Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 7/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Member (Idle past 4056 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Message 748 of 752 (607444)
03-03-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by havoc
03-03-2011 4:28 PM

Re: Really stupid assertions
Havoc writes:
This would be explaind by Dembskis Law filter.
Dembski is possibly more of an idiot than Sarfati. No Free Lunch has been absolutely and completely shredded by the scientific community, and yet these arguments still come up.
Here are some examples from our friend Wikipedia why you cannot place any weight on Dembski's notion of specified complexity:
Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information measures how close to uniform a random probability distribution is and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.
Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus.
...critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[24] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.
I cite these examples solely because you seem to be placing great reliance on the idea of "specified complexity" to insist that DNA is evidence of a designer, without fully appreciating how this concept put forward by Dembski holds no merit.
And the comment "An earthquake at the Scrabble store will never write a novel" is nothing more than a rehash of Hoyle's fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 4:28 PM havoc has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024