RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,21:49   

Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)
Quote

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.



Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.

I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2014,23:13   

Quote
When we try to replace scholars with computers …
original ideas are just the sort of thing that can’t by their nature be automated.


Yet replacing scholars with IDiots is just fine.

I guess it's just one of those things...

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,08:23   

How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.

Quote
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,


He uses the analogy of stones on the beach. Only some are good at smashing things (their objective function?). Maybe they are for making inuksuit.

Gpuccio in the comments:
Quote
everything can be functional, if we find a way to use it.


So that is function.

Specification arises when something is specified (post hoc). Like "good rock" vs "bad rock."

Quote
IOWs, a specification is any well defined rule which generates a binary partition in a well defined set of objects.


Ahh, thanks?

Quote
I call the total number of stones: the Search space.

I call the total number of good stones: the Target space

I call –log2 of the ratio Target space/Search space:  Functionally Specified Information (FSI)


Quote
As you can see, I have strictly avoided to discuss what information is or is not.


Well played...lol....

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,08:24   

Double post.

Can't wait to see the application to biology!

Edited by REC on May 05 2014,08:25

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,09:27   

To my Philistine eye, it looks like Specification (S) = What God the Designer wants.

That seems important in discussions of good and bad design.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,10:26   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 05 2014,09:27)
To my Philistine eye, it looks like Specification (S) = What God the Designer wants.

That seems important in discussions of good and bad design.

So, an excessively long Pharyngeal nerve isn't a bug, it's feature.

God is the world's worst programmer: system full of bugs, massive amounts of code just commented out, and not a single explanatory comment in the entire thing.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,10:26   

Quote
He uses the analogy of stones on the beach. Only some are good at smashing things (their objective function?).

He's got it! Others are excellent for skipping.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,11:01   

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,09:23)
Quote
I call the total number of stones: the Search space.

I call the total number of good stones: the Target space

I call –log2 of the ratio Target space/Search space:  Functionally Specified Information (FSI)

Okay, so to know S-T, all we have to do is figure out what % of all the rocks could never have any possible use for anything whatsoever. How do we do that, exactly?

Quote
everything can be functional,


So S=T. Making FSI=Log2(1)=0

These are the most worthless pseudoscientists to ever mash on a keyboard.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,11:03   

I wonder what the functionality of making bird wings out of many little parts (bones that are articulated in other dinosaurs) and fusing them into rigid structures is.  Well yes, I can see how it is functional to fuse the little bones into rigid structures if that's all you have to work with (evolution having that problem, not a supremely intelligent Designer), I just don't see the point in starting with bones that would be articulated for other functions, but then making rigid wholes out of them.

Perhaps Poochy can come up with a calculation of such functionality.  Even more, though, I'd like to see a Design explanation for it.  Maybe God has a cognitive deficit, and can only conceive and reconfigure what came before, without even the ability to begin development of avian limbs with something close to what he ends up with.

But then how is he so much better an explanation than some other process embodying that deficit?

We have an evolutionary explanation.  I'm just not sure what makes the Design explanation (God really likes it that way.  Or, he simply is about as intelligent as evolution would be) so much better.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,13:18   

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,15:35   

Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,14:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?

Lost specificity, therefore devolution from SLoT, therefore ....  aaah .... Benghazi!!!


What do you mean that's OT?  This isn't Faux Knooz?

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,15:38   

Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,11:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?

Specified twice.  Therefore two Jesuses.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,19:21   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 02 2014,20:49)
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)
Quote

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.



Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.

I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.

Prism? How about a kaleidescope?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,20:09   

Quote (Henry J @ May 05 2014,17:21)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 02 2014,20:49)
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)
 
Quote

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.



Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.

I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.

Prism? How about a kaleidescope?

Lava lamp.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2014,23:09   

Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2014,15:38)
Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,11:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?

Specified twice.  Therefore two Jesuses.

Wasn't he three of them? Under different names, though?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,02:35   

Quote
Wasn't he three of them? Under different names, though?

AFAIK there was one at every street corner.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,03:16   

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.

   
Quote
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,


I rather liked this:
 
Quote
Although I have used a conscious observer to define function, there is no subjectivity in the procedures. The conscious observer can define any possible function he likes. He is absolutely free. But he has to define objectively the function, and how to measure the functionality, so that everyone can objectively verify the measurement. So, there is no subjectivity in the measurements, but each measurement is referred to a specific function, objectively defined by a subject.

You are absolutely free to chose the function in whatever way you want! But not subjectively!

*sigh*

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,08:09   

To make a hangi, a traditional Maori dish, you need a pit full of red hot stones.
Now if kids are sent to gather stones they will come back with small ones that they can carry. But if Dad decides that's a man's job he will gather big rocks. And yet the stones have the same specificity.

It's a miracle!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,08:14   

As an aside, since May 1, Densye has opened 28 threads. I guess she's being paid by the number of OPs.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,10:40   

Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.

Quote
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions

Lenski:

Quote
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.


https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,10:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,08:40)
Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.

Quote
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions

Lenski:

Quote
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.


https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf

Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,11:07   

Quote
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...


Where the devil lies.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2014,13:09   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 06 2014,01:16)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.

   
Quote
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,


I rather liked this:
   
Quote
Although I have used a conscious observer to define function, there is no subjectivity in the procedures. The conscious observer can define any possible function he likes. He is absolutely free. But he has to define objectively the function, and how to measure the functionality, so that everyone can objectively verify the measurement. So, there is no subjectivity in the measurements, but each measurement is referred to a specific function, objectively defined by a subject.

You are absolutely free to chose the function in whatever way you want! But not subjectively!

*sigh*

Who says ID doesn't progress?

Complex specified information, 2004: Looks designed to me.
Functionally specified information, 2014: Everything looks designed to me.  Objectively.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2014,06:20   

What's happened to Mung? Several posts containing an accurate view of evolution, correcting fellow-travellers (who ought to know better given the time they've been at this). He must have been to Damascus.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2014,07:22   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,11:07)
 
Quote
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...


Where the devil lies.

Yet the same paper states:
 
Quote
Using the 26 available instructions, we
wrote a program of length 19 that performs EQU but does not
replicate (Supplementary Information). This program seems, but
has not been proven, to be the shortest one to perform EQU.

If they know of the existence of a shorter one, why do they claim, that it hasn't been proven.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2014,09:02   

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 07 2014,07:22)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,11:07)
   
Quote
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...


Where the devil lies.

Yet the same paper states:
   
Quote
Using the 26 available instructions, we
wrote a program of length 19 that performs EQU but does not replicate (Supplementary Information). This program seems, but has not been proven, to be the shortest one to perform EQU.

If they know of the existence of a shorter one, why do they claim, that it hasn't been proven.

The answer to your question is here.  Can you find it?
Quote
We ran the functional-genomic analyses on all 23 pivotal genotypes.The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas
our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2014,16:23   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 06 2014,10:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,08:40)
Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.

 
Quote
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions

Lenski:

 
Quote
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.


https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf

Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...

'johnnyb' proudly linked to his BSG paper on irreducible complexity and computer science.

'johnnyb' there makes an attempt to cast IC in terms of Universal Turing machine functionality. He comes up with five 'principles' that he believes establish IC as a computational reality. The one that interested me was the fifth:

Quote

5.
Because the chaotic portions of the Universal machine are being used, the solution cannot have been arrived at incrementally because it violates the definition of chaotic behavior, which does not display smooth and predictable outcome changes when the initial values of the tape are changed. Therefore, incremental searches will not make the searches find a solution any faster except perhaps on trivial problems.



That's a simple category error. The phrase 'johnnyb' was apparently looking for instead of 'incremental' was 'deterministic'. Fortunately, nobody has tried to shoehorn evolutionary processes or evolutionary computation into determinism (except Sal Cordova, who also was wrong). The remainder of the essay is an exercise in deriving conclusions from false premises, including the section on Avida that 'johnnyb' is apparently particularly proud of, but shouldn't be.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2014,18:10   

Quote
Who says ID doesn't progress?

Complex specified information, 2004: Looks designed to me.
Functionally specified information, 2014: Everything looks designed to me.  Objectively.


:D  :D  :D

That is much clearer than Dembski ever was.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2014,03:36   

Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
 
Quote
17 JLAfan2001 May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.

 
Quote
18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.


edited to correct links and spacing

Edited by sparc on May 09 2014,03:43

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2014,08:45   

As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.

Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk
Quote
We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.


Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."

Here: http://www.icr.org/article...., he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).

I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]