Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Specified complexity
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo 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.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIn 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.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI 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.
The argument is circular because your specification is assumed to exist based on your conclusion, and never actually provided.
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. "
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, all this does not tell me why the word "specified" is circular.
Blessings,
Lee
You have to do better. Without a falsifiable hypothesis the conclusion matches the premise of 'intelligent design.'Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-23-2019, 08:08 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, 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
We're not on Internet Infidels. i am still waiting for a falsifiable hypothesis.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, I discussed with Nick Matzke about his evolution-of-the flagellum scenario over at Internet Infidels, and he could not answer my objections.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAnd finding a specification is not a circular exercise
Comment
-
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?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostNo 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.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostOk, 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?
011011100101110111110000
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostSo 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
I guess Rube Goldberg is the best you can do.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostThe function that this performs, presumably there is function here, but I can't translate nucleotides to function myself."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostI 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.As far as side information, the function of the gene sequence is side information that can be used to construct the sequence.
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.
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.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAnd finding a specification is not a circular exercise, it's like an archeologist finding a stone artifact which has evident function.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
30 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by alaskazimm
Yesterday, 05:39 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
142 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment