Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 08-04-2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Athanasius:
2. It has yet to demonstrate that design by natural processes is capable of producing an increase in information.

I disagree - two examples:

1) What about new information from gene duplications caused by unequal crossover of chromosomes during meiosis?

If I have a King James Bible, and someone gives me a NIV (similar but not the same--it became "mutated" from the KJV version, at least according to most Baptists

), surely I have more information now don't I?

Many genes, such as the one for <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=229561 9&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">globins</a>, are thought to have arisen in this process.

2) What about new information caused by a new gene expression order, caused by altering the promotor sequences in the genome?

If I read to you the story of Hamlet, it imparts a certain meaning to you (information), correct? How about now if I read you the acts of Hamlet in a different order? This time, Ophelia dies, then Hamlet and ophelia have a converation. Same "words" but when read in a different order, completey changes the meaning of the story.

Similar to body plans - if re-arrangement of the information creates a different type of organism that did not exist before, then isn't the new body plan "new" information by default?

I think gene duplication, and gene expression, are two genetic phenomenon that substantially weaken ID theory - since we can observe both phenomenon in nature without the (apparent) intervention of a designer.

If you look at two highly related organisms, it will look as if there is no "new" information, just a tiny variation of the "old" information. Well, yeah, of course. Exactly in line with evolutionary theory. Nature does not have to produce 5000 brand spanking new genes to produce a new organism. That is - she doesn't have to follow copyright laws.

scigirl

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

scigirl · 08-04-2002, 10:18 AM

I'm bumping up a couple threads on the myth that "mutations do not produce new info," so we don't sound too much like a broken record.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000847" target="_blank">mutations adding information</a>,

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000472&p=" target="_blank">Increasing Information Content</a>,

and

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001007&p=" target="_blank">"Information"? </a>.

Happy reading!

ps418 · 08-04-2002, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Athanasius: If ID is true, then we would expect to observe an overall decrease in the complexity of biological systems over time. And that is exactly what we see.

Quote:

PS418: Could you briefly explain how you derive this 'prediction' from the hypothesis of ID? Why do you say that ID 'predicts' an increase rather than constancy of or a decrease in the complexity of biological systems over time? Because you say so? It seems to me that all three options [increase, decrease, constancy] are fully consistent with ID. Again, how do you decide between these competing hypotheses?

Quote:

Athanasius: Good point, all three could be, depending on the capabilities and purposes of the Intelligent Designer. Hypothetically, an Intelligent Designer of sufficient or unlimited intelligence could design any of these three. His choice would depend upon His objectives.

Now, how do we go about discovering the will of the (supernatural) designer with regard to whether or not It prefers an increase in complexity of biological systems over time? Your 'prediction' assumes that the designer Willed a decrease in the complexity of biological systems over time. How can I verify this for myself, without just taking your word for it? And how would one objectively resolve competing assertions regarding the "will of the designer"?

Patrick

ps418 · 08-04-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Athanasius: But we are examining ID and macroevolution as competing hypotheses.

EDIT 2: Opps. Apparently you already acknowledged that macroevolution and ID are not necessarily "competing" hypotheses (e.g. macroevolution by design).

I dont know if they are necessarily competing, in that both could be true. Macroevolution need not be thought of as occurring solely by natural (or non-design) processes. For instance, macroevolution could be accomplished via small but critical design changes in the DNA (additions, deletions, and so on). Instead of 'poofing' each higher taxon into existence ex nihilo, the designer could simply interven to make critical changes in existing lineages over geologic time. Thus, one could subscribe to common descent, acknowledge the role of natural processes, and yet still argue for ID.

Patrick

EDIT: Added the words "non-design."

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

scigirl · 08-04-2002, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Athanasius:
Hypothetically, an Intelligent Designer of sufficient or unlimited intelligence could design any of these three. His choice would depend upon His objectives.

Or Her objectives (we must be P.C. about these non-existent deities!

)

Seriously though, how on earth can we objectively answer the question, "what is the designer's motives or objectives?"

Quote:

Even with mechanisms for preserving constancy, over time, a copy of a copy of a copy is likely to lose information. That is what ID uncombined with macroevolution would predict, and that is exactly what we observe in nature.

Is this what we observe in nature?

scigirl

Athanasius · 08-04-2002, 11:01 AM

I've got to stay away from here! I have too much work to do! I really should clarify that what I am talking about is an increase in meaningful information, as opposed to "static."

Scigirl, if I change "He hit the dog" to "He hit the cog," it is true that I have new meaningful information. But is there an increase in complexity or order? No. The information gained is at the expense of other information lost. Perhaps new information can be added through retroviral integration events and other forms of transfer. But collectively, you still have to account for how the information arose in the first place. I am willing to acknowledge that in some very rare instances very tiny increases in information may conceivably occur, but overall I don't see how it could overcome the cumulative effect of all of the noise and static that inevitably creeps in. These rare instances would be overwhelmed by the cumulative effect of the noise. when all is done, you are still left with a net loss of meaningful information!

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ]

Principia · 08-04-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Scigirl, if I change "He hit the dog" to "He hit the cog," it is true that I have new meaningful information. But is there an increase in complexity or order? No. The information gained is at the expense of other information lost. Perhaps new information can be added through retroviral integration events and other forms of transfer. But collectively, you still have to account for how the information arose in the first place. I am willing to acknowledge that in some very rare instances very tiny increases in information may conceivably occur, but overall I don't see how it could overcome the cumulative effect of all of the noise and static that inevitably creeps in. These rare instances would be overwhelmed by the cumulative effect of the noise. when all is done, you are still left with a net loss of meaningful information!

*sigh*

Well, there goes all my hopes of hearing an original argument.

ps418 · 08-04-2002, 11:20 AM

Let's try this. Suppose an ID critic claims:

Quote:

I predict that, if ID were true, genetic replication would be perfect, every time, in every organism, or at least mutation would be so rare and occur at such a stupendously slow rate that it would be effectively nonexistent.

This hypothetical 'prediction' is based on the assumptions that imperfect replication (mutations) of the design causes net suffering, that the designer wishes to avoid the net suffering, and that the designer is omnipotent and thus quite capable of making the 'technology.'

I am not asserting that this prediciton is valid. I have no reason to believe it is. But can someone show me how to tell whether it is invalid, and why?

Patrick

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Starboy · 08-04-2002, 12:10 PM

Athanasius,

Thank you for your very brief acknowledgment of my posts. Could you answer a few questions for me so that I could better understand your use of the words truth, real, natural and universe?

Is the universe natural? Is it real?
Is the exo-universe natural? Is it real?
Is there a difference between what is real and what is natural?
Are humans natural?
Are the creations of humans, such as dams, natural?
Is there a difference between what is created and what is natural?
Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe naturally? If so could they be detected?
Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe exo-naturally? If so could they be detected?
Could humans in principle understand how anything works in the exo-universe?
What is the difference between the exo-universe and the unknown?
Is 1+1 = 2 real?
Is 1+1 = 2 truth?
Is 1+1 = 2 natural?
If a scientific theory predicts something does that make it real? Does that make it natural? Does that make it true?
Does the truth change over time?

I would appreciate short and to the point answers, and since you do not have much time that should make it easy on you. This may seem like twenty questions, but so much of what we think is buried in the words we use and how we use them.

Starboy

Athanasius · 08-04-2002, 01:59 PM

Hi Starboy,

This is just the way that I personally define and use these words.

By real, I mean those things which actually exist, have existed or will exist.

I define the natural as every real thing in this universe. These can hypothetically all be observed, sensed, detected or inferred (like dark matter), but we may not have yet done so.

The exo-univeral is a term I coined to describe those things which are real but outside of, or independent of this universe. It includes the other universes postulated by modern theories, if they exist. It also includes an exo-Universal Intelligent Designer, if He exists. Since, apart from the exo-universal somehow making itself known, we cannot detect it, we are left with having to look for clues of it's existence and structure in the natural realm.

The word supernatural, as I use it, includes both things which are real and exo-universal, and things that are unreal and imagined.

To answer your questions as I define these words:

Is the universe natural?
Yes.
Is it real?
Yes.
Is the exo-universe natural?
No.
Is it real?
Yes.
Is there a difference between what is real and what is natural?
The natural is real, but it is a subset of the real.
Are humans natural? Yes, and perhaps exo-natural as well if the common concept of "spirit" is accurate.
Are the creations of humans, such as dams, natural?
Yes, in the sense in which I am speaking. Not, of course, in common usage.
Is there a difference between what is created and what is natural?
Not within the natural realm. Outside of it, perhaps.
Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe naturally?
I don't know.
If so could they be detected?
The natural result of them could be detected, but the only way to ascertain that an exo-universal agent had been at work would be to discover a "footprint" of evidence indicating this, and deem natural causes unlikely.
Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe exo-naturally? If so could they be detected?
Please see the replies just above.
Could humans in principle understand how anything works in the exo-universe?
Yes, if observational evidence leaves us indications of it.

What is the difference between the exo-universe and the unknown?
This would in principle be similar to the difference between the natural which we have not yet observed or detected and the unknown.

Is 1+1 = 2 real?
Well, these are real, rational numbers. However, we may use these symbols to conceive of things real and imagined.
Is 1+1 = 2 truth?
In math, yes, when we are dealing with equal and simple units, if we consider truth to be accurate reasoning.
Is 1+1 = 2 natural? Well, these are natural numbers. But they can be used to symbolically represent things that are both natural , exo-universal, and imagined.

If a scientific theory predicts something does that make it real?
Not necessarily, but the theory may be in accord with reality.
Does that make it natural?
That depends on whether or not the theory involves the exo-universal.
Does that make it true?
Again, that depends on whether or not the theory matches reality.

Does the truth change over time? If we define truth as an accurate description of reality or accurate reasoning based on it, then truth could change only if reality changes. Truth is, however, unchangeable in that it is always by definition accurate.

I hope this helps you to understand what I have been saying. If, from our observations, we can infer, perhaps accurately, the existence of natural things that we cannot directly observe (such as black holes and dark matter) then we may also infer, perhaps accurately, of exo-universal things.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ]

08-04-2002, 11:01 AM	#66
Athanasius Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lilburn, GA Posts: 18	I've got to stay away from here! I have too much work to do! I really should clarify that what I am talking about is an increase in meaningful information, as opposed to "static." Scigirl, if I change "He hit the dog" to "He hit the cog," it is true that I have new meaningful information. But is there an increase in complexity or order? No. The information gained is at the expense of other information lost. Perhaps new information can be added through retroviral integration events and other forms of transfer. But collectively, you still have to account for how the information arose in the first place. I am willing to acknowledge that in some very rare instances very tiny increases in information may conceivably occur, but overall I don't see how it could overcome the cumulative effect of all of the noise and static that inevitably creeps in. These rare instances would be overwhelmed by the cumulative effect of the noise. when all is done, you are still left with a net loss of meaningful information! [ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ]</p>

08-04-2002, 01:59 PM	#70
Athanasius Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lilburn, GA Posts: 18	Hi Starboy, This is just the way that I personally define and use these words. By real, I mean those things which actually exist, have existed or will exist. I define the natural as every real thing in this universe. These can hypothetically all be observed, sensed, detected or inferred (like dark matter), but we may not have yet done so. The exo-univeral is a term I coined to describe those things which are real but outside of, or independent of this universe. It includes the other universes postulated by modern theories, if they exist. It also includes an exo-Universal Intelligent Designer, if He exists. Since, apart from the exo-universal somehow making itself known, we cannot detect it, we are left with having to look for clues of it's existence and structure in the natural realm. The word supernatural, as I use it, includes both things which are real and exo-universal, and things that are unreal and imagined. To answer your questions as I define these words: Is the universe natural? Yes. Is it real? Yes. Is the exo-universe natural? No. Is it real? Yes. Is there a difference between what is real and what is natural? The natural is real, but it is a subset of the real. Are humans natural? Yes, and perhaps exo-natural as well if the common concept of "spirit" is accurate. Are the creations of humans, such as dams, natural? Yes, in the sense in which I am speaking. Not, of course, in common usage. Is there a difference between what is created and what is natural? Not within the natural realm. Outside of it, perhaps. Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe naturally? I don't know. If so could they be detected? The natural result of them could be detected, but the only way to ascertain that an exo-universal agent had been at work would be to discover a "footprint" of evidence indicating this, and deem natural causes unlikely. Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe exo-naturally? If so could they be detected? Please see the replies just above. Could humans in principle understand how anything works in the exo-universe? Yes, if observational evidence leaves us indications of it. What is the difference between the exo-universe and the unknown? This would in principle be similar to the difference between the natural which we have not yet observed or detected and the unknown. Is 1+1 = 2 real? Well, these are real, rational numbers. However, we may use these symbols to conceive of things real and imagined. Is 1+1 = 2 truth? In math, yes, when we are dealing with equal and simple units, if we consider truth to be accurate reasoning. Is 1+1 = 2 natural? Well, these are natural numbers. But they can be used to symbolically represent things that are both natural , exo-universal, and imagined. If a scientific theory predicts something does that make it real? Not necessarily, but the theory may be in accord with reality. Does that make it natural? That depends on whether or not the theory involves the exo-universal. Does that make it true? Again, that depends on whether or not the theory matches reality. Does the truth change over time? If we define truth as an accurate description of reality or accurate reasoning based on it, then truth could change only if reality changes. Truth is, however, unchangeable in that it is always by definition accurate. I hope this helps you to understand what I have been saying. If, from our observations, we can infer, perhaps accurately, the existence of natural things that we cannot directly observe (such as black holes and dark matter) then we may also infer, perhaps accurately, of exo-universal things. [ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ] [ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Athanasius ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2002, 10:18 AM	#62
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	I'm bumping up a couple threads on the myth that "mutations do not produce new info," so we don't sound too much like a broken record. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000847" target="_blank">mutations adding information</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000472&p=" target="_blank">Increasing Information Content</a>, and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001007&p=" target="_blank">"Information"? </a>. Happy reading!

08-04-2002, 12:10 PM	#69
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Athanasius, Thank you for your very brief acknowledgment of my posts. Could you answer a few questions for me so that I could better understand your use of the words truth, real, natural and universe? Is the universe natural? Is it real? Is the exo-universe natural? Is it real? Is there a difference between what is real and what is natural? Are humans natural? Are the creations of humans, such as dams, natural? Is there a difference between what is created and what is natural? Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe naturally? If so could they be detected? Does the ID make changes to the design of the universe exo-naturally? If so could they be detected? Could humans in principle understand how anything works in the exo-universe? What is the difference between the exo-universe and the unknown? Is 1+1 = 2 real? Is 1+1 = 2 truth? Is 1+1 = 2 natural? If a scientific theory predicts something does that make it real? Does that make it natural? Does that make it true? Does the truth change over time? I would appreciate short and to the point answers, and since you do not have much time that should make it easy on you. This may seem like twenty questions, but so much of what we think is buried in the words we use and how we use them. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.