Coming to grips with specified complexity

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 24, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One of the central requirements of design arguments is to evaluate the probability of patterns emerging through undirected processes. Examples of evaluation schema have included Behe’s irreducible complexity, Ewert et al.’s algorithmic specified complexity (ASC), and Hazen et al.’s functional information. In my previous article, I focused on the last measure. All of these approaches attempt to quantify what is termed specified complexity, which characterizes complex patterns containing meaningful (i.e., specified) information. The various approaches have been generalized by computer scientist George Montañez (see here and here). He enumerated the core steps for constructing and evaluating any measure of specified complexity:
1. Determine the probability distribution for observed events based on assumed mechanisms. In other words, identify for each possible event the probability for it to occur.
2. Define a function that assigns to each event a specificity value.
3. Calculate the canonical specified complexity for an outcome by taking the negative log (base 2) of the specified complexity kardis, which is the ratio of the event’s probability to its specificity value multiplied by a scaling factor.
4. Determine the likelihood for an event to occur resulting from any proposed mechanism with the assumed probability distribution. The upper probability is equal to the kardis. If the probability is exceedingly small, the claim that the outcome occurred through the proposed mechanism can be rejected with high confidence.
Brian Miller, “The Information Enigma: Going Deeper” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Provided we are still allowed to have the discussion, of course.

Comments

Too funny. Evos won't present any probabilities because doing so would be an admission that they don't have a methodology to test their claims. If IDists present the probabilities evos will just argue that it isn't fair. Clearly you have reading comprehension issues or perhaps you are just an infant.
Okay, what is the negative log base 2 of zero then?
Thank you for proving that you are just an infant. If the probability is zero then we don’t need the equation, duh. So stop asking your infantile question. And the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” demonstrates how hopeless the evos’ chances are at producing a scientific alternative to Intelligent Design.
Not the point.
It is the point. Just because you fail to see it doesn't mean anything to the rest of us. The OP does NOT exist in a vacuum. It actually references other papers, which are relevant to the discussion. Jerad wants to just jump in when it is obvious he doesn't even grasp the concept. And AGAIN- If the probability is zero then we don’t need the equation, duh.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

EugeneS: Can you answer my questions>JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Nothing quite so self-refuting as a Darwinian materialist trying to use mathematics to try to prove that all of life is explainable by purely material processes. I'm not using mathematics to prove anything. I'm asking about a mathematical procedure which was posted by News. Cany anyone answer my questions? Step 2 of the procedure says: Define a function that assigns to each event a specificity value. Can anyone, anyone at all, tell me what kind of function that would be and what values it would produce? Anyone? Step 3 of the procedure says: Calculate the canonical specified complexity for an outcome by taking the negative log (base 2) of the specified complexity kardis, which is the ratio of the event’s probability to its specificity value multiplied by a scaling factor. ET says that the "event's probability" of something like the creation of DNA via unguided processes is zero. The procedure says to take the ratio of that value with the undermined function value in step 2 times some undefined scaling factor and take the negative log base 2 of it. IF ET is right and the event's probability is zero then the ratio is zero and you need to take the negative log base 2 of zero. Can anyone, anyone at all, tell me what the negative log base 2 of zero is? I didn't bring this up, News brought this up. I'm asking questions about it. So far, no one can answer my questions.JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

JVL
you’re blaiming evolutionary science
It is not possible to blame something that does not exist. It is pseudo-scientific mythology. There is no theory of evolution because evolution does not entail anything and because it is non-falsifiable. The whole theory is this: 'things evolve'. It does not bother people for whome evolution is bread and butter because anything can be explained by evolution and the beauty of this is that one can keep providing 'explanations' without being responsible for them. No figures. No predictions. Nothing.EugeneS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

^^^^^ Nothing quite so self-refuting as a Darwinian materialist trying to use mathematics to try to prove that all of life is explainable by purely material processes.
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, (as well as logic itself). contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinian materialists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Moreover, the fact that man himself has access to, and can use, this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics, offers compelling evidence that man in not a purely material being but that man must also possess a transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul.
Dr. Ed Feser – The Immateriality of the Intellect – video Excerpt: 1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. However, 2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. So, 3: Formal thought processes are not material. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNi0j19ZSpo
As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910 https://evolutionnews.org/2010/08/alfred_russel_wallace_co-disco/
Thus, the fact that JVL is using mathematics, in and of itself, refutes his entire materialistic Darwinian worldview, and furthermore, offers fairly compelling proof that he, JVL himself, must possess an immaterial mind and/or soul. I have a question for you JVL,
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

ET: Oh my. I linked to a paper in which the equation is relevant. Grow up, already. That equation has different parameters and factors. Let's stick to the OP shall we? Wow. Clearly you have reading comprehension issues or perhaps you are just an infant. Okay, what is the negative log base 2 of zero then? Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL Yes but we're talking about this particular post on Uncommon Descent. Can you compute the equation for a given example? Let's say one where the probability of unguided mechanisms creating a specific structure is zero. Which means you'd have to take the negative log base 2 of zero. Which is . . . If the probability is zero, which it is for the genetic code, ribosomes, ATP synthase- well any structure requiring multiple different proteins- the equation is moot. Evos lose. The one time the equation should provide a clear and solid answer is when you're sure something is designed. Which means you have to take the negative log base 2 of zero which is . . The paper I linked to that discusses functional information demonstrates cases where the equation is applicable. Different equation, let's stick with the OP shall we? And the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” demonstrates how hopeless the evos’ chances are at producing a scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. Not the point. We're talking about the OP on Uncommon Descent. And the procedure stated. Can you say what the function of specificity is or what values it produces? IF you're right and the probability of the occurrence of a particular structure due only to unguided processes is zero then the procedure says you will have to take the negative log base 2 of zero. What does that calculation yield? If the equation doesn't make sense in a clear and unambiguous case then how do you know it's good at all? If no one uses it at all then why was it proposed at all?JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

If the probability is zero, which it is for the genetic code, ribosomes, ATP synthase- well any structure requiring multiple different proteins- the equation is moot. Evos lose. The paper I linked to that discusses functional information demonstrates cases where the equation is applicable. And the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" demonstrates how hopeless the evos' chances are at producing a scientific alternative to Intelligent Design.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Oh my. I linked to a paper in which the equation is relevant. Grow up, already.
And, guess what: you still haven’t told me what the negative log base 2 of zero is.
Wow. Clearly you have reading comprehension issues or perhaps you are just an infant.
Please try and stay on topic:
Pfft. YOU brought up "other sciences". Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.
Then again, with your obvious reading issues and your agenda for obfuscation, you just won't get it.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

ET: We use it to prove that you and yours are scientifically illiterate cowards. And it is working very well. Thank you. It's not working at all if you can't use it!! Yes, they did. They did by their complete failure to come up with a methodology to test their claims. You didn't have to make probabilistic arguments! You could have made lots of arguments. Or you could have just shut up. Evolutionary scientists didn't force you into anything. YOU chose to pursue a certain path. And now you're blaiming evolutionary science because you proposed an equation which you cannot evaluate and it's the evolutionary scientists' fault? It is very telling that the resident evos think it’s ID’s fault that they cannot test the claims of their own position. All I'm talking about is your sides' equation and whether or not you can use it. Yes, and that means you lose. If undirected processes couldn’t have done it and it has specification, we infer intelligent design. All I'm talking about is your equation and whether or not you can use it. What other sciences? There isn’t any scientific alternative to ID. The equation you are bastardizing proves it. Please try and stay on topic: we're talking about the OP and the procedure discussed therein. And whether or not you can follow it. OK, wow. If the probability is zero then we don’t need the equation, duh. Then why propose the equation? And, guess what: you still haven't told me what the negative log base 2 of zero is. And NO ONE has even tried to discuss what a function of specificity is. I didn't make the original post. News did. I'm responding to that original post. I'm asking questions about that original post and the procedures presented therein. Can you compute that equation for a particular example or not?JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

JVL:
ET thinks the event’s probability is zero which means the “kardis” is zero which mean the equation asks you to take the negative log base 2 of zero. What is that result?
OK, wow. If the probability is zero then we don't need the equation, duh.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

JVL:
If ID is science then it can’t blame other sciences for its inability to compute its own formula.
What other sciences? There isn't any scientific alternative to ID. The equation you are bastardizing proves it.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

JVL:
You think the probability of some structures under question arising via unguided processes is zero.
Yes, and that means you lose. If undirected processes couldn't have done it and it has specification, we infer intelligent design.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

It is very telling that the resident evos think it's ID's fault that they cannot test the claims of their own position. How pathetic is that?ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

JVL:
You guys came up with an equation you cannot use.
We use it to prove that you and yours are scientifically illiterate cowards. And it is working very well. Thank you.
Evolutionary scientists did not force ID proponent to make probabilistic arguments and there’s nothing wrong with probabilistic arguments per say.
Yes, they did. They did by their complete failure to come up with a methodology to test their claims. Look, Jerad, obviously you are just a clueless troll. Good luck with thatET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

The bestseller of all times, in my opinion, is this:
"The best arguments against Intelligent Design were put forward by the Institute of Protein Design".
EugeneS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Okay. I thought you might have more interest and input. I apologise again.JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

. JVL at #50
I am focusing on the OP ...
My name did not appear on this page until you wrote it.
Do you think ET‘s assertion ...
I answered that question in our previous exchange.
I was not addressing that ...
You invited the comparison when you brought me into this conversation. Let me offer you some advice: When you clearly lose an argument with someone based on the presentation of that argument, don't bring them up in other arguments.Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Seversky #11,
Consider the following scenario: A person accidentally spills some ink and creates a complex inkblot on a page of a report.
This scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with what is discussed. In Dembski's terms (as I understand his argument) one needs to explain a rare event that has a short description. A 'complex' enough ink blot does not have a short description. A scenario of value for this discussion would be to create a detailed portrait of a known politician by a single splash of ink on paper. The description in that case would just be the person's full name. Obviously, this is practically impossible for precisely this reason: such a portrait can only be created by a mind armed with enough skill. In a biological context, not every complex configuration counts but only functional ones (function is an analogue of a 'short description' of a complex ink blot). Why do people keep repeating the same strawmen arguments?EugeneS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: a probabilistic argument where you can endlessly challenge the assumptions within the argument, I am focusing on the OP and asking questions about the methodology elucidated in an attempt to understand if it's a viable approach and how it could be carried out. Do you think ET's assertion that the probability of events in question is zero in which case the methodology wants to compute the negative log base 2 of zero. What is that result and does that result make sense? And, I'd sill like to know what Define a function that assigns to each event a specificity value. means mathematically. If someone could actually define as in spell out what such a function would be I think it would be interesting. an argument based on the history of science and facts appearing within the literature, where you are forced to rationalize with a non-falsifiable response in order to ignore the argument presented. I was not addressing that or trying to compare and contrast the two, separate approaches. So, yes, I would acknowledge a distinction between them.JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

. JVL at #48, So we can make a distinction between: a) a probabilistic argument where you can endlessly challenge the assumptions within the argument, b) an argument based on the history of science and facts appearing within the literature, where you are forced to rationalize with a non-falsifiable response in order to ignore the argument presented.Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I wasn't thinking of a particular situation or response you made; I was thinking, in general, that you would probably agree with an argument partially based on probabilities. I PROBABLY overstated things a bit, saying you had made such arguments. And I was saying that I would not criticise a probabilistic argument unless I found fault with the probabilities but not the validity of making such an argument. Anyway, I meant no offence to you and if it came across that way then I sincerely apologise. I have to confess, I included you in my comments because I felt sure your understanding of such matters would mean you would have something valuable to share about the OP. I suspect the mathematics involved is well within your purview.JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: I appreciate your input; I'm going to try and stay with the OP: Define a function that assigns to each event a specificity value. from the OP. What does this mean? What kind of function is that? What values can it take? Calculate the canonical specified complexity for an outcome by taking the negative log (base 2) of the specified complexity kardis, which is the ratio of the event’s probability to its specificity value multiplied by a scaling factor. ET thinks the event's probability is zero which means the "kardis" is zero which mean the equation asks you to take the negative log base 2 of zero. What is that result?JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

. JVL at #35, I did not make a probabilistic argument to you. I made an argument based on recorded history and universal experience (as fully documented in the scientific literature). It is not a probabilistic argument to point out that there are no semantic qualities measured in matter. It is not a probabilistic argument to point out that the anticodon-to-amino acid association (during protein synthesis) is independent of the codon-to-anticodon association. It is not a probabilistic argument to point out that the fundamental symbolic requirements of the cell were first predicted by Von Neumann and then later confirmed through the experimental results of Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, and Nirenberg. It is not a probabilistic argument to point out that open-ended self-replication requires a rate-independent medium as well as a set of non-integrable constraints; or that such systems require complimentary descriptions in order to be understood. It is not a probabilistic argument to point out that autonomous open-ended self-replication requires a simultaneous coherence between a) the sequences of the medium that describe the constituents of the system, and b) the sequences of medium that describe the its interpretive constraints, and c) natural law (i.e. that the products of these iterations of sequences must form an dissipative process that reads the medium, actualizes the constraints, produces a copy of the description, and provides that copy to a daughter cell along with a set of its constraints. The only probabilistic statement I made was that – given the documented facts and irrefutable history on the matter – you would most-probably seek a non-falsifiable counterargument as the means to continue ignoring the science and history. That prediction was unambiguously confirmed. It was the whole point of your defense.Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Folks, this is mountain out of molehill stuff. It is manifest that randomness, order and functionally specific complex organisation are three distinct modes of contingent being. Let me cite Orgel from 1973:
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 . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

That's been on the table for nearly 50 years, and there are known models and metrics. Advancing such is fine but it is not definitive of the phenomenon. In that context, the inference to design issue is actually conclusive long since. We have learned that the heart of the cell contains string data structures bearing algorithmic, alphanumeric (so, goal directed and linguistic) codes, as well as execution machinery. Goals and langfuage come from intelligently directed configuration, period. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Ed George: No wonder these guys are always having wet dreams about Trump. ???? Great, there's another image I won't be able to get out of my memory.JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

JVL
So, it’s someone else’s fault you have to come up with an equation which you can’t computer because those other people haven’t given you the stuff you need.
No wonder these guys are always having wet dreams about Trump. :)Ed George_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

ET: That you try to turn that around to be ID’s fault just proves that you are a scientifically illiterate troll. You guys came up with an equation you cannot use. That's your fault. Your side has NOTHING, Jerad. Your side doesn’t have a methodology to test its claims. If it did then we wouldn’t be talking about probabilities. There's nothing wrong with probabilities when done correctly. Like when you can compute them. Evos must be desperate losers to think that since they have nothing then that somehow reflects poorly on ID. You're making ID look foolish well enough on your own. ET: I blame evolutionary biologists for their total failure at testing the claims of mainstream evolution Which has nothing to do with some ID proponents coming up with an equation they cannot compute. I blame them for their failure at providing a scientific theory of evolution. Which has nothing to do with some ID proponents coming up with an equation they cannot compute. I blame them for keeping their obviously unscientific scenarios in science classrooms. Which has nothing to do with some ID proponents coming up with an equation they cannot compute. And I blame them for being pathological liars and losers on many levels for doing what they are doing- promoting lies and BS as science. Which has nothing to do with some ID proponents coming up with an equation they cannot compute. Evolutionary scientists did not force ID proponent to make probabilistic arguments and there's nothing wrong with probabilistic arguments per say. as long as you do it correctly. Evolutionary scientists did not force ID proponents to come up with a measure of specified complexity that they can't use because they don't know how to compute some of the terms. If ID is science then it can't blame other sciences for its inability to compute its own formula. You think the probability of some structures under question arising via unguided processes is zero. If you use that in the formula it should at least give you a reasonable answer. Using that probability of zero you end up needing to take the negative log base 2 of zero. What is the negative log base 2 of zero?JVL_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Yes, of course. If you wish to make a protein from scratch, you must first invent the universe.daveS_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Functional information is a special type of specified information pertaining to biology. Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity- that paper shows you how to measure it. What you will never find is a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates blind and mindless processes can produce proteins from scratch.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

I blame evolutionary biologists for their total failure at testing the claims of mainstream evolution. I blame them for their failure at providing a scientific theory of evolution. I blame them for keeping their obviously unscientific scenarios in science classrooms. And I blame them for being pathological liars and losers on many levels for doing what they are doing- promoting lies and BS as science.ET_{June 26, 2020
June
06
Jun
26
26
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply