What would refute creationism?

Polymath257 said:

You also need to assume that the individual amino acids are independent as to whether they are right or left.

And, in practice, the assumption of equal probability AND the assumption of independence are BOTH wrong.

And that invalidates the whole calculation.

If the individual events are NOT independent, you cannot even estimate the end probability by a simple multiplication. The result of doing such can be many orders of magnitude off from the correct value.

Click to expand...

Bio-active DNA is a right handed helix while bio-active proteins are all left handed helices. This tells us that life is not about randomness, since spontaneous synthesis of protein, for example, will form equal amounts of left and right helices. Life has decrease the entropy; complexity, of all possible helices, by 50%. This adds an entropic potential, that helps with the bioactivity; push to complexity in other ways.

I am not sure why the Biosciences still do not get this. They keep assuming balanced dice; statistical assumptions, when Life has all its helical dice loaded to fall one way.

leroy said:

You don’t need to know the origin , all you need to know if the pattern has the characteristics that I mentioned earlier.

For example you need to know if

1 there are many roses (say a few hundred)

2 if all the roses are red

3 if white roses are equally likely than red roses

Note that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses………………..so please would you stop repeating the same mistake over and over again?

Click to expand...

And you would be wrong.

For example, suppose that red roses preferentially appear close to other red roses (whether by genetics or some other mechanism). Or suppose that a growing red rose makes it more likely that a nearby rose will turn on its red genetics. Then, the whole field can be of red roses simply because the first one was red.

You need to know that red and white roses are equally likely *in the context of the field of roses*.

Testing by taking randomly selected seeds and seeing what sort of rose arises would NOT be a good test.

In particular, you need to have detailed information about the mechanism of red vs white roses and how that mechanism works in the cases under consideration.

Additional knowledge could refute any of those 3 points. you dont need a naturalistic expalnation, all you need is refute any of those 3 points

For example maybe a deeper observation shows that there are only 3 roses, perhaps a closer look shows that there are also white flowers, perhaps it is genetically impossible (or very unlikely) for white roses to appear in that specific population etc

Click to expand...

Or maybe they are just as likely initially for any given field, but once the field is red or white, that color is consistent.

Or could also be the other way around perhaps something seems tobe“no-SC” but aditinal knowledge could makes us change the conclusion.

I honestly don’t understand why do you find this so hard to understand,

Click to expand...

because you leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion before enough information is found to justify any conclusion at all.

wellwisher said:

Bio-active DNA is a right handed helix while bio-active proteins are all left handed helices. This tells us that life is not about randomness, since spontaneous synthesis of protein, for example, will form equal amounts of left and right helices. Life has decrease the entropy; complexity, of all possible helices, by 50%. This adds an entropic potential, that helps with the bioactivity; push to complexity in other ways.

I am not sure why the Biosciences still do not get this. They keep assuming balanced dice; statistical assumptions, when Life has all its helical dice loaded to fall one way.

Click to expand...

Yes, living things, through their chemistry, produce amino acids of only one orientation.

That alone shows that there are mechanisms that do not produce equal amounts of left and right amino acids.

Dan From Smithville said:

I was just mimicking your technique. I haven't seen your present any sources like I did, unless you can show that "John Smith" is a real person that has shown that the math associated with the theory of evolution is flawed like that of Dembski. Can you do that? Can you show me?

You should know the names of the mathematicians that have shown Dembski's math to be flawed. You should know their work. Why you do not is a testament to how little you really know your subject.

Click to expand...

Nope I am done with you

Once again copying your debate tactics, (asking for the actual source, is enough to upset me,)

Dan From Smithville said:

You haven't done anything to refute the fact that Dembski's use of SC is an argument from ignorance. In fact, you continually reinforce that fact and then double down on your errors. Nothing you have provided smells like roses.

Click to expand...

well I even told you what positive knowledge do you need in order to show that somethign is SC

if this is not enough to refute your "argument from ignorance" claim, then what else can I do?

Dan From Smithville said:

That is hardly the same thing as the flawed math present in Dembski's failed concept of using SC to determine design.

You should be able to come up with a fairly good mathematical model for a walk from LA to New York or vice versa. Your flawed data or poor estimates are not the fault of the model, nor do they indicate it is flawed.

Click to expand...

The point is that even with my poor estimates, the conclusion is likely to be true, you cant walk from LA to NY in 1 say

Dan From Smithville said:

I know.

Since Dembski's SC requires that you know something is designed in order to use SC to show design, then why not use the thing that shows design leading up to SC and throw SC out completely.

The logic of Dembski's SC is an argument from ignorance. I understand that you can't accept that, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

Click to expand...

You made that up (in red letters)

The point is that if you don’t know the origin of something you can test and see if it is SC, if yes then you can infer design,



You remind to to Kent Hovind when he says “you have to know the age of the rock, before applying any dating methods”

leroy said:

The point is that if you don’t know the origin of something you can test and see if it is SC, if yes then you can infer design,

Click to expand...

You have not given us a valid test.
Every time you attempted it, it turned out to be "try finding a natural explanation" and if you can't, then you can assume design. That's not even a test to begin with.

You have no test FOR design. Neither do you have an argument FOR design.

All you have, is pointing to ignorance of a natural explanation coupled with "it's complex".

The same kind of argument of ignorance that can be found at the bottom of every "intelligent design" argument

TagliatelliMonster said:

/facepalm

The processes and mechanisms, explain the origins (or at least potential origins) of the thing.

Click to expand...

Ok so

1 First you don’t know anything about the origin

2 then you look at the pattern, the mechanisms, the natural it follows the enviroments etc.

3 then you can know something about it´s origin

Is this consistent with what you are suggesting?

If yes, why do you think there is something wrong with that?

Neither would inform you of the likelihood of only red roses in a certain area.
Why would your random sample be representative?

Click to expand...

welll there are ways to test for that

Why would the presence of genes coding for white exclude animals that eat all the white ones?

Click to expand...

They dont, but that is testable stuff, you can test for the existence of those animals

Another thing your nonsense again reveals, is the argument from ignorance.

Click to expand...

It´s not arguing from ignorance, it is just that one does the best one can with the information we have available, but you are correct new information could change previous conclutions,

“maybe animals eat the white flowers” maybe I am color blind and unable to see white roses, , maybe I am hallucinating and in reality no flowers excist, maybe maybe maybe

You can't find a natural explanation, so you will just assume design instead.

Click to expand...

no

You aren't presenting a positive case FOR design.
Instead, you are just pointing out ignorance of "why only red" and then assume design on that basis.
This is the problem with including "natural likelihood" in the list of criteria. Especially when it is the "make or break" point of the criteria.

Click to expand...

No that would not be a “argument form ignorance” one calculates “natural likely hood” based on the positive information that one has

So basically (and using your words)

1 I observe a pattern

2 consider the natural likely hood based on the information that we have to date


3 if the liklyhood is too low, I would conclude design

4 if future information comes in, I might change my conclusions

Do you see anything wrong with that?.

TagliatelliMonster said:

You have not given us a valid test.
Every time you attempted it, it turned out to be "try finding a natural explanation" and if you can't, then you can assume design. That's not even a test to begin with.

You have no test FOR design. Neither do you have an argument FOR design.

All you have, is pointing to ignorance of a natural explanation coupled with "it's complex".

The same kind of argument of ignorance that can be found at the bottom of every "intelligent design" argument

Click to expand...

I think I found your mistake.

1 No I will not infer design if I can’t find a natural explanation,

2 I would infer design, only if I have good positive reasons to conclude that natural explanations are unlikely to be true…

wellwisher said:

Bio-active DNA is a right handed helix while bio-active proteins are all left handed helices. This tells us that life is not about randomness, since spontaneous synthesis of protein, for example, will form equal amounts of left and right helices. Life has decrease the entropy; complexity, of all possible helices, by 50%. This adds an entropic potential, that helps with the bioactivity; push to complexity in other ways.

I am not sure why the Biosciences still do not get this. They keep assuming balanced dice; statistical assumptions, when Life has all its helical dice loaded to fall one way.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is DNA that is a left handed spiral and is biologically active: look up Z-DNA.

wellwisher said:

Bio-active DNA is a right handed helix while bio-active proteins are all left handed helices. This tells us that life is not about randomness, since spontaneous synthesis of protein, for example, will form equal amounts of left and right helices. Life has decrease the entropy; complexity, of all possible helices, by 50%. This adds an entropic potential, that helps with the bioactivity; push to complexity in other ways.

I am not sure why the Biosciences still do not get this. They keep assuming balanced dice; statistical assumptions, when Life has all its helical dice loaded to fall one way.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Even if you are correct about the direction of the DNA helix you appear to be conflating the handedness of the helix with the handedness of the amino acids that it is made up of. Left handed nucleotides can only make left handed nucleotides. The problem of chirality applies to abiogenesis and not evolution. And the discussion here is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

leroy said:

I think I found your mistake.

1 No I will not infer design if I can’t find a natural explanation,

2 I would infer design, only if I have good positive reasons to conclude that natural explanations are unlikely to be true…

Click to expand...

You in effect contradicted yourself. You have never found "good positive reasons". That makes your arguments mere arguments from ignorance.

leroy said:

The point is that even with my poor estimates, the conclusion is likely to be true, you cant walk from LA to NY in 1 say

Click to expand...

Are you still trying to use your bogus red and white flower argument? Analogies have to have some basIs in fact. That argument has nothing to do with what is observed in nature.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Again, all you are doing is presenting a negative case against natural origins.
You aren't presenting a positive case FOR design.
The result of this is.... yep: an argument from ignorance.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend the difference.

Click to expand...

That is not how arguments form ignorance are defined

I am presenting a case based on premises that can be objectively tested , if this is not good enough for you then I don’t know what else to do

Subduction Zone said:

You in effect contradicted yourself. You have never found "good positive reasons". That makes your arguments mere arguments from ignorance.

Click to expand...

Well at least I had the courtesy of quoting his alleged mistake and explain why I think he is wrong,

I didn’t simply asserted without justification that there are no good reasons to accept his arguments

leroy said:

Well at least I had the courtesy of quoting his alleged mistake and explain why I think he is wrong,

I didn’t simply asserted without justification that there are no good reasons to accept his arguments

Click to expand...

How can I quote that which did not exist? You have been all over the place and you never supported your claims.

Why didn't you give just one bit of positive evidence that supports you?

Polymath257 said:

While that is true in general, it does require some knowledge of the correlations between different events. Without such, even a ball park figure on the end probability is impossible.

For example, suppose that you ask for a string of 50 symbols, each with 90 possibilities. Assuming independence, the end probability of a correct match would be one in 90^50, which is vanishingly small.

If you did such a random selection 50,000 times, the end probability of getting a match would still be vanishingly small.

But, suppose instead that you randomly select a string then produce 100 children by randomly selecting a symbol and randomly changing it. Then you pick the child that is closest to the target string. Let that child produce 100 randomly generated children in the same way.

Now, ask yourself what the probability of getting a match for the target string is after 500 generations (still 50,000 trials, notice).

The end probability now is almost 1.

So, no, you cannot even estimate the probability accurately unless you have the correct formulation (or something quite close to it). You cannot even know if the probability is small if you calculate it in the wrong way.

Click to expand...

Yea, I agree, but just for your information I was trying to respond to the objection on that Demakis math are not sound (as was explained in a source earlier in this thread)

If you want to argue that Demksly is completely wrong, then that would be a an other objection that needs to be justified.

Subduction Zone said:

How can I quote that which did not exist? You have been all over the place and you never supported your claims.

Why didn't you give just one bit of positive evidence that supports you?

Click to expand...

What you are expected to do is to quote my arguments and explain why you think are wrong (or not well supported)

leroy said:

Yea, I agree, but just for your information I was trying to respond to the objection on that Demakis math are not sound (as was explained in a source earlier in this thread)

If you want to argue that Demksly is completely wrong, then that would be a an other objection that needs to be justified.

Click to expand...

So the math that Dembski's entire concept rests upon is unsound, and you don't see how that's enough of an objection to question his entire concept? Is that right?