|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2004 : 23:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, H. (can I call you 'H.'?)...
Certainly.
quote:
Is a creature which doesn't have CSI (500 bits of information, according to Jerry) capable of "design" in any way? "Design," after all, is itself a highly complex behaviour, and probably takes much more than 500 bits simply to define, much less execute. Heck, the document on material design Jerry linked to, earlier, had about 191 pages, if I remember correctly. At an average of 8,192 bits of information per page, that's well over 3,000 times the lower limit for CSI - and that's just one type of "design"
Yes, in this dimension. From what I gather, Jerry is arguing that life on earth could very well be the discarded PDF documents of astronauts from the 137th dimention, in which water runs uphill and CSI needs only 2 1/2 bits of information before achieving sentience and the ability to create design.
And neither does he rule out the possibility of a multiverse, with aliens able to insert something into our universe from one with an entirely different rule set.
Now, by definiton the above possibilties are supernatural ones, as they all act upon this universe from "outside" it. That he adamantly refuses to name this entity "god" seems like metaphysical quibbling to me. An "astonaut" from outside our own universe responsible for all life would certainly meet most definitons of a god, if not the omnipotence, immortality, and morality of the christian one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/02/2004 00:08:30 |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 00:07:39 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert:
******Just because they were college graduates does not mean they have any grasp of evolutionary theory.*******
I don't know what your field is, but this isn't true. Having taught high-school science as a substitute teacher in one of my past lives, I can assure you that even Jr. high school students have a grasp of evolution. High-schoolers even more so, and I don't know what college you went to, but I've never heard of a university where one can get a degree in anything without also passing the general science requirements.
DAVE:
quote:
What?!? Unless you can quote from the article you linked to that the graduates had all studied evolution (which is hardly necessary to become a graduate), I may have to begin agreeing with Dude.
Are you going back to name-calling too? I figure it's just as matter of time, but we'll see. Show me the curriculum of any reputable general education public institution that allows one to graduate without passing the general science requirements. What college did you go to where you didn't have to lump it through the dreaded science stuff like every other student?
quote:
This, also, is stated nowhere in your reference. The article is about creationism, to boot, and not ID. "Rejecting Darwinism" does not equal "accepting ID," since many of those polled who are strict creationists would deny evolution in any form, and not in the pick-and-choose manner you espouse.
Not only was it in there I put it in there in bold: "Only about 10% subscribe to evolution without any form of divine guidance or intervention as an explanation of how life began.
And I never stated anywhere that rejecting Darwinism equals accepting ID. That's a little strawman you made up and stuck in there. 
quote:
And if you're so adamant, Jerry, that you've got no idea who or what the designer is, why would you spend an iota of effort in arguing against a "secular view" of science? Would you prefer a religious view, because that's the only other kind of science there is?
Strawman. I have never stated that I am against a secular view of science. I don't want any religious views in science, no theology, no materialism, no secular humanist religionists-- so if this is what secular science is, then I‘m for it. I think that you could glean this very easily by what I write..
******Prove it scientifically.*******
LOL...I think you just like to see your picture on the Internet. Why else would you be posting this nonsense? How does one prove a definition of English, scientifically? I already looked the words up for you in a dictionary, of course, you didn't like that because it disagreed with your belief system. So do you want me to cut out the letters and boil them over a Bunsen burner or something. What?
quote:
No, what is illogical is that you insist that "identification of the designer" means we want a personal name, when all that's been asked is whether or not it is God, or Brahma, or "some being from planet Quirtplin." The ridiculous notion that we believe the answer has to be "Herman" is where the illogic is entering the thread, and it comes from you, Jerry.
I sill don't know. I just don't know and this is the only answer you will get |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 00:22:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
It just doesn't work this way and when one examines this scientifically, there is no evidence to show this [evolution] has happened.
There's lots of evidence, including gradual morphologic changes throughout the fossil record, which you reject on the grounds that we can't give a T-rex a blood test.
Also, your dimissal of the retroviral evidence on the grounds that "like bone morphology, scientists are only presenting that which is already there" (paraphrased). Yes, but that is ignoring the larger implications that the two different evidence sets agree with one another. The retrovirus study was placed against species classification already based on morphology. If the two data sets didn't match what was predicted by theory, evolution would have been placed into serious doubt. The fact that the two aligned so well lent broad affirmation to the theory of evolution.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/02/2004 00:25:35 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 00:54:03 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist
quote:
Hi, Jerry. This appears to be an incorrect reading of how this works. According to your reading, a virus infects, say, chimps, gibbons, and baboons. These infections leave a DNA "scar," and these animals pass down this "scar" to their offspring chimps, gibbons, and baboons. Thus, with your logic they aren't related; rather, it's because they're similar that later ancestors will have "scars" at the same points.
That's a correct understanding of my assertions.
quote:
What's missing? First, from my understanding, these "scars" show up in all samples of a species. Thus, you have to assume that only animals who a) got infected, and b) had that infection manifest itself in the form of a DNA "scar," or you posit that they all came from an earlier common ancestor.
This would not be correct. SOME species show SOME retroviruses in common. And no two species show the EXACT same retrovirus in common as there is always at least some difference in them. Of course, this could be explained by evolution I suppose. At least I have resolved it as so in my own mind.
Of course, no one has ever examined ALL the genomes of humans and ALL the genomes of say, chimps. So we can only extrapolate this logically that ALL have this in common as no one knows this.
But keeping this in mind I know of at least one ERV which I personally believe fairly universal among all members of both species, but there is a reason for this.
Just like genes can become fixed in a population and come to dominate that population so can ERVs because although they are not genetic tissue in themselves, they certainly take a ride on the Reading Railroad (and I can't prove this, but I think they all live at Park Place in little green houses):
"Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are believed to be remains of germ-line infections that have become fixed in the population. They are involved in pathophysiological conditions, in mechanisms leading to infection protection, and directly in the physiology of the organism by participating in the regulation of cellular gene expression."
Reference
quote:
I have to question in general your assertion that all these DNA "scars" are as common as you think. The impression I get is that it's rare enough that simply positing that two distinct species got them in the exact same spot and manifest themselves in the exact same way is not as likely a solution as you assert.
They are not uncommon at all. HERVs are human ERVs and they make you sick a lot and cause all kinds of nasty diseases. I left out from the link above that HERVs consist of about .6% of the human DNA content. Read a little further and you will see that. Considering a genome with 390 billion nucleotides, that's a lot of HERVs.
quote:
Had trouble finding the exact post, but I'll keep looking. But I'm curious that you use "designed" in discussing the flagellum. Doesn't that betray the same bias you accuse the above authors of having?
No, I don't think so. All IC systems are designed just as was the lawnmower because they require intelligence. And there is no better system to personify the concept of IC systems than flagella. They are highly complex and highly specified systems.
NOTE TO DAVE: Dang, I did leave out the minutes on that. Thanks for catching it. Of course, that didn't change anything in the logic behind the math. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 03:14:13 [Permalink]
|
********I'm in the process of working on a list of the assertions that you've made that you've never supported, just in this thread (I'm up to page nine). I'll be glad to reference my facts, just so long as you promise to do the same. Otherwise, this will never progress beyond "hollow words" versus "hollow words," and all of our collective time will be wasted.********
Fine. But don't forget to address the outstanding posts to you from me line by line with references where requested. Lookin' more than likely that's it's down to you and me now. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 06:02:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This just shows an lack of education in 10th grade math. You won't find anyone to agree with you on this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides which, after a re-read, Dembski's math is, indeed, incorrect:
Here is Dembski's reasoning: the number of elementary particles in the known universe are estimated to be 10^80. The smallest physically meaningful amount of time is Planck time, 10^45, roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second, and 10^25 is more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds:
______1______ __1__
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^-150
The multiplication is what is incorrect. The number of particles in the universe is 1080, not 1/1080. Ten million times the age of the galaxy in seconds is 1025, not 1/1025. Planck time, is, indeed, 1/1045 seconds. Multiply them together, and you get 1080x1025x(1/1045) = 1060, a "UBP" of well above one, meaning something is seriously wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL.....You have to take the inverse if you want to come up with a negative...Sheeze..everyone else learns this in 7th grade. How did you miss it. If you don't take the inverse you will come out with a positive. LOL..And good job mangling that math by rearranging it to where it's non-sensical. Devious, dishonest...I love it!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what's wrong is that those numbers are just pulled out of Dembski's butt. They are arbitrary, a charge you haven't rebuted yet. There is no good reason to multiply them together in any fashion, especially as the result isn't a unitless ratio, but instead is expressed properly as "1060 particles" (or, in Dembski's version, 10-150 per particle-second2, which makes even less sense).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
And you have the balls to accuse anyone of lacking education.
You prove, again and again, that you lack basic mathematical comprehension of simple probability and logic. Have you EVER even taken a course in elementary statistics? Obviosly you have not.
Your statistics are flawed, and your only recourse (because you KNOW their flawed, you intentionally use them to propagate your lie) is to accuse those who call you on your lie of being poorly educated.
The same goes for your continued failure to comprehend very simple deductive reasoning. I think you do, actually, understand it and are intentionally distorting your statements to avoid admitting that the basic premise of your ID theory is to support a supernatural designer.
So, in the spirit of your argumentum ad hominem...
LAIR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 06:30:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
So around 50 percent subscribes to the modern synthesis, whether directed by God or undirected. What would be interesting would be the question whether those 39% you mentioned would be of the opinion that unguided evolution could happen, but didn't, out of faith.
Furthermore, I would like to see a split up of these figures based on the studies done. I would recon that amongst the 'critics' there would not be a lot of biology students.
We can't know what they were thinking, obviously. All we can draw from the poll is that 51% of college graduates, not the dumb American public as some seem to think, but college graduates that have studied the subject, completely reject all teachings on evolution. And only 10% accept it in the secular vein it is taught. I think this speaks volumes in that Darwinism is simply dead in the water intellectually. Just a few it seems, for reasons that would be known only to them, still fight valiantly for the cause.
Wrong. First off, it is not true that 51% of the college graduates will know what they are talking about when talking about evolution. College graduates do not necessary study the subject in depth. If high school treatment of evolution is anywhere comparable to how it is taught in the Netherlands, than it is anything but in depth and leaves enough room for a lot of misconceptions (and I have quite some reasons to assume that high school education in America is worse than in the Netherlands).
Furtermore, during my University education (I'm studying environmental health sciences, which has life science aspects) evolution was almost not discussed, since it is not very relevant to the studies, unless you want to work with test-animals (in which case it becomes more apparant). I have quite some friends who studied on University colleges abroad (including America) and I can tell that none of them had any courses in evolution anywhere. Which makes sense, especially for my friends in law of economics, who really do not have any use for these courses. If they had any knowledge on evolution from high school, it is long gone after the first year of college.
So there's your first error, whether you want to admit it or not. College graduates are not necessarily knowledgable on evolution.
Second, you seem to see God-guided evolution as something contrary to 'darwinism'. Now, all the theistic evolutionists I have ever met are 'darwinists' however ('darwinists' because darwinism as proposed by Darwin himself is dead). Mutation and natural selection combined form the mechanism behind evolution, according to both theistic evolutionists as evolutionists. The 39% which still ascribes to a deity agrees with the 'secular' teachings.
Lastly, I wrote 'secular', which is what you seem to rally against. This is because how evolution in school is taught is scientific and not specifically 'secular'. We observe that mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms behind evolution. We cannot observe whether these are 'guided' by some supernatural entity. Which means that this supernatural entity should not be part of the theory. How evolution is taught in science class is exactly how it should be taught, in accordance with the observations.
quote:
quote:
The concept Pasteur specifically disproved was that, for example, maggots spontaneously arose out of rotting meat. This is a whole different concept than the concept of abiogenesis as it is looked at today. Thus, he did not disprove the concept of abiogenesis as looked upon today, but disproved the concept as looked upon then.
To research this you'll have to do more than look at some dictionary quotes. You'll have to dive into the history of the concepts, how they were looked upon at that time, by the people at that time. Only this way you can assess what Pasteur did or did not research.
I have researched the experiments I mentioned. In fact I've done research in my own laboratory and fully understand how to build primitive cells called liposomes made of the same material your cells walls are made of, phospholipids.
Here is a picture of some cells I constructed from scratch under my computer microscope:
While I'll grant it there are some differences between modern abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, the concepts are the same: Life from dead matter and neither happen in reality.
Nonsense, they are not even remotely the same. The latter states life from dead matter in a way which is impossible by all means. The concept Pasteur had was that, in any form of matter (for example rotting meat) life which already existed could emerge without any biological parent within a day.
This is decidedly different from the concept of abiogenesis as currently employed. First of all, the time scale is completely of. Second, current theories posit that a very specific set of circumstances lead to the formation of life, one of which is a non-oxygenizing atmosphere. Lastly, where Pasteur's concept involved the developement of a full functioning organism, current concepts involve a gradual change from chemical reactions to chemical reactions organsized in the form of a living creature. Saying the two are essentially the same is dishonest at best.
quote:
quote:
But you also claim that this design is not arrived at through natural selection and mutation. So you do claim designers, or at least you rally against the claim of a specific one (namely a natural, unintelligent one).
But I do not claim any particular designer. I claim only the ability to detect design as other sciences have done for years. Do you think that if SETI scientists ever detect that long-sought intelligent signal from space suggesting there is other intelligent life out there that they will immediately also be able determine that the alien who sent it is named Herman?
This forum's stubborn insistence that the detection of design also identifies the designer is simply illogical to any outsider reading this.
[/quote]
But you do, you rally against evolution. However, you ability to discern 'design', whatever that may be. I posit that I also discern design, and I posit that I know the designer, mutation + natural selection. According to your logic, my answer is just as possible an answer as the answer that life was designed by "Alfy, the mighty closet pixie who proclaims to be a giant". So why do you rally against it? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 06:42:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
Yes, it is, and my understanding of probability says that if something has a 1/10150 chance of happening, it does not mean that one needs to go through 10150 attempts before it might happen.
This just shows an lack of education in 10th grade math. You won't find anyone to agree with you on this.
Actually, I think I agree with this! If I take 6 six-sided dice (OK, fine-- I played D&D when I was younger!), the odds of rolling 6's on all three at the same time is 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6, or, if my math is correct, 1/216. It seems that what you're saying is that in order for my Wiza, er, in order for me to roll an 18-- 3 6's-- I'd have to go through 216 rolls!
But personal experience has told me that this isn't the case. In fact, personal experience has shown that I can get an 18 after only a few rolls! It's also shown that I can go for more than 216 before getting another 18.
Perhaps it's my 10th grade math skills, but then is my personal experience also somehow stuck in the 10th grade? (If so, then I've been drinking underage for over a decade!) |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 06:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
H. Humbert:
quote:
Yes, it is, and my understanding of probability says that if something has a 1/10150 chance of happening, it does not mean that one needs to go through 10150 attempts before it might happen.
This just shows an lack of education in 10th grade math. You won't find anyone to agree with you on this.
Sorry Jerry, but you're just plain wrong here. That something has a 1/10150 chance of happening, does not mean that you need to go through 10150 attempts before it might happen. Compare it with a dice. You have a 1/6 chance of you throwing a 3. This does not mean you have to throw the dice at least six times to get a 3. It just means that every time you throw the dice, you have a 1/6 chance of getting a three.
quote:
quote:
Besides which, after a re-read, Dembski's math is, indeed, incorrect:
Here is Dembski's reasoning: the number of elementary particles in the known universe are estimated to be 10^80. The smallest physically meaningful amount of time is Planck time, 10^45, roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second, and 10^25 is more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds:
______1______ __1__
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^-150
The multiplication is what is incorrect. The number of particles in the universe is 1080, not 1/1080. Ten million times the age of the galaxy in seconds is 1025, not 1/1025. Planck time, is, indeed, 1/1045 seconds. Multiply them together, and you get 1080x1025x(1/1045) = 1060, a "UBP" of well above one, meaning something is seriously wrong.
ROFL.....You have to take the inverse if you want to come up with a negative...Sheeze..everyone else learns this in 7th grade. How did you miss it. If you don't take the inverse you will come out with a positive. LOL..And good job mangling that math by rearranging it to where it's non-sensical. Devious, dishonest...I love it!
I'm wondering who you are calling dishonest here. I couldn't get what Dembski is trying to prove here, but you are making a fatal flaw in your criticism. Why do you want to come up with a negative? If Dave made a flaw in his criticism with not taking the inverse on the number of particles, you have to point out why he has to take the inverse. And the argument with which you should point this out is not the conclusion. Your argument should be independent of the conclusion, as was Dave's.
So, why should Dave take the inverse of the number of particles in the universe, and not the number itself as he argues you should do when calculating.
quote:
quote:
And what's wrong is that those numbers are just pulled out of Dembski's butt. They are arbitrary, a charge you haven't rebuted yet. There is no good reason to multiply them together in any fashion, especially as the result isn't a unitless ratio, but instead is expressed properly as "1060 particles" (or, in Dembski's version, 10-150 per particle-second2, which makes even less sense).
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 07:57:17 [Permalink]
|
| LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life! |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 08:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life!
Darn it!
You owe me 50 bucks for a perfectly good irony meter!
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 08:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life!
LOL, my ironymeter just burst  .
Maybe it is you who should start to listen to a 6th year university student with an extensive background in statistics. Your comprehension of statistics is just as below basic as your comprehension of logic as far as I can make out. Are you really telling me that I have to throw a dice 6 times before I can get a three? Any chance of you telling me what I throw the first 5 times? And if my comparison is wrong, please tell me how, because I would definitely like to know (I mean, I'd like to have my disability to comprehend statistics eroded before I graduate ). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:07:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life!
Oops. Sorry to be so, er, stupid! But again, could you explain how my personal experience doesn't seem to jibe with what seems to be your assertion that having, say, 1 in 6 odds means that there must be six tries before the event happens?
Can anyone?!? I'm starting to doubt my own intellectual abilities! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:16:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life!
Oops. Sorry to be so, er, stupid! But again, could you explain how my personal experience doesn't seem to jibe with what seems to be your assertion that having, say, 1 in 6 odds means that there must be six tries before the event happens?
Can anyone?!? I'm starting to doubt my own intellectual abilities!
Same here. I'm also starting to doubt whether I'm really correct in thinking that if I throw 6 once with a dice, I still have a probability of 1/6 that my next throw will be a 6.  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:17:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
LOL.....OK, You guys win, I won't be spending much more time trying to educate an entire forum in 7th grade math. Have a great life!
When you can't prove yourself right, call 'em stupid.
Typical. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
