Existence of God

It's pretty obvious that you ARE unaware of the facts of the matter.The real facts are that PE is not a saltationist theory, and is based on widely-accepted evolutionary theory (Mayr's allopatric model of speciation). So in terms of evolutionary theory it is neither a close relative of Goldschmidt's views, nor is it a "patch job".

Just to puincture your little superior act, let me remind you that you only recently found out all this yourself. In fact you were putting forward your own misinformed ideas on this forum not so long ago, on one of the threads you abandoned - after I pointed out the real facts.SO here's another fact for you. The number of proven examples of CSI is zero. Nobody has even come close to actually applying the concept to biology at all.

The Design Inference is expensive and probably hard to find - it may even be out of print. I very much doubt that Joralex has read it (his recent misrepresentation of the explanatory filter certainly shows that he lacked even a basic understanding).I was lucky enough to find a remaindered copy.To make things simple Dembski uses improbability as his measure of information (the base 2 logarithm of the inverse of the probability to get to "bits" - so 2 bits is a probability of 0.25). It is not the same as Shannon information at all.Specification is a description which is (supposedly) independant of the data being considered.The fact is that nobody has done the specification let alone calculated the relevant probabilities for DNA. Any claim that DNA is an example of CSI is pure speculation.

Well if you know all about Dembski's work then how come you so badlt misrepresented his Design inference only a short time ago ?Intesetignly rather than retracting your wholly erroneous claim you abandoned the thread.So why exactly are you trying to demand a retraction from me - when you failed to do any such thing having made a major mistake in a subject you now claim to know well ?As for the comparison with Shannon information, if you cosnider Dembski's use of the Caputo case you will see that he does not use the exact sequence in his probability calculations at all. On the other hand Dembski's measure does not include the effects of redundancy, as Shannon does. Nor does Shannon make a distinction for intelligent sources.And if you know of ANY cases where CSI has been properly identified by applying Dembski's method let's see them (and nom Dembski's attempt to prove that the bacterial flagellum is CSI does't count - it was a complete mess).

A line of Skulls for Mike the Viz (42)Where he says of Dembski's Explanatory Filter "There is no need to compute the probability or to compare it to any bound." and even suggests that it is a strawman to say that it is needed !As my reply pointed out, it is in fact an essential step in the Filter - yet Joralex was dismissing it as not only unnecessary but alleging that it was a misrepresentation.Either he knew what he was saying was false - and when he is crying "strawman" that would be a pretty blatant piece of dishonesty, or he didn't know what he was talking about, less than two weeks ago.

What I am saying is that it requires calculating the probability of every possible non-design explanation producing the observed result. It's pretty obvious that that is a difficult task for anything where we don't already have a good understanding of how it came to be.So far as I know nobody has bothered to do it for any non-biological example and there are no cases of anybody making any worthwhile attempt at a biological example.