quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider I don't see what creationism has to do with this, MisterOpus1 ? I made it perfectly clear that I did not want to bring divinity into this thread.

I understand this, however when I refer to ID I still categorize it under creationism, and rightfully so. Considering that within their own Wedge Doctrine they refer to Christianity a number of times, and considering that NO IDer I've ever known is willing to allow the Designer be an alien from another planet (a completely plausible idea by their logic), I think the label is well-founded.

quote:

The fact is that one cannot deny that evolution is based on a 'random' process.

What did I just say earlier on page 2?

quote:

In any case, again I don't deny that chance, or mutation is part of the equation.

So who’s denying anything here?

quote:

The aim of my first question was just that, either deliberate or chance, a case for absolute conditioning. For you to suggest that design stems from chance is quite simply the most laughable piece of text I have ever read on the internet.

What did I just say earlier on page 2?:

quote:

What you’re implying is that something created via the evolutionary mechanisms, i.e. mutation and natural selection, is not “design”. I stated that evolutionary mechanisms explain things designed, or to be more precise, irreducibly complex, quite well. Take for instance the nylon bug: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm Here we have a bacteria developing a complex novel feature – digesting nylon. This is explained quite well via the evolutionary mechanism. So I believe you’re getting tripped up on the definition of “design”. It is merely a descriptive, more or less. The heart of the matter is whether or not that design was created deliberately via a Designer or Designer mechanism (which hasn’t been depicted in any way), or not-so-deliberately via mutation and natural selection. You continue to imply evolution as CHANCE only – what you are leaving out is its very own SELECTIVE engine – natural selection. Therefore, evolution is not just CHANCE alone.

Design does not stem from chance alone, sir, but with natural selection working as a selective filter as well – something you continue to skip right over.

Why are you failing to address this?

quote:

Mind you, I could suggest that you have little or no understanding of probability as a subject, so it balances out.

It’s one thing to suggest it – it’s another thing to support your suggestion. Speaking of which, are you ever going to support your notions on biological mutation rates and natural selection and probability?

quote:

If I wish, I could explain my belief and present irrefutable evidence, not circumstantial.

Well we’re on page 4 and you have yet to do so. Why am I not surprised?

quote:

But you see it's a vicious circle. I'm not here to prove my beliefs, neither are you. I’m not here to influence your beliefs, neither are you. I’m not here to alter your beliefs, neither are you. Hence, why I am not here to present my case.

Hmm, I must have misunderstood the point of your original post:

quote:

I do not accept evolution as a plausible answer to our existence. The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant. …So why the thread ? Well, I’m interested in what other users may have to say on the subject of 'design' in nature. I've read a few Evolution / Creation threads, but none of them seem to address 'design' as a plausible concept of life. Personally, neither of the two can be integrated. It’s one or the other. 'Design' advocates a predetermined state, where as 'chance' is based on probability, guess work, hit 'n' miss, not knowing the outcome; the complete opposite of design. (Therefore creating an imbalance) In simple terms, are we the result of design, or do we stem from randomness ? Are the days of evolution numbered ?

Emphasis mine. You directly stated an assertion that you do not accept evolution as a plausible answer. I directly refuted that assertion with evidence.

You state you were interested in what others have to say on the subject of design. I answered that as succinct as possible – that there’s absolutely no evidence to support deliberate design. A point you have yet to refute.

You obfuscate the idea of evolution and chance, directly leaving out the 2nd part of the evolutionary mechanism – natural selection, and you continue to do so.

And you ask a question on design or randomness which I’ve directly answered.

If you’re not here to debate and support your assertions, why are you in the Political Discussion/Debate Forum?

If you’re not here to present your case, but merely ask opinions only – well you received them. So what more do you want?

So instead of actually engaging in a debate in a debate forum, you simply shy away. Your decision, of course, but I’m still not sure why you came here in the first place if you’re not going to debate and support your assertions with evidence.

quote:

Our brief chat was interesting while it lasted.

It could very well continue if you at least try to engage and support your assertions.

quote:

Oh - If the theory of evolution has been evolving for over 150yrs, it brings complete new meaning to clutching straws.

I know, it’s really desperate isn’t it?

I mean, it’s so desperate that not 1 US public college has considered presenting any alternative theories like ID or creationism in their classroom.

I guess all that darn research that continually tests evolution on a daily basis is just all for naught. Darn.

You do realize that scientific theories are modified as evidence and technology advances, don’t you? You do realize that this isn’t something specific to evolutionary theory, don’t you? I mean, talk about clutching straws – that stupid gravity theory COMPLETELY changed itself from Newtonian physics to Einstein Relativity. God how ridiculous I say! Those damn infidels the whole lot – thinkin’ they could pull a fast one on us on gravity!

I think we’ve found our next Crusade calling. Lead the charge, brave Knight Rider! That gravity "theory" needs to go!!!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I love gravity. It really helps me stay grounded. But seriously folks.



In all honesty, since the prior discussion was about to go nowhere or get ugly...I think the formula for gravitational pull is pretty cool. It's one of those "universal-ish" equations, right? where X=n(yz)/r^2 and n represents some off-the-wall constant that makes you wonder. I mean 6.67x10^-11? What the hell is that the equivalent of, a flea fart in a vaccum?...Very Newtonian, though I guess Einstein didn't get his grubby little hands caught up so much in gravity since he was so busy with sticking his dick in an electrical socket and all...

Some other favorite "constants":

The mass on an electron: 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg. Let me just pull up my handy-dandy Health-O-Meter and weigh this baby...


e: 2.71828182846. Good ole Euler's number. WTF were you smoking at the time, Euler? A transcendental number?

Seriously. If I'm gonna have "constants" in my life, I'd rather it be a whole number interger like 1 or a perfect square like 81 or something. Sheesh!

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-23-2005 at 00:01

quote:

You directly stated an assertion that you do not accept evolution as a plausible answer. I directly refuted that assertion with evidence.

I didn't ask for convincing evidence and you certainly weren't compelled to provide it. You need to learn to take it easy, MisterOpus1.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider If you say so. I do not believe I have rejected the notion of mutation. I adhere to the notion that evolution is random since it is based on atleast one random mechanism. The point which has risen from this thread is of amalgamation between probability and certainty. Is such a contradicting combination possible in the subsistence of life ? One cannot answer a question like that with 'evolution'. One has to understand the principles behind design and chance prior to tackling/answering (what I feel to be) an important question. The fact is that scientists with basic understanding of probability may perceive and process observational data quite differently to those who specialise in probability (That's just an example, it works both ways). Then, would one not agree, that a chance exists for scientists to have misunderstood observational evidence ?

Well, here is where you are incorrect. In systems with very large amounts of numbers, chance converges towards certainty. When you have an infinite amount of numbers, then chance is exactly equal to certainty. In nature, there is no infinity, but there are numbers that are so large that the statistic measurements used to calculate them are practically certain, and sometimes they're the only ways to get results. Take coin throwing for example and throw it, say, a million times. Is it possible that you will not get a single head? Sure. But what are the odds of that? 1 in 2^10^6. That number is larger than all the atoms in the known universe, and therefore the chance so rediculously small that it shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. So, while genetic mutations are inherently a random process, their number is so large that they should be viewed as a statistical certainty instead of a probability. And while it is technically possible that during procreation no mutations happen whatsoever, the chance is so small that it's practically impossible.

Now, as for natural selection, it is also a fuzzy system inherently dictated by randomness, but that randomness is not true randomness because it is guided in a certain direction, towards complex and more capable creatures. Take for example two frogs. One has weak legs and one has strong legs. The stronger one has a greater chance of escaping predators than the weaker one, and therefore has a greater chance of survival. Now, if we would be talking about 2 frogs only, then definitely nothing could be said for certain. But if we are talking about millions of frogs, than there is a statistical certainty that more strong frogs will manage to reproduce and that more weak frogs will be eaten by predators before their procreation age.

Now, as you yourself realized, such a system is not perfect, and while it is practically certain that creatures with grave genetic errors will not survive, it is possible for creatures with minor genetic defects to get lucky and struggle through, for long enough to spread their genes further. Such miniscule errors and unnecessarry complications are shown in that link Opus posted on the first or second page of the debate. It is also the reason why there are so much diseases in people caused by bad genes and also why most of them are pretty rare. If an intelligent design was responsible for creating living beings, then those unnecessarry complications and diseases wouldn't exist.

quote:

My argument is that the 'system' can only exist on absolute conditioning. It’s either/or, not both.

Eh, there are many other systems in nature that rely exclusively on chance and fuzzy logic. Take radioactive decay, Esaki tunnel diodes, electrical current, flow of water...

All of these systems are by default random. And all of these systems have a force acting upon them that shifts randomness towards probability. With a strong enough force, probability becomes a certainty and randomness becomes noise. Take electrical current for example. In a regular wire, electrons move in all directions. But when you put the wire in an electric field, they start moving in one direction more than towards any other directions, and that's how you get a current. They still do move in other directions, but to a lesser extent, and that movement generates noise. But if the force acting upon the wire is strong enough, noise will be neglegeble in comparison with the overall direction of movement, although it will never diminish completely. Now, replace the words force with natural selection, electron movement with random mutations, noise with harmful mutations, and current with evolution, and you'll get the picture.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I love gravity. It really helps me stay grounded. But seriously folks. In all honesty, since the prior discussion was about to go nowhere or get ugly...I think the formula for gravitational pull is pretty cool. It's one of those "universal-ish" equations, right? where X=n(yz)/r^2 and n represents some off-the-wall constant that makes you wonder. I mean 6.67x10^-11? What the hell is that the equivalent of, a flea fart in a vaccum?...Very Newtonian, though I guess Einstein didn't get his grubby little hands caught up so much in gravity since he was so busy with sticking his dick in an electrical socket and all...

Well, yeah, gravity is still unsolved, so it's hard to tell why the number looks the way it does. As for the other constants...

quote:

Some other favorite "constants": The mass on an electron: 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg. Let me just pull up my handy-dandy Health-O-Meter and weigh this baby...

Eh, the mass of the electron is such an awkward number not because the mass itself is awkward, but because the unit we chose as a kilogram is an arbitrarily given unit. Somebody just made a piece of metal and declared that to be a weight of one kilogram, and everything else was modelled after that. If we had chosen the mass of the electron as a basic unit instead, some small constants would probably make more sense. Same goes for other measuring units like a meter, celsius...

quote:

e: 2.71828182846. Good ole Euler's number. WTF were you smoking at the time, Euler? A transcendental number? Seriously. If I'm gonna have "constants" in my life, I'd rather it be a whole number interger like 1 or a perfect square like 81 or something. Sheesh!

Well, it might help you to know that e^(i*pi)+1=0

___________________
1+1=10

Heh. I was joking for the most part, but those are some good points. On the e equation--what does the "i" stand for again?

quote:

In systems with very large amounts of numbers, chance converges towards certainty. When you have an infinite amount of numbers, then chance is exactly equal to certainty.

OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance).

The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'.

Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained.

Hence the difference between probable and improbable.

Woops--forgot one.

Planck's constant, denoted h, is a physical constant that is used to describe the sizes of quanta. It plays a central role in the theory of quantum mechanics, and is named after Max Planck, one of the founders of quantum theory. It has a value of approximately

h=6.6260693(11)*10^{-34}J(s)

Just found a nice list of 'em Wikipedia is great

This stuff used to fascinate me!

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-23-2005 at 17:21

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider I didn't ask for convincing evidence and you certainly weren't compelled to provide it.

Well, yeah I kinda was - you gave an assertion that I know is false. I provide information demonstrated the fallacy of your assertion, because:

1. That's just the kinda guy I am - I like correct vs. incorrect information

2. This is a debate forum, last I checked.

So when someone states something I know to be false, and when they state it in a debate forum, call me crazy but I have this itching to correct them on it.

quote:

You need to learn to take it easy, MisterOpus1.

I don't know how us tree-huggin', pothead hippy liberals could take it any easier.

Seriously, the folks here know there's 2 issues that I'll continue to fight tooth and nail on:

1. Evolution

2. War in Iraq

I'm very opinionated on both.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance). The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'.

A Designer would achieve this if we only saw evidence of Him doing so. Why is there no observed, verifiable evidence of a Designer doing this?

quote:

Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained. Hence the difference between probable and improbable.

The probability numbers I've seen are a great deal magnitudes smaller. For example, one probability cited by both IDers and evolutionists is Axe et. al (2004), which utilizes the cassette mutagenesis technique and derives a probability between 10^53 and 10^77. Of course using cassette mutagenesis as a technique that Axe uses does not in any way resemble protein evolution in any way, (CM hits multiple binding sites at once, a process that even Axe readily admits does not in any way follow protein evolution). Axe was not trying to find evolutionary probability of binding sites, but unfortunately IDers love to twist it that way.

Regardless of the supposed high probability, keep in mind that these numbers of protein sequencing tend to examine protein evolution, once again, in a more linear fashion –i.e. one mutation on top of another. As I’ve mentioned previously, evolution certainly is not limited to a linear progression (though that’s not excluded). But what’s more, these type of probability numbers thrown around once again demonstrate little knowledge about protein sequencing and protein evolution as a whole. Proteins, or more specifically, amino acids show a great deal of plasticity in their sequencing. Research has demonstrated that proteins can lose somewhere between 70-80% of their sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function. Here’s one example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/b...astp&expect=300

Now granted, that is not necessarily a RANDOM amino acid change. For that, we’ll have to go to Guo et. al (2004) for that number, which they cite with empirical evidence that 34+-6% change in random amino acid sequencing can effectively eliminate a protein’s function (Guo HH et al., 2004. Protein tolerance to random amino acid change. PNAS 101(25):9205-10.). Still, that’s over 1/3 of the protein undergoing a RANDOM shuffling of its sequencing, and still retaining its functionality!

Li (1997) also outlines amino acid binding mutation and redundancy:

quote:

The emergence of a new function in a DNA or protein sequence is supposedly advantageous and is commonly believed to have occurred by advantageous mutations. However, acquiring a new function may require many mutational steps, and a point that needs emphasis is that the early steps might have been selectively neutral because the new function might not be manifested until a certain number of steps had already occurred. Li WH (1997) Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p.427

IOW, proteins can undergo a great deal of mutations and changes to their sequences, and not only retain their same function, but can withstand any possible new functionality as well. This is a critical feature of proteins.

Theobald also outlines this with supporting research:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

His examples on Cytochrome C are good as well.

You might also want to check out Musgrave:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000210.html
http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm

So taken these well-supported considerations about protein binding and protein evolution, those probability numbers turn out to be misleading and erroneous based on their incorrect assumptions.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Heh. I was joking for the most part, but those are some good points. On the e equation--what does the "i" stand for again?

The imaginary number, square root of -1. It's kinda interesting because the exponential function of an imaginary variable is a circle with a finite radius. If z=x+iy, then e^z has a radius e^x and the angle y. So if x is a fixed variable equal to 0, then e^(i*pi)=e^(0+i*pi)=(e^0)*(e^i*pi)=1*(cos(pi)+i*sin(pi))=1*(-1)+i*0=-1.

___________________
1+1=10