Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Why do i even debate you guys 🙁
I've posted my theories and you can't do the same?
Your theory is not up to date with current information. Chaos theory blows it out of the water. I feel sorry that you spent so much time on it, but like Kepler, you can turn defeat into victory.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your theory is not up to date with current information. Chaos theory blows it out of the water. I feel sorry that you spent so much time on it, but like Kepler, you can turn defeat into victory.
Yet, when I ask you to elaborate the flaws in my theory, you don't respond. Try E-L-A-B-O-R-T-I-N-G in detail.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Yet, when I ask you to elaborate the flaws in my theory, you don't respond. Try E-L-A-B-O-R-T-I-N-G.
I can't elaborate on a premise that is incorrect.
You claim there is a design therefore that proves there is a designer. That is an incorrect assumption. Chaos Theory shows how disorder can create order, or design.
You claim that a system can only gain high order if a higher order is added. This premise is true, but you have applied it incorrectly. Chaos theory shows that we do not know the order of a complex system.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't elaborate on a premise that is incorrect.You claim there is a design therefore that proves there is a designer. That is an incorrect assumption. Chaos Theory shows how disorder can create order, or design.
You claim that a system can only gain high order if a higher order is added. This premise is true, but you have applied it incorrectly. Chaos theory shows that we do not know the order of a complex system.
Can you post the theory, instead of just a link.Why can't you elaborate if you say it's wrong I would like to know at least why?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Can you post the theory, instead of just a link.Why can't you elaborate if you say it's wrong I would like to know at least why?
Chaos theory is very long and complicated. There are parts of the theory that go why over my head. I do not want to post the internet on this forum, because it would just waist other people’s time. I also have heard, although I don’t know for sure, that the mods would not take kindly to me just cutting and pasting from the internet. Why will you not go read it?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Chaos theory is very long and complicated. There are parts of the theory that go why over my head. I do not want to post the internet on this forum, because it would just waist other people’s time. I also have heard, although I don’t know for sure, that the mods would not take kindly to me just cutting and pasting from the internet. Why will you not go read it?
Alot of times when I read links they lack relevance to the topic , I read a little on the chaos theory but it doesn't seem to apply to biological systems (Though I could be wrong)
Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:
i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
CSI
Simply put, complex specified information is information that is both complex and specified, such that it is highly improbable and specific. The complexity of the information associated with event A is related to the number of bits I(A) associated with probability P(A) of a given event occurring such that I(A) = -log2 P(A). The result is the the more complex information is the more improbable it is.
One common example of complex specified information are credit card numbers. Credit card numbers have 16 digests for a total of 1016 possible combinations. Now there are about 7 X 109 people in the world, if everyone had 10 credit cards that would be 7 X 1010 active numbers. So probability of hitting an active number is P = 7 X 1010/ 1016 = 7 X 10-6 with I = 17.124 bits. However the odds of getting a given individuals credit card numbers would be P = 10/1016 = 10-15 with I = 49.83 bits. So individual credit card numbers qualify as complex information, but the fact that each number is associated with a unique individual makes it complex specified information.
The best example of complex specified information is DNA. The DNA of each organism on Earth is unique, because of mutations and other factors, making it the most specified form of information known. The human genome contain more than 30,000 genes, at an estimated 3,000 base pairs per gene for a minimum of 90,000,000 base pairs or 90,000,000 base 4 bits. This results is 490,000,000 or 1054,185,399 possible combinations the overwhelming majority of with are not viable. So the odds of hitting any individuals DNA by chance is P = 10-54,185,399 with I = 179,999,999 bits. So DNA is both incredibly complex and specific.
Now lets see what this means for a chance origin of life. First of all we need to estimate the number of planets where the conditions are right for life to get started. In this process will try to be has generous as possible.
There are an estimated 1011 stars in an average galaxy and an estimated 1011 for a total of 1022 stars.
Current evidence indicates that about 1/2 of all stars have planets resulting in 5 X 1021 planetary systems
Current evidence indicates that about 90% of planetary systems have gas giants in orbits that eliminate the possibility of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of the star, so the maximum number of planetary systems with terrestrial planets is 5 X 1020.
Let be generous and assume that 10% of these system actually have terrestrial planets in the habitable zone with an average of 2 per system resulting in 1020 terrestrial planets in habitable zones.
Let be generous again and assume that 10% of these planets have ideal conditions for life to form, this results in 1019 potentially habitable planets.
Now based on the average estimated time that a star is on main sequence of 1010 years which is 3.156 X 1017 seconds and assuming one trials every nanosecond ( a extremely generous assumption) that comes 3.156 X 1026 per planet for a total of 3.156 X 1045 trials.Now let us make another extremely generous assumption, that each trial is fully functional except for needing encoding all of the 124 proteins that even the simplest living organisms need to live or it dies and the process has to starts from scratch. Given the fact that these proteins have an average of 400 sequences amino acids. Since there are 124 of these proteins it requires a total of 49,600 sequences amino acids requiring 148,800 base pairs or 148,800 base 4 bits each. This produces 4148,800 or 3.36 X 1089586 possibilities. It needs to be noted that this is taking the simplest possible case as such reality would be a far bigger problem.
Assuming that the 124 proteins can be in any order there are 124! = 5.4 X 10205 possible successful combinations. So the odds of a successful trial is P = 5.4 X 10205/ 3.36 X 1089,586 = 1.6 X 10-89381. Given a total of 3.156 X 1045 trials for the entire universe the the odds of getting a successful trial is P = 1.6 X 10-89381 X 3.156 X 1045 = 3 X 10-89336. There is a technical term in probability used to describe events with such small probabilities and that term is impossible. So it is statistically impossible to get proteins needed by even the simplest of living organisms.
The result is that information in DNA is so complex and specified that even making the most reasonable assumptions, it is impossible for the information in DNA to come about by chance.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Alot of times when I read links they lack relevance to the topic , I read a little on the chaos theory but it doesn't seem to apply to biological systems (Though I could be wrong)
Chaos applies to any complex system, and I think biology is a complex system. Read other links, not just the one I gave, it might be bad, I only looked at it briefly. Look into Chaos theory and try to understand it, maybe I'm wrong.
The result is that information in DNA is so complex and specified that even making the most reasonable assumptions, it is impossible for the information in DNA to come about by chance.
Nothing is imposable, given enough time.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method
Criticisms of Complex Specified InformationThe soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed.
A frequent criticism is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity," "information," and "improbability" interchangeably.
These numbers measure properties of things of different types:
[list][*]Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object.
[*]Information measures how random a probability distribution is.
[*]Improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.[/list]
When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false.
Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity."
Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch, he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically:
"In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information."
Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 10 to the power of 65.
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function, e.g. "y = x?" cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI.
However, natural selection has branching mapping from one to many, i.e. replication, followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few, i.e. selection.
These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death.
This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.
According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."
Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create.
Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus.
They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do.
Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability," but not absolute certainty.
Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.
Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."
Critics also note that there is much redundant information in the genome, which makes its content much lower than the number of base pairs used.
Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall claimed to have demonstrated that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.
Originally posted by Blue nocturnehomolgy=evolution? 🤨
And you proved my point, you don't understand the theory your defending.
Originally posted by Blue nocturnesimilarities ≠ common design. There are millions of other explanations as to why things are similar, if you were looking at it scientifically, you should already know atleast a few other explanations. I even told you one. But... the golden ratio doesn't even make sense or has anything to do with anything. And why didn't you mention this before?
The golden ratio is supposed to be proof of a common design, not a designer.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneSo you're saying I can't be better than my parents in anyway? And that the mutations that happened didn't really make me different to them, mutations don't do that, there is no proof of that happening, the only thing that makes me different to my parents is 'genetic variation' even though, you said so yourself, a while back, 'dominent genes' don't happen. Just how can all this be false? If all this is false, why are offspring so different? Don't you understand anything?
The article, is trying to point out that a system with less order can not produce one with more order then itself.Read it before you just nitpick.
They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do.
Two people sharing the same finger prints.
'intelligent agents'? What are 'intelligent agents'?
i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents
act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex),unlikelity≠complexity 😐
and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.not always.
you can't compare life to non-life in ways of complexity and design. It just doesn't work. You just said if something is complex, like a 'man-made machine', it must have been designed. So the hypothesis of ID is 'complexity=ID' not very scientific at all.
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.
'test'? How can you test for complexity? Do you have use 'complexity meter'?
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists.
When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified,you say 'specified'. That means you have mentioned these and stated them. By saying "which are specified", you should be refering to the ones you have mentioned/are going to mention. Which you have not. How can we trust your science when you don't know what words mean?
because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts.this sentence makes no sense. You need to understand how to use commas and full stops.
These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function.I like how you try to explain mutations 😆 each time was different. It's sad really.
Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution."Darwinian evolution"? It's just called "evolution". And evolution doesn't say "complexity happens from small steps on the way." It might seem like that in a nutshell, but evolution is a lot more complex, and why is it so hard to believe that things can happen through small steps along the way?
"Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.so if I change the design of a car, it doesn't work? If society changes, WHICH IT HAS, it'll fall apart? 🤨 what you're saying is "something can't change, because if it did, it would cease to exist." Change happens all the ****ing time you moron. 😠 now look, I used the mad smilie to show you how angry I am at your stupidity.
design in something doesn't prove it was designed by one designer. And what's with this "no other explanation"? Were you born yesterday?iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
[continued on next post]
CSI
and how is it specified? Something being specific, doesn't make it specified. To specify something is where YOU are being specific. So if the information is specified, you are the one, specifying it. Specifying something is not where something is specific, the only thing that is specific, is the specifier.
Simply put, complex specified information is information that is both complex and specified,
such that it is highly improbable and specific.does not compute. Your first sentence (not this part of the quote but the sentence in general, doesn't make sense.
The complexity of the information associated with event Aand what is "event A?
is related to the number of bits I(A) associated with probability P(A) of a given event occurring such that I(A) = -log2 P(A).??? you're explanation doesn't make sense. And I'm sure other people will back me up on that.
The result is the the more complex information is the more improbable it is.does not compute.
7*109=763≠6,000,000,000.109*10=1090≠1010. Your math skills are funnier than your english skills 😆
One common example of complex specified information are credit card numbers. Credit card numbers have 16 digests for a total of 1016 possible combinations. Now there are about 7 X 109 people in the world, if everyone had 10 credit cards that would be 7 X 1010 active numbers.
So probability of hitting an active number is P = 7 X 1010/ 1016 = 7 X 10-6 with I = 17.124 bits. However the odds of getting a given individuals credit card numbers would be P = 10/1016 = 10-15 with I = 49.83 bits. So individual credit card numbers qualify as complex information, but the fact that each number is associated with a unique individual makes it complex specified information.🤨 explain. What are P and I?
ofcourse. 🙄 just like they all say.
The best example of complex specified information is DNA.
The DNA of each organism on Earth is unique,and how can this be true without evolution?
because of mutations and other factors,you said they can't happen. See above. 🙄
making it the most specified form of information known. The human genome contain more than 30,000 genes, at an estimated 3,000 base pairs per gene for a minimum of 90,000,000 base pairs or 90,000,000 base 4 bits. This results is 490,000,000 or 1054,185,399 possible combinations the overwhelming majority of with are not viable.🤨 here's a real explanation of genes. And here's the real figure, if that's what you were on about.
So the odds of hitting any individuals DNA by chance is P = 10-54,185,399 with I = 179,999,999 bits. So DNA is both incredibly complex and specific.🤨 you are talking nonsense.
who said life happens by chance? I didn't. No-one did.
Now lets see what this means for a chance origin of life.
First of all we need to estimate the number of planets where the conditions are right for life to get started. In this process will try to be has generous as possible."has generous"? "In this process will"? try "we'll" and "as"
you just said, "1011=stars in a galaxy, 1011 is an estimate of 1022"? WTF are you talking about? Just so you know,
There are an estimated 1011 stars in an average galaxy and an estimated 1011 for a total of 1022 stars.
and what's your evidence on this?
Current evidence indicates that about 1/2 of all stars have planets resulting in 5 X 1021 planetary systems
again, what are you refering this to? Where did you get this from?
Current evidence indicates that about 90% of planetary systems have gas giants in orbits that eliminate the possibility of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of the star, so the maximum number of planetary systems with terrestrial planets is 5 X 1020.
you failed at maths. 🪩
Let be generous and assume that 10% of these system actually have terrestrial planets in the habitable zone with an average of 2 per system resulting in 1020 terrestrial planets in habitable zones.
again, you failed at maths 🪩 and stop saying "Let be generous" It's, "Lets be generous. Okay.
Let be generous again and assume that 10% of these planets have ideal conditions for life to form, this results in 1019 potentially habitable planets.
your maths get worse and worse, if I was your teacher, I'd be very disappointed. 🙁
Now based on the average estimated time that a star is on main sequence of 1010 years which is 3.156 X 1017 seconds and assuming one trials every nanosecond ( a extremely generous assumption) that comes 3.156 X 1026 per planet for a total of 3.156 X 1045 trials.
"from planet to organism?"
Now let us make another extremely generous assumption, that each trial is fully functional except for needing encoding all of the 124 proteins that even the simplest living organisms need to live or it dies and the process has to starts from scratch. Given the fact that these proteins have an average of 400 sequences amino acids.
Since there are 124 of these proteins it requires a total of 49,600 sequences amino acids requiring 148,800 base pairs or 148,800 base 4 bits each. This produces 4148,800 or 3.36 X 1089586 possibilities. It needs to be noted that this is taking the simplest possible case as such reality would be a far bigger problem.where are you getting these figures from?
another non-sentance Blue? 🙄
Assuming that the 124 proteins can be in any order there are 124! = 5.4 X 10205 possible successful combinations.
So the odds of a successful trial is P = 5.4 X 10205/ 3.36 X 1089,586 = 1.6 X 10-89381. Given a total of 3.156 X 1045 trials for the entire universe the the odds of getting a successful trial is P = 1.6 X 10-89381 X 3.156 X 1045 = 3 X 10-89336.not only are you making up these figures presumably, (unless you tell me where you got it from,) you failed at maths, AGAIN!
There is a technical term in probability used to describe events with such small probabilities and that term is impossible.improbable doesn't mean impossible.
So it is statistically impossible to get proteins needed by even the simplest of living organisms.from what? Try to explain things a little better.
stop saying specified, this grasp you have, is beyond a joke. I think the word you're looking for is "specific". And like I said and keep saying, "no-one said it happened by chance. And even if it did, there's STILL a possiblity. DF.
The result is that information in DNA is so complex and specified that even making the most reasonable assumptions, it is impossible for the information in DNA to come about by chance.