Tuesday, November 27, 2007

A Brookfield ID-Darwinian Diagram

In this schematic diagram "structure" and the "information" that codes for it, are represented as vertical (Z-axis) amplitude. Positive Z-axis motion (upward) requires intelligent design. Both "natural selection and "random mutation" being context insensitive are subsequently incapable of producing new structure/information.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

FYI, on citizenlink.com Dr. Dembski identified the designer as the christian god:
"The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

William Brookfield said...

Hi Anony,

Yes I heard, and you know what else.. Dr Dembski's remarks can be found via Dobson's web page. Perhaps Dobson has changed his mind about ID.

http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-dembskimarks-papers-at-ei-lab.html

William Brookfield said...

"In the context of the interview, I was saying that I -- personally -- believe the Christian God is ultimately the designer behind the world." William Dembski

Apparently it should have said..

"I believe God created the world for a purpose and that the Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

William Brookfield said...

Dembski is not claiming to have scientifically proved that any given designer is the Christian god. As far as I can tell, he was mere claiming that he believes the ultimate designer to be the Christian God.

He is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. Nor should he be forced to lie about what he believes.

I certainly do not believe that the E-coli bacterial flaggela was designed by the Christian God.

Spotted Owl said...

Hi,

sorry if this posts more than once, I'm not sure if it went the first time

I must say I find this diagram quite badly labelled and confusing.

What are the metrics on each axis and what kind of niche is illustrated? If it's an evolutionary niche, then it would not form a locality in structure space, since it is easily seen in nature that there are several different ways of filling the same niche.

How do two points (x, y, z1) and (x, y, z2) differ? It would be advantageous if examples could be supplied for different points.

How does your diagram account for addition and deletion mutations? Currently it only appears to address point mutation, which is only one mechanism.

William Brookfield said...

Hi Spotted,

Thanks for you comments.

What are the metrics on each axis

It was not my intent to provide a metric at this time. The important thing for was to display the orthogonality of design vs stochastic mechanisms (such as RM& NS).

and what kind of niche is illustrated? If it's an evolutionary niche, then it would not form a locality in structure space, since it is easily seen in nature that there are several different ways of filling the same niche.

I refer to it as a survivable niche. If there are two (or more) different ways for a single organism to survive then the niches would be combined into a single composite niche.


How do two points (x, y, z1) and (x, y, z2) differ? It would be advantageous if examples could be supplied for different points.

"z2" refers to twice the transcendant functional Kolmogorov complexity of "z1."


How does your diagram account for addition and deletion mutations? Currently it only appears to address point mutation, which is only one mechanism.

Good point. It would perhaps be better for me to use "Random Variation" and thereby cover all forms of random change including random point mutation, random addition and deletion mutations etc.