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

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

This is a good analogy - although much more simplistic than the CFSGI we observe with genetic information.

Not as sophisticated as your analogy of banging a speaker with a hammer, eh?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Not as sophisticated as your analogy of banging a speaker with a hammer, eh?

It is much more sophisticated than my analogy ... and has the added benefit that it can be modelled on a computer.
That was why I said it was a good analogy ... but, like all analogies, it has limitations.
My comment in relation to its 'simplicity' was only in relation to the relativities between the analogy and living processes.

It is a very useful analogy to examine and model the issues involved, without getting hopelessly lost in the complexities of actual living processes - and I would like to thank Oscar Bravo for thinking it up.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

It's impossible to have a sustained improvement ...

I'll take that as a concession that it's possible for a single random change to make an improvement, which is waht I was looking for.

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.

We're inching towards the truth here.

What if my painfully inefficient sorting algorithm worked by randomly swapping pairs of numbers, comparing the lists before and after, and discarding any changes that resulted in a deterioration, while keeping any changes that resulted in an improvement? Can you accept that such an algorithm would - slowly - result in continuous improvement?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

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?

Actually provide evidence or give good reason why it's wrong. The whole "impossibility of evolution" gets taken apart in the paper and explains why. You need to show in equal detail why the authors of the paper are wrong. It's that simple.

housetypeb

What if the loudspeaker was faulty and a good few taps of the hammer got it sounding just right? Then the hammer,obviously through a faulty random mutation-which is never good news,stops working at that exact moment-leaving the speaker now sounding perfect.

TheChizler

Here's a practical example of a system which may fit your criteria, http://iobound.com/pareidoloop/

The software creates a random polygon on a blank square and runs it through facial recognition software to get a baseline fitness score, how well it resembles a face. It then creates a new random polygon on top of the previous image (a random mutation) and repeats the facial recognition process, if the fitness score is higher than before (an improvement) it keeps the image, if not it discards it and uses the previous one. After thousands of iterations, you get something which resembles a face.

This final product was created using a few simple rules, no intelligent intervention after setting the parameters. The key to this series of improvements was keeping single improvements and discarding non-improvements. If you just kept adding random changes on top of random changes you would end up with a mess, much like your loudspeaker and hammer example.

To translate this to evolution and natural selection it gets more complex, but the same basic rules apply. Here the simple definition of 'improvement' is reproducibility. Unlike the above example, if an improvement doesn't occur within an iteration that mutation won't be cleanly discarded. Mutations that don't improve or are detrimental to the organism will hang around for a few generations, but as they generally will reproduce less, their genetics will be watered down and/or replaced over time by 'improvements'. Also as there will be thousands or millions of environmental and biological factors that affect reproducibility, instead of the single fitness score in the Pareidoloop software, a vast range of mutations will result in an improvement in reproducibility, resulting in the variety of complex organisms you see today.

Edit: An example image:



Personally I think...

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

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

What does it mean? I'm afraid I'm not up to date on ID theory.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll take that as a concession that it's possible for a single random change to make an improvement, which is waht I was looking for. We're inching towards the truth here.

Yes it is possible for a single random mutation to make an improvement ... but at the cost of a loss in information quality. This also occurs in real life ... for example, some insects on wind-blown islands have mutated to the point where they have lost the ability to fly ... which is an advantage on a wind-blown island by preventing them being blown out to sea and being drowned.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What if my painfully inefficient sorting algorithm worked by randomly swapping pairs of numbers, comparing the lists before and after, and discarding any changes that resulted in a deterioration, while keeping any changes that resulted in an improvement? Can you accept that such an algorithm would - slowly - result in continuous improvement?

The problem is that such a sophisticated algorithm would be a product of intelligence ... and intelligence is supposed to have nothing to do with the origins of life (from a Materialists viewpoint).

... and how does the agorithm recognise intermediates that are making progress towards functional sequences ... but don't result in any increase in actual functionality being produced?

J C

Here is an interesting video from Prof Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University.

He started out as an Evolutionary Biologist and developed the theory of chemical pre-destination ... only to abandon it and become an ID proponent.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Yes it is possible for a single random mutation to make an improvement ... but at the cost of a loss in information quality.

You're jumping ahead. If a list of random numbers is altered and becomes closer to a list of sorted numbers, where's the IQ loss?

This also occurs in real life ... for example, some insects on wind-blown islands have mutated to the point where they have lost the ability to fly ... which is an advantage on a wind-blown island by preventing them being blown out to sea and being drowned.

I'm not arguing that mutations can't result in information loss, so a counter-example doesn't prove anything. I'm arguing that mutations can result in cumulative improvements; if you're arguing that they can't, you need to offer more than anecdote as a counter-argument.

The problem is that such a sophisticated algorithm would be a product of intelligence ...

That's not a sophisticated algorithm. As algorithms go, it's as dumb as mud. It's a gross simplification of the process of natural selection, and it still works.

Your argument has been that random mutations can't result in cumulative improvements. I've offered a counter-argument, whose basic premises you've accepted, so now you're moving the goalposts.

... and how does the agorithm recognise intermediates that are making progress towards functional sequences ... but don't result in any increase in actual functionality being produced?

In the case of my posited algorithm, it's a simple metric of how sorted the list is (possibly using a linear regression). In the case of natural selection, it's a question of whether the mutated organism is better at surviving in its environment.

Brian Shanahan

SW wrote: »

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

Of course JC's biggest problem with the whole CFSI idiocy is that the biggest source of variation for the majority of species is not random mutations, but recombinations of non-identical genes through sexual reproduction. Even if mutations didn't happen, the fact of the matter is that for most species reproduction needs a male and a female, who will have at the very least slight variations in their genes, and they will pass on different combinations of said genes to their offspring, allowing natural selection an avenue to explore the alternative possibles and chose of the most fit variations.

robindch

A few years back, Ken Ham of fake "Creation Museum" fame, launched his "Ark Encounter", a $170 million dollar biblical theme park. Scandal quickly engulfed the project when it emerged that Kentucky had voted to provide a 25% tax rebate, potentially worth over $40 million, and the project has lurched from one problem to another ever since.

The term of the original rebate has now lapsed at the end of May and Ham has submitted a dramatically scaled-back project which, at $73 million, is less than half the money he was hoping gullible christians might give him:

http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/05/30/ken-hams-dinosaur-boat-isnt-receiving-43-million-in-tax-incentives-from-kentucky-and-might-not-receive-any/

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

A belief in the non-existence of God is a belief

You are replying to something I did not actually say. Once again: You acquire beliefs. You do not acquire non-beliefs. You are born that way.

Penny 4 Thoughts

J C wrote: »

As an operative conventional scientist, I have no issue with conventional science journals only publishing peer-reviewed papers in accordance with the principles of exclusively materialistic explanations - and I would not wish them to do anything else.

However, as a Creation Scientist, I clearly see the need to apply science to the physical evidence for the actions of God in the Universe. This should be conducted outside of the realm of Materialistic Science - and doesn't need to involve any scientists who don't wish to be involved in such research.

Hi JC

As an operative conventional scientist as well (love the title by the way ), could you give me a quick overview of the theories, and the evidence supporting them, concerning the actions of God in the universe.

Before coming to this website I hadn't heard of the such theories, and I remain skeptical, but also open to listening.

Thanks
Penny

nozzferrahhtoo

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not disputing evolution, just the unquestioned assumption that it has all happened by blind, unintelligent means. There's no evidence to back this up whatsoever.

There is no assumption in science however. So the reason it is "unquestioned" is because no one is actually making it.

The simply _fact_ is however there is currently no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to even begin to suggest there IS an intentional or intelligent agent behind the process.

Note the difference between "Assuming no X" and "Finding no reason to lend X any credence whatsoever".

We do the latter. You are ranting against the former.

mickrock wrote: »

Intelligence is ruled out from the outset, just because it's seen as unappealing and has too much baggage

False. It is rules out for no such reason. It is ruled out for no other reason than it is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way. Much less by you.

Penny 4 Thoughts

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. It is rules out for no such reason. It is ruled out for no other reason than it is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way. Much less by you.

Or to put it another way, why would we add intelligence to the theory in the first place? Simply because it is someone's religious belief? That doesn't seem like a very rational reason to add something to a scientific theory.

It isn't that scientists rule out intelligence, it is that we don't assume ANYTHING, including intelligence, at the start without jusitifcation.

We would add intelligence to the theory if we had a working theory of it. We don't. So it isn't added to any theory.

It is pretty much that simple. Anytime anyone says "But why are you not considering X" (X normally being the personally held belief of that person) I always say give me a reason to include it and I will include it.

Vivisectus

In order to assume a guiding intelligence is somehow involved we would need to see things for which some guiding intelligence is the best explanation.

But it is hard to see how we could create a coherent theory about how this is happening. How would such an intelligence be doing this exactly?

It would be comforting to think there is one, for sure. At least I would have someone to complain to about the design that is clearly not fit for purpose. Someone seems to have included an organ in my digestive tract that does nothing except occasionally get inflamed, threatening my life! And how come I have a laryngial nerve that runs from my brain to below my heart and back up to my throat? And if you think THAT is bad, then think again: Giraffes have the same arrangement! Also, some cowboy designer seems to have thought it was a good idea to hook up my reproductive channel to the waste disposal chute. That is just plain gross.

Perhaps the question is not why we are not looking into the possibility that there is an intelligent designer, but what it is exactly that is so intelligent about the design?

Mr. CooL ICE

Vivisectus wrote: »

Perhaps the question is not why we are not looking into the possibility that there is an intelligent designer, but what it is exactly that is so intelligent about the design?

We can hold bananas. Duuhhh

Frank Bullitt

J C

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

We can hold bananas. Duuhhh

... and many more things besides!!!;):)

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

... debate is never a problem ... especially when you have evaluated the arguments of both sides ... and found one side to be unimpeachable.

Hope you all had a great summer.:)

J C

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi JC

As an operative conventional scientist as well (love the title by the way ), could you give me a quick overview of the theories, and the evidence supporting them, concerning the actions of God in the universe.

Before coming to this website I hadn't heard of the such theories, and I remain skeptical, but also open to listening.

Thanks
Penny

Hi Penny. My apologies for the delay in answering your question ... but I was otherwise engaged.

Anyway ... Creation Science traces its academic pedigree right back to the 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... who were nearly all Creationists.

Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.

Whole mega-threads that had to be truncated because they threatened to cause 'melt-down' of the Boards servers (or some such) have been written about the theories and the evidence underpinning the theories of Creation Science.:)
Here is just one link to the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is but one scientific discipline in which Creation Scientists (and other scientists) excel.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

In order to assume a guiding intelligence is somehow involved we would need to see things for which some guiding intelligence is the best explanation.

How about the almost infinite levels of Complex Function Specified Information observed in living organisms?

Vivisectus wrote: »

But it is hard to see how we could create a coherent theory about how this is happening. How would such an intelligence be doing this exactly?

Infinite Intelligence who did effectively infinite actions over an effective infinity of space.

Vivisectus wrote: »

It would be comforting to think there is one, for sure.

Only if you knew the Infinite Intelligence was benign ... and loved you personally and wanted you to spend eternity in Heavenly Bliss with Him.
If the Infinite Intelligence was malevolent and hated me ... it could be quite disconcerting ... to say the least.

Vivisectus wrote: »

At least I would have someone to complain to about the design that is clearly not fit for purpose. Someone seems to have included an organ in my digestive tract that does nothing except occasionally get inflamed, threatening my life! And how come I have a laryngial nerve that runs from my brain to below my heart and back up to my throat? And if you think THAT is bad, then think again: Giraffes have the same arrangement!

You can blame Adam and Eve for that ... but it won't do much good ... because they are dead ... and not taking messages on their celestial 'message minder'!!!:)

Vivisectus wrote: »

Also, some cowboy designer seems to have thought it was a good idea to hook up my reproductive channel to the waste disposal chute. That is just plain gross.

Never found much of a problem with this myself ... I must say ... but then I'm a happily married man with a beautiful sexy wife ... so I might be biased in my opinions on this issue!!!:)

Vivisectus wrote: »

Perhaps the question is not why we are not looking into the possibility that there is an intelligent designer, but what it is exactly that is so intelligent about the design?

Both questions are equally valid ... and are pursued with equal vigor by Creation Scientists.

J C

J C wrote: »

How about the almost infinite levels of Complex Function Specified Information observed in living organisms?

I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

I've never heard of it.

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

I've never heard of it.

It is self-defining and self-explanatory ... it is information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

J C

J C wrote: »

It is self-defining and self-explanatory ... it is information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

I'm thoroughly confused. Is there a link to some information you have on this?

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm thoroughly confused. Is there a link to some information you have on this?

What is confusing you about Complex Functional Specified Information being the product of Intelligent activity?

Pherekydes

I knew something was missing lately from my boards experience: CFSI!

AKA drivel.

J C

J C wrote: »

What is confusing you about Complex Functional Specified Information being the product of Intelligent activity?

I don't know what "Complex Functional Specified Information" is or is supposed to be. I'm asking you for some info on it if you have any available?

Delirium

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

I've never heard of it.

There's no real definition of CFSI/CSI. In all the time I've seen these threads move along, I've yet to see anyone find an actual defintion as to what CFSI is or how it's observed.

You can read more about it here.

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.