AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: scordova

form_srcid: scordova

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.83.133.189

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: scordova

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'scordova%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2003/12/07 23:13:34, Link
Author: scordova
I will review it and mull over it again.  In as much as I have nothing but a little embarassment at stake (nothing monetary), I will give you my honest opinion, but I must ponder how to better express what I wrote. I will not try to defend LCI, but express why I believe TSPGRID is not a valid counter example against LCI.  

By the way, please forgive me if any of my posts on the ARN thread were a little caustic toward your work (I used the word 'misrepresentation' once).  Please accept my apologies.  If I argue a point forcefully, it is not meant as an attack you personally.

Despite our differences, I want you to know I have the highest respect for your intellect and ability. It shines through in everything I've seen you post (like at Talk Origins).

You raise very good points that we in ID must address.  I will post as it comes to me, make retractions if appropriate, hopefully the truth will become evident for all sides of the debate.



Sincerely,
Salvador

Date: 2003/12/08 11:22:51, Link
Author: scordova
Greetings Wesley,


If I am mistaken about anything of your statements please clarify.  We may need to go a few rounds to tidy things up. I may have a few typos in my notation too, so let's help each other out to at least clarify things.


---------------------------------------------------------------
From my vantage point we have 3 components to the TSPGRID operation.

At first glance we see 2 components

1.  TSPGRID program itself
2.  Random inputs in the form of "n", where 4n^2 is the number of cities

However, in actuality TSPGRID is composed of

A.  Deterministic elements
B.  Random selector "R", to select a solution:
"it chooses randomly among all the possible optimal solutions"


Thus the 3 components correspond to 1A, 1B, 2:
1.  TSPGRID program itself
 A.  Deterministic elements
 B.  Random selector which I label "R", to select a solution

2.  Random inputs in the form of "n", where 4n^2 is the number of cities


Thus in reality we have two random inputs, namely "n" and "R".

For a given "n",  each run of TSPGRID corresponds to an "R".  So we effectively have  a doubly nested loop,
each run for a given "n" permits "R" as an input.  Thus the system is thermodynamically open with respect to "R".  Each run of the TSPGRID program adds one integer of "R" to the mix.



To close the system we need to redefine the thermodynamic boundary for each  additional run.  We can do the following.

Let "R" be traced and recorded such that each run can be reconstructed.

TSPGRID for a given "n" running under R25 might generate the following segments for a shortest path:
(S1, S5, S30, ... S4n^2) = CSI25

Thus:

CSI25 = (S1, S5, S30, ... S4n^2) is compressibly equivalent to TSPGRID("n",R25)

similarly, for example

CSI461 = (S2, S65, S30, ... S4n^2) is compressibly equivalent to TSPGRID("n",R461)

CSI330 = (S25, S22, S650, ... S4n^2) is compressibly equivalent to TSPGRID("n",R330)


By way of anlogy in algebra:
     T25 + T461 + T330 =  T (25+461+330)

CRUDELY SPEAKING the CSI entities

(S1, S5, S30, ... S4n^2) + (S2, S65, S30, ... S4n^2) + (S25, S22, S650, ... S4n^2)

= TSPGRID("n",R25) + TSPGRID("n",R461) + TSPGRID("n",R330) =

TSPGRID("n") ( R25 + R461 + R330 )

If we define the information boundary ('thermodynamic boundary' ) around the system

     TSPGRID("n") + R25 + R461 + R330 = CSI25 + CSI461 + CSI330


we see there is no  violation of LCI.  Algorithmic compression is applied on the outputs (CSI25, CSI461, CSI330) not the inputs "n" and "R".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To offer a scecond view:

A polynomial of m-th order has m-solutions, potentially all soluitions may be unique.

However, in contrast, in the travelling salesman problem, for a given "n", there are m-unique solutions, and m is bounded by: "c * 28^n^2 and below by c' * 2.538^n^2, where c, c' are constants"

There are unique pathways such that:

We take run #1: our sum total of outputs is P1
We take run #2:  our sum total of outputs is P1 + P2
.
.
.
We take run #m:  our sum total of outputs is P1 + P2 + ....  + Pm



The maximum CSI defined by the space of all possible solutions is bounded by (not necessarily equivalent to) I(P1) + I(P2) +..... I (Pm) where I is the information content, P is the pathway, and "m" is the number of pathways. It is important to see that the total information is finite, it has a maximum.

I-total is less than or equal to I(P1) + I(P2) +..... I (Pm)

Now consider:
We take run #1: our sum total of outputs equal to TSPGRID(n,1)

We take run #2: our sum total of outputs equal to TSPGRID(n,1) + TSPGRID)(n,2)
.
.
.

We take run #m: our sum total of outputs equal to TSPGRID(n,1) + TSPGRID(n,2) + .... TSPGRID(n,m)


What was actually demonstrated was that I(P1) + I(P2) + ... I(Pm) was
compressible to I(TSPGRID(n)) + I(1) + ... I(m): this is the information content of the TSPGRID algorithm plus the information content of all the "m" inputs.

what made it look like LCI was violated was that each run of TSPGRID redefined the system boundary and
I-total appeared to increase by I(Pk) when in fact it was increased only by I(k) when applying algorithmic compression to the sum total of outputs from all runs.


In a sense, LCI pertains to the space of solutions, not the algorithm that finds (generates) the solutions!!!

Taken to the extreme, when all solutions are found, the system boundary can no longer be redefined, LCI
will be enforced at some point.  This is the case with information in a closed universe.  At some point, LCI will be enforced.


I know the above descriptions look crude, horrendous, and convoluted, but if there are ways I can clarify,
please ask.

The problem in application, as Chaitin points out, is we never really know that we have the optimal compression.   We only know, one compression is better than the other!  What that means is one may be able to create a TSPGRID so convoluted that the optimal compression will not be apparent as it was in this case.  LCI may be true in that case, but it would be hard to prove.

A very severe problem in applying LCI is however evident: an executable file, like an encrypted self-extracting zip may look unbelievably chaotic and as it self-extracts it suddenly looks like CSI came out of nowhere: LCI is preserved, but it looks like it was violated!

Thus in my heart I believe in LCI, but it's hard persuading others. LCI is actually derivable from set theory, and in the end it's actually pretty bland.  We have a hint of it in the travelling salesman problem.  LCI pertains to the space of solutions, not the algorithm that finds (generates) the solutions.


Also, the problem of "R" entering the TSPGRID system is exactly the problem in the analysis of biological systems. "R" enters through random quantum events.  As cells mutate it is analogous to several "R's" being added, the basic cell is the TSPGRID program.  Thus each mutation generates CSI, but evaluation of information increase must be applied after algorithmic compression is applied.

I proposed a simple test with I-ERP (Information as Evidenced by Replicas of Polymers), this is basically the tally of alles (is that right? you may need to help me out here).  I-ERP may be increasing in the human gene pool, it is CSI, but it is DEADLY CSI.

Worldwide I-ERP may be decreasing because of extinctions, but within each living specie population it is increasing until the species reach extinction.  2nd law guarantees I-ERP will be zero at some stage, but I fear life on Earth will rapidly approaching I-ERP = 0 long before the universe burns out.

It's like a propagating a bug during software execution. I don't believe natural selection will clean this out of the human gene pool any more than kicking a computer will clean out serious bugs.  The number of DEADLY mutations (infusions of DEADLY CSI) I fear is accumulating faster than natural selection can clean them out.  Thus, if the some ID paradigms are true this has bearing on our very lives.  For example, I am disturbed at the persistence of sickle-cell anemia and the persistence of many bad mutations.  If they continue to accumulate, that is one ID prediction that will not be a very happy one.  

I speak here, not as an ID advocate so much as a concerened citizen.  Thus ID, if for no other reason should be explored to help alleviate pain of the inevitable end of all things.

If DEADLY CSI is emerging faster than natural selection can purge it, I think in the interest of science we should explore this possibility.


Also, I fear that loads of I-ERP is being forever lost because of damage to our eco-systems (species extinction) like in the rainforests.

You may be on the other side of the ID debate, but I think this is where there can be common ground for valuable research based on concern for ourselves and the environment.  Improved defintions of information would be useful for the scientific enterprise, and I hope both sides will find a way to cooperate.


Sincerely,
Salvador

Date: 2003/12/08 19:23:47, Link
Author: scordova
By the way Wesley,

   Thank you for soliciting my thoughts and giving me a chance to clarify.  I hope my post will be of assistance to you.  I look forward to your reply.


Best Regards,
Salvador

Date: 2003/12/09 13:16:01, Link
Author: scordova
Greetings Wesley,

    What you point out is exactly things that need to be resolved in ID's presentation of CSI.

    I have claimed as you can see, CSI can emerge from an algorithmically constrained process in a thermodynamically open system being pumped by random inputs.  I do not believe CSI can emerge without an algorithmic process somewhere or intelligence in the pipeline (be it the laws of physics like in a snowflake or whatever).

    We in ID are hurting ourselves by not addressing what you have brought up.  I believe CSI cannot emerge apart from an algorithmically constraining influence or intelligence.  Your definition is worth exploring on that count.  Whether algorithms can spontaneously be implemented is where much of ID differs from ideas of undirected abiogenesis.

I think your critiques should be respected and answered.  Again, thank you for soliciting my thoughts.

With your permission, I'd like to reference this thread on the ARN board and the ISCID board.


With much respect,
Salvador

Date: 2003/12/10 00:29:24, Link
Author: scordova
Greetings Wesley,

   I have continued to review your work on the SAI.  If it is a powerful as you say, and my intuition is in agreement with that, independent of the whole origins debate, you've given ID an absolute gift!  

   Please, if you would offer your thoughts:  Do you believe an algorithmic processes can emerge from a purely random processes?  Can SAI structures emerge without some intervening computational constraint (afterall that's what SAI was intended to detect)?  

This is basically the origin of life issue in my mind:  computational constraints do not emerge spontaneously (except for the computational constraints offered by the laws of physics).

 

Salvador

Date: 2004/07/31 01:49:32, Link
Author: scordova
Wesley,

I am now beginning a critique of your paper at:

ARN Discussion

The moderators have roped of the discussion to you, me, Jeffrey Shallit, Bill Dembski, and Jason Rosenhouse (if he wishes to participate).

I invite your participation.

Salvador

Date: 2004/08/12 21:22:22, Link
Author: scordova
Wesley,

I'm willing to discuss the paper with you here.  I have taken time to learn the material better.  I took your paper seriously enough to study it.

My mind has changed on a few issues since that time, mostly against the content in your paper.

If you won't come to ARN, I'm willing to come here to your website.

You're a gentleman, Wesley, it's not in my nature to be polemic to gentleman, but I think there are some things seriously wrong with what you wrote.

For starters:



Quote

Wesley and Jeffrey wrote:

Dembski also identifues CSI or specified complexity" with similarly-worded concepts
in the literature. But these identifications are little more than equivocation.

For example, Dembski quotes Paul Davies' book, The Fifth Miracle, where Davies uses the term specied complexity", and strongly implies that Davies' use of the term is the same as his own [19, p. 180]. This is simply false. For Davies, the term complexity means high Kolmogorov
complexity, and has nothing to do with improbability.



What Bill wrote on page 180

Quote

In The Fifth Miracle Davies goes so far as to suggest that any laws capable of explaining th origin of life must be radically different from any scientific laws known to date. The problem as he sees it, with currently known scientific laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, is that they cannot explain the key features of life that needes to be explained. That feature is specified complexity. As Davies puts it: "Living organisms are mysterious not for thier complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity." Nonetheless once life (or more generally some self-replicator) arrives on the scen, Davies thinks there is no problem accounting for specified complexity...

In this chapter I will argue that the problem of explaining specified complexity is even worse than Davies makes out in The Fifth Miracle


You're free to say what you want Wesley, but I think the way you represented page 180 was a stretch.

Further Bill clarified his position in his latest book with:

Bill clarifies his position versus that of Davies and Orgel in  Design Revolution page 84.

   
Quote
 
The Term Specified Complexity is about thirty years old. To my knowledge, orgigin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel was the first to use it.  The term appeared in his 1973 book  The Origins of Life, whre he wrote, "Livign organism 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."  More recently, in his 1999 book  The Fifth Miracle, Paul Davies identified specified complexity as the key to resolving the problem of life's origin:

" Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity  per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.l  To comprehend fully how life arose from nonlife, we need to know not only how biological information was concentrated, but also how biologically useful information came to be specified"

Neither Orgel nor Davies, however, provided a precise analytic account of specified complexity.  I provide such an account int  The Design Inference (1988) and its sequel  No Free Lunch (2002).  Here I will merely sketch that account of specified complexity. Orgel and Davies used the term  specified complexity loosely.


Is Granite K-complex in terms of the composition and the positioning of the molecules?  If so, then even Orgel does not use complexity the way you argue Davies uses it.  

Bottom line is Bill has made an effort to distinguish his definitions from others.  The complaint that Bill "strongly implies that Davies' use of the term is the same as his own" I think has been settled in a subsequent book,  Design Revolution.


cheers,
Salvador

Date: 2004/08/13 15:14:02, Link
Author: scordova
Wesley,

First of all, I thank you for the courtesy of replying to me.  I am a hostile critic of your work on these emotionally charged issues.  I've not been exactly kind in some of my comments about your work or the things you have said (which you see all over ARN), and I am thus all the more grateful for the favor of your replies.

I recognize I'm a guest here at your website, thus I will try to keep my postings on this thread to a minimum unless of course you wish me to elaborate or debate more.

I may post verbosely at ARN on your paper.  Post your responses wherever you please if you are so inclined to do so.  The questions however that need clarification from you I will post here.  My goal now in posting here, is to specifically ensure that I represent and understand your position accurately.  

I know you'd rather debate Bill Dembski rather than me, so with that in mind, I will not try to be too much of a distraction to you at your website.  

Again, thank you for the favor of your responses.  If you really want me to engage your paper I will, otherwise, I will limit my participation on this thread.



respectfully,
Salvador

PS
I'll post at ARN to let everyone know that you have responded to me now.  Thank you.

Date: 2004/08/13 15:45:48, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Wesley wrote:

There are many issues that I have raised that have received no response from Dembski.



Well, for the record what avenue would you think appropriate for a public exchange with William Dembski?  

Do you want him to respond with counter papers to your papers?  Seriously, do want him to come out here and post to your thread?

I think a lot of what you write about his work does not represent his work or his position at all.

Your own ideas have merit, such as SAI.  However, your attempts to state Bill's ideas in your own words I don't think are very charitable and end up being strawmen.

Seriously Wesley,  I corresponded with Bill over some of the points I too had questions on.  

What I dispute with you is things I think are as plain as day.  For example my quotes form Design Revolution I think cleared some things up as far as the Davies, Orgel, and Dembski's definition of Specified Complexity.  You obviously disagree, but I thought what Bill wrote in that book was quite sufficient to address a point you raised in your paper.

We're going to not resolve anything on this thread, but I want to make sure I represent your words accurately.   As much as I'll be tempted to quibble, I'm probably going to let a lot of things go.  I may post more elaborate responses at ARN.  You are welcome to respond or not respond.  

I will make an effort from now on not to make a big deal if you have no response.  I am willing to do that because I see you have made an effort to respond.

State what you want from me, and what you feel is fair in this dialogue.  I will do my best to keep the discourse open.  If I say something over at ARN you feel is unfair, rude, or mis-represents you, you are free to challenge me on it, and I'll do my best to make amends.  I'm for fair play.  OK?


Thank you.


Salvador

Date: 2004/09/13 17:21:41, Link
Author: scordova
Hi Wesley,

As I indicated elsewhere I would post some comments to your site.  I will try to keep to be respectful of your time. My intent is not for protracted discussion, but to make sure I represent your work correctly.

Do you believe genetically engineered products evidence CSI by Dembski's definition?  Here is a case were potentially non-algorithmically compressible information is CSI.  This would refute your paper's claim that Dembski confuses what you call SAI and CSI.  It seems to also a misinterpretation Mark Perakh also makes.

I would actually argue that there is an overlap between objects exhibiting SAI and CSI, but in actuality they are not the same.  Some forms of SAI are a subset of CSI.


Thanks.

Salvador

Date: 2004/09/17 08:32:29, Link
Author: scordova
We clearly will not agree on many things Wesley, but thank you for responding.

My intent is to make sure that I am representing you correctly.  And that is why I am asking you questions.

The fact you said:
Quote

I have no need to believe that anything evidences CSI by Dembski's definition.


Evidences you do not represent and possibly do not understand CSI.  When I a designer like myself creates an ID artifact there can be no doubt that in many cases there is CSI.  It is the blueprint artifact methaphor.  

That is why I asked about DNA genetic engineering.  I corresponded with Dembski (who by the way was Shallit's student as evidenced in the Acknowledgements of Design Inference) last week to quadruple check that my interpretation was correct.  I was certain I was right, and I was.

Thus, as I have suspected, your paper incorrectly represents Dembski's work.  If your complaint is one of clarity, I will pass that on and we'll make the adjustments.

Your SAI concept has merit.  


For the record not all of my posts on the matter at ARN are correct technically, and I have to fix a few things.  I would not be surprised to see the ID leadership or rank and file at some point write a refutaiton of your's and Shallit's paper.

I know that we are on both sides of an emotionally charged issue, and I am grateful you have offered to dialogue with me, even if the communications are mostly dysfunctional, we at least have some dialogue.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Salvador

Date: 2004/09/17 16:42:50, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


This has not been done. I have no knowledge of a specific example that corresponds to what you are talking about, and I certainly am not convinced by mysterious private email exchanges that I am not privy to. What you describe sounds like an example of what Jeff Shallit and I referred to as the "Sloppy Chance Elimination Argument" in our paper.

It's a longstanding criticism of mine that Dembski has not made available the calculations that his public claims imply have already been accomplished (as in his 1998 "Science and Design" article in "First Things", which strongly implied that his EF/DI and GCEA had been applied to the systems labeled as IC by Michael Behe).

This latest missive of yours simply confirms that my analysis on this point has been spot-on.


Fair enough.  I'll suggest to Bill we at least do some of these for human examples, and maybe you will be convinced CSI at least does exist in human affairs.

You actually solved a major problem for establishing detachable, non-postidictive specifications with your SAI.  That was gift!

An example closely analogous to SAI is the problem of "convergent evolution" which Sternberg calls "neo-Darwinian" epicycles.

The weakness of arguing as protein sequences as evidencing CSI I think needs review as I believe Art makes a very good case which the IDists need to address.  Same with the flagellum.


Quote

I have no recollection of saying that Dembski confuses SAI with anything else. That would hardly be sporting, since "SAI" as a term was introduced in that paper. Perhaps a specific citation of the purported faulty language would be appropriate?



It is not my intent to ever misrepresent you, that is why I am here asking for clarifications and your own words.

You in fact wrote:
Quote


An alternate view is that if specified complexity detects anything at all, it detects the output of simple computational processes. This is consonant with Dembski's claim. It is CSI that within the Chaitin-Kolmogorov-Solomonoff theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, nonrandom strings of digits.


Are not compressible strings, strings which evidence SAI??  If not, I'll amend my assertion, no problem.  I'm for fair play.

Date: 2004/09/19 23:58:23, Link
Author: scordova
So here goes, and I want you to correct me if I don't represent your position correctly.  

I will go into the examples of Monsanto and other genetically engineered products as examples of human CSI and then show how they are extensible to other kinds of CSI.  Your SAI concept is critical to helping create detachable CSI.

The following example should be quite derivable from his book, No Free Lunch, page 139-141.  

Quote


We have a "pill-box" of 1000 bins with a coin in each bin.  Clearly the existence of the coins is one layer of design and the fact they are in a bins is an indication of another layer of design.  Thus we have two layers of design in evidence, however we wish to determine if the Heads/Tails configuration evidences yet another layer of design.

The space of possibilities, Omega, is defined by all possible configurations of the 1000 coins.

Let the detachable specification, T,  be defined as the set of confgurations where the pattern of the first 500 coins are replicated by the last 500 coins.

P(T) =  (2^500/ 2^1000)

thus

I(T) = - log2 ( 2^500 / 2^1000 )  = 500 bits

if the first 500 coins exhibit a K-complex configuration, then seeing any arrangement E of such coins evidences CSI with respect to Head and Tails in this example.



If however, you dispute the ordered pair (T,E) exhibits CSI, I would argue the E's exhibit at least SAI.

Does E exhibit SAI?  

These coin examples are a start and extensible to DNA's an proteins, but we must start somewhere.

Salvador

Date: 2004/09/20 00:35:44, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Sal, this may be "piling on", but I have a recommendation for you.  


You didn't want to engage me on the CSI topic I created at ARN CSI for Dummies.  So you come here where you feel you can pile on. OK.

Quote

You need to review Dembski's "parable" about the archer and the bulleyes.  


As usual you try to present me as not understanding.  


Quote

Most, if not all, of the things you are arguing (here and on other boards) as possessing CSI are actually items that, using this parable, are rightly called fabrications.


Fabrications are designs.  Coin examples are designs.  But we see analogs of these very fabrications in biological systems.

We see several molecular and morphological convergences not attributable to horizontal gene transfers.  That is exactly the CSI (not Sternberg's term) which bothered Sternberg regarding what he called the "Darwinian epicycle of convergent evolution".  Two independent pathways arriving at the same molecular configuration in to unrelated lineages is a nasty problem for Darwinian evolution and Sternberg knows it.  This is an especially nasty for non-functional (essentially invisible to selection) in "spacer" sequences (whatever is the right term) appearing in unrelated lineages arrived at through different expression pathways.

But beyond molecular convergences, even within a single organism like the Nematode we have to separate developmental pathways creating the symmetric halves of the Nematode.  Such a peculiar fact makes no sense in the light of Darwinian Evolution, but does in terms of CSI.




Quote

page 335, Nature's Destiny by Denton:

A curious aspect of the development of the namatode and one that would never have been predicted is that although the organism is bilaterally symmetrical--that is, its left and right halves are mirror images of each other--the equivalent organs and cells on the right- and lefthand sides of the body of the larva are not derived from equivalent cells in the embryo In other words, identical components on the right and left sides of the body are generated in different ways from different and nonsymemetrically placed progenitor cells in the early embryo and have therefore lineage patterns which are in some cases completely dissimilar. This is like making the right and left headlight on an automobile in completely different ways and utilizing completely different process.

Even individual cells of the same cell type in any one organ, such as, say, the muscle cells, gland cells, or nerve cells of the pharynx, are also derived from different lineages. For example, one particular cell progenitor of the pharynx gives rise to muscle cells, interneurons, gland cells, and epithelial cells. Another progenitor gives rise to to muscle and gland cells.




The nematode halves combined are at least, conceptually speaking, algorithmically compressible being that they are symmetric.  However, two independent pathways arrive at each half.  Evidence of CSI.

Do you now have an inckling why I'm exploring the above symmetric coin patterns?

Date: 2004/09/20 00:41:40, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

To reiterate a comment made on the ARN board, an object does not have CSI merely because it was made by man.  Dembski's definition of CSI requires that one show that a non-intelligent nature could not create the object, i.e., that it could not be an object resulting from regular and chance events.


I ignored your comment Ivar because it was didn't even reflect what I was saying.

Quote

page 141 of No Free Lunch
Complex Specified Information :

The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex.


Dembki's definition here doesn't look like the definition described by Ivar.

Date: 2004/09/20 01:19:35, Link
Author: scordova
Let me point something out about CSI that is counter intuitive.  I will, for the sake of clarity use a smaller than 500 element string, but the example is extensible.

Say we have a space of possibilities Omega defined by 8 coins

There are 256 possibile configurations.
Each possible T can have one or more elements.  For example, here are two T's, T1 and T2:

T1 =
{
0111 1111
}

or
T2 =
{
0000 0100,  1000 0000, 0100 1000, 1111 0010
}


T1 can be represented by one 8-bit string and T1 occupies 8 bits in Omega space.  T1 occupies only 1 of the 256 possibilities in Omega Space.  Using Dembski's calculations

I(T1) = - log2 ( P(T1) )  =  - log2 ( 1 /256) = 8 bits


NOW HERE IS THE CATCH:

T2 can be represented by 4 8-bits strings and T2 occupies 4 of the 256 possibilities in Omega Space.

I(T2) = - log2 ( P(T2) )  = - log2 ( 4/256 ) = 6 bits


The specification of T1 requires 8 bits and it represents 8 bits in Omega Space

HOWEVER, the specification of T2 requires 32 bits (4 * 8) but it only represents 6 bits in Omega.        :eek:        

What this means is that for the 1000 coin example above, had I not used symmetric patterns, but rather listed each every 1000-bit specification explicitly until I reached the 500-bit threshhold within Omega Space, there would not be resources in the universe sufficient to do such a task.       :0

Date: 2004/09/20 01:38:49, Link
Author: scordova
I will recommend the following for you and IDists.

When identifing CSI.

Describe

1.  The space defined by Omega

2.  The space defined by T

3.  Give conceptual examples E which would evidence CSI within T

4.  defend the reasons why one believes T is detachable and not post-dictive

5.  Provide sample calculations

6.  Not insist on absolute K-complexity for E, since K-complexity is not fully tractable.   Rather something like a maximal huffman compression (or whatever) test for operational utility.

Date: 2004/09/20 02:28:35, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


In order to demonstrate that Elsberry and Shallit 2003 is incorrect on point (2), all one has to do is produce a citation in the published literature (dated prior to our paper) showing a complete and correct application of Dembski’s GCEA to a biological system such that “CSI” is concluded. Thus far, I’m unaware of any such instance. The only thing that makes any moves in that direction at all is Dembski’s section 5.10 of “NFL”, and we were careful to make clear why that one was both incomplete and incorrect.


That would be a sufficient but not necessary condition to refute your point.  Thus meeting the challenge the way you specify is not a necessary condition for proving CSI in biology, it is only a sufficient condition as far as you are concerned.  Again, you're pulling the "if I don't see it in peer review, I don't believe it" gimmick.  Absense of meeting that challenge does not refute CSI.


Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular phylogenies become functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1999): 177-178.

where he said:
Quote

...the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied...an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.


My argument here is not against phylogenic reconstruction.  It is against the fact that the "Darwinian Epicycle" of "evolutionary convergence" needs to be applead to in order to solve the problem of identical features in unrelated creatures..  Any one is welcome to outline a generic method for searching for CSI in evolutionary convergences and it's calculation.  I will offer my attempt in this thread.

Date: 2004/09/20 12:46:56, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


2. Meyer relies on Dembski’s “specified complexity,” but even if he used it correctly (by rigorously applying Dembski’s filter, criteria, and probability calculations), Dembski’s filter has never been demonstrated to be able to distinguish anything in the biological realm — it has never been successfully applied by anyone to any biological phenomena (Elsberry and Shallit, 2003).

3. Meyer claims, “The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or ‘complex specified information’ (CSI) of the biological world.” Yet to substantiate this, Meyer would have to yield up the details of the application of Dembski’s “generic chance elimination argument” to this event, which he does not do. There’s small wonder in that, for the total number of attempted uses of Dembski’s CSI in any even partially rigorous way number a meager four (Elsberry and Shallit, 2003).


Point 2.  Sussessfully applying it in biological phenomenon would be a sufficient condition.  If we achieve detection of CSI bio-engineered agents then does the CSI concept begin to make headway for you?  If I cited papers in bio-defense and genetic engineering that use CSI (but not exactly by that name, "CSI"), would that suffice that CSI can be detected in biology.  

My posts above are there to show that in your paper you don't even represent CSI correctly.  You know CSI exists in bio-engineering (it can not possibly be otherwise).  By way of extension, particularly in the area of evolutionary convergence we have plausible candidates for CSI.  I sketched some examples, would you really care for me to elaborate???


Point 3.  Well that number can increase.  Why?  Sternberg knows about all these "Darwinian Epicycles" posed by both morphological and molecular convergence, that is an area ripe for research.  He was right to let Meyer make a "review article" that can be the basis of further research.  Sternberg rightly said:

Quote

Sternberg on Information

His [Meyer's] paper—by addressing the problem of novel organismal morphologies from an information standpoint—provided insight into why this fundamental problem has not yet been solved.While Meyer presented a controversial alternative hypothesis, he did so in a scientific manner and in a way that advances understanding of why his view has reemerged as an option for some scientists. Overall, his discussion is certainly relevant to current fundamental issues in systematics and paleontology.




Sternberg uses the word "information", there are ways we can formalize it in terms of CSI.  Do you want to stick around for the sample calculations???  Formulating the arguments in terms of convergence I believe is one of the best ways to avoid complaints of post diction.

Your paper does not even represent CSI correctly Wesley, so how can it be used as a refutation of Meyer's or anyone's work.  I've gone through the trouble of outling some of the sample calculations in this thread, and it seem just as I was getting close to highlighting the most important points in the calculations you disengage in dialogue.  

For your information, the above example with the 1000 coins qualifies as examples of SAI (you are invited to demonstrate otherwise).  Now what sort of "naturally arising simple computational processes" would generate such physical examples????  That's an indefensible assertion on your part that "simple computational processes" generate all such SAI phenomenon.  

I've given ideas of how to correct your paper.  You can choose to keep the paper as is.

Also, where is your definition of Omega, T, and E in all of your supposed counter examples like TSPGRID?

My feeling is Shallit did a good job being Dembski's teacher 16 years ago, and I'm surprised a mathematician of his stature would write such a paper on his former student's fine work.

Date: 2004/09/20 13:37:01, Link
Author: scordova
CSI Detection Application

The above link does not use the term CSI, but it demonstrates intelligent intervention can be detected in biological agents through essentially eliminative approaches.

What Elsberry's paper fails to grasp is the basic defintion and applications of CSI.  


His comment :
Quote

I have no need to believe that anything evidences CSI by Dembski's definition. The reason that I need not believe any such thing is that there has never been a successful application of Dembski's EF/DI via the GCEA meeting or exceeding the "universal small probability" of any event whatsoever. If you had a citation of such a published successful, fully worked-out calculation, I'm sure that you would share that with us.

Until then, it's all just blowin' smoke.


Is therefore indefensible.

Date: 2004/09/20 18:13:34, Link
Author: scordova
Well,

Ok, Wesley.  I think we've exhausted most of what we'll say on this thread.

I actually provisionally agreed with your critique of the protein CSI, and I will concede that Meyer did not provide detailed calculations in that review for the kinds of CSI that I look for.  If it turn out however, that we find proteins that have higher improbability, I will happily recant my one major complaint with Meyer's paper.

I'll even concede CSI has not reached it's full maturity and use within the ID community and that the calculations thus far have not appeared EXPLICITY in peer-review.

Do I conclude that lack of peer-reviewed articles at this stage of the game is sufficient evidence against CSI's viability as a concept.  Absolutely not.  

I have worked in relevant fields where the ability to detect of ID artifacts is a given (Target Recognition).  There was no need to appeal to a peer-reviewed article because it was so obvious that ID detection is possible.  

With the bio-reporting engineering, I doubt they will really even bother with doing probability calculations each time they make a detection, because the design inference in the bio-reporters is so obvious : novel traits like bio-reporter bio-luminesence would not arise via Darwinian evolution.  They can count on the fact that if such a critter is seen, it came from our labs and not purely Darwinian processes.

An analogous inference is very reasonable for the Cambrian explosion, that the creatures did not arise via Darwinian evolution.


I maintain that you are a gentleman (much more so than I), and you are far better mannered than most that I have dealt with.  Sorry we're on other sides of the issues.

If you have any further questions for me, you can post them at ARN and send me a private message there.  

I advise you that your paper is badly flawed.  It does not represent what CSI is.  I gave the definitions from page 141  No Free Lunch and how to calculate it.  If you apply such techniques with care, you'll see you'll have to reject TSPGRID as a counter example to LCI.  Further, your SAI has merit, but if you suggest all SAI is createable through "simple computational processes", I just provided a counter example to that claim with the coins above.  There would be no such thing possible through "simple computation processes", because:

1.  If a human made such a coin string, it would be and act of intelligence

2.  If a robot (or some machine like it) created the coin strings, such a robot is anything but simple.

You are free to keep insisting your paper is correct, but by doing so you will invite persistent citations of those errors in your paper.  I leave the decision to change or not change the paper in your hands.


Well, thank you for your time.
Salvador

Date: 2004/09/22 13:56:31, Link
Author: scordova
Hi Jack Krebs,

Well, I think your objections have merit.  I for one have sided with the critics on a few points, and I try to give them credit when credit is due.   For example, I've been very positive on Shallit's concept of SAI (that must be Shallit's idea, since he was Debmski's algorithmic information mentor).

I think responding to the challenges in Wesley's paper as well as the points you just rased are a good thing.

I direct readers to Response to Elsberry Shallit 2003.  

Anything of extreme relevance, I might bring back here to this website, escpecially since I know ISCID is finicky about who posts there these days.

Thanks to you for pointing out perceived deficiencies in my line of reasoning, and I will do my best to make ammendments.


Salvador

Date: 2004/10/12 15:10:39, Link
Author: scordova
This is an extension of:

The DI Strikes Back at PandasThumb.

The papers in question are:

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

Commented on by : Rick Sternberg

Pandas Thumb Response

DI counter response:

One Long Bluff


The DI strikes back (1st installment):  Neo-Darwinism’s Unsolved Problem of the Origin of Morphological Novelty

I'm posting this here to alleviate the exchanges at PandasThumb.  Some of the anti-IDists may not feel comfortable participating at the ARN thread DI versus NCSE: Superbowl on Meyer 2004 so I'm opening this thread.  However, I extend the invitation to anyone to participate at ARN if they so choose.

Although I am in disagreement with evolutionary theory, I will do my best in this thread to be a good citizen at antievolution.org, as I am a guest here.

Thank you,
Salvador

Date: 2005/02/04 16:39:19, Link
Author: scordova
ICR I think should envy the Wedge and the DI.    

Major evangelical organizations at the college campuses have favored Intelligent Design over the ICR message.

Forrest and Gross document the strong relationship of ID and evangelical campus organizations.

Intelligent Design is the ground breaking operation for creationism.

Quote


Dembski boldly wrote (responding to Morris):

ID is part of God's general revelation. Consequently, it can be understood apart from the Bible.....

I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ....

Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

Date: 2005/06/26 22:03:36, Link
Author: scordova
Dear Wesley and Jeffrey,

William Dembski has released two papers on his website.  Since you all have written critiques of his work in the past, I would be interested in any critiques of his latest work.  


http://www.designinference.com/documen....ces.pdf

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

Thanks,

Salvador Cordova

Date: 2005/12/03 13:34:45, Link
Author: scordova
A poplular article by Royal Truman, PhD in chemistry from Michigan, and quite schooled in information theory has a starting point.

Popular Article on Dawkins

(I don't like AiG, but that's where you can get the first article.  I does a good job of pointing out how poorly Dawkins understands information theory).

A more scholarly article that doesn't mention Dawkins by name but explores the same issues is:
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution

RBH (Richard B. Hoppe, Royal Truman, Myself, and others) explored the topic in more depth here:


Avida

Dembski address the issue :

Displacement Theorem

I recommend the (gasp) AiG article as a starting point.

Date: 2005/12/03 14:06:49, Link
Author: scordova
Dear Ghost of Paley,


How in the world did I ever miss your postings!  This has been an enormously refeshing thread.  Today was the first time I've ever seen your postings.

I'm really enjoying your fine work.  I feel much humbled to see your intellect and humor shine through.  I may not agree with everything, but I enjoy reading your posts.

regards,
Salvador Cordova

Date: 2005/12/03 14:52:14, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:

Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating


No, we want more, we want more.


Sal :D

Date: 2005/12/03 17:27:09, Link
Author: scordova
I for got to include this link:

The Problem of Information...Has Dawkins Solved It?

Date: 2005/12/03 17:35:29, Link
Author: scordova
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 03 2005,22:27)
Your suggested starting point is so flawed and irrelevant, I really don't know where to start. But suffice it to say that nowhere does it suggest that Dawkins made any claims - at all - about information theory.

Dawkins "methinks it is like a weasel" model just demonstrates the concept of how mutation/selection works. That's all. And what it says is pretty much unassailable.

I'm beginning to doubt that Dawkins ever did address information theory, per se .

Quote

If you want to understand life, don't think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The particular polymers used by living cells are called polynucleotides. There are two main families of polynucleotides in living cells, called DNA and RNA for short. Both are chains of small molecules called nucleotides. Both DNA and RNA are heterogeneous chains, with four different kinds of nucleotides. This, of course, is where the opportunity for information storage lies. Instead of just the two states 1 and 0, the information technology of living cells uses four states, which we may conventionally represent as A, T, C and G. There is very little difference, in principle, between a two-state binary information technology like ours, and a four-state information technology like that of the living cell.


Chapter 5, Blind Watchmaker

Date: 2005/12/04 12:41:05, Link
Author: scordova
I have some matters to discuss with Lenny Flank.

I invite him to debate me on the issue of ID and evolution.


Salvador

Date: 2005/12/04 13:17:11, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Flank asked,

Heat getting to you now, Sal?


Hiya Flank,

You and me eh?  Or do you need your PT buds to help you take me on.  Can you take me on one-on-one?  If anyone else jumps on this thread, let's kindly invite them to post on another thread, but I want just you and me. What'ya say, Flank.

But ya know Flank, I don't think it's fair for you to just ask me question and you get off scott free.  I answer a quetion, and then I'll feed one.  

C'mon Flank, don't want to answer question yerself.  Too scared your theory can't hold up to scrutiny?  So I'll answer one, and then ask one of you.

What?  You want an interrogation of me, not a debate?  What kind theory do you have that you demand a format like that.

If you call me dishonest for not answering your question, then maybe you ought to apply the same standard to yourself when I ask you questions.  Did you ever think of that?  Guess not.

Ok:



No, I just had some time to finally deal with you.  You were low on my priorities.
Quote


(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?




The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.


Ok. Before I answer your other questions it is your turn.   State the laws of physics from which Darwinian evolution can be derived (answer: none Darwinism isn't science).  But I'd like to see you squirm.  


hehehe.

Date: 2005/12/04 13:29:16, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?


Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical.  Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....

Even a slight parody of creationism is far superior to serious Darwinism (a joke trying to pretend to be a serious theory).   :D

Ah yes, Dembski's sublime writings, good for the soul.  Far superior to the plagerism Chuck committed against the creationist Blythe....

Sal

Date: 2005/12/04 14:50:45, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Just answer my questions, Sal.  Quit being a coward.


Calling me names, Flank?   :D Is that the best you can do.  I tried to answer question 1.  It's my answer.  Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.  Perhaps you should consider applying the same standard to yourself that you apply to me when you say I don't answer you question.

Quote

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of .... criticisms of evolutionary biology.



What's the matter, Flank, can't answer legitimate questions for your worthless theory?  Like, what were the steps to the first eukaryote?




Quote

I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the one you want taught in public school science classes,


Hey Flank, I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.  Why are insintuating by your question that I do?  Although I have no problem allowing teachers to make students aware of the holes in the pathetic pseudo science your defending known as Darwinian evolution.  Care to answer the question I posed, or will you go on dodging?  Apply the same standard to yourself that you're trying to apply to me.




Quote


Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative.



No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.  One did not need a new theory to recognize Phlogiston and Epicycles were flawed, "we need a better theory because the current one is wrong" is a far better position than letting students think a wrong theory has solved the problems.  Darwinism and it's non-teleologcial sisters have not met the standards of real scientific theories like gravity.

Quote

Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.


We don't see life arise from non-life in the lab without intelligence.  Chemical evolution has failed.  It is consistently superior in it's predictions to ole Darwinist Haeckel's belief in spontaneous generation.  Evolutionary theory is a post-dictive narrative, it doesn't explain much above didly sqwat.

Large amounts of software don't come from  systems that had no thinking agent somewhere in the pipeline.  Biology is rich in software.  I hypothesize a Mind in the distant past.  What's so tough about that?

Care to describe by your worthless Darwinism how the software came to be?  C'mon Flank describe it.  Oh, I see you can't.....

:D


Quote


Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.


1. Only that an intelligence was a part, the manufacturing details are not needed to make a design inference.  For example we have genetically engineered seeds, does anyone really need to know the manufacturing process or the exact history to know they were engineered? No.  So there, you're wrong, and you only display your misunderstanding of ID theory.  Why don't you study ID theory first rather allowing me to spoon feed it to you?

2. ID does not specify the mechanisms, it only identifies when something is designed. It is very limited in it's claim.

3.  The mechanism we see today are only in evidence in humans to a small degree (their designing abilities).  We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know, we postulate a Designer operated in the past.  It's I hypothesis, what's so bad about that Lenny.  But as far as the Designer not being seen today, I should qualify that:  Quantum Theory and our measurements in the lab (such as the Double Slit Delayed Choice Experiment)  are highly suggestive the Designer's observations in the future are affecting the characteristics of the universe today (ala John Barrow, Frank Tipler, FJ Belinfante, M. Biagini, etc....).  Do I need to spoon feed you the details?


Quote

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did,


No it does not.  You only flaunt your misunderstandings.

How about answering my first question, Flank.  Show how evolutionary theory is justified by the laws of physics.  How is evolutionary theory justified by the laws of physics (answer: it's not, because it's pseudo-science).

Date: 2005/12/04 14:59:22, Link
Author: scordova


Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.  Quantum Mechanics is becoming formulated in terms of information theory.  Information theory implies MIND as somewhere in the pipleline and therefore, as Harold Morowitz pointed out, MIND is a primitive component of physical systems.

Care to put up something comparable for your theory?  C'mon Flank, you're no match for me.  Answer my first question.  I've answered several of yours, care to put up even one answer for your theory?

Date: 2005/12/04 16:35:41, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Hey Sal, I don't see any, uh, scientifivc theory of ID anywhere in your big long rant.



Kind of hard to if one is scientifically illiterate or wilfully blind.  Tell me whether either or both are an applicable explanation for why you couldn't see.

Hey, Flank, you didn't answer my question.  Show how physics (the most fundamental science) results in evolutionary theory.  

I answered several of your questions.  I can't remedy the fact my answers are over your head.

Quote

(4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).


An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.  www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected. If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory. Read the sublime works of Dembski to learn. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed your closed mind.....

Answer my 1st question, Flank, and I may decide to elaborate, you've not even moved once in that direction.  Apparently all you can do is cut and paste and repeat you questions even when I've started answering.

Oh, but I'm not here for you, Flank, but for the Lurkers.....

Quote

If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions.


It answers some of them, it is not intended to answer all of them any more than gravitational theory is intended to answer questions about electromagnetic theory.  You're making category errors about the scope and domain of the question ID theory answers.  

Well, you've not even answered my basic question. Care to admit, evolutionary theory is not derivable from physics?  C'mon, Flank, what say you.  Yes, no, or "I, Lenny Flank have no clue".


Quote

Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.


Conclusive proof?  Where have I argued for conclusive proof.  ID and creation science are offered as a hypothesis with experiments indirectly supporting the hypothesis, and certain ideas subject to falsification.    I never offered conclusive proof.  Where's the conclusive proof for your theory, Flank?  Speuclations aren't conclusive proof.  By the way you've gone several posts without answering my first question.  What's up with you?  Too much for you, Flanky boy.

Quote

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney.


I didn't, I'm only offering reasons the hypothesis is plausible.  Part of that is showing the un-planned evolutionary route is not established.  You're fabricating things about my position.  Shame on you.




Quote

I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory":  How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old.  And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not.



ID theory wil for the sake of argument accept the generally accepted values for the age of the Earth.  Creationists of the Young Earth variety look for physical evidence such as decayed speed of light and quantized readshifts as evidence for a young earth. Both are offered as hyptheses.  I'm not in league with ICR or AiG, so don't put me in their absolutist camps.  Whatever the age is, the age is.  I think an open mind about them is a good thing, but at this stage I'm 80% oriented toward young Earth.





Quote

(2)  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?



ID is not used to determine the age of the earth nor does it specifically decide if humans descended from apelike primates.  You obviously don't understand even the basics, Flank.

The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID issues.  There I answered your question.  Care to answer my first one?

Date: 2005/12/04 16:41:00, Link
Author: scordova
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 04 2005,20:49)
I want Sal to skip to question #3. Let's see some non-materialistic weather forecasting.

"Now we go to Dan with the weather. Dan?"
"Thanks Bob. Today it's going to be overcast with spotty showers, and a 20% chance of raining frogs, because you're all a bunch of sodomites. Back to you Bob."

what da matter steve, can't allow your boy to mix it up with me one-on-one?  It's kind of insulting to you Flank that you have to jump this thread.  It shows you don't think he can deal with me himself. :D

Date: 2005/12/05 09:54:21, Link
Author: scordova
Lenny's Education Level


Quote

Lenny:

I have no college degree


Hey!  You're less educated than me.  That's pretty sad.


I answered 1 and 2.

Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?




Evolution tries to account for specified complex information from materialistic processes.  That is not consistent with information theory.   :p   That's why the materialism in evolutionary theory is not consistent with science or the search for correct answers.


Do you have any more of your usual uneducated replies to my answers (ye with no college degree, hehehe!;).



:p

Date: 2005/12/05 10:27:22, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?


You're phrasing of my position is inaccurate to the max.  It is symptomatic of a malady I see amongnst many deniers of design.  

I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski.  Good medine for the soul.  It will clarify thy confused thinking.

When thou hast read Design Inference and No Free Lunch, I can then set you straight on your plentitudinous miscomprehensions of ID.


But you must own the books first.  You can do so by making combined donation to the wedge for $110.00




No Free Lunch for $35.00



and



Design Inference for $75.00

And if you can't fork up the money, I recommend fasting every week so you can save up to make the donations.  Fast and repent of Darwin, and you will see the light.  :)

Date: 2005/12/05 12:31:07, Link
Author: scordova
Hey Flank, your buds don't seem to have much confidence you can take me one-on-one.  They're just helping themselve to this thread.

I thank them for affirming your ineptness in dealing with me.  :p

Date: 2005/12/05 12:36:38, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.


I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.

Salvador

Date: 2005/12/05 12:43:21, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Hiya Flank,

Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I woudl say anyway.....

Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.

Oh, by the way, do you have an answer to my 1st question, or are you just going to repeat your false accusations with some cut and paste?



Salvador

Date: 2005/12/05 12:54:13, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

I'm beginning to think that this is NOT Sal, but just an imposter (probably DaveScott or somesuch).

Sal, even at his most mouth-foamingly, is not this illiterate and childish.


I just had to phrase the answers and question at a level commensurate with your knowledge level.  :p

Date: 2005/12/05 14:32:27, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


Hey Sal imposter, are you gonna tell YOUR bud to shut up and go away?  One-on-one, and all that?  




Hey Flank, it's me.  I'm just had to lower my level of discourse down to your high school level education.  If I started talking like a college guy, it would probably sail over your head.

I answered your five questions, demonstrated you were using :
Fallacy of Interrogation.  Care to issue some retractions of your FALSE accusations.

You're presumption that you're dealing with someone who is not the real Salvador Cordova only demonstrates you're full of presumptions.


Quote


Well, tell me who the #### you really ARE, and I'll be happy to show you.


I'm the real Salvador T. Cordova.  Are you claiming the person you're having this exchange with is an impostor?

:0

Date: 2005/12/05 15:08:31, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:14:09, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


Flank insists:

Nope, no answers to any of my 31 questions here . . . .



That is False Flank, I answered the above question regarding Ahmanson.  That is a sufficient condition to show your claim is false.  Care to make a retraction, Flank, or are you in denial?

Quote

My answer to question 4:

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.


Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.  That means such questions, aren't even questions.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:17:23, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Well, tell me who the #### you really ARE, and I'll be happy to show you.


I told you who I am, Flank. What's the matter, can't deal with the truth.   :p

Date: 2005/12/05 15:21:40, Link
Author: scordova
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:18)
Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.

Do let me know when you're ready, OK?

Apparently you missed it Flank, so here it is:

Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:45:22, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

From the darwin papers.
In a comparative study of the hearts of the four types of living reptiles; lizards, snakes, turtles, and crocodiles, we find that there are major structural differences between them all, with no indication of any type of an intermediate form ever existing, in fact, an intermediate form between a crocodile's heart and that of any other reptile would undoubtedly spell instant death to the creature.

In lizards, snakes, and turtles we have the right atrium and the left atrium situated next to each other, on the same side of the heart, to the left of the two aorta, while the pulmonary artery is on the right side of the heart. The crocodile's heart, on the other hand, is not anything like this at all. His right atrium and left atrium are on opposite sides of the heart: the right atrium is placed where the pulmonary artery is in the other reptiles, while the pulmonary artery and two aorta are situated in between the two atria.


Among the three remaining types of reptiles, a lizards heart has both aortas and both atria connected to the left ventricle, while in a turtles heart only the right aorta and the two atria are connected the left ventricle, the left aorta is connected to the right ventricle. In a snakes heart only the left atrium opens into the left ventricle, both of the aortas and the right atrium open into the right ventricle. None of these creatures could have survived unless their hearts were perfectly formed as they are from the beginning of their existence, an intermediate form would spell instant doom for an animal, and yet none of these reptiles have hearts that are alike in the slightest.

The amphibian has a heart unlike that of any reptilian heart. Instead of a four chambered heart like that found in reptiles, with an amphibian's heart there are only two atria that pass into a single ventricle, and a fish only has one atrium and one ventricle connected to the gills. There is definitely a progression in complexity from the heart of the fish to the reptile, but there is nothing like an intermediate stage to be found, an intermediate stage would be fatal for any creature. A heart must be completely functional and fully developed for the creature to survive.

It is similar to having four distinct types of internal combustion engines: a V-6 gasoline engine; a single piston motorcycle engine; an in-line diesel engine; and a rotary engine. Although all of these engines use similar chemical, electrical, and mechanical principles in their operation, they all have quite distinct designs for a particular, unique purpose. None of these engines "evolved" into the other engines, each one would have to be perfectly functional, with the correct specifications, timing, and design features from the start for them to operate.

An evolutionist by the name of Lenny Flank has disputed this and attempted to claim that there are transitional forms for the hearts of the four types of reptiles. He brought up the pachyrhachis, a fossilised snake, and a fossil amphibian called Acanthostega as some sort of proof for transitional forms. Unfortunately for Flank, it is doubtful that they would provide information on any transitional forms of reptilian hearts since we do not have any remains at all of the hearts of these two extinct species. Furthermore, even if we did, their hearts would in all probability be the same as the hearts of modern snakes and amphibian salamanders; after all the pachyrhachis was simply a snake with unique claspers probably used in mating, and the Acanthostega was a salamander, no more, no less.

Indeed, this problem of the evolution of the reptiles' heart is such an unsolvable conundrum that I have decided to call it Flank's Dilemma, in honor of Lenny Flank, a self professed expert on reptilian anatomy.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:49:35, Link
Author: scordova
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:40)
1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness  -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too.  Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6.  What did the designer do, specifically.  What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.  Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?


9.  Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?


10.  How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

11.  Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

12.  Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13.  Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?  

14.  Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

16.  > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.

Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

17.  >The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

18.  >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19.  >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20.  >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21.  >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22.  >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23.  > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24.  >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25.  >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26.  >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27.  Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28.  >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

29.  > we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

30.  >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31.  >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.


Yep, that makes 31 questions, Sal.  One, you've now answered.  Two, you gave BS evasions.  Still lots left.

Any time you're ready, Sal.  You just let me know, OK?


>I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

Glad to hear that.  Sincerely.

What have you been doing to have other IDers repudiate them?

>Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.

Consider it a Vise, Sal.  (snicker)  (giggle)

> That means such questions, aren't even questions.

Well, Sal, they all look like questions to ME.  Questions that you, for some odd reason, don't seem to want to answer.

One down, Sal.  Thirty more to go.

Let me know when you're ready.

And by the way, if you really ARE Sal, then I feel very sorry for you.  You seem, at long last, to have finally lost all your marbles.  (shrug)

But I thank you, whoever you are, for demonstrating so clearly to everyone that ID/creationists are evasive dishonest cowards who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions.

Hey Flank, you can't read. I answered 5.  You haven't answered one.  What's the matter, Flank, are my question to sophisticated for your high-school education?

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:18)
Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.

Do let me know when you're ready, OK?

Apparently you missed it Flank, so here it is:

Quote

Flank wrote:

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.



Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.

Quote

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?



Quote

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

My answer:

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.




Quote

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

My answer:  ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.  

Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No.  Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.  

Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions.  That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory.  Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?



Quote

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?).  Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.

Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.  

Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine.  The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for.  You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.

Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.





Quote

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.


Getting testy, eh?  Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova?  Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial.  Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank?    Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?


I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least).   I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank.   Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:

How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  

C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:55:29, Link
Author: scordova
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:47)
>How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  


We don't know.  (shrug)

How about giving us Intelligent Design, uh, "theory's" explanation for this.  What, specifically, does ID theory postulate the designer did to produce homo-chiral proteins with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?  What mechanisms did it use to produce them?  And how can we test any of these mechanisms using the scientific method?

Or is "POOF !!!  God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!!!" the best that ID, uh, "theory" can come up with?  "Something intelligent did . . . uh . . . something intelligent"?

Is  THAT the best ID can offer?

Hey, Flank, you're unwilling to apply the same standard to yourself that you demand of me.  You said, "we don't know".  By your standards, Flank you didn't answer the question.  By the way, you need to make some retractions for your False accusations.  I let you sort it out in the following post.



Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.


Date: 2005/12/05 16:00:48, Link
Author: scordova
By the way, you need to make some retractions for your False accusations.  Are you going to, Flank?



Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.


Date: 2005/12/05 16:06:26, Link
Author: scordova
:00-->
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,22:00)
Hope you're having fun, Sal (or whoever you are).

I'm having fun, Flank.  Are you.  Still in denial that you're dealing with the real Sal, I see.....

Hope you make your retractions and admit you made false accusations.  




Quote

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

My answer:  

I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views.  If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.

I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so.  I don't receive Ahmanson's money.  I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...

I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.




Quote

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?    

I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....

Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation

Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?


Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank.  Care to issue some retractions.


Date: 2005/12/05 16:08:59, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Flank's famous quote:

(sticks thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)

Nanni nanni poo poo.


good night Flank. :D

Date: 2005/12/05 16:30:12, Link
Author: scordova
I forgot to add:

Quote

Flank wrote:

I do so enjoy your juvenile antics


Why does that not surprise me that you enjoy juvenile antics?   :p


Goodnight.  Let's have more fun tomorrow.
:)

Date: 2005/12/06 12:19:51, Link
Author: scordova
The fundamental known laws of nature, the natural laws by which we practice operational science is are approximated by 5 differential equations.  It is these equations from which all scientific theories should be constrained by at this time in scientific history.  

Intelligent Design is actually an interpretation of one of the 5 differential equations.

From :  Designed or Designoid by Progressive Creationist Walter Bradley.

           
Quote

Mechanics (Hamilton's Equations)
           

Electro-Dynamics (Maxwell's Equations)
           

Statistical Mechanics (Boltzman's Equations)
           

Quantum Mechanics (Schrodinger's Equations)
           

Relativistic Mechanics (Einstein's Equations)
           
The caveat is that the form of these equations is modified if Speed of light is variable, but that will not negate the ultimate conclusion in terms of ID inferences.

Intelligent Design Theories, particularly at the cosmological level, are interpretations of reality derived from the 4th differential equation listed, namely, Quantum Mechanics.

Further it is the form of these equations that refute the possibility of Darwinian Evolution, and argue for Intelligent Design of biological systems.

It is from the above fundamental laws combined with empirical observation that we can formulate both ID and creationist-ID origin hypotheses.

I have said before that Darwinism can not be derived from these laws of nature, because Darwinism isn't science, but a metaphysical postion contradicted by the laws of nature, particularly extensions of statistical mechanics.

Date: 2005/12/06 12:37:11, Link
Author: scordova
Nature is described by the 5 differential equations (see : Bradely's Essay), one of them is Schrodinger's equation.




The first part is the Schrodinger, the second equation is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. The two combine to symbolize the laws of quantum mechanics. Inherent in the equations is the supposition that some "observer" or "absorber" affects the physical system in question.

     
Quote
 
page 458 Cosomological Anthropic Principle:

In classical physics Man seemed entirely superflous to the universe...However, his role in the Cosmos appears greatly enhanced in quantum mechanics....Man, in his capacity as the observer of an experiment, is an essential and irreducible feature of physics.


Man can influence the past and physics. This has been empirically verified with  Prophesying Particles.

The best (and I say that relatively speaking) description of the experimental details is:
Wheeler's Classic Delay Choice Experiment

The outrageous conclusion is that the experiment can be carried out at the astrophysical level.  


John Horgan writes:

       
Quote

To underscore the weirdness of this effect, Wheeler points out that astronomers could perform a delayed-choice experiment on light from quasars, extremely bright, mysterious objects found near the edges of the universe. In place of a beam splitter and mirrors the experiment requires a gravitational lens, a galaxy or other massive object that splits the light from a quasar and refocuses it in the direction of a distant observer, creating two or more images of the quasar.



Psychic Photons
The astronomers choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently determines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-billions of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter the  photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unborn beings on a still nonexistent planet .
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago that " to be is to be perceived"



Quantum Computer technology would not be possible without these handy but strange facts.

The important thing is we conclude an observer is important to physics by this equation:

 



Now, it is true human observers can affect things like spin an aspects of a system. But is it reasonable that ALL laws of physics are affected by an observer. The answer is YES.


     
Quote
 
Cosmological Anthropic Principle page 470:

But with the recent success of the unified gauge theory of the weak and electromagnetic interaction in which the electron mass is dependent on the details of symmetry breaking which apparently occurred in the early universe,  there is no reason why we should not regard all electron properties as contingent in principle on some sort of observation.

Wheeler points out that according to the Copenhagen interpretation, we can regard some restricted properties of distant galaxies, which we now see as they were billions of years ago, as brought into existence now. Perhaps all properties -- and hence the entire Universe is brought into existence by observations made at some point in time by conscious beings.

Now consider the Barrow derivation from the Schrodinger Equation:

         


The "Psi" on the left hand side of the equation represents the entire cosmos. It is the Schrodinger equation taken all the way to include every phenomenon in the physical universe. The Schrodinger equation implies an that an Observer must exist outside of the system in question (the entire Cosmos), then reasonable statements of the attributes of such an Ultimate Observer would be:

     
Quote


1. Conscious
2. Intelligent
3. Non-Material
4. All Powerful
5. All Knowing
6. Eternal

See Deutch defends Tipler's Cosmological Eschatology

 
I actually reject many parts of Tipler's argument.  However, there are parts of what he says that are much in agreement with my views.

Tipler is fairly hostile to organized religion.  Many of his ideas would be considered heretical by evangelicals.  He considers himself an "atheist" in that he doesn't pray.  Despite this, from his scientific views, Tipler says in his essay on  Peer Review

     
Quote
 
More than this,  quantum mechanics is actually teleological, though physicists don’t use this loaded word (we call it “unitarity” instead of “teleology”). That is, quantum mechanics says that it is completely correct to say that the universe’s evolution is determined not by how it started in the Big Bang, but by the final state of the universe. Every stage of universal history, including every stage of biological and human history, is determined by the ultimate goal of the universe. And if I am correct that  the universal final state is indeed God, then every stage of universal history, in particular every mutation that has ever occurred, or ever will occur in any living being, is determined by the action of God.


Date: 2005/12/06 14:56:38, Link
Author: scordova
Hey Flank I see you enjoy flaunting your knowledge level (or lack thereof, high school boy): :p


Quote


And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?


The above mentioned physcists don't share your views.

Some quantum physicists don't, therefore your generalization is invalid.

I should point out:

Quote


The views of a large number of contemporary physcal scientists are summed up in the essay "remarks on the Mind-Body Question" written by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner. Wigner begins by pointing out that most physical scientists have returned to the recognition that thought--meaning the mind--is primary. he goes on to state: "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." And he concludes by noting how remarkable it is that the scientific study of the world led to the content of consciousness as the ultimate reality.

A further development in yet another field of physics reinforces Wigner's viewpoint. The introduction of information theory and its application to thermodynamics has led to the conclusion that entropy, a basic concept of that science, is a measure of the observer's ignorance of the atomic details of the system. When we measure the pressure, volume, and temperature of an object, we have a residual lack of knowledge of the exact position and velocity of the component atoms and molecules. The numerical value of the amount of information we are missing is proportional to the entropy. In earlier thermodynamics, entorpy had represented, in an engineering sense, the energy of the system unavailable to perform external work. In the modern view, the human mind enters once again, and entropy relates not just to the state of the system but to our knowledge of that state.


The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a "mentalist" picture of the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present-day position in order to explain experimental results.

We are now in a position to integrate the perspectives of three large fields: psychology, biology, physics.....


First the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics, that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system.

Harold Morowitz


Hey Flank, are you going to withdraw your false accusations?

By the way, are you still in denial that it's the real Salvador Cordova you're talking to?

Date: 2005/12/06 15:15:41, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

I asked:

Hey Flank, are you going to withdraw your false accusations?




Quote


Flank responded:

Well, no....



Ok, thanks for letting me know you're not prepared to withdraw your false accusations.


Good night, Flank.   :)

Date: 2005/12/13 13:20:39, Link
Author: scordova
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 04 2005,16:19)
If Information Theory blew holes in evolution, there would be good evidence of it. You would be able to find papers, editorials, something, published by the IEEE or the Information Theory Society thereof, which discusses this. Dembski or Behe would be invited to IT conferences. Highly regarded Information Theory researchers would have made comments to that effect. But none of this evidence exists. Information Theory blows holes in evolution only in the minds of some zealots like Salvador Cordova.

Quote
The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.

-- Bertrand Russell

Date: 2005/12/13 13:26:28, Link
Author: scordova
Dawkins showcases the Weasel Program in pages 46-50 of Blind Watchmaker.

He programs (as in designs) the selective forces to illustrate that blind unthinking, undesigned forces of nature can build complexity.

He is failing to account for the information flow from the hand of the programmer to the final end product:  "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"

From an analysis of information theory, it should be evident, his meddling, his design is what is the most important causal element in the end product, not blind forces.  Yet he uses this to argue that's how haemeglobin is formed.  Well, in that case haemeglobin is design.   :D


The effective defintion of information (ala Shannon): "that which reduces uncertainty".

Dawkins conceptually reduces the space of possible selection forces, he designs them, they are anything but "natural".

Yet this garbage was fed to Verhey's class with no critical challenge.  How is an a 18-year old out of high school going to be able to discern Dawkins sleight of hand.

This kind of sleight-of-hand being passed of as truth is distressing.



Salvador

Date: 2005/12/14 14:38:44, Link
Author: scordova
Quote


PaulK wrote:

The weasel program is presented as a simple example of cumulative selection - the theme of the chapter.  Dawkins does not present it as a model of evolutionary processes.


LOL!  They what the heck does it it present?  

Dawkins writes:
Quote

What about cumulative selection...?   We again use our computer monkey...What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other porcedure of single-step selection....


If, however, there was any way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might have been the consequences.  As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet
....
It is amazing that you can still read calculations like my haemoglobin calculation, used as though they constituted arguments against Darwin's theory...the most important ingredient is cumulative selection.


Uh, PaulK, Dawkins uses the computer to illustrate cumulative selection and then says that cumulative selection was exactly what happened, and uses it in the context of Haemoglobin are you missing something?
:D

Date: 2005/12/14 14:43:08, Link
Author: scordova
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2005,09:06)
Quote


Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

  1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

         * increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
         * increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
         * novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
         * novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

     If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


Steve Uses a strawman.  Where did I say I agreed with Answers in Genesis on no increase of information.

What makes you want to attribute something they said as equivalent to my position?

Date: 2005/12/14 14:50:44, Link
Author: scordova
Quote

Dawkins does not say that the weasel program represents how haemoglobin was formed.  Dawkisn says instead that calculations of the probability of haemoglobin evolving which do not take account of the cumulative selection of evolution are wrong.

Dawkins does not state that the selective process in the weasel program is that of evolution - he explicitly states that they are different.




Dawkins uses the computer to illustrate cumulative selection and then uses cumulative selection as an explanation for the haemoglobin's formation circumventing the barrier of random chance.

Quote


The selective forces he invokes for evolution are entirely natural.


The selective forces he invokes are without any empirical basis, he's passing of speculation as absolute fact.  On what basis can he claim that such selective forces existed in the past?   Dawkins only asserts, "As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on the planet".  

Baseless assertion, and his own WEASEL program showed that for the selective forces to be effective, they had to be designed.  He's presuming nature makes such selective forces, that's pure speculation, and there are good reasons to even reject the speculation.  In either case, he's passing off speculations as empirical facts.  Teaching school kids this is not science education, that's indoctrination and deceptive practice....

 

 

 

=====