Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

That was my point Shannon theory is an inadequate way of measuring the information content of the genome. Specified complexity is how the code works not just random bits which is what Shannon measures.

First let me ask you to admit that you are making a theological statement here. That you know how a designer would design.Second there are numerous reasons for the eye to orientated the way it is including prevention of blindness at bright lights. So instead of calling someone an eagle eye we should be calling them an octopus eye?Is the Octopus eye not a violation of your Nested Hierarchy? You call it convergent evolution which is a catch all for everything that doesn’t fit you neat little line charts. So again my point from earlier there is no way to disprove your theory because it is dogma.I’m still looking for the mermaid but something tells me this would not shake your unequivocal FAITH. Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

Open the operating code for you pc and just start hitting the keys on the keyboard. Then hire a Microsoft employee who is Adept at writing code. Your attempt could generate twice the bits of info as measured by Shannon but which program do you want running on your pc?The SETI project looks for specified complexity in the form of radio waves in space. They can tell the difference of ordered complexity like a pulsar and random background noise and specified complexity which interestingly enough would be touted by most everyone as proof of intelligent life. That is that a code containing specified complexity is proof of an intelligent code maker.

Well thenneither is the vertebrate bone structure. But they sure like to throw that one out there as the gospel.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the finger digits do not so is this evidence against common ancestor or do u pick and choose what you like?

One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells dividethis was taken from a paper by Dr sarfati. Sorry couldnt recall how to quote.Does this cause you to question your belief? If not why does the backbone development count as proof but finger development does not?

I never said Shannon was the propper way to measure information in the genome. Sorry you think that I did but I did not.
Read "In the begining was information" Well thought out. Any one who studys information theory knows that shannon theory is usefull for somethings but comes short in others.Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

Simply not how it happened. Granted these discussions have tended to spiral in new directions. But generally I have responded to what was put before me. Someone brought up the backward wired eye and compared it to the octopus. I commented on this and how its design was not flawed and how this was one of the examples of convergent evolution that evos use as a just so explanation of violations of their theory. Someone retorted that it was not homologous since it develops differently in octopus and mammals. So I said the same could be said for vertebrate bone development. They said no way vertebrates backbone develops the same to which I said but their fingers don’t. The point being that if one is proof for common ancestor than the other has to be proof against.I have enjoyed most of the conversations here. I don’t think I have been a bad debater and hope I have answered questions in an honest way. I have not tried to move the goal posts.I don’t need to be lectured about ethics from a REDSOX fan.

I thought that was funny.

Do you really not get the correlation between my Shakespeare analogy and novel functional information?And by the way I have been having multiple conversations with several different people perhaps this is why you think I have been jumping around. I have only been responding to posts directed to me.

Glad to here you admit that design has markings. Now does something that is designed require a designer?

Do you admit that there is more information in specifically ordered letters such as and instruction manual than there is in random keystrokes?Shannon would measure them the same. This is not how you should measure the information in a code.
.Edited by havoc, : quotes.

Well that might not be a fair question since I do not know the language of DNA and amino acids. A bit like showing me a Spanish book and asking me to translate.However since I do so love these discussions I will try to play along. Dembski purposes a filter to determine design or specified complexity. Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design. These events are both specified and of vanishingly small probabilities. Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannon’s bits?

Sir I dont think you understand sports fans to well. Im a Yankees fan hes a redsocks fan. Im sure he found that as polite joking. I know I would have if the rolls were reversed.

Are all frogs vertebrates? Vertebrates have 5 digits because we all have the same ancestor who had 5 digits, correct? In most they develop the same way because that is the way the common ancestors developed? However in some they stopped developing in this way and started developing in a totally different way? Why did natural selection select for this what is the advantage to the frog to develop the same digits in a different way?I’m not saying that this is evidence for creation just that if you can use homology as proof of evolution than to be honest where there is differences in developmental pathways should be equally proof against evolution.