FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.
FMM notes in the same comment:
If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.
So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.
Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.
What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?
And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.
fifth,
You can continue to hide behind your Ignore button, or you can defend your views against the person you’re hiding from. It’s up to you.
It makes no difference to me. Both of us know that your position is weak. The readers know it too. If you continue hiding, everyone will know why.
On the other hand, if you actually try to defend your position, then you’ll fail, as this exchange has demonstrated.
It’s a lose-lose proposition for you. Pick your poison.
I recommend the latter. Better to be brave and to fail than to cower.
Odd that Jesus won’t lend you a hand.
dazz:
fifth:
Guess what value they use for pi at that link: 3.14. That’s “comprehensive”, all right.
Fifth, you’re a hoot.
What is that supposed to show?
And don’t be ridiculous. PI can be generated algorithmically to any precision given enough time and processing power.
Fact remains, your “design inference” is bullshit. It’s not that it’s not perfect, it’s useless crap. Plain and simple
It’s supposed to show how to input PI to an algorithm.
Any precision we can ever hope to reach in the physical universe will be an approximation. Only infinite time or processing power can ever get you to π.
Thank you for your educated constructive well thought out criticism. It’s almost as helpful as “na-na, na-na, boo-boo.” 😉
peace
fifth:
And that’s as true for humans as it is for computers.
Your criterion fails to distinguish the two.
Exactly, you can never input PI in all it’s infinity to an algorithm or FMM’s “design detector”, just an approximation that can clearly be generated algorithmically.
FMM, can’t you see how idiotic that is? That’s a rhetorical question, of course you can’t
You trusted your “hardwired intuitions” that make you think you must be right all the time, and tried to save your ridiculous argument by pulling another rule out of your ass (after all, as a presuppositionalist you’re hardwired to make shit up), one that only made things worse.
But, reasoning from your theological perspective, it did happen on purpose. So what is your inference worth?
Because you have experienced those phenomena before in association with persons or animals. You have seen an animal move trough the bushes and it rustled. You have seen somebody go into the attic and he/she made thumping noises.
Fifth, you cannot tell apart a random stretch of DNA from a garbled sequence. Even hardcore geneticists will only recognise the occasional binding motif by eyeballing a sequence. The only parts you are going to recognise as non-random are tandem repeats which are (ironically) quite unlikely to be part of a functional sequence and quite easily produced by an algorithm to boot.
What? You are in the habit of producing DNA sequences? Nonsense!
Fifth, you simply lack the proper background knowledge and context to spot the functionality of a DNA sequence. It is like looking at binary code and instantly recognising that it represents a game of “pong” rather than a random assortment of 1s and 0s.
Lets give it a try and see
compare the following two patterns.
1) 3.14159
2) π
Is there a difference between the two?
Which one is more likely to be produced by an algorithm?
I will wait patiently for your answers?
peace
In the case of an unexpected gust of wind I can use it to determine that it was not necessarily a directly intentional event as observed. Perhaps God had other purposes for the wind rather than getting my attention or blowing my hat off.
Perhaps the wind was only an incidental part of another larger pattern that would trip my spidey sense.
That is a reasonable argument. However I have inferred intention often in novel situations that I have never encountered before. Haven’t you? What is it that makes us do so?
Why did Jerry R. Ehman write “WOW” when he encountered a novel signal from from the constellation Sagittarius?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal
peace
wouldn’t a garbled sequence be random?
When I compare I’m not looking to ascribe randomness or “algroythymness” to a particular part of the sequence I’m looking to see if the sequences seen in their entirety are distinguishable and if I think that either one is more likely to be non-random and non-algorithmic
A year or so ago I took a representation of a sequence of DNA and compared it to a randomly scrambled copy and I was able to easily tell the difference. I’m not saying that was a scientific test or promising that I could duplicate the result if I tried it again but it suggests something to me.
peace
1) I’m not looking to spot functionality
2) I stipulated that at the beginning of this thread that I don’t have expertise in DNA sequences that is why I’m looking at reported weather as a proof of concept.
Everyone has expertise in their local weather report 😉
peace
That seems strange, you believe everything is intentional.
My theological position is part of the additional context I mentioned
peace
Oh my, that was a bad choice of words. My apologies.
What I meant to say is that you cannot tell apart a stretch of DNA from some randomly chosen part of the genome from a garbled sequence.
Why is that relevant exactly?
peace
Could you please provide the step by step process how you make this determination.
Back when Fifth was promoting his game, I provided several strings for him to analyze. Some were actual genome sequences, and some were taken from a site that provides high quality “random” sequences.
The thread died out before I was able to determine whether fifth claimed to be able to distinguish meaningful from random. My memory is he guessed wrong, then changed the subject.
what? both can easily be generated by algorithms. And you’re moving the goalposts again to try and save face. Have you no shame? (rhetorical q again)
newton, to fifth:
Poor fifth. His (bogus) criteria tell him that nothing is designed, while his theology tells him that everything is designed. Still he goes on pretending that there’s no problem.
He is one confused, goalpost-shifting dude. A failure for Jesus.
fifth:
Dear Jesus,
I know you don’t answer prayers, but could you make an exception? Please reveal the difference between “algroythym” and “algorithm” to fifthmonarchyman.
Thanks in advance.
Your ex-follower,
keiths
This is your mind on presuppositionalism.
Look away, it’s not pretty.
Glen Davidson
Purpose? Did you not claim that the pattern sufficed?
We can discuss later what distinguishes a “directly intentional event as observed” from a not-intended intentional event, and whether we can establish that mutations in the human genome are a “directly intentional event as observed” or just some byproduct of another purpose.
In a blinded test? That would be something to start with. Why don’t you show those sequences?
Because the former is the result of an intentional process (according to you) and the latter is not, and you are claiming we are hardwired to tell them apart.
That is a pity, because that would actually give us something concrete to discuss. My guess is that it would be pretty hard to tell them apart.
Corneel,
One way to differentiate is the ability to translate. If 40 bits of binary code translated to APPLE by ascii code conversion then that would support the design inference.
Sounds like an algorithm.
Every cripple has his own way of walking
Yes, because we have the evidence that Apple and ascii code happen to have been designed.
When it’s DNA, well, what we have evidence of is evolution, and no good evidence for design.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
The evidence for design is that you can translate it. It has a sequence that can translate to meaning or function.
DNA’s structure is contrary to something that can add function with the Darwinian mechanism. All experimental data shows that Wiesel works with a specific target.
Quit making stuff up. Or repeating stuff other people made up.
So what?
You’ve got a lot of BS you just throw at anything. Of course DNA happens to be far more fault tolerant than human-made programming languages, another fact that you just ignore to chant your nonsense.
That’s not DNA. How pathetic is your spiel?
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
There you go again. Deny all evidence that supports the design argument.
Sounds like a superior design.
Dawkins used it to simulate cumulative selection. They are
both sequences.
Solid rebuttal.
As long as you don’t care about evidence and truth.
Sounds like a requirement for evolution. You know, like all of the other observed entailments that you just ignore, or misrepresent.
Wow. So what?
If you think that it’s not important that it’s DNA that’s involved, you’re as incompetent as you are ignorant.
Of course you quote-mined, your only strength.
Glen Davidson
As has already been stipulated we are looking for algorithms that don’t already contain the pattern a priori.
I’m reasonably sure that you don’t even know what the game is so moving the goal posts would be both unnecessary and a little cruel 😉
peace
Step by step processes are what algorithms are all about. inferring design is pretty much the opposite of that.
Basically I am hardwired to infer intent when I observe certain phenomena and not when I observe other phenomena.
That is it.
No deep thought is necessary it is instinctual.
Just like all instincts the one that leads me at times to assume intent is not infallible but it has served humanity pretty well or it would have been weeded out by natural selection a long time ago.
peace
I’ve never promoted my “game”. OMagain at one time offered to do some coding to make it shareable but he never finished the job.
The object of “the game” was never to differentiate a sequence of DNA from an unrelated random sequence. It was to differentiate a real string from a randomized copy that utilized the same data.
If the two sequences can be distinguished it demonstrates that there is a pattern in the nonrandom one. If not then they are both effectively random.
No, that is not what was being discussed at all. Like Neil pointed out even the decimal expansion of π can appear random if you don’t have appropriate context
peace
fifth:
dazz:
fifth:
Both can be generated by algorithms that don’t already contain them.
Damn, fifth. This is not that hard.
sufficed for what?? I’m not sure what you are getting at.
My claim is only that we are hardwired to infer intent when we observe a pattern that we believe is not the output of an algorithm.
A strong gust of wind on a spring day does not meet that threshold for me.
I doubt we will ever get that far though I hope we do.
The peanut gallery is rapidly making this thread difficult to navigate. I suspect it won’t be long before all the conversation here will be about how mean God is or some such thing.
peace
Stipulated by you without a reason, as the emptienth amendment to your retarded set of rules, but why should anybody care about your idiosyncratic definitions?
And what do you mean by “algorithms that don’t already contain the pattern a priori”? you initially said “an algorithm that does not contain the pattern as an input”
So let’s say we were to tackle the “π” pattern. What do you mean by that? Do you mean generating the symbol “π”? Or it’s numerical representation?
I’d be really interested to see if we could differentiate a real DNA sequence from a randomized string containing the same data.
The inspiration for “the game” can be found here if you are interested
https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4592
peace
I think I agree. If you can do something useful with the sequence then it’s hard to believe it’s random.
peace
fifth:
If pointing out your (many) errors amounts to “making this thread difficult to navigate”, then yes, that’s what we’re doing.
fifth:
Damn, fifth. People do useful things with random numbers all the time.
The game was initially predicated on the idea that design is NOT random.
Now we have another patch. NON random and NON algorithmic. Oh my, more counter examples?, make it NON random, NON algorithmic, and NOT containing the pattern as an input or a priory.
Useless negative arguments devoid of any kind of logic or substance.
Keep playing wack-a-mole against reason and logic FMM, we enjoy the laughter at your expense
dazz, to fifth:
Fifth isn’t a programmer, so it’s not clear that he even grasps the difference. In any case, each of those patterns can be produced by an algorithm that neither contains the pattern nor requires it as input.
He means the infinite decimal representation. Hence his earlier goalpost-shifting move of adding “in the physical universe” to his criterion:
I commented:
His criterion fails.
Dazz,
For what it’s worth I think you will find discussion to be more enjoyable if you turn down the attitude a wee bit.
It’s pretty simple, I mean the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.
3.14159265359 is not the “numerical representation” of π it’s only an approximation.
There is no algorithm that can stipulate π ever, this should not even be a topic of discussion.
Of course there are algorithm’s that can approximate π with ever increasing accuracy but that is totally beside the point.
As long as there is a difference between the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter and the output of those algorithms then I can tell easily the difference between the two sequences.
Suppose your algorithmic sequence contained the first trillion digits of the decimal expansion it would appear different from π when we got to the trillion and first.
There are only two ways that I know of that an algorithm could produce a sequence that was indistinguishable from PI. One is if place an arbitrary limit of your own that I can’t look past .
The other is if you pulled a Kobayashi Maru and jumped up a level in meaning simply stipulating that the pattern you produced was π instead of it’s approximation.
Either of these approaches is simply beyond the capabilities of algorithms.
peace
link please
peace
That cannot be evidence for design. I’ve seen lots of those produced by nature every day.
It’s not the DNA structure that adds function. It’s the way nature works. From Darwinian to many other natural phenomena that are not necessarily Darwinian. But it’s a fact that these sequences have evolved. The data shows so all over the place. Sequences look as if they diverged from common ancestral sequences. Warts and all. When studying those sequences it’s very easy to see lots of what looks like “scars” of the events that change them, that reposition them, and even suggest histories that are then demonstrated when examining other sequences. Long etc.
1. Do you think that reproducing under some environment is not specific?
2. Do you think that a less specific target would be harder to attain?
I think you’re somewhat right. The Weasel program had a specific target, while life, actually, has much broader targets. Don’t you think that makes it much more feasible for life to succeed? A broad target is much easier to hit than a specific one, right?
What you claim are additions are simply clarifications.
The way to avoid this sort of confusion on your part in the future is to ask clarifying questions to make sure you understand what is being said before going off half cocked
peace
If anyone is actually interested The way “the game” was supposed to work is.
1) Take a sequence that you want to evaluate and randomize it
2) Compare the original to the randomized copy
if the two can be distinguished the original is not random and you can move to step three
3)Run the randomized copy through an evolutionary algorithm stopping just before it is identical to the original and compare the algorithmic approximation with the original
4) If you can still differentiate between the two you can tentatively infer that the original sequence is not the result of an algorithm.
The problem with this is that step 3 assumes that a generic EA is a reasonable analog for algorithms in general. I’m not convinced that this is the case.
In my latest endeavor instead of step 3 I’m substituting 3a
3a) compare the best available algorithmic approximation with the original
I think that that might be a better approach. I also think that modifying our ideas when applicable like this is not a bad thing
Just look at the modifications we have seen to evolutionary theory in the last century and a half
peace
What’s the “pattern” for that so we can test your game against your own criteria?
Is “the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter” designed?