The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

Now now JC, you don't have to dumb it down for us. Please be as technical as you can.

What would a random change to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information look like?
What improvement would constitute this change?

Feel free to use hypothetical examples.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Now now JC, you don't have to dumb it down for us. Please be as technical as you can.

What would a random change to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information look like?

It would (and does) look like a mutation.

King Mob wrote: »

What improvement would constitute this change?

No substantive improvement, that I am aware of ... and many deleterious ones of varying degrees of seriousness.

King Mob wrote: »

Feel free to use hypothetical examples.

Here's the thing ... we cannot even imagine hypothetically, how functional structures could go through the sort of changes necessary to evolve Pondkind into Mankind and still retain sufficient functionality, at every step along the way, to ensure that each step will be selected.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It would (and does) look like a mutation.

What kind of mutation though? And how would it be different from a mutation which you say would always be harmful?
Would it be a mutation that is not harmful, or a mutation that alters or adds a function?
Again I appreciate you avoiding any heavy science or technical terms. But I assure you that I think I can keep up if you use them.

J C wrote: »

No substantive improvement, that I am aware of ... and many deleterious ones of varying degrees of seriousness.

But what would count as an improvement?

J C wrote: »

Here's the thing ... we cannot even imagine hypothetically, how functional structures could go through the sort of changes necessary to evolve Pondkind into Mankind and still retain sufficient functionality, at every step along the way, to ensure that each step will be selected.

I'm not asking you to imagine all those changes. I'm just asking you what any good scientist who knows why evolution isn't true scientifically would have thought about.
Since you're a scientist and all, sure you would have thought about a prediction or experiment that would confirm or falsify evolution.

So what should we have seen in the lab if evolution is true?

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

Nothing ever changes around here eh... Sam Vimes where art thou - the nostalgia is pouring in.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

Delirium

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

He actually is the person who coined the phrase. Yet can't tell us what would be evidence of it.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

sephir0th

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

Pretty sure William Dumbski used a similar phrase/concept but ended up completely retracting his position. J.C. missed the memo years ago.

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Nothing ever changes around here eh... Sam Vimes where art thou - the nostalgia is pouring in.

Perhaps because it's difficult to improve on the truth of what actually happened

... and irony of all ironies you try to prove your point with a link to a situation where random changes are being made to a Complex Functional Specified Clock Radio ... and the inevitable result is disaster!!!
... just like mutagenesis (the supposed 'engine' of evolutionary change) actually.:)

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

Highly Complex Functional Specified machines often have considerable built-in redundancy and minor random changes can produce quirky, even interesting results ... like poking a stick into a machine or hitting a loudspeaker with a hammer ... but a repetition or a build up of such random impacts will inevitably produce disaster.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

It's correct ... and you guys are privileged to be recipients of the 'cutting edge' in ID theory.:)

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Pretty sure William Dumbski used a similar phrase/concept but ended up completely retracting his position. J.C. missed the memo years ago.

I must have missed it ... could you please copy me in on it??:D

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Since you're a scientist and all, sure you would have thought about a prediction or experiment that would confirm or falsify evolution.

So what should we have seen in the lab if evolution is true?

We should be able to see a series of random changes to a number of Complex Functional Specified Machines producing sustained improvements in at least some of the machines.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's correct ... and you guys are privileged to be recipients of the 'cutting edge' in ID theory.:)

Amazing that it hasn't improved much since the bible passages were first written. Quite illogical to dismiss modern science in favour of the bible.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see a series of random changes to a number of Complex Functional Specified Machines producing sustained improvements in at least some of the machines.

Here's a paper showing the multitude of problems with the whole CFSI arugment.

J C

SW wrote: »

Here's a paper showing the multitude of problems with the whole CFSI arugment.

... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

Enjoy

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

can you link to the actual post as the link you gave doesn't have any posts from you on the page it opens?

J C

SW wrote: »

can you link to the actual post as the link you gave doesn't have any posts from you on the page it opens?

There is a series of posts ... and they start with post 7276 on the thread I linked to.

Can some of the Mods help with the link to the correct page ... the link I posted works on my computer where it is page 486 of that thread.

Here is a link to the first post 7276
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76631058&postcount=7276

Delirium

Link to the post

FYI, the post number is a direct link to the post

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Can some of the Mods help with the link to the correct page ... the link I posted works on my computer where it is page 486 of that thread.

You can link to the correct page by linking to the correct post!!

By the way, can you address this:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

Can you explicitly answer the question without silly analogies about poking machines with sticks?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

Enjoy

What relevance is that? You just offer opinion/response to the paper but don't actually debunk the paper.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You can link to the correct page by linking to the correct post!!

Thanks for the 'heads up'.

Pherekydes wrote: »

By the way, can you address this:



Can you explicitly answer the question without silly analogies about poking machines with sticks?

I have answered your question ... novel things can happen with damage to complex functional specified machines with significant built-in redundancy AKA functional diversity. Thus when you hit a loudspeaker, for example, with a hammer it can start 'whistling' or 'buzzing' or outputting 'static' which can be novel, interesting ... even functional, in some ways.
However, if you continue to hit the loudspeaker with a hammer, the damage will become catastrophic and the whistling and static will cease as the loudspeaker 'dies'!!!
... ditto with living organisms and mutagenesis.

J C

SW wrote: »

What relevance is that? You just offer opinion/response to the paper but don't actually debunk the paper.

I have no wish to debunk anything ... the paper is obviously well written and presents a 'state of the art' critique of ID - for which I respect the authors for providing.

I have given my opinion and response to the claims in the paper.

I genuinely have seen nothing in the paper that invalidates Intelligent Design and the fact that it can be objectively detected, even when the author(s) are unknown ... which is the case with the CFSGI in life.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

However, if you continue to hit the loudspeaker with a hammer, the damage will become catastrophic and the whistling and static will cease as the loudspeaker 'dies'!!!
... ditto with living organisms and mutagenesis.

I guess I should have asked you to refrain from using any and all silly analogies.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to debunk anything ... the paper is obviously well written and presents a 'state of the art' critique of ID - for which I respect the authors for providing.

I have given my opinion and response to the claims in the paper.

I genuinely have seen nothing in the paper that invalidates Intelligent Design and the fact that it can be objectively detected, even when the author(s) are unknown ... which is the case with the CFSGI in life.

so you can't prove the paper is incorrect but you see nothing to invalidate creationism"

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

I guess I should have asked you to refrain from using any and all silly analogies.

The analogy isn't silly ... its a practical concrete example of what happens to Complex Functional Specified Systems with redundancy, when they are randomly damaged ... there often is a phase between perfect functionality and catastrophic failure, where novel, even useful, things happen ... but they are always the result of degrading the Complex Functional Design of the artefact ... and if the degredation continues the damage becomes catastrophic.

In living organisms, this happens all the time and they have auto-correction mechanisms (which also exhibit Complex Functional Design) to undo the damage thereby preventing catastrophic failure ... and if these system fail, death will result.

J C

SW wrote: »

so you can't prove the paper is incorrect but you see nothing to invalidate creationism"

The paper claims to invalidate ID and specifically William Dembski's writings on the subject. I have challenged each assertion within the paper, with opposing evidence/opinion as I proceeded through it.
What more can I do?

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

... but they are always the result of degrading the Complex Functional Design of the artefact ... and if the degredation continues the damage becomes catastrophic.

You've almost answered the question, but you've reframed it too much for the answer to be definitive.

So, definitively: are you contending that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

As an analogy of my own, suppose I have an unsorted list of numbers. If I were to randomly swap two of those numbers, is it impossible that the list is now closer to being sorted in numerical order?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've almost answered the question, but you've reframed it too much for the answer to be definitive.

So, definitively: are you contending that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

It's impossible to have a sustained improvement ... statistically speaking, the non-functional combinatorial space is approaching infinity ... while the functional combinatorial space is very limited.
This limited functional combinatorial space is the phase between perfect functionality and catastrophic failure, where novel, even useful, things happen ... but they are always the result of degrading the Complex Functional Design of the artefact ... and if the degredation continues the damage becomes catastrophic ... due to the extreme relativities between the (enormous) non-functional and the (tiny) functional combinatorial spaces.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As an analogy of my own, suppose I have an unsorted list of numbers. If I were to randomly swap two of those numbers, is it impossible that the list is now closer to being sorted in numerical order?

This is a good analogy - although much more simplistic than the CFSGI we observe with genetic information.
If you were to randomly swap two numbers in a sequence of numbers it is quite possible that the sequence becomes closer to being sorted in numerical order ... but the issue is that it isn't sustainable ... as the next random swap is much more likely to be in the direction of unsorting the numerical order ... thereby undoing any progress towards numerical order, almost as soon as it happens.
The other problem is that functional sequences are so highly specified in living organisms, that they only become/remain functional when the sequence is sorted in a tightly specified order. In your analogy, the sequence would need to be in full numerical order for it to be functional ... and all intermediates will have no functionality ... so there is no non-intelligently directed method to select sequences that are moving towards numerical order. They can only be selected when they get there ... and they're never going to get there with random changes being made in a non-intelligently directed (or authored) system.
An intelligently directed (or authored) system could simply put the numbers in numerical order... or they could identify and preserve moves in the direction of numerical order, even though such moves have no functional effect.
A non-intelligently directed (or authored) system will simply fluctuate effectively forever, taking one step forward and ten steps backwards, thereby producing equally non-functional intermediates indefinitely but never getting to full numerical order and thereby functionality.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

We should be able to see a series of random changes to a number of Complex Functional Specified Machines producing sustained improvements in at least some of the machines.

So what would constitute a random change?
What could constitute a Complex Functional Specified Machine?
What would constitute an improvement?
What would you consider sustained?

Please provide examples of each, either real or hypothetical.