PW: Whoooooo?
OB: Birds.
You didn't get the joke?
*********
PW: I wouldn't call 20% all.
OB: I don't think 20% of fossilized species are extant, either.
Approximately 80% of all known species, including fossilized species, are extant.
*********
OB: Smallpox was wiped out because it couldn't adapt. 99% of all species went extinct even before there was pollution.
Yeah, it couldn't adapt to intelligently designed vaccines.
You pulled 99% out of your ape-like ***, but if it was true you would again undermine the environmental movement.
*********
PW: The real problem is that scientists can't question the crazy *** answers Darwiniacs insist upon.
OB: The real problem there is that the scientists you are talking about don't have good arguments or reliable evidence to question the answers of MET.
Remember how you said Colton ignored the science when it clashed with his faith. That is what you METers do when science smacks you in the face.
*************
PW:
OB: A chart is a simplification of a complex process. It doesn't present the whole story. The full linage of any ancient species with modern descendants would have hundreds of branches, most of which terminate.
Your chart represents middle of the story guesswork.
Fossils don't reveal parent child relationships, so you have no idea where that ant-eater like fossil fits in.
Of course Darwiniacs don't have a chart to show their whole crazy *** story, because the evidence doesn't jive with their crazy *** story.
The story begins with a common ancestor...an asexual organism...but you started in the middle of the story with a 4 legged mammal...and left off the whole first "half" of the story. That's what I call cheating. You can't be considered in serious scientific contention if you can't begin your theory at the starting gate rather than placing your theory in the middle of the track and insist that everyone acknowledge your "scientific" win.
Even when you start in the middle with your whole "punctuated equilibrium" chart story, it is so crazy *** you might as well share church buildings with the "creationists:"
Your parents are slugs. Suddenly but totally at random. You evolve into a gecko. Your brother evolves into a shark. Your sister evolves into a polar bear. The family down the street have children that evolve into a hippo, whale, and dolphin. Then everyone remains virtually unchanged for 150 million years. Except you get your occassional "atavistic" ant-eater leg mutations to remind the whales where they really came from.
*******
PW: So the hippo was just one of the retarded babies of the pakicetus and the indolyus that managed to survive? The other retarded baby went on to make the dolphin and the whale somehow.
OB: Obviously not, since hippo ancestors survived.
Retarded babies = animals with weird *** random mutations they are trying out to see if they are "fit" enough to survive
********
PW: Okay, let me explain this a different way.
Your comparison isn't meaningful. You can't compare "natural" (undirected) selection to "you pick out the ones that best fit your criteria" (directed) selection.
Evolutionary Design=Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design = Directed Selection
OB: The issue is that you are confusing "directed" with "intelligent". Natural selection is not random selection, it's selection directed by the environment. There is some probability involved, because many traits only increase/decrease your fitness relatively, as opposed to absolutely.
The real issue is that "natural selection" is a misnomer. Only intelligence has the ability to make a selection.
Dembski said:
The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities.
The word "intelligent" derives from two Latin words, the preposition inter, meaning between, and the verb lego, meaning to choose or select. Thus according to its etymology, intelligence consists in choosing between. It follows that the etymology of the word "intelligent" parallels the formal analysis of intelligent causation just given. "Intelligent design" is therefore a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred precisely because an intelligent cause has done what only an intelligent cause can do-make a choice.
Intelligence is a directional force like gravity.
You already know this: "ID is not just a claim of intelligence, but one of intelligent direction." ~One Brow
If you consider human interference "natural selection" then we have a whale-like problem because Dembski considers human interference to be "intelligent design."
If we continue this discussion we have to differentiate between terms.
You can't have it both ways. Either "natural" represents directed forces, including humans, or "natural" represents undirected/elemental forces.
**********
PW: Oh right. Fish have two eyes. But the first known creature to have eyes had 5 eyes. Why did 3 eyes disappear once it mutated its way into the fish? I would guess 5 eyes would make any fish more fit.
OB: Eyes have developed differently in different lineages. The earliest seem to have been individual cells that could sense "bright" and "dark". So, I'm not sure to what you refer.
I'm refering to the earliest creature actually found to have eyes...opabinia...it had 5 eyes.
"The earliest seem to have been..." Now that's a "sciency" sounding statement.
Tell me about the development of the eyes in the fish lineage. Did the first mutation start with one eye, 2, 3, or 5? Where on the body did it first mutate from? Was it as miraculous as the fish who "randomly" mutated 2 useful arms with hand-like things out of the front of its body so it could crawl out and mate with land mammals who happened to be open for a sexual romp with a mutant fish baby?
*********
PW: The amount of information may increase but the amount of new information doesn't. There are more pages in the 2 copy book but you can't learn anything more from reading the second copy of the story than you did from reading the first copy of the story.
Remember we are talking about the ability of undirected contingencies (chance) to create new information.
OB: Again, you are claiming that 0110011001100110 has the same amount of information as 0110. Below, you say this is not true.
You have a repeating pattern. The only thing you have is a copy of the original information. You don't get new information. If we apply this to biology you get an identical twin with the same attributes. You don't get new useful attributes from an asexual organism.
**********
OB: I fully acknowledge that the division algorithm is a designed process. However, my point was that you can't claim that something is not produced by a process simply because it is not produced in any particular step. This is just as true of useful information as it is of division.
PW: I don't believe I ever made that claim, so your point is moot.
OB: Dembski made that claim, you quoted it. He said that since no individual step of the chance -> selection -> chance cycle created CSI, the overall process could not, either.
Okay, I see what you are getting at now.
You can't understand that simple concept?
Random mutation (chance) is the only possible place you can get new information in those 2 steps.
Selection is just that...a selection. You either have something to select or you don't.
*********
PW: We were talking about "Whenever chance and necessity work together..." they can't create new useful information.
OB: Yes, then. The notion that, because something is not created by an individual step, that means it can't be created by a process, is wrong.
See above explanation.
*********
OB: How do you distinguish "new information" from "information you did not have previously, but have now"?
Copy=you already had that information to begin with.
*******
OB: Languages often get more complex as they evolve.
PW: Human's made an alphabet (symbols of sounds) and created words (more complex sounds) and then strung those words together to make sentences and so forth. Then over time the language changed a little bit here and there but it was still recognized as language...and was useful for the transfer of information between humans.
OB: Language, and writing, preceded the alphabet. Outside of that, your point is in complete agreement with the notion of languages evolving.
Okay, I'm going to redesign my original point.
No matter how you slice it language was intelligently designed and the "change over time" was directed by intelligence (humans). Whether you use pictures, characters, or dots to represent words or concepts in your written language it was all intelligently designed for communication.
*******
PW: This is why you can't apply "micro-evolution" to Darwin's common ancestry theory, because it is just change in creatures that already exist. It doesn't account for how those creatures came into existence.
OB: They come into existence by being born/hatched/etc. from their parent(s).
"The common ancestor" was asexual and single celled and simply made copies of itself.
An asexual organism ain't going to randomly mutate 200 separate parts to make a flagellum. The only way you get a 200 part flagellum or all the pieces and differentiation necessary for sexual reproduction is through intelligent design.
******
PW: I'm saying depending on the environment the usefulness of the appendix changes. This is what us God-believers call adaptability.
OB: Which changes it's vestigial nature how?
Vestigial means less useful over time...sometimes the appedix is more useful in certain environments...and time has no bearing on it's usefulness.
*******
PW: But if it supports your ape-like ancestor assumptive starting point it also supports the Bible's Adam starting point. So you unwittingly support the "creationists" you despise.
OB: Can any evidence, ever, not be consistent with creationism? Because if creationism agrees with everything, it can be confirmed by nothing.
Exactly. Replace "creationism" with "darwinism" and you'll understand why I call you all Darwiniacs. You preach a nondisprovable psuedoscience.
. Yet it is still a "God's will" and "thats whats written in Bible - then it must be true".
