|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance. I really think this is an interesting place to mine. So what is it about either chemistry or physics that enables the first self-replicating cell to form? Which particular abiogenesis hypothesis do you subscribe to? I think we can eliminate much of this dribble such as a rosetta stone coming out of a rhino butt with three horns if we go there. I don't think a bird is creating information when it is building a nest. The bird is shaping what is already there. It is creating a certain type of order. There is no new digital code being created in this process. However, the nest (apparently it depends on how you define information) is shaped by an intelligence. I was going to sit on the side lines watching Smooth Operator and PaulK but I don't want to see you people wear Smooth out. I think one of the most important points this debate boils down to is whether the digital code in the cell could have resulted from the laws of physics and chemistry or if it defies it and therefore, we could infer it as the result of intelligence. It seems to me PaulK believes there are certain properties in a protein that need to be specified for function but, he seems to believe the assemblage of the proper chemical constituents would have self-organized in a way to form the first life. There are more questions. Can physics and chemistry explain the first cell. The book "Signature in the Cell" devoted hundreds of pages that says "No it can't. That is why Dean Kenyon said, "We haven't the slighted chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells." If people like PaulK are right, then why don't we place all of the right chemical constituents with the right conditions into some sterile environments and let life form all over again? In the defense of materialistic science, we shouldn't assume that our known laws of physics and chemistry can't produce the first cell. I understand that. However, I think for many forum participants here, it isn't about science, it is about protecting a belief system or planting the seeds of destroying one. If you wish to we can continue this in the adjacent thread "The Grand Theory of Life" EvC Forum: The Grand Theory of Life Edited by traderdrew, : Just inserting more "complex specified information" Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
traderdrew writes:
Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now.
I really think this is an interesting place to mine. So what is it about either chemistry or physics that enables the first self-replicating cell to form? Which particular abiogenesis hypothesis do you subscribe to? I think we can eliminate much of this dribble such as a rosetta stone coming out of a rhino butt with three horns if we go there.
That was actually to prove a point. One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is.
I don't think a bird is creating information when it is building a nest.
Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...?
The bird is shaping what is already there. It is creating a certain type of order.
So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there.
There is no new digital code being created in this process.
Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however.
However, the nest (apparently it depends on how you define information) is shaped by an intelligence.
I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell? )
I was going to sit on the side lines watching Smooth Operator and PaulK but I don't want to see you people wear Smooth out.
Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process.
I think one of the most important points this debate boils down to is whether the digital code in the cell could have resulted from the laws of physics and chemistry or if it defies it and therefore, we could infer it as the result of intelligence.
Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own.
It seems to me PaulK believes there are certain properties in a protein that need to be specified for function but, he seems to believe the assemblage of the proper chemical constituents would have self-organized in a way to form the first life. There are more questions. Can physics and chemistry explain the first cell. The book "Signature in the Cell" devoted hundreds of pages that says "No it can't. That is why Dean Kenyon said, "We haven't the slighted chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells."
That's an argument from authority.
If people like PaulK are right, then why don't we place all of the right chemical constituents with the right conditions into some sterile environments and let life form all over again?
Because we don't know yet what those components are and what the ideal environment for them is. One thing it certainly wasn't is sterile.
In the defense of materialistic science, we shouldn't assume that our known laws of physics and chemistry can't produce the first cell.
I agree.
However, I think for many forum participants here, it isn't about science, it is about protecting a belief system or planting the seeds of destroying one.
It's only ever been about that. At least, in my experience. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now. In other words, you have "faith" that it's actually inevitable but you don't know what those conditions that don't involve intelligence are in order to make it possible.
One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is. It doesn't mean it isn't either if science can't explain it through some sort of spontaneous generation, RNA first, or self-organization model.
Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...? The height, structure, depth, width are part of descriptions which help describe the nest. The strength is partly determined by its chemical structure which has its foundations in DNA.
So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there. You know that before a language was engraved on the stone, it existed as an ordinary stone. The linguisitic symbols on it have an orderly, specified and complimentary relationship.
Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however. Why are we arguing what is obvious? I am simply pointing out the difference between building a nest and part of the foundation of DNA.
I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell? Well then, maybe you can create a better nest than a bird if you have a better brain than a bird? :-)
Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process. No I don't think so. There is still that 400 bits of CSI information that remains unanswered. PaulK can say it doesn't exist but he isn't accounting for the growth onto the original information or how that information can self-organize into specified complimentary parts of an overall whole and the relationship of all the parts in the entire whole. For self-replication to exist, don't you need machinery among other things? Don't you need things such as hydroporins on the surface of the cell in order to regulate water flow and other things to help regulate what comes into and out of the cell? How does it all deal with potential hypothetical problems? I'm sure I can think of many other questions.
Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own. The digital code of DNA - PubMed Also, look up Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis.
That's an argument from authority. And that quote of yours is not science. If it was science then you should be able to refute Dr. Dean Kenyon with scientific fact. Then again, you don't disagree with my statement that much of this debate isn't about science around here.
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. Religion has been around for thousands of years and Darwinism has been here for 150 years. A theory such as Darwinism can be rationalized into something that serves evil. Religion has a head start but the Nazis had their roots in Darwinism - "Survival of the Fittest".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I mistakenly calle them "hydroporins" in my previous post. They are "aquaporins". Maybe this should be a new topic around here.
I suppose they were just there in the first living cell? Lucky it had them. Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell? We should just assume they weren't designed. Right? The aquaporins - PMC Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I agree. quote:So you are saying that regularity (chemistry and physics) + chance = self replicating machinery? quote:Which would make us think it didn't make that stone... quote:The likely cause was an intelligence in both causes. quote:Birds are intelligent. Nut much, but they are intelligent. quote:Exactly, we do not know anything about him, neither are we interested while detecting design. quote:I'm not ignoring any evidence. We do not know the identity of the designer of the DNA in living beings. I'm not ignoring anything. quote:That's like saying we have to know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone. And now you will say that we do know that people make things like Rosetta stone. And again, I will point out to you that that is the same thing I am saying when I say that DNA is designed. ONLY IN MORE GENERAL TERMS!!!! Please try to understand that. If you are not able to grasp this simple concept, than please take a look at this picture I made for you.
We have two large grey circels. The left circle represents intelligence, the right circle represents information. The black arrow represents a relation that shows that intelligence produces information. Inside each of those large circles we have smaller circles. Small blue circles represent possible candidates that could be intelligent designers. Among those are: Humans, aliens, God, animals, and other unknow intelligent agents... They are enteties that have, or are thought to have intelligence and are capeable of creating information. All these enteties are a subset of the large circle which is intelligence. In the right large circle we have smaller red circles which represent instances of design. Among which are: Books, CDs, DNA, images, and others... All these items in red circels are information, and are thus a subset of the large grey circle. This means they are all a product of intelligence. In other words since intelligence creates information, any of those red circels, which are instances of design, are created by a possible candidate in the blue circle. For instance, humans create books. It is equally valid to say that: "HUMANS CREATE BOOKS" and to say: "INTELLIGENCE CREATES INFORMATION" or "INTELLIGENCE CREATES BOOKS" ALL three statements are true. The only difference is that the second and third are more general. Since humans are a subset of intelligence, and books are a subset of information. In the case of DNA it is equally valid to say that: "UNKNOWN DESIGNER CREATED DNA" and to say that: "INTELLIGENCE CREATED DNA" Because we know that an unknown designer is a subset of intellignece, and DNA is a subset of information.
quote:Exactly. That is why a bird is the designer. quote:Why? quote:No. That is not an identity. That is a generalization. Mankind is not an identity. The name of the individual who made the stone is the identity. Saying intelligence made the Rosetta stone is the same generalization only on an even more broader level. quote:No. No evidence points to it. You are simply assuming it. quote:What evidence? quote:I'm trying to show you how wrong your argument is. I only said that to show you that it's invalid. Obviously I do not agree with that reasoning. quote:That is why we have the method of design detection which tells us if it is designed or not. quote:Philosophically speaking yes. But scientifically no. Therefore, Rosetta stone could not have been made by your hippo. It's are reasonable as saying that your hippo made all life on Earth. quote:What evidence? quote:Infer based on what? quote:But no natural law has created anything like DNA, so why would you infer DNA was a natural product? quote:Tell em the characteristics of the person or persons who made the Rosetta stone. Was it a male or a female? quote:No. You are wrong twice in the same statement. I'm ignoring no evidence. Since there is no evidence that DNA can form naturally. And you do not understand the difference between ADDING ENTETIES and GENERALIZATION. You obviously do not know the differnece. By sayign that an intellignece did something, I'm adding nothing new to the explanation. I'm generalizing becasue intelligence is not something new to a human. Human is a subset of an intelligent agent. A lot of possible intelligent agents exist. Humans are just one possible candidate for an explanation. I'm actually reducing my chances of being wrong. Becasue you actually can be wrong in the case of the Rosetta stone being done by humans. Maybe it was a trained moneky. By saying that an intelligence did it I am reducing my chances of being wrong becasue a monkey is a subset of intelligent causes. Therefore if a trained monkey designed the Rosetta stone, you would be wrong, and I would be correct.
quote:Great. Tell me was he/she/it talkative? Was he/she/it tall? Was he/she/it blonde? quote:Yes, but it's still not an identity. It's a generalization. A subset of intellignet causes. So sayign that an intellignece did it is equally valid. It's more general with less chances of being wrong. quote:Why is it not the same thing? Do you not agree that the explanation only differens in the level of generalization? quote:What evidence? quote:Besides the point. The point is that saying that it was human is not the identity. It would not pass in the court of law. quote:Heh, well, you see, you are actually the one who is ignoring evidence. DNA is full of CSI. And CSI is the mark of intellignece. So yes, DNA does point to an intellignet cause. quote:Of course it has. DNA is an instance of CSI. For an example. human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. Which is about 6 billion bits. It's complexity surpasses 10^120. This number is needed for a random chance to specify 400 bits of information. Anything that is above 400 bits is outside of the reach of our entire universe. Not only that but it is specified in that it conforms to an independently given pattern. Therefore, it's a case of specified complexity, or short - CSI. Which is a reliable indicator of design. quote:It' snot circular, and I do not "want" it to be designed. I'm simply saying that if we find soemthing that is designed, that simply means that there was a designer. quote:No, I do not agree with that reasoning, I'm simply showing you how moronic the argument is. quote:Show me that evidence. quote:Yup, we do. CSI is a reliable mark of intellignece. DNA is CSI. quote:We infer design. quote:Philosophically yes, scientifically no. quote:Why would I need to know the characteristics of the designer? Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It isn't the most important thing to a flagellum !
quote: Unfortunately for you, YOUR measure of complexity CAN be increaded by the processes of growth. That's why Dembski didn't use it in the TDI.
quote: That would be true if we used Dembski's methods as published in TDI. But you say that's wrong and we should use a method which allows the eye to have more of your "information" than the genes.
quote: So Dembski's measure of information isn't relevant ? Why not ?We are supposedly discussing Dembski's methods here. quote: That's not even in agreement with NFL ! NFL includes the arrangement of the proteins as part of the calculation.
quote: So your claim is based on the assumption that E Coli is the ONLY bacterium with a "bi-directional rotary propellor" ? And that this must contain 50 proteins even though we know that only 49 are needed for function ? I think that your assertion has some problems. At the least you have to look at other flagella to see if they meet the specification or not !
quote: So your ideas about how to calculate the complexity DON'T come from NFL and are in direct contradiction to NFL ? Because they completely disagree with TDI !
quote: So in fact you KNOW that your complexity calculation is completely wrong and liable to result in a false positive. Because - as you have just stated - NFL tells you as much,
quote: The easiest way to do it yourself. Implement a simple well-behaved landscape and see how well a simple hill-climbing algorithm does at finding the peaks. Then try it with a completely random landscape.
quote: Likely because humans are using technology to counter the disadvantages of a lot of minor genetic problems.
quote: Perhaps you should actually try reading the paper to find out what it means by "small" ?
quote: No, I'm saying that since you disagree with the whole theory (while citing a paper that supports the theory) YOU should provide the evidence.
quote: I can say it because it's true. Even if you disagree.
quote: Wrong! Natural selection selects between more and less fit. Those that have deleterious mutations will be less fit (by definition) and thus less likely to pass on their genes. Proportionately deleterious mutations will tend to do less well and beneficial mutations will do better.
quote: That the problem is in using the data that you wish to apply Dembski's method to, to generate the specification. Using other data is fine.
quote: It makes perfect sence if you understand. But you obviously can't be bothered.
quote: Dembski's CSI of course. The method that we are supposedly discussing.
quote: But since you are busy contradicting yourself that doesn't mean much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Smooth,
Your diagram assumes the point it is trying to make. For example, by putting DNA on the right hand side it assumes that DNA is the product of intelligence. Here's a more useful diagram showing some sources and examples of information:
Anything in reality can be a source of information for us, as long as it can in some way be made apparent to our senses. The central claim of ID is that only intelligence can create information, but this is incorrect. All of reality is creating information all the time, and what humans often do is record that information. For example, if you're keeping a weather log and looking out your window write down that it is sunny, you didn't create the information that it is sunny. You merely transformed the information from one form (the sun shining in the sky) to another (written words on paper). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5210 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
quote:I'm not ignoring it. I'm merely saying that it's an assumptions that humans made it. Because it could ahve been a trained monkey that chiseled that stone. We only assume humans did it. Yes, it's the best possible inference, but I just want to point out that when we are dealing with a design inference we can not reliably say who did it. True, which makes it the best possible explanation for the Rosetta Stone to be a human product. But that still does not exclude a trained monkey or an alien as possible designers of that stone. Unlike the natural forces which we excluded fromt he start and called that rock designed in the first place.
Here's a clue for you: stone carving monkeys and aliens are natural forces that can be expected to leave evidence of their presence. Unfortunately when the archeologists dig they don't find monkeys and alien stone-carving lasers. Likewise when researchers look at origin of life issues they have yet to see any evidence of the guy in the sky or a miraculous event.
Yes, but I said, to infer design, you do not need to know the identity of the designer.
In the absence of supporting evidence an inference is nothing but a WAG. The trouble is that we do have evidence to support human origins of the Rosetta Stone inscriptions and evidence supporting natural origins of life. To infer design we need knowledge of the designer, without it we are only making up stories to tell the other goat herders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell? you really think that those working in abiogenesis suggest that the first "cells" came ready prepared with advanced "machinery" such as aquaporins??? No wonder you have no ability to understand how abiogenesis could be naturalistic. The first cell membranes would have been permeable to small molecules, impermeable to large molecules. That is all. Do I really need to explain how this could be possible? This is as basic and confused as creationists asking for evolution to show new limbs appearing in a generation, completely failing to appreciate that the terapodal bodyplan hasn't significantly changed in 400 million years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Than what is? quote:No it can't. That's why I said that's not important. the flagellum is coded for by a number of genes, regardless of how it is assembled. quote:And we are using those methods. Which others do you think we are using? quote:No, I never in my life said that's wrong. Where the hell did I say it's wrong!? Cite me the part where I said that CSI defined in TDI is wrong! quote:What? What the hell are you talking about? What is this my "information" you are talking about? You are making absolutely no sense. I already told you the amount of information stays the same. quote:Dembski's method is correct and relevat. It is your argument from growth that is irrelevant. quote:What's your point? quote:No. I gave the possibility of 20% change, which means 20% of increase in probability of the flagellum forming. quote:LOL! Show me one statement in NFL that contradicts any statement in TDI. quote:No. quote:No, that would be a designed algorithm. Evolution is supposed to be non-designed. quote:LOOOLOOOOL! I can't believe you said that!!! That just means that natural selection is USELESS!!! And that we need INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION to remove the deleterious mutations from our genomes.
quote:Why don't you tell me since you seem to be so smart. quote:What drugs are you using? I'm the one who gave you the link to that paper. You are the one who is disagreeing witht he paper not me! quote:But you have no evidence for it. Unlike what I showed you. I showed you a paper that has actually done experiments and has shown genetic entropy to casue extinction. quote:NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS!!!! Which part of ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE MUTANTS do you have hard time of understanding!? Those who are less fit have MORE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!Those who are "fit" ALSO HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!! ALL INDIVIDUALS HAVE DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS!!! And even if you select the fit ones, their deleterious mutations keep spreading through the population.
quote:This isn't even English!? What's your first language? quote:CSI is not a method it's a definition of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Hi, no it doesn't. DNA is designed becasue of the marks of design it exhibits, not becasue I say so. quote:This is is a nice diagram and it represents very well Shannon information and it's possible origin. But keep in mind that when I say "information" I mean CSI, which can't be produced by a natural casue. And since DNA exhibits CSI it can only be produced by an intelligence. All those instances of design I showed in my example are examples of CSI and not just Shannon information. quote:That's true for Shannon information only. CSI's source can only be intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:What evidence am I ignoring? quote:Monkies and aliens are not natural casues. Natural causes are by definition non-teleological. Since both aliens and monkies are intelligent, they are not a natural cause. quote:We do have a reason to infer design for both Rosetta stone and DNA. quote:Show me that evidence that supports natural origin of life. quote:Explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would think that the structural elements are rather important.
quote: And the information content of the genes depends on how THEY formed.
quote: I know that you AREN'T following the method of TDI. Your "complexity" calculation has no basis in TDI whatsoever.
quote: Then why do you keep insisting on using a "complexity" calculation that is NOT accepted by TDI ?
quote: The way you measure information it DOESN'T necessarily stay the same.
quote: You're contradicting yourself again. The fact that flagella grow IS relevant to Dembski's method (since it controls the configuration of the proteins). Ignoring it is going AGAINST Dembski's method.
quote: My point is that appealing to Dembski does you no good if you keep disagreeing with him all over the place.
quote: So your ACTUAL specification is "no more than 20% different than the E Coli flagelum" which is an obvious fabrication.
quote: I said that YOUR statements disagreed with TDI. I leave it to you to say whether they come from NFL.
quote: Does NFL agree with TDI or not ? Because neither your use of specification or complexity calculation are sanctioned by TDI.
quote:Actually it is very like a simple hill-climbing algorithm. And we all know that simple things can occur naturally. quote: No. If you actually understood what I said you would realise that STOPPING the intelligent intervention that is reducing the effectiveness of natural selection would be enough.
quote: Because I'm not going to do you work for you. Especially since you have such difficulty understanding what I say.
quote: The problem is that I'm not disagreeing with the paper at all.
quote: A paper that specifically says that it is working with small populations....
quote: And you are ignoring recombination. As well as the fact that life seems to keep on going withot succumbing to genetic entropy.
quote: I think that you mean that it is above your reading grade, since there is nothing wrong with it. Is English YOUR first language ?
quote: It is certainly not a definition of information ! Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Structural elements are the proteins which function by the laws of biochemistry. When the structure of proteins gets changed enough their biochemical properties change too. Which leads to loss of biological functions. Which is what Axe's work shows. quote:Obviously it doesn't. If by chance a word "HOUSE" was formed by droping of ink on a piece of paper, would it's informational content been any different than if the exact same word was written by a person? No obviously not. quote:Than tell em how do we calculate the complexity of an object according to TDI. quote:But that is simply not true. You just keep saying it. quote:How does it change? Give me an example. quote:No becasue the final flagellum is always in the same configuration regardless of if it has grown or assembled in any other way. quote:Explain how exactly am I disagreeing with him. quote:It's an estimate based on Axe's work. quote:Cite me a statement rom TDI that I have contradicted. quote:Of course it does. quote:Yes. Unlikey living organisms which are not simple. quote:Enough for what? Your English is terrible. quote:Becasue your version of English is not supported by my web browser. quote:Yes, you are. You said that genetic entropy is not a problem for "large" populations. quote:NO. It says that it applies to ALL populations. But smaller populations will experince genetic entropy sooner than larger ones. quote:RECOMBINATION IS JUST SHUFFLING OF ALREADY EXISTING GENES!!!! It doesn't even remove the deleterious ones. It just puts them on another spot in the genome. They still stay where they were. quote:Only if we ignore the papers that I showed you which show that populations can die-out because of genetic entropy. quote:No, it's not and I never had anyone complain about it. Unlike your English which is unintelligible. quote:LOL! YES IT IS! The full name Is: "Complex Specified Information"! Yes it's a definition of information! Why the hell are you debating me when you are so clueless about the topic!? You don't even know what you're attacking! Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Smooth Operator,
The concept of CSI is made up. It has no units or method of measure, and the degree to which anything, including DNA, possesses this imaginary quality cannot be determined. Someone could as easily make up the concept of NSC (Naturally Sourced Complexity) and claim that DNA is natural because of the degree to which it exhibits NSC. Like CSI, NSC has no units or method of measure, but it does have one thing CSI doesn't, a method by which it comes about: through the physical laws of nature which we've observed and know exist, in marked contrast to your designer. That's the problem with entities like your designer - it's just not possible to tell the difference between the imaginary and something that's never been seen or detected. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024