evolution calculations

Dembski has, alas, abandoned mathematics for lunacy.You have his bound wrong ... it's supposed to be 1 in 10⁵⁰⁰. Either way it's ludicrously wrong. Get four decks of cards. Shuffle them together. Lay them out face up on the floor. The probability of the arrangement you are looking at is much less than 1 in 10⁵⁰⁰. Reflect on whether the arrangement you are looking at is possible or impossible. Reflect on whether the event you just witnessed happened by chance at any time. (Hint: the answers are "possible" and "yes", respectively.) You can witness events that you claim are impossible in your own home! Garbage in, garbage out. Nobody knows enough to calculate the probability of the first cell evolving. Dembski calculated the probability of the first cell appearing by chance (which no-one proposes as a possibility) rather than evolution (which is far more than chance). He compounded his mistake by assuming a particular way in which the cell assembled by chance instead of considering all possilbe ways, making an already wrong calculation even more wrong. (Of course, nobody knows all the ways that a cell could have assembled by chance, either).All such calculations are wrong, no matter who does them.

Went right over your head, huh? That is not the best evolutuionists can propose. Some of the real best that evolutionists propose has already been ignored by you in this thread. Yup. And it's been critiqued. It's garbage in, garbage out. No, that would not be lunacy. That would be science. Unfortunately, it's not what Debmbski has done or is doing.When Dembski first started I thought he was honestly trying to develop a science, and was really interested and wished him well. He's done a lot since then, and each bit has been worse and more riddled with errors than the last. He's a laughing-stock. His calculations are meaningless for so many reasons it's difficult to list them all.I remembered. BTW, that he has never calculated the probability of a cell assembling, so I would appreciate it if you would post the source of your claim that he did. Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates and The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance are good critiques. The former summarizes No Free Lunch and, IMHO, everything that Dembski has done:

quote:

---

In short, No Free Lunch is completely worthless, except as a work of pseudoscientific rhetoric aimed at a mathematically unsophisticated audience which may mistake its mathematical mumbo jumbo for genuine erudition. However, since I have been urged to find something positive to write about it, I am pleased to be able to report that the book has an excellent index.

---

Depends. How do you define information? There are several different ways. Yup. Please tell us which definition of information you are using so we can select the most appropriate example. Have several. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm (and this is the one that Lee Spetner grants as increasing information by his definition).
Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.htmlI expect much mirth when you respond. 1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. My opinion is the clay, but it could well have been any of the ones you mentioned, any of the others that have been hypothesized, or something we haven't yet thought of. It's a relatively youthful field. Well, it certainly demonstrates that you are obnoxiously snide when you are avoiding answering direct and relevant questions. "Done with a smile" doesn't make it any more honest or less repellant.You have not replied to Message 53, especially:

quote:

---

I remembered. BTW, that he {Dembski} has never calculated the probability of a cell assembling, so I would appreciate it if you would post the source of your claim that he did.

---

Reads fine in Acrobat 7 here.

How fast does it load? You may be happier if you try Adobe Reader SpeedUp.