Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.
In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
Cool. So a point mutation that, for example, doesn't change the amino acid sequence of the protein created constitutes an increase in CSI.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing that up.
Hawks:
ReplyDeleteSo a point mutation that, for example, doesn't change the amino acid sequence of the protein created constitutes an increase in CSI.
That is false.
Why would you even think that is the case?
That is false.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you even think that is the case?
I counted nucleotides, just like you said:
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
Before the mutation we have a population of organisms all having nucleotide sequence "X". After the mutation, we have a population of organisms having sequences "X" and "Y", where "X" != "Y". Sure sounds like there are more nucleotides to be counted. Sure sounds like there is more CSI.
The argument refers only to the individual.
ReplyDeleteIt is the invidual who receives the mutation.
Natural selection acts on the individual.
Natural selection acts on the individual.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that matters a lot. Especially considering that the mutation at hand was selectively neutral.
Joe logic: organism A has CSI of 1000. Organism B has CSI of 1000. Organism A and B are different. Still, the CSI of A and B combined is still 1000.
But at least you would have to agree that a simple gene duplication increases CSI, right? There are, after all, more nucleotides to count after the event.
Hawks:
ReplyDeleteorganism A has CSI of 1000. Organism B has CSI of 1000. Organism A and B are different. Still, the CSI of A and B combined is still 1000.
Not only is that false it has NOTHING to do with any information argument.
But at least you would have to agree that a simple gene duplication increases CSI, right?
If you have two copies of the same dictionary do you have more information than if you had only one copy?
There are, after all, more nucleotides to count after the event.
No fuck-face CSI refers to BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION.
No fuck-face CSI refers to BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION.
ReplyDeleteThan why did you say this earlier?:
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
hawks,
ReplyDeleteCONTEXT- what you just quoted was in the context of everything above it which all related to biological function.
As for gene duplication and information Dr Spetner wrote about that in "Not By Chance" which was published 13 years ago.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance of your opponents' position does not constitute a refutation of it...
hawks,
ReplyDeleteCONTEXT- what you just quoted was in the context of everything above it which all related to biological function.
So... in what context do you count nucleotides?
As for gene duplication and information Dr Spetner wrote about that in "Not By Chance" which was published 13 years ago.
And what did he say? Did he count nucleotides?
So... in what context do you count nucleotides?
ReplyDeleteBiological function- just as the OP says.
Did you read the OP? Or are you just too stupid to understand it?
As for gene duplication and information Dr Spetner wrote about that in "Not By Chance" which was published 13 years ago.
And what did he say?
Read the book and find out for yourself.
Or you can continue to argue from your willful ignorance.
The onus is upon you to find out what your opponents are claiming.
Apparently Hawks is too stupid to understand the following:
ReplyDeleteWith that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
FUNCTIONING SYSTEM is right there for all non-morons to see...
Apparently Hawks is too stupid to understand the following:
ReplyDeleteWith that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
FUNCTIONING SYSTEM is right there for all non-morons to see...
Yes, I understand the above. What I don't understand is why, given the above, mutations (such as the examples I gave) don't add CSI.
Example:
gene 1: ACGTACGT; SI=8*2
gene 2: ACCTACGT; SI=8*2
Both genes are parts of functioning systems, all nucleotides are coding and both genes have the same amount of SI, yet the combination of them would, according you your recipe [i.e. counting nucleotides], have more SI. Am I wrong? And if I am, what is right?
Read the book and find out for yourself.
I'd rather just follow your recipe and simply count nucleotides to arrive at the SI. Seems like this Spetner guy disagrees with you.
...
I take it that this is going to be one of those events whereby someone asks you to show something (like how how calcualte the SI of a cake) and you go "You are stupid" kind of thingies.
hawks:
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why, given the above, mutations (such as the examples I gave) don't add CSI.
That means you don't understand the concept nor the argument.
The point mutation nothing was added- something was replaced.
With one gene duplication you don't get a functioning system- you don't get anything but more nucleotides on one chromosome in some/ most cases.
And a duplication of a gene doesn't do anything unless it is expressed, meaning there are other fcators involved.
Read the book and find out for yourself.
I'd rather just follow your recipe and simply count nucleotides to arrive at the SI.
You count the nucleotides for a FUNCTIONING SYSTEM
Seems like this Spetner guy disagrees with you.
Only to a willfully ignorant moron.
What Spetner does is explain the argument- Meyer does also in "Signature in the Cell".
Example:
gene 1: ACGTACGT; SI=8*2
gene 2: ACCTACGT; SI=8*2
Both genes are parts of functioning systems
Neither one is a gene.
all nucleotides are coding and both genes have the same amount of SI, yet the combination of them would, according you your recipe [i.e. counting nucleotides], have more SI.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
What I said pertains to one functioning biological system.
That said you could apply it to the minimal genome required for a functioning organism (non-parasitic).
Also if both of your "genes" are part of the same functioning system then yes you would add them.
Read the book and find out for yourself.
ReplyDeleteGood ol' Joe. "I can't explain it, so read it."
Neither one is a gene.
Honestly... If you wish, you can add start and stop codons (as if that would make any difference to what I'm saying).
And a duplication of a gene doesn't do anything unless it is expressed, meaning there are other fcators involved.
So, let it be expressed then.
Also if both of your "genes" are part of the same functioning system then yes you would add them.
So, let them be part of the same functioning system then.
Read the book and find out for yourself.
ReplyDeleteGood ol' Joe. "I can't explain it, so read it."
Why should I waste my time explaining something that you should already know?
Also if both of your "genes" are part of the same functioning system then yes you would add them.
So, let them be part of the same functioning system then.
Then add the totals together- duh.
Then add the totals together- duh.
ReplyDeleteSo now we have a gene duplication that gives an increase in CSI?
So now we have a gene duplication that gives an increase in CSI?
ReplyDeleteIs there twice the functionality?
If you have two copies iof the same dictionary do you have twice the information?
Is there twice the functionality?
ReplyDeleteIf you have two copies iof the same dictionary do you have twice the information?
If you have two copies of the same/similar dictionaries, do you twice the information or the same amount of information? Is the above an example of a false dichotomy?
If you have two copies of the same/similar dictionaries, do you twice the information or the same amount of information?
ReplyDeleteThe same amount of information as what?
Is the above an example of a false dichotomy?
The above what?
Wow, Joe. Are you now saying we can add Hawks' genes together and still not get more information than one of them by itself?
ReplyDeleteEven by your definition, that is wrong. You could just clear all of this up and tell what the CSI is in the following cases:
A. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
And finally, does (A + B) = C?
Why or why not?
Are you now saying we can add Hawks' genes together and still not get more information than one of them by itself?
ReplyDeleteIt is the same as having two of the same dictionary.
Even by your definition, that is wrong.
Obviously you don't have any idea what my definition is.
You could just clear all of this up and tell what the CSI is in the following cases:
A. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
Yup- as I said you have no idea what my definition is nor do you have any idea what you are talking about.
Why do you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
So, you have no idea what the CSI of any of those are?
ReplyDeleteJust to confirm my suspicion that you can't answer any questions at all, Joe:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the sum of 5 and 7?
Does the sum of 5 + 7 have the same information content as the sum of five and seven?
ReplyDeleteSo, you have no idea what the CSI of any of those are?
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea what CSI is.
To confirm my suspicion tell me what my definition is pertaining to biology. And specifically tell me how many bits it takes to be CSI.
How many bits does it take according to you?
ReplyDelete500
I'm assuming that CSI (according to you) is the amount of information in a something that is the simplest something that accomplishes a biological function.
However, as you have never expounded on what constitutes "simplest" or bothered to work an example to show us what "simplest" is--who the fuck knows.
How many bits does it take according to you?
ReplyDelete500
Actually that is according to Wm. Dembski.
It is in his book "No Free Lunch".
I'm assuming that CSI (according to you) is the amount of information in a something that is the simplest something that accomplishes a biological function.
Nope, not according to me.
CSI still needs that 500 bit requirement-
If there are two bits per nucleotide, according to me, then how many nucleotides does it take to reach 500 bits?
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).
ReplyDeleteAlright, your turn. Can you tell me the information content in:
ReplyDeleteA. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
Can you tell me the information content in:
ReplyDeleteA. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
None of the above contain specified information according to my definition.
For clueless evotards:
ReplyDelete1- Find a biologically functional system.
2- Find out what genes are involved to make that system
3- Count their nucleotides
4- Multiply by 2
Step number 1 is the most important step and you tardos can't even get it right.
Not one of clownie's sequences is for a biologically functional system.
Hawks tried the same ignorant approach.
It has been spelled out in this thread from the OP through the exchange with Hawks and all clownie can do is come in and repeat the ignorance.
Who is next in the tardo congo line?
What's the information content (not CSI) of:
ReplyDeleteA. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
Try to follow along.
Hey, Joe. Why don't you work an example using your 4 steps? You know, just so we know how it works. Or, is it that your 4 step program is just a terrible mess and you don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the information content (not CSI) of:
ReplyDeleteA. ACGTACGT
B. ACCTACGT
C. ACGTACGTACCTACGT
D. (A + B)
Try to follow along.
I didn't say CSI- I said:
None of the above contain specified information according to my definition.
In order to be CSI the SI has to be 500 bits or more.
Your sequences are nothing- meaningless gibberish.
Hey, Joe. Why don't you work an example using your 4 steps?
ReplyDeleteI am not an evotard.
You know, just so we know how it works.
So you are admitting that you are too stupid to follow a 4 step process.
If you want me to teach you it is going to cost you.
So either you come and pay me $10,000.00 or you can pick a functioning biological system and do all the work for yourself.
Or, is it that your 4 step program is just a terrible mess and you don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole?
Obviously you are such a mess that you don't want to touch it with anything.
Why do you think that just because you are an ignorant asshole and intellectual coward that your stupid comments somehow damage ID?
Right. You're so close, Joe. Just a few more steps and you can get your ideas into actual textbooks. You've put forth the 4 step program. Now, work an example using this 4 step program and you've met the bare minimum for inclusion in a textbook chapter.
ReplyDeleteOr, you could continue to show yourself to be a blowhard and avoid putting numbers to your method. Is there one specific reason you're afraid to put numbers to your theory, or is it a large combination of reasons?
Okay, Joe. I'm not asking for the CSI of the DNA sequence. I'm asking you to tell me how much information is contained in each of the strings.
ReplyDeleteBe a good blowhard and tell me.
Erik, you pinhead.
ReplyDeleteThe excerise is for YOU so that YOU can see how much is involved in putting together ONE biological system.
As for putting it in textbooks well textbooks don't support your position- there isn't any positive evidence for your position.
Is there one specific reason you're afraid to put numbers to your theory, or is it a large combination of reasons?
You are just one stupid prick- Again if I can tell YOU the process of getting those numbers then I am not afraid to do anything.- well I am afraid that if I do all the work that is required it will be meaningless as you are just a willfully ignorant clown.
So, no, I will not do your work for you without proper payment.
We have been over and over this already.
Why do you think that YOUR unwillingness to do any work reflects poorly on ID?
As for putting numbers to theories is there any reason you remain frightened by the propect of producing positive evidence for your position- or are there many reasons/ combinations of reasons?
Why do you think that YOUR unwillingness to do any work reflects poorly on ID?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that YOUR unwillingness to do any work reflects poorly on ID?
Why do you think that YOUR unwillingness to do any work reflects poorly on ID?
Okay, Joe. I'm not asking for the CSI of the DNA sequence. I'm asking you to tell me how much information is contained in each of the strings.
ReplyDeleteThey don't contain any specified information.
And I don't care about Shannon Information but you would figure it out the same way without regards to function.
So do your own math fuckwad.
If your example isn't about specified information, and it isn't, it is irrelevant to this thread.
I'm willing to do work, Joe. It's just that every time anyone tries to follow your definitions and ramblings by working an example, you tell them their work is wrong. You then follow that up by not providing any examples of the correct way to go about things.
ReplyDeleteOne might think that you have no idea what you're talking about.
For example, the entire cake thread. Several of us tried to calculate the information content of a cake. You told all of us that we were wrong. You never did work an example to show us what the actual information content of a cake is.
For example, the many baseball threads. Several of us put forth many different calculations of the information content of a baseball. We introduced several equations and several different answers for the I of a baseball. You told all of us that we were wrong. You never did provide an example showing the correct I of a baseball.
For example, every fucking thing anyone has ever asked you for.
If you're too stupid to understand the usefulness of providing an example to back up your claims, then that's too bad. Until you provide such you will continue to be sneered at (that's different than name-calling, Joe--it's attitudinal).
Interesting, Joe. I said nothing about the SI of the strings. Please try to answer the actual questions. What is the information of contained in each of the strings?
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Joe. I said nothing about the SI of the strings.
ReplyDeleteI told you I am not interested in anything but SI and CSI.
What part of that don't you understand?
Your example is irrelevant.
The example is not irrelevant for the many reasons that Hawk provided. It's not our fault you chose to ignore those reasons.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could avoid all the problems by working an example...
I'm willing to do work, Joe.
ReplyDeleteLiar
t's just that every time anyone tries to follow your definitions and ramblings by working an example, you tell them their work is wrong.
Liar.
For example, the entire cake thread.
The thread that demonstrated how ignorant evotards can act when presented with simple instructions?
Again why is it that you think that just because you fuck-heads can act like bonobos that it refutes ID?
For example, the many baseball threads. Several of us put forth many different calculations of the information content of a baseball
Not one of you assholes followed my instructions.
IOW the examples you are providing just prove my point.
Until you provide such you will continue to be sneered at
I don't mind being sneered at by lying evotards.
It is one thing to be sneered at by people who can actually support their claims and offer sound criticisms but it's just laughable being sneered at by the likes of you and the evotard minions.
Joe, work an example.
ReplyDeleteIs there a reason you can't work an example?
ReplyDeleteIs it because you don't know how?
ReplyDeleteOr is it because your methodology is impossible to follow?
ReplyDeleteThe example is not irrelevant for the many reasons that Hawk provided.
ReplyDeleteNo reasoning provided that could make that example relevant to what I am saying.
Or is it because your methodology is incorrect?
ReplyDeleteAll of this could be cleared up by you working an example.
ReplyDeleteOr is it because your methodology is impossible to follow?
ReplyDeleteOnly for drooling imbeciles like you evotards.
As I have been telling you science is not for everyone and there is a reason that you are a clown.
Deal with it.
13 year olds can folllow my methodology.
Or is it because your methodology is incorrect?
Then prove it is incorrect or shut up
Joe, work an example.
ReplyDeletePay me $10,0000.00- I will not do your work for free.
Is there a reason you can't work an example?
There are reasons why I will not work an example.
Is it because you don't know how?
If I didn't know how I couldn't be telling people how to do it.
Please provide me a link of a 13 year old following your methodology and working an example of determining the information content of anything.
ReplyDelete(You could even pretend to be the 13 year old, work the example, and link to yourself....)
An example, Joe. It can't be done and this is quite obviously the reason you have not done it.
None of us can work an example either. We claim that it is impossible to do. We've tried and been told we are wrong.
You are the only person claiming that it is possible. Yet you are curiously unable to work an example yourself. Obviously because it cannot be done. Stop pretending (or prove us wrong and work an example).
Sure you could, Joe. You don't have to know how to do something in order to blow hot air about it on the intertubes! Come on.
ReplyDeleteIt would be different if you worked an example to show that you know how to do it. Otherwise, you're just one more internet blowhard.
Why don't you work an example and prove us wrong?
Please provide me a link of a 13 year old following your methodology and working an example of determining the information content of anything.
ReplyDeleteI can introduce you to the 13 year olds.
We claim that it is impossible to do.
It is impossible for evotards because you chumps are menatlly handicapped.
You are a clown- deal with it.
Why don't you work an example and prove us wrong?
ReplyDeleteYou are a bunch of intellectual cowards, liars and losers.
You are already wrong....
We claim that it is impossible to do.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so impossible about it?
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
Is it possible Erik Pratt, aka blipey the clueless clown, is a lying biligerent internet faggot?
Yes.
No, Joe. I don't need to meet the 13 year olds. I just need you to send me a copy of their work. You know, the work they did when you presented the exact same 4 step method to them and then they calculated the information content of something.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the 13 year olds can be fictitious and you can submit your own work under their fake names.
I just need you to send me a copy of their work.
ReplyDeleteYou can see it when you come to New Hampshire- just tell me when you will be here and where you will be staying.
As for an example of measuring the specified information of something I have provided that and as expected you choked on it.
So, there are no 13 year olds who have successfully implemented your 4 step process?
ReplyDeleteGood to know.
There are 13 year olds who have successfully implemented my 4 step process.
ReplyDeleteI will introduce you to them.
You want me to send you a copy of their work and I am offering something even better.
You think following my process is impossible yet you cannot say why or how it is impossible beyond that you are a moron and following processes is impossible for you.
So blipey is so stupid that it cannot follow a 4 step process.
ReplyDeleteGood to know...
This is the most entertaining thread I've read in a while.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to get more often...
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have no interest in meeting the 13 year olds--just their work.
ReplyDeleteI know that is an abstract thought and you don't handle abstract very well but do try and understand that a person and their work are not the same thing.
Please provide a link to the work of the 13 year olds (or your own work, which again could be the same thing--I don't care).
Again, I have no interest in meeting the 13 year olds--just their work.
ReplyDeleteThen just tell me when you are in New Hampshire and where you are staying.
I will bring their work to you.
But I digress.
YOU said it was impossible to measure biological information.
What is so impossible about it?
Email it to me, Joe. It's 2010, no need to be in New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteYOU said it was impossible to measure biological information.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so impossible about it?
As far as anyone knows, Joe, the only people to ever measure biological information are 3 fictitious 13 year olds. And you aren't even willing to share their breakthrough with the world.
ReplyDeleteYou have never measured biological information.
When others try to use your methodology to calculate biological information, you tell them they are wrong, but provide no correct answer.
Dembski has never measured biological information.
Since it has never been done, I say it is impossible or at the very least no one knows how to do it. If it were possible, someone would have done it--especially if the process is as simple as you claim it to be.
So email me the work of the 13 year olds, Joe. If it is that easy to prove your theory correct, you would do it.
Someone needs to get more often...
ReplyDeleteTrue. I mostly browse ID-blogs.
As far as anyone knows, Joe, the only people to ever measure biological information are 3 fictitious 13 year olds.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Why is that?
Why do you think it is impossible to do so?
You have never measured biological information.
Yes I have.
When others try to use your methodology to calculate biological information, you tell them they are wrong, but provide no correct answer.
Who has done that?
Dembski has never measured biological information.
How do you know?
Since it has never been done, I say it is impossible or at the very least no one knows how to do it.
If no one knows how to do it then how can I provide the process to do it?
If it were possible, someone would have done it--especially if the process is as simple as you claim it to be.
Someone has done it.
If you want something from me then you either have to pay me or meet me.
Your choice.
And your continued lying is meaningless...
When others try to use your methodology to calculate biological information, you tell them they are wrong, but provide no correct answer.
ReplyDeleteThat is total bullshit.
And seeing you insist on posting nothing but total bullshit you get nothing until you either pay me or meet me.
Yup I have been told that measuring biological information is impossible even though I have produced a process that allows you to do so.
ReplyDelete1- Find a biologically functional system.
2- Find out what genes and other DNA sequences are involved to make that system
3- Count their nucleotides
4- Multiply by 2
What is so impossible about it?
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
So what is so impossible about it?
And what is even more troubling is all of that is moot if the evotards could just start substantiating the claims of their position.
Then the claims of "CSI requires a designer" are false and that is that.
But the evotards can't support their position and they think their intellectual cowardice and ignorance can refute ID.
You've measured biological information?
ReplyDeleteReally?
Is there any particular reason you never shared it? You would think that something as important as that would be shared....
The sign of cranks is claiming to have done something that they'll never show you.
How about this? Without telling us what the information value is, what have you measured the biological information of?
You've measured biological information?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Really?
Really, really.
Is there any particular reason you never shared it?
I have shared it.
The sign of cranks is claiming to have done something that they'll never show you.
The sign of cranks is to continually lie about stuff they cannot comprhend- just as you do on a daily basis.
How about this-
YOU actually follow my instructions- until you do so there isn't anything else to say about it.
What have you measured the biological information of?
ReplyDeleteCan you link to your measurement of it?
How about this-
ReplyDeleteYOU actually follow my instructions- until you do so there isn't anything else to say about it.
First, you told us to count the letters in the definition of a thing.
ReplyDeleteWe did.
You told us that wasn't what you meant.
Many other instructions followed.
We followed them, you told us that wasn't what you meant.
There is no reason to believe that you won't continue to do this forever.
There is a reason textbooks use examples, Joe. It speeds up the learning process.
If you truly have something worthwhile to teach us, it should be a stupendously easy thing for you to work an example showing the world that you have something worthwhile.
Put up or shut up, Joe. You have nothing. You've never had anything, and there is no sane person on the planet who would think anything else after reading your postings.
The traffic you get here and attention you get other places is based solely on desire to make fun of you.
You could steer the conversations into meaningful territory if you would work an example. Ask around, any sane person will agree that you should take the simple step of working an example of your method. It's what people truly interested in education do.
First, you told us to count the letters in the definition of a thing.
ReplyDeleteWe did.
That is false.
You told us that wasn't what you meant.
I said count the charcters, multiply by 5 and that is the amount of spoecified information in that definition.
IOW you are proving that you are an asshole.
As if we needed more proof.
Many other instructions followed.
We followed them,
No, you didn't follow them.
You are a liar.
The traffic you get here and attention you get other places is based solely on desire to make fun of you.
Imbeciles always make fun of those they cannot comprehend.
Ask around...
Joe, an example. No one can do it. We admit it. I can't do it. Oleg can't do it. Zachriel can't do it. Dembski can't do it. Behe can't do it. I don't think you can do it.
ReplyDeleteThe only hope we have of advancing this interesting science is those 13 year olds in NH. Please link to heir work, so that science may continue.
You've won this battle, Joe, but for one step. The opposition has admitted defeat, te only thing you need to do to claim victory is show your work.
Interesting that you can't do so, so close to victory.
How about this-
ReplyDeleteYOU actually follow my instructions- until you do so there isn't anything else to say about it.
And your continued lies are not helping your case...
We can't, Joe. We are the students. You are the teacher. You (or your 13 year old masters) are the only one in the world who grasps the material.
ReplyDeleteThe world is desperately seeking your knowledge. Please, great master, deign to work an example so that we might see your greatness.
Or is greatness best left under a cloud?
We can't, Joe.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you?
What step can't you follow?
I need specifics.
Step 1:
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Step 2:
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Step 3:
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Step 4:
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
So what is it that you cannot do?
Tell us, oh Guru, which biological entity that you have blessed by calculating its information. Then we can set forth in the great book which is the most sacred of all biological things.
ReplyDeleteWhich biological thing has JoeG calculated the information of?
Please show work.
Answer my questions or fuck off asshole.
ReplyDeleteWhat step can't you follow?
I need specifics.
Step 1:
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Step 2:
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Step 3:
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Step 4:
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
So what is it that you cannot do?
You said that you have calculated the biological information of something. I would like to know what that something is so that I might attempt to recreate your work.
ReplyDeleteWhich specific biological thing have you calculate the information of, Joe?
That response does not compute.
ReplyDeleteI will try one more time:
Answer my questions or fuck off asshole.
What step can't you follow?
I need specifics.
Step 1:
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Step 2:
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Step 3:
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Step 4:
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
So what is it that you cannot do?
You claimed to have calculated the biological information of something. What thing was that? I would like to check your work.
ReplyDeleteOr were you lying?
YOU claimed that measuring biological information was impossible.
ReplyDeleteYOU claimed that you couldn't do it.
IOW Erik you are not qualified to check my work.
So we are at an impasse at least until you answer the questions-
Answer my questions or fuck off asshole.
What step can't you follow?
I need specifics.
Step 1:
Is it impossible to identify a functioning biological system?
No.
Step 2:
Is it impossible to identify the genes responsible for the proteins and/or RNA products used?
No.
Is it impossible to identify the regulatory network for those genes?
No.
Step 3:
Is it impossible to count the nucleotides for the above?
No.
Step 4:
Is it impossible to multiply by 2?
No.
So what is it that you cannot do?
You haven't measured the biological information of anything have you?
ReplyDeleteNot a thing.
ReplyDeleteZero.
ReplyDeleteOr is it that if you tell us what it is, your work disappears? That's handy--it's invisible now, but if you try to show it to anyone it disappears.
ReplyDeleteCool.
You haven't measured the biological information of anything have you?
ReplyDeleteYes I have and your continued whining is not going to change that fact.
What is it? Or will you telling people what it is make it disappear?
ReplyDeleteI guess you could be 9 years old, that would also explain your refusal to reveal what it is.
Erik,
ReplyDeleteThis is something you should be familiar with:
Mycoplasma genitalium
Now if you look you will see how many base pairs it has and The "Number of Primary Annotation coding bases"
So we take 529477 and multiply by 2.
Can you do that?
That would be the minimal specified information of M.g.
Not that you would understand that but I am sure you will flail away anyway...
Was that so hard?
ReplyDeleteYet I see you have still failed to give an answer. Why is that? Try this:
ReplyDeleteThe I of Mycoplasma genitalium = ______________.
You are just terrified of putting your name on anything concrete aren't you?
Yet I see you have still failed to give an answer.
ReplyDeleteAre you admitting that you are so stupid that you cannot multiply by 2?
1058954 bits of specified information- That would be the minimal specified information of M.g.
You are just terrified of putting your name on anything concrete aren't you?
ReplyDeleteNice projection.
I take it that is the best you can do.
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA
Let's see all little Ewik can do is lie and act like a little faggot.
Make a claim?
Nope, just lie.
Actually try to support something?
Nope just act like a wittle Ewik faggot.
Are you afraid that if you actually give an answer it will come back and haunt you?
ReplyDeleteI can think of no other reason that you won't answer the question.
What is I(M.g.)?
Come on, Joe; you can do it.
1058954 bits of specified information- That would be the minimal specified information of M.g.
ReplyDeleteIOW wittle Ewik you are too stupid to multiply by 2...
Was that so hard?
ReplyDeleteNo it wasn't yet you said it was impossible and you couldn't do it!
IOW you are admitting that you are an imbecile.
Come on, Joe. It's right in front of you. You can do it! What's the answer? Do you need me to give you multiple choice options?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is you are an ignorant piece of shit...
ReplyDeleteOkay, multiple choice it is:
ReplyDeleteA. 6
B. 7
C. Teebow
D. None of the above
The answer is you are an ignorant piece of shit...
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that don't you understand?
Oh, that's right wittle Ewik is an ignorant piece of shit so it doesn't understand any of it...
LoL!!!
Fail. The answer was D.
ReplyDeleteLet's try again.
A. 4,743,719
B. > A
C. < A
D. Irrational in NH.
E. Both C and D
Yes you are a failure- but everyone already knew that...
ReplyDeleteLet's attempt an easier one just so that you can get your bearings and ease into the tough ones.
ReplyDeleteA Granny Smith apple is:
A. Red
B. Blue
C. Green
D. Le'go my Eggo
E. 9
Fuck off asshole-
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for fulfilling another prediction-
When confronted with contradicting facts wittle ewik acts like a wittle baby.
Geez Ewik, I used Mycoplasma genitalium because I knew you, having been treated for it time and again, were familiar with it.
ReplyDeleteVery familiar.
Or is that it?
You know, from first-hand experience, how much SI it has!
There is no contradictory anything here, Joe.
ReplyDeleteI am asking you to provide an answer to a question that I assume you can answer. You will not put your name to an answer. That's it. That's the whole situation. I don't care very much about most of this situation but I find it hilarious that you refuse to answer simple questions--like you're afraid you might be wrong or something. It's really quite weird.
And you missed again. The answer here could have been at least 2 of the choices, possibly more. I would think that you--a person entirely opposed to clean, straight-forward answers--would have jumped all over this. Oh well.
Sad Fail.
I provided an example of measuring biological information.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently you are chocking on it...
IOW Ewik you lose- again- deal with it...
And yes you are a sad failure of a person...
ReplyDeleteJoe, claim an answer. Put your name where your foot is.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up:
ReplyDeleteI have provided an example measuring biological information.
I have followed my process and produced a result.
And all Ewik can do is pull its head out of its ass long enough to pollute my blog...