Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, February 28, 2011

Art Hunt, T-URF 13 and Irreducible Complexity

-
Art Hunt thinks he found a "Behe buster" in T-URF 13, but has he?

Well if you read Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution" and "Darwin's Black Box" it is obvious Dr Hunt didn't bust Dr Behe.

First Dr Hunt says the system is irreducibly complex- yet it only has three components- the T-URF 13 protein, the membrane and the foreign molecule that gets transported through the channel. Also it is a destructive system, meaning it is the cause of not so good things. Dr Behe goes over this in "The Edge of Evolution" saying that 1- his work doesn't consider/ pertain to foreign material such as foreign proteins and molecules and 2- Blind processes ca break things much easier then they can can construct useful systems.

So we have this alleged IC system tat doesn't even measure up to Dr Behe's mousetrap- IOW it doesn't applt (IC wise) to anything Dr Behe has claimed about IC. Not only that it is a harmful system, ie not a useful system.

Dr Hunt also claims that this resulting system is a triple CCC, thereby shattering Dr Behe's edge. However on page 148 of "The Edge of Evolution" Dr Behe deals with that bit of misconception- the edge refers to the cell's proteins, not foreign molecules/ toxins. And guess what, Dr Hunt's example contains the binding of a foreign toxin. So the triple becomes a humble double and a destructive one at that, something Dr Behe readily admits blind watchmaker processes can achieve.

So Dr Hunt really smooched the pooch on this one. Unfortunately he will never admit it because he will ignore everything I and others have been telling him.

Now the evotards retreat to "Well it's a new gene, new information, so you are busted anyway"- well it is a destructive gene and it doesn't add anything, meaning it is not an increase in information.

74 Comments:

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "well it is a destructive gene and it doesn't add anything, meaning it is not an increase in information."

    Can you quantify the difference in SI before and after?

    I.E Before the gene had X SI and after it had Y SI.

    If you can't then how do you know it was not an increase in information?

     
  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's DESTRUCTIVE.

    Do you know what that word means?

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "It's DESTRUCTIVE."

    So?

    "Do you know what that word means?"

    Yes Joe I do. But that does not preclude the SI going up does it?

    So to be clear, all "destructive" mutations result in a loss of SI despite the fact you can't measure the SI before or after? Have I got it right?

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So to be clear, all "destructive" mutations result in a loss of SI (snip the ignorance)

    That should be obvious.

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That should be obvious."

    That sums up ID quite well. No need to rigorously prove your claims as long as they are "obvious".

    So, Joe, as you don't dispute my claim that you cannot measure the SI before or after then you might as well admit you cannot measure it at all in general.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Here is a "gene"

    atacaacggt

    Is is that same "gene" after a "destructive event"

    atacaacgga

    Does it have

    A) Less information
    B) More information
    C) Same information
    D) Other

    ?

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JOM:
    So to be clear, all "destructive" mutations result in a loss of SI

    Joe G: That should be obvious.


    How do you tell if a mutation is destructive? Are all mutations destructive?

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Here is a "gene"

    atacaacggt


    That's not a gene

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That should be obvious."

    OM:
    That sums up ID quite well.

    Yes the dsign inference is obvious.

    OM:
    No need to rigorously prove your claims as long as they are "obvious".

    Science isn't about proving and being obvious emans it has passed through the rigor many times.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What about the mutation that causes sickle-cell anaemia? It's clearly removing information (and life expectancy) until it protects someone from malaria. Does it then obtain SI at that point?

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    How do you tell if a mutation is destructive?

    Something functional becomes defective or less functional.

    Thortard:
    Are all mutations destructive?

    I doubt it.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That's not a gene"

    No, it's not. That's why I put gene in quotes. But for the purposes of this "discussion" it'll do.

    Would you like me to copy and paste in an entire gene, change 1 letter and then ask you if the SI went up or down then? Really? It won't make any difference.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes the dsign inference is obvious"

    Obviously wrong. See, two can play at that game!

    "I doubt it."

    So you can't tell if a given mutation is destructive or not?

    But earlier in the thread I asked you that question (do destructive mutations result in a loss of SI) and you said

    "That should be obvious."

    Yet now you say "Something functional becomes defective or less functional."

    So we can find that out by measuring the SI right?
    An increase in SI = constructive mutation, a decrease in SI = destructive mutation.

    This "science" sure is simple!

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    No, it's not. That's why I put gene in quotes. But for the purposes of this "discussion" it'll do.

    No, you just don't get to make shit up.

    OM:
    Would you like me to copy and paste in an entire gene, change 1 letter and then ask you if the SI went up or down then?

    What I would lik you to do is post a testable hypothesis along with positive evidence for your position.

    However we both know that will never happen.

    That said stay on topic or fuck off- the topic is T-URF 13 and how Art Hunt failed in his quest to refute Dr Behe.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTardG said...

    Thorton:
    How do you tell if a mutation is destructive?

    Something functional becomes defective or less functional.


    How about if the something becomes less functional at one task, but more functional at another? And the increased new functionality helps the creature more than the loss hurts?

    Is the mutation defective then?

    How do you measure functionality?

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes the dsign inference is obvious

    OM:
    Obviously wrong.

    Just to obtuse morons like you who don't understand much of anything.

    "I doubt it."

    OM:
    So you can't tell if a given mutation is destructive or not?

    Yes we can. I said "I doubt it" to the question Are all mutations destructive?

    We know there are neutral mutations.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes the dsign inference is obvious

    OM:
    Obviously wrong.

    Just to obtuse morons like you who don't understand much of anything.

    "I doubt it."

    OM:
    So you can't tell if a given mutation is destructive or not?

    Yes we can. I said "I doubt it" to the question Are all mutations destructive?

    We know there are neutral mutations.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    How about if the something becomes less functional at one task, but more functional at another? And the increased new functionality helps the creature more than the loss hurts?

    Yes there are plenty of examples in which a loss of function allows for survival.

    How do you measure functionality?

    The same way most educated people do.

     
  • At 10:30 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "The same way most educated people do."

    Yeah, you calculate the SI right?

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    What about this Joe?

    Start with a functional gene. A segment of its DNA contains the sequence

    AAAA

    That segment now undergoes a mutation to

    AAAA --> AAAC.

    This causes the gene's functionality to lessen, which is a net loss of SI by your definition. Right?

    Now a few generations later we get another mutation in the same sequence

    AAAC --> AAAA

    ...and the sequence mutates back to the original, along with its original functionality.

    We now have the original amount of SI, same as we started with.

    It's obvious the second mutation caused an increase in SI since it took us from the 'less SI' state back to the original.

    Do you agree? Why or why not?

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    T: How about if the something becomes less functional at one task, but more functional at another? And the increased new functionality helps the creature more than the loss hurts?

    J: Yes there are plenty of examples in which a loss of function allows for survival.


    You didn't answer the question. The mutation caused increased functionality in a different area. How do you measure the SI of the new functionality?

    T: How do you measure functionality?

    J: The same way most educated people do.


    Which is how? Explain the method to the lurkers who aren't educated on the topic like you are. What are the units of 'functionality'?

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    It's obvious the second mutation caused an increase in SI since it took us from the 'less SI' state back to the original.

    Getting something back that you lost isn't an increase.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The same way most educated people do."

    OM:
    Yeah, you calculate the SI right?

    Wrong again, as usual.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: It's obvious the second mutation caused an increase in SI since it took us from the 'less SI' state back to the original.

    J: Getting something back that you lost isn't an increase.


    How could it not be an increase, when the mutation clearly took us from the 'less SI' state to a 'more SI' state?

    Of course that individual mutational step was an increase in SI by your own definition, which means your claim of 'NO mutation can increase SI' is flat out wrong.

    Thanks for playing JoeTard.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Getting something back that you lost isn't an increase.

    Thortard:
    How could it not be an increase, when the mutation clearly took us from the 'less SI' state to a 'more SI' state?

    Due what I said. Do you think your ignorance refutes it?

    Als it doesn't have anything to do with "SI" per se. The number of bits could stay the same but but you would still have a net loss because of the loss of functionality.

    Thortard:
    Of course that individual mutational step was an increase in SI by your own definition, which means your claim of 'NO mutation can increase SI' is flat out wrong.

    Except that isn't the claim you ignorant tool and it wasn't an increase of SI.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    The mutation caused increased functionality in a different area. How do you measure the SI of the new functionality?

    Any examples?

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If I give soeone $1 and then they give it back, do I have an increase of funds?

    Can I then keep doing that over and over to become wealthy?

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard

    Als it doesn't have anything to do with "SI" per se. The number of bits could stay the same but but you would still have a net loss because of the loss of functionality.


    How can the number of bits stay the same but the SI go down when you defined the SI as the number of bits?

    Directly contradicting yourself like this is what happens when you make up shit as you go JoeTard.

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    If I give soeone $1 and then they give it back, do I have an increase of funds?

    Can I then keep doing that over and over to become wealthy?


    If you lose a dollar you have a loss of funds from your last step.

    If you find a dollar you have an increase in funds from your last step

    If you keep finding dollars without losing them, you will have a large increase in funds.

    In any given step there is a process which will increase your funds. That means funds can increase

    All that matters is the delta change from the last known value JoeTard. If mutations can reduce SI, mutations can also increase SI.

    Even you aren't stupid enough to miss that easy point. Well, maybe you are.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    T: The mutation caused increased functionality in a different area. How do you measure the SI of the new functionality?

    J: Any examples?


    Apo-A1 Milano.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    If you lose a dollar you have a loss of funds from your last step.

    If you find a dollar you have an increase in funds from your last step


    A net gain of ZERO.

    Thortard:
    If mutations can reduce SI, mutations can also increase SI.

    The blind watchmaer always break things.

    There isn't any evidence of blind watchmaker processes CONSTRUCTING USEFUL systems.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thortard:
    How can the number of bits stay the same but the SI go down when you defined the SI as the number of bits?

    Because you would also factor in functionality when doing a comparison.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    Apo-A1 Milano.

    What about it? Make your case.

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    There isn't any evidence of the intelligent designer CONSTRUCTING USEFUL systems either.

    Yet I don't see you moving over to the Darwinist side.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Because you would also factor in functionality when doing a comparison."

    And exactly how would you go about that? I don't believe you've covered that as yet.

    What would such a specification for functionality look like? Can you give any examples of such? And how would you factor it in when doing a comparison?

    Is this just a process that you are imagining is possible or has it been done? If so, where and by who and what were the results?

     
  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    There isn't any evidence of the intelligent designer CONSTRUCTING USEFUL systems either.

    That's what intelligent designers do- cause and effect- we have direct observations of and experience with intelligent agencies constructing useful multi-part systems.

    OTOH there isn't any evidence that blind, undirected processes can do so.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Because you would also factor in functionality when doing a comparison."

    OM:
    And exactly how would you go about that?

    The way scientists- which is everyone according to you- go about it now.

    But anyway loss of function mutations have been documented- well documented.

    A loss of function = a loss of specification.

    Bacterial Resistance
    to Antibiotics
    and loss of function/ specification mutations.

     
  • At 2:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Loss of function = loss of specification.

    Speification is the first part of specified information.

    Same number of bits coupled with a loss of specification = less SI.

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yet I don't see you moving over to the Darwinist side.

    I was there. There wasn't anything to keep me there. And there isn't anything that would draw me back.

    Cause and effect relationships.

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    "Because you would also factor in functionality when doing a comparison."

    OM:
    And exactly how would you go about that?

    The way scientists- which is everyone according to you- go about it now.


    So you don't know and can't tell us.

    But anyway loss of function mutations have been documented- well documented.

    A loss of function = a loss of specification.


    Gain of function mutations have been well documented too JoeTard.

    So a gain of function must equal a gain of specification.

    Now that you agree mutations can increase SI, what else is left?

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The way scientists- which is everyone according to you- go about it now.

    Thortard:
    So you don't know and can't tell us.

    Strange that I have read scientific papers that discuss loss of function mutations- and in hose papers they discuss how it was determined.

    So pehaps you sould get off of your ass and actualy do some research.

    Gain of function mutations have been well documented too

    Such as?

    Now that you agree mutations can increase SI, what else is left?

    You don't even understand the argument.

    Shit you totally fucked up on the Nobel Prize and the theory of evolution. It seems every time you post you just spew more nonsense.

    Is that supposed to be impressive?

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That's what intelligent designers do- cause and effect- we have direct observations of and experience with intelligent agencies constructing useful multi-part systems."

    The only "intelligent designer" we have experience with is ourselves.

    Are you claiming the "intelligent designer" you often refer to could be a simple human?

    I mean, we all know (nudge nudge) what everybody really means when they say "intelligent designer". They mean the God of Abraham.

    Could the designer, to which you ascribe so much, just be a human being? One has to then wonder, where *they* came from....

     
  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "mutations can increase SI"

    True or false?

     
  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Such as?"

    Wikipedia notes that a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: So you don't know and can't tell us.

    J: Strange that I have read scientific papers that discuss loss of function mutations- and in hose papers they discuss how it was determined.


    So you don't know and can't tell us, just as I said.

    T: Now that you agree mutations can increase SI, what else is left?

    You don't even understand the argument.


    You claimed that mutations can never add SI. I showed you that they can and you agreed. Your claim was wrong, and a major part of your ID case fails because of it. What else is there to understand?

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    So you don't know and can't tell us, just as I said.

    No, YOU don't know. If you did then you would be discussing it.

    thortard:
    You claimed that mutations can never add SI.

    No the ID claim is that blind, undirected processes cannot create complex specified information from scratch. A branch of that says that blind, undirected processes cannot increase the CSI.

    I showed you that they can

    Liar. Your example did not show a net gain of SI.

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "mutations can increase SI"

    True or false?


    Never seen one that did. So that would be a big no to don't know.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Wikipedia notes that a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.

    Gain of function is the HIV resistance?

     
  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The only "intelligent designer" we have experience with is ourselves.

    That is incorrect and irrelevant.

    OM:
    I mean, we all know (nudge nudge) what everybody really means when they say "intelligent designer". They mean the God of Abraham.

    Except not all IDists are Christian, Jewish nor Islamic.

    IOW you are full of shit.

    But even if teh designer was/ is God, so what? Science cares only about the reality of the situation.

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Loss of function- scientists COMPARE what it does now to what it did. If it does it less efficiently or effectively it is a loss of function.

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: I showed you that they can

    J: Your example did not show a net gain of SI.


    It doesn't have to show a net gain JoeTard. You claimed that mutations can't produce an increase of SI at any step, that all mutations can do is keep SI the same or lessen it.

    I easily showed you that they can cause an increase.

    You lose again JoeTard. All you're doing now is throwing your usual childish hissy fit.

     
  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    You claimed that mutations can't produce an increase of SI at any step,

    Except I never made that claim.

    IOW once again you prove to be a cocksucking asshole.

     
  • At 8:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By thortard's "logic" eror correction provides an increase in information.

    Even though there isn't any net gain we go from one state, X, to X-Y, back to X.

    These morons are proof that evotards use a dipstick for measuring information.

     
  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Blogger Joe G said...

    T: You claimed that mutations can't produce an increase of SI at any step,

    J: Except I never made that claim.


    Great! Then you agree that mutations can indeed produce an increase of SI.

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Non-sequitur- but expected from a loser...

     
  • At 3:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "That is incorrect and irrelevant. "

    I guess you are right. Beavers make dams and Crows use tools to get at grubs.

    "Except not all IDists are Christian, Jewish nor Islamic."

    99.999% are however.

    "But even if teh designer was/ is God, so what? Science cares only about the reality of the situation."

    Stop kidding yourself. You are fooling nobody. The designer = god.

     
  • At 3:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Even though there isn't any net gain we go from one state, X, to X-Y, back to X."

    And let's pretend that you started off in state X-Y. Then a mutation happens that causes you to end up in X, which therefore has provided a NET gain of information.

    And if it's possible to have one mutation that causes a NET gain of information it's possible to have many.

    And so Joe disproves the central plank of ID!

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Except not all IDists are Christian, Jewish nor Islamic."

    OM:
    99.999% are however.

    Liar.

    OM:
    Stop kidding yourself. You are fooling nobody. The designer = god.

    You're the fool. I don't think the designer = God. And I know of many others who agree.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And let's pretend that you started off in state X-Y. Then a mutation happens that causes you to end up in X, which therefore has provided a NET gain of information.

    Yes I understand your position needs to pretend. If it had actual scientific evienc for suppot you wouldn't need to pretend.

    OM:
    And if it's possible to have one mutation that causes a NET gain of information it's possible to have many.

    And so Joe disproves the central plank of ID!


    You are an ignorant fuck. That is NOT any plank of ID.

    ID says that blind undirected processes cannot produce CSI from scratch. And a branch of that says blind, undirected processes canot increase the existing SI.

    BLIND, UNDIRECTED PROCESSES.

     
  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "And a branch of that says blind, undirected processes canot increase the existing SI."

    Yet if we have a random mutation that happens to increase SI then that has shown blind undirected processes have increased SI.

    This is not particularly complex.

     
  • At 7:32 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes I understand your position needs to pretend. If it had actual scientific evienc for suppot you wouldn't need to pretend."

    It's called a "thought experiment". Einstein thought they were worth doing. I guess you know better then he.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yet if we have a random mutation that happens to increase SI then that has shown blind undirected processes have increased SI.

    We are still waiting for evidence to that effect.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Yes I understand your position needs to pretend. If it had actual scientific evienc for support you wouldn't need to pretend."

    OM:
    It's called a "thought experiment".

    Yours isn't a thought experiment. It is pure pretending.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yours isn't a thought experiment. It is pure pretending."

    So it's impossible for a mutation to ever increase SI?

    You'd better let Behe know...

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "We are still waiting for evidence to that effect."

    In fact, no, we are not. Multiple experiments have been performed.

    "Citrate" ring a bell?

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    In fact, no, we are not. Multiple experiments have been performed.

    And still nothing to support your claims.

    OM:
    "Citrate" ring a bell?

    What about it? You do realize it does't support anything your position has claimed...

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So it's impossible for a mutation to ever increase SI?

    I never said that. I said there isn't any evidence that BLIND, undirected processes can produce csi from scratch nor can they increase csi.

    Apparently you are too stupid to understand that.

    OM:
    You'd better let Behe know...

    You don't have any idea what Behe claims.

     
  • At 9:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "I never said that. I said there isn't any evidence that BLIND, undirected processes can produce csi from scratch nor can they increase csi."

    Ah "from scratch". Nice way to move the goalposts.

    And you contradict yourself anyway, if mutations cannot happen in such a way that csi is increased then it's indeed impossible for a mutation to ever increase SI.

    It seems to me that a mutation (blind, undirected until you can prove otherwise) that increases SI increases csi. Therefore you are wrong, and proven to be so by your own words!

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Ah "from scratch". Nice way to move the goalposts.

    Umm it has always been from scratch. It has always been about origins. Always.

    OM:
    And you contradict yourself anyway, if mutations cannot happen in such a way that csi is increased then it's indeed impossible for a mutation to ever increase SI.

    That isn't what I said. You appear to have yor head so far up your ass that yo cannot read my posts.

    Tell me something- when you stick your tongue out can you tickle yur prostate?

    OM:
    It seems to me that a mutation (blind, undirected until you can prove otherwise)...

    Geez you are anignornt fuck. That is not how science is done.

    As YOU said it is "we don't know" until demonstrated otherwise.

    And you need some sort of methodology to make that determination. It seems you assholes have some super-secret methodology.

    OM:
    .. that increases SI increases csi.

    And what do you have?

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I posted the following over 5 years ago:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.


    IOW once again OM's ignorance bites him in the head/ ass area...

     
  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    I posted the following over 5 years ago:


    It was meaningless undefined gibberish then too.

    Do you think tard, like wine, gets better with age?

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course to an ignorant fucktard like you it is "meaningless undefined gibberish".

    But then again your whole position is meaningless undefined gibberish.

    However what I posted about ID has meaning because it is well defined- better defined than anything thortard's position has to offer!

    Go figure...

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems."

    Do you have any specific predictions that are a bit less general then those?

    Given that you cannot calculate the "information" in any biological system (you can by your own admission only calculate that there is "a lot" of such information) and given that so called "irreducible complexity" has been shown over and over to not be so irreducible after all, perhaps you need to find some specific predictions.

    You know, like the ones that come from evolutionists.

    E.G If we dig at spot Y we will probably find unknown fossil B which sits (is transitional) between known fossils A and C.

    Can ID offer any *specific* predictions like that or is vague, after the fact hand waving all you've got to offer?

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Do you have any specific predictions that are a bit less general then those?

    Tell you what- why don't YOU provide some predictions from your position so we can compare.

    OM:
    Given that you cannot calculate the "information" in any biological system (you can by your own admission only calculate that there is "a lot" of such information)

    It can and has been calculated. It is far above the threshold. That is all that is needed to determine design.


    OM:
    and given that so called "irreducible complexity" has been shown over and over to not be so irreducible after all, perhaps you need to find some specific predictions.


    Also your claim about IC is pure bullshit. All you have are lies and bullshit.

    OM:
    You know, like the ones that come from evolutionists.

    E.G If we dig at spot Y we will probably find unknown fossil B which sits (is transitional) between known fossils A and C.


    You are a moron. That has nothing to do with random variations, genetic drift and natural selection.

    OM:
    Can ID offer any *specific* predictions like that or is vague, after the fact hand waving all you've got to offer?

    Strange how you refuse to produce a testable hypothesis meaning your claim of evolutionary predictions is bullshit.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home