>FMAJ: Can you provide us with the steps involved in the evolution of an
intelligently designed system?
>DNAunion: Sure, but I suppose you mean a biolgoical IC system specifically.
I can provide you with great detail - or point you to where there is great
detail - of practically every step in the design and creation of a novel
protein: that is step-be-step intelligent design of biological
macromolecules. If you are interested, there is (or at least was) a journal
called "Protein Engineering": it you can't find that, just do searches at
www.ScienceMag.org or BMN (biomednet) etc.
>FMAJ: Looking forward to some calculations
DNAunion: Don't need calculations when the researchers themselves explain
every step in their design of a novel protein! I already gave you some
general references above, and a specific reference to a Science article in
another post. Do some research yourself for once. If I am going to do your
work and teach you, I expect to be paid in some manner.
>FMAJ: Evolution is harldy that poorly defined.
>DNAunion: So provide for us the single, accurate, and universally-accepted
definition of evolution.
>FMAJ: Species are somewhat arbitrarily defined but that does not make these
terms useless. They have very distinct definitions in various areas.
>DNAunion: So does intelligence. What's your point?
>FMAJ: One has to avoid equivocation. That this can happen with terms like
evolution only strengthen my warnings.
DNAunion: But you said earlier that "evolution is hardly that poorly
defined". Here you seem to accept my statement that it is, in the sense that
there is no single, accurate, universally-accepted definition of evolution.
Whaz up wi' dat?
>FMAJ: Does ID include natural selection as an intelligent designer as
follows from the thesis?
>DNAunion: As far as I know, that conclusion is Elsberry's only (with people
like you just parroting it over and over ad nauseum): that conclusion has not
been stated by Dembski and/or Behe, and it goes against Darwin's definition
of NATURAL selection (if there truly is INTELLIGENCE and DESIGN involved).
>FMAJ: Of course not. Wesley's conclusion shows that there are some real
problems with ID. That Dembski and Behe have not reached that conclusion is
irrelevant.
DNAunion: Of course it is relevant. Why? Because you need to begin
labeling anti-ID conclusions and anti-ID statements as just that, and not as
ID conclusions or statements. If you are quoting and referencing Elseberry,
then it is he whose position you are stating, not Behe's and Dembski's: do
you understand that yet?
>FMAJ: Wesley's conclusions stand or fall on their own merrit.
DNAunion: Of course - but his conclusions are not necessarily 100%
compatible with the statements of Dembski and Behe, especially since
Elseberry reaches conclusions that Behe and Dembski do not. That is why you
need to start attributing your material correctly.
…
> DNAunion: By the way, Darwin stated the term SPECIES was "wishy washy"
(i.e., disputable). So shouldn't his theory of the origin of SPECIES - note
the word - have been discarded immediately?
>FMAJ: Non sequitor.
>DNAunion: Yes, Mr. Stuck Record.
>FMAJ: But just out of curiosity, what did Darwin say and where?
>DNAunion: Find it yourself!
>FMAJ:So not only a non sequitur but also an unsupported assertion.
DNAunion: No, you're just too damned lazy to read Darwin's book yourself. I
suggest you do so as you seem not to know a thing he said in it (and you keep
asking me to teach you for free).
>DNAunion: You asked me elsewhere to support what I said Darwin said about
natural selection, I took 15 minutes or so finding the passage in the book
where he discussed it, then another 10 or so typing and correcting typos in
my text: and what did you do? Clipped it out, replaced it with something
like [irrelevant] (or was it your new catch phrase, "non sequitor"?). What I
said about Darwin's statements (that the term species is ill-defined) is
correct - it is in his book: you go find it.
>FFMAJ: Avoidance duely noted.
DNAunion: Your laziness, ignorance, and acceptance of your level of
ignorance are duly noted.
>FMAJ: Two unsupported assertions now.
DNAunion: Nope, facts that I refuse to do your homework for, as you have
already proven yourself to be an "unappreciative" person (I already went to
some lengths to support one of my statements for you, and you spent two to
misclassify it as irrelevant, when it dealt directly with the topic at hand).
Whether I support my statements or not is immaterial to whether or not they
are facts - they are. If you want to reduce your level of ignorance, go buy
the book and read it. Or, send me a "pay to the bearer" instrument for $20
and I will be glad to spend the time looking up the material that supports my
last statement. So which is it: are you too lazy to learn or to cheap to
expand your knowledge?
>FMAJ: The steps needed to build a web are determined by strict rules and
details that are followed. Such rules are also well captured in algorithms.
Simple algorithms can generate some quite intricate "designs".
For instance
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm
"The Fibonacci series is a sequence of numbers where each number is the sum
of the two previous numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... It is called after the
thirteenth-century Florentine mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci who first
defined it. A surprising fact is that the Fibonacci series can be found in
the arrangement of leaves on the stem of higher plants. In the great majority
of plants with spiral arrangement, the arrangement conforms to Fibonacci
numbers [6]. Now this looks a perfect case of design [10]. Is it indeed a
case of design according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter? Is it a contingent
system? "
>DNAunion: Where are the probability calculations? He is referencing
Dembski's EF right? For example, how long is the Fibonacci sequence followed
in the arrangement of leaves - 1, 1, 2, 3 or is it 1, 1, 2, 3, 5 or does it
go on for a total of 100 or 1000 numbers in the sequence? What is the
probability of that sequence arising by purely random chance? Is there any
REASON that the sequence MUST occur - are there vast many other "live"
options that are excluded?
>FMAJ: Do you understand the meaning of the question mark? How would one go
about deriving probabilities? How is Dembski's EF applied outside the realm
of some very simple examples?
DNAunion: Okay, so you were just posturing, full of hot air, and making no
point when you said "Simple algorithms can generate some quite intricate
"designs"" and then presented the quote to back it up. I understand now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 03:12:02 EDT