tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post781999721213143066..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Graur and Martin Explain Monumental Failure in Molecular Clock Uncertainty EstimateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74219712000847914922017-01-25T20:34:06.008-08:002017-01-25T20:34:06.008-08:00I didn't have time to read through all comment...I didn't have time to read through all comments, but does anyone else see that the massive amount of information encoded even in a prokaryote cell is positive evidence of an amazing intelligence behind the design? A simple analogy is finding a box of alphabets tumped on the table, and among the scattered letters is spelled out the message, "Please take out the garbage. Love, Mom." Would anyone doubt that the message is the result of an intelligent mind making that coherent statement, rather than a random process bringing together that collocation of letters? How much more so, then, for the millions of bits of precisely organized, multi-layered information encoded in DNA? The information in our DNA is positive evidence of an intelligent behind the design.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487019708708362461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6045377497292683182017-01-17T11:43:40.014-08:002017-01-17T11:43:40.014-08:00Joke: "No, you have not. You just provided yo...Joke: "<i>No, you have not. You just provided your say-so. You have NEVER referenced Dembski, Meyer or anyone else misusing probabilities."</i><br /><br />This isn't Sunday school Joey. We stop reading stories aloud to kids when they became smart enough to read on their own. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36940492471438181912017-01-17T03:49:43.514-08:002017-01-17T03:49:43.514-08:00Wee Willie:
All I have asked for is a defence of t...Wee Willie:<br /><i>All I have asked for is a defence of the flawed way in which probability estimates are used by ID to discredit evolution. </i><br /><br />You have yet to demonstrate that a flaw exists. And you have already proven that you don't have a clue<br /><br /><i>I have provided very detailed reasons as to why I think that the way ID has used probabilities is flawed</i><br /><br />Nonsense. In order to do that you have to reference an IDist and show that the reasoning is flawed. And you have failed to do so. And the way you are talking you don't have the slightest idea how IDists use probabilities.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72078432991466457742017-01-16T21:24:18.010-08:002017-01-16T21:24:18.010-08:00so I will just dissemble and insult.
Sorry if you...<i>so I will just dissemble and insult.</i><br /><br />Sorry if you took it as an insult. I tried to explain objectively, and did not mean an insult. Lest I remind you, (i) I asked you for the details of your critique, (ii) you referred to a post which went nowhere, on an explicitly religious site. One of the themes here is that religion drives science, and it seems you just demonstrated it, no?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23230489947823923892017-01-16T21:15:14.039-08:002017-01-16T21:15:14.039-08:00CH: "This isn't a matter of personal tast...CH: "<i>This isn't a matter of personal taste, it is about a major failure in your argument. You made a claim, and when asked for the details and basis of your claim, your referred (indirectly) to a religious website. That is an absurd response (because it invokes a religious site to support what was ostensibly a scientific claim of yours), and an own-goal."</i><br /><br />Translation: I can't defend the manner in which ID uses probabilities to debunk evolution so I will just dissemble and insult. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90689899913344224942017-01-16T20:40:56.265-08:002017-01-16T20:40:56.265-08:00So, because you don't like the site, ...
This...<i>So, because you don't like the site, ...</i><br /><br />This isn't a matter of personal taste, it is about a major failure in your argument. You made a claim, and when asked for the details and basis of your claim, your referred (indirectly) to a religious website. That is an absurd response (because it invokes a religious site to support what was ostensibly a scientific claim of yours), and an own-goal.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83150734470148504532017-01-16T20:26:06.454-08:002017-01-16T20:26:06.454-08:00CH: "Because you cited a comment by GR which ...CH: "<i>Because you cited a comment by GR which cited a post at a religious blog (named "Panda's Thumb," which is a reference to a classic, fundamentalist argument for evolution). Religion drives science."</i><br /><br />So, because you don't like the site, or Gould and one of his collection of essays, you think that it is an argument in your favour? Forgive me, because I realize that this is your site and you are entitled to make the rules, but that has to be one of the most pathetic responses I have ever read. <br /><br />All I have asked for is a defence of the flawed way in which probability estimates are used by ID to discredit evolution. And your response is that because you don't like "The Panda's Thumb" web site or the collection of papers from a scientist who you don't respect, that an article posted in that site must be beneath contempt. <br /><br />I have provided very detailed reasons as to why I think that the way ID has used probabilities is flawed. Can you respond to these details in a logical fashion? Or are you going to continue to respond with sarcasm? As a wise man once said:<br /><i><b>"The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal."</b></i>William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29856968930190847432017-01-16T19:48:27.576-08:002017-01-16T19:48:27.576-08:00WS:
Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me wh...WS:<br /><br /><i>Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me why my claims about the false premises used by IDists when using probability arguments are wrong. I wonder why that is.</i><br /><br />Because you cited a comment by GR which cited a post at a religious blog (named "Panda's Thumb," which is a reference to a classic, fundamentalist argument for evolution). Religion drives science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49024970442390285992017-01-15T10:11:58.491-08:002017-01-15T10:11:58.491-08:00wee willie:
The ultimate in absurdity is to declar...wee willie:<br /><i>The ultimate in absurdity is to declare a position absurd without providing anything in the way of an argument as to why it is absurd.</i><br /><br />And yet that is all that you do. This probability fiasco is just another example.<br /><br />BTW Behe's use of probabilities came from the empirical evidence in a peer-reviewed paper- and they weren't his numbers. The number he used was from evolutionary biologists who I am sure understand evolution and biology much better than you ever will.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91421468587938339172017-01-15T10:09:05.146-08:002017-01-15T10:09:05.146-08:00No, you have not. You just provided your say-so. Y...No, you have not. You just provided your say-so. You have NEVER referenced Dembski, Meyer or anyone else misusing probabilities.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65207539677232768702017-01-15T08:57:19.158-08:002017-01-15T08:57:19.158-08:00CH: "The use of sarcasm when your position is...CH: "<i>The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal. Rules are rules."</i><br /><br />This one is definitely a keeper. The ultimate in absurdity is to declare a position absurd without providing anything in the way of an argument as to why it is absurd. And then, using sarcasm, you claim that using sarcasm when your position is absurd is an own goal. Sorry Cornelius, but rules are rules. <br /><br />Or would you like to actually contribute something to the discussion that could shed light on the disagreement here. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69221057839555972452017-01-15T08:46:07.908-08:002017-01-15T08:46:07.908-08:00Nic: "Who knows, maybe I will get you to agre...Nic: "<i>Who knows, maybe I will get you to agree with me on something."</i><br /><br />I am sure that we agree on many things. For example, we probably have the same opinion of Joe.:)William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35832031683727014882017-01-15T08:43:21.274-08:002017-01-15T08:43:21.274-08:00Joke: "But anyway, Willie refuses to provide ...Joke: "<i>But anyway, Willie refuses to provide examples of an IDist misusing probabilities..."</i><br /><br />I provided several. Please try to keep up. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21675223432053967852017-01-14T21:16:25.846-08:002017-01-14T21:16:25.846-08:00So what Willie is saying is that change just happe...So what Willie is saying is that change just happens and if a bacterial flagellum comes out of it, then so be it. You cannot go back and try to determine the probability of something that just happened to happen and ended up looking and acting like a motor. Nice story but devoid of scientific merit.<br /><br />But anyway, Willie refuses to provide examples of an IDist misusing probabilities and it's a given he has never read "NO Free Lunch" nor "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Probabilitys-Nature-Natures-Probability-Scientific/dp/1439228620" rel="nofollow"><b>Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability : A Call to Scientific Integrity</b></a>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55204271132948719352017-01-14T21:07:19.014-08:002017-01-14T21:07:19.014-08:00***APLAUSE***
The use of sarcasm when your positi...<i>***APLAUSE***</i><br /><br />The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal. Rules are rules.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59289531265086108772017-01-14T20:06:33.910-08:002017-01-14T20:06:33.910-08:00wee willie the projectionist:
If you have a proble...wee willie the projectionist:<br /><i>If you have a problem understanding a simple concept, that is not my fault.</i><br /><br />You are the one having the difficulties, wee willie. You have yet to support anything you have said wrt probabilities.<br /><br />And thanks for admitting that you were ignorant of the fact CSI pertains to origins.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23111732973844288332017-01-14T19:47:03.046-08:002017-01-14T19:47:03.046-08:00William,
"And will again in the future. But,...William,<br /><br />"And will again in the future. But, being Canadian, we feel bad about it."<br /><br />Who knows, maybe I will get you to agree with me on something. <br /><br />It is true, we Canadians do tend to be apologetic for holding contrary views. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54281379940845596872017-01-14T16:10:39.247-08:002017-01-14T16:10:39.247-08:00Nic: "I am, it does, and we will just have to...Nic: "<i>I am, it does, and we will just have to agree to disagree <b>as we have so many times in the past.:)</b>"</i><br /><br />And will again in the future. But, being Canadian, we feel bad about it. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33697443239416564712017-01-14T15:31:34.557-08:002017-01-14T15:31:34.557-08:00William,
"Even if you are correct, which I d...William,<br /><br />"Even if you are correct, which I don't think you are, it still doesn't go in your favour. How can it when it is an improper use of probability."<br /><br />I am, it does, and we will just have to agree to disagree as we have so many times in the past.:)Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71170961530562617302017-01-14T13:18:07.178-08:002017-01-14T13:18:07.178-08:00Joke: "You don't get to baldly assert tha...Joke: "<i>You don't get to baldly assert that you are using probabilities in the same way. You have to actually show it and you can't."</i><br /><br />If you have a problem understanding a simple concept, that is not my fault. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39640855156504333032017-01-14T13:11:09.030-08:002017-01-14T13:11:09.030-08:00Nic: "The origin of life is where I see the p...Nic: "<i>The origin of life is where I see the probability argument being most applicable and effective and it appears on this we agree."</i><br /><br />Yes we do. Unfortunately that is not where it is being used. Which is no fault of ID. At this point there is no theory to test it on. <br /><br />"<i>Even going back that far we do not approach a number even close to 1 in 4 to 400. As such, the probability argument still goes in my favour."</i><br /><br />Even if you are correct, which I don't think you are, it still doesn't go in your favour. How can it when it is an improper use of probability. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85576450708079639202017-01-14T11:44:09.546-08:002017-01-14T11:44:09.546-08:00wee willie:
I prefer my red herrings cooked over s...wee willie:<br /><i>I prefer my red herrings cooked over s flaming strawman. </i><br /><br />So you admit ignorance of the fact that CSI refers to origins. Read "No Free Lunch", he even has a section on that very subject.<br /><br /><i>And using probabilities in the same way proves that you can't exist. </i><br /><br />You don't get to baldly assert that you are using probabilities in the same way. You have to actually show it and you can't.<br /><br />From No Free Lunch:<br /><br />"Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the <i>viability</i> of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the <i>reproduction</i> of genes. Thus, in <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i> Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality is specified in advance is…the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”<br><br /><br><br />The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the <b>origin</b> of information but the <b>origin</b> of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book <i>The Fifth Miracle</i> where he summarizes the current state of <b>origin</b>-of-life research: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity <i>per se</i>, but for their tightly specified complexity.” The problem of specified complexity has dogged <b>origin</b>-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”<br><br /><br><br />Where, then, does complex specified information or CSI come from, and where is it incapable of coming from? According to Manfred Eigen, CSI comes from algorithms and natural laws. As he puts it, “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the <b>origin</b> of [complex specified] information.” The only question for Eigen is which algorithms and natural laws explain the <b>origin</b> of CSI. The logically prior question of whether algorithms and natural laws are even in principle capable of explaining the <b>origin</b> of CSI is one he ignores. And yet it is this very question that undermines the entire project of naturalistic <b>origin</b>s-of-life research. Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the <b>origin</b> of CSI. To be sure, algorithms and natural laws can explain the flow of CSI. Indeed, algorithms and natural laws are ideally suited for transmitting already existing CSI. As we shall see next, what they cannot do is explain its <b>origin</b>." (bold added)<br /><br /><br />Wee willie, your ignorance, while amusing, is neither an argument nor a refutation.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58686423981277155262017-01-14T11:34:29.067-08:002017-01-14T11:34:29.067-08:00William,
Nic: "The probability argument can ...William,<br /><br />Nic: "The probability argument can rightly be applied to the formation of proteins from independent amino acids."<br /><br />"True. But that is OoL stuff. I don't know how life formed and neither does anyone. I am only arguing about how probability is being used by ID in arguing against how evolution works in a DNA based system."<br /><br />The origin of life is where I see the probability argument being most applicable and effective and it appears on this we agree.<br /><br />"Nic, please don't try to use quote mining to argue a point."<br /><br />That was not my intent, I was just using a portion of your statement to indicate to what argument I was replying.<br /><br />"However, when you extend the probabilities back hundreds or thousands of generations, and add in all of the other probabilities involved (eg, probabilities of miscarriages, the right two people getting together, etc.) the probability number quickly becomes far lower than that of any specific protein evolving."<br /><br />Even going back that far we do not approach a number even close to 1 in 4 to 400. As such, the probability argument still goes in my favour.<br /><br />Also, I still think the weakness in this argument is that human reproduction is going to produce nothing but humans and the exact genetic makeup is secondary to that fact. Using the probability of the process to produce 'me' as opposed to 'me other',as it were, is not relative to reptiles becoming non-reptiles, which, if I understand you properly, is how you're applying the probability argument in this case. Please correct me if I am wrong. <br /> Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73047491547093266072017-01-14T09:43:31.877-08:002017-01-14T09:43:31.877-08:00Nic: "The probability argument can rightly be...Nic: "<i>The probability argument can rightly be applied to the formation of proteins from independent amino acids."</i><br /><br />True. But that is OoL stuff. I don't know how life formed and neither does anyone. I am only arguing about how probability is being used by ID in arguing against how evolution works in a DNA based system. <br /><br />"<i>Once the probability argument decimates the possibility of protein formation the rest of the question is rendered moot. If you can't get proteins, you can't get life on which RM/NS can work."</i><br /><br />But the probability argument can't decimate a natural OoL theory until there is some level of scientific consensus on how it happened. We are nowhere close to that yet. And may never get there. <br /><br />But, I am not sure that I get your point. Are you conceding that the way ID uses probabilities to argue against the evolution of specific complex structures, given an ecosystem full of DNA based life forms, is flawed? That is all that I have been arguing about. <br /><br />"<i>Not really."</i><br /><br />Nic, please don't try to use quote mining to argue a point. That is a Joe tactic, not something that you have a history of doing. My next sentence was "<i>But as probabilities go, nowhere close to zero."</i> However, when you extend the probabilities back hundreds or thousands of generations, and add in all of the other probabilities involved (eg, probabilities of miscarriages, the right two people getting together, etc.) the probability number quickly becomes far lower than that of any specific protein evolving. <br /><br />But, again, I have admitted that the use of probabilities in my example is flawed. Even if I admitted that evolution doesn't happen, my use of probability to prove that you couldn't exist would only be valid if your unique DNA sequence was an outcome that was specified at the time of the first appearance of humans. Which, obviously, is absurd. <br /><br />As I mentioned in my previous comment, the ID probability arguments against the evolution of any specific complex structure is flawed because it requires that that evolution pre-specifies these specific complex structures. All these arguments prove is that evolution can't pre-specify the evolution of complex structures. Something that evolution theory has never claimed. The ultimate strawman argumentWilliam Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92086468374686353872017-01-14T09:01:34.244-08:002017-01-14T09:01:34.244-08:00"This is nonsense. Any differences to an orga..."<i>This is nonsense. Any differences to an organism with the deleted gene could still occur if it was present."</i><br /><br />Why don't humans produce vitamin C. <br /><br />"<i>The point is that natural selection doesn't influence mutations (as per the OP)."</i><br /><br />Correct. It acts on the variations in a population caused by them and other mechanisms.<br /><br />"<i>At least unless it drives the organism to extinction (by your own admission)."</i><br /><br />And, according to the fossil record, this is often the case. Again, I don't get the point trying to be made. William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.com