tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post7728480152101791204..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Salvaging the Darwinian wreckageRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87463591692439489242010-01-11T08:24:39.389-06:002010-01-11T08:24:39.389-06:00The crux of this non-meeting of minds can be found...The crux of this non-meeting of minds can be found in this statement of Rho's:<br /><br /><i>However, I don't see a good reason to consider, um, rocks with the same level of evidentiary value as revelation from God.</i><br /><br />In other words, the <i>real world</i>, aka "rocks", is trumped by <i>my religious convictions</i>, aka "revelation from God". Not much we reality-informed types can do with that. Thanks for making it transparent, though, Rho.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49905050389552505952010-01-10T17:51:52.448-06:002010-01-10T17:51:52.448-06:00So much the worse for Kolmogorov in terms of actua...<i>So much the worse for Kolmogorov in terms of actual relevance. To claim that a photocopy INCREASES INFORMATION is ridiculous.</i><br /><br />Hmm, maybe then you can explain why Kolmogorov theory is a widely used theory of information in maths/computing, but Rhology's version is not? <br /><br />Bear in mind that Dembski even concedes the point that going from X --> XX constitutes an information increase in Kol. theory.<br /><br /><i>A photocopy is going from X--->X. </i><br /><br />except it isn't, because you now have 2 copies of X rather than the original 1, and as most people know 2 x X = 2X (or XX), not X<br /><br />look at the gene duplication example - you go from 1 copy to 2, and now you can produce twice as much of that protein, even if both copies are identical<br /><br /><i>Why couldn't the ID-ist simply grant that for the sake of argument, to the tune of "Fine, I grant that weather patterns display a similar sign of design; maybe we could study that later, but right now I'm more interested in the origin of life"?</i><br /><br />Because they claim information as they/you define it can only be 'created' by a mind or intelligence of some description, thus if any mindless process can generate information they must be wrong. <br /><br /><i>And of course the creationist (like me) has an even better answer - yes, of course weather patterns are ID-d; EVERYthg was created by God.</i><br /><br /><br />first, as I've pointed out most ID style design argument are then completely irrelevant to you, because they contrast designed and undesigned objects, and they claim to be able to single out designed objects in nature. But if everything is designed their methods should detect it everywhere. the fact they don't means there must be something wrong with their methods. <br /><br />second, I wasnt' aware until now there was a theory of 'intelligent weather' too, but I guess you learn something new every day <br /><br />Anyway, that's me done with this threadDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-52811791033062472202010-01-09T21:27:03.337-06:002010-01-09T21:27:03.337-06:00Photocopying genetic information is demonstrably n...<i>Photocopying genetic information is demonstrably not adding new genetic information. Try again.<br /><br />pity Kolmogorov information theory disagrees with you </i><br /><br />So much the worse for Kolmogorov in terms of actual relevance. To claim that a photocopy INCREASES INFORMATION is ridiculous. <br /><br /><br /><i>going from X--->XX can constitute an increase in information</i><br /><br />A photocopy is going from X--->X. <br /><br /><br /><i>I also provided a non-biological example of weather patterns that also fits the criteria</i><br /><br />Why couldn't the ID-ist simply grant that for the sake of argument, to the tune of "Fine, I grant that weather patterns display a similar sign of design; maybe we could study that later, but right now I'm more interested in the origin of life"? <br />And of course the creationist (like me) has an even better answer - yes, of course weather patterns are ID-d; EVERYthg was created by God.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-27080043895410545602010-01-08T07:53:21.558-06:002010-01-08T07:53:21.558-06:00Derrick,
No one in the modern scene thinks archae...Derrick,<br /><br />No one in the modern scene thinks archaeopteryx is a transitional form.<br />And you need to read Henry Gee's _In Search of Deep Time_ since you put so much faith in your interp of the fossil "record". <br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolutionary-mirror-reading.html" rel="nofollow">Here are some relevant excerpts.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42116964950223013532010-01-07T17:11:16.727-06:002010-01-07T17:11:16.727-06:00No, as in we can map out the genes as they are now...<i>No, as in we can map out the genes as they are now and see the patterns of relatedness</i><br /><br />Assuming it works as the neo-Darwinian explanation says it does. But that's what's up for debate. Is there an observation that doesn't rely on this blatant question begging?<br /><br /><i>Please don't be intentionally dense.</i><br /><br />Ha, that's pretty funny. Don't intentionally reason in a circle.<br /><br /><i>At one point there were two functioning genes, today there are three.</i><br /><br />Based on assumptions of neo-Darwinism, not observations. This isn't science, it's a blind faith.<br /><br /><i>you are truly hopeless.</i><br /><br />Hee hee. I'm getting a kick out of this.<br /><br /><i>If any evidence supporting evolution is going to be dismissed by you as circular reasoning because it was predicted by evolution and then confirmed, then there is truly no point in arguing with you.</i><br /><br />You're the one who relies on circular reasoning to support his/her worldview. You assume evolution and interpret the data from said experiments using that assumption. Sounds like you're the one with the problem. You come back with an actual observed occurrence of new (see not mutated or copied) genetic information, we'll talk.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77178249518798197282010-01-07T16:32:51.239-06:002010-01-07T16:32:51.239-06:00Oh...wait...you said "We can actually sequenc...<i>Oh...wait...you said "We can actually sequence the genes in question to reconstruct the events described". That sounds like an intelligently guided process.</i><br /><br />No, as in we can map out the genes as they are now and see the patterns of relatedness. We can identify which dichromat gene was duplicated, and then see what mutations occurred subsequently. Please don't be intentionally dense.<br /><br /><i>This is not an example of an observed gain in genetic information.</i><br /><br />Yes, actually it is. At one point there were two functioning genes, today there are three. That is an increase, occurring only from very common, very plausible mutations. If that isn't an increase in information, you are truly hopeless.<br /><br /><i>It is using the neo-Darwinian paradigm to support the neo-Darwinian paradigm...which sounds a lot like circular reasoning.</i><br /><br />The definition of a strong scientific theory is that you can find corroborating evidence for it. If any evidence <i>supporting</i> evolution is going to be dismissed by you as circular reasoning because it was <i>predicted</i> by evolution and then <i>confirmed</i>, then there is truly no point in arguing with you.dreamking00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753969492297873219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-9161286492678001872010-01-07T16:14:54.816-06:002010-01-07T16:14:54.816-06:00Not to mention that it is assuming that this is ho...Not to mention that it is assuming that this is how vision developed.<br /><br />This is not an example of an observed gain in genetic information. It is using the neo-Darwinian paradigm to support the neo-Darwinian paradigm...which sounds a lot like circular reasoning.<br /><br />Dr Funk (on polyploidy),<br /><br />Then I guess we're going to argue over equivocations here. I say photocopying genetic info is not introducing new genetic info and is not building on to existing DNA. It's just copying it. If I copy an article and then move letters around, I haven't added information, and I've probably turned something legible into gibberish.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-16275977613091694322010-01-07T16:01:44.361-06:002010-01-07T16:01:44.361-06:00My favorite example of increasing information in t...<i>My favorite example of increasing information in the genome is trichromatic vision in humans. We can actually sequence the genes in question to reconstruct the events described.</i><br /><br />So, this is a case of an unguided and natural event happening in nature? We've observed this trichromatic vision forming from a parent that doesn't have it to an offspring that does?<br /><br />Oh...wait...you said <i>"We can actually sequence the genes in question to reconstruct the events described"</i>. That sounds like an intelligently guided process.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24919214119971006902010-01-07T08:48:13.148-06:002010-01-07T08:48:13.148-06:00My favorite example of increasing information in t...My favorite example of increasing information in the genome is trichromatic vision in humans. We can actually sequence the genes in question to reconstruct the events described.<br /><br />Most mammals have dichromatic vision, governed by genes we could call R and B, each of which makes cones sensitive to different wavelengths of light. At some point in our history, one of those was duplicated, leaving those animals with RRB--a functionally neutral mutation. <br /><br />Secondarily, any change in either R gene would broaden the spectrum the primate would see, increasing contrast and leading to a competitive advantage. Any subsequent mutations would likewise be advantageous, until such time as it would be more appropriate to call the three genes RGB, since they would now be producing trichromatic vision through an increase in information.<br /><br />As far as transitional fossils go, I fail to see why specimens such as Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx don't serve as examples of fish/amphibian and dinosaur/avian transitions, respectively.dreamking00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753969492297873219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-15162685151335508502010-01-07T04:23:36.459-06:002010-01-07T04:23:36.459-06:00edit: slight mistake I just noticed on my part - t...edit: slight mistake I just noticed on my part - tetraploidy should actually be doubling, not quadrupling as it's going from a diploid to a tetraploid genomeDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-74257371305436089792010-01-07T04:16:44.786-06:002010-01-07T04:16:44.786-06:00Photocopying genetic information is demonstrably n...<i>Photocopying genetic information is demonstrably not adding new genetic information. Try again.</i><br /><br />pity Kolmogorov information theory disagrees with you then. Dembski even concedes that under this version of information theory, going from X--->XX can constitute an increase in information<br /><br />However, it's apparent that the colloquial definition provided by Rhology from Meyer's book (despite the fact that I gather there is no working version of information theory that actually defines information in this manner) that duplications can fulfill his chosen criteria<br /><br />since some effects in cells are dose dependent, duplications can alter cellular biochemistry (as more protein can be produced from 2 copies than 1), therefore at the very least, in principle since duplications can have phenotypic effects<br /><br />in the actual example I gave, tetraploidy means a quadrupling of the chromosome number from parent to daughter given that this also has the effect of making the orchids structurally more robust there is therefore an alteration in phenotype as well. so you have a real world example as well as a logical argument why duplication can constitute an increase in useful information under Rhology's terms<br /><br />so under the definition that has been provided on this thread, it is not obvious how my example does not fulfill the criteria since it<br /><br />a. increases genome size<br />b. has a positive phenotypic effect<br /><br />I also provided a non-biological example of weather patterns that also fits the criteria. of course, rather than accepting this met the demand, the response to that was to shift the goalposts by changing to a different definitionDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-31518835129426720782010-01-06T21:14:29.912-06:002010-01-06T21:14:29.912-06:00except for the orchid example I gave a few posts a...<i>except for the orchid example I gave a few posts ago, of course, which meets Rhology's definition of an increase in functional information</i><br /><br />Photocopying genetic information is demonstrably not adding new genetic information. Try again.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32664700574798008132010-01-06T18:13:27.176-06:002010-01-06T18:13:27.176-06:00Neither can biologists, since it's never been ...<i>Neither can biologists, since it's never been observed.</i><br /><br />except for the orchid example I gave a few posts ago, of course, which meets Rhology's definition of an increase in functional information<br /><br />I'll answer the rest tomorrowDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49043367070277348022010-01-06T18:03:01.143-06:002010-01-06T18:03:01.143-06:00personal experience can count as evidence for a pe...<i>personal experience can count as evidence for a person, but at the same time it's not much use for proving anything to anyone who isn't you</i><br /><br />And I wasn't using my personal experience to prove anything to anyone else. That's why I prefaced my statement with "I".bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76478099159974476502010-01-06T17:58:39.552-06:002010-01-06T17:58:39.552-06:00Doc Funk,
which renders most (if not all) design ...Doc Funk,<br /><br /><i>which renders most (if not all) design arguments, including ID, irrelevant if there are no undesigned things.</i><br /><br />You're clearly misunderstanding. By saying "there are no naturalistic agents" I mean naturalistic processes aren't responsible for all things. God can have implemented natural laws that allow things, once created, to take a natural course. However, we as humans can take things, like mud for instance, which is ultimately designed by God, and further its design by forming it into a pot. We can tell when something has been left to its own devices and when something has been fashioned.<br /><br /><i>the best he can therefore conclude from this is that he doesn't know if evolution can create new biological features or not.</i><br /><br />Neither can biologists, since it's never been observed.<br /><br /><i>the point is they're done by NON-SUPERNATURAL AGENTS though, so anyone who wants to use them to conclude 'therefore supernatural designer'</i><br /><br />ID doesn't conclude that. You must pursue other arguments to conclude a supernatural designer.<br /><br /><i>so if inductively you conclude that evolution requires intelligence because of those experiments, you must also conclude it requires a non-supernatural agent</i><br /><br />I'm not concluding <i>from these experiments</i> that evolution requires a <b>supernatural</b> designer. I'm concluding that from a bunch of different arguments. The point we're making is that all these evolution experiments show is intelligent design.<br /><br /><i>however, you've now decided 'there aren't any natural agents' (although you're the first person I've ever met who thinks humans are supernatural)</i><br /><br />I never implied we are supernatural. What I said was there is nothing that has appeared by completely naturalistic processes. If I were you, I'd quit with the red herrings and the misrepresentations of what I'm saying. If you can't deal with our arguments here, just say so.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-29969172696737688692010-01-06T17:38:41.454-06:002010-01-06T17:38:41.454-06:00It does assume naturalism, because on Christian th...<i>It does assume naturalism, because on Christian theism, there are no "naturalistic agents." </i><br /><br />which renders most (if not all) design arguments, including ID, irrelevant if there are no undesigned things. as I've pointed out about 4 times now, so why are people still bringing up ID?<br /><br /><i>Actually, that isn't the argument. The argument is you can't use intelligently guided experiments to infer that evolution has been completely unguided. </i><br /><br />I'm aware that's what's being said - Rhology is also claiming this is support for ID because inductively it shows that 'creating' new biological features requires an intelligent agent<br /><br />literally all I've done is this<br /><br />Rhology's argument<br /><br />intelligent agent + evolution----> experiments support intelligent design<br /><br />based on the exact same experiments, my argument<br /><br />natural intelligent agent + evolution ----> experiments support naturally guided intelligent design<br /><br />the point being that since Rhology doesn't accept natural ID, even if they don't count as support for Darwinian evolution, these experiments are of <i>no use to supporting his position either</i><br /><br />the best he can therefore conclude from this is that he doesn't know if evolution can create new biological features or not.<br /><br />the problem is both of you are asking 'show me a mindless process that creates information' or 'here's an ID argument' then switching positions to 'no unguided processes actually exist'. Make a choice and stick with it, it's impossible to debate a position that keeps changing its definitions all the time. <br /><br /><i>It's an unjustified inductive inference, given that the expirimetns performed are done by intelligent agents, not random and unguided processes.</i><br /><br />I KNOW! the point is they're done by NON-SUPERNATURAL AGENTS though, so anyone who wants to use them to conclude 'therefore supernatural designer' cannot do so<br /><br />so if inductively you conclude that evolution requires intelligence <i>because of those experiments</i>, you must also conclude it requires a non-supernatural agent. however, you've now decided 'there aren't any natural agents' (although you're the first person I've ever met who thinks humans are supernatural)<br /><br /><i>Which is not hampering ID at all, since the identity of the designer designer is left open. I conclude the designer is Yahweh for many reasons,</i><br /><br />technically you're right, however<br /><br />They also appeal to fine tuning of the universe as an argument for ID - this either means<br /><br />a. it must come from something not bound by space or time that has the causal powers to alter the physical world (ie something outside nature)<br />b. it comes from something inside nature that fine tuned the universe. this means that if something natural was able to retune the universe, there are other combos of constants that support life, thus undermining the fine tuning argument<br /><br />so which is it - is the agent supernatural, or is the argument wrong?<br /><br /><i>one being the need for an uncaused cause</i> <br /><br />again, as I said on the other thread there's no obvious connection between this and the conclusion 'therefore Jesus'<br /><br /><br /><i>(another is personal experience).</i><br /><br />personal experience can count as evidence for a person, but at the same time it's not much use for proving anything to anyone who isn't you<br /><br /><i>No I don't, since I don't rely soley on evolution experiments to conclude that there is a God.</i><br /><br />I'm aware of this, it's strictly relating to the idea that experiments provide proof of supernatural IDDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-20809777970781265312010-01-06T17:20:44.366-06:002010-01-06T17:20:44.366-06:00Haha. Yeah I meant "praying" for your sa...Haha. Yeah I meant "praying" for your salvation. I can't even pay for my own salvation, lol.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72890375707616727332010-01-06T17:18:36.655-06:002010-01-06T17:18:36.655-06:00Dr. Funk,
It's not based on the assumption of...Dr. Funk,<br /><br /><i>It's not based on the assumption of Darwinian evolution, which was Bossman's point, since the idea predates Darwin's theory.</i><br /><br />The modern interpretation doesn't predate Darwin.<br /><br /><i>it's a bit like a blog I saw ages ago with a list of famous scientists that didn't accept Darwin's theories...</i><br /><br />Before you go off comparing something to something else, make sure you're correct about what you're comparing. The geo column predates Darwin. The current interpretation doesn't.<br /><br />Data itself isn't subject to presuppositions. The interpretation of that data is. The context of my statement should have thrown up that red flag for ya ;).bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2009145387821673122010-01-06T17:11:28.499-06:002010-01-06T17:11:28.499-06:00Dr Funk, (cont.)
Due to upthrusts and suchlike, b...Dr Funk, (cont.)<br /><br /><i>Due to upthrusts and suchlike, but then geologists know this since they were the ones that discovered these facts</i><br /><br />Are we sure? Has anyone observed these upthrusts ocurring?<br /><br />Furthermore, which location is the standard for the geo column? Since there are places where the columns are out of order, how do we know the one that is the standard hasn't suffered the same upthrust?<br /><br /><i>The idea of the geological column form predates Darwin, and some of the basic ideas underlying it go back centuries before his time</i><br /><br />I know the coulumn predates Darwin. I believe creationsist had something to do with the formulation, if I remember correctly. I clearly meant the way the column is being used and interpreted today is because of a commitment to Darwinism.<br /><br /><i>What you wrote suggests otherwise</i><br /><br />Asking questions about observations is ignorant?<br /><br /><i>What you wrote suggests otherwise</i><br /><br />No one has answered. That doesn't sound like a job done.<br /><br /><i>What he no doubt meant was that the currently popular INTERP of the geo column is based on naturalistic presupps.</i><br /><br />Correct. Thank you, Rho.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-74791445233726397612010-01-06T15:43:50.453-06:002010-01-06T15:43:50.453-06:00The DATA are not under question. The INTERP of the...<i>The DATA are not under question. The INTERP of the data is. Presupps come into play there.</i><br /><br />This is irrelevant - they clearly weren't basing their ideas on darwinian assumptions (because they couldn't as his theory didn't exist), which was basically what BM claimed.<br /><br /><i>Now, as far as the information thing, what did my string of characters communicate?<br />If nothing, then that's not really the topic of information as ID means it.<br />If something, then what and how do you know?</i><br /><br />what it communicates meaning wise is irrelevant - read the quote from Greg Chaitin, he developed algorithmic information theory!<br /><br />it's to do with how easily compressible the string is - a random string is less compressible than a non-random one and thus is less complex under the K-S-C info theory<br /><br />However<br /><br />Shannon weaver info theory also does not deal with meaning, but is a robust theory of information<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory<br /><br />"Note that these concerns have nothing to do with the importance of messages. For example, a platitude such as "Thank you; come again" takes about as long to say or write as the urgent plea, "Call an ambulance!" while clearly the latter is more important and more meaningful. <b>Information theory, however, does not consider message importance or meaning, as these are matters of the quality of data rather than the quantity and readability of data, the latter of which is determined solely by probabilities.</b>"<br /><br /><i>If nothing, then that's not really the topic of information as ID means it.</i><br /><br />but this is irrelevant since you provided an example of what they meant and I've provided two examples of information increases that meet this colloquial definition anyway, so you have no argument left on this front<br /><br /><br /><i>Interestingly, Meyer uses the illustration of a roulette wheel very extensively in "Signature".</i><br /><br />I notice you also said he had examples of people using Dembski's ideas in maths and computing, but you didn't respond about that last time<br /><br />can you cite any of those examples?Dr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76279859820272190282010-01-06T14:58:26.911-06:002010-01-06T14:58:26.911-06:00(I'm gonna guess he meant "Praying"....(I'm gonna guess he meant "Praying".)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14162060759282099932010-01-06T14:56:41.279-06:002010-01-06T14:56:41.279-06:00I will get to your further comments later, as I ha...I will get to your further comments later, as I have to go back to work right now.<br /><br />Paying for your salvation and God bless.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33468719096637193372010-01-06T14:55:04.572-06:002010-01-06T14:55:04.572-06:00Dr. Funk,
it neither assumes naturalism nor is it...Dr. Funk,<br /><br /><i>it neither assumes naturalism nor is it difficult to follow</i><br /><br />It does assume naturalism, because on Christian theism, there are no "naturalistic agents." Everything has its source from God, therefore there are no purely naturalistic anythings.<br /><br /><i> Rhology also says this and that this therefore proves that evolution must actually be guided by an intelligent agent and cannot happen via mindless processes<br /></i><br /><br />Actually, that isn't the argument. The argument is you can't use intelligently guided experiments to infer that evolution has been completely unguided. Once you insert intelligence into the equation, even if you evolve a bacteria into a small dog, you have proven nothing but intelligent design.<br /><br /><i>This is an inductive inference,</i><br /><br />It's an unjustified inductive inference, given that the expirimetns performed are done by intelligent agents, not random and unguided processes.<br /><br /><i>ie all those experiments feature a human (ie a non-supernatural) designer, therefore guided evolution must require a natural/human designer</i><br /><br />Which is not hampering ID at all, since the identity of the designer designer is left open. I conclude the designer is Yahweh for many reasons, one being the need for an uncaused cause (another is personal experience).<br /><br /><i>So, in short if you wish to employ this argument to show evolution cannot happen unguided you must also accept that evolution is not guided by a non-natural agent.</i><br /><br />No I don't, since I don't rely soley on evolution experiments to conclude that there is a God.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32125491620573562332010-01-06T14:38:00.496-06:002010-01-06T14:38:00.496-06:00That wasn't his claim though was it?
He can s...<i>That wasn't his claim though was it?</i><br /><br />He can speak for himself, but that's what I thought he was getting at. <br /><br /><br /><i>famous scientists that didn't accept Darwin's theories</i><br /><br />I can see what you mean. Probably would be a better strategy to remind everyone that there were many many big-time scientists who were also creationist Christians. <br /><br /><br /><i>a lot of the people who helped develop the geological column concept had creationist assumptions, not Darwinian ones, contrary to what BM claimed. </i><br /><br />The DATA are not under question. The INTERP of the data is. Presupps come into play there.<br /><br />Now, as far as the information thing, what did my string of characters <b>communicate</b>? <br />If nothing, then that's not really the topic of information as ID means it. <br />If something, then what and how do you know?<br /><br /><br /><i>roulette wheel</i><br /><br />Interestingly, Meyer uses the illustration of a roulette wheel very extensively in "Signature".Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28668214220515967122010-01-06T14:29:44.508-06:002010-01-06T14:29:44.508-06:00"maximal randomness will actually produce the..."maximal randomness will actually produce the maximal amount of information."<br /><br /><i>adf097fa87df908qayerlqk3erl;qkwerjqdf08979a87df89079&&*)(^*(&%^oiauhsfashdfalsdjfh<br />Really?</i><br /><br />under the Kolmogorov-Solomonoff-Chaitin version, the fact that you can't compress a truly random string means that it is more complex than a non-random string (since a non-random string can be compressed)<br /><br />in fact, let's hear it from Greg Chaitin himself:<br /><br />http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/lowell.html<br /><br />"So this idea of program size has a lot of philosophical resonances, and you can define randomness or maximum entropy as something that cannot be compressed at all. It's an object with the property that basically the only way you can describe it to someone is to say ``this is it'' and show it to them. Because it has no structure or pattern, there is no concise description, and the thing has to be understood as ``a thing in itself'', it's irreducible.<br /><br />Randomness = Incompressibility<br /><br />The other extreme is an object that has a very regular pattern so you can just say that it's ``a million 0s'' or ``half a million repetitions of 01'', pairs 01, 01, 01 repeated half a million times. These are very long objects with a very concise description. Another long object with a concise description is an ephemeris, I think it's called that, it's a table giving the positions of the planets as seen in sky, daily, for a year. You can compress all this astronomical information into a small FORTRAN program that uses Newtonian physics to calculate where the planets will be seen in the sky every night.<br /><br />But if you look at how a roulette wheel behaves, then there is no pattern, the series of outcomes cannot be compressed. Because if there were a pattern, then people could use it to win, and having a casino wouldn't be such a good business! The fact that casinos make lots of money shows that there is no way to predict what a roulette wheel will do, there is no pattern---the casinos make it their job to ensure that!" <br /><br />as for your layman's version, I've already given an example where information is generated by weather patterns (you tried to shift the goalposts by claiming we create the patterns in our mind therefore it's still ID, but actually we <b>recognise</b> the patterns generated in the weather, which is closer to what you were originally claiming and shows that your version of information does not rely on a mind to be generated)<br /><br />if you want a biological example, Orchid offspring can undergo tetraploidy, which makes the offspring larger and more robust. this would also satisfy your definition.Dr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.com