Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Protein Synthesis . . . what frequent objector AF cannot acknowledge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Let us use a handy diagram of protein synthesis:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

[U/D, Sep 2:] Where, to clarify key terms, let us note a key, classic text, Lehninger, 8th edn:

The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

Let’s add more from Lehninger and heirs, who went out of their way to make the point, Oct 29:

Further u/d Sept 2: A look at creating mRNA:

As Wikipedia admits (but, revealingly, does not duly emphasise) with a few telling words:

In molecular biology, RNA polymerase (abbreviated RNAP or RNApol), or more specifically DNA-directed/dependent RNA polymerase (DdRP), is an enzyme that synthesizes RNA from a DNA template. Using the enzyme helicase, RNAP locally opens the double-stranded DNA so that one strand of the exposed nucleotides can be used as a template for the synthesis of RNA, a process called transcription. A transcription factor and its associated transcription mediator complex must be attached to a DNA binding site called a promoter region before RNAP can initiate the DNA unwinding at that position. RNAP not only initiates RNA transcription [–> algorithmic start, notice, transcribing is generally stepwise], it also guides the nucleotides into position, facilitates attachment and elongation [–> notice direct parallel to stepwise synthesis of AA chains for proteins, cf Lehninger 8th edn p 3346: “RNA polymerase elongates an RNA strand by adding ribonucleotide units to the 3 ′- hydroxyl end, building RNA in the 5 ′ → 3 ′ direction”], has intrinsic proofreading and replacement capabilities [–> language], and termination recognition [–> algorithmic halting] capability. In eukaryotes, RNAP can build chains as long as 2.4 million nucleotides.

This is a corner of the general cell metabolism framework:

Where, Yockey observes (highlighted and annotated):

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

Where, too, the genetic code is, and its context of application is:

Given, say, Crick:

Crick’s letter

. . . we need to ask, why. END

F/N1: It seems advisable to highlight the layer cake architecture of communication systems

, , , and of Computers, following Tanenbaum:

Clearly, the communication framework does not reduce to the physics of the hardware involved.

F/N2: Dawkins admits

He tries to deflect the force by appeal to “natural selection,” but protein synthesis and linked metabolic processes are causally antecedent to self replication and therefore pose a chicken before egg challenge especially for origin of life.

Comments
AF, pardon but you are in obvious self referential denial of patent reality, reflecting no concession hyperskeptical dismissiveness that refutes itself. Your objections are typed by you in English, are effectively, ASCII coded meaningful English text. This is a classic example of Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] and so too, complex, specified information, CSI, per the NFL p. 144 definition and context that were cited in 105 above. Likewise, we point to computer files with sizes in bits and bytes as ubiquitous examples showing actual quantification, contrary to and exposing your zero concession denialism. A basic reality is, what actually exists such as squares and circles must be coherent in core attributes as opposed to what is impossible of being such as a Euclidean plane square circle. You yourself provide actual cases, FSCO/I is demonstrably real despite your attempts to deny and dismiss. And, ostensive definition by pointing to typical examples and family resemblance, is a valid form of definition, in fact it is antecedent to precising definitions that try to refine the precision of borders of a concept -- how else would we recognise yes the precising statement accurately and reliably says in/out, we trust it. Whatever critics you refer to try to say, whatever errors of discussion Dembski may make, the basic reality is patent and was discussed by Orgel, Wicken and Thaxton 10 - 20 years before WmAD came on the scene. Indeed, it is obvious his thinking is closely connected to ideas in statistical thermodynamics about clusters of microstates and relative statistical weight. This situation of your unjustified denial, therefore is similar to your attempted denial that D/RNA has in it complex, coded algorithms for AA chaining towards proteins. Similarly, with evidence on the table as above, you dismiss and hurl the elephant. Such, also fails. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
...everyone in the world knows CSI is coherent.
Most people in the world have never heard of CSI nor will they. The few that have given Dembski's CSI time if day divide into two camps. Those, like you and KF, who think CSI is coherent but are unable to show how. Those, like Joe Felsenstein, Jason Rosenhouse and Tom English who argue cogently with supporting evidence, who understand CSI is not a useful concept and certainly not quantifiable.Alan Fox
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Do you ever read back to yourself what you have written. You refuse to look at any evidence because you already know there isn't any. That's, well (forgive me) pretty insane.Alan Fox
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
You simply refuse to look at any evidence showing how CSI is not coherent
But it doesn’t exist. How can someone consider evidence when no one has found any? Your argument is that someone won’t look at nonsense, therefore nonsense exists and is thus, true. Aside: everyone in the world knows CSI is coherent. Every time they speak or write they are endorsing it.jerry
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
F/N: Some specific values for proteins as put on the table a decade ago:
Using Durston’s Fits values -- functionally specific bits -- from his Table 1, to quantify I, so also accepting functionality on specific sequences as showing specificity giving S = 1, we may apply the simplified Chi_500 metric of bits beyond the threshold: RecA: 242 AA [ --> 6 bits per character capacity for codons, 4.32 for 20 state elements], 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond
Yes, a decade ago. Meanwhile, of course, toxic distractions notwithstanding, AF et al are unable to show how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity on actual observation give rise to complex coded algorithmic information as we find in D/RNA in the cell. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
F/N: On style guides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_stylekairosfocus
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
AF, as you should acknowledge but predictably will not, complex specified information, CSI, is a generalisation of the Orgel-Wicken FSC[O/]I. FYI, I insert square brackets in follow up to 101 above, where I drew out why I can freely add organisation. Furthermore, such FSCO/I is a matter of readily made observation. The distinction between texts in English in this thread, typical random gibberish drgtjrhjrqa56ui57 and repeated blocks sdsdsdsdsd is manifest. What is further clear is that some lotteries are winnable as they are within available search resources, others are beyond that and that is why Dembski used a 500 bit threshold. As I think that is a bit short for the cosmos as a whole, I specify that to the sol system, our effective universe for atomic interactions and go to 1,000 bits for the observed cosmos. It is not plausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity could produce functionally specific text beyond these thresholds. And, manifestly, no case has been observed. I add, and given description languages, discussion on text strings is WLOG. By intelligently directed configuration, routinely, we see cases well beyond, cumulatively, trillions. As for "incoherent" a fact of observation is not possibly incoherent within itself or with the rest of reality. What is obviously happening is facts of observation are being willfully, hyperskeptically, ideologically denied. KF PS, for record, here is Dembski, and of course I have annotated, making sure to use square brackets etc to denote captioning, clarification and the like, including where I gave an exact quote:
[CONCEPT: NFL, p. 148:] “The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [--> cf. p 144 as cited below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . . In virtue of their function [a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns [--> of organisation] that are objectively given [= observable] and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways
[--> through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites: Wouters, p. 148: "globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms," Behe, p. 148: "minimal function of biochemical systems," Dawkins, pp. 148 - 9: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. [--> the pipe character FYI denotes a fresh page, dom begins p 149] In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel's famous remark on specified complexity from 1973, which exactly cited reads: " In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . ." And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."] . . .”
[DEFINITION: p. 144:] [Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
Notice, he explicitly highlights functionality for the biological world. At this point, I no longer expect participants in the voyage of folly mutiny on the good ship academy to be remotely responsible in their mad dash to sail the ship as they please, ignoring the arts of navigation.kairosfocus
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
AF, stop your policy of false accusation. It simply further exposes you as confessing by projecting. Your attempt to imply that a clearly delineated comment note is suggested to be a part of a citation is irresponsible and blatantly false accusation. You are an educated person and you know better, this is worse than your earlier attempt to pretend that ellipsis is immediately suggestive of out of context twisted citation or misquoting, which was proved false. BTW, that is part of why in the above, on the stele vs DNA, the caption is part of the image. As for, a disciplinary intervention for cause and which is duly annotated is dishonest that simply exposes your lawlessness. The obvious conclusion is you have lost on the merits and are fishing for banning under your latest incarnation, which, predictably, you will claim is censorship. The pattern of irresponsible hostile commentary is clear. KF PS, I again cite Lehninger and heirs, with annotations so the serious person can see for himself what the truth is:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
Notice, a pair of square brackets that begins with an abbreviated citation. That is a caption of sorts that gives source and date as a published document. But authorship here is complicated. This caption therefore then notes further on complexity of authorship, from the second edn 1986 on to this 8th, the actual authorship has passed to literary heirs as Lehninger passed on. At this point, it is obvious that this is not the authors speaking it is citation and commentary, the source of which is obvious from the context of a comment or online post etc. The onward part of the caption is an obvious -- yes, obvious -- note. I even went so far as to add quote marks to the blockquote, and the quote is italicised and bolded in key parts. The quote and emphasis end just before the reference and comment in square brackets begin. The number of cues distinguishing the cite from caption and comment is beyond the call of academic duty. The accusation is not only baseless, it is in the direct teeth of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. I have also sometimes used square brackets, typically with an arrow and if long with further indentation, to comment on key aspects of a citation. Typically a source or link is present so the source itself can be followed up. On rarer occasions I for example rearranged a classic Haldane remark as a skeletal form logical argument to make a point clear. When I did that I specifically, habitually noted what I did. Recently, when I cited Willard and his literary heirs, I used the device of a strike and a substitution of clearer language in the cite, as I am fairly sure Willard is hard to get hands on. I ended up buying the book twice, learning along the way limitations of licencing to use works issued in Kindle format. None of this can responsibly be called dishonest. You have simply further exposed yourself. I do not expect you to do the responsible thing, so I won't even mention it.kairosfocus
October 31, 2022
October
10
Oct
31
31
2022
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
I already admonished KF for his dishonest post-editing of other people's comments. Now he's adding daft, misleading remarks into Lehninger that look like quotes. For shame.
We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.
These are your words, not found nor implied in Lehninger. For shame. [--> THREAD OWNER: See the immediately following comment where I correct for record a blatant false and irresponsible accusation based on twisting a remark within a caption into a claim that I falsely put words in the mouths of Lehninger and literary heirs. This annotation is a disciplinary measure in response to defamation. KF]Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Oh dear, Jerry. You can't tell me how CSI works yet you assert it is "the same as KFs". You simply refuse to look at any evidence showing how CSI is not coherent. The blatant projection on your part would be disappointing if it mattered.Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
AF (attn Jerry et al), there is a fairly simple and yet pivotal reason I explicitly refer to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I [as I have constantly explained when I use it for over a decade]. No, it is not that Orgel-Wicken speak to or imply information rich organisation to achieve function. No it isn't just that a watch or a gear or a fishing reel or an oil refinery, or the cellular process-flow metabolic network, or within that network tRNA or a protein or mRNA exhibit such organisation. It is that, as say Autocad exemplifies, description languages exist and demonstrate that a structured pattern of Y/N questions reduces functionally configured organisation to associated information. And manifestly, a structured string of Y/N, two state elements is automatically an information metric in binary . . . two state [Y/N] . . . digits, aka bits, here patently FUNCTIONAL bits, though of course one may make refinements to address redundancy etc, as has been done here at UD and elsewhere. That, too, has been explained many times and once recognised is undeniable and relevant. How easily and snidely these objectors ignore, side step and pretend not to notice that every comment I have ever made at UD links, through my handle, to a discussion that includes a discussion of information, entropy and information, and functional information. How easily they ignore a threshold metric that has actually been discussed here in recent months, that allows us to see how Dembski's 2005 metric reduces to functional information beyond a threshold. So, they superciliously set up and knock over a strawman. How readily, they forget that when Patrick May played at being Mathgrrl here at UD (and ultimately embarrassed himself), a discussion ensued and as an upshot of it I put up a simplified information beyond a threshold metric that uses a two binary state dummy variable to account for functional specificity,
. . . (b) as we can define and introduce a dummy variable for specificity, S, where (c) S = 1 or 0 according as the observed configuration, E, is on objective analysis specific to a narrow and independently describable zone of interest, T: Chi = Ip*S – 500, in bits beyond a "complex enough" threshold NB: If S = 0, this locks us at Chi = - 500; and, if Ip is less than 500 bits, Chi will be negative even if S is positive. E.g.: a string of 501 coins tossed at random will have S = 0, but if the coins are arranged to spell out a message in English using the ASCII code [[notice independent specification of a narrow zone of possible configurations, T], Chi will -- unsurprisingly -- be positive. Following the logic of the per aspect necessity vs chance vs design causal factor explanatory filter, the default value of S is 0, i.e. it is assumed that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are adequate to explain a phenomenon of interest. S goes to 1 when we have objective grounds -- to be explained case by case -- to assign that value.
But in haste to be polarised, dismissive and hyperskeptical, pursuing a no concession policy that overlooks that there is a world of technologists who happen to have direct experience of working with complex multipart systems that require exacting correct configuration to work, there is a closed minded rejection of what should not require more than pointing to a few examples. SUCH CRITICS FAIL TO SEE THAT THEIR NO CONCESSION POLICY EXPOSES THEM FOR THEIR CLOSED MINDEDNESS AND INCOMPETENCE. For, if such are willfully blind on what is so plain to any reasonable person, then their opinions and assertions on the topic obviously come from the self-disqualified. And, with that attitude maintained for literally years, the damage is irreparable. That is part of why I have had to draw the conclusion that we are not dealing with responsible critique but with ideological, deeply polarised hostility that cares little or nothing for the actual merits. If they are willing to turn something as obvious as FSCO/I into a grand dismissive and denigratory song and dance they have locked themselves out of responsible discussion. Period. It is therefore utterly unsurprising that much the same critics refuse to acknowledge that D/RNA has in it complex coded algorithms. Something that has led me to point to Lehninger as is in the OP:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Well, there’s no fixing that attitude!
Except for evidence. As predicted. No evidence and definitely no logic. Just assertions that it exists someplace.
You could read it, though I doubt you will
You are right, I won’t read it. Why waste my time? I have read several pro natural Evolution books and listened to many videos on the same topic. Never found anything to support the claims in these books. That assertion by me based on evidence has never been disputed by anyone. Just ad hominems. Or polite people make counter assertions that they cannot back up.jerry
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
The reason is that the evidence and logic don’t exist.
Well, there's no fixing that attitude!Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
The day you will present evidence and logic will be an amazing day.
Jason Rosenhouse's book has been discussed on this site. You could read it, though I doubt you will. I can link to Felsenstein and English and their critiques of Dembski's CSI. Do you want me to?Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Well, my expectations regarding Jerry's video (produced by Jon Bartlett) are confirmed. Jon takes us very methodically (yes, slowly) through some basics. One thing he makes very clear is the -log(base 2)manipulation is simply to make numbers manageable. The sole example is coin tosses. I smile at the final power point:
Therefore if any object exhibits specified complexity, we have sufficient warrant for inferring it is designed.
Interestingly and serendipitously, I came across another video that discusses CSI. The author is sympathetic to "Intelligent Design" and used to be a regular here at Uncommon descent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA8HzPUdFo0Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Jason Rosenhouse, Joe Felsenstein and Tom English have beaten that horse to death.
Argument by assertion. The day you will present evidence and logic will be an amazing day. The reason is that the evidence and logic don’t exist. So it will be like an universe from nothing.jerry
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
On CSI or FCSI, Jonathan Bartlett who has a website called the Blyth Institute publishes various things on ID.
Yes, I know (in the blogosphere sense) Jon well. He published a guest post by me (as Aurelio Smith) here some time ago. Unfortunately, all comments as Aurelio Smith, including those in that thread, were deleted.
This video goes into CSI or FCSI in detail.
OK, I have the same aversion to videos as Viola Lee but I'll give it a glance.
Kf’s version is essentially the same. I believe he just says FSCO/I is just a subset of CSI.
Perhaps KF will confirm he is talking about CSI à la Dembski. In which case there is not much else to say. I think Jason Rosenhouse, Joe Felsenstein and Tom English have beaten that horse to death.
So any quibbling with Kf’s definition is just nonsense.
Asking how his FSCO/I works is not quibbling. Avoiding answering a simple direct question is not quibbling, either. It's obfuscating.Alan Fox
October 30, 2022
October
10
Oct
30
30
2022
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
On CSI or FCSI, Jonathan Bartlett who has a website called the Blyth Institute publishes various things on ID. This video goes into CSI or FCSI in detail. Kf's version is essentially the same. I believe he just says FSCO/I is just a subset of CSI. So any quibbling with Kf's definition is just nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWu_8CTdDY&t=217sjerry
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Am away for the day. So later.
RL should always take precedence. But then KF should discount the "O". Now, if you want to talk about Dembski's CSI instead, fine. Bear in mind he's dropped that in favour of "active information".Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
If you can’t do it, just say so and I’ll stop asking.
Been there done that. I believe the “O” stands for organization. This is Kf’s variation and is not necessary. The other letters are standard. But all has been discussed hundreds of times. Each sentence in what I write is FCSI and can be analyzed probabilistically. Simple and straightforward. Am away for the day. So later.jerry
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
KF (and Jerry, if he's game) How is FSCO/I calculated? Example? If you can't do it, just say so and I'll stop asking.Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
AF, you know full well that information can readily be measured in bits, that those bits can be characterised as functional and that this routinely is listed when you display computer files, they are not interested in the gibberish in unallocated store but in specific functionally organised files. Further you know that once AutoCAD etc exist there are descriptive languages that specify 3-d functional entities in strings of bits and so description on bits is WLOG. You are making up an excuse not a valid objection. Repeat, just to object you had to encode text in English, and such is readily different from random gibberish or repeated small strings. All of this was readily accessible all along so you are playing selectively hyperskeptical games. The context is, in D/RNA in the cell, there is coded algorithmic FSCO/I that points to design, which you refuse to allow. KFkairosfocus
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
PS @ Jerry, No cheating. The thing I wish to see quantified is FSCO/I, which is an acronym for functional specified something stroke information, I think. Not other acronyms, of which FSC is legitimate and does not refer to a quantity.Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Explain how you measure it, Jerry. No rush. When you have time, though it would be good if that was in my lifetime.Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
FSCO/I is only in your fevered imagination, nowhere else. Charitably, let’s call it a model for… something
No, it’s in reality and very obvious. I never knew the entire origin of FSCO/I until recently and it’s overkill. But just because of your ignorance, does not mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t explanatory. Kf is unable to explain a lot of things due to his language style. I definitely disagree with him on certain things but not CSI or FCSI. Only a fool would do that. Aside: the anti ID posters are morphing into versions of ChuckDarwin. All they seem to have is irrelevant snarky remarks. No science, no evidence, no logic, just inanity. They are living proof for ID.jerry
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
See, this is why I consider you a dishonest propagandist, KF.
...the nature of FSCO/I with multiple part organisation, alignment and coupling naturally leads to islands of function in configuration spaces. KF
FSCO/I is only in your fevered imagination, nowhere else. Charitably, let's call it a model for... something. You are incapable of defining it or giving illustrative examples let alone being able to demonstrate how to calculate any meaningful quantity.Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Oh dear. I'm saddened to witness Kairosfocus' blatant dishonesty in pasting in "voice-in-the-ceiling" edits into some of my previous comments. Oh, for shame! God is watching, KF, he sees all. For shame!!!Alan Fox
October 29, 2022
October
10
Oct
29
29
2022
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
Sev, BTW, show us an observationally backed, small increment per step path seen to be functional all the way, from a Darwin's pond or the like to a functional self replicating cell. My prediction, you don't have it. Fair comment, the nature of FSCO/I with multiple part organisation, alignment and coupling naturally leads to islands of function in configuration spaces. KFkairosfocus
September 8, 2022
September
09
Sep
8
08
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Sev, no strawman. The worldview level question begging imposition is real. As to alleged or imagined capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity to generate FSCO/I beyond reasonable thresholds, never observed. Next, what we do have in hand is coded algorithms in the cell and antecedent to cell based life. That points to intelligently directed, language using configuration as key causal process. Language comes from minds, so this is the true SETI wow signal. Not some red herring theological imposition . . . by their projections shall ye know them, just basic logic and common sense regarding language. Just, it is unwelcome to those imposing a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism and so to fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus
September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/80
JVL, your core problem is that an ideology has been imposed on origins a priori, where blind chance and mechanical necessity has never been observed to create FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. Just so, there is good blind needle in haystack reason to infer it is not plausible, and we do have a known source, design. The real problem is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of an ideologically rejected class of cause. That sort of ideological lock out does not end well. KF
As JVL and others have pointed out, you are attacking a strawman. Nowhere does evolutionary biology claim that complex modern biological phenomena arose improbably from simple, inanimate precursors in a single bound. Your unrecognized and undemonstrated metric of FSCO/I is thus far simply irrelevant. That there is design in the Universe is not in question. We do it. What is also not in question is that we are not capable of designing universes or the life within them and the ID movement has been unable to demonstrate the existence of any extraterrestrial designers that are capable of such work, arguments by analogy or arguments from incredulity notwithstanding. That there may have been, are or will be much more advanced extraterrestrial intelligences out there cannot be ruled out. But that is not the same as claiming that we are warranted in inferring that they do actually exist and that they are responsible for life on Earth. That is not ideological imposition, it is the recognition of the current limits of our knowledge. What would be a theological imposition would be any requirement that science proceeds from the unquestionable assumption of the existence of the Christian God.Seversky
September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply