RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (325) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,09:44   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

BUY HIS BOOK!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,09:44   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,09:51   

So let's try this:

Which one of these sequences has specified complexity and why?

1 gagctcctgc actggatggt ggcgctggat ggtaagccgc tggcaagcgg tgaagtgcct
      61 ctggatgtcg ctccacaagg taaacagttg attgaactgc ctgaactacc gcagccggag
     121 agcgccgggc aactctggct cacagtacgc gtagtgcaac cgaacgcgac cgcatggtca
     181 gaagccgggc acatcagcgc ctggcagcag tggcgtctgg cggaaaacct cagtgtgacg
     241 ctccccgccg cgtcccacgc catcccgcat ctgaccacca gcgaaatgga tttttgcatc
     301 gagctgggta ataagcgttg gcaatttaac cgccagtcag gctttctttc acagatgtgg
     361 attggcgata aaaaacaact gctgacgccg ctgcgcgatc agttcacccg tgcaccgctg
     421 gataacgaca ttggcgtaag tgaagcgacc cgcattgacc ctaacgcctg ggtcgaacgc
     481 tggaaggcgg cgggccatta ccaggccgaa gcagcgttgt tgcagtgcac ggcagataca
     541 cttgctgatg cggtgctgat tacgaccgct cacgcgtggc agcatcaggg gaaaacctta
     601 tttatcagcc ggaaaaccta ccggattgat ggtagtggtc aaatggcgat taccgttgat
     661 gttgaagtgg cgagcgatac accgcatccg gcgcggattg gcctgaactg ccagctggcg
     721 caggtagcag agcgggtaaa ctggctcgga ttagggccgc aagaaaacta tcccgaccgc
     781 cttactgccg cctgttttga ccgctgggat ctgccattgt cagacatgta taccccgtac
     841 gtcttcccga gcgaaaacgg tctgcgctgc gggacgcgcg aattgaatta tggcccacac
     901 cagtggcgcg gcgacttcca gttcaacatc agccgctaca gtcaacagca actgatggaa
     961 accagccatc gccatctgct gcacgcggaa gaaggcacat ggctgaatat cgacggtttc
    1021 catatgggga ttggtggcga cgactcctgg agcccgtcag tatcggcgga attccagctg
    1081 agcgccggtc gctaccatta ccagttggtc tggtgtcaaa aataataata accgggcagg
    1141 ccatgtctgc ccgtatttcg cgtaaggaaa tccattgtac tgccggacca ccgactgtga
    1201 gccactccgg ccatggcgta cgcactgacc tgcttactga tttgtaaaac cggtccggcc
    1261 atcacgctca cataacgtcc acgcaggctc tcatagtgaa acgtatcctc cccggtcatc
    1321 actgtgctgc tctttttcga cgcggcgaac cccagggaag ccatcacccc cacactgtcc
    1381 gtcagctcat aacggtactt cacgttaatc cctttcagat gactcacacc ggtatccccg
    1441 cccgacaacg acggcaatgt acccggtttc acttgaaaat agcccaccgt aaacgtacca
    1501 tgtccacctt ccgcacgggc cggagtgact gtcaccgcaa gtgcggcaaa gacagcaacg
    1561 gcaatacaca cattacgcat cgttcacctc tcactgtttt ataataaaac gcccgttccc
    1621 ggacgaacct ctgtaacaca ctcagaccac gctgatgccc agcgcctgtt tcttaatcac
    1681 cataacctgc acatcgctgg caaacgtata cggcggaata tctgccgaat gccgtgtgga
    1741 cgtaagcgtg aacgtcagga tcacgtttcc ccgacccgct ggcatgtcaa caatacggga
    1801 gaacacctgt accgcctcgt tcgccgcgcc atcataaatc accgcaccgt tcatcagtac
    1861 tttcagataa cacatcgaat acgttgtcct gccgctgaca gtacgcttac ttccgcgaaa
    1921 cgtcagcgga agcaccacta tctggcgatc aaaaggatgg tcatcggtca cggtgacagt
    1981 acgggtacc



1 atctcctgc actggatggt ggcgctggat ggtaagccgc tggcaagcgg tgaagtgcct
      61 ctggatgtcg ctccacaagg taaacagttg attgaactgc ctgaactacc gcagccggag
     121 agcgccgggc aactctggct cacagtacgc gtagtgcaac cgaacgcgac cgcatggtca
     181 gaagccgggc acatcagcgc ctggcagcag tggcgtctgg cggaaaacct cagtgtgacg
     241 ctccccgccg cgtcccacgc catcccgcat ctgaccacca gcgaaatgga tttttgcatc
     301 gagctgggta ataagcgttg gcaatttaac cgccagtcag gctttctttc acagatgtgg
     361 attggcgata aaaaacaact gctgacgccg ctgcgcgatc agttcacccg tgcaccgctg
     421 gataacgaca ttggcgtaag tgaagcgacc cgcattgacc ctaacgcctg ggtcgaacgc
     481 tggaaggcgg cgggccatta ccaggccgaa gcagcgttgt tgcagtgcac ggcagataca
     541 cttgctgatg cggtgctgat tacgaccgct cacgcgtggc agcatcaggg gaaaacctta
     601 tttatcagcc ggaaaaccta ccggattgat ggtagtggtc aaatggcgat taccgttgat
     661 gttgaagtgg cgagcgatac accgcatccg gcgcggattg gcctgaactg ccagctggcg
     721 caggtagcag agcgggtaaa ctggctcgga ttagggccgc aagaaaacta tcccgaccgc
     781 cttactgccg cctgttttga ccgctgggat ctgccattgt cagacatgta taccccgtac
     841 gtcttcccga gcgaaaacgg tctgcgctgc gggacgcgcg aattgaatta tggcccacac
     901 cagtggcgcg gcgacttcca gttcaacatc agccgctaca gtcaacagca actgatggaa
     961 accagccatc gccatctgct gcacgcggaa gaaggcacat ggctgaatat cgacggtttc
    1021 catatgggga ttggtggcga cgactcctgg agcccgtcag tatcggcgga attccagctg
    1081 agcgccggtc gctaccatta ccagttggtc tggtgtcaaa aataataata accgggcagg
    1141 ccatgtctgc ccgtatttcg cgtaaggaaa tccattgtac tgccggacca ccgactgtga
    1201 gccactccgg ccatggcgta cgcactgacc tgcttactga tttgtaaaac cggtccggcc
    1261 atcacgctca cataacgtcc acgcaggctc tcatagtgaa acgtatcctc cccggtcatc
    1321 actgtgctgc tctttttcga cgcggcgaac cccagggaag ccatcacccc cacactgtcc
    1381 gtcagctcat aacggtactt cacgttaatc cctttcagat gactcacacc ggtatccccg
    1441 cccgacaacg acggcaatgt acccggtttc acttgaaaat agcccaccgt aaacgtacca
    1501 tgtccacctt ccgcacgggc cggagtgact gtcaccgcaa gtgcggcaaa gacagcaacg
    1561 gcaatacaca cattacgcat cgttcacctc tcactgtttt ataataaaac gcccgttccc
    1621 ggacgaacct ctgtaacaca ctcagaccac gctgatgccc agcgcctgtt tcttaatcac
    1681 cataacctgc acatcgctgg caaacgtata cggcggaata tctgccgaat gccgtgtgga
    1741 cgtaagcgtg aacgtcagga tcacgtttcc ccgacccgct ggcatgtcaa caatacggga
    1801 gaacacctgt accgcctcgt tcgccgcgcc atcataaatc accgcaccgt tcatcagtac
    1861 tttcagataa cacatcgaat acgttgtcct gccgctgaca gtacgcttac ttccgcgaaa
    1921 cgtcagcgga agcaccacta tctggcgatc aaaaggatgg tcatcggtca cggtgacagt
    1981 acgggtacc

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

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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:04   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure of "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:07   

Let me explain where 500 bits comes from, as Joe can't.

Note - This only works for spontaneous assembly.

Demsbki puts the universal probability bound at 10^150. This is the odds of something being achievable based on 'time and stuff' resources of the universe. We get it from 10^80 number of elementary particles in the observable universe, 10^45 maximum number physical transitions (from plank time) and 10^25 age of the universe (he's got the math wrong, that's not 6000!).

The best book is NOT "No Free Lunch" as Joe says but "The Design Revolution":

"All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)


Add the exponents and you get 10^150

Now if you want to express this digitally (in binary) then the closest fit is 2^500. (3.2734E+150)
So that's where 500 comes from.

As we're pointing folks to papers and books, Check out this:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.

and 64 aint a big population. Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Have a nice day.

Edited.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,10:07)
Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Good. It's about time somebody used 'em.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:48   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,10:07)
Let me explain where 500 bits comes from, as Joe can't.

Note - This only works for spontaneous assembly.

Demsbki puts the universal probability bound at 10^150. This is the odds of something being achievable based on 'time and stuff' resources of the universe. We get it from 10^80 number of elementary particles in the observable universe, 10^45 maximum number physical transitions (from plank time) and 10^25 age of the universe (he's got the math wrong, that's not 6000!).

The best book is NOT "No Free Lunch" as Joe says but "The Design Revolution":

"All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)


Add the exponents and you get 10^150

Now if you want to express this digitally (in binary) then the closest fit is 2^500. (3.2734E+150)
So that's where 500 comes from.

As we're pointing folks to papers and books, Check out this:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.

and 64 aint a big population. Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Have a nice day.

Edited.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start... and I'm not even a mathematician.

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:49   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

blind, undirected chemicl processes

I was about to go off on how you couldn't read, but I realized that you could read more than one sentence at a time.

I'm sorry, I'll type slower for you.

Now repeat after me: SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM (well, maybe in the case of your parents...)

I will type slowly for you-

SELLECTION IS A RESULT- an output with 3 inputs each driven by chance.

Natural selection is BLIND, MINDLESS and MECHANISTIC.

is natural selection really non-random? No.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:50   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

Liar, he explains the 500 bits as being beyond the UPB.

And BTW I have read the papers. There isn't any paper that supports the claims of the ToE.

And it is obvious you are ignorant of what the ToE claims

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:52   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:55   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,10:07)
Let me explain where 500 bits comes from, as Joe can't.

Note - This only works for spontaneous assembly.

Demsbki puts the universal probability bound at 10^150. This is the odds of something being achievable based on 'time and stuff' resources of the universe. We get it from 10^80 number of elementary particles in the observable universe, 10^45 maximum number physical transitions (from plank time) and 10^25 age of the universe (he's got the math wrong, that's not 6000!).

The best book is NOT "No Free Lunch" as Joe says but "The Design Revolution":

"All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)


Add the exponents and you get 10^150

Now if you want to express this digitally (in binary) then the closest fit is 2^500. (3.2734E+150)
So that's where 500 comes from.

As we're pointing folks to papers and books, Check out this:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.

and 64 aint a big population. Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Have a nice day.

Edited.

Rich,

Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?

And I didn't say NFL was the best book.

As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,10:57   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:22)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,09:17)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:13)
And there isn't any evidence for nor a way to test that claim.

You could looks for examples and mechanisms for mutation and how they effect fitness, like Lenski did, Joe.

But he was of course just doing ID research without knowing it...

Rich,

You are clueless. Lenski's experiment in no way supports your position.

Let's start simple:

Does it show random genetic changes can effect an organism's ability to survive in certain environments?

What methodology did they use to determine the cause of the changes?

You do realize that neither ID nor baraminology say that genetic accidents do not happen. They just don't appear to be able to do very much Rich. No construction.

Thanks goodness mutation has *selection* to help him, then! For the little E-coli critters, it was fairly major, in the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, they were much more viable in a new environment. Powerful.

Think-Puff-CSI-Zerowavelength-meddling was not observed.

So EVO 1, ID 0.

Selection doesn't help anything Rich. It isn't the magical ratchet you believe it is.

so equivocation 1 evolutionism 0

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:01   

Quote
Do you know what the word "spontaneous" means?


Instantaneous, all at once. Which is what this math requires.

 
Quote
As for Schnieder he has been refuted so often- where does that 256 bit sequence come from Rich?


Would you care to summarize for us, or will you point me to AIG? Why is there something and not nothing? OMG OMG OMG Dezine!!!!11111one.

Edited

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:04   

Quote
Selection doesn't help anything Rich. It isn't the magical ratchet you believe it is.


Bald assertions 1, facts 0.

How come GAs work so well then, Joe? If Selection doesn't help anything, GAs wouldn't converge to optimal or locally optimal solutions. Whoops. There it is, reality getting in the way of your Bible Koran again.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:19   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:49)
I will type slowly for you-

SELLECTION IS A RESULT- an output with 3 inputs each driven by chance.

Natural selection is BLIND, MINDLESS and MECHANISTIC.

is natural selection really non-random? No.

Do you feel any sense of pain, turmoil, inner regret, or uneasiness why you lie like this?

Or are you just too stupid to learn?

Why do you hold these ridiculous beliefs if, as you say, you are not a Christian?  I freely admit, you are either the worst Christian I've ever seen or a complete and utter moron.  I really don't see how anyone who is not philosophically beholden to ID can see it as valuable or even correct.

BTW: It's "selection" not "sellection"  Maybe you should type slow enough to see what you're typing.

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

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:20   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:40)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,09:37)
Hey, Dr. Baramin G, how many Kinds are there?  Is there a difference between kind and Kind?

How about ice and water?  One Kind, Two Kinds or All Kinds?

If Spock was half-Human was he really "Out of his Vulcan kind?"

Inquiring kinds want to know.

Kind regards,

Science- determining how many Kinds there were is the role of science.

When Linne was searching for that answer and came up with binomial nomenclature, was he doing science?

Yes ice and water are still two different things.

Thank you Dr. Baramin G for he Crystal Ice, clear as water answer regarding "kinds."

You are most "kind" yourself.

I am somewhat miffed that no mention whatsoever was made of my bon mot McCoy quote regarding Spock.  After all, it came from Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kind.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,11:52)
It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

Ah.

- "The number doesn't reflect specification."

Yet,

- "It is a measure of specified information."

I see.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,11:44   

Hey Joe, do mutations always reduce information?

Can mutations ever increase information?

Thanks

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,12:24   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,11:44)
Hey Joe, do mutations always reduce information?

Can mutations ever increase information?

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/tomdschneider#p/a/f/3/i9u50wKDb_4

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,13:21   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:52)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

Hey rectal itch,

Is "bits per second" your definition of "information"?

A 1-bit answer will suffice.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,13:44   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:52)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:21)
The number doesn't reflect specification.

That's right. And that is all I've been saying. Thank you for that concession.

Your claim that your calculation is a measure "specified information" in any sense that actually meaningfully reflects specification is false.

It is a measure of specified information for all the reasons provided.

1- It is a measure of information

2- It pertains to a function/ specification.

"It pertains to a function/ specification."

Could you be any more vague and non-rigorous?  No?  I didn't think so.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,13:54   

Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

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

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,14:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

(yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,16:04   

I know few of you care or venture there, but Joe is still posting new stuff on his dying blog:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ut.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,16:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,17:04)
I know few of you care or venture there, but Joe is still posting new stuff on his dying blog:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ut.html

And he's dying to change the subject.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,16:10   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,16:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,17:04)
I know few of you care or venture there, but Joe is still posting new stuff on his dying blog:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ut.html

And he's dying to change the subject.

Maybe he can get Denyse to do some fluff "Coffee!" stuff for him to bump him off the front page?

Or just to fluff him.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:10   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:21)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,06:30)
Joe G:
   
Quote
[RB] doesn't understand that ALL of those base pairs are required by the organism and therefor are part of the specified complexity, ie the complex specified information.

Ah.

So, Joe, with respect to just THOSE base pairs, those bearing the specified complexity, ie. the complex specified information,

Does counting the pairs and multiplying by two yield a measure of specified information contained therein? Or does it yield a measure of the "carrying capacity" of a sequence of that length?

Or both? Or neither? Or something else you're about to make up?

Because, remove the specification - the "meaning" you claim to be interested in -  and the number doesn't change. Add specification, and the number doesn't change. Given that, in what sense does YOUR calculation reflect the specification of your specified information, ie. your complex specified information?

The answer, of course, is that it reflects that specification in no sense whatsoever, and your figure is a useless triviality.

The number doesn't reflect specification. The specification is part of the observation.

We make observations and then try to figure out what we are observing- science.

What's there- how does it work- how did it come to be this way- science.

So we have this number- X and since there is a specification it is SI. hen we try to determine HOW that SI came to be.

Are you with me?

Dembski has written that CSI = 500 bits of SI and that is a threshold no purely physical process can reach. That is basedon probability along with observations and experiences.

So we find a biologically functioning system, do my informal measurement to ge a number. All the while trying to determine ho it came to be.

Some day we may observe purely physical, stochastic processes spontaneously producing SI. Then your position will have something to start with.

Right now it seems you are stuck with mere complexity.

How do we figure out that SI is present again?  I mean, besides JoeTard just declaring that it there.  What are the criteria?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:17   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

Liar, he explains the 500 bits as being beyond the UPB.

And BTW I have read the papers. There isn't any paper that supports the claims of the ToE.

And it is obvious you are ignorant of what the ToE claims

All of them?  You've read all of them?  Have you also slept with Tyra Banks, climbed Mt Everest without bottled oxygen, and eaten broccoli without your mommy making the airplane noise?

All of them?  With as busy a super-spy schedule as you have, where do you find the time?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:18   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

Liar, he explains the 500 bits as being beyond the UPB.

And BTW I have read the papers. There isn't any paper that supports the claims of the ToE.

And it is obvious you are ignorant of what the ToE claims

Reading, Joe.  You should try it.  The claim is that the 500 bits was not explained--where did it come from.  Your response that it is in a certain place really gignormously misses the point.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,17:24   

Also, on the subject of traps:

How many words does the sentence, "The red brick fudges the upstairs house." have?

There are toddlers who think they know the answer; you should school them , Joe!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
  9739 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (325) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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