Cacovangor Says:

May 17, 2008 - I suppose I more see your point but it seems a rather fruitless discussion then, as if I said "If something has magic dust then you can calculate the probability of it being made by elves" then the obvious response will be for me to present magic dust.I presume we can both agree that if/then statements can be spouted ad nauseam, but in practical discussion that is not useful.If all you're addressing is that the statement is valid in its own logic, then I apologize and you're correct.

npage85 Says:

May 17, 2008 - I thank you for your apology.Although, my "if/then" statement is *not* equivalent to yours.I have *outlined* the causal relationship between IC structures, and that structure then being able to be shown that it is CSI(if it qualifies).An irreducibly complex structure is pretty easily conceivable given we know that what IC structures are made of exist in the physical world. We know that it is *possible* they exist, if not probable.Magic Dust, however, has nothing going for it that way.

Cacovangor Says:

May 17, 2008 - Oh I agree, the statement was meant to be absurd. My ask for demonstrable evidence was more taking from general conversation where if/thens demand evidence, regardless of possibility.But I get your points and it is not regarding demonstration.

npage85 Says:

May 17, 2008 - Great... perhaps the people that I am currently debating with(michael201119 & urbanelf) will assert something and I will then have to respond and satisfy your curiosity.

urbanelf Says:

May 17, 2008 - "No... it has nothing to do with "channels" and nothing to do with "chemical systems.""By "channels" I'm refering to specific Markov chain that would have lead to what appears to be IC.If IC has nothing to do with chemical systems, how can you apply it to biology? I'm not sure what you're defending.Again, IC strawmans evolution. You're arguing against some other theory.

urbanelf Says:

May 17, 2008 - "There is no affinity for the DNA to structure itself in any certain way. The molecules have the same attraction to all the other molecules in the DNA... there is no tendency for them to form in any pattern whatsoever. "Then how do you explain that your DNA resembles your parents' DNA if it doesn't have a tendency to form any pattern? I would argue that this fact invalidates your uniform probability method. Markov property means you must bias your distribution.

urbanelf Says:

May 17, 2008 - We can talk about DNA being information or symbolic by your definition. I"m takng the word "mean" to imply that there is an underlying idea behind the symbols.In information theory we dont need to talk about informtion as having meaning, so DNA can easily be thought of as information. But once you suggest that there are ideas or "meaning" behind DNA protein relationships then you need to bring positive evidence that that is the case. I haven't heard any.

npage85 Says:

May 17, 2008 - You seem to think that I'm arguing against evolution for some odd reason.

npage85 Says:

May 17, 2008 - My DNA comes from a recombination of 23 chromosomes of my father and 23 chromosomes of my mother.This process is not random... there is only a select group of DNA information to select from.

npage85 Says:

May 17, 2008 - I never suggested "ideas" behind DNA. I only said "mean."Like I already told you, when I used "mean," I used it to mean(lol) something being symbolic.You misinterpreted, and are still clinging to your misinterpretation after repeated attempts to inform you that it *was* a misinterpretation.

urbanelf Says:

May 19, 2008 - IC is billed as an argument for design, but it doesn't make positive claims about design, only claims about what evolution can't do. Yet it's claims about evolution are strawmen.IC doesn't have anything to do with evolution or design. I would go beyond what you have said and say that I don't know what you are arguing for or against.

urbanelf Says:

May 19, 2008 - It's not clear what point you are trying to make. You have effectively repeated the markov property back to me.It invalidates any uniform probability method of calculating the "complexity"(LOL) of our DNA.

npage85 Says:

May 19, 2008 - Hold on...So copying information is a random, unguided act?Please enlighten me.

npage85 Says:

May 19, 2008 - I am arguing that if something *is* IC, then we can calculate if it is CSI or not.Nothing more, nor less.

urbanelf Says:

May 22, 2008 - Where did I say it was both "random" & "unguided"?

urbanelf Says:

May 22, 2008 - Yes, I agree. You are using IC to try to show CSI because you need to justify giving patterns of DNA a small probability.But the way you need to use it is fallacious. You need to say evolution can't gradually select for things with IC, therefore it's justified to treat an IC opbject as a single combinatorial probability problem.But IC strawmans what evolution can do. IC says evolution can only add parts one at a time. In reality... (more)

urbanelf Says:

May 22, 2008 - ... evolution can add, subtract, modify, and use exaptation. So, evolution can still gradually select for things that are IC.Your probability calculations will be unjustified. Your claims to CSI will be equally unjustified.

npage85 Says:

May 25, 2008 - Oh... I thought you were arguing against ID for a second there.

npage85 Says:

May 25, 2008 - Ok... really.You are saying that IC straw mans evolution. You don't support this... you are merely making an assertion.You have to do more than just make assertions in a debate. I'm not just another YouTube pushover...

urbanelf Says:

May 25, 2008 - Dear npage85, sometimes when I'm talking with you I get the feeling that I'm not really being listened to. I have gotten this feeling many times now and I wonder if I should continue to try to have a discussion with you.If you look back at the original comment I made in THIS thread about 17 comments ago I backed up my assertion. If you would like me to elaborate, please ask.Take care.

urbanelf Says:

May 25, 2008 - You asked how was "copying" random and unguided. I don't believe it is strictly. It's matter following it's physical properties.But heredity is a Markov process meaning...a) it's partly a stochastic processb) future states are based on present statesThis has statistical implications. To uncover the probability of an organism one needs to uncover the markov model. Good luck with this.

npage85 Says:

May 25, 2008 - "You asked how was "copying" random and unguided. I don't believe it is strictly. It's matter following it's physical properties."-- Then, if it isn't random or unguided, then you can't apply the definition of CSI to it to see if it's CSI or not.

npage85 Says:

May 25, 2008 - Oh yes... I do remember, and I have referenced back to your earlier comments many times now.This is what I see:You started with the statement that to find is something is IC, you remove parts.That is a blatant straw man, and it makes me laugh considering how you keep saying that IC is a straw man, but it is only a straw man because *you* are supplying it *as* a straw man.

ianw115 Says:

May 30, 2008 - "It would have to be a pattern that doesn't come from the thing you're looking at. The only option would be a pattern that came from somewhere else. You see?"Uhh, yeah... UrbanElf was the one who explained that to YOU, in the middle of the same video you're responding to. Remember? You were the one saying it "doesn't matter what kind of pattern it is... it could be ANY pattern. All that's required is that it's not COMPLETELY random."

npage85 Says:

May 30, 2008 - It still doesn't matter what kind of pattern it is... it still could be any pattern.I just had to clarify that I indeed understood what specified was, and that it ultimately isn't a problem anyways. All I clarified was that that "any pattern" can't be one that arises from the thing you are examining.Simple.So I don't even see your point in your comment. If what I'm saying now is consistent with what I was saying before, then what, precisely, is the problem again?