Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you've demonstrated that the current evolutionary synthesis is unable to account for the diversity of life, and supplied evidence in favour of 'other processes' - or, at least, a testable hypothesis for those processes, you haven't done it here.I thought I had already done that
That's not how it works. As I already explained, the status of a mutation (beneficial/neutral/deleterious) is contingent, i.e. can vary with circumstances; consider sickle-cell trait.Thats the prevailing view. But from the evidence I have seen many of the neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious. Non-beneficial mutations can be tolerated and these may be mistakenly seen as neutral
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010
Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Robustness–epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.html
Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli
Excerpt: At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....q5l0q3832/
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Harvard University scientists have identified a virtual "speed limit" on the rate of molecular evolution in organisms, and the magic number appears to be 6 mutations per genome per generation -- a level beyond which species run the strong risk of extinction as their genomes lose stability.
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
The growing evidence for a high degree of optimization in biological systems, and the growing evidence for multiple levels of poly-functionality within DNA, both suggest that mutations that are unambiguously beneficial must be especially rare.
The theoretical scarcity of beneficial mutations is compounded by the fact that most of the beneficial mutations that do arise should confer extremely small increments of improvement in terms of total biological function. This makes such mutations invisible to natural selection.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gmontane/pdfs/montanez-binps-2013.pdf
There are plenty more if you need them.
I have provided some papers that address this issue above.
It is not just complexity but specified complexity.
The info has to show signs of being directed towards something by Intelligence. So with SETI the info can be simple but it needs to be specified info such as Morse code, radio signals and other coded info that can only come from an intelligent mind.
When it comes to biology there is also functional info such as with DNA with information processing systems. Information that directs the construction of functional proteins. As Bill Gates said DNA is like a computer program but far far more advanced than any software ever created.
ok. we can speak about vision system if you want. can you as a designer able to made a minimal vision system that base on 1-2 parts?
Not really, at the very least they are seen as additions that change the way evolution works. But at most they are a revision and a new concept of evolution. Forces that cause and direct evolution and dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. The basic view is that natural selection has been given too much causal emphasis as the sole force of evolution and other process mentioned in the EES are also causes of generating variation which can often be well suited and therefore not needing to be sifted by natural selection.The standard model of evolution already provides a way for life to adapt to changing environments. You just happen to believe that it is not adequate for that purpose. But the interesting thing is, that the additional mechanisms proposed by EES are thought to have evolved from that model.
But you have not explained why specified complexity cannot detect design. When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.No, it's still not. "Specified complexity" is not used to detect design.
I'm not sure what "the info" is supposed to mean here, but this still doesn't sound like how SETI detects design.
What is an artificial source. Even if it was artificial we can detect the difference say between the signals that come from space such as those in the cosmic microwave background and a signal that may have some intention in being different to that which has certain patterns.How SETI detects design is by looking for outputs from signal sources that are assumed to have an artificial source.
And those radio signals are recognized because they have been designed as opposed to natural signals. They are specified towards a certain band as opposed to any position in the band width which could include a number of possible signals.In traditional radio SETI the search was for narrow-band radio signals. The reason is that wide-band signals can have natural sources, but narrow-band signals are only known to come from artificially manufactured radio transmitters. The assumption is that if an alien civilization invented the same kind of radio transmitters we invented, they would produce similar narrow-band signals.
Once again specified towards a certain light source.Similarly optical SETI attempts to detect artificial light sources (e.g. lasers) and distinguish them from natural ones.
maybe so but I would say they are not that simple. there is a certain level of complexity. But when it is specified towards certain signifies of intelligence then this adds to the detection of ID.In neither case is the content of the signal relevant. In fact, the signal could contain no meaningful information whatsoever. All that matters is that it appears to come from an artificially manufactured source.
Yes specified info.Now once SETI does detect an extraterrestrial signal that appear to have come from an artificial source, then they can begin the process of trying to decipher it and determine if it contains any meaningful information.
I think Gates realizes this. He was saying it was like a computer program, comparing it to one.DNA is *not* a computer program.
what is the difference between ID and intelligent manufacture.With SETI what is being looked for is not "information" but a kind of narrow-band microwave signal used by humans for communication but not thought to be produced by any natural source. As usual, what is being looked for is not evidence of intelligent design directly, but evidence of intelligent manufacture.
But you have not explained why specified complexity cannot detect design.
When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.
And those radio signals are recognized because they have been designed as opposed to natural signals.
there is a certain level of complexity. But when it is specified towards certain signifies of intelligence then this adds to the detection of ID.
I think Gates realizes this. He was saying it was like a computer program, comparing it to one.
What do you mean by "choice directed towards intelligence"? I can't make sense of that.When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.
What's the point of this question?
Is this because you're hoping that I'll respond that a biological vision system clearly requires numerous parts to be functional.
To which you'll respond that if a designer can't make a vision system based on so few parts, therefore we can't expect such a system to evolve naturally.
To which I'll respond that evolution works by building on what preceded it and that a vision system would develop out of earlier light-detection systems and refer to you previous literature I've referred you to before.
I've explained this to you before; i.e. how a primitive eyespot could evolve and give rise to a simple eye.we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?
Yes to both.we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?
we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?
Intelligent beings make choices and those choices are directed towards intelligence as opposed to random chance. So with language a bunch of letters put together in a random order would not be specified but put into a coherent word or sentence is specified to mean something. When those specified letters are longer the more complex it will become. So we can have a single letter that is specified as it forms part of a bigger set of letters that can form language so this is specified but not complex. A lot of random letters that don't mean anything when put together may be complex info but not specified and say a section of a book may be complex and specified as the letters all fall into a sequence where the info is directed towards something meaningful and intelligent.What do you mean by "choice directed towards intelligence"? I can't make sense of that.
I can think of plenty of acts of intelligent agents that don't seem to produce specified complexity - can you give some examples of specified complexity that intelligent agents produce, and explain how you measured their specified complexity?
Then how is design detected in say human made items and info.Nobody is using specified complexity to detect design.
Actually it was Paul Davies who came up with the concept when talking about abiogenesis, Dembski just extended this to other areas.We need to talk about the term "specified complexity" because it's being thrown around here with no real consideration for its meaning.
In ID circles it was Dembski who originally proposed trying to detect design via specified complexity. In Dembski's case he formulated a mathematical approach based on probability.
Other scientists have expanded and developed his ideas. Such asIn a nutshell, if one wants to detect design they would calculate the probability of a particular output and if that output exceeded a certain threshold one would then conclude design.
Unfortunately Dembski's ideas have not to my knowledge ever been empirically tested or verified as a means to detect design. Likewise I've never seen any examples of anyone using Dembski's approach to detect design.
Yet real examples of ID would have to contain some specified info as opposed to random, it stands to reason. When ever I have debated ID with anyone "information" seems to be a key word used by both sides. It is usually based around what sort of information. Complexity seems to be a logical hallmark of ID, the more complex the harder it is to create randomly.However, the terminology involving words like "complexity" and "specificity" (along with "functional" and "information") have made their way into the ID lexicon. Thus when reading ID literature it is common to see references to some variation or combination of the above terms, often times used interchangeably. Stephen Meyer is particularly guilty of this in his own writings (which is where I suspect you picked up the term from).
Such usage tends to be colloquial rather than empirical. People talk about intelligent output as having some variation of the above terms, but it's never presented as a demonstrable, empirically verifiable property of the same and consequently never formalized in an approach for design detection.
That is why when you look at real examples of intelligent design detection, you won't find such terminology anywhere near it.
So your saying radio signals that require intelligent design may be the result of natural causes. yet if scientists discover those radio signals in outta space the headlines would be hailing how we have found intelligent life in the universe. Seems they want to hedge their bets.Not quite. Those radio signals are assumed to be the result of artificially manufactured transmitters because there is no known natural sources. That is why they are used for detection.
It's always possible that one day we discover a natural source of said radio signals.
Then why would complexity be an important factor if it was established as being from an intelligent source.Complexity is not a factor here. In fact, if you search the SETI web site you won't find complexity being discussed relative to the detection of signals.
The complexity of the signal is only relevant after it is presumed to come from an intelligent source. Complexity itself is not an indication of whether it is from an intelligent source however.
Yet scientists use these types of analogies all the time when explaining things like the cell and DNA such as sequences, language, codes, systems and patterns.Which is just an analogy. An analogy does not make an argument.
OK, I get the idea. However, it does sound like you're begging the question in describing the result of intelligent agents as 'specified' - in the language example you give, you can say the results are specified because you know they are the product of intelligent agents.Intelligent beings make choices and those choices are directed towards intelligence as opposed to random chance. So with language a bunch of letters put together in a random order would not be specified but put into a coherent word or sentence is specified to mean something. When those specified letters are longer the more complex it will become. So we can have a single letter that is specified as it forms part of a bigger set of letters that can form language so this is specified but not complex. A lot of random letters that don't mean anything when put together may be complex info but not specified and say a section of a book may be complex and specified as the letters all fall into a sequence where the info is directed towards something meaningful and intelligent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?