tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8407930796789269446..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: You Won’t Believe What Evolutionists Are Saying Now: Evolution Created “A Risk Management Strategy”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89170651104814629642012-06-14T13:33:44.292-07:002012-06-14T13:33:44.292-07:00Keep chasing the 'random' cause down Zach ...Keep chasing the 'random' cause down Zach and you 'may' see where you are faulty in your thinking eventually!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-412796714712620362012-06-11T12:34:13.049-07:002012-06-11T12:34:13.049-07:00Okay sounds good...what I'm about to link is a...Okay sounds good...what I'm about to link is all gibberish to me, even though i took High level calc, but since education in America sucks, I forgot it all now. I'm not really sure if it is relevant but I figured I'd give it a shot.<br /><br />http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_VariationalInformation_072404.pdfForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5571035818978721632012-06-11T10:08:16.469-07:002012-06-11T10:08:16.469-07:00ForJah: The only thing I think I'm caught up o...<b>ForJah</b>: <i>The only thing I think I'm caught up on is how is this research analogous with nature? </i><br /><br />In this discussion, we were just asking bornagain77 to calculate his information metric using the artificial protein as an example. <br /><br />The experiment does show that stable, folding proteins are not that uncommon, about 10^-11 or so. As you point out, it is not a replicator, so is not a model of abiogenesis.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48534391389659526812012-06-11T09:50:35.427-07:002012-06-11T09:50:35.427-07:00Wow, you are very good at this stuff! The only thi...Wow, you are very good at this stuff! The only thing I think I'm caught up on is how is this research analogous with nature? Selecting and discarding functional proteins requires the intelligence of the researchers...so how can you appeal to this study to show how proteins develop by chance? As I understand it, proteins do not self-replicate. I am not very fluent in biology or information theory but I know the general ideas so excuse me if I'm missing something.ForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41538489886976855002012-06-11T05:37:15.649-07:002012-06-11T05:37:15.649-07:00ForJah: "was specifically constructed to avoi...<b>ForJah</b>: <i>"was specifically constructed to avoid stop codons and frameshift mutations"</i><br /><br />There's creating a library of random proteins of a given length. If you want to make random sentences of a given length, you would avoid periods, that is, stop codons. Frameshifts during synthesis also introduces stop codons, which would truncate the sequence. <br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>"and was designed for use in mRNA display selections" </i><br /><br />The RNA molecule that produces the protein is chemically bound to the protein. You can think of it as a tag that can be recovered later to identify the sequence.<br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>"we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP" mean? </i><br /><br />The function of interest was ATP-binding. If a given protein binds to ATP, it is selected for replication, while the others are discarded. This process is repeated a number of times. <br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>The words I don't understand in these two sentences are "designed" and "specifically constructed" </i><br /><br />That is in reference to creating the library of random sequences. <br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>...as well as "we selected". </i><br /><br />They were looking for proteins that bind to ATP, so those are the ones they selected. There were several rounds of selection, which increased the function, but some of the original random sequences bound to ATP, albeit weakly. <br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>Could you please explain exactly what you mean by measure of information. </i><br /><br />We haven't made any claims about a measure of information. There are several measures that we would be happy to consider (e.g. <br />Shannon Entropy or Kolmogorov Complexity), as long as the measure is specific, unambiguous, and can be calculated for every element of the relevant category.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62842292440091427092012-06-10T15:59:07.860-07:002012-06-10T15:59:07.860-07:00Keefe & Szotak: I read some of the prep for th...Keefe & Szotak: I read some of the prep for this research. What does, "was specifically constructed to avoid stop codons and frameshift mutations, and was designed for use in mRNA display selections" and, "we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP" mean? <br /><br />The words I don't understand in these two sentences are "designed" and "specifically constructed"...as well as "we selected". <br /><br />"Bornagain77 is the one making the claim about information."<br /><br />Could you please explain exactly what you mean by measure of information.ForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15200297873740503032012-06-09T17:42:10.878-07:002012-06-09T17:42:10.878-07:00ForJah: this dude is owning you haha.
Haha. We&#...<b>ForJah</b>: <i>this dude is owning you haha. </i><br /><br />Haha. We're just asking bornagain77 to use his own cited method to calculate his purported measure of information. He hasn't been able to do so. <br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>what do you mean "artificial" protein? </i><br /><br />Keefe & Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001.<br /><br /><b>ForJah</b>: <i>what exactly are you looking for when you say measuring information? </i><br /><br />Bornagain77 is the one making the claim about information.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87924130076623146452012-06-09T16:31:24.030-07:002012-06-09T16:31:24.030-07:00I agree about your warning on metaphor reification...<i>I agree about your warning on metaphor reification. It's hard to stay the middle road between highly technical jargon and metaphors.</i><br /><br />Hard indeed, many times the jargon itself is made of metaphors. And the are really useful. One has just to keep in mind the difference between metaphors and things themselves.<br /><br /><i>There is a dilemma. What am I, as a layman supposed to think of name like spliceosome? This "machine" really splices mRNA so its name simply describes the function it performs.</i><br /><br />Yes, functional talk is not misleading about the mechanics of the system. It can mislead you into thinking the system has the *purpose* of producing one or another of its many possible effects. That's an entirely different claim that cannot be supported solely by the description of the system. Systems have purposes only in relation to intentional agents, so to support purpose, you must put the system in some context of intentional agents. And that requires external data. So I say, show us the designers first, and then we can start to infer design properly.<br /><br />This manuscript probably explains it better:<br />ftp://ftp.wehi.edu.au/pub/wilkinsftp/Eliminating_Functions.pdfGeoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28686216004575417532012-06-09T14:44:30.792-07:002012-06-09T14:44:30.792-07:00No offense Zack but this dude is owning you haha. ...No offense Zack but this dude is owning you haha. But I see an interesting word within your objection..what do you mean "artificial" protein?<br /><br />Also, what exactly are you looking for when you say measuring information?ForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48610192493049818822012-06-09T14:31:42.587-07:002012-06-09T14:31:42.587-07:00Scott, do you think it's a bad thing to have p...Scott, do you think it's a bad thing to have pre-enlightenment,justificationist, authoritative conception of human knowledge?ForJahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227953181409298542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41884846490634307352012-06-09T06:59:22.110-07:002012-06-09T06:59:22.110-07:00bornagain77: “Here something random occurs.”
You...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>“Here something random occurs.” </i><br /><br />You are certainly confused on this point. Mutations have causes, such as errors during replication, or due to radiation. What is meant by random is that the mutations are uncorrelated with fitness. There is substantial evidence that mutations are random, at least in many cases (Lederberg 1952); though the rate of mutation does seem subject to evolutionary constraints, and even varies across the genome.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26195661502166741942012-06-09T06:29:36.239-07:002012-06-09T06:29:36.239-07:00Geoxus
I agree about your warning on metaphor re...Geoxus<br /> <br />I agree about your warning on metaphor reification. It's hard to stay the middle road between highly technical jargon and metaphors. When I say molecular "chain" is "cut" , I hope to use those words as constructs rather than metaphors.<br /> <br />There is a dilemma. What am I, as a layman supposed to think of name like spliceosome? This "machine" really splices mRNA so its name simply describes the function it performs. <br /> <br />Video was excellent! Only geeks can appreciate how much time goes into those projects. I understand the purpose of showing the video but man, it's too easy to sidetrack me, just show another shiny thing. Please.<br /> <br />I laid my eyes on a new potential project. Problem is with finding time to do it (as usual) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6mXM-oGggrM" rel="nofollow">Light Cube</a>Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20469295701642872162012-06-09T06:13:43.867-07:002012-06-09T06:13:43.867-07:00Ian small correction, "Neo-Darwinism is vacuo...Ian small correction, "Neo-Darwinism is vacuous as an explanation. Its proponents refuse to be drawn on the identity of the random chance (although we all know What it is really), the nature of this random chance, the powers of this random chance or how random chance brought about its designs. All we have in effect is a label, a placeholder for an explanation that dare not speak its name and is utterly inadequate causally.<br /><br />There Ian, all better now!<br /><br />Further notes:<br /><br />Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011<br />Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”<br />In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”<br />This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. <b>It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”</b><br />http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness<br /><br />Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012<br />Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' <b>they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'"</b> Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html<br /><br />Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism - 60 Minutes - CBS News - video<br />http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395214n&tag=re1.channel<br /><br />Quote of note at the 12:00 minute mark of the preceding video;<br />'The whole randomness thing, that's like completely against all of physics'<br />Jake Barnett - Math Prodigybornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36648159440143974452012-06-09T05:10:32.784-07:002012-06-09T05:10:32.784-07:00Hurricanes consume energy. Stars consume energy. O...Hurricanes consume energy. Stars consume energy. Organisms consume energy. They avoid equilibrium unless they run out of fuel.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58479303978607358272012-06-08T19:07:00.378-07:002012-06-08T19:07:00.378-07:00Better: just watch this.Better: just watch <a href="http://youtu.be/dmoDLyiQYKw" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85087369309709042102012-06-08T19:03:54.825-07:002012-06-08T19:03:54.825-07:00Metaphors are useful for making descriptions of co...Metaphors are useful for making descriptions of complex things, sure. Specifically, functional talk may help to follow certain sequences of events going on in a system. So what? Your very comment suggests you should be aware of what I perceive to be your biggest mistake, Eugen: metaphor reification. <b>Functions</b> are not things that <b>are there</b> in physical systems. They are subjective descriptions of what's going on in them in relation to some expected result. Have a dishwasher, for example. You can say its function is to clean dishes, and describe how it works to do so. I could say its function is to make water dirty, and I could describe the very same processes that you did. Nothing is different about the physical system itself.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82083857040350175742012-06-08T18:22:37.216-07:002012-06-08T18:22:37.216-07:00Intelligent Design is vacuous as an explanation. ...Intelligent Design is vacuous as an explanation. Its proponents refuse to be drawn on the identity of the Designer (although we all know Who it is <i>really</i>), the nature of this Designer, the powers of this Designer or how it brought about its designs. All we have in effect is a label, a placeholder for an explanation that dare not speak its name and is utterly <i>inadequate</i> causally.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68641335855114330412012-06-08T11:50:46.435-07:002012-06-08T11:50:46.435-07:00And I did some research about tornados and plate t...And I did some research about tornados and plate techtonics. The stuff about tornados talks about the condition that tornados form under, but not the cause. And I read lots of theory about the causes of plate techtonics, but not a whole lot of facts. And the convection currents that geologiss theorized as a cause of plate techtonics have not been found.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37837228467449353402012-06-08T11:49:55.794-07:002012-06-08T11:49:55.794-07:00Chemistry
If chain of molecules is cut in half ...Chemistry<br /> <br />If chain of molecules is cut in half so I see two half length chains I should be allowed to use word "cut" instead of a long technical description of the actual chemical reaction which dissociated bonds of the molecular chain.<br /> <br />Electronics<br /> <br />If signal is present at some point in the circuit I should simply say "signal is present" instead of long technical description of movement and accumulation of negative charges along conducting crystalline structures. <br /><br />This way of thinking helps us modularize complexity into small functional boxes to make it easier to understand basics. After that we can examine what is the relationship between "functional boxes" to have even wider and deeper-system level understanding.<br /><br />What are your thoughts on these issues?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10691219910403262012-06-08T11:33:38.823-07:002012-06-08T11:33:38.823-07:00Stars and hurricanes forms by accumulation of ener...Stars and hurricanes forms by accumulation of energy, do not consume, but dissipate this mass energy until they day all that tending to the equilibrium.<br />Life forms by accumulation of mass not related and consume energy to avoid the equilibrium.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84246578940011994112012-06-08T11:12:55.090-07:002012-06-08T11:12:55.090-07:00Blas: But all that tends to equilibrium.
Stars f...<b>Blas</b>: <i>But all that tends to equilibrium. </i><br /><br />Stars form, move about, consume energy, then die. Hurricanes form, move about, consume energy, then die. Organisms form, move about, consume energy, then die. What's your point?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41558001081642534932012-06-08T10:31:17.086-07:002012-06-08T10:31:17.086-07:00But all that tends to equilibrium. Life don´tBut all that tends to equilibrium. Life don´tBlashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63770831454555431282012-06-08T10:21:15.767-07:002012-06-08T10:21:15.767-07:00Blas: If all the universe tend to the no movement,...<b>Blas</b>: <i>If all the universe tend to the no movement, why life try desperatly to avoid it?</i><br /><br />You don't have to look to life to see complexity in nature. Supernovas explode, molecules jiggle, ocean waves crash, mountains rise and rain drops fall. These are all emergent phenomena from simple rules of interaction.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1849287516130879102012-06-08T10:13:21.628-07:002012-06-08T10:13:21.628-07:00Zachriel said
"Volcanoes and tornadoes are n...Zachriel said<br /><br />"Volcanoes and tornadoes are natural phenomena."<br /><br />Given a planet with atmosphere and a crust yes.<br /><br /> "Seriously, you are thinking that science is stuck on Kant?"<br /><br />Do you have a better theory for the formation of the solar system? <br /><br />"Blas: But that equilibrium is the absolute zero, no movement at all.<br /><br />Yes, and the universe is a long way from equilibrium."<br /><br />If all the universe tend to the no movement, why life try desperatly to avoid it?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78045287448404462562012-06-08T08:28:44.663-07:002012-06-08T08:28:44.663-07:00So, if I understand you correctly, to find things ...So, if I understand you correctly, to find things that are readily describable in engineering terms hints to an engineering origin for them. If "engineeredness" is to be a useful criterion, one should be able to find some other things that clearly cannot be described in engineering terms. Can you think of any?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.com