wouldn't constitute a problem for evolution, because irreducible complexity is a necessary outcome of evolution, as demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller some 50 years before Behe was even born.
Any molecular machine in any scientific publication is called a machine. And that's how it is. I didn't say that the authors actually believe flagellum was designed, but that they describe it as a machine.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#842  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:04 am

So now you are admitting that you are just here to quotemine, distort, and deliberately misunderstand so you can misrepresent. Picking cherries, your ass.

Good job, Tsar. You're finished now - you can go whenever you wish.
Only in the case of cherries.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#843  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:04 am

Hack is right about you equivocating here, if one were to define machines as arbitrary arrangements designed by humans to perform mechanical tasks by the manipulation of physical processes, then the flagellum et cetera would be analogous, because one could liken the natural structure that the flagellum is with human designed rotary motors in that they both manipulate forces in a particular way.

When I described flagella as machines, it was because they consist of parts and manipulate forces, the source of the arrangement and its origins are not implicit in the definition. Clear case of equivocation here and depending on how one defines machines both viewpoints are equally valid, there is no scope for disagreement here.
No. He is not right, and you are not right. You said clearly that the scientists called them machines. You specifically said that it's not an analogy, but that they really are machines. I didn't say that either you or those scientists think the flagellum is designed. Only that it can be described as a machine.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#844  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:05 am

Again you are evading the point, whether intentionally or by miscomprehension.

To posit design, you must posit intent. Design is defined by intent. Without intent, there is no design, only the appearance of design like sand blowing up against a wall and leaving a 'designed' slope, or a mammal taking a crap and leaving a 'designed' spiral.
I know that design means intent. I know that, you don't have to keep repeating that. But what you also have to understand is that I do not have to know what the intent was, in order to detect design in the first place. If I found a piece of paper on the street that had something written on it, I wouldn't know why the person that wrote that, did it. But I would certainly know it was designed.

Then, fundamentally, you are demanding that our language change to accomodate your belief. Unfortunately for you, that is not going to happen. You are now delving into the realm of pseudoscience. Design necessarily implies intent, when you say you see design, you are saying that you see realised intent.
Design is intent, but I do not have to know exactly what the intent was in order to detect design.

I am saying it again because it's like you have a blind spot here and just can't see where your argument leads.

But following your ill-defined position of inferring design, everything could be designed. It's a typical form of pseudoscience when all roads lead to Rome.
Wrong. According to my method, snowflakes were not designed.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#845  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:05 am

If you simplify as such, yes it is of the brain, but to associate it without difference as the same thing as any other natural process is explicitly showing similar illiteracy in reference to grouping physical processes with chemical processes.
What?
A thousand gratitudes for fucking proving what I just said according to your context. According to what you said for the umpteenth time, pay attention to my emphasised reiteration: atheism is true is grammatically the same as gawd does not exist is true i.e. your expression of atheism is god does not exist which is linguistically inaccurate. Your failure to realise this grammatical error is duly noted once again. Even in the common understanding of atheism it does NOT even express that someone does not believe in gawd, but that it is the absence of theistic belief. Note that it doesn`t concern an individual, it`s merely the bloody definition. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gawd. Repeating this bullshit at this juncture will just be dismissed for your lack of research.
Or you could just use your braind ans swithc the order of words and say that atheism is true means : “It is true that God does not exist“.

The term THUS (or therefore) is a sentence connector that mandates consistency by following the premise and subject thereof, but my explanation above similar to your variation is precisely pointing out that [the fact that a theist means a person who believes in gawd] is NOT consistent or does not follow (non sequitur) with the premise of the promotion or fancy of theocracy and whatnot. Albeit a fact that being a theist is to believe in gawd, it is an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) and I may go so far as to establish it as a red herring as this has prolonged long enough.
By promoting theism you a promoting a certain vorldview. And you are certainly promoting another worldview by promoting atheism. Ideas have consequences. If you promote the idea that there is no God, then by definition you promote the idea that there are no objective moral values, thus you are promoting moral relativism. By negating one idea, a different one automatically follows. If it's not night, then it's either noon, evening, morining or day.

In other words, your orgulous and vacuous assertion can be dismissed, as I requested a significant reference.
No, you can't dismiss it, becasue that's my definition.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#846  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:06 am

Tsar, you are a willfully ignorant cunt, because any biologist would understand what the implications of GRN's in development and evolution. And any biologist would understand that ID is not science. Grow up, and don't splatter your stinking intellectual diarrhea here.
Michael Behe is a biologist, he claims that ID is science, so that proves you wrong.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#847  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:06 am

ID = creationism. You both infer design and purpose because of your religious beliefs, not because it is scientific. So, by being an ID proponent, you are admittedly a creationist.
Based on what belief did I infer design?

Because people cannot fly like Superman! It is even dangerous to try.
How do you know they can't?

Ah, the fine-tuning argument. How many times has this been refuted? And still you push that one? The universe is not fine tuned for life. There is no evidence of fine tuning.
Universe supports life, therefore it's fine tuned for life to exist.

No, it is not a good starting position. Because there is no evidence for design. You do not postulate out of your arse. You postulate because you have some initial evidence, something that made you think of it. If you postulate design, you have to postulate a designer, you have to have some evidence of such an entity, a specific definition. You don't. There is no evidence for design or a designer.
You don't get science much, now do you? A starting point is a hypothesis. You don't need evidence to form a hypothesis. You need evidence to make a hypothesis into a theory. And since we can describe many features of the universe as engineerd, a design hypothesis is a good starting point.

For which you need a designer. Evidence please. As I said, you have absolutely no fucking evidence. Just a failed hypothesis.
No, I don't need a designer. Do you need a designer to infer that the Rosetta stone was designed?


Okay, I don't even know where to start on the above. There is no logical flaw in either one of the interpretations.
Yes there is. I explained it to you. Copenhagen interpretation breaks the law of causality, therefore it's illogical.

Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well.
My explanation is that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science, because it's unreasonable. And Copenhagen interpretatin is illogical, thus not science also.

Until we have more data to analyze and understand, both of the above interpretation stand.
None of them stand. One is illogical, the other has no evidence.

You do not understand science. Reading religious books and ID books is not going to help you understand reality.
No, you don't understand science. Reading Origin of species all day every day doesn't make you smart, or know science. Believen you came from a rock doesn't make you know science either.

Science presupposes math and logic to be true. If any hypothesis violates any of those two, it also scientifically invalid. That includes Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Have you observed your designer, design and create the universe?
We don't need to. We observed what intelligence can do. Therefore, we can invoke intelligence in science as an explanation.

The difference being, that we have evidence for teh multiple worlds interpretation. And, the two books above are written by real scientists, and not ID crackpots.
What evidence?

Really? How do you infer design form the eye? I know that other members more qualified in biology than I am, have already educated you in the above. However you refuse to see it. Oh, and I have read a couple of papers on organisms that have only a photosensitive cell as "eyes".
I just told you. We have no natural laws to account for the eye. The eye can be described as a photo sensitive lense, and it's too improbable to have come about by chance. Thus we can reasonably infer design.

So, if your designer exists, he definitely is an incompetent fool. So, you agree on that point with me.
No, becasue I don't know his intentions.

Yes, when there is evidence for design. So, since humans by your own admission are "badly designed" then your supposed designer is an incompetent fool.
Or he has a good sense of humor.

1. There is no evidence for design, just your belief for it. And I am quoting you here:
There isn't any actual evidence that the whole universe was designed. I would never say that there is, since we have no method to show us that. But there are evidence for design in other places, like the flagellum.

2. If there is a designer, he has badly designed humans, therefore he is an incompetent fool.
Or he is making jokes.

Am I right or am I right?
Could very well be, but I don't know the designer's intent, so I can't say.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#848  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:07 am

This wibble will get you nowhere. Everyone here knows where ID came from, who set it up and for what purpose.

You only avoid naming the designer in order to try and sneak religious bullshit into public schools. ID is creationism and no amount of lying or obfuscation is going to change this elementary fact.

You took a pig, dressed it up in a labcoat and told it to shut up about where it came from. GJ, but it's still a pig. Deal with it
And if that's true, you will have no problem deriving a creation story from the main postulates of ID. I'm waiting.

What an infantile comment. We aren't here to pick cherries, we are discussing why ID doesn't qualify as science. You have effectively demonstrated that it is unfalsifiable and that any discovery would be consistent with a design claim and no amount of banana plucking is going to chance that fact.
Wrong. Snowfalkes are not designed. Design can be falsified.

Oh let's see... how about your TOTAL FAILURE in understanding the relationship in the whole DNA -> mRNA -> Protein translation process. How about the fact that you didn't know the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus? How about the fact that procaryotes don't even have a cell nucleus?
And based on what evidence do you claim that I didn't know any of those?

Your attempt to equivocate a sequence independent process (mRNA Capping by GTP) to a sequence-dependent process in a single transport protein, RanGTP.
What followed was a textbook example in discoursive dishonesty, when you attempted to lie your way out of the fact that you COLOSALLY failed to comprehend the litterature you yourself first presented, and I later had to explicitly educate you on, resulting in you hilariously pretending you knew all along.
You asked me for an example where somethign could lose it's ability to bind to GTP, I provided you with that, and equivocated nothing.

Or how about your complete inability to comprehend the fact that evolution has been duplicating, mutating and shuffling functional domains(folds, reducible to patterns of polarity) ever since their origin, massively deflating the size of your strawman caricature of sequence space and the probability of evolving said functional folds?
You have been conveniently ignoring these statements in the paper for about 25 pages of this thread now.
Urgh... Evolution doing all that doesn't do anything for the sequence space! Please learn the language of probability theory.

All the fucking papers and articles on what GTP is and how it relates to mRNA, not proteins, and the papers on protein sequence space I presented to you, including the fact that the totality of your response to the Schneider Lab links and critique of Dembski's bullshit presented therein consisted of you saying "It's all wrong". That was it, that was your response.
No, I explicitly stated every single time why your articles were false.

Dembski even tried to address Schneider's critique by making testable claims about Schneider's work, which Schneider subsequently PUT TO AN EMPIRICAL TEST AND THEREFORE UNDENIABLY, PRACTICALLY REFUTED.
Show me where.

Every time we have presented articles by scientists working in the fields of information theory and computational evolution, that show problems for your probabilistic model and Demski's horribly mangled useage of their work, you have pretty much responded that "you aren't arguing with them, you are arguing with us".
Show me those articles. And CITE the relevant parts that refute my claims.

I read your posts and came to the same conclusion. Heck, when you simply INVENTED an explanation for the evolutionary development of function demonstrated in the Hyashi paper GFL provided, you effectively lost the debate. When asked for evidence to support your claim, all you could come up with was "I inferred it" and a link to the the wikipedia article on genetic redundancy.
Asking for evidence in support of your claim was simply ignored thereafter. Plain, totally ignored.
Behe's paper that you linked actually explains that pretty well. Only when certain genes are deleted can they be evolved again. Not in any other case. Therefore, it is a case of genetic redundancy.


And let's not even get into your attempt at dodging the evidence in support of common descent. When GFL presented you with papers demonstrated the validity of the common descent by submitting the genetic data to a statistical test, your responses was "statistics can't prove common descent".
That's funny when one considers that you are effectively trying to use statistics to refute it.
Wrong. It's true that statistics can't prove common descent. How could they? What I'm showing you, is not evidence agains common descent, but evidence agains a particular mechanism that is said to have produced common descent.

I think the underlying problem is that you have no fucking clue what the statistical test consisted of and how it demonstrates the validity of the evolutionary postulate. You can of course impress the HELL out of me by going back through the thread, find the paper with the statistical test GFL provided and demonstrate in precise scientific and mathematically rigorous terms, why your probabilistic model of evolution is correct while the statistical weighing of probabilites presented in the test is not.
The test is meaningless. There is no possibility to statistically test for common descent. The whole concept is flawed.

Funny how you are the guy who constantly reverts to claiming someone believes humans came from rocks. You are the one who brought it up. Rarely do I argue with someone this scared of natural origins.
I'm simply saying it becasue it's true. You believe that, don't you?

But you ARE equivocating them, constantly. Your fear of a natural origins explanation is knocking on the door everywhere we look. Grow up and get over it.
Combination is not equivocation.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#849  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:08 am

You missed the step before i.e. the step whereby the designer decides the fitness function and thus sets a goal or, with evolutionary model, where the environment has been formed without agency.
I DID NOT MISS ANY STEPS! LEARN TO READ! CAN YOU SPEAK ENGLISH!!?!?!?!?

PART 2 – THE FITNESS FUNCTION

In case of the computer search, this is the part where the designer sets up the fitness function to select some sequences over others.

In case of natural evolution, the nature itself and it's properties decide which DNA sequence gets selected over others.


THERE
ARE
NO
MISSING
STEPS!!!!!!!!!!

THEY
ARE
TWO
IDENTICAL
LISTS

NOW POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE OR SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!!!

Using the example of the salinity of the sea then it is either a) the designer sets the salinity by causing salt content of the water or, b) the salt content of the water is not a goal but a result of what salts are available from rocks.
And what's the physical difference in these two processes?

Goal in the English language very strongly implies agency, pre-planning, pre-definition and so on. What happens with natural selection is not equivalent to a computer search because of this pre-definition of goal by an agent.
So basicly you are saying that there is no difference except semantics? What is the PHYSICAL difference?

Then we are at an impasse because you call it a goal which implies agency. In your argument you thus hope to sway the view towards agency.
No, I want to show you that both processes are PHYSICALLY IDENTICAL.

Then you should be able to show me how easy this is given we have "Mount Rushmore". You should be able to explain exactly what the "information" is.
The faces of the people is teh information.

Equally your formula should be able to trivially show how to measure the information with napped flints. I think this would be very helpful to the people who study prehistory to allow them to quickly sort naturally occurring artefacts from man-made ones.
Yup, it would do wonders.

Bingo - that is the problem that these archaeology people have. By cut marks in animal bones and by the presence of discarded napped flints its clear that sharp stone edges were used on animals and that these would crafted but you seem to have discovered some way of readily identifying design from random for these researchers. I imagine that they would be interested if your algorithms were trustworthy.
How do you know that all those items were not there simply by chance?

Very easy to answer this - SETI doesn't presume a designer for each anomalous signal but stringently re-checks and has so far discarded all to date. They err on the side of caution.
Neither does ID. Does ID claim that EVERYTHING is designed?

Intelligent Design supporters have a designer in mind and stick it onto selective biological features and then argue like crazy and refuse to accept the consensus view that they are doing it wrong. They presume agency and so do not err on the side of caution.
Wrong. ID proponents don't presume a designer also. Which designer am I presuming?

Wrong - if one person does something and everyone can't reproduce this are you then saying that the majority view is irrelevant ? That's stupid.
If they can't reproduce it then that's a different story. I said that majority OPINION is irrelevant, not majority EXPERIMENTS. Learn the difference.

Trees are found in nature - not "wood" and the difference is that wood is processed by an agent with a purpose. Ore is found in nature - very rarely free "metal". Metal is ore that is processed for a purpose.

Bacteria flagellum do not use "processed" materials but materials that are commonly found in nature.
Proteins that make the bacterial flagellum are no found in nature, except in living organisms. And what if I had a table from unprocessed wood and iron?

Graphite is chemical related to diamond - the physics of the presentation also matters. With Mount Rushmore then the issue is that the National Parks Service says that the "granite was very resistant, eroding one inch every 10,000 years." thus we look at how the surface has weathered and we see that the natural wearing deviates. Thus the probability is there is a design.
Maybe it formed faces by chance?

Why are you continually bringing up an example that everyone says is designed and has clear marks of design i.e. no one says that Mount Rushmore is natural ? If anyone said Mount Rushmore was naturally occurring then it is easy to show the abnormalities - scree that as been blasted off by explosive shocks, and a surface finish that is wrong for the time periods.
Becasue I want to show you teh features of designed objects and how do we tell them from non-designed ones.


So there are better designs such that if the Intelligent Designer spent a bit more time they could have done better ?
I could say so.

I think we've already had fun with that - when I throw a 6 sided die with my eyes closed then it comes up with a "1" and you thus say that was "design".
The chances of any number coming up by cahnce is 1:1. But as I said earlier some sequences are more prevalent then others, thus are more probable than others.

But it is explained by natural selection. Once again you have latched onto the word "chance" as tightly as you have the word "goal".
Bit if it did evolve by chance and natural selection then you are invoking an algorithm, and the NFL theorem clearly states that algorithms don't produce any new information except which random chance could. So you are displacing the problem to a higher order search.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#850  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 11:09 am

How come ID isn´t creationist?
It has no affiliation with any relgiion.

It looks creationism to me.
Well you're wrong.

And how do you explain the paradox of saying "this is better explained by an inteligence". It's a paradox because something inteligent in the origin of something requires an explanation. And What is that explanation? Or is it explaining away things?
That's what it looks to me.
It does not. If it did science would break down. We do not need an explanation of the explanation to explain something. We can explain artefacts in the ground that archeologists found without needing to explain where the people who made those artefacts came from.

We can explain what atoms are made of without needing to explain what the things that mae the atom are made of. If we did have to give an explanation right away, it would cause an infinite regress. So basicly, we could not posit the string theory to be an explanation for anything since we have no explanation where the strings come from.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#851  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 12:35 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
ID = creationism. You both infer design and purpose because of your religious beliefs, not because it is scientific. So, by being an ID proponent, you are admittedly a creationist.
Based on what belief did I infer design?


That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.

Царь Славян wrote:
Because people cannot fly like Superman! It is even dangerous to try.
How do you know they can't?


Well then., why don't you go on a terrace 10 storeys up and jump down and try to fly like Superman. It is a certain bet that you will end up as soup on the pavement... The human body does not have the physical characteristics needed for flight.

Царь Славян wrote:
Ah, the fine-tuning argument. How many times has this been refuted? And still you push that one? The universe is not fine tuned for life. There is no evidence of fine tuning.
Universe supports life, therefore it's fine tuned for life to exist.


Wrong. We have made antimatter, in fact an anti-hydrogen atom, and by your logic since people made that then the universe is fine-tuned to have antimatter atoms as well. Can you see the fault in your argument? The fact that the Universe supports life, just means that it has the capability given certain conditions to have life. If the universe was fine-tuned, then life would be everywhere, even on the Sun or on Jupiter, or on Mars. Is there such evidence? No, not at all.

That the universe is fine-tuned for life is another religious belief. In fact, every scientist that believes the fine-tuning argument, is some kind of theist/deist. And it is just belief and nothing more.

Царь Славян wrote:
No, it is not a good starting position. Because there is no evidence for design. You do not postulate out of your arse. You postulate because you have some initial evidence, something that made you think of it. If you postulate design, you have to postulate a designer, you have to have some evidence of such an entity, a specific definition. You don't. There is no evidence for design or a designer.
You don't get science much, now do you? A starting point is a hypothesis. You don't need evidence to form a hypothesis. You need evidence to make a hypothesis into a theory. And since we can describe many features of the universe as engineerd, a design hypothesis is a good starting point.


On the contrary, it is you who does not get science. Even the most strange hypothesis have had a basis in some observed phenomenon or something. Can you think of any hypothesis that is not based on some phenomenon, on some data, on a belief, on something? In order for a new hypothesis to arise, there is always something in the back that made people think of it. Even creationism as a hypothesis, has its basis on the Bible, even though we know that it is a totally failed hypothesis. And by creationism, I include ID.

Царь Славян wrote:
For which you need a designer. Evidence please. As I said, you have absolutely no fucking evidence. Just a failed hypothesis.
No, I don't need a designer. Do you need a designer to infer that the Rosetta stone was designed?


The Rosetta stone, though, has specific writing on it. Hieroglyphics, and a lot more, which could be compared with other writings, ways that it was done, and other similar examples. Do not confuse man-made artifacts with your proposed "design". They are different, in the fact that while the Rosetta stone was man-made, your design hypothesis fails in all its tests.

Царь Славян wrote:

Okay, I don't even know where to start on the above. There is no logical flaw in either one of the interpretations.
Yes there is. I explained it to you. Copenhagen interpretation breaks the law of causality, therefore it's illogical.


Oh, and are you a physicist? The Copenhagen interpretation does not break the laws of causality. And I showed you superposition in a big object. Now, if you do not want to accept the evidence, I cannot help you. Look up Feynman path integrals as well. True there is still a lot to research, and learn, but not by postulating a designer hypothesis which is not falsifiable. A

Царь Славян wrote:
Both can explain and predict various phenomena quite well.
My explanation is that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe 5 minutes ago in this very state including all our memories of past events. Can you name one observation that my explanation does not explain? No, you can't. But that explanation is not science, because it's unreasonable. And Copenhagen interpretatin is illogical, thus not science also.


Well, evidence, paper and go get the Nobel prize then. Since you are smarter than all those physicists like Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac, etc. go and do some proper research and publish your results. I will be waiting for you to get the Nobel prize by showing that the Copenhagen interpretation is illogical, and not science. Go, then, and do not lose time with atheists that "don't get" science. Since you get science, go and do science.

Царь Славян wrote:
Until we have more data to analyze and understand, both of the above interpretation stand.
None of them stand. One is illogical, the other has no evidence.


Yeah, Czar, you convinced me. I now bow down to your superior intellect. :P

Царь Славян wrote:
You do not understand science. Reading religious books and ID books is not going to help you understand reality.
No, you don't understand science. Reading Origin of species all day every day doesn't make you smart, or know science. Believen you came from a rock doesn't make you know science either.

Science presupposes math and logic to be true. If any hypothesis violates any of those two, it also scientifically invalid. That includes Copenhagen interpretation of QM.


Maths and logic are tools of science mostly. Maths is also science, but it is different in that you can see mathematically even things that do not exist. For example, you can model a fairy's wings mathematically. If you would spent a bit more actually learning about the Copenhagen interpretation, you would see that it is not illogical as such. it is where the equations and data has led us. What is your explanation of the double slit experiment then? Both the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation explain what happens very well.


Царь Славян wrote:
Have you observed your designer, design and create the universe?
We don't need to. We observed what intelligence can do. Therefore, we can invoke intelligence in science as an explanation.


When there is evidence of such intelligence. But ID has failed in that, and other people have explained it to you.

Царь Славян wrote:
The difference being, that we have evidence for teh multiple worlds interpretation. And, the two books above are written by real scientists, and not ID crackpots.
What evidence?


:what: :whine: :whine: :whine: :whine: :what: :what: :what: :what: :whine: :whine: :whine:

Царь Славян wrote:
Really? How do you infer design form the eye? I know that other members more qualified in biology than I am, have already educated you in the above. However you refuse to see it. Oh, and I have read a couple of papers on organisms that have only a photosensitive cell as "eyes".
I just told you. We have no natural laws to account for the eye. The eye can be described as a photo sensitive lense, and it's too improbable to have come about by chance. Thus we can reasonably infer design.


Other people have tried to educate you on this point, but it seems that you are set in your beliefs and no matter what the evidence you will not accept it. One question; what would make you accept the fact that ID is not science, and that there is no designer?

Царь Славян wrote:
So, if your designer exists, he definitely is an incompetent fool. So, you agree on that point with me.
No, becasue I don't know his intentions.


Well, we do know evolution's intentions if I may call that. Survival of a species. A species to survive, even in a changing environment.

Царь Славян wrote:
Yes, when there is evidence for design. So, since humans by your own admission are "badly designed" then your supposed designer is an incompetent fool.
Or he has a good sense of humor.


I will get to that in point 2.

Царь Славян wrote:
1. There is no evidence for design, just your belief for it. And I am quoting you here:
There isn't any actual evidence that the whole universe was designed. I would never say that there is, since we have no method to show us that. But there are evidence for design in other places, like the flagellum.


Fucking hell! how many times are people going to show you the evidence that the flagellum and the eye are not designed?

Царь Славян wrote:
2. If there is a designer, he has badly designed humans, therefore he is an incompetent fool.
Or he is making jokes.


If he is making jokes or has a sense of humour, then he is a sadistic bastard, having fun at the expense of other people's pain. Have you ever lost someone to cancer? have you heard them cry out in pain, even with the maximum dose of morphine? Has your heart been broken in a thousand pieces by listening to such cries? And knowing that you fucking can do absolutely nothing to help? Is that your fucking designer? A sadistic bastard? is that whom you worship? Someone who laughs when others are in pain?

Царь Славян wrote:
Am I right or am I right?
Could very well be, but I don't know the designer's intent, so I can't say.


You don't know his intent because your designer does not exist. You believe in a failed hypothesis, one without a shred of evidence.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN OR FINE-TUNING. JUST BECAUSE LIFE AROSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED!
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 49
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#852  Postby Rumraket » Jan 22, 2011 12:41 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
This wibble will get you nowhere. Everyone here knows where ID came from, who set it up and for what purpose.

You only avoid naming the designer in order to try and sneak religious bullshit into public schools. ID is creationism and no amount of lying or obfuscation is going to change this elementary fact.

You took a pig, dressed it up in a labcoat and told it to shut up about where it came from. GJ, but it's still a pig. Deal with it
And if that's true, you will have no problem deriving a creation story from the main postulates of ID. I'm waiting.

Same shit all over again. It's like you pick out a single sentence and ignore the rest. ID is a cheap trick to avoid the first amendment to the constitution, so you can sneak religious bullshit into public school. You intentionally avoid naming the designer in order to achieve this goal. Problem is, this tactic was exposed ages ago and it's not going to work. You aren't fooling anyone.

What an infantile comment. We aren't here to pick cherries, we are discussing why ID doesn't qualify as science. You have effectively demonstrated that it is unfalsifiable and that any discovery would be consistent with a design claim and no amount of banana plucking is going to chance that fact.
Wrong. Snowfalkes are not designed. Design can be falsified.

You don't know if an invisible designer designed snowflakes. A supernatural designer. An extremely technologically superior designer we don't currently know how to detect might be doing the design. Any observation is compatible with a design claim and therefore unfalsifiable. Deal with it.

Oh let's see... how about your TOTAL FAILURE in understanding the relationship in the whole DNA -> mRNA -> Protein translation process. How about the fact that you didn't know the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus? How about the fact that procaryotes don't even have a cell nucleus?
And based on what evidence do you claim that I didn't know any of those?

Your fucking idiotic claim that "proteins need to bind to gtp to leave the nucleus" is a manifest demonstration of this total lack of knowledge you suffered from. I'm just happy I could contribute a little to your education.

Your attempt to equivocate a sequence independent process (mRNA Capping by GTP) to a sequence-dependent process in a single transport protein, RanGTP.
What followed was a textbook example in discoursive dishonesty, when you attempted to lie your way out of the fact that you COLOSALLY failed to comprehend the litterature you yourself first presented, and I later had to explicitly educate you on, resulting in you hilariously pretending you knew all along.
You asked me for an example where somethign could lose it's ability to bind to GTP, I provided you with that, and equivocated nothing.

No, I asked you for evidence that ALL proteins need to bind to GTP to be considered functional. The paper you provided was a demonstration of your failure to understand the relationship between GTP, mRNA and proteins.
Your subsequent attempt at obfuscation further exposed your lack of knowledge that the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus.

Or how about your complete inability to comprehend the fact that evolution has been duplicating, mutating and shuffling functional domains(folds, reducible to patterns of polarity) ever since their origin, massively deflating the size of your strawman caricature of sequence space and the probability of evolving said functional folds?
You have been conveniently ignoring these statements in the paper for about 25 pages of this thread now.
Urgh... Evolution doing all that doesn't do anything for the sequence space! Please learn the language of probability theory.

How about YOU learn the fucking language of probability theory, and supply it with a fucking proper understanding of evolutionary genetics?

All the fucking papers and articles on what GTP is and how it relates to mRNA, not proteins, and the papers on protein sequence space I presented to you, including the fact that the totality of your response to the Schneider Lab links and critique of Dembski's bullshit presented therein consisted of you saying "It's all wrong". That was it, that was your response.
No, I explicitly stated every single time why your articles were false.

A straight out fucking lie.

Dembski even tried to address Schneider's critique by making testable claims about Schneider's work, which Schneider subsequently PUT TO AN EMPIRICAL TEST AND THEREFORE UNDENIABLY, PRACTICALLY REFUTED.
Show me where.

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html

Read it and weep.

Every time we have presented articles by scientists working in the fields of information theory and computational evolution, that show problems for your probabilistic model and Demski's horribly mangled useage of their work, you have pretty much responded that "you aren't arguing with them, you are arguing with us".
Show me those articles. And CITE the relevant parts that refute my claims.

You can start here : http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/
All of it is relevant. Deal with it.

I read your posts and came to the same conclusion. Heck, when you simply INVENTED an explanation for the evolutionary development of function demonstrated in the Hyashi paper GFL provided, you effectively lost the debate. When asked for evidence to support your claim, all you could come up with was "I inferred it" and a link to the the wikipedia article on genetic redundancy.
Asking for evidence in support of your claim was simply ignored thereafter. Plain, totally ignored.
Behe's paper that you linked actually explains that pretty well. Only when certain genes are deleted can they be evolved again. Not in any other case. Therefore, it is a case of genetic redundancy.

Blind assertion.
We all await the evidence.

And let's not even get into your attempt at dodging the evidence in support of common descent. When GFL presented you with papers demonstrated the validity of the common descent by submitting the genetic data to a statistical test, your responses was "statistics can't prove common descent".
That's funny when one considers that you are effectively trying to use statistics to refute it.
Wrong. It's true that statistics can't prove common descent. How could they? What I'm showing you, is not evidence agains common descent, but evidence agains a particular mechanism that is said to have produced common descent.

I think the underlying problem is that you have no fucking clue what the statistical test consisted of and how it demonstrates the validity of the evolutionary postulate. You can of course impress the HELL out of me by going back through the thread, find the paper with the statistical test GFL provided and demonstrate in precise scientific and mathematically rigorous terms, why your probabilistic model of evolution is correct while the statistical weighing of probabilites presented in the test is not.
The test is meaningless. There is no possibility to statistically test for common descent. The whole concept is flawed.

We could ask ourselves "What is the probability that the genomes of extant life would fall on a hierarchical tree of life?"
For example, Human are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and Humans are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Gorillas. Etc. etc.
So we look at the sequenced genomes for a line of organisms we postulate are related by common descend in a specific order, and we calculate the probability that their genomes sequences should happen to randomly align with this postulated tree of life. We go on and do this for every genome of every organism we have sequenced, and we happen to find that their genomes fall exactly as expected on this postulated evolutionary this tree of life we derived from comparative anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, embryology and paleontology.

What are the fucking odds that the genomes of every organism we sequence, should happen to fall in perfectly with the predicted evolutionary tree of life? Incomprehensibly infinitesimal. (Go back and find the fucking paper if you want the actual numbers, I can't be bothered doing all your work for you).

There it is, the statistical test that demonstrates common descent. Evolution happened. GET OVER IT.

** I should add here that the actual statistical test is a little more complicated than the way I have explained it. They also compared the accepted evolutionary model with different scenarios like multiple independent origins with convergent evolution etc.
Read the actual paper.

Funny how you are the guy who constantly reverts to claiming someone believes humans came from rocks. You are the one who brought it up. Rarely do I argue with someone this scared of natural origins.
I'm simply saying it becasue it's true. You believe that, don't you?

No, I don't belive people came from rocks. I don't know how life began, but I have never even seen a hypothesis that suggests people sprang out of rocks.

I HAVE seen people claim that a magic space wizard made it out of dust by wishing it into existence. I laughed alot when I heard it.

But you ARE equivocating them, constantly. Your fear of a natural origins explanation is knocking on the door everywhere we look. Grow up and get over it.
Combination is not equivocation.

Combination? Please elaborate...
Luscious and blue cloaked in clouds the Earth spins it's way through a universe of dimensions and splendour utterly beyond comprehension.
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12865
Age: 37

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#853  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 22, 2011 1:13 pm

Behe's paper that you linked actually explains that pretty well. Only when certain genes are deleted can they be evolved again. Not in any other case. Therefore, it is a case of genetic redundancy.


Fucking nonsense, genetic redundancy is not genes being deleted and then evolving again, it is the loss of a gene not affecting the phenotype because there are alternative genes in the same genome. And in the Hayashi paper there was no deletion, there was replacement, firstly, secondly, there was a severe drop in fitness, redundancy doesn't result in loss of fitness, thirdly, thirdly, you are again fucking lying because, if it were a case of redundancy another gene would produce the normal protein, the Hayashi experiment involved replacement with a randomized sequence within a gene, and the fact that they observed adaptive mutations leading to gain of function in the replacement region puts to bed any assertions of a redundant coat protein, in which case one wouldn't have seen the sequence climbing up a fitness peak, but would have caused it to drift randomly.
Last edited by GenesForLife on Jan 22, 2011 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2918
Age: 29
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#854  Postby Rumraket » Jan 22, 2011 1:17 pm

So not only was he comitting the fallacy of arguing from blind assertion, he also managed to further demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of genetics.

This is so hilarious :rofl:
Luscious and blue cloaked in clouds the Earth spins it's way through a universe of dimensions and splendour utterly beyond comprehension.
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12865
Age: 37

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#855  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 22, 2011 1:23 pm

Rumraket wrote:So not only was he comitting the fallacy of arguing from blind assertion, he also managed to further demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of genetics.

This is so hilarious :rofl:


Well, he also has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of physics...
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 49
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#856  Postby Viraldi » Jan 22, 2011 1:32 pm

Darkchilde wrote:
Rumraket wrote:So not only was he comitting the fallacy of arguing from blind assertion, he also managed to further demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of genetics.

This is so hilarious. :rofl:

Well, he also has demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of physics...

...and atheism, possibly the simplest topic to understand on here.
AE wrote:“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
User avatar
Viraldi
 
Posts: 722
Age: 25

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#857  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 2:27 pm

That there is a designer god. ID is hiding the word god behind the word designer, but everyone knows that it is just smokescreen.
Feel free to demonstrate that. While you're failing, I'll point you to this article, which is the basis for design inference. Please feel free to point out where is GOD mentioned in this particular paper.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... cation.pdf

Well then., why don't you go on a terrace 10 storeys up and jump down and try to fly like Superman. It is a certain bet that you will end up as soup on the pavement... The human body does not have the physical characteristics needed for flight.
I'm not claiming that I can fly, but maybe others can.

Wrong. We have made antimatter, in fact an anti-hydrogen atom, and by your logic since people made that then the universe is fine-tuned to have antimatter atoms as well. Can you see the fault in your argument?
Actually no, it's correct. If something like anti-matter can exist in this universe, then yes, teh universe is fine-tuned for that to exist.

The fact that the Universe supports life, just means that it has the capability given certain conditions to have life.
Yes, in other words, fine-tuned for life to exist. I never said fine tuned for life to be EVERYWHERE. Just fine tuned for life to exist in the first place.

If the universe was fine-tuned, then life would be everywhere, even on the Sun or on Jupiter, or on Mars. Is there such evidence? No, not at all.
Exist, not be everywhere. I said exist.

That the universe is fine-tuned for life is another religious belief. In fact, every scientist that believes the fine-tuning argument, is some kind of theist/deist. And it is just belief and nothing more.
No, what's a religious belief is that people come from rocks.

On the contrary, it is you who does not get science. Even the most strange hypothesis have had a basis in some observed phenomenon or something. Can you think of any hypothesis that is not based on some phenomenon, on some data, on a belief, on something? In order for a new hypothesis to arise, there is always something in the back that made people think of it. Even creationism as a hypothesis, has its basis on the Bible, even though we know that it is a totally failed hypothesis. And by creationism, I include ID.
Observed phenomena are not the same as evidence. Evidence are observations that support a particular hypothesis.

The Rosetta stone, though, has specific writing on it. Hieroglyphics, and a lot more, which could be compared with other writings, ways that it was done, and other similar examples. Do not confuse man-made artifacts with your proposed "design". They are different, in the fact that while the Rosetta stone was man-made, your design hypothesis fails in all its tests.
Answer the question please. Do you need to see someone design the Rosetta stone, to actually infer design of the Rosetta stone?

Oh, and are you a physicist?
Does it matter?

The Copenhagen interpretation does not break the laws of causality.
Yes it does. There is no clear line between cause and effect, and events are calculated probabilistically. It is claimed that we can not know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. It's either one or the other. And that is because it's indeterminate untill we measure it. Thus there is no standard cause and effect as we know it. Thus, it is illogical.

And I showed you superposition in a big object. Now, if you do not want to accept the evidence, I cannot help you.
The link is currently unavailable.

Look up Feynman path integrals as well. True there is still a lot to research, and learn, but not by postulating a designer hypothesis which is not falsifiable. A
How do you know it's unfalsifiable?

Well, evidence, paper and go get the Nobel prize then. Since you are smarter than all those physicists like Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac, etc. go and do some proper research and publish your results. I will be waiting for you to get the Nobel prize by showing that the Copenhagen interpretation is illogical, and not science. Go, then, and do not lose time with atheists that "don't get" science. Since you get science, go and do science.
I don't have to do that in order to claim that it's not science. Why should I go through all the trouble just to say what I already know?

Maths and logic are tools of science mostly.
Yes, and also they are a higher abstraction tools than science. And science can not violate neither math nor logic.

Maths is also science, but it is different in that you can see mathematically even things that do not exist. For example, you can model a fairy's wings mathematically. If you would spent a bit more actually learning about the Copenhagen interpretation, you would see that it is not illogical as such. it is where the equations and data has led us. What is your explanation of the double slit experiment then?
The equations of QM are fine. I never said that they are false. It's the Copenhagen interpretation that is false, because it claims that there is no clear line between cause and effect. My interpretation of the double slit experiment is simple. The EM radiation is passing through the both slits and thus is causing disturbance in the aether.

Both the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation explain what happens very well.
So does my invisible pink unicorn theory.

When there is evidence of such intelligence. But ID has failed in that, and other people have explained it to you.
Intelligence exists. We don't have to find a particular intelligent agent for every designed artefact we find. If we did, then we would also have to find the person who made the Rosetta stone to infer that it was designed.

Other people have tried to educate you on this point, but it seems that you are set in your beliefs and no matter what the evidence you will not accept it. One question; what would make you accept the fact that ID is not science, and that there is no designer?
That it's not science? You would have to show me that ID is not falsifiable.

Well, we do know evolution's intentions if I may call that. Survival of a species. A species to survive, even in a changing environment.
Yeeeey! Good for you!

Fucking hell! how many times are people going to show you the evidence that the flagellum and the eye are not designed?
Nobody ever did. Would you be the first?

If he is making jokes or has a sense of humour, then he is a sadistic bastard, having fun at the expense of other people's pain. Have you ever lost someone to cancer? have you heard them cry out in pain, even with the maximum dose of morphine? Has your heart been broken in a thousand pieces by listening to such cries? And knowing that you fucking can do absolutely nothing to help? Is that your fucking designer? A sadistic bastard? is that whom you worship? Someone who laughs when others are in pain?
LOL! Now that's funny! :D

You don't know his intent because your designer does not exist. You believe in a failed hypothesis, one without a shred of evidence.
Non sequitur maybe?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN OR FINE-TUNING. JUST BECAUSE LIFE AROSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED!
I disagree.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#858  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 2:28 pm

Same shit all over again. It's like you pick out a single sentence and ignore the rest. ID is a cheap trick to avoid the first amendment to the constitution, so you can sneak religious bullshit into public school. You intentionally avoid naming the designer in order to achieve this goal. Problem is, this tactic was exposed ages ago and it's not going to work. You aren't fooling anyone.
Then please do what I asked you to do.

You don't know if an invisible designer designed snowflakes. A supernatural designer. An extremely technologically superior designer we don't currently know how to detect might be doing the design. Any observation is compatible with a design claim and therefore unfalsifiable. Deal with it.
Exactly I DO NOT KNOW that. And precisely therefore, I DO NOT INFER design.

It's called the design INFERENCE, not design PROOF.

If you actually spent a second researching ID claims you would have known that, but you didn't, so you are clueless about a SCIENTIFIC THEORY you are criticisig.

The point of teh design INFERENCE is to present a REASON to INFER design. Get it? What we need to have, is a method that would give us reason to call a particular object designed. If using our method the results come in negative, as in, there is no reason to call an object designed, then we do not infer design.

Yes, an invisible pink unicorn could have still designed it. But then again, an invisible pink unicorn can do anything. But since we have no reason to ascribe anything to an invisible pink unicorn, we don't do it.

The same with design inference, if we have reason to infer design, we infer it, if we don't then we don't. And that there makes ID scientific because it can be falsified, namely there can be presented some observations that would give us reason to say that an object could be accounted for with something else.

Your fucking idiotic claim that "proteins need to bind to gtp to leave the nucleus" is a manifest demonstration of this total lack of knowledge you suffered from. I'm just happy I could contribute a little to your education.
Not proteins but RNA. And that's true in eukaryotes.

No, I asked you for evidence that ALL proteins need to bind to GTP to be considered functional. The paper you provided was a demonstration of your failure to understand the relationship between GTP, mRNA and proteins.
Your subsequent attempt at obfuscation further exposed your lack of knowledge that the Ribosome was found outside the cell nucleus.
I presented you what I considered relevant. If you disagree, then that's your porblem.

How about YOU learn the fucking language of probability theory, and supply it with a fucking proper understanding of evolutionary genetics?
I already know it, otherwise I wouldn't be telling you to learn it.

A straight out fucking lie.
Nope, and I'll do it again.

Okay, here we go again. For everyone to see. Point by point.

The ev program was modified from version 3.67 to version 3.69 so that there is a new parameter that allows one to select between the three possible methods for handling ties. The program will automatically upgrade older versions of the parameter file (evp) by adding this parameter.
Again, the same thing, he modifies teh special rule to be a new parameter, so still fine tuning the fitness function to produce a goal. This is still the place where teh intelligent agent introduces information into the program.

The ev paper did not make this claim since the phrase "complex specified information" was not used. It is unclear what this means. Shannon used the term "information" in a precise mathematical sense and that is what I use. I will assume that the extra words "complex specified" are jargon that can be dispensed with. Indeed, William A. Dembski assumes that information is specified complexity, so the term is redundant and can be removed.
This is why it's painfull to read what this guy writes. He doesn't even know what Specified Complexity is, and thinks that it's just a bunch of redundant words.

This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper. The phrase 'for free' does not appear in the paper. The claim in the ev paper is that the information appears under replication, mutation and selection, commonly known as 'evolution'. It is not for free! Half of the population DIES every generation! In the standard example given in the paper, to gain 4 bits required the (virtual) deaths of some 32 organisms x 704 generations = 22528 deaths. On average that's 22528/4 = 5632 deaths per bit. Note that theoretically one could get 1 bit of information with only 1 binary decision. So the evolution is, not surprisingly, a rather inefficient information generating mechanism. No biologist has ever claimed any differently!
Note that "from scratch" does not mean the same thing as "for free". "From scratch" refers (obviously) to the initial condition of the genome which is random in this case so that Rsequence = 0 bits. That is, there is no measurable information in the binding sites at the beginning of the simulation. "For free" would mean "without effort", and the paragraph above demonstrates that there is quite a bit of effort and (virtual) pain for the gains observed.
For free of from scratch is irrelevant. A better and more precise statement would be, that Schneider claims to get more information from his program than random chance would produce in the same period.

The No Free Lunch theorems are not relevant to the problem, so Dembski is using misdirection. Indeed this is obvious from inspection of the ev program and its results: it works as claimed. A careful worker would not make this mistake because they would take the time to understand the theorem before citing it.
The NFL theorems are relevant to the problem since we are dealing with algorithms here. And the NFL theorems claim that no algorithm outperforms any other averaged over all fitness functions. The reason for that is that the algorithm itself doesn't produce any information, it's comming from the fitness function.

This is not unreasonable because it happens the same way in nature. For example, if a bacterium has severe mutations in 5 ribosome binding sites, then that means that 5 proteins will not be made. Is this fatal? Not necessarily. Suppose that the 5 proteins code for processing 5 different sugars. If the sugars are not in the medium that the bacterium swims in then it will make no difference. But when the bacterium comes to a solution where one of the sugars is available, it will be unable to eat. If that is the sole carbon source, it will starve (surely a 'mistake'!) and bacteria that have mutations that correct a site or already have a correct site will survive. A simple way to account for this is to count the number of mistakes. It may be that a highly beaten up genome (with 100 mistakes) is pretty much as badly off as one with only a few mutations, so maybe one should take the logarithm of the number of mistakes. But a logarithm is a monotonic function of its argument, so this will not change the selection order and therefore would not affect the evolution (other than wasting computer cycles). Surely it is not reasonable to say that a creature with 5 mistakes will survive better than one with 2 so to match the natural situation we should pick a monotonic function. That's what I did in the paper.
Yes it's the same thing in nature. So the nature is set up to find such solutions by evolution. Fine.

So the answer to "Who or what determines the number of mistakes?" is: Just as in nature, the number of genetic control systems that if controlled would give an advantage determines the number of mistakes.
So, in nature the fitness function of nature decides, in a computer program, the fitness function of teh program decides. OK.

I generally do not find 'fitness' to be a useful concept. In the ev program there is no fitness function and the word 'fitness' does not appear in the paper. Unlike most biologists I dispense with the concept of a fixed 'fitness function'. A 'fitness landscape' is too rigid since it does not describe the effects the organism itself may have and it does not account for a changing environment (In addition, fitness is generally depicted as 2 dimensional, which causes severe conceptual problems, see ccmm). At best there is only 'relative instantaneous fitness' in a changing environment. That is, whoever makes the fewest mistakes in the current environment is likely to survive.
Well you can call it relative instantaneous fitness, but it's commonly known as the fitness function. Calling it any other way doesn't make it into something else.

Counting of the number of mistakes matches what happens in nature, as described above. I only claim that the ev simulation matches what happens in nature in essential points. No smuggling occurs.
Yes, that's what happens in nature. But this program was set up to perform this way. So the question is, was nature also?

If Dembski finds that this produces information, then he will understand that the simulation shows that information can be generated in nature solely by replication, mutation and selection. That is information as mathematically defined by Claude Shannon can be generated by Darwinian evolution.
No, because Schneider is the one who put the information into the fitness function for the algorithm to extract it.

Blind assertion.
We all await the evidence.
It's in the paper. Deal with it.

We could ask ourselves "What is the probability that the genomes of extant life would fall on a hierarchical tree of life?"
For example, Human are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and Humans are postulated to descend from a common ancestor we whare with Gorillas. Etc. etc.
So we look at the sequenced genomes for a line of organisms we postulate are related by common descend in a specific order, and we calculate the probability that their genomes sequences should happen to randomly align with this postulated tree of life. We go on and do this for every genome of every organism we have sequenced, and we happen to find that their genomes fall exactly as expected on this postulated evolutionary this tree of life we derived from comparative anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, embryology and paleontology.

What are the fucking odds that the genomes of every organism we sequence, should happen to fall in perfectly with the predicted evolutionary tree of life? Incomprehensibly infinitesimal. (Go back and find the fucking paper if you want the actual numbers, I can't be bothered doing all your work for you).

There it is, the statistical test that demonstrates common descent. Evolution happened. GET OVER IT.

** I should add here that the actual statistical test is a little more complicated than the way I have explained it. They also compared the accepted evolutionary model with different scenarios like multiple independent origins with convergent evolution etc.
Read the actual paper.
That doesn't mean that any of the organisms are related. Yeah, it's a small probability that they would all align. That's true, but from that it does not follow that they are all related. Maybe they were designed that way?

No, I don't belive people came from rocks. I don't know how life began, but I have never even seen a hypothesis that suggests people sprang out of rocks.
I didn't say sprang from rocks. But minerals melted from rocks, and slowly formed first self replicating molecule and over billions of years formed a human. So basicly, people came from rocks. That's what some people believe.

Combination? Please elaborate...
Combination is when you take two things, like two statements and combine them together.

Here's an example.

a.) I went to school today.
b.) I walked down the road.
c.) I went to school today and I walked down the road.

See, I didn't equivocate these two statements. I didn't say they were the same. I simply combined them into one larger statement. There you go, you learned something new today!
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#859  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 22, 2011 2:29 pm

Fucking nonsense, genetic redundancy is not genes being deleted and then evolving again, it is the loss of a gene not affecting the phenotype because there are alternative genes in the same genome.
I'm proposing a special case of redundancy that would replace deleted genes.

And in the Hayashi paper there was no deletion, there was replacement, firstly, secondly, there was a severe drop in fitness, redundancy doesn't result in loss of fitness, thirdly, thirdly, you are again fucking lying because, if it were a case of redundancy another gene would produce the normal protein, the Hayashi experiment involved replacement with a randomized sequence within a gene, and the fact that they observed adaptive mutations leading to gain of function in the replacement region puts to bed any assertions of a redundant coat protein, in which case one wouldn't have seen the sequence climbing up a fitness peak, but would have caused it to drift randomly.
Wrong. Behe's paper clearly states that these things happened ONLY and only when genes were first deleted. And in teh paper you cited, the gene was first deleted. And it then evolved again. So what's teh explanation? RM+NS, or genetic redundancy?

Obviously if in no other case have we seen RM + NS evolve new functions EXCEPT where genes were first deleted, then RM + NS is NOT a good explanation. Genetic redundancy is a better explanation.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#860  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 22, 2011 2:45 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Fucking nonsense, genetic redundancy is not genes being deleted and then evolving again, it is the loss of a gene not affecting the phenotype because there are alternative genes in the same genome.
I'm proposing a special case of redundancy that would replace deleted genes.


You are speaking out of your arse then, in cases of redundancy, if we were to delete genes, no re-evolution will happen.
Looks like you just handwaved everything away to have your little deposition of shit.

And in the Hayashi paper there was no deletion, there was replacement, firstly, secondly, there was a severe drop in fitness, redundancy doesn't result in loss of fitness, thirdly, thirdly, you are again fucking lying because, if it were a case of redundancy another gene would produce the normal protein, the Hayashi experiment involved replacement with a randomized sequence within a gene, and the fact that they observed adaptive mutations leading to gain of function in the replacement region puts to bed any assertions of a redundant coat protein, in which case one wouldn't have seen the sequence climbing up a fitness peak, but would have caused it to drift randomly.
Wrong. Behe's paper clearly states that these things happened ONLY and only when genes were first deleted. And in teh paper you cited, the gene was first deleted. And it then evolved again. So what's teh explanation? RM+NS, or genetic redundancy?


The gene was not deleted, in place of a region within a gene, a random sequence was introduced, firstly.
Secondly, Behe's paper doesn't say anything about genes being deleted, it states that if loss of genes provides a benefit, that loss will be part of adaptive selection, and a lot of the documented mutations within laboratory experiments fit this category, that is all, Care to show where Behe's paper states that "only when genes are deleted, they will reevolve, ergo redundancy"?

Nowhere does he state "all genes can evolve only when deleted" , and since the paper doesn't say what you claim it does, your post will be reported for quote mining.

You are still speaking out of your rear, with nary a citation to back your perurile garbage up. I asked you for direct empirical evidence, not ex-recto drivel, now put up or shut up.

Obviously if in no other case have we seen RM + NS evolve new functions EXCEPT where genes were first deleted, then RM + NS is NOT a good explanation. Genetic redundancy is a better explanation.


Bzzzz, fail again, care to go back and read the very wikipedia article you thought constituted evidence for your drivel?
The problem with attempting to use redundancy to explain anything is this


From an evolutionary standpoint, genes with overlapping functions implies minimal, if any, selective pressures acting on these genes. One therefore expects that the genes participating in such buffering of mutations will be subject to severe mutational drift diverging their functions and/or expression patterns with considerably high rates. Indeed it has been shown that the functional divergence of paralogous pairs in both yeast and human is an extremely rapid process. Taking these notions into account, the very existence of genetic buffering, and the functional redundancies required for it, presents a paradox in light of the evolutionary concepts. On one hand, for genetic buffering to take place there is a necessity for redundancies of gene function, on the other hand such redundancies are clearly unstable in face of natural selection and are therefore unlikely to be found in evolved genomes.


That is from the same Wikipedia article that you quoted, and quoted selectively, and irrelevantly.
To explain things clearly to you, note the bolded bit and learn why evidence indicates redundancies are not a good explanation and are not likely to be found in evolved genomes at all. In other words, you have lied again.
Last edited by GenesForLife on Jan 22, 2011 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2918
Age: 29
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests