A thread on evolution

[pitabread]

exactly, and they don't provide peer review I asked for. Point 3 for gradyll, today.

The site does have a list of references which you check out if you were so inclined.

But let's face it, you're not inclined. Your question has been answered. But you just aren't seeking answers, just an excuse to engage in more self-aggrandizing grandstanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

here are some more for you to digest, make it 34 peer reviews posted now.

Michael Denton peer review 2/25/13 in bio complexity
Denton
Denton

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute (2009)
The coherence of an engineered world

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

McIntosh has published other pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific literature, evolutionnews.org has reviewed here: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

Please, your first two are not even peer reviewed articles. They are garbage from the Discovery Institute in a fake journal. I am fairly sure that all of your other examples fail too.

This was covered in the video that you linked.

You still do not understand the concept of "peer review".

 

[createdtoworship]

LOL!! That is not "a peer review".


Once again you demonstrate that you do not even understand the term that you are abusing.

please prove that when someone publishes in a peer review journal, that they are not peer reviewed.

 

[createdtoworship]

The site does have a list of references which you check out if you were so inclined.

But let's face it, you're not inclined. Your question has been answered. But you just aren't seeking answers, just an excuse to engage in more self-aggrandizing grandstanding.

my point is that you yourself cannot provide a peer review article proving one thing about macro evolution. Or evolution between two organisms above the level of species.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, your first two are not even peer reviewed articles. They are garbage from the Discovery Institute in a fake journal. I am fairly sure that all of your other examples fail too.

This was covered in the video that you linked.

You still do not understand the concept of "peer review".

I don't think you understand the definition. What is the definition of peer review in your own words? I await your response. (don't say that it must be peer reviewed in a journal that you yourself approve)

 

[pitabread]

my point is that you yourself cannot provide a peer review article proving one thing about macro evolution. Or evolution between two organisms above the level of species.

Like I said, the TO page is chock full of references to the all-important peer-review literature. B you don't even care. Like I said, you're not here for answers, you're here for self-aggrandizement. The fact you keep awarding yourself these silly "points" only reinforces that fact.

And this only reinforces my long-held belief about Internet creationists. If creationist like yourself were really interested in finding answers to things like transitional fossils or other questions about evolution, you wouldn't be posting these goofy challenges on forums like this. You'd be combing the scientific literature, visiting a library or university, reading books, maybe even taking an undergrad biology class or two.

And yet here you are. Awarding yourself fake points because you think you're winning an internet debate. Go you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Like I said, the TO page is chock full of references to the all-important peer-review literature. B you don't even care. Like I said, you're not here for answers, you're here for self-aggrandizement. The fact you keep awarding yourself these silly "points" only reinforces that fact.

And yet here you are. Awarding yourself fake points because you think you're winning an internet debate. Go you.

point 4 for my unanswered question. Yeah! Until you provide a peer review, I just keep racking up my points.

 

[createdtoworship]

And this only reinforces my long-held belief about Internet creationists. If creationist like yourself were really interested in finding answers to things like transitional fossils or other questions about evolution, you wouldn't be posting these goofy challenges on forums like this. You'd be combing the scientific literature, visiting a library or university, reading books, maybe even taking an undergrad biology class or two..

I can say the same exact thing to you! Visit discovery institute in seattle, talk to casey luskin. Do some homework. don't just expect yourself to be correct all the time. you really have to be open minded. See I was once an evolutionist myself. But someone told me there was no evidence, and I did my homework. And I agree.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please, your first two are not even peer reviewed articles. They are garbage from the Discovery Institute in a fake journal. I am fairly sure that all of your other examples fail too.

This was covered in the video that you linked.

You still do not understand the concept of "peer review".

I await your definition of peer review. (in your own words)

 

[pitabread]

I can say the same exact thing to you! Visit discovery institute in seattle, talk to casey luskin. Do some homework.

You don't want to know the amount of ID literature I've consumed. That's why I find it extra amusing when people make references to ID concepts that they don't themselves seem to understand (specified complexity being a prime example).

See I was once an evolutionist myself. But someone told me there was no evidence, and I did my homework.

I always find it funny that people who claim to have been "evolutionists" don't seem to know the first thing about it.

Anyway, I'm sure you enjoy having these little internet "victories", but when you get tired of that and want to really learn something about the biological sciences, there is a whole world waiting for you.

Good night and good luck.

 

[createdtoworship]

You don't want to know the amount of ID literature I've consumed. That's why I find it extra amusing when people make references to ID concepts that they don't themselves seem to understand (specified complexity being a prime example).



I always find it funny that people who claim to have been "evolutionists" don't seem to know the first thing about it.

Anyway, I'm sure you enjoy having these little internet "victories", but when you get tired of that and want to really learn something about the biological sciences, there is a whole world waiting for you.

Good night and good luck.

specified information is not that complex, but you can make it complex too:

"CSI- Complex Specified Information.

Information- see Shannon, Claude

(When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specifiedcomplexity.)

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function

Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information

someone wants a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI and I say that is like asking for a mathematically rigorous definition of a computer program (which contains CSI).

The mathematical rigor went into calculating the probabilities that got us to 500 bits of SI = CSI


Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
Biological functionality is specified information.

So what do we have to do to see if it contains CSI? Count the bits and figure out the variation tolerance because if any sequence can produce the same result then specified information disappears.

And again, CSI is all about origins…"

above quote from Intelligent Reasoning: Complex Specified Information

 

[Subduction Zone]

please prove that when someone publishes in a peer review journal, that they are not peer reviewed.

No problem. This site even has a link so that if you are a student you can check to see if a particular paper in a peer reviewed journal is reviewed or not:

Research guides: ENGB05: Critical Writing about Literature: What is a Peer-Reviewed Article?

 

[createdtoworship]

Anyway, I'm sure you enjoy having these little internet "victories", but when you get tired of that and want to really learn something about the biological sciences, there is a whole world waiting for you.

Good night and good luck.

backing out of the debate so soon? Well have a good vacation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

specified information is not that complex, but you can make it complex too:

"CSI- Complex Specified Information.

Information- see Shannon, Claude

(When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specifiedcomplexity.)

Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function

Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information

someone wants a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI and I say that is like asking for a mathematically rigorous definition of a computer program (which contains CSI).

The mathematical rigor went into calculating the probabilities that got us to 500 bits of SI = CSI


Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.

In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
Biological functionality is specified information.

So what do we have to do to see if it contains CSI? Count the bits and figure out the variation tolerance because if any sequence can produce the same result then specified information disappears.

And again, CSI is all about origins…"

above quote from Intelligent Reasoning: Complex Specified Information

More garbage claims from a garbage source.

The video that you linked debunked just this sort of "research". That is not a valid peer reviewed source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

backing out of the debate so soon? Well have a good vacation.

No, you lost the debate long ago. You have merely been "Black Knighting" it lately.

He kindly offered to help you to learn as I have.

If you learn more you could do a better job of debating. Right now you are too easy.

 

[Aman777]

That is because you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the concept of evidence.

As I said, when you learn the basics we can move on.

Since you accused me of the same thing in order to show everyone your great knowledge of what "evidence:" is, you words ring hollow. Do you accuse all Christians of being dummies in need of your great knowledge? Of course you do. Be ashamed and remember that your deeds will surely find you out. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

I have posted probably links to above and beyond 30 peer reviews. I have yet to see one of yours. You have to eventually put your money where your mouth is, or we will start to just think your trolling these boards.

He is since he wants everyone to know of his great knowledge of what evidence is. Someone should tell him that his changeable knowledge is false, no matter how many godless mortal men agree with him. God Bless you

 

[VirOptimus]

thanks for pointing out my error. I will correct it.

Why the dishonesty? You have shown that you know and can use the term "quote mine" correctly so why lie about it?

 

[bhsmte]

Why the dishonesty? You have shown that you know and can use the term "quote mine" correctly so why lie about it?

Dug in too deep.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you understand the definition. What is the definition of peer review in your own words? I await your response. (don't say that it must be peer reviewed in a journal that you yourself approve)

Sorry, but you are going to have to wait on this one. Since it is going to be tied into the concept of evidence you need to learn what is and what is not evidence first.