Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

The Design Inference- How It Works

-
So much confusion over such a simple concept- determining design in a natural world. This is all about answering one of science's three basic questions- "How did it come to be this way?".

Intelligent Design is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

That said we have the explanatory filter to help us determine the cause of the effect we are investigating.

On to the Explanatory Filter:

The (design) explanatory filter is a standard operating procedure used for detecting basic origins of cause. It or some reasonable facsimile is used when a dead body turns up or a fire is reported. With the dead body we want to determine if it was a natural death, an accident, a suicide or a homicide (what caused the death?) and in with the fire, the investigator wants to know how it started- arson, negligence, accident or natural causes, i.e. lightning, lava, meteorite, etc. Only through investigation can those not present hope to know about it.

When investigating/ researching/ studying an object/ event/ structure, we need to know one of three things in order to determine how it happened:

1. Did it have to happen?
2. Did it happen by accident?
3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen?

A fire is investigated before an arson is.

First we must make this clarification by Wm. Dembski:

”When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter.
This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.”


This is why further investigation is always a good thing. Initial inferences can either be confirmed or falsified by further research.
Intelligent causes always entail intent. Natural causes never do.

(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)

The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination.

START

CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes

COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes

SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes

Design


The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.

By getting to the final decision node where we separate that which is merely complex from intentional design (an event/ object that has a small probability of occurring by chance and fits a specified pattern), means we have looked into the possibility of X to have occurred by other means. May we have dismissed/ eliminated some too soon? In the realm of anything is possible, possibly. However not only is it impractical to attempt every possible, but by doing so we would no longer have a design inference. By eliminating every possible other cause design would be a given. What we are looking for is a reasonable inference, not proof. IOW we only have to eliminate every possible scenario if we want absolute proof. We already understand that people who ask that of the EF are not interested in science.

It took our current understanding in order to make it to that, the final decision node and it takes our current understanding to make the inference. Future knowledge will either confirm or falsify the inference. The research does not and was never meant to stop at the last node. Just knowing something was the result of intentional design offers no more about it. IOW design detection is the first step in the two step process- detection and understanding of the design. Just because the answer is 42* that doesn’t tell us what was on the left-hand side of the equal sign.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

IOW the design inference is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

We do not infer that every death is a homicide nor every rock an artifct. Parsimony- no need to add entities and the design inference is all about requirements, as in is agency involvement required or not?

Threfor to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it.

Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives.




(*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference)

126 Comments:

  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Hey Joe,

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    No, the don't. If you first understand that there is a relationship between energy and information, you understand that energy flow can explain information content. Then you have to understand that "irreducible complexity" is but a display of ignorance about how a system could have arisen. It might truly be "irreducibly complex" as it exists today, but that does not preclude its appearance in steps but then some part that allowed this to happen disappeared in the realms of time. It could also be that it just looks "irreducibly complex" but it is lack of knowledge that makes it appear so, rather than there being authentic "irreducible complexity."

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    High information, high energy flow. So what? Irreducible complexity ... we talked about that already.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    Yes they do suffice by far and beyond. Some guy has calculated how much information is generated by evolutionary processes, compared the energetic cost of such information (exaggerating the energy requirements to give ID a shot), and still, the energy from the sun was several orders of magnitude more than necessary to account for such information.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    Therefore, no such thing. Only wishful thinking and reliance on the ignorance and the difficulty for the general public to understanding this relationship between energy and information, and evolutionary processes.

    .... I just jump all the rest because we would never end, but all just misinformation ...

    Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives.

    Doesn't look like that after you learn a bit of science.

    Have a nice week! (Off to attend loads of research projects we are just starting. Looks like a very promising year is unfolding.)

     
  • At 7:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    If you first understand that there is a relationship between energy and information, you understand that energy flow can explain information content.

    No, it cannot. Energy flow cannot explain the information required to run my computer.

    NE:
    Then you have to understand that "irreducible complexity" is but a display of ignorance about how a system could have arisen.

    The ignorance is all yours. Again our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is what guides the design inference.

    NE:
    It might truly be "irreducibly complex" as it exists today, but that does not preclude its appearance in steps but then some part that allowed this to happen disappeared in the realms of time.

    The science of today goes with what we have knowledge of today.

    We cannot wait for what tomorrow may or may not uncover.

    NE:
    It could also be that it just looks "irreducibly complex" but it is lack of knowledge that makes it appear so, rather than there being authentic "irreducible complexity."

    That is the nature of science. What we uncover tomorrow may refute what we are inferring today. However it may also confirm it.

    NE:
    High information, high energy flow. So what? Irreducible complexity ... we talked about that already.

    Yup and you don't have ay idea what you are talking about.

    NE:
    Yes they do suffice by far and beyond.

    So you say but you do not have any evidence to support that claim.

    NE:
    Some guy has calculated how much information is generated by evolutionary processes, compared the energetic cost of such information (exaggerating the energy requirements to give ID a shot), and still, the energy from the sun was several orders of magnitude more than necessary to account for such information.

    Again you don't have idea what you are talking about.

    Wow all talk with nothing to back it up. Thanks NE....

     
  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe!

    Good to hear from you!

    No, it cannot. Energy flow cannot explain the information required to run my computer.

    Are you claiming that no energy was necessary to build your computer, nor is any energy necessary to run it, nor to store and retrieve, not to play with the information in your computer? And it is me who does not know what he's talking about?

    The ignorance is all yours. Again our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is what guides the design inference.

    Bull. It is just ignorance what leads to the "design inference." It is just a god-of-the-gaps argument. I know 100% for sure. The tactic is: find something that looks complex, if it has not been studied evolutionarily, claim it to be designed and irreducibly complex. They often jump the "if it has not been studied evolutionarily" part. They just don't care. They know you will not check any proper sources.

    Again you don't have idea what you are talking about.

    Again, I do. I have studied the relationship between information and energy. I need the knowledge for my work.

    Wow all talk with nothing to back it up. Thanks NE....

    Nothing to back it up? Well, it might look that way to you because you don't have the time, nor the energy to go and learn about energy and information. The most effort you will ever make about this, if ever, is try to figure out if Meyer has answered this. But you will never check the right sources. This is why creationism will win this thing. It is much easier to produce pseudoscience and convince people who have a much easier time accepting the misinformation than checking and learning properly. Not that I am surprised.

    Go ahead, another set of lines saying that I don't know what I am talking about.

    Off for another while. I have no time to answer your other comment, but it is just another set of lines of "you don't know what you are talking about," you inform me that you have learned so much science that now you reject evolution (right, but you forgot to tell me that you forgot to study evolution itself from proper sources, and that you concentrated on ID materials). I must be just some ignorant dude writing to you with no idea about DNA, proteins, and evolution. I "fear" your knowledge for sure.

    Anyway, ciao bambino. See ya in a while.

     
  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Neg En- welcome back-

    NE:
    Are you claiming that no energy was necessary to build your computer, nor is any energy necessary to run it, nor to store and retrieve, not to play with the information in your computer?

    No I am claiming that energy can not account for the information required to build it nor run it.

    Again our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is what guides the design inference.

    NE:
    Bull.

    No, it is a fact.

    NE:
    It is just ignorance what leads to the "design inference."

    So archaeology and forensics are done by ignorance?

    NE:
    It is just a god-of-the-gaps argument. I know 100% for sure.
    How do you know? What is your evidence? And ID is not about God.

    NE:
    The tactic is: find something that looks complex, if it has not been studied evolutionarily, claim it to be designed and irreducibly complex.

    Yup the ignorance is all yours.

    NE:
    They often jump the "if it has not been studied evolutionarily" part. They just don't care. They know you will not check any proper sources.

    ID is not anti-evolution. You don't know what you are talking about.

    NE:
    Again, I do. I have studied the relationship between information and energy. I need the knowledge for my work.

    Really? Then you should know that energy is not information. It may take energy to transmit and receve information but the two are not the same.

    Ya see buckwheat I was an information technologist. I know the difference between energy and information- so do most of the people on the planet.

    NE:
    Well, it might look that way to you because you don't have the time, nor the energy to go and learn about energy and information.

    Unfortunately for you I know all about energy and information.

    NE:
    The most effort you will ever make about this, if ever, is try to figure out if Meyer has answered this. But you will never check the right sources.

    You have failed to produce any sources to support your tripe.

    As for evolution- again ID is not anti-evolution. Also I was an evolutionist and I took college courses in biology and evolution. It was the evidence that turned me against the theory.

    Ya see buckwheat all you have for "evidence" is "it looks like common ancestry" - something ID does not argue against anyway- and you don't have any evidence to support your claims.

    For example I bet you can't answer the following questions"

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


    My bet is you will say those questions have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. wever it is obvious that all genetic changes, according to evolutionary biologists, are errors/ mistakes/ accident. And these accumulate via a variety of ways.

    So answer those questions or prove your position is bullshit.

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that disregards this, will not survive one day." Norbert Weiner mathematician.

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    I must be just some ignorant dude writing to you with no idea about DNA, proteins, and evolution.

    Then you should have no problems with aswering those three questions.

    But you won't, because you can't.

     
  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Hey Joe!

    Good to read you again.

    Really? Then you should know that energy is not information. It may take energy to transmit and receve information but the two are not the same.

    Of course energy is not information, but information is energy. That mathematician did not know what he was talking about. I do.

    No I am claiming that energy can not account for the information required to build it nor run it. [this was about your computer]

    Oh sure it can. You require energy to build those brans that designed the computer. You see Joe, in the end, even us cannot be accounted for without energy. Take a deep look, see if you can find any step towards your computer that did not require energy. From humans to whatever you like.

    So archaeology and forensics are done by ignorance?

    Nope, they are guided by knowledge. But look carefully at the "design inferences" of Behe and partners, nothing but ignorance. No designer anywhere to be seen so that their "inference" would have some justification. Furthermore, look more carefully and you wrote it yourself, quoting them:

    "Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers."

    See? that is an argument from ignorance (of course, pretended ignorance, because they know very well that evolution does such accounting).

    Your questions are loaded (designed not to be answerable or to get me to accept unwarranted premises):

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    We can test that the flagellum evolved. But not merely by accumulation of genetic accidents. Evolution is more than just that, you keep forgetting selection. Now, how? Look for protein homologies, find protein members of such protein families, find what they do, long et cetera. If you search for evolution of the flagellum, you will see several of these studies.

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    Again, via evolutionary processes. Again, doable, study the genomes, compare them, find the differences, and figure out what the changes might have been. Long et cetera.

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    This is the same question as above. Only different organisms.

    If you want to know the specific genetic changes, it is a long road. But that evolution is there is easier to test and show. As I said, our common ancestry with the other apes is 100% sure. It does not matter if we still don't know the genetic details, or the steps one by one, it is still true. Going for genetic specifics is just a trick to keep yourself deluded. I accept the evidence, and that's it. Again, it is like saying that because we don't know the exact genetic history of dog breeding dogs were not breed. Just preposterous and irrational denialism. If the evidence says we share that ancestry, no amount of "show me that the genetic accidents were possible" will erase the evidence, just like "show me that the genetic steps towards dog breed are possible" will not erase the history of dog breeding.

    Try and you will see that claiming for biochemical and genetic details does not change anything.

    Best and keep enjoying.

     
  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    Then you should have no problems with aswering those three questions.

    But you won't, because you can't.


    Meh! As if the questions were significant. What matters, again, is that there is evidence, and no demands for detailed evolutionary histories will change that. Not one bit.

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Let me show you a bit better this:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    Why should it have evolved in a single population that never had one? Why couldn't it have evolved across several generations of populations, with the first one having none, then some intermediate populations having a simpler one?

    See? You charge your questions as if evolution required anything to evolve within a single generation.

     
  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe! You're good at jokes!

    As for evolution- again ID is not anti-evolution.

    Right, and I got the Nobel price in physics.

    Also I was an evolutionist and I took college courses in biology and evolution. It was the evidence that turned me against the theory.

    Really? What evidence? Not knowing how biochemical pathways evolved is now called "evidence"? Not knowing the precise genetic steps from no-flagellum to flagellum is "evidence"? I cal those ignorance and "god-of-the-gaps" arguments. No hypocritical disguise of creationism as "ID" will change that these are arguments from ignorance (if you don't like "god-of-the-gaps", which is an argument from ignorance too.

    But let us go further. If intelligent design is not about gods, then where does the designer come from. How do you account for such designer? Since energy is required for any human design, which you seem to think is taken as "model" to "infer" design, then where does this designer get the energy to build those designs and to exist?

    Your designer necessarily has to be accounted for before you can make any inference about design. If not, then you are talking about some god(s), while pretending that you are not. Such pretension does not change anything. This is 100% a god-of-the-gaps argument. I am surprised that you would deny it. Look at it carefully and honestly Joe ...

    Adios for another long time amigo. I doubt you will take my points, you will send a series of red-herrings instead, and will misunderstand my comments, for the nth time.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Neg En!

    You said:
    Of course energy is not information, but information is energy. That mathematician did not know what he was talking about. I do.

    Prove it- prove that information is energy. Good luck.

    No I am claiming that energy can not account for the information required to build it nor run it. [this was about your computer]

    Neg En:
    Oh sure it can.

    Prove it or at least provide a valid reference to support that claim.

    Neg En:
    You require energy to build those brans that designed the computer. You see Joe, in the end, even us cannot be accounted for without energy. Take a deep look, see if you can find any step towards your computer that did not require energy. From humans to whatever you like.

    Energy is not information and information is not energy.

    Information is separate from matter and energy.

    The ink on the page is not the information nor is the enrgy required to write.

    So archaeology and forensics are done by ignorance?

    Neg En:
    Nope, they are guided by knowledge.

    And so is Intelligent Design.

    NE:
    But look carefully at the "design inferences" of Behe and partners, nothing but ignorance.

    That is a lie:

    "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    Knowledge.

    NE:
    See? that is an argument from ignorance (of course, pretended ignorance, because they know very well that evolution does such accounting).

    I see anti-IDists are full of ignorance. That is what Behe just said.

    NE:
    Your questions are loaded (designed not to be answerable or to get me to accept unwarranted premises):

    They are not loaded. They are questions your position needs to answer if it is scientific.

    NE:
    We can test that the flagellum evolved. But not merely by accumulation of genetic accidents. Evolution is more than just that, you keep forgetting selection.

    LoL!!! You really are clueless!

    Mutations accumulate via a variety of ways- and I said exactly that. And evolutionary biologists agree with me- Dawkins calls it cumulative selection.

    NE:
    Look for protein homologies, find protein members of such protein families, find what they do, long et cetera. If you search for evolution of the flagellum, you will see several of these studies.

    What a joke. Just because we find alleged homologs that means the flagellum evolved via accumulating genetic accidents?

    Thanks for proving the ignorance is all yours.

    NE:
    As I said, our common ancestry with the other apes is 100% sure.

    Except there isn't any data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

    Not only that ID is NOT anti-evolution and even Dr Behe accepts common ancestry.

    Ya see evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for any mechanism. Not only that evidence for comon ancestry can be used to support alternative scenarios.

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    As if the questions were significant. What matters, again, is that there is evidence, and no demands for detailed evolutionary histories will change that. Not one bit.

    If you can't answer the questions that means there isn't any evidence.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    Why should it have evolved in a single population that never had one? Why couldn't it have evolved across several generations of populations, with the first one having none, then some intermediate populations having a simpler one?

    Yup the ignorance is all yours.

    Ya see you start with a piopulation that never had a flagellum. And then you wait- however many generations it takes.

    I never said nor implied it had to happen in one generation.

    Take as many populations as you want. You still can't answer the question.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for evolution- again ID is not anti-evolution.

    NE:
    Right, and I got the Nobel price in physics.

    So you are ignorant.

    Let's see ID is OK with a change in allele frequencies over time.

    ID is OK with speciation.

    ID is OK with universal common descent.

    So how, in your mind, is ID anti-evolution?

    Also I was an evolutionist and I took college courses in biology and evolution. It was the evidence that turned me against the theory.

    NE:
    Really? What evidence?

    Genetic evidence along with all the experimental evidence.

    NE:
    If intelligent design is not about gods, then where does the designer come from.

    Ignorance indeed- ID is not about the designer.

    As a matter of fact reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question.

    Heck we still don't know who designed Stonehenge.

    NE:
    Your designer necessarily has to be accounted for before you can make any inference about design.

    The design accounts for the designer.

    If we knew the designer then we wouldn't have a design inference.

    Geez don't you understand science?

    NE:
    I doubt you will take my points, you will send a series of red-herrings instead, and will misunderstand my comments, for the nth time.

    You have lied about energy = information nd you are totally clueless with regards to ID.

    And you appear to be ignorant of the theory of evolution. Either taht or you just didn't understand that selection is accounted for when I say "an accumulation of genetic accidents".

    But anyway run away because you will never be able to support your claims about information.

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe!

    You have lied about energy = information nd you are totally clueless with regards to ID.

    Nope, I did not say energy=information, I said information is one form of energy. I did not lie. Your ignorance does not make me a liar. Again, I use the relationship between information and energy every day in my own work.

    Now, if there is no relationship between information and energy, how is it possible that there are equations that can transform information bits into calories? You have a single "mathematician" (and a bunch of liars disguised as scientists of ID), while I have almost the whole scientific community of physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, and a bunch more understanding this relationship. Now, again, how does telling you this reality that information is related to energy make me a liar?

    Should I stop trying to explain things to you and do what you do? Just tell you that the ignorance is all yours with nothing to back it up? Where is the intelligence and the reasoning on your part if you are not willing to even check what I say somewhere else but your already ingrained misunderstandings and quacky ID sources?

    Let me repeat the main question: since there is evidence for common descent, how does ignorance about how some complex things evolved invalidate the evidence?

    You seem to be the one ignoring the main problem with ID, it is plainly an argument from ignorance. ell me how that paragraph does not show that it is an argument from ignorance. The one I showed you.

    Also, if ID is not anti-evolution, then what's your problem with evolution?

    Also, I told you already, Stonehedge can be inferred to be designed because humans existed then, even if we don't know which ones. For ID to work you have to show the designer.

    Also, you failed to understand that my questions about energy for building your computer is the evidence that energy accounts for the information in your computer. If you don't believe it, feel free to show me the step where the information gets into your computer without any energy involved.

    Also, of course you have to account for the designer. You are claiming a designer or designers working across huge time spans, yet you can't show such designer? Then designers cannot be the answer. Period. You are the one who does not understand science. ID is ignorance in disguise: "we don't know a natural process that can do that, thus design," "you can't demonstrate that blind unguided processes can account for such and such, thus design." In other words, you think that my not giving you detailed evolutionary histories supports design. That is argument from ignorance. Deal with it.

    Best! (Now I run away, out of fear from your awesome arguments of course. As I predicted, you just gave me red-herrings, and misunderstood what I said. For instance, I told you why energy accounted for the info in your computer, you just were too lazy to follow up on the questions.)

     
  • At 10:08 AM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    What a joke. Just because we find alleged homologs that means the flagellum evolved via accumulating genetic accidents?

    That is not what I said. I said long et cetera. Finding the homologs is but the first step, then you figure out their probable histories, then the probable histories can guide you towards the history of the flagellum itself. It is a lot of work Joe. It is not pseudoscience (such as ID is). We don't just sit and say god-did-it ... ahem ... an intelligence-did-it. Sometimes the history will have been lost in time. Still, that does not mean "thus designer," does it?

    Best and now I run.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    I think my explanations are been lost on you. Maybe I should stop posting here overall. After all, you misunderstand all my points, you will not check beyond your misunderstandings, and you don't care whether I might be right. Also, you might not have a good readership anyway to make this worth my while (though your readership is much more than mine, that for sure). So I rather stop.

    Sorry to bother you this much. Feel free to have the last word. I bet it will be something on the lines of "the ignorance is all yours."

    :-)

    Ciao.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    Nope, I did not say energy=information, I said information is one form of energy.

    You said that energy flow can explain information content yet you never supported that claim. And you have never supported the claim that information is one form of energy. Go figure.

    NE:
    Again, I use the relationship between information and energy every day in my own work.

    Again just because a relationship exists does not mean one is a form of the other.

    NE:
    Now, if there is no relationship between information and energy, how is it possible that there are equations that can transform information bits into calories?

    How are you defining "information"? And I have already said it takes energy to transmit and receive information. IOW I undersatnd there is a relationship.

    NE:
    You have a single "mathematician" (and a bunch of liars disguised as scientists of ID), while I have almost the whole scientific community of physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, and a bunch more understanding this relationship.

    Actually I have more than a single mathematician. ID also has physicists, and statisticians. Yet there isn't any evidence energy flow can explain information content.

    NE:
    Should I stop trying to explain things to you and do what you do?

    What you need to do is provide a valid reference to support yur claims.

    NE:
    Let me repeat the main question: since there is evidence for common descent, how does ignorance about how some complex things evolved invalidate the evidence?

    The "evidence" for universal common descent can be used as evidfence for alternative scenarios. There isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

    NE:
    You seem to be the one ignoring the main problem with ID, it is plainly an argument from ignorance.

    You are wrong. ID is an argument from knowledge- the ignorance is all yours.

    ell me how that paragraph does not show that it is an argument from ignorance. The one I showed you.

    The one that precedes that paragraph says it all. Ya see in order to reach a design inference first you have to eliminate the alternatives. THAT is what the second paragraph- the one you are harping on- does.

    However Behe's preceding comment presents the positive side.

    NE:
    Also, if ID is not anti-evolution, then what's your problem with evolution?

    I don't have a problem with evolution. I have a problem with ignorant people telling me that life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

    NE:
    Also, I told you already, Stonehedge can be inferred to be designed because humans existed then, even if we don't know which ones.

    We know humans existed then because they left behind STONEHENGE! And we don't know if humans designed and built it.

    NE:
    For ID to work you have to show the designer.

    That is incorrect. You don't understand how science operates.

    Again if we knew the designer we wouldn't have a design inference.

    NE:
    Also, you failed to understand that my questions about energy for building your computer is the evidence that energy accounts for the information in your computer.

    Bullshit. Energy does not account for the information in computers. It does not account for the information required to build and program computers.

    And you don't have any evidence to support your claims. The word of an anonymous evo is worthless.

    NE:
    If you don't believe it, feel free to show me the step where the information gets into your computer without any energy involved.

    Umm just because we use energy to transmit and receive information does not mean information is reducible to energy.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    Also, of course you have to account for the designer.

    The design accounts for the designer.

    Just as the theory of evolution is separate from the origins of life ID is separate from the designer(s). We infer a desogner existed due to the evidence for design.

    NE:
    You are claiming a designer or designers working across huge time spans, yet you can't show such designer?

    ID doesn't make that claim. And again you don't understand how science operates- you want proof of ID yet you can't even present a way to objectively test your position.

    NE:
    In other words, you think that my not giving you detailed evolutionary histories supports design.

    That is YOUR ignorance. The design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships.

    And all YOU have to do to refute any given design inference is actually step up and demonstrate a designer is not required by demonstrating that chance, necessity, matter and energy can account for it.

    That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics and SETI. If someone shows that Stonehenge can be built by drop stones from a glacier then we don't infer it was designed.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    We can test that the flagellum evolved.

    No, we cannot.

    NE:
    But not merely by accumulation of genetic accidents. Evolution is more than just that, you keep forgetting selection.

    The theory of evolution posits that all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. These accumulate via a variety of ways. That means selection is included.

    Unbelieveable that you can't grasp that.

    NE:
    Now, how? Look for protein homologies, find protein members of such protein families, find what they do, long et cetera. If you search for evolution of the flagellum, you will see several of these studies.

    I bet I have read them all. They are speculations based on the assumption it did evolve via accumulations of genetic accidents.

    In the end all you have is "evolution didit" and "it looks like common ancestry because I refuse to consider aything else".

    But anyway nice of you to not produce any references that support your claims about energy and information.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    I think my explanations are been lost on you.

    Look at it from my PoV- you are anonymous and haven't shown any inkling of understanding ID. Not only that I have asked you for references that you have never provided. Without those references "explanations" from an anonymous blowhard don't go very far.

    NE:
    After all, you misunderstand all my points

    Nice projection.

     
  • At 6:06 AM, Blogger GEM of The Kairos Initiative said…

    NE:

    Please see the response to your claims from here, and in the onward linked articles. Please read and respond to the cite from Granville Sewell's current peer reviewed and forthcoming article. I especially note:

    ____________________

    >> the second law predicts that natural (unintelligent) causes will not do macroscopically describable things [[i.e. we do not have to resort to a listing of the states of micro-components but can aggregate our description, and specific function of a complex entity does that nicely, note Wicken's remarks on organisation that is complex and functions based on components integrated under a wiring diagram] which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. The reason natural forces can turn a computer or a spaceship into rubble and not vice versa is probability: of all the possi-ble arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers, or fly astronauts to the moon and back safely . . . .

    in “Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?” [Sewell 2001], I generalized the equations for open systems to the following tautology, which is valid in all situations:

    If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely im-probable.

    The fact that order is disappearing in the next room does not make it any easier for computers to appear in our room—unless this order is disappearing into our room, and then only if it is a type of order that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example, computers. Importing
    thermal order into an open system may make the temperature distribution less random, and importing carbon order may make the carbon distribution less random, but neither makes the formation of computers more probable.>> [Sewell, Granville, "A Second Look at the Second Law" (Applied Mathematics Letters 24 (June 2011) pp 1022-5, pp. 5 - 8 in linked preprint.] >>
    ____________________

    (You will find the video here also to be helpful.)

    GEM of TKI

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey KF- FYI I posted a link to your response on his blog entropic evolution in the dishonesty thread.

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    Joe,

    Negative Entropy is letting you off the hook too easily, despite demolishing all of your nonsense that he has directly addressed. You keep talking about "specified complexity" as though that were a clearly defined term when in fact no intelligent design creationist has ever been able to demonstrate how to calculate it for a real biological system taking into account known evolutionary mechanisms.

    One of your buddies from UD, gpuccio, despite being demonstrably far more intelligent and educated than you are, utterly failed to accomplish this over at Mark Frank's blog. I strongly doubt you have the mental wherewithal to do any better.

    The bottom line is that everything proven in Dover is still true: There is no scientific theory of intelligent design, it makes no testable predictions, and it is nothing more than the latest incarnation of creationism created in a failed attempt to get around the US constitution.

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maya:
    Negative Entropy is letting you off the hook too easily, despite demolishing all of your nonsense that he has directly addressed.

    Except he hasn't demolished anything.

    Maya:
    You keep talking about "specified complexity" as though that were a clearly defined term when in fact no intelligent design creationist has ever been able to demonstrate how to calculate it for a real biological system taking into account known evolutionary mechanisms.

    Intelligent desgn creationists only exist in the minds of the willful ignorant- iow people like you.

    However there are people who have demonstrated how to measure specified information
    and "evolutionary mechanisms" is a misnomer because ID is not anti-evolution.

    You need blind watchmaker mechanisms.

    Maya:
    The bottom line is that everything proven in Dover is still true:

    The only thing "proven" at that trial was taht some school board members were religiously motivated.

    Maya:
    There is no scientific theory of intelligent design, it makes no testable predictions, and it is nothing more than the latest incarnation of creationism created in a failed attempt to get around the US constitution.

    Except, unlike your position, ID makes testable predictions. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for your position. You have nothing except to reject ID. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence for your position.

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for "clearly defined terms" what does your position have to offer?

    I say it has nothing- it can't even demonstrate that your "evolutionary mechanisms" can construct functional multipart systems.

    Also if Negative Entropy were correct then my computer could be powed by its programs- ie information- and not require electricity- ie energy.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "However there are people who have demonstrated how to measure specified information"

    Are you able to measure the specified information in a given gene?

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2 bits per nucleotide

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2 bits per nucleotide gives you the information carrying capacity.

    The functionaity provides the specification.

     
  • At 3:40 PM, Blogger GEM of The Kairos Initiative said…

    Joseph (and Maya):

    Following up, and saw Maya's claim that specified complexity is vague or worse.

    Perhaps she may want to look here at UD [and look also at the UD weak argument correctives on the usual obfuscatory rhetoric], for a start.

    G'day,

    GEM of TKI

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Are you able to measure the specified information in a given gene?

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "The functionaity provides the specification."

    To what level of detail do you need a functional specification in order to be able to calculate the specified information present in a given gene?
    Can you give an example of what you would accept for such a functional specification?

    Are there any genes where the specified information can be determined currently? Or if it's been done already please do link.

    So for a third time, are you able to measure the specified information in a given gene?

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "ID makes testable predictions."

    What is the next testable prediction that will be tested and where can I read not only the prediction but the results, when they are available??

    When will the results be available Joe?

    And a related question. Given the accelerating accumulation of evidence for ID do you have a time-frame for the fall of Darwinism that you are prepared to commit to publicly?

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Are you able to measure the specified information in a given gene?

    Yes, I told you how to do it.

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Given the accelerating accumulation of evidence for ID do you have a time-frame for the fall of Darwinism that you are prepared to commit to publicly?

    Darwinism was still-born.

    It is a fruitless heuristic.

    People like you are the only thing it has going. That's how fucking pathetic it is.

     
  • At 6:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks again kairofocus. Your contributions are appreciated.

    However you have to consider the opposition. Instead of spending their energy trying to find positive evience for their position, ie the correct way to falsify ID, they would rather chew on alka seltzer and act like rabid dogs.

     
  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    I say you're lying, Joe. You've made these claims before and never supported them, so the only rational conclusion is that you are willfully and intentionally stating falsehoods.

    There is no scientific theory of ID and there are no testable predictions that would serve to falsify it. Either present them or stop lying. You're making baby Jesus cry.

     
  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm the OP of this thread tells you how to test and falsify ID you ignorant fuck.

    OTOH your position has nothing beyond "anything but design!".

     
  • At 3:59 AM, Blogger OM said…

    To what level of detail do you need a functional specification in order to be able to calculate the specified information present in a given gene?
    Can you give an example of what you would accept for such a functional specification?

    Are there any genes where the specified information can be determined currently? Or if it's been done already please do link.

     
  • At 4:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes, I told you how to do it."

    Telling me how to do something is quite different from being able to do it.

    E.G I can say to you "To get to the top of a mountain you need to climb it". That does not mean that either of us can actually do it. There might be only one safe route, for example!

    You are making a specific claim, that the "specified information" in a gene can be measured.

    So rather then just "explain" how it's done (which you have not done) and expect me to do it, you need to do it!

    Would you trust my results if I were to do it?

    And so I ask once more, to what level of detail do you need a functional specification in order to be able to calculate the specified information present in a given gene? Can you give an example of what you would accept for such a functional specification?

    Without that you've not "explained" how to calculate the "specified information" in a gene. If think you have then I challenge you to see if another ID supporter can use your "instructions" to do it. Or will they need more information?

     
  • At 6:23 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Umm the OP of this thread tells you how to test and falsify ID you ignorant fuck."

    One would have thought that the people making the claim would be the people to test the claim.

    Yet for some reason ID proponents don't see it this way.

    Nobody is interested in falsifying ID, what's the point? Whatever evidence "Darwinists" produce seems to have no effect on the stance of ID proponents. Their "designer" just get's pushed back one gap.

    Rather ID proponents should be making efforts to falsify Darwinism or propose ways to test ID.

    For example, Joe, could you think up a test that would allow you to determine if the designer

    A) Acted once
    B) Acts all the time

    ?

    TT seems to think the designer acted once. UD thinks it acts all the time.

    Is there a test that can be performed to determine which of these two mutually exclusive versions of ID is closer to reality?

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Telling me how to do something is quite different from being able to do it.

    What? Please explain.

    OM:
    E.G I can say to you "To get to the top of a mountain you need to climb it".

    That doen't say anything about HOW.

    OM:
    You are making a specific claim, that the "specified information" in a gene can be measured.

    And it can be- I told you how to do it.

    OM:
    So rather then just "explain" how it's done (which you have not done) and expect me to do it, you need to do it!

    I have measured the SI of an organism.

    OM:
    Would you trust my results if I were to do it?

    Are you saying that you are too stupid to count and then multiply by 2?

    OM:
    And so I ask once more, to what level of detail do you need a functional specification in order to be able to calculate the specified information present in a given gene?

    That doesn't make any sense to me.

    Functionality = specification. So you just need to know wht the gene's function is.

    OM:
    Without that you've not "explained" how to calculate the "specified information" in a gene.

    Why?

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Umm the OP of this thread tells you how to test and falsify ID you ignorant fuck."

    OM:
    One would have thought that the people making the claim would be the people to test the claim.

    The poeple who hold yor position make claims yet fail to test them.

    OM:
    Nobody is interested in falsifying ID, what's the point?

    Then it is strange how people have been trying to falify ID for years.

    How do you explain that?

    OM:
    Whatever evidence "Darwinists" produce seems to have no effect on the stance of ID proponents.

    You haven't produced anything. That is the point.

    You can't even demonstrate Darwinian process can construct functional multipart sytems.

    OM:
    Rather ID proponents should be making efforts to falsify Darwinism or propose ways to test ID.

    We have. Your ignorance is meaningless.

    OM:
    For example, Joe, could you think up a test that would allow you to determine if the designer.

    ID isn't about the designer.

    As I have been saying for years that comes after.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I have measured the SI of an organism."

    What was the value you found and what organism was it?

    "Functionality = specification. So you just need to know wht the gene's function is."

    Can you give me an example of a gene where the function is sufficiently know such that you are able to calculate the SI present in it?

    "That doen't say anything about HOW. "

    Yes, and that's what I'm asking you. HOW do you take a gene's function and combine that with "Unknown" to come up with a specific value for the SI.

     
  • At 8:44 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "The poeple who hold yor position make claims yet fail to test them. "

    And I guess you are in the same boat then, so you can hardly complain.

    "Then it is strange how people have been trying to falify ID for years."

    ID is falify already.

    "You can't even demonstrate Darwinian process can construct functional multipart sytems."

    Neither have I demonstrated how teapots can dance around fairy rings. That's because both demonstrations are irrelevant to the question at hand.

    "ID isn't about the designer.

    As I have been saying for years that comes after."

    After what? ID has had decades to come up with something, anything.

    What is it that has to happen before ID is about "the designer" Joe? How long will it be before we get to hear some details about the designer?

    And anyway, let's put it another way then if you refuse to answer anything that has "designer" in it.

    Joe, which of the following options best describes ID?

    A) ID has shown that unexpected events relating to DNA changes happened only once.

    B) ID has shown that unexpected events relating to DNA changes happen all the time.

    Exact same question but this time nothing about the designer. Yet I suspect you'll make up an excuse not to answer anyway.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And I guess you are in the same boat then, so you can hardly complain.

    Let's see- ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. It can be tested.

    OTOH your position is bsed on the batle cry "anything but design!"- it cannot be tested.

    Hardly the same boat.

    OM:
    ID is falify already.

    Unfortunately for you ID cannot be falsifid via bald declaration. And that is all you have.

    "You can't even demonstrate Darwinian process can construct functional multipart sytems."

    OM:
    Neither have I demonstrated how teapots can dance around fairy rings. That's because both demonstrations are irrelevant to the question at hand.

    It is very relevant for if you cannot test your position then that is what you need to focus on.

    IOW you need to get yor house in order before going after someone eleses.

    "ID isn't about the designer.

    As I have been saying for years that comes after."


    OM:
    After what?

    After ID is the established paradigm. Then we will have the resources required to ask/ answer such questions.

    OM:
    Joe, which of the following options best describes ID?

    A) ID has shown that unexpected events relating to DNA changes happened only once.

    B) ID has shown that unexpected events relating to DNA changes happen all the time.


    Neither.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    What was the value you found and what organism was it?

    I found that CSI is present- Mycoplasma genitalium

    "That doen't say anything about HOW. "

    OM:
    Yes, and that's what I'm asking you.

    I told you how, so the problem must be you. As in yo are too stupid to understand anything.

    OM:
    HOW do you take a gene's function and combine that with "Unknown" to come up with a specific value for the SI.

    No idea what you are talking about.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Have a good day-

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I found that CSI is present- Mycoplasma genitalium"

    And what was the value for the CSI/SI you found?

    Was it

    A) Some
    B) More
    C) Lots

    Can you put an actual figure on it or not? If you can't then what you are doing is hardly science is it? If nobody else can reproduce your results (and you refuse to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to try) then you are essentially just a crank.

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "After ID is the established paradigm. Then we will have the resources required to ask/ answer such questions."

    Then it will never happen because you only overthrow existing paradigms by replacing them with ones that explain more the the old one.

    Anyway, you keep telling me that I need to provide evidence for my position yet you fail to see that applies to you even more then I.

    You appear to be saying "The only way I can provide evidence for my claims is by being in a situation where there is already evidence for my claims".

    If ID waits for ID to become the established paradigm before showing it's evidence then you'll be waiting a very long time indeed as that's simply not how it works. Nobody is going to say "Let's give ID a go now, this Darwinism thing is just not working out". You've got to give them a reason (i.e. ability to better explain a set of observed data) to change over. And you are saying you can't give that reason until you've changed over.

    You've not thought this one through have you Joe?

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Can you put an actual figure on it or not? If you can't then what you are doing is hardly science is it?

    So you admit your position is science because it can't put actual figures on anything.

    That said- There isn't any need for a solid number just that CSI is present or not. But I have put an actual figure to it. It is greater than 1 million bits of SI.

     
  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then it will never happen because you only overthrow existing paradigms by replacing them with ones that explain more the the old one.

    The old one doesn't explain anything and it replaced thedesign inference just by bald declaration. Go figure.

    OM:
    Anyway, you keep telling me that I need to provide evidence for my position yet you fail to see that applies to you even more then I.

    I have provided evidence for my position.

    Next yo prove that you are a tard:

    If ID waits for ID to become the established paradigm before showing it's evidence...

    That doesn't haveanything to d with what I said. You are a tisted freak.

    I said we have to wait until ID is the reigning paradigm before anyone answers thequestions you are asking, which have nothing to do with ID but are questions that will be asked once ID reigns.

    FIRST there is a design inference. THEN you ask and try to answer the questions that raises.

    But anyway your ignorance is not a refutation. We have presented positive evidence for ID. Tards like you choke on it every time we do so.

    Then you blame us.

    So once again we are at the point where you won't ante up and you are too stupid to understand the positive evidence for ID.

    Same place, different piece of shit evotard.

    Feels like "Groundhog Day" ...

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "There isn't any need for a solid number just that CSI is present or not."

    Huh? How can you tell that CSI is even present if you are unable to measure it?

    "But I have put an actual figure to it. It is greater than 1 million bits of SI."

    Could you link to where you have shown your working on that calculation?

    Also what was the functional specification used to determine that value of SI?

    Also "more then a million" is a little imprecise. What's the upper limit, 1 billion, 10 billion bits of SI?

    And finally, what are your error margins? Let me guess, +/- 1 million bits?

    So if you are unable to put a precise number on the amount of SI in a given object then it seems to me you are just going by gut feel. It "looks complex" therefore it has lots of SI.

    And that's exactly how science does not work.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So once again we are at the point where you won't ante up and you are too stupid to understand the positive evidence for ID."

    Joe the banner of this blog says "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning."

    Why do I have to ante up anything with regard to Darwinism at all? Why don't you promote ID to me instead, you can start by showing your calculation for your "1 million+ bits of SI" claim.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why do I have to ante up anything with regard to Darwinism at all? Why don't you promote ID to me instead, you can start by showing your calculation for your "1 million+ bits of SI" claim.

    I have promoted ID on this blog and I have shown the calculation on this blog.

    Again your ignorance is meaningless to me.

    Why do you think that your ignorant spewage is meaningful dscourse?

    I understand it hurts that you can't support your position and therefor are forced to lash-out in anger.

    But that ain't how science is done, is it?

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    At least, unlike you, I don't like to forums to try to refute my opponents' claims.

    Look you are clueless about lightning so it is doubtful you can understand biology.

    I also see that you are clueless about energy and information.

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I also see that you are clueless about energy and information."

    Who's more clueless, me who is asking some very simple questions about information and energy or you who will go to any lengths to avoid answering those very simple questions?

     
  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I have promoted ID on this blog and I have shown the calculation on this blog."

    Please provide a link or title of the blog post where you do what no other ID proponent has been able to do in the entire history of ID.

    I.E. Calculate the SI/CSI in a specific biological organism.

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I understand it hurts that you can't support your position and therefor are forced to lash-out in anger."

    Why this obsession with my inability to support a position? This blog is about ID and I want to talk about ID.

    Fact is if you could talk about ID you would, but you can't, and so that's the reason for you obsessing about "my position".

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I also see that you are clueless about energy and information."

    OM:
    Who's more clueless, me who is asking some very simple questions about information and energy or you who will go to any lengths to avoid answering those very simple questions?

    The questions you asked say that you are clueless and the questions you have avoided prove it.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why this obsession with my inability to support a position?

    No obsession. It is just part of my blog rules. If you can't support your position in any way, mean or form, you are not welcome here. I am not answerable to intellectual cowards who are willfully ignorant.

    OM:
    Fact is if you could talk about ID you would-

    The OP of the thread proves that I talk about ID. The fact that you cannot stay on-topic proves that you are nothing but an asshole on an agenda.

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Please provide a link or title of the blog post where you do what no other ID proponent has been able to do in the entire history of ID.

    Again your ignorance is meaningless here.

    You just don't get to walk around with your head up your ass and expect people to take you seriously.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And seeing that you hail from Great Britain, would you say that you are more of a tosser or a wanker?

     
  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Again your ignorance is meaningless here."

    I take that to mean you cannot so link.

    Why? It would be so easy to prove me wrong. But for some reason you refuse to do so. Perhaps it's because you can't?

     
  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Prove you wrong? You aren't even wrong.

    And your taunts are meaningless.

     
  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Maya said…

    This is why we laugh at you at AtBC, Joey.

    If you really had done what you claim, you could simply link to it. You can't because you haven't done it.

    You are a liar. What does your holy book say about bearing false witness? As I remember, it was against it.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, I don't provide links on command from evotards because I like fucking with evotards.

    here ya go.

    BTW moron, I don't have any holy book. I am not religious. You can't understand normal thinking...

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    " I don't provide links on command"

    That link does not contain what you pretend it contains.

    I asked for you to calculate the SI/CSI in a specific biological organism.

    All you've done is a simple mathematical operation.

    Paris japonica has a much larger genome then human beings. Therefore according to your "metric" they have more SI.

    And that's somewhat odd, don't you think?

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    That link does not contain what you pretend it contains.

    Yes it does you ignorant freak.

    In that link there are links to Mg.

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Does Paris japonica has a much larger genome then human beings and therefore more SI, or not?

    Show your working!

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Does Paris japonica has a much larger genome then human beings and therefore more SI, or not?

    I don't care.

     
  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I don't care."

    No, you don't.

     
  • At 6:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So what?

    Do you even have a point?

     
  • At 4:05 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Do you even have a point?"

    I do and you are illustrating it perfectly. That point is that if you were engaged in a scientific enterprise you'd have some interest in answering questions that follow from your claims. Or showing that the answers were available in principle.

    But you don't care. It's just dogma for you, repeating DI talking points over and over. The same old blah for years and years and where has it got you? Up Bradford's skirt...

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I do and you are illustrating it perfectly. That point is that if you were engaged in a scientific enterprise you'd have some interest in answering questions that follow from your claims.

    You are an imbecile. I don't folllow your ignorant leads. Your questions are irrelevant.

    OM:
    But you don't care.

    Right, I don't care what you say and what you say is important really isn't.

    You are a clueless dolt wo links to a discussion board for evidence to try to refute my claims.

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "You are a clueless dolt wo links to a discussion board for evidence to try to refute my claims."

    I'm able to link to the primary scientific literature in order to support my claims. You link to your own blog or (guffaw) AIG and other creationist sites.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Over on TT you just linked to creationsafaris

    http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110222a

    Yeah, because that's a really reliable source!

    Your claims to not be religiously motivated are looking somewhat thin, especially as you did not even comment on my pointing out your veiled references to "the fall" and the garden of Eden earlier. Did you feel that denying that would be a cock crow too far?

    Just come out and say you are a creationist, it's the honest thing to do!

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I'm able to link to the primary scientific literature in order to support my claims.

    Liar.

    I challenge you to link to primary scientific literature for lightning coming from a clear sky.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Over on TT you just linked to creationsafaris

    Nope. However that article is supported by peer-review.

    OM:
    Your claims to not be religiously motivated are looking somewhat thin...

    Well your opinion is worthless and biased.

    OM:
    ... especially as you did not even comment on my pointing out your veiled references to "the fall" and the garden of Eden earlier.

    My ignoring your ignorance now means something? Besides I answered you- ENTROPY not the fall.

    However Dembski, being a Christian, should realize the fall would explain junk DNA.

    So you really think your drooling rants are meaningful discourse.

    Strange...

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    National Geographic News:

    Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says- no creationists there, same result.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You link to your own blog...

    I link to my blog to support my claim that I have supported my claims.

    Where else would I link to to do that?

     
  • At 2:25 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "However that article is supported by peer-review."

    Please tell me who the peer reviewers were. I'm willing to be corrected.

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BWAAAAAHAAAAAA- what a fuckhead you are.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Creationist commentary is hardly peer reviewed science is it now Joe?

    Astronomers often speak with apparent confidence about regions of active star formation in nebulae or galaxies. A look at the fine print, however, shows plenty of wiggle room when observations don’t quite match theory.

    http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110222a

    Yeah, damm pesky astronomers, always changing their theories when new observations are made.

    They should take the lead from the dogmatic religious folk. Set it in stone once (literally) and keep it like that for all time. Why change, ever?

     
  • At 6:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Creationist commentary is hardly peer reviewed science is it now Joe?

    You are fucking dense.

    Forget the creation site. I linked to National Geographic.

    The science used for that article was peer-reviewed- you have to follow their leads though.

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I challenge you to link to primary scientific literature for lightning coming from a clear sky.

     
  • At 4:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=290594

     
  • At 4:07 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "The science used for that article was peer-reviewed- you have to follow their leads though."

    So what? New observations always trump theory. It's called "science".

    Tell me, what claim is it that you are making that you believe is supported by that article? Please be specific, if you can...

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I challenge you to link to primary scientific literature for lightning coming from a clear sky.

    OM:
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=290594

    So you answer with a literature bluff?

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Tell me, what claim is it that you are making that you believe is supported by that article?

    Why did I have to be making any claim? I wasn't the one who posted in to begin with.

    Why are you even chiming in about it?

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "So you answer with a literature bluff?"

    It's exactly what you asked for. Primary scientific work on the exact topic you wanted.

    Not my fault if you don't understand it. Perhaps I can find another, simpler, one.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger OM said…

    ABSTRACT

    The present understanding of natural lightning is reviewed. Specific topics addressed include: sources of lightning; negative cloud-to-ground lightning; positive cloud-to-ground lightning; upward lightning cloud discharges; top-of-the-cloud and clear air lightning; and lightning avoidance and protection.

     
  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I challenge you to link to primary scientific literature for lightning coming from a clear sky.

    There isn't anything in the abstract that hints of the paper addressing that.

    Clouds are not a clear sky.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Yep, I guess when they wrote clear air lightning they really meant cloudy air lightning.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Heat lightning- heat lightning is often called clear-air lightning.

    Clear skies do not cause the lightning...

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Anvil lightning is also called clear-air lightning because the bolt can travel some 10-20 miles from the storm cloud and it appears to come from the clear blue sky.

     
  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "it appears to come from the clear blue sky."

    And to you DNA appears designed.

    However when you take a detailed look it turns out to be simply an illusion of design.

    Very apt. Thanks for agreeing and making my point for me.

     
  • At 2:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And to you DNA appears designed.

    However when you take a detailed look it turns out to be simply an illusion of design.


    Strange how the more we know the better the design inference looks.

     
  • At 12:06 AM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    GEM,

    Seems like to answer I would have to have some kind of account that I do not have. I also note that you start by calling my points "specious" then follow to make specious remarks at a level that it would take forever for me to answer. So how am I supposed to be able to answer to such a long list of misinformation?

    I might try later. But for now it all looks as if you are trying to re-state the already debunked ideas about entropy opposing complexity and evolution, time and again using the wrong examples and a tad or two of misinformation. I know it is unfair to say so and leave it without explanation, but I don't have the time right now. Nor do I enjoy writing without knowing when will my comments appear here, nor how to answer in your forum. So, later, hopefully. I am quite busy for the moment.

    Still, I give you but one example of answers:

    The fact that order is disappearing in the next room does not make it any easier for computers to appear in our room

    What is the purpose of writing something like this other than to misguide a reader into thinking that scientists are proposing such a ridiculous thing? Nobody is doing that. What we understand is that there can be a localized increase in order for as long as such order "is payed." Life takes loads of high-availability energy and transforms it into less available energy and other materials, thus resulting in an overall increase in entropy. Nobody is talking about a disconnected place compensating for the loss of entropy in the living form. SO why this cartoon at all?

    —unless this order is disappearing into our room, and then only if it is a type of order that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example, computers. Importing Importing thermal order into an open system may make the temperature distribution less random, and importing carbon order may make the carbon distribution less random, but neither makes the formation of computers more probable

    Let us think for a minute. We don't want randomness to disappear. Randomness is what makes our local order possible. If things were uniform we would lack energy differentials, the ones that make the natural appearance of local order/organization possible. So, randomness makes for energy differentials which make for life to be possible, ultimately being responsible for the appearance of computers (after we evolved). This is why scale is important in understanding these phenomena. Nothing in the universe would be possible if everything was evenly distributed. Hydrogen started accumulating into clouds and such because of its random distribution allowed for local gravitational pulls. The immense scale is what made it possible.

    The energy received from the sun, the scale of our planet, its rotation, and its non-even distribution of materials, for example, make it possible for localized order to appear. Randomness and natural laws explain a lot. Only you are looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective.

    ... have to stop here for now ...

    Have a good week end.

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I love the continued bald assertions:

    But for now it all looks as if you are trying to re-state the already debunked ideas about entropy opposing complexity and evolution, time and again using the wrong examples and a tad or two of misinformation.

    Just how were they debunked? So far all I hae seen are bald declarations.

    So, randomness makes for energy differentials which make for life to be possible,...

    Nice unsupportable nonsense.

    NE:
    The energy received from the sun, the scale of our planet, its rotation, and its non-even distribution of materials, for example, make it possible for localized order to appear.

    And another bald assertion.

    NE:
    Randomness and natural laws explain a lot.

    Your position can't explain those natural laws.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Your position can't explain those natural laws."

    And your position says those laws were designed. Sans evidence.

    The honest people say "we don't know" however.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And your position says those laws were designed.

    Because of the evidence for their design.

    OM:
    The honest people say "we don't know" however.

    Not too many of those people around.

    Ya see "we don't know" applies to many, many things including evolution. As a matter of fcat the only thing to say pertaining to the theory of evolution is "we don't know".

    But that doesn't sell books.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My apologies to NE for the following exchange:

    So, randomness makes for energy differentials which make for life to be possible, (ultimately being responsible for the appearance of computers (after we evolved).)

    I said that was unsupportable nonsense- because I read something into it that you didn't say. I read that as if you said "make for life to be possible via blind, undirected chemical processes", which you didn't say.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe G,

    It would e helpful for your learning to note that GEM of the KI actually showed in his comments that information is a form of energy. Maybe you will get it this time: if entropy goes against order and organization, and if entropy is mentioned in the second law of thermodynamics, and if thermodynamics is the science of energy conversion; plus, if information is a form of organization, it follows that information is a form of energy. Any issues, ask your friend. Not me. Because if information is not a form of organization, and it is not opposed by a law in the study of energy conversion, flows, and such, then there is no reason to talk about entropy within this exchange, is it?

    As for my "bald" assertions, could you please try and pay attention? I know it is useless to try and guide you through questions, you are uneducable, but here I go again: (1) would we have energy differentials if the whole thing were evenly distributed? (2) Would energy flow be possible without energy differentials? and (3) If there were no energy flow, would we be able to do anything at all?

    If you can answer those three simple questions carefully and sincerely, you will see that none of my assertions was "bald." Please think before you make a claim. My words are chosen somewhat with care (I see a huge mistake in one sentence, but you did not pick on that one, but I am sure your friend will), they are also explanations, not just assertions. A picture should be forming in your mind as you read what I wrote. Well, only if you have enough imagination and a minimal level of scientific understanding. What was the name of your blog again?

    Best and keep having a great weekend.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    I had not seen that you retracted one "unsupported nonsense" claim. Still, when I repeated the thing with other words, you said: "And another bald assertion."

    So, it might be that about half, or a third, or a quarter, of my previous (still-to-appear) answer is not necessary.

    I don't know what to make of it all though.

    As for this:

    Your position can't explain those natural laws.

    Well, what position is that? What do you mean by "explain"? Because my position lives happily with natural laws. What should I be so worried about? Can you be clear and precise about this?

     
  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    Because my position lives happily with natural laws.

    Yes it does. As Stephen Hawking said "They just are (the way tehy are)"- and that is what passes for science.

    Your position- anything but design, information is energy, given enough time and energy anything can happen.

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Would energy even exist without information? Would we have atoms without information? Would we have the strong and weak nuclear forces without information?

    Cklaude Shannon was talking about energy with his paper on communication?

    Information is just specified energy?

    Norbert Weiner and others say that information isn't energy nor matter. Energy and matter are carriers of information.

    As for your assertions- well I keep asking for references yet you just provide more of yourself as a reference to what you said.

    I have asked you how you are defining information and you went off on some tirade about me changing the definition of information.

    So you have refused to support anything you have said and you have refused to clarify your terms.

    You also seem to think that science via promissory notes is OK as long as those promissory notes are from the blind watchmaker.

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    1) would we have energy differentials if the whole thing were evenly distributed?

    No and irrelevant.

    (2) Would energy flow be possible without energy differentials?

    No, still irrelevant.



    and (3) If there were no energy flow, would we be able to do anything at all?

    No, but that doesn't mean information is energy. And adding unlimited energy plus eons of time doesn't mean you will get us.

    There is a reason why 10^500 other verses/ tries at (uni)verses is brought as "scientific" evidence agains the designer requirement.

    There's just not enough time in this one universe. Think about that...

     
  • At 8:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 10:38 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Hey Joe,

    Show me exactly where did I say that information was either entropy or uncertainty. I certainly did not say that. However, read that article that you linked and tell me whether you don't see that it shows that information opposes entropy and the long et cetera leading to show you that I am right. You linked that just for the title without reading it, didn't you? Well, that is but one of the many things I had to read in order to be able to do the work I do involving energy and information in living systems--there you go, another reference. See? They were a few clicks away if you tried to answer my questions, which you keep neglecting.

    My position is not "anything but design." My position is: if natural phenomena explain it (they do), then it was natural. No need to add unverifiable "intelligent designers." If you show me actual, verifiable, designers I might start changing my mind though. But arguments from ignorance such as ID won't work.

    Why would it be "unscientific" to think that natural laws just are? I might be wrong that they just are, but I don't see why. Try and be specific for once in your life. Can you properly show me why they can't just be? (I bet you will not.)

    Cklaude Shannon was talking about energy with his paper on communication?

    He did talk about entropy. I read the paper (another one I had to understand for my work). He does not make it very explicit whether he used the term because of an actual finding by himself that physical entropy and his measure were connected though. However, his equations were what made it possible to notice the link to actual physical entropy (opposing information), and thus the relationships to energy. Energy flow, thus, explains information and organization, which is my first claim.

    Norbert Weiner and others say that information isn't energy nor matter. Energy and matter are carriers of information.

    I don't give a damn. They were/are wrong (Weiner has been dead since 1964).

    As for your assertions- well I keep asking for references yet you just provide more of yourself as a reference to what you said.

    I provided questions that would have guided you to the actual discovery of relevant references. But no matter now. You know about Shannon, you know about Tom Schneider, and about the information / matter / energy relationships. You just will deny the main issue no matter what. You have a few old-time references, such as Weiner and the IDers clan, while I have an enormous scientific community and the proper understanding of these issues on my side. All you have is denial after denial and lack of self-respect.

    There is a reason why 10^500 other verses/ tries at (uni)verses is brought as "scientific" evidence agains the designer requirement.

    I will not enter a discussion about a field I know nothing about. Worse if the field is so hot that the issues are far from settled. Unlike you, I don't presume of knowing something I have barely touched, but I bet you happily jump around about how nicely fine-tuned those constants are, despite you don't know where those numbers come from, nor what those constants mean, nor do you even slightly wonder why would those numbers be called constants, yet be treated as variables. Right?

    There's just not enough time in this one universe. Think about that...

    Ha! Good joke Joe. There's more than enough time in this Universe. At least steal those arguments properly Joe. The multiverses is not about time, it is about "fine-tuning."

    Have a most fantastic Sunday Joe.

     
  • At 3:20 AM, Blogger GEM of The Kairos Initiative said…

    Having seen a link, I came back for a moment. The tone and language above do not impress or appeal to me, as they foster a climate of incivility.

    Howbeit, some points do need to be made:

    1: The informational view of thermodynamics shows a link between thermodynamic and informational entropy [and do not equate energy and information], as is outlined here, esp points 3 - 5; I suggest you cf. Robertson's Thermal Physics, Prentice Hall, 1993, for technical details.

    2: The sum of these is that thermodynamic entropy is about the degree of freedom -- number of macro-level equivalent ways -- to arrange mass and energy at basic (typically, microscopic) level consistent with overall lab scale constraints; information is of course a constraint on such arrangements, e.g. the specificity of chaining of a DNA string is lab-observable functional, and thus a specifying constraint.

    3: When it comes to metrics of DNA information, the basic one is of course 4 states per G/C/A/T or U symbol [ultimately expressed as in effect the height of a key-tab, similar to a Yale lock's prongs . . . hence use of key-lock fitting to match successive mRNA codons and tRNA anticodons in the ribosome to drive protein AA sequencing -- a clear digital code of prescriptive instructions], with little or no chemical constraint on the sequence [or else it would be useless for storing information], i.e. 2 bits per base.

    4: This yields an info capacity metric of 2 bits/functional base, as JoeG has noted. This is the same metric of functionally specific bits commonly used to specify computer file sizes or CD/DVD storage. The no metric mantra is mindless reiteration of a strawman fallacy.

    5: This also immediately yields a way to measure info capacity in proteins, as the proteins use 3-letter codons to stipulate AA's, but this is complicated by he high degree of redundancy.

    6: If we observe the Durston et al approach published in the peer review literature since 2007 [notice the willful distortion sustained for years in the face of manifest and public facts to the contrary], the H-metric of average info carrying capacity per symbol bearing in mind redundancies, and factor in observed variability of closely related proteins, we arrive at the functional bits or FITS metric used to give this table of measures for 35 protein families.

    7: Using the basic metric, it is fairly simple to note that 1,000 bits of functionally specific complex information storing capacity indicates a configuration space of 1.07*10^301 possibilities; where the observed cosmos' ~ 10^80 atoms counted at the Planck-time for states [about 10^20 times faster than strong nuclear force interactions], and for the 10^25 s or so for the thermodynamic lifespan of the cosmos b3efore effective heat death [about 50 mn times the duration since the usual estimate for the singularity] would scan about 10^150 stwstes, less than 1 in 10^150 of the possibilities.

    [ . . . ]

     
  • At 3:20 AM, Blogger GEM of The Kairos Initiative said…

    8: In short, 1,000 bits specifies so many possibilities that a random walk on arbitrary initial conditions would scan effectively zero fraction of the space; i.e. chance based search is maximally unlikely to hit on clusters of functionally specific configs [= "islands of function"]; yest, intelligence routinely produces over 125 bytes or over 143 ASCII characters of functional info.

    9: Such FSCI, unsurprisingly, is a reliable, observable sign of design, e.g. as Dembsli noted in his rebuttal to Miller in 2003, Still Spinning Just fine:

    ______________

    >> The proper question is not how often or at what places a designing intelligence intervenes but rather at what points do signs of intelligence first become evident. Intelligent design therefore makes an epistemological rather than ontological point. To understand the difference, imagine a computer program that outputs alphanumeric characters on a computer screen. The program runs for a long time and throughout that time outputs what look like random characters. Then abruptly the output changes and the program outputs the most sublime poetry. Now, at what point did a designing intelligence intervene in the output of the program? Clearly, this question misses the mark because the program is deterministic and simply outputs whatever the program dictates.

    There was no intervention at all that changed the output of the program from random gibberish to sublime poetry. And yet, the point at which the program starts to output sublime poetry is the point at which we realize that the output is designed and not random. [notice, digitally coded FSCI as a reliable and recognisable sign of design] Moreover, it is at that point that we realize that the program itself is designed . . . >>

    10: As for testability,t his example shows a direct way to do so, i.e set up a white noise generator, hook it up to an output device, and test it in successive 1,000 bit chunks for a functionally specific message; i.e. and infinite monkeys test.

    11: Results: Config spaces of order 10^50 are searchable and we can find coherent text, but spaces of order 10^301, for good reason, are beyond the search capacity of our entire cosmos. So, when we see dFSCI beyond 1,000 bits, we may very comfortably infer to intelligence.

    12: The kicker: the "simplest" DNA complements for living forms have over 100,000 bits, and this heads to 3 - 4 billions and more for more complex life forms. The protein coding segments, alone go well past 1,000 bits. And, that is before we try to work out the implications of codes, algorithms and organised implementing machinery in the cell.
    _______________

    It is time that such FSCI was recognised for what it is and what it reliably signifies.

    GEM of TKI

     
  • At 3:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey NE,

    Where did I say you said information was entropy?

    NE:
    My position is: if natural phenomena explain it (they do), then it was natural. No need to add unverifiable "intelligent designers.

    You are calling on unverifiable natural pheneomenon. And natural laws aren't explainable via natural phenomena- so where does that leave you?

    The ORIGIN of nature can't be explained via natural phenomena- geez you are just shit out of luck.

    NE:
    Why would it be "unscientific" to think that natural laws just are?

    How can you test that? It isn't based on anything.

    Cklaude Shannon was talking about energy with his paper on communication?

    NE:
    He did talk about entropy.

    And that is why I provided that link.

    And AGAIN- having a relationship with eb=nergy does not mean information is energy.

    That you cannot grasp such a simple concept tells me you have serious issues.

    And BTW just saying Norbert Weiner et al., are wrong doesn't make it so. You have filed to support anuthing you have posted.

    NE:
    I provided questions that would have guided you to the actual discovery of relevant references.

    Provide the references or admit you are a liar.

    NE:
    You know about Shannon, you know about Tom Schneider, and about the information / matter / energy relationships.

    Yup and you ignore what I have to say about that.

    Your ignorance is meaningless.

    NE:
    while I have an enormous scientific community and the proper understanding of these issues on my side.

    Liar.

    NE:
    There's more than enough time in this Universe.

    Umm the reason for the 10^500 verses is because there isn't enough time and resources for the job for just one universe.

    NE:
    The multiverses is not about time, it is about "fine-tuning

    It is about opportunistic resources, including time.

    But anyway it is very noticeable that you still haven't supported anything you have claimed.

     
  • At 5:58 AM, Blogger GEM of The Kairos Initiative said…

    F/N: A remark on tone and substance of communication.

    I am not impressed with resort to strawmannish caricature talking-points and vulgarities.

    But far worse is the sort of insistence I am seeing on willfully slanderous -- and long since publicly corrected -- terms like "Intelligent Design Creationists." (Start here, if you don't already know that this term is a cheap slander.)

    Those who resort to such insistence on atmosphere-poisoning slanders, are telling those with eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to understand, that they are willful, dangerous, polarising and deceptive.

    Liars, in one word.

    Stop it, now.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If information is energy I should be able to search on that and get a ton of hits.

    Yet all I can get is some discussion board and some reference to the Japanese experiment.

    IOW it is obvious that NE can't support his claims and his refusal to answer my questions proves it.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Stuart A. Umpleby, "Physical Relationships among Matter, Energy and Information", Published in Systems Research and Behavioral Science Vol. 24, No. 3, 2007, pp. 369-372

    Yes there is a relationship btwen the three but it is clear just because a rlationship exits they ae still seperate entities.

     
  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joey,

    Yet all I can get is some discussion board and some reference to the Japanese experiment.

    And the japanese experiment succeeded at extracting what from information?

    Thanks a lot Joe, that's all we had to know.

    Also, the point remains that energy flow accounts for information, and that your link to the Schneider explanations, which you did not read properly, or did not understand, support my stand. It does not matter whether you will accept that information is energy. Energy flow still accounts for information. Live with it.

    Congrats! you are finding references yourself!

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    And the japanese experiment succeeded at extracting what from information?

    That's the rub- did they really get energy from information? It's in question if you haven't been following along.

    Also that they can get energy from this type of "information" doesn't mean information is energy.

    NE:
    Also, the point remains that energy flow accounts for information...

    So you have said yet never supported.

    NE:
    ...and that your link to the Schneider explanations, which you did not read properly, or did not understand, support my stand.

    Obviously you didn't read it or cannot understand it.

    Also nice of you to keep avoiding my questions.

    NE:
    It does not matter whether you will accept that information is energy.

    It seems only you and OM think so. hardly a consensus. LoL!

    NE:
    Energy flow still accounts for information.

    It dosn't make it so just because you keep saying the same unsupportd bullshit over and over again.

    And that you are avoiding my questions pretty much proves tht you are full of shit.

    NE:
    Congrats! you are finding references yourself!

    I am finding many that disagree with you and not one that agrees with you- well that discussion board, maybe...

    Go figure

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is a relationship between members of any given family.

    Therefor by Negative Entropy's "logic" all members of any given family are the same member.

    Look at the equation:

    Family = all of its members

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I brought the Japanese experiment many days ago.

    That could be the problem- you ain't reading my posts...

     
  • At 2:16 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    GEM of The KI.

    Slander? DI is 100% creationism. The disguising is so pretentious that it is hard to miss. ID is but a long-hot-balloned creationist repackaging mostly of god-of-the-gaps arguments mixed with strawmanising of opposing views. And such is typical of what? You guessed it: Apologetics. Which is what? The "defense," by whichever means necessary of religious beliefs, no matter how dishonest the tactics.

    And please get off your high-horse. Why such enormous pretence? Do you think that your hot air amounts for anything? You did not make the slightest sense. I know this impresses your admirers, such as Joe, but wordy nonsense does not impress me. As for "language" and such, weren't you who called my arguments "specious" first and continued then heavily speciously yourself?

    Let me show you a bit:

    Previous to "4" all you do is confirm that information and energy are related. Whether you want to admit that information is energy or not, is inconsequential. Energy still accounts for information.

    4: This yields an info capacity metric of 2 bits/functional base, as JoeG has noted. This is the same metric of functionally specific bits commonly used to specify computer file sizes or CD/DVD storage.

    It does not matter, a raw calculation of raw capacity does not mean you have that amount of actual information. My hard drive might be able to contain a terabyte of information, but that does not mean it contains that amount of information.

    The no metric mantra is mindless reiteration of a strawman fallacy.

    I never said anything about a non-metric anything. So, unless you can show me that I did, you are being slanderous. Oh the irony.

    5. Protein information capacity is not information content either.

    Then all you do is agree with me that the amount of bits necessary to describe a particular DNA sequence is not the same as the amount of information in the sequence, let alone the amount of "complex specified information." which would necessarily be a subset of the total information in the system.

    Then you go to the classic creationist distortion/strawman of evolution (irony of ironies) by comparing number of possible states given a complete random search through such a space, when it is well established that it is not completely random, that selection plays a role, that historical accumulation can and does build on top of past success, and that nobody knows how many solutions are indeed possible. And you have the gall to insist that ID is not creationism yet you use the very same fallacious tactics embellished with loads of jargon and hot air?

    So, the kicker is that you have nothing but hot air about measuring things you have not measured but in capacity, never in terms of "complex specified information." Which should be a subset of the capacity, sure, but you still have not shown a way to measure such a thing. Thus, all hot air inflating a ballon of an already tired and debunked argument of post-hoc probabilities and ignorance. Bra-vo.

    If you are not impressed by my "language" and "incivility" take a look in the mirror. Your pretence of "educated discourse" will work well with Joe and others. But you don't fool me. You are insulting and condescending while pretending to be educated. Pay attention to the plank in your own eye.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    Therefor by Negative Entropy's "logic" all members of any given family are the same member.

    This would be true if any of these members could transform into each other. Can they? Matter and energy interconvert. Information can be transformed into energy too.

    So nice try but you fail yet again.

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    BTW I brought the Japanese experiment many days ago.

    I know. Where did I say you didn't? I called you on it before too, didn't I?

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Negative Entropy said…

    Joe,

    So you have said yet never supported.

    I Have more than supported. But show me wrong: how do you get information without energy? The floor is again all yours.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    This would be true if any of these members could transform into each other. Can they? Matter and energy interconvert. Information can be transformed into energy too.

    Let's see if matter and energy can interconvert, and people are made out of matter and energy, then it must be possible to transform memebrs of a family into each other.

    And it is questionable that information can be translated into energy.

    But again you have avoided all of my questions.

    NE:
    But show me wrong: how do you get information without energy?

    Energy is an information carrier. So unless we can find a zero energy information carrier there will be that relationship. But having that relationship doesn't mean they are the same thing.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NE:
    DI is 100% creationism.

    Only to the willfully ignorant. ID doesn't have anything to do ith the Bible, Creation is all about it.

    Yes information and energy are related, energy is an information carrier.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home