Specified complexity

[shunyadragon]

Also, is there any difference between protein and enzyme specificity? At least in the way these expressions are used by the YEC's.

The problem with specificity, ie specific complexity, as used by ID advocates is that it is a specific complexity of the protein and enzyme makeup in RNA and DNA not being able to be produced naturally by abiogenesis nor evolution, and not necessarily either protein nor enzyme. It is a bogus concept,, and assumption without evidence.

[Seeker]

No. Many enzymes are proteins. But given Wieland's confusion above, I can't guarantee some YECs think they mean different things.

Then Wieland is even more confused. He said:

''To refer to meaning and message involves the existence of a code, and enzymes (all of them proteins)

[Roy]

Then Wieland is even more confused. He said:

''To refer to meaning and message involves the existence of a code, and enzymes (all of them proteins)

"Many" is correct. Some enzymes are RNA.

Wieland is also wrong about DNA having specified complexity, for the reason given on the first page of this thread: DNA sequences aren't specified anywhere.

[Seeker]

DNA sequences aren't specified anywhere.

Sorry if I am being dense, but I still don't get that. You mean the creationists haven't sequenced it?

[Roy]

Sorry if I am being dense, but I still don't get that. You mean the creationists haven't sequenced it?

Creationists don't do lab work much, so no they haven't.

But what I mean is that for something to be specified you need to do more than just transcribe a sequence of DNA, you need* something else that has the same sequence to compare it to.

"To be or not to be, that is the question - whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" can be considered specified because there is an already existing work that it can be matched to (assuming I've remembered it correctly).

"ejrtg mfdbdffsnmnsd sb gdsn fsnfdn s bd bfds b s gfn fsn. Dii sg dsdgfs bdgb db ds b dsb sb fgsgfs nbfdsgb dj ldskj kl fds, vv" isn't specified because there is no pre-existing sequence that it matches.

Sequenced DNA isn't specified because there is no pre-existing specification that it matches. The result of DNA sequencing can be used as a specification for something else, such as gene therapy or artificial DNA construction, but that doesn't mean the DNA sequence is specified, it means that whatever is based on it is specified. The existence of similar DNA sequences in different people/creatures isn't specification either since it isn't independent if all the copies were inherited from the same ancestor.

If we had some data that matched sequenced DNA, and which existed before or independently of the DNA being sequenced, then it might be specified. But we don't, so it isn't.

*and this is the Creationist/IDers claim too

[Seeker]

Roy, you say you have met Phillip Bell in person?

[shunyadragon]

Sorry if I am being dense, but I still don't get that. You mean the creationists haven't sequenced it?

The Creationists dishonestly and selectively cite and interpret others research, and do not do their own research.

[Roy]

Roy, you say you have met Phillip Bell in person?

Yes, I think it was him.

He used to work for AiG UK, and he gave a couple of presentations near where I lived. The first was standard YEC rubbish, complete with misrepresented data and out-of-context quotes. The second was about UFOs being flown by demons.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I think it was him.

He used to work for AiG UK, and he gave a couple of presentations near where I lived. The first was standard YEC rubbish, complete with misrepresented data and out-of-context quotes. The second was about UFOs being flown by demons.

He needs to take his meds.

[Seeker]

The second was about UFOs being flown by demons.

Good Lord.

[Duragizer]

The second was about UFOs being flown by demons.

What does Satan need with a starship?

[shunyadragon]

What does Satan need with a starship?

They are a lot of fun! . . . besides they specified complex.

[Seeker]

Are there THREE different concepts of 'information'? One by Spetner, one by Gitt and another by Dembski? In what they differ from one another?

[shunyadragon]

Are there THREE different concepts of 'information'? One by Spetner, one by Gitt and another by Dembski? In what they differ from one another?

Dempski's use of the concept of 'information' is blue smoke and mirrors' approach to justify the concept of 'specified complexity' and a very unethical use of statistics and probability.It is complex how he describes it. His concept is a very mechanistic approach that he proposes prevents the natural abiogenesis and evolution of live.

Dembski defines information as follows:

[Seeker]

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/01/reviewing_the_e/