Information inside you

There may be plenty of questions still to answer about evolution, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution isn't sufficiently supported by the evidence already to used to answer the questions we now know.
True, I agree that evolution has much support and it answers difficult questions. I would disagree that it answers every question or is a fact in every respect.
 
No. Evolution, like all science with the exception of physics is based on certain precursor conditions. If you want to talk about those precursors, that's fine, but it's not evolution.

Your statement regarding the Cambrian explosion is false. The "explosion" is the evolution of organisms with hard body parts which fossilise more easily, along with the discovery of sites such as the Burgess Shakes, which also made fossilisation very easy. Your assumption is faulty. The relative lack of fossils predating the Cambrian ( they do exist by the way) is due to the lack of fossilised individuals, plus the lack of accessible suitably aged rock formations. Not to the absence of ancestors.
The Cambrian explosion was known about and discussed even in Darwin's day and is referred to as Darwin's doubt because of the sudden appearance of diverse animal forms which violated his principle of gradualism. The Burgess Shakes and such sites serve only to amply the problem because it was expected the further excavations would fill in the missing fossils but they did the exact opposite and further exacerbated the problem. Yes there were fossils discovered before the Cambrian but they were more flora like than animal. But the biggest contribution of the Cambrian explosion is the new large animal groups that had their first appearance in the Cambrian and have survived to the present. The Cambrian explosion has left the Darwinists in a posturing position and grasping for straws in an effort to defend their coveted theory. But in science this should never be the case but rather any new challenges to a theory should be welcomed as a method for opening new horizons or establishing old ones. This posturing mode was also witnessed at the end of the first ENCODE project with the announcement that at least 80 percent of the human genome was functional. Many professional evolutionists are not behaving as scientists nor should they be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
That’s irrelevant as to whether you can know how language evolved even if you don’t know - or ignore - how it began.
We do know and do not have to ignore how it began and it was not be natural unguided processes. Your example is faulty and you need another one. BTW, go ahead and tell us how language evolved.
 
I say it as I see it. But you are going to show how your design detecting methodology is used with respect to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys, right?
I have and I did. It is not my fault that either you can not or willfully choose not to understand it.
Ah, the old equivocation trick.

irreducibly complex, definition 1: cannot have evolved via a direct route that only allows for addition of parts

irreducibly complex, definition 2: cannot have evolved via any route, including routes where parts can be lost
You make up you own straw man definitions of an IC and then tear them apart. Now what fallacy is that classified under?
We are discussing evolution, in the modern sense. Proving Darwin's version was wrong does nothing. The reason the modern version is different to Darwin's is we know Darwin's version is wrong. You know that, I am sure, given you exact phrase "classical darwinian evolution", and you must know I know that.
Ah, but you forget that that classical Darwinian evolution was correct until Behe came along with his IC and caused your entire movement to switch to a post classical Darwinian posture.
Of course "experimental evidence always trumps theory". What is the experimental evidence God did it? Oh, right. There is none.

What is the theoretical evidence God did it? Oh, none of that either.

So evolution's theoretical evidence trumps ID's no evidence at all.
You have it totally turn a** backwards. There is absolutely no evidence for materialistic rocks to living cell naturalism while we have plenty of evidence for ID the strongest of which is the CSI in DNA. This type of information is only known to proceed from intelligence. This is evidence not from ignorance but rather from what we know about the world. But restricting it only to IC structures, the IC structures themselves are the evidence which can not be achieved by gradualism. They are real and measurable and available for experimentation. And is they that trump your theoretical pathways.
What exactly do you mean by "such structures" here?
The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.


The Pixie:

We can draw an analogy from the bacterial flagellum to a machine, but it is just an analogy - despite the fancy graphics the DI comes up with. If you want to claim it is like an outboard motor, go find the factory it was built in, show us the blueprints. They exist for the outboard motor. Or perhaps it is not as much like that as you would like us to think.


No it is not. The best we have at the moment is evolution, because theoretical evidence trumps no evidence at all.


How are you detecting specificity? Or functionality?

Why have you chosen not to make this clear? I asked for a methodology that can be used to determine design, and all you have given me is two buzz words. You are just kicking the can down the street.

I said last time:

So, yes, I know you have a method for detecting design. I also know you will never be clear on exactly how to use it because you know it is tosh.

Thank you for proving me right.

So the ball is in your court, Cisco. You have a choice:
  • State your methodology in sufficient detail that anyone can use it, and then I can try it out on Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys, and so you prove me wrong.
  • Bluster about specificity and functionality, but avoid saying how someone can actually do it, and so prove me right


I am not asking how the world does it. I am asking how Intelligent Design advocates do it. They claim to have a methodology that is generally applicable. And yet, when pressed, they seem reluctant to reveal it.
You are proven right only in you own mind.
 
Last edited:
We do know and do not have to ignore how it began and it was not be natural unguided processes. Your example is faulty and you need another one. BTW, go ahead and tell us how language evolved.
You’re correct that we don’t have to ignore how language began in order to understand how it evolved. But we can, and if we do ignore that, what we know about how language evolved still stands up. What we know about how language evolves doesn’t depend on how language started.
 
I have and I did. It is not my fault that either you can not or willfully choose not to understand it.
No you have not.

That is simply NOT TRUE. You have NEVER explained a methodology in sufficient detail that someone else could apply it to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys.

If I am wrong, you will be able to point me to where you did this, or even actually say in your own words. Rather more likely you will use me calling you out as an excuse to drop out of the discussion.

You make up you own straw man definitions of an IC and then tear them apart. Now what fallacy is that classified under?
So tell me what definition you are using.

The very fact that you accuse me of a straw man, but fail to do so supports my opinion!

The fact that you had to say "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution indicates you are yourself using a straw man version of evolution!

Ah, but you forget that that classical Darwinian evolution was correct until Behe came along with his IC and caused your entire movement to switch to a post classical Darwinian posture.
Ah, so you are saying it is okay to use a straw man if that was what people thought thirty years ago?

How about we agree "classical Darwinian evolution" is wrong... I say modern evolution theory is right, and I note that your irreducible complexity does not touch it.

You have it totally turn a** backwards. There is absolutely no evidence for materialistic rocks to living cell naturalism while we have plenty of evidence for ID the strongest of which is the CSI in DNA.
We were talking specifically about IC; I see you have now flipped hat to CSI.

So now we are back to how you measure CSI, I guess.

This type of information is only known to proceed from intelligence. This is evidence not from ignorance but rather from what we know about the world.
It is also true to say:
This type of information is only known to proceed from human intelligence.

Can we safely conclude life was designed by human intelligence? If not, why not?

But restricting it only to IC structures, the IC structures themselves are the evidence which can not be achieved by gradualism.
Please explain how we can know they cannot be achieved by graduation via intermediates that lose components, or via a process in which components start as non-essential, but later evolve to be essential.

They are real and measurable and available for experimentation. And is they that trump your theoretical pathways.
What are you measuring? If all you are doing is removing components from an exists system, how does that lead you to be sure is "can not be achieved by gradualism"?

And how does that trump theoretical pathways? If we have a system with four components, A, B, C and D, and you can show removing any one component stops the system working, that certainly proves an evolutionary route via A, B and C, for example, is impossible. But it still allows sequences such as:

AB -> ABE -> ABCE -> ABCDE -> ABCD
A'B' -> A'B'C -> A'B'CD -> A'BCD -> ABCD

Your experiment trumps only ABC -> ABCD. It does not tell us about others. And it turns out Darwin was all over this.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration.
(Darwin, 1859, Origin of Species, 1st edn, p 190)

He was considering organs, rather than components that Behe considers, but the argument is the same.

The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
Vague as ever.
 
Last edited:
You’re correct that we don’t have to ignore how language began in order to understand how it evolved. But we can, and if we do ignore that, what we know about how language evolved still stands up. What we know about how language evolves doesn’t depend on how language started.
Your analogy is ludicrous because you do not have a premise that states that language began through naturals causes which did not involve any form of intelligence. Language origin would be important to language evolution only if the origin was incapable of getting generated. In which case evolution could not happen. In this latter case evolution can and does happen because intelligence was capable of generating a rudimentary language. In contrast, rocks to living cells in not possible by natural means and there is no working theory that can explain it but with intelligence it is possible therefore intelligence remains the only likely causation.
 
Your analogy is ludicrous because you do not have a premise that states that language began through naturals causes which did not involve any form of intelligence.
Whether something started naturally or not is irrelevant to the analogy I'm making. Remember, *every* analogy has something different between the two parts, because if there was nothing different, they'd be the same thing.

Conclusions about how languages evolved - what parent language mutated into another language, and where, and when, and how long it took, and what were the similarities and differences between the parent and the mutated language - are the same AFAIK without any necessary reference to how the first language was developed (note that that does not involve what the first language was). If you think there could be some conclusion about how languages developed that would depend - necessarily - on how the first language developed, please offer it, and please be specific.

Language origin would be important to language evolution only if the origin was incapable of getting generated. In which case evolution could not happen. In this latter case evolution can and does happen because intelligence was capable of generating a rudimentary language. In contrast, rocks to living cells in not possible by natural means and there is no working theory that can explain it but with intelligence it is possible therefore intelligence remains the only likely causation.
 
No you have not.

That is simply NOT TRUE. You have NEVER explained a methodology in sufficient detail that someone else could apply it to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys.

If I am wrong, you will be able to point me to where you did this, or even actually say in your own words. Rather more likely you will use me calling you out as an excuse to drop out of the discussion.
I already did but by way of repetition here it is again even though is is falling on a biased mind set. The concept used is, "Specified Complexity", and even though you Goreme Fairy Chimneys are complex they lack specification. That is they have no function or meaning to an intelligence agent or an intelligently designed structure.
So tell me what definition you are using.

The very fact that you accuse me of a straw man, but fail to do so supports my opinion!

The fact that you had to say "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution indicates you are yourself using a straw man version of evolution!


Ah, so you are saying it is okay to use a straw man if that was what people thought thirty years ago?

How about we agree "classical Darwinian evolution" is wrong... I say modern evolution theory is right, and I note that your irreducible complexity does not touch it.
Sure it is wrong after Behe demonstrated that it was wrong through his irreducible complexity concept and it is still wrong even after your theoretical patches.
We were talking specifically about IC; I see you have now flipped hat to CSI.

So now we are back to how you measure CSI, I guess.
You have to read the entire paragraph to see that your accusation does not apply.
It is also true to say:
This type of information is only known to proceed from human intelligence.

Can we safely conclude life was designed by human intelligence? If not, why not?
Sure you can can conclude that but none of them make any sense. One concept proposed is that bio-engineers in the future developed a time machine and went into the past and seeded the first life. This suffers from the obvious flaw of how the bio-engineers existed in the first place without the first seeds. Another is the life was brought here from another part of the universe. This simply transposes the problems that we have with OOL here on earth to some other place in the universe. Remember that ID does not identify the intelligence but adheres to the premise that only intelligence could have been the cause.
Please explain how we can know they cannot be achieved by graduation via intermediates that lose components, or via a process in which components start as non-essential, but later evolve to be essential.


What are you measuring? If all you are doing is removing components from an exists system, how does that lead you to be sure is "can not be achieved by gradualism"?

And how does that trump theoretical pathways? If we have a system with four components, A, B, C and D, and you can show removing any one component stops the system working, that certainly proves an evolutionary route via A, B and C, for example, is impossible. But it still allows sequences such as:

AB -> ABE -> ABCE -> ABCDE -> ABCD
A'B' -> A'B'C -> A'B'CD -> A'BCD -> ABCD
Your little dialog exploits a weakness in Behe's original definition that the IC (but not the IC themselves) can contain sub parts that might be assumed to be functional and therefore selectable.



Your experiment trumps only ABC -> ABCD. It does not tell us about others. And it turns out Darwin was all over this.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration.
(Darwin, 1859, Origin of Species, 1st edn, p 190)

He was considering organs, rather than components that Behe considers, but the argument is the same.


Vague as ever.
There is no organ that has been identified as IC therefore your dialog is out of context.
 
Last edited:
The Pixie earlier said:
That is simply NOT TRUE. You have NEVER explained a methodology in sufficient detail that someone else could apply it to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys.

If I am wrong, you will be able to point me to where you did this, or even actually say in your own words. Rather more likely you will use me calling you out as an excuse to drop out of the discussion.
I already did but by way of repetition here it is again even though is is falling on a biased mind set. The concept used is, "Specified Complexity", and even though you Goreme Fairy Chimneys are complex they lack specification. That is they have no function or meaning to an intelligence agent or an intelligently designed structure.
I rest my case.

There is clearly no way someone else could follow your instructions here and apply them to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys. You say "they lack specification" but give no suggestion as to how we do that. You say "no function or meaning" but again give no suggestion as to how we determine that.

Frankly, you are try to deceive. You are pretending - insisting - a methology exists, when clearly it does not.

Whether you are fooling yourself I would not like to say, but you certainly are not falling others.

Sure it is wrong after Behe demonstrated that it was wrong through his irreducible complexity concept and it is still wrong even after your theoretical patches.
If you think it is still wrong, why did you use the phrase "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution?

How about you try another definition of IC that addresses modern evolutionary theory, given you insist "it is still wrong even after your theoretical patches"?

You have to read the entire paragraph to see that your accusation does not apply.
Are you going to pretend that you said how to measure CSI in that paragraph?

You did not

The Pixie earlier said:
It is also true to say:

This type of information is only known to proceed from human intelligence.

Can we safely conclude life was designed by human intelligence? If not, why not?
Sure you can can conclude that but none of them make any sense.
But the argument is sound, right?
  • X is only known to proceed from Y
  • Therefore all X must come from Y
That is YOUR argument when X is that type of information and Y is intelligence. But apparently it does not make sense if Y is human intelligence. Why is that?

Because the reasoning is flawed.

One concept proposed is that bio-engineers in the future developed a time machine and went into the past and seeded the first life. This suffers from the obvious flaw of how the bio-engineers existed in the first place without the first seeds. Another is the life was brought here from another part of the universe. This simply transposes the problems that we have with OOL here on earth to some other place in the universe. Remember that ID does not identify the intelligence but adheres to the premise that only intelligence could have been the cause.
Sure, it is nonsense. Hence the argument that led to that conclusion must be wrong. The reasoning is flawed.

Your little dialog exploits a weakness in Behe's original definition that the IC (but not the IC themselves) can contain sub parts that might be assumed to be functional and therefore selectable.
So you think we should be using YOUR definition that explicitly addresses "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution...

There is no organ that has been identified as IC therefore your dialog is out of context.
But the principle still holds. IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to some of the definitions anyway - via a Darwinian process.
 
I rest my case.

There is clearly no way someone else could follow your instructions here and apply them to Stone Henge and the Goreme Fairy Chimneys. You say "they lack specification" but give no suggestion as to how we do that. You say "no function or meaning" but again give no suggestion as to how we determine that.

Frankly, you are try to deceive. You are pretending - insisting - a methology exists, when clearly it does not.

Whether you are fooling yourself I would not like to say, but you certainly are not falling others.
In any discussion that one proposes to discuss something of a scientific nature, there is an assumption of some level of maturity from the receiver. For instance, there are many scientific papers published that use the word "function" without describing what "function" means or even explaining the meaning of "meaning". If you need these then perhaps you should considering going back to grammar school. But then again, the more likely explanation is that the denigration comes from a very biased source grasping for straws in defending their pet theory in which case no harm has been done.
If you think it is still wrong, why did you use the phrase "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution?
It is wrong and it doesn't matter whether I used "classical" or "modern" evolution.
How about you try another definition of IC that addresses modern evolutionary theory, given you insist "it is still wrong even after your theoretical patches"?
Behe modified his definition 5 years after the first to exclude functionality in the sub parts:

"A system is irreducibly complex if there is no function for any system that is missing one part, i.e. if all "subsystems with one less part" are functionless."

Are you going to pretend that you said how to measure CSI in that paragraph?

You did not
Don't have to since I have explained it before. It is quantifiable in bits where 500 bits of information is beyond the resources of the universe and so on.
But the argument is sound, right?
  • X is only known to proceed from Y
  • Therefore all X must come from Y
That is YOUR argument when X is that type of information and Y is intelligence. But apparently it does not make sense if Y is human intelligence. Why is that?

Because the reasoning is flawed.
No, your reasoning is flawed. You are making the assumption that humans are the only possible source of intelligence.
Sure, it is nonsense. Hence the argument that led to that conclusion must be wrong. The reasoning is flawed.


So you think we should be using YOUR definition that explicitly addresses "classical Darwinian evolution" rather than modern evolution...

But the principle still holds. IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to some of the definitions anyway - via a Darwinian process.
You have regressed back to gradualism which got you into trouble in the first place and necessitated your theoretical patches.
 
In any discussion that one proposes to discuss something of a scientific nature, there is an assumption of some level of maturity from the receiver. For instance, there are many scientific papers published that use the word "function" without describing what "function" means or even explaining the meaning of "meaning". If you need these then perhaps you should considering going back to grammar school. But then again, the more likely explanation is that the denigration comes from a very biased source grasping for straws in defending their pet theory in which case no harm has been done.
This is just more BS.

If you have a methodoloy, you would be able to state it in sufficient detail that someone else would be able to do it.

Most scientific papers (though not reviews) have a section that describes how the work was done. Sure, it assumes some technical knowledge, but it gives sufficient detail that those in the field could repeat the work.

You have most assurely not done that. The best you have is:

The concept used is, "Specified Complexity", and even though you Goreme Fairy Chimneys are complex they lack specification. That is they have no function or meaning to an intelligence agent or an intelligently designed structure.

But you will not - and cannot - say how we determine specification. But you will not - and cannot - say how we determine function or meaning.

Let us talk about function as you claim this is so trivial.
  • If I sit on a rock, does it have function? I am using it for a purpose. If I place a rock in a certain position to sit on it, does it now have purpose?
  • What is the function of Clostridium tetani the bacteria that causes tetanus? The ID view must be that it has function, given it is alive.
  • Does the polio virus have a function? Viruses do the same thing as bacteria, and they contain DNA or RNA so must be designed, right? So it must have a function.
  • What is the function of Stone Henge? If you do not know, how can you claim it has a function?

It is wrong and it doesn't matter whether I used "classical" or "modern" evolution.
Which begs the question: why did you previously specify "classical" evolution?

Behe modified his definition 5 years after the first to exclude functionality in the sub parts:

"A system is irreducibly complex if there is no function for any system that is missing one part, i.e. if all "subsystems with one less part" are functionless."
So IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to the above definition - via a Darwinian process.

Don't have to since I have explained it before. It is quantifiable in bits where 500 bits of information is beyond the resources of the universe and so on.
So you are saying the CSI depends only on the probability... and not the specification?

Do you want to stick with that?

How many bits of information is Stone Henge? how many bits of information is Goreme Fairy Chimneys? You claim you have already told me how to determine this so this will be trivial for you... right?

Of course not. You know as well as I do that you have no clue how to measure CSI.

No, your reasoning is flawed. You are making the assumption that humans are the only possible source of intelligence.
Bingo!

Just as you are making the assumption that intelligence is the only source of that type of information.

Flawed reasoning. You can see the flaw when I do it. The difference between the two arguments is you want the conclusion of yours to be true and mine to be false, so you see the flaw in mine, but are oblivious to the identical flaw in your own reasoning.

You have regressed back to gradualism which got you into trouble in the first place and necessitated your theoretical patches.
So what is the problem?

As far as I can see IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to the above definition - via a Darwinian process.

Merely saying I have "regressed back to gradualism" and I am in "trouble" does not make it so. Explain why the above is not an IC system, or show how it cannot arise through gradualism. Or go back to your god-of-the-gaps, and just say it is not proven yet.
 
This is just more BS.

If you have a methodoloy, you would be able to state it in sufficient detail that someone else would be able to do it.

Most scientific papers (though not reviews) have a section that describes how the work was done. Sure, it assumes some technical knowledge, but it gives sufficient detail that those in the field could repeat the work.

You have most assurely not done that. The best you have is:

The concept used is, "Specified Complexity", and even though you Goreme Fairy Chimneys are complex they lack specification. That is they have no function or meaning to an intelligence agent or an intelligently designed structure.

But you will not - and cannot - say how we determine specification. But you will not - and cannot - say how we determine function or meaning.
Function and meaning are just ways to quantify specification. Specification is a quantity in itself.
Let us talk about function as you claim this is so trivial.
  • If I sit on a rock, does it have function? I am using it for a purpose. If I place a rock in a certain position to sit on it, does it now have purpose?
It has no function. Once you and the rock are separated the rock continues as a rock. The rock does not gain specification simply by coming into contacting via a designed object barring any carved messages and so on.
  • What is the function of Clostridium tetani the bacteria that causes tetanus? The ID view must be that it has function, given it is alive.
It a living and specified due to its cell and that qualifies it as designed.

  • Does the polio virus have a function? Viruses do the same thing as bacteria, and they contain DNA or RNA so must be designed, right? So it must have a function.
Viruses are designed and serve a vital function in the ecological system. For one if not for viruses, bacteria would have taken over the planet.

  • What is the function of Stone Henge? If you do not know, how can you claim it has a function?
The extant trilithons' lintels, are in set in place with mortise and tenon joints, making it unique {and specified}. This is because of the difficulty in making each joint because of the precise measuring and tight cutting required. - paraphrased from wikipedia

"Each standing stone was around 13 feet (4.1 m) high, 6.9 feet (2.1 m) wide and weighed around 25 tons. Each had clearly been worked with the final visual effect in mind: The orthostats widen slightly towards the top in order that their perspective remains constant when viewed from the ground, while the lintel stones curve slightly to continue the circular appearance of the earlier monument." - wikipedia

I am sure that there are more but just these make stone henge hightly specified.

Which begs the question: why did you previously specify "classical" evolution?
I was in the moment.
So IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to the above definition - via a Darwinian process.
So you are in essence saying that we don't need theoretical indirect pathways and that all the biologists and evolutionists were wasting their time in coming up with these because you see a direct path via Darwinian gradualism. This goes along some of your other arguments.
So you are saying the CSI depends only on the probability... and not the specification?

Do you want to stick with that?

How many bits of information is Stone Henge? how many bits of information is Goreme Fairy Chimneys? You claim you have already told me how to determine this so this will be trivial for you... right?
You have two separate concepts, CSI is used for information while Specified Complexity is more for objects that are not easily reducible to information.
Of course not. You know as well as I do that you have no clue how to measure CSI.


Bingo!

Just as you are making the assumption that intelligence is the only source of that type of information.

Flawed reasoning. You can see the flaw when I do it. The difference between the two arguments is you want the conclusion of yours to be true and mine to be false, so you see the flaw in mine, but are oblivious to the identical flaw in your own reasoning.
There are no flaws in my reasoning. Still fooling yourself as per your gradualism.
So what is the problem?

As far as I can see IC systems can arise through a gradual process in which one component appears first, then the second, depending on the first, then the first evolves further and now depends on the second. We now have an IC system - according to the above definition - via a Darwinian process.

Merely saying I have "regressed back to gradualism" and I am in "trouble" does not make it so. Explain why the above is not an IC system, or show how it cannot arise through gradualism. Or go back to your god-of-the-gaps, and just say it is not proven yet.
So now all you have to do is write it up and go claim you Nobel prize since you have out done all your peers (or more likely you superiors).
 
Function and meaning are just ways to quantify specification. Specification is a quantity in itself.
Okay. And how do we measure that quantity?

Remember, I want to do this for Stone Henge. You previously stated that you have already done this, so it will be trivial for you to quickly copy-and-paste that here.

Unless that was not true? See, I think this is BS. I think you have no way to do this, and all you do have is bluster. Perhaps you will offer the probability calculation again, which really is measuring complexity, not specification, and even that is not applicable outside information.

It a living and specified due to its cell and that qualifies it as designed.
So answer the question. What is its function of Clostridium tetani the bacteria that causes tetanus?

Viruses are designed and serve a vital function in the ecological system. For one if not for viruses, bacteria would have taken over the planet.
So you think the polio virus was purposefully designed, and that it serves a function? And its function is to keep the bacteria in check... bacteria supposedly designed by the very same guy!

I think the world is a better place for having polio nearly wiped out. I think mankind is doing a good think in trying to thwart God's purpose here with regards to his polio virus. We have already done that with smallpox, and again, that is to my mind something worth celebrating.

I take it you are an anti-vaxxer?

The extant trilithons' lintels, are in set in place with mortise and tenon joints, making it unique {and specified}. This is because of the difficulty in making each joint because of the precise measuring and tight cutting required. - paraphrased from wikipedia

"Each standing stone was around 13 feet (4.1 m) high, 6.9 feet (2.1 m) wide and weighed around 25 tons. Each had clearly been worked with the final visual effect in mind: The orthostats widen slightly towards the top in order that their perspective remains constant when viewed from the ground, while the lintel stones curve slightly to continue the circular appearance of the earlier monument." - wikipedia

I am sure that there are more but just these make stone henge hightly specified.
But you said "Specification is a quantity in itself." How do we measure that quantity? Do we look for precise measurements? Do we just look it up in Wiki?

So you are in essence saying that we don't need theoretical indirect pathways and that all the biologists and evolutionists were wasting their time in coming up with these because you see a direct path via Darwinian gradualism. This goes along some of your other arguments.
I am saying we have both!

We have direct, and we have indirect. They all refute IC.


You have two separate concepts, CSI is used for information while Specified Complexity is more for objects that are not easily reducible to information.
Of course we do, because the best way to pull the wool over someone's eyes is with multiple definitions of the same thing. It is interesting that we have been discussing this since page one, over two weeks ago, and now you pull this out off... who knows where.

It is pretty clear ID has no way to measure design in something like Stone Henge, but they want to cling to same idea, so now these are two utterly unrelated ideas.

There are no flaws in my reasoning. Still fooling yourself as per your gradualism.
Your argument:

"This type of information is only known to proceed from intelligence."

My "argument":

"This type of information is only known to proceed from human intelligence."

You say that my argument is flawed because it assumes only human intelligence, but that is the point. Human intelligence is the only intelligence known to produce that type of information. There may be other intelligences able to do it, but we do not know about them. Therefore we can assume that they do not.

Of course, we both accept that that assumption would be wrong, but you seem unable to see that you are doing just the same.

The problem with your argument

Your argument is flawed because it assumes only intelligence can produce that type of information. Sure human intelligence is the only intelligence known to produce that type of information, but it is not more safe to assume other intelligence could not as it is to assume non-intelligent processes cannot.

You argument depends on carefully defining a set to include the things you want to be included, and excluding those you do not want in it. You want to include God, you want to exclude evolution. There is nothing in the argument itself that justifies that. The argument is based purely on what we have observed producing that type of evidence. We have not seen that for God or (arguably) for evolution. But you arbitrarily include God and exclude evolution.

So now all you have to do is write it up and go claim you Nobel prize since you have out done all your peers (or more likely you superiors).
But what I said was pretty obvious to anyone familiar with evolution. It is not rocket science. Behe's claims about IC have been refuted decades ago, including in a court of law. No real scientist takes them seriously any more (if they ever did).

It is telling you have no counter argument. All you can do is cling to your faith-belief that IC systems cannot evolve; but you cannot suggest why not.
 
But you will not - and cannot - say how we determine function or meaning.
Meaning cannot be fully determined because it is subjective. Here is some text with meaning:

gtam gzhi dang,​
nges par 'byung bcas gzhi dang bcas,​
gang dag zag bcas nyer len pa'i,​
phung po'ang de dag 'thab bcas kyang​

However, in order to know the meaning you have to understand Tibetan. Hence any meaning is subjective, depending on the reader, not objective.

That is why Shannon did not deal with meaning when calculating information. Information is an objective measure -- how many bits. Meaning is not objective
 
But what I said was pretty obvious to anyone familiar with evolution. It is not rocket science. Behe's claims about IC have been refuted decades ago, including in a court of law. No real scientist takes them seriously any more (if they ever did).

It is telling you have no counter argument. All you can do is cling to your faith-belief that IC systems cannot evolve; but you cannot suggest why not.
They claim to have countered Behe's argument of Irreducible Complexity by indirect pathways. While your claim states everyone is wrong and that indirect pathways are redundant since you have a direct pathway to an IC through Darwinian gradualism. All without ever visiting the lab. This makes as much sense as some of your other arguments. BTW, after you get you Nobel prize money, I have a little bridge in Brooklyn I'ld like to sell you.
 
They claim to have countered Behe's argument of Irreducible Complexity by indirect pathways.
And they are right.

If direct pathways are also possible, that means Behe's claims are refuted twice.

While your claim states everyone is wrong and that indirect pathways are redundant since you have a direct pathway to an IC through Darwinian gradualism. All without ever visiting the lab. This makes as much sense as some of your other arguments.
From Wiki:

The irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially.

This is old news, Cisco. People have been pointing out that there are potentially several routes to supposedly IC systems for decades.

BTW, after you get you Nobel prize money, I have a little bridge in Brooklyn I'ld like to sell you.
What is that supposed to mean?
 
Back
Top