On The NON-Circularity of CSI
-
Intelligent Design's opponents are so willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate it is pathetic. Now they are saying that CSI (Complex Specified Information) is a circular argument. However reality refutes that claim as CSI exists REGARDLESS of what caused it.
The argument for intelligent design via CSI is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some intelligent agency- ALWAYS. And there has never been an observed instance of nature, operating freely, producing CSI- NEVER. Enter science- science takes that as whenever we observe CSI and don't know the cause we can safely scientifically infer it was via some intelligent agency.
So where is this alleged circularity? Obviously it is only in the minds of our willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate opposition.
ETA: ID's opponents are so lame they don't even understand what "nature, operating freely" means. Wow, just wow.
Intelligent Design's opponents are so willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate it is pathetic. Now they are saying that CSI (Complex Specified Information) is a circular argument. However reality refutes that claim as CSI exists REGARDLESS of what caused it.
The argument for intelligent design via CSI is that every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via some intelligent agency- ALWAYS. And there has never been an observed instance of nature, operating freely, producing CSI- NEVER. Enter science- science takes that as whenever we observe CSI and don't know the cause we can safely scientifically infer it was via some intelligent agency.
So where is this alleged circularity? Obviously it is only in the minds of our willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate opposition.
ETA: ID's opponents are so lame they don't even understand what "nature, operating freely" means. Wow, just wow.
53 Comments:
At 12:09 PM, Unknown said…
Let's be real clear: what exact criteria are you using to determine that something is or is not CSI?
If you're using Dr Dembski's technique in his 2005 self-published paper then you'll have to show that you can calculate all the terms of his formulation.
At 12:31 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! Dembski's 2005 paper dealt with SPECIFICATION and how it can be used to determine intelligent design. And his formula requires "H", ie our opponents' positions, yet our opponents cannot provide it.
But anyway deal with the OP and stop being a fucking asshole.
At 12:56 PM, Joe G said…
Let's be real clear: what exact criteria are you using to determine that something is or is not CSI?
With respect to biology we use Crick's criteria of biological information.
At 12:56 PM, The whole truth said…
Your opponents don't have to provide you with squat, joey. YOU IDiots have to support your IDiotic claims. Get busy crybaby.
At 12:58 PM, The whole truth said…
Did Crick ever use the term "CSI"?
At 1:07 PM, Joe G said…
Did Crick ever use the term "CSI"?
Why do you think that is a requirement?
At 1:09 PM, Joe G said…
Your opponents don't have to provide you with squat, joey.
They can't because they don't have anything and that is why ID is still going strong. And we have supported our claims and watched you choke on them. Your choking is not a refutation.
Did you send the money for the airfare to Portland or are you too chicken-shit to ante up?
At 1:10 PM, The whole truth said…
"Why do you think that is a requirement?"
Oh the games you play, joey.
At 1:11 PM, Joe G said…
Thanks for proving that you are a complete asshole.
bye-bye
At 2:45 PM, Rich Hughes said…
Describe, in your own words, what you think p(h|t) means, Chubs. Then you might understand why you're wrong again, but probably not.
Also a request, can we have some more of your 'pyramid power' assfuckery? That has high octane tard.
At 3:03 PM, Joe G said…
I already have, Richie, you ignorant fucktoad. And you are too fucking stupid to understand why yours is the position that has to provide "H". Either that or you are too cowardly to admit it.
Now stay on topic or make your case as opposed to "arguing" like a lame-brained tarded reject.
I dare you to make your case here as opposed to running away to find some protection where you can hide and try to change the subject once your assfuckery is exposed, again, as usual.
At 3:08 PM, Joe G said…
Conditional probability-
P(T|H) means the probability of T arising given H. T could be anything- a bacterial flagellum for example and H would be something like natural selection producing one.
H is unknown and always will be because natural selection isn't up to the task. That bothers Richie so he has to lash out at ID and IDists.
At 3:23 PM, Unknown said…
LoL! Dembski's 2005 paper dealt with SPECIFICATION and how it can be used to determine intelligent design. And his formula requires "H", ie our opponents' positions, yet our opponents cannot provide it.
I love how you try and have it both ways. Dr Dembski made a claim so it's up to him or his defenders to defend. But when you can't you say it's the fault of the biologists because they haven't come up with something.
How can you say Dr Dembski's formulation is better AND say it's impossible to calculate because of the failings of those whom you oppose?
That's just avoiding doing any work.
Dr Crick never used the term CSI so please specifically state your criteria. No hand waving, no pretending you've got a reference. Just say it. Simply and clearly.
At 3:30 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad, moron, YOUR position has made claims and have never defended them. This formula takes you to task. Deal with it.
How can you say Dr Dembski's formulation is better
When did I say that?
AND say it's impossible to calculate because of the failings of those whom you oppose?
I say put a big fat 0 for H and go from there. You can complain all you want but you cannot show that the 0 is unwarranted.
Dr Crick never used the term CSI
So what?
so please specifically state your criteria.
I have and your ignorance means nothing.
Sir Francis Crick defined biological information, not ID. Science has determined that biological information is both complex and specified. This isn’t anything IDists have invented.
We are well beyond the age of “a blob of protoplasm”. Deal with it.
At 4:30 PM, Rich Hughes said…
Joe says:
"H is unknown and always will be because natural selection isn't up to the task"
and fails spectacularly, falling over himself and not realizing why. Is he bright enough to spot his mistake?
At 4:35 PM, Unknown said…
Jerad, moron, YOUR position has made claims and have never defended them. This formula takes you to task. Deal with it.
Ooo, gee, we were talking about your position Joe. Don't change the topic.
How can you say Dr Dembski's formulation is better
When did I say that?
So it isn't then in your view?
I say put a big fat 0 for H and go from there. You can complain all you want but you cannot show that the 0 is unwarranted.
Who cares? Dr Dembski made a claim and he hasn't supported it. Makes no difference to me.
Dr Crick never used the term CSI
So what?
'Cause you said you use Crick's criteria of biological information but if he didn't define complex specified information then you can't claim to be using his criteria.
We are well beyond the age of “a blob of protoplasm”. Deal with it.
hahahahahahahahahahah Like anyone says that anymore. Maybe you should read some current biological science journals.
Anyway, you still have not provided a clear and concise definition of CSI. You've waved your hands about and dodged and weaved a bit. But no good definition. And don't just say: yes I have. Spell it out by either writing it out or providing a definitive reference.
At 5:28 PM, Joe G said…
So Richie is too much of a coward to even try to make a case against me. Typical.
At 5:32 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad, This thread is about the non-circularity of CSI.
'Cause you said you use Crick's criteria of biological information but if he didn't define complex specified information then you can't claim to be using his criteria.
Sir Francis Crick defined biological information, not ID. Science has determined that biological information is both complex and specified. This isn’t anything IDists have invented.
Deal with that.
Anyway, you still have not provided a clear and concise definition of CSI.
I disagree with your willful ignorance.
At 5:38 PM, Joe G said…
"H is unknown and always will be because natural selection isn't up to the task"
Richie:
and fails spectacularly
So by stating a fact I fail spectacularly? Do tell
falling over himself and not realizing why. Is he bright enough to spot his mistake?
My mistake must be looking in peer-reviewed literature for an answer to the question- what is H? Because the answer isn't there. No one knows the answer because evolutionism is totally vacuous.
Is that the case you were going to make, Richie? I don't think that helps you
At 7:28 PM, Unknown said…
Still no clear and concise definition of CSI? Noted.
My mistake must be looking in peer-reviewed literature for an answer to the question- what is H? Because the answer isn't there. No one knows the answer because evolutionism is totally vacuous.
Too funny. According to Joe "evolutionism" is vacuous because it can't provide a definition to a mathematical construct made up by Dr Dembski in a self-published paper of 2005.
If you had some real science and research and results to parade you wouldn't have to grasp at straws the way you do.
We ask for research results you say: things are being done.
We ask for research agendas you say: they exist.
We ask for research questions you say: they exist.
Even you the good little foot soldier must sometimes think . . . yeah, where is all this promised research and work? Why isn't there more I can shove in the Darwinists' faces?
At 7:56 PM, Joe G said…
Still no clear and concise definition of CSI?
Still being a willfully ignorant asshole- noted.
Too funny. According to Joe "evolutionism" is vacuous because it can't provide a definition to a mathematical construct made up by Dr Dembski in a self-published paper of 2005.
Spoken like an ignorant coward.
1- It has nothing to do with providing a definition. It has everything to do with making our opponents make some testable claims as opposed to the bald declarations they use.
2- That mathematical construct is all you have, dumbass. If you actually had some evidence or methodology to test the claims of your position it would be moot.
If you had some real science and research and results to parade you wouldn't have to grasp at straws the way you do.
LoL! If YOU had some real science and research and results to parade you wouldn't have to grasp at straws the way you do.
Yours has nothing, Jerad. If it did you would just trot it out and ID would be finished. But then again you have proven to be totally ignorant when it comes to science and a pathological liar when it comes to mathematics.
At 8:04 PM, Joe G said…
"Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms."
OK if H is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms then why is it up to IDists to provide H when it is obvious that we would leave blank due to the lack of evidence for such a thing?
If H is relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms then it should be up to the people who accept such a position to provide the evidentiary support for it. But they cannot so the whine and cry.
And Jerad, there is plenty of positive evidence for ID already in peer-review.
At 2:21 AM, Unknown said…
Still no clear and concise definition of CSI?
Too funny. According to Joe "evolutionism" is vacuous because it can't provide a definition to a mathematical construct made up by Dr Dembski in a self-published paper of 2005.
Spoken like an ignorant coward.
It's ID's claim, it's up to ID to prove it.
1- It has nothing to do with providing a definition. It has everything to do with making our opponents make some testable claims as opposed to the bald declarations they use.
Funny that people working in the field of evolution can generate so much research and ID generates almost none.
2- That mathematical construct is all you have, dumbass. If you actually had some evidence or methodology to test the claims of your position it would be moot.
That mathematical construct was made up by Dr Dembski and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, practice or research.
LoL! If YOU had some real science and research and results to parade you wouldn't have to grasp at straws the way you do.
I suppose you're right. Sigh. Guess the field will just have to struggle on generating research supporting the field.
Yours has nothing, Jerad. If it did you would just trot it out and ID would be finished. But then again you have proven to be totally ignorant when it comes to science and a pathological liar when it comes to mathematics.
It's not my fault you can't even defend your own proposed alternative to Cantor's method. Guess we'll just have to struggle on with his as we have been doing for over a century.
OK if H is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms then why is it up to IDists to provide H when it is obvious that we would leave blank due to the lack of evidence for such a thing?
It's up to the people making a claim to establish the claim. As always. ID's claim, ID has to do the work.
If H is relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms then it should be up to the people who accept such a position to provide the evidentiary support for it. But they cannot so the whine and cry.
We do not have to raise a finger to help establish Dr Dembski's claim.
And Jerad, there is plenty of positive evidence for ID already in peer-review.
Too bad there is a severe lack of published ID research to bolster that claim. What research IS being done Joe? Can you name anything?
At 2:32 AM, Unknown said…
Joe, even Denyse at UD thinks you're a troll:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-we-have-a-news-desk/
"True, some people might visit our site only to read The Best of Joe Troll and Joe Moron. But we think Joe + Joe’s fans would be happier at another site… and we would not want serious commenters of any sort to be discouraged by those guys’ slow-class antics. So I am happy with serious commenters whatever their orientation—but am a mod and can borf the Joes."
At 8:44 AM, Joe G said…
Still no clear and concise definition of CSI?
You are still a willfully ignorant asshole. All one has to do is search my blog using "CSI". Also both Dembski and Meyer make it clear that they are using Crick's definition when it comes to biological information. You are just an ignorant little pussy, Jerad.
It's ID's claim, it's up to ID to prove it.
We have and you cannot refute it.
Funny that people working in the field of evolution can generate so much research and ID generates almost none.
Funny that you are nothing but an equivocating coward. No one is generating anything wrt unguided evolution.
That mathematical construct was made up by Dr Dembski and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, practice or research.
Dumbass- your position doesn't have anything and that is why the formula came to be- to actually test yours vs ours. If you had something then the formula would be moot.
Guess the field will just have to struggle on generating research supporting the field.
LoL! You are one ignorant asshole. There isn't anything being generated by unguided evolution.
It's not my fault you can't even defend your own proposed alternative to Cantor's method
And yet I have defended my claims wrt infinite and countable sets.
It's up to the people making a claim to establish the claim.
Right and your position has made claims that it cannot support. It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole, Jerad.
We do not have to raise a finger to help establish Dr Dembski's claim.
Hey dumbass, you have to do something to support your position's claims. You have NOTHING.
Too bad there is a severe lack of published unguided evolution research to bolster that claim. What research IS being done Jerad? Can you name anything?
At 8:45 AM, Joe G said…
Joe, even Denyse at UD thinks you're a troll:
Obviously you enjoy being an ignorant asshole.
At 9:06 AM, Unknown said…
You are still a willfully ignorant asshole. All one has to do is search my blog using "CSI". Also both Dembski and Meyer make it clear that they are using Crick's definition when it comes to biological information. You are just an ignorant little pussy, Jerad.
And what is that definition if Crick never used the term CSI? Easy question.
We have and you cannot refute it.
Then what are you complaining about? Saying it's up to the biologists to find H?
Funny that you are nothing but an equivocating coward. No one is generating anything wrt unguided evolution.
Only in your opinion. Which, since no one in the field listens to you, doesn't count for very much.
Dumbass- your position doesn't have anything and that is why the formula came to be- to actually test yours vs ours. If you had something then the formula would be moot.
Really? Then why does Dr Dembski include H, something you say we have to provide, if there's nothing to it? Wouldn't he have just devised a formula without part of it depending on what biologists believe?
LoL! You are one ignorant asshole. There isn't anything being generated by unguided evolution.
Says you. Too bad the world mostly thinks you're wrong.
And yet I have defended my claims wrt infinite and countable sets.
By not answering reasonable questions about it?
Right and your position has made claims that it cannot support. It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asshole, Jerad.
Most people think the case has been made which is why it's the assumption now. And so Dr Dembski is making a claim against that. Which is why he put H in his equation.
Hey dumbass, you have to do something to support your position's claims. You have NOTHING.
Aside from over 150 years of research and data I suppose you're right.
Too bad there is a severe lack of published unguided evolution research to bolster that claim. What research IS being done Jerad? Can you name anything?
Just about any Biology journal will have lots of current and ongoing research in it. There are several journals dedicated to evolution alone. But you're too lazy (or scared) to go have a look. And, you know what, I deal with enough petty, petulant children already. You're a grown up, go look for yourself.
Obviously you enjoy being an ignorant asshole.
Well, she did mention you by name! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
At 9:16 AM, Joe G said…
And what is that definition if Crick never used the term CSI? Easy question.
Why is it a requirement for Crick to have used CSI? Why can't someone come after Crick and use the data science has provided to show that biological information is not only specified, as Crick said, but also complex?
Jerad, you are an ignorant bluffing asshole. You cannot reference any research that supports unguided evolution. You can't even reference anyone using unguided evolution as a research heuristic.
Obviously you have serious gullibility issues. I have looked Jerad. Your position doesn't have anything- no entailments, no testable hypotheses and no theory. If your position had something it would be in peer-review and ID would be dead.
At 9:16 AM, Joe G said…
Well, she did mention you by name!
Not really. As I said obviously you are proud to be an ignorant asshole
At 11:49 AM, William Spearshake said…
"And his formula requires "H", ie our opponents' positions, yet our opponents cannot provide it."
That is an easy one. H =1. Problem solved. Unless, of course, ID can prove otherwise. And since it is ID that is claiming that H does not always equal 1, it is up to ID to prove this. Why should we do your work for you.
With regard to circularity and CSI, until you are willing to hypothesize on the nature of the designer and the mechanism that it uses, ID will remain a circular argument and will not be taken seriously.
Using Gordo's oft repeated nonsense, a fishing reel has CSI (although he has repeatedly refused to calculate the CSI when asked), and we know that it was designed by an intelligence. And the extrapolation from this is that everything that we can identify as being designed must have an intelligent agent. Nobody is arguing with this point. And nobody is really arguing against the idea that anything with CSI must have an intelligent agent; after all, by definition, the acronym would require this. Where the entire ID nonsense falls off the rails is to claim that you can identify CSI in biological features when you can't even calculate it.
At 12:20 PM, Joe G said…
That is an easy one. H =1.
Yes, we all know the bald declarations of evolutionists. However we are looking for something testable and you don't have anything.
With regard to circularity and CSI, until you are willing to hypothesize on the nature of the designer
So ID has to bow to your scientific illiteracy? Really?
and the mechanism that it uses,
Also unnecessary
ID will remain a circular argument and will not be taken seriously.
ID has a scientific methodology and has testable entailments. OTOH all yours has are the lies and bullshit of people like you.
And nobody is really arguing against the idea that anything with CSI must have an intelligent agent; after all, by definition, the acronym would require this.
No, dumbass, the definition does NOT require it. CSI exists regardless of how it came to be. Read the OP and respond to it you ignorant asswipe.
Where the entire ID nonsense falls off the rails is to claim that you can identify CSI in biological features when you can't even calculate it.
We have calculated it and we have referenced a peer-reviewed paper that also does so.
At 2:09 PM, William Spearshake said…
"No, dumbass, the definition does NOT require it. CSI exists regardless of how it came to be. Read the OP and respond to it you ignorant asswipe."
Really? For something to be specified, you need a specifier.
At 4:39 PM, Unknown said…
You still haven't answered the question:
In your approach to cardinal numbers, N being the cardinal associated with the integers if, as you claim,
N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . .
is a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals with a lower bound LB then is LB the smallest infinite cardinal number?
Yes or no?
You're making a claim, you have to defend it or retreat. Not answering is retreating.
At 5:25 PM, William Spearshake said…
Hi Joe. Why didn't you post my comment about specified information needing a specifier? You ask people to answer your questions and then call them cowards when they don't. What does that make you?
At 6:23 PM, William Spearshake said…
"We have calculated it and we have referenced a peer-reviewed paper that also does so."
Really? What's the CSI of an eye? Or a sphincter? And what is the probability that they did not arise through non-directed causes? Oh, I forgot; it is not the responsibility of ID to estimate this.
At 9:45 AM, Joe G said…
For something to be specified, you need a specifier.
Prove it.
At 9:46 AM, Joe G said…
Not surprising but the evoTARDs just cannot stay on topic. Not only that they can't even defend the claims of their position.
At 10:42 AM, Joe G said…
OK wait- snowflakes are specified and their specifier would be the proper (weather) conditions.
The specifier of living organisms would be the designer- be it intelligent or not. ID says it was intelligent and offers up a methodology. Our opponents say the designer was mother nature and the blind watchmaker but only offer up bald declarations and attack any and all who disagree.
At 6:22 PM, William Spearshake said…
"OK wait- snowflakes are specified..."
Prove it.
At 6:35 PM, William Spearshake said…
"OK wait- snowflakes are specified and their specifier would be the proper (weather) conditions."
This is just a bald assertion. Please provide evidence. Is this testable? Given specific and well controlled conditions, can you predict the exact shape of the snow flake? If you can, you can write your own ticket at any university. But you can't.
At 5:55 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! Science has proven crystals are specified you ignorant asshole. And only an ignorant asshole would want more evidence that it snows, and here you are.
At 12:03 AM, William Spearshake said…
I'm confused.
When I suggested on "uncommonly dense" (before they banned me) that snowflakes were an example of CSI that wasn't the result of an intelligent agent, you called me an ignorant asshole. Now you are calling me an ignorant asshole for stating that snowflakes are not an example of CSI.
Has anyone ever told you that consistency of message is important? Sorry for the rhetorical question.
At 7:15 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! There is a HUGE difference between CSI and mere specification. Even Dembski admits that crystal are an example of specification- a snow flake is either a single ice crystal or an aggregation of ice crystals.
But thank you for proving that you are ignorant.
At 12:39 PM, William Spearshake said…
Joe, this is a response to a comment you provided at UD. I would respond to it there but UD has decided to ban me.
Joe: "As for “evolution”, yes there is plenty of evidence for it. However there isn’t any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but produce disease and deformities. And then there is cosmology."
You demonstrate your human centric bias here. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of evolution producing disease. But from the bacterial (or viral) perspective, this is the unguided evolution of new function, something that you claim is not possible.
At 12:50 PM, Joe G said…
But from the bacterial (or viral) perspective, this is the unguided evolution of new function, something that you claim is not possible.
A it isn't a new function but either no function or a diminished old function. And I never made the claim you attribute to me.
Obviously UD banned you because you are an imbecile and an insipid troll.
At 1:39 PM, William Spearshake said…
"A it isn't a new function but either no function or a diminished old function"
How is the ability to break down nylon not a new function? Please enlighten me.
At 5:54 AM, Joe G said…
How was it determined that the ability to break down nylon appeared via unguided evolution?
At 6:01 AM, Joe G said…
It is very telling that WS runs away after being corrected. All bluff and bluster until reality slaps it across the face...
At 4:32 PM, William Spearshake said…
"It is very telling that WS runs away after being corrected. All bluff and bluster until reality slaps it across the face..."
I hate to bruise your ego Joe, but my life does not revolve around your blog and responding to inane questions. Some of us have jobs and families that take much of our time.
"How was it determined that the ability to break down nylon appeared via unguided evolution?"
Unguided evolution has a mechanism by which this capability could arise (random mutation, genetic exchange, and other mechanisms of increasing genetic variation in a population) and a mechanism by which this new trait could become fixed in a population (natural selection and genetic drift). Both of which are testable. What does ID have? It claims that an intelligent agent is responsible but it refuses to discuss the nature of this intelligent agent nor the mechanism by which it functions.
And arguing that ID is a science about the detection of design, not about the designer or the mechanisms used, is just equivocation. That is like saying that celestial mechanics as about the detection of gravity, not the mechanism and physics behind it.
At 6:52 AM, Joe G said…
Unguided evolution has a mechanism by which this capability could arise (random mutation, genetic exchange, and other mechanisms of increasing genetic variation in a population) and a mechanism by which this new trait could become fixed in a population (natural selection and genetic drift).
Nonsequitur. Intelligent design evolution has a mechanism by which this capability could arise (non random mutation, genetic exchange, and other mechanisms of increasing genetic variation in a population) and a mechanism by which this new trait could become fixed in a population (artificial selection and built in responses to environmental cues).
Unguided evolution is untestable because it cant be modeled and it doesnt make any testable predictions.
And arguing that ID is a science about the detection of design, not about the designer or the mechanisms used, is just equivocation.
Only of one is ignorant of science and the word equivocation. I dare you to try to make your case.
That is like saying that celestial mechanics as about the detection of gravity, not the mechanism and physics behind it.
Cuz an anonymous imbecile sez so.
So my opponent cannot answer the question and tries to disparage ID with its ignorance.
At 6:20 PM, William Spearshake said…
"Nonsequitur. Intelligent design evolution has a mechanism by which this capability could arise (non random mutation, genetic exchange, and other mechanisms of increasing genetic variation in a population) and a mechanism by which this new trait could become fixed in a population (artificial selection and built in responses to environmental cues)."
First, how is this artificial selection? What humans were picking the bacteria that are allowed to reproduce?
Second, what built in environmental cues are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that this mysterious intelligent agent foresaw the need for a funstiln for the breakdown of a compound that cannot exist naturally? Nice try Joe.
"So my opponent cannot answer the question and tries to disparage ID with its ignorance"
ID disparages itself with its own ignorance. It doesn't need any help from me.
At 6:44 AM, Joe G said…
First, how is this artificial selection?
How is it natural selection?
Second, what built in environmental cues are you talking about?
The same that Dr Spetner discusses in "Not By Chance" and "The Evolution Revolution". It is something akin to evolutionary and genetic algorithms.
Are you seriously suggesting that this mysterious intelligent agent foresaw the need for a funstiln for the breakdown of a compound that cannot exist naturally?
Nope, I am saying that organisms were intelligently designed to adapt.
ID disparages itself with its own ignorance.
Nice projection as all you have is ignorance. You position relies on ignorance.
At 6:44 AM, Joe G said…
How was it determined that the ability to break down nylon appeared via unguided evolution?
Post a Comment
<< Home