Specified complexity

[HMS_Beagle]

Well, all this does not tell me why the word "specified" is circular.

In the case of the IDiots it's because they observe and write down the pattern of an existing genetic sequence which they call the specification. Then they take that same after-the-fact data and say "see, this pattern in the genome is specified!". It's completely circular and completely worthless.

[lee_merrill]

No known object has ever been falsified by a hypothesis as not capable of forming naturally based Dempski's explanatory filter.



Provided many references which you have failed to respond to, nor apparently understand.

Sources relevant to Dempski's claims. The video is ok for understanding on a basic level of organic chemistry.

Source: http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it-true-bacterial-flagellum-could-not-have-evolved

Isn't it True That the Bacterial Flagellum Could Not Have Evolved?

This is a statement often asserted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is simply not true. The argument goes that since the flagellum (the tail-like structure many bacteria have which helps them "swim") is a very complex machine, it could not have evolved naturally. This is because if you remove any of the proteins that make up the flagellum's motor, it can no longer function.

However, as this video beautifully demonstrates, the flagellum does function with fewer proteins...

© Copyright Original Source

Well, I discussed with Nick Matzke about his evolution-of-the flagellum scenario over at Internet Infidels, and he could not answer my objections. But as far as the video goes, the evolution of the P-ring and the F-ring are just-so stories! For example...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

In the case of the IDiots it's because they observe and write down the pattern of an existing genetic sequence which they call the specification. Then they take that same after-the-fact data and say "see, this pattern in the genome is specified!". It's completely circular and completely worthless.

But then Orgel's definition is circular? And finding a specification is not a circular exercise, it's like an archeologist finding a stone artifact which has evident function.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I asked you three times for an example of a gene sequence that was independent of DNA, and you dodged every time. You have not shown that a gene sequence can be constructed from side information. You simply assert that gene sequences and DNA are independent over and over and over.

But you were asking if gene sequences were independent of the existence of DNA, I stated (as you say) that they are. As far as side information, the function of the gene sequence is side information that can be used to construct the sequence.

The argument is circular because your specification is assumed to exist based on your conclusion, and never actually provided.

No, the specification is derived from examining the object.

You've had 19 pages of posts and every single one of them confirms what I said in post #2: "[Specified complexity is] a con because the things IDers claim have specified complexity aren't actually specified anywhere. "

Yes, they are specified, see Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" for a number of examples.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, all this does not tell me why the word "specified" is circular.

Blessings,
Lee

No you did not give an adequate explanation how 'specified' that you posted remotely applied to science, nor how your view of specified complexity' leads to a falsifiable hypothesis. I gave a constructive falsifiable use of how 'specified complexity' is relevant to science.. and it represents a falsifiable hypothesis.

You have to do better. Without a falsifiable hypothesis the conclusion matches the premise of 'intelligent design.'

[shunyadragon]

Well, I discussed with Nick Matzke about his evolution-of-the flagellum scenario over at Internet Infidels, and he could not answer my objections. But as far as the video goes, the evolution of the P-ring and the F-ring are just-so stories! For example...

Blessings,
Lee

Assertion on your part without qualifications nor a falsifiable hypothesis that support anything else.

We're not on Internet Infidels. i am still waiting for a falsifiable hypothesis.

[HMS_Beagle]

Well, I discussed with Nick Matzke about his evolution-of-the flagellum scenario over at Internet Infidels, and he could not answer my objections.

More than likely he couldn't make any sense out of your usual science-free blithering and decided to ignore you.

[HMS_Beagle]

And finding a specification is not a circular exercise

No one from the IDiot camp has found a specification. They take an after-the-fact description and call it a specification. It's one more variation on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, drawing a bullseye around the already existing bullet hole.

[TheLurch]

Ok, simple question. Here's some DNA sequence:

aatgcaagcg tggaaattta ggctgaattc tctatcaaaa gaaaaaatgt gaaggaaaaa ggaaaaatca ggagggagga ttgcttcatg cattatttat ctcgaccttt taggggagaa ggaactcccc catcctttca agagattaaa aataaatcaa cagtctgaaa acctaagcag acacggggca ttgccaggat cagccacaca cgtgtttcct tctatttatt ttgaagaaaa atttcatggg aaagtatgta tttttttgta tattctacag agtttattct agtatgtatt tacatcccga agaataagaa aattgttttg tgattaagct ataaataaag tatctaattt

I know what's specified there. Without doing a literature search to find out what years of experiments have told scientists, how would you find out what's specified? And how many other sequences can have an equivalent specification?

[lee_merrill]

No one from the IDiot camp has found a specification. They take an after-the-fact description and call it a specification. It's one more variation on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, drawing a bullseye around the already existing bullet hole.

So Leslie Orgel was wrong, when he coined the term? But I can give you specified complexity that's not after the fact: a Rube Goldberg contraption that turns on a fan, that blows an anemometer, that starts a toy train, and bumps a glass of water to wake me up.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Ok, simple question. Here's some DNA sequence:

aatgcaagcg tggaaattta ggctgaattc tctatcaaaa gaaaaaatgt gaaggaaaaa ggaaaaatca ggagggagga ttgcttcatg cattatttat ctcgaccttt taggggagaa ggaactcccc catcctttca agagattaaa aataaatcaa cagtctgaaa acctaagcag acacggggca ttgccaggat cagccacaca cgtgtttcct tctatttatt ttgaagaaaa atttcatggg aaagtatgta tttttttgta tattctacag agtttattct agtatgtatt tacatcccga agaataagaa aattgttttg tgattaagct ataaataaag tatctaattt

I know what's specified there. Without doing a literature search to find out what years of experiments have told scientists, how would you find out what's specified? And how many other sequences can have an equivalent specification?

The function that this performs, presumably there is function here, but I can't translate nucleotides to function myself. Can you find the function here?

011011100101110111110000

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

So Leslie Orgel was wrong, when he coined the term? But I can give you specified complexity that's not after the fact: a Rube Goldberg contraption that turns on a fan, that blows an anemometer, that starts a toy train, and bumps a glass of water to wake me up.

Blessings,
Lee

Leslie Orgel proposed a falsifiable hypothesis based on his concept of 'specified complexity,' which the Discovery Institute and you have failed to do.

I guess Rube Goldberg is the best you can do.

[TheLurch]

The function that this performs, presumably there is function here, but I can't translate nucleotides to function myself.

So, are you saying that anything biological that has a function is specified?

[Roy]

I asked you three times for an example of a gene sequence that was independent of DNA, and you dodged every time. You have not shown that a gene sequence can be constructed from side information. You simply assert that gene sequences and DNA are independent over and over and over.

But you were asking if gene sequences were independent of the existence of DNA, I stated (as you say) that they are.

Yes, you did. But you gave absolutely no evidence for that assertion, nor any references, nor any examples. There is absolutely no reason to believe you.

As far as side information, the function of the gene sequence is side information that can be used to construct the sequence.

How is this done?
When/where/by who has it been done?
Where is the gene sequence that was determined solely from the gene's function, without sequencing any DNA?

You haven't got one - you're making stuff up as usual.

No, the specification is derived from examining the object.

You just said the specification can be derived from knowing the gene's function.
Now you say the specification is derived from examining the gene.
You're making this up as you go along, and you can't even maintain consistency for two sentences.

Yes, they are specified, see Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" for a number of examples.

That number being zero.

[Roy]

And finding a specification is not a circular exercise, it's like an archeologist finding a stone artifact which has evident function.

So finding a specification doesn't actually involve finding a specification - unless the archaeologist is silly enough to create a specification for what they've just found, in which case it is a circular exercise.