Response to "Hrafn" on Sententias

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

1. No, it's an argument from evidence.

2. Any examples?

3. The only people changing definitions are the critics. First they rely on attacking false definitions
(Ken Miller for instance), then we call them out on it, then they accuse US of "moving the goal
posts." Happens the same way every time.

4. I know of only a few books that make a sociological analysis of Darwinian thought, but the
contents of those are irrelevant to what undirected processes are capable of doing.

5. When does this usually take place? By the same logic should people like Michael Ruse be
removed from the discussion?

6. Of course: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dont-fire-him-just-make-his-work-situation-a-living-hell/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=X7X6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Endorsement of Sententias

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You've put together an excellent piece there, and it looks like I might become a regular reader
here even if I might have some disagreements beyond ID itself.

I think I'll actually start recommending this site to others.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJQKDn9AAoJEAlY1kTu1KLhMpML/ir8wpgMevM5S6pKzKEcktOT
KU+yDPRAd87Y0JXnQqe8ur4JR8ClrOQDMjCaC4yAUQyw91ZQ3I5oeUzx/MTfVFIJ
32XX9/IqajZSmH7je1gH70XjxPzBmGzZrefsPZUXbpnJ5IHl6LjMILk/zdBiV4eq
TJqiRSy/tNBll8LB959H/YGRS2QCVJPaC0jpwOoc3th5pXUeT4G8pq/dYVjEHg14
Kh4h+pGhnH9oDepkof6GLla2+Zm0CiX5uQ3Y0KMBeUNft5Nm41JqDgNlju8hYTbM
W60yARLE7IUUQ9K8DxPXYQgO7QS+DLbYyEt4a6MVmqYyPvfKlfZajBqfKJ9nmm7t
7SDCKX6refyQxpl/l5Ob6sQfqGi65cQJ90ObY29PI9P0U5yrnvmsMRwXY6o6Ec7l
WZ52tFrqmYpzUmHHVarOkcYh2sBnEB28IR0JqcdHgBP6OJLbwVvQSpTdFEQFDOgu
BXxY1q18TeDFtyCQDYQR02kqbbUDh62n7bdlcIf7jA==
=GC2d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"What Are the Top Ten Problems w/Darwinian Evolution"

Multiple comments in for this post.

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I dare you (or anyone else on any side of this discussion) to define positive evidence.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJQBP/7AAoJEAlY1kTu1KLh5gQMAI7HBgx+hnuolhTy0AQkAbMZ
U6fi+IuwqDxlXydSWVC2id0LI5Tkc1MIuVyC2Not5fkT3X2vehvKLkRPdecONxkV
tINXV0NbM3lAzP8rlkpUvMxAUbNog782RaWc+4Lr3fdflhVs5EgX+bKwodmnNnod
YxwJfq1JGqKnJmDfmXqAUn81b7xNDTlZq3gMw0HlTY2BgQ/BbFkGgmV9+AV9F3dE
cuP9PMb03oiDtRxQ8WlMbCayQWFfwTx44TV/7V7ac5tXVDHjI9xd/N6A14AdVz6n
RCkObzJRVYrqzTAvS/C5s5y3nGRSpDkgeKUbp1LqWX2SixraXIm3OXhaqMYDhlTu
tTAkK2/+NjOyS/A40VN+YSlygJiaVP1ubp4CLOOUgF0GQj7eVCWV3qdUpRirTaQO
PVNoHmvLngaMmp0sonNFr1DbhQjjRczMfD/vGYFY74xkhDqLRa4rb4G83r2c1DmI
bivLijYigxcCccC9Lzz8L4/b1gw6OZUuZHpsdo14rg==
=TmMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dark matter? Quantum theory?

Do we throw those out of consideration by the same standard since the former cannot be
studied directly and the latter has no tangible mechanism?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJQBP+PAAoJEAlY1kTu1KLhN7cMAIsPMgxd/R5OkbzjvZSHjLG3
rzgEyrldyQAPoFa92Txn3fTU/PxLOwYU2Sa/DyGSK7B24wS9vrQ5pMXITI+NA3JU
RBzTbu0uc7rZqVO/mjf4hl5yC2ys2gsA8nsj41vOzl+JBQoenpWyMxqd4mBRtniS
VSjr/3xZYm+4n+df6YFa5DFUDyY7g/Iu8ns0NEac6NJ1Agc7b3X76SA5t/HIT71w
MVpUo9nUpe4+uqwzR/bcd5aZSPW64Vit2Wfqab3LavZc6kbDwYzlG0ALjICtcZoU
q/IYT1pqA1qfB5O4PrdFvcKUtHRLV+4W8mzscLdIEYhoDZ95sWtXrVJqclH6W/tu
9WflW+94aBF283/LojW+HD2fNpy0w9XPu3K5fqns6paplFyehU3xMExb9no0/6Vc
IqFGUC1PnKIP5NvE7PgL/IwiZosCgjpqy2JipPJ1+SB2gGMPdYqdsvU58j7Dm2iq
I+sgXPlFVCKQhM07yJ+feNq6Ea2Yut+zyC/Udway3A==
=uK9N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm definitely adding this ENV post to my collection of things to pass on to anyone who wants a
crash course on this debate.

As an addition within #4, I would add that selection also has trouble eliminating deleterious
mutations if they start off as neutral but become harmful as they accumulate. By the time the
aggregate effect of otherwise neutral mutations become negative, it's too late to eliminate them
 one by one.

This lack of foresight is a bigger problem for organisms with larger genomes, as highlighted in the
 book "Genetic Entropy."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=uWTn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment on "Machine Revolution"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Interesting read, I think I saw an animation of this somewhere a while back.

That "if-then" statement seems pretty broad though. I guess assuming a particular origin of a
biological feature has less to do with understanding how it actually works than what practitioners
of "normal science" would have us believe.

Now comes the flurry of commenters who think they are original when they insist this feature may
have other functions outside the flagellum.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=8ib4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ENV - "How Bright is the Future of Intelligent Design?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, once my contribution(s) to the movement get underway I hope both the awareness and acceptance of ID becomes more widespread in my area. To think that today is the fourth anniversary of me becoming permanently interested in this debate; boy has time flown.

And Dover? Hard to say whether that harmed the "IDM" Jones decided to rule against or if it actually made people more aware of ID in the years that followed. The Scopes trial didn't stop undirected evolution from gaining a following, so perhaps Dover really should be taken lightly as well.

While it may not have garnered much attention until long after Fred Hoyle began to formulate the roots of ID as we know it today, I think it's far from dead.

If anything it's just getting started...


By the way, this might come in handy for anyone who wants an education in a field relevant to ID but does not wish to go about getting a full degree:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/mitx-education-initiative-1219.html

Wish this option was around <i>before</i> I started college. Of course, MIT's new certification won't make you a tenured professor somewhere in the foreseeable future. But for any origins junkie on either side this could turn out to be useful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
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=AyzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to Nick Matzke on "Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I've only had a chance to skim through some of what you've written, but here's my two cents
on things that caught my attention:

<blockquote>"1. Agree or disagree -- Michael Behe accepts that evolution can produce new
genes, and thus new information."</blockquote>

You've pretty much engaged in the very thing Luskin called out Dennis Venema for. Producing
 <i>something</i> is a far cry from producing <i>everything.</i>

<blockquote>"Please define "fundamentally new". Creationists/IDists regularly use such
vague language as an escape hatch when their claims are under pressure, but they never give
a precise, scientific definition of "fundamentally new"."</blockquote>

http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it/

Is their response to the question of <i>"What Do You Mean by “Constructive” Beneficial
Mutations Exactly?"</i> good enough?

And what is a "precise, scientific definition" supposed to look like to you? I agree that the
kind of information/traits we are talking about must be decided before a verdict can be
ruled about any evolutionary outcome. But if the standards for a useful definition are not
defined ahead of time, then all Design critics will do is just declare any new definition
someone puts forth for new traits/information as being insufficient.

<blockquote>"Please note that if "fundamentally new" means "no significant sequence
similarity to other genes, then, at the very least, most of most genomes is not
"fundamentally new" and thus could have evolved from common ancestors without violating
 Meyer's "law"."</blockquote>

I'm pretty sure there is a big enough difference between the genomes of <i>past</i>
ancestors (yes, I am assuming common descent is a fact here) and the species of
<i>today</i> to see plenty of fundamentally new sequencing in the process. Even if there is
significant sequence homology, surely a <i>new feature</i> would require a <i>new set of
information</i> to generate it, correct?

<blockquote>"A new gene with a new function has got to be a fair amount of new
information, doesn't it? If it isn't, you can't go around claiming that genes have lots of
information in them, which Meyer et al. clearly do."</blockquote>

Agreed (as I said above), but there's nothing about that which Meyer or Luskin would deny.
The disagreement is over whether or not new biochemical features touted as evolutionary
success stories are beyond the UPB threshold. (see below)

<blockquote>"So, if mutation and natural selection produce 10 bits, what magical process
stops them from adding another 10 bits, and another 10 bits after that?"</blockquote>

If low probability is a "process" then there's your answer. The main (but not the only)
argument made from the ID camp as I understand it is that it is unlikely for new traits to be
generated by evolutionary processes - just minor variations on what's already there to begin
 with.

But more importantly, you've missed the point that Meyer was originally making and that
Casey just pointed out below, namely that Meyer was referring to information in a
<b>pre-biotic</b> context and not in a biological/Darwinian sense. Thus you're focusing on
an <i>entirely different</i> problem from what Luskin and Meyer were referring to.

In your next paragraph you basically state that <i>seperate isolated</i> cases of
evolutionary processes producing a bit or two of information can all "add up" to 500 bits of
information; thus Meyer, Dembski, or anyone else who agrees with their work is wrong.

There are two main problems with this:

1. First, when anyone speaks in reference to the Universal <b>Probability</b> Bound in any
way, it refers to a <i>probability</i> of 10 to the negative 150th power; not necessarily
<i>500 bits,</i> and this is where I think you and Luskin are talking past each other. The
difference?

Generating 500 bits by <i>chance alone</i> is equivalent to the UPB, but it's clear that you are
 not referring to chance alone being involved in the production of new features. Thus 500
<i>bits</i> may be generated without it being something approaching an
<i>improbability</i> of 10 to the negative 150th.

So if there is <i>more than blind chance</i> involved in generating information, then the
question should not be, "Did we generate 500 <b>bits?</b>" but rather, "Is the
<b>probability</b> of generating this more or less likely than 10 to the negative 150th?"

2. Now here is the main issue I have with the idea that <i>seperately isolated</i> cases of
generating <i>smaller changes</i> that don't quite reach the UPB threshold can "add up to"
a total net increase in function that renders the UPB false. The difference between seperate
 cases of small information increase and an entire new feature that reaches the UPB
threshold makes all the difference.

Here are separate isolated cases (in this case, words) of information:

TO PROBABILITY THE LESS FIFTIETH RANDOMLY TO THAN GENERATE ONE POWER BOUND
SENTENCE OF PROBABLE THE HUNDRED TEN UNIVERSAL IS THIS 

Each word is less improbable to randomly generate than the UPB. But that does not mean
that they all "add up" to something meaningful.

Now here is a full string (or sentence) that - if you were trying to randomly generate it -
reaches the level of Dembski's Universal Probability Bound:

THIS SENTENCE IS LESS PROBABLE TO RANDOMLY GENERATE THAN THE UNIVERSAL
PROBABILITY BOUND OF TEN TO THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTIETH POWER

As you can see, there is a huge difference between <b>separate</b> cases of producing
something of a probability that is greater than UPB and a case in which a feature <b>as a
whole</b> manages to surpass that threshold.

<blockquote>"If you can't produce an explanation that is as detailed and well-evidenced,
why should scientists take ID seriously in this case?"</blockquote>

A few points on this one:

1. Didn't you say it makes no sense to expect that a theory must explain <i>everything</i> in
 order to be true?

2. If we find that undirected processes are incapable of generating something and we know
that intelligence has far greater causal adequacy of producing anything analogous, then
what should we conclude?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=gE09
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

First Comment on "Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oh just wait!

There will be a multitude of people arguing that evolutionary theory has not been
falsified because...


1. We didn't use the right microbial strain.

2. Different test conditions would've produced better results.

3. The experiment just needs a little more time.

4. Evolution never had a "goal" of producing new information, but it could.

5. There must be some kind of multiverse to give enough trials.


...all while simultaneously claiming that ID is untestable and has already been falsified.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=rbjh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----