|
Author
|
Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
|
Message 717 of 752 (607402)
03-03-2011 3:27 PM
|
|
|
et all
So all I have heard is that Dembski and Gitt are wrong. Do any of you purpose any other way of differentiating between random key strokes and the written English language?
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
Re: my karma ran over your frogma
Why does it matter? Your original argument has already been shown to be hideously, embarrassingly, shockingly, terribly ignorant and wrong. You are now trying to move the goalposts again. No I was just pointing out an evolutionists insistance on homology as evidence for evolution was not warranted Even Gavin Debeer said:
Because homology implies community of descent from a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes. You have to believe that the fleetingly unlikely event of just the right mutations led to for example 5 digits on vertebrate for limbs but then the mechanism was lost and regained in an entirely different way several times. To quote Dembski: Events of fleetingly small possibility do not occur by chance. Edited by havoc, : No reason given.
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
|
|
Message 720 of 752 (607410)
03-03-2011 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 718 by Huntard
03-03-2011 3:33 PM
|
|
Re: et all
You haven't even told us how they differentiate the English language from random key strokes. How do we measure this "specified complexity"? Can you differentiate the difference between the english language and random key strokes?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 718 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2011 3:33 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
|
|
Message 725 of 752 (607419)
03-03-2011 4:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 718 by Huntard
03-03-2011 3:33 PM
|
|
Re: et all
How do we measure this "specified complexity"? I have given you two different ways purposed to measure information content or specified complexity. You guys don’t like them and have poked holes in these arguments. I have seen no one point to a better way to measuer it. Actually it is hard to get any of you to admit that there is any difference in random information (random keystrokes) and specified complexity (like the English language).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 718 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2011 3:33 PM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
|
|
Message 727 of 752 (607421)
03-03-2011 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 722 by jar
03-03-2011 4:02 PM
|
|
Re: Really stupid assertions
Dembski does make some really stupid statements doesn't he. What are the odds of lightning striking a particular leaf in a field? This would be explaind by Dembskis Law filter. The nature of lightning would cause it to strike somewhere. There is nothing intrinsic in DNA that causes it to code for one thing over the other. To take your analogy further you should look for lighting to repeatedly strike a corn field in a way that leaves a picture of Darwin scorched in the field. Then you would have a point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 722 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 4:02 PM | | jar has replied |
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
Re: et all
Knowing how to read English has always worked for me. So there is a difference but since it doesnt fit well with your theory you just leave it alone?
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
Re: et all
The thing is, in DNA, there really is no such thing as random keystrokes Realy so mutation is no longer random? Answer carefully your entire world view hangs in the balance.
I could not, however, necessarily differentiate between the Cletic language and a bunch of random keystrokes (I think the Celtic language IS just a buynch of random keystrokes, but that's neither here nor there). Nor could I differentiate between Arabic script and some strange little swirls on a piece of paper. So we did not know that hieroglyphics were language before finding the Rosetta stone? You guys are punishing yourselves to avoid the obvious. Language is language and code is code only because of specified complexity and nothing intrinsic in DNA would lead to this occurrence. And every known code has a code maker. This is just a fact of life.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 723 by Perdition, posted 03-03-2011 4:06 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
Re: et all
Incidentally, what if I wrote a program that would randomly combine English words into sentences constrained by English grammar (which I could do in a matter of minutes). Would the sentences so produced have a designer? Would they have specified complexity? Could you tell whether they had specified complexity just by looking at them, or would you have to know whether they were produced by (a) my computer program (b) an intelligent albeit Surrealist poet? Yes you an intellegent person could creat program that results in specified complexity. However an earth quake at the scrabble store will never write a novel.
|
havoc
Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: 03-01-2011
|
Re: et all
But more obscure yet is the relevance of all this to the question of design detection in DNA. How is my ability to recognize English useful in recognizing whether a certain DNA sequence was produced by design or evolution? Code is code my friend. Can you name one code that has no code maker?
|
™ Version 4.2