Imagine a coin-tossing game. On each turn, players toss a fair coin 500 times. As they do so, they record all runs of heads, so that if they toss H T T H H H T H T T H H H H T T T, they will record: 1, 3, 1, 4, representing the number of heads in each run.
At the end of each round, each player computes the product of their runs-of-heads. The person with the highest product wins.
In addition, there is a House jackpot. Any person whose product exceeds 1060 wins the House jackpot.
There are 2500 possible runs of coin-tosses. However, I’m not sure exactly how many of that vast number of possible series would give a product exceeding 1060. However, if some bright mathematician can work it out for me, we can work out whether a series whose product exceeds 1060 has CSI. My ballpark estimate says it has.
That means, clearly, that if we randomly generate many series of 500 coin-tosses, it is exceedingly unlikely, in the history of the universe, that we will get a product that exceeds 1060.
However, starting with a randomly generated population of, say 100 series, I propose to subject them to random point mutations and natural selection, whereby I will cull the 50 series with the lowest products, and produce “offspring”, with random point mutations from each of the survivors, and repeat this over many generations.
I’ve already reliably got to products exceeding 1058, but it’s possible that I may have got stuck in a local maximum.
However, before I go further: would an ID proponent like to tell me whether, if I succeed in hitting the jackpot, I have satisfactorily refuted Dembski’s case? And would a mathematician like to check the jackpot?
I’ve done it in MatLab, and will post the script below. Sorry I don’t speak anything more geek-friendly than MatLab (well, a little Java, but MatLab is way easier for this).
Why? I never made such a cliam.
Why do you think that Dembski says that Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate to account for levels of CSI in which chi>1? My question is: why would he even bother with his NFL argument (i.e. the argument that Evolutionary Search is no better than Random Search averaged over all fitness landscapes) if his argument was simply that an ID is required for self-replication?
I have read his papers on NFL.
Well, if it doesn’t, then a non-design cause need not be rejected, according to Dembski.
You may differ, of course, but it’s Dembski’s argument I’m concerned with here. Perhaps you can take his DI Fellowship 🙂
They would be lucky to get this fine scholar. And a gentleman. 😀
Then you have no basis for an intelligent design hypothesis (or inference) relating to the origins of life. Good. I’m glad we’ve finally sorted that out, and you’ve realised why intelligence as an explanation for the OOL doesn’t work.
Congratulations. You can now see that a claim that intelligence could be responsible for the first life ever is a bit like claiming that a child could be responsible for the existence of its mother.
Since Dr. Liddle has yet to post her string, we will continue with Patrick’s string for a look at the results:
——————————————————-
1) Regulates thin filament length in mice
KADLQWLKGI GWIPSGSLED EKNKRATQIL SDHVYRQHPN KFKFSSLMDS MPMVLAKNNA ITMNHHLYTE AWNKDKTTVH IMPDTPEVIL AKQNKVNYSE KLYKLGLEEA KRKGYDMRLD AIPIKTAKAS RDIASDFKYK EGYRKQLGHH IGARGIHDDP KMMWSMHVAK IQSDREYKKD FEKWKTKYSSPVDMLGVVLA KKCQTLVSDA DYRNYLHQWT CLPDQNDVIH ARQAYDLQSD NMYKSDLQWM RGIGWVPIGS LDVEKCKRAT EILSDKIYRQ PPDKFKFTSV TDSLEQVLAK NNAITMNKRL YTEAWDKDKT QIHIMPDTPE IMLARMNKVN YSESLYKLAN EEAKKKGYDL RSDAIPIVAA KASRDIASDY KYKDGYRKQL GHHIGARNIK DDPKMMWSMH VAKIQSDREY KKDFEKWKTK YSSPVDMLGV VLAKKCQILV SDIDYKHPLH EWTCLPDQND VIHARQAYDL
QSDNVYKSDL QWMRGIGWVP IGSLDVVKCK RAAEILSDNI YRQPPNKFKF TSVTDSLEQV LAKSNALNMN KRLYTEAWDK DKIQIHVMPD TPEIMLARQN RINYSESLYK LANEEAKKKG YDLRVDAIPI VAAKASRDIA SDYKYKVGYR KQLGHHIGAR NIEDDPKMMW SMHVAKIQSD REYKKDFEKW KTKYSSPVDM LGVVLAKKCQ TLVSDVDYRN YLHQWTCLPD QNDVIHARQA YDLQSDNVYK SDLQWMRGIG WVPIGSLDVV KCKRAAEILS DNIYRQPPNK FKFTSVTDSL EQVLAKSNAL NMNKRLYTEA WDKDKTQIHI MPDTPEIM
————————————————-
2) 3 1’s then 3 0’s repeat to 960
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
——————————————————-
3) 4 1’s then 0, 3 1’s then 0 twice, 4 1’s then 0 twice, five 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s three times, 0 then four 1’s twice, 0 then five 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s five times, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then four 1’s three times, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 3 1’s three times, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice,
0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s 3x, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s 2x, 0 then 4 1’s 9x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 4x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s 3x, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s
1111011101110111101111011111011110111101111011111 011101110111 0111101111 011111 01111 01111 01111 01111 01111 0111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 011101110111 01111 011111 0111101111 0111 0111101111 0111 01111 011101110111 01111 0111 01111
01110111 011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111 0111 01111011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 011101111011111 01111 0111 011110111101111 0111 0111101111 011101110111 0111 011101110111 011110111101111 011111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 0111 01111 01110111 011110111
—-
Here we can examine, with striking clarity, the differences in specificity. Despite the illusion of a pattern, one might clearly identify the degrees of specification when examined closely.
Again I will leave it to the fair observer as to whether or not the criterion of
specificity has been established it string 3..
Joe:
Meaning I can add reproduction to the long list of subjects which, clearly, you barely understand. What is IC about sex? (To spare you some embarassment, don’t start with males and females or complex bodies).
Two questions, junkdnaforlife:
1: What are your criteria for “specificity” in string 2 and string 3, respectively?
2. Could you supply the DNA (or RNA) sequence for your AA string? (It would be easier to compare strings with alphabets of 4 and 2 than strings of 22 and 2).
Alternatively, to compare like with like, we could compare your aa string with Patrick’s string of runs-of-heads numbers:
433445444533344544444344434443334544344344343334343344444444443 44443444 34543444344344454344434343
(hope my transcript is correct), which is the equivalent of an aa string from an mRNA string, i.e. what is “coded for” by the genomic sequence.
So how do we compare the “specificity” of your aa string and Patrick’s runs-of-heads numbers? (I have some ideas, but I’d be interested in yours).
Umm I provided an article to support my claims. Perhaps you should read it BEFORE commenting on what you think I do not understand.
OR better yet produce the evidence that asexual and sexual reproduction are not IC
Peering into Darwin’s Black Box:
The cell divsion processes required for bacterial life= asexual reproduction is IC
Perhaps he is saying those types of processes also apply to the OoL. Also you seem to be taking quite a bit of leeway with your use of “darwinian processes”.
I guess you never heard of CHEMICAL EVOLUTION as it pertains to the OoL.
Read the book.
Can someone polease tell me how this relates to Intelligent Design?
dr who sez:
But that is a strawman- meaningless drivel, just like materialism.
So please- explain why what dr who said has anything to do with ID.
You don’t understand Dembski’s argument.
Well, not in that paper, he doesn’t.
Such as?
What do you understand by that term, Joe?
Why? Is the argument he makes in his peer-reviewed papers inadequate to make his case?
In my view it is you who has failed to understand Dembski’s argument.
I second that.
Good for you- however it is I who has read his books AND his papers, whereas you have just read some of his papers.
And strabnge how I have supported my claims and you haven’t supoorted yours…
There is more to ID than one paper.
Such as they aren’t darwinian if the organism did not arise via blind and undirected processes
Chemical evolution usually refers to living organisms arising from non-living matter via blind and undirected chemical processes.
because it contains information that you are ignoring.
Reading a book does not equate with understanding the paper.
Of course I’ve supported my claims, Joe.
I’ve explained exactly what I’ve done. I’ve used natural selection to generate a specified sequence that has a probability of being generated without natural selection that is lower than the cutoff Dembski gives for being possible within the lifetime of the universe to date. Yet we can regularly achieve it within a few thousand generations of a population of a few hundred or less.
So Dembski’s claim natural selection is inadequate to breach that threshold his falsified. Falsifications don’t get much more straightforward than that.
If he’d said that Natural Selection itself is too low a probability to have come into being without intelligence, that would be a different argument. But that is not the argument he makes in that paper. So he should retract the argument he makes in that paper.
His NFL point is slightly different of course – he claims that Natural Selection can do better than a random chance, but only if we “smuggle in” information via the fitness function.
Would you like to discuss that? We can have a new thread about it.
So if I tell you that 2+2= 5, and elsewhere tell you that 3+3=6, you can’t fault my first claim because I’ve made a correct claim elsewhere?
I’m sure there is more to ID than that paper by Dembski. I’m not attempting to refute ID here, I’m refuting that paper by Dembski.
No, you haven’t. ya see CSI STILL pertains to ORIGINS and YOU refuse to accept that.
IOW YOU need to get the specified pattern that allows for reproduction in the first place.
And again natural selection is a RESULT and it does NOT do anything. It is a statistical artifact ONLY.
Natural selection does not generate anything.
Non-sequitur- CONTEXT Liz- you need to know the context of what the paper is talking about. And you don’t, even though I told you.
To do that first you should talk it over with Dembski to make sure you are talking about the same thing.
To do it your way is just plain wrong.
The book- NFL- is directly relevant to the paper “Specification”
Joe I’ve responded to all the points you have made in that last point, on several occasions. Unless you engage with my actual rebuttals (with a counter-rebuttal if you like) there really isn’t much point in continuing to converse. But FWIW:
No, I haven’t refused to accept that. I’ve asked you to demonstrate that a Darwinian-capable self-replication must necessarily have chi>1. I don’t know whether it does or not.
Only if the CSI of a Darwinian-self-replicator necessarily has chi>1. You need to support that claim, otherwise we can invoke, according to Dembski, chance.
As I’ve already spelled out clearly: natural selection is the RESULT of heritable variance in differential reproductive success. That DOES something. What it DOES is select, and when the differential reproductive success is due to natural environmental effect we call that selection “natural” – when it is due to deliberate selection on the part of an intelligent breeder, we call it “artificial”. But in both cases the RESULT is selection, and that selection in turn results in CSI, up to, and beyond the threshold of chi>1.
As my exercise demonstrates.
Heritable variance in reproductive success generates natural (or artificial) selection and natural (or artificial) selection aka biased sampling in favour of what promotes reproductive success generates CSI.
If you disagree with my points, please rebut them, Joe, don’t just repeat your assertions without engaging my own rebuttals.
Since Dr. Liddle has yet to post her string, and appears to be accepting Patrick’s
string as a substitute, then we will continue with Patrick’s string for another look at the results:
——————————————————-
1) Regulates thin filament length in mice
KADLQWLKGI GWIPSGSLED EKNKRATQIL SDHVYRQHPN KFKFSSLMDS MPMVLAKNNA ITMNHHLYTE AWNKDKTTVH IMPDTPEVIL AKQNKVNYSE KLYKLGLEEA KRKGYDMRLD AIPIKTAKAS RDIASDFKYK EGYRKQLGHH IGARGIHDDP KMMWSMHVAK IQSDREYKKD FEKWKTKYSSPVDMLGVVLA KKCQTLVSDA DYRNYLHQWT CLPDQNDVIH ARQAYDLQSD NMYKSDLQWM RGIGWVPIGS LDVEKCKRAT EILSDKIYRQ PPDKFKFTSV TDSLEQVLAK NNAITMNKRL YTEAWDKDKT QIHIMPDTPE IMLARMNKVN YSESLYKLAN EEAKKKGYDL RSDAIPIVAA KASRDIASDY KYKDGYRKQL GHHIGARNIK DDPKMMWSMH VAKIQSDREY KKDFEKWKTK YSSPVDMLGV VLAKKCQILV SDIDYKHPLH EWTCLPDQND VIHARQAYDL
QSDNVYKSDL QWMRGIGWVP IGSLDVVKCK RAAEILSDNI YRQPPNKFKF TSVTDSLEQV LAKSNALNMN KRLYTEAWDK DKIQIHVMPD TPEIMLARQN RINYSESLYK LANEEAKKKG YDLRVDAIPI VAAKASRDIA SDYKYKVGYR KQLGHHIGAR NIEDDPKMMW SMHVAKIQSD REYKKDFEKW KTKYSSPVDM LGVVLAKKCQ TLVSDVDYRN YLHQWTCLPD QNDVIHARQA YDLQSDNVYK SDLQWMRGIG WVPIGSLDVV KCKRAAEILS DNIYRQPPNK FKFTSVTDSL EQVLAKSNAL NMNKRLYTEA WDKDKTQIHI MPDTPEIM
————————————————-
2) 3 1’s then 3 0’s repeat to 960
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000 111000
——————————————————-
3) 4 1’s then 0, 3 1’s then 0 twice, 4 1’s then 0 twice, five 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s three times, 0 then four 1’s twice, 0 then five 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s five times, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then four 1’s three times, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s three times, 0 then 3 1’s three times, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice,
0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s 3x, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s 2x, 0 then 4 1’s 9x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 4x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then three 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s twice, 0 then 3 1’s 3x, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 5 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s 3x, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s, 0 then 4 1’s, 0 then 3 1’s
1111011101110111101111011111011110111101111011111 011101110111 0111101111 011111 01111 01111 01111 01111 01111 0111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 011101110111 01111 011111 0111101111 0111 0111101111 0111 01111 011101110111 01111 0111 01111
01110111 011110111101111011110111101111011110111101111 0111 01111011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 011101111011111 01111 0111 011110111101111 0111 0111101111 011101110111 0111 011101110111 011110111101111 011111 011110111101111 0111 011110111101111 0111 01111 01110111 011110111
—-
Here we can examine, with striking clarity, the differences in specificity. Despite the illusion of a pattern, we can clearly identify the differing degrees of
specification when examined closely.
Again I will leave it to the fair observer as to whether or not the criterion of specificity has been established in string 3.
Joe,
Since you are such a big fan of Dembski’s books, why don’t you open No Free Lunch on page 193, read through that page and the next one and tell us what you think of that. I will give my reading of it as well.
junkdnaforlife: did you see my post here:
and the one following?
Allan Miller
Joe:
You provided the following 2 sentences:
No link. Nothing to read BEFORE commenting on your lack of understanding. I will read the article now you’ve linked it. Either way, being able to link someone else’s work doesn’t really address your ability to understand the issues – for example, my question was on sex, not asexual reproduction. The origin of asexual reproduction is the OoL – and, it is the origin of the “Darwinian” process. That cellular mechanisms in use now, 4 billion years later, are complex and interdependent, is hardly evidence for design. Let’s say God really did design prokaryotes 2 billion years before anything ‘worthwhile’ came along. For all you know, that was all he did – he then flushed the whole science project down the drain, and would be mightily surprised at what came crawling out the sewer 2 billion years later.
To pursue this point would require far more biological knowledge, and willingness to learn, than I have ever seen from you. However far I take it, you will slip into lazy denial, guaranteed. IC is, in any case, a Creationist term: no-one is obliged to dance around it. Many systems are IC in a trivial sense – remove your heart and you cease functioning. This fact has caused no difficulty for evolutionary theory. Likewise, kill all females and modern sexual organisms cannot reproduce. Disable the cytoskeleton or protein synthesis and eukaryotic cells can do neither meiosis nor mitosis. None of this makes the process ‘unevolvable’, nor non-reducible. That cells have become dependent upon these systems does not make them essential in a fundamental sense. But can I be bothered going through it with you? No, to be frank.
I agree that it is. Dembsi actually says, in his abstract:
But note that he does not cite either source in support of his argument. He merely says that the current paper “reviews, clarifies, and extends” that work.
In other words, anything he says in that paper must stand alone.
What he does say, in NFL, according to the section identified by Olegt in google books, is that the reason that NS can result in sequences with CSI is because the added information is already present in the fitness function. And, as I said, I’m happy to discuss that, although it’s not the point you are making, and it’s not a point Dembski makes in that paper.
Weirdly, in that section, he argues that all an evolutionary algorithm has done is to “borrow” a fitness function from the very large phase space of all fitness functions.
But why shouldn’t it? Effectively he’s saying that it’s not “specified patterns” that are prohibitively improbably under a no-Design scenario, but that fitness functions that lead to “specified patterns” are prohibitively improbable.
Does he support this claim? Not that I’ve read. And that isn’t what the NFL theorems demonstrate.
Nice- I provided the link in an earlier comment and i provided it again- and you ignored it.
But anyway whatever excuse works for you in order to not produce any evidence in support of your claims…
Does page 193 exist in isolation?
But anyway he is talking about the targeted search- ie non-darwinian program “weasel”.
What about it?
LoL! Is THAT supposed to be a valid response?
The obvious way to read the claim about the special fitness function is to read it as saying that the chemistry of protein folding supports evolution. In other words, it’s a fine tuning argument.
No, you haven’t. ya see CSI STILL pertains to ORIGINS and YOU refuse to accept that.
Again I ask for evidence of this alleged self-replicator. And I am sure you will avoid it again.
IOW YOU need to get the specified pattern that allows for reproduction in the first place.
Nope- you need to have some evidence that such a thing could exist and what it is.
Yes, and that is nothing. Or perhaps you have some real-world evidence taht demonstrates natural seelction constructs new and useful multi-protein configurations?
Evidence please.
Yes, of course. If you don’t cite a source to support a claim, then you have to support it within the text. Or you do if you are writing an academic paper, anyway.
He cited the source- his two books.
Why is evidence needed of an early replicator? There must have been one (or perhaps several).That such must have existed is self-evident, and I know of no non-YEC that disagrees.
Dembski, I seem to remember, allows for such, and that he has no problem with any such possessing small amounts of CSI
Now it has been shown that Darwinian mechanisms (reproduction, mutation, NS (or environment-driven selection, if you prefer)) can add CSI, no problem, and much, much more easily than IDists would like
It’s no use wittering about “NS is only a result” – it’s results of a passive process; indeed an inevitable process.
It’s of no use, JoeG, constantly bringing up the ever-mutable and shifting (not to say shifty) facets of your “position”, since in the absence of a clear and unequivocal statement of what your “position” is, exactly, no-one cares.
And you have NEVER given that clear exposition
junkdnaforlife:
I’ve got a run going right now, and I just interrogated the latest output:
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
That’s after 2400 generations of a population of 100. The product is 1.2383e+060.
That’s using 3 kinds of mutation:
1. point mutations (probability .01)
2. Deletion of randomly selected short string and insertion in randomly selected location
3. Duplication of randomly selected short string and substitution for randomly selected existing string.
In other words, I’ve covered the five main kinds of mutation in DNA (point mutation, deletion, insertion, duplication, substitution) within the constraint of keeping the string constant length.
Not in support of the argument I have refuted.
Evidence please.
And here is the run of “coin-tosses”:
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
If you tossed this series of coin-flips, junkdnaforlife, would you or would you not reject the idea that the coin was fair, or, indeed, that the sequence was being generated by a series of tosses at all? (One test would be to compare the sequence with the output of a relevant poisson distribution).
There’s no evidence for or of your “intelligent designer”.
You’re starting with CSI to explain CSI, intelligence to explain intelligence, ID to explain ID, IC to explain IC, and origins to explain origins, but aren’t you the one who repeatedly says that you can’t start with what you need to explain in the first place?
Show your positive ID “evidence” (not assertions or references to what other people say) of the origin of the universe, the Earth, life on Earth, intelligence, front loading, side loading, molecules, mutations, the diversity of life on Earth, alien life, the biblical flood, and Chia seeds.
I notice that you’re still avoiding lots of relevant questions, and that you’re still relying on bald assertions. So much for supporting your claims.
junkdnaforlife,
What exactly is “the criterion of specificity”?
Joe G, you also start with design to explain a designer or a designer to explain design, or some such, and even though you say that ID isn’t about the designer you also say that ID/CSI is about origins, but the origin of ID and CSI, according to you, is “the designer”, so if ID/CSI is about “origins” it’s actually about “the designer”, since, according to you, that’s where everything originated.
But wait, “the designer” can’t be the origin because that wouldn’t explain where “the designer” came from, so you’ll have to go back to, and explain, and show evidence of the origin of the very first designer, and where it came from. Good luck with that.
Yes. If ID is about origins, as you tended, please explain the origin of the designer and the CSI which he / she / it presumably contains / exhibits. I’ll wait.
Ooh, this one is awesome:
4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Product=1.3046e+60
I doubt it’ll go all the way to all fours, but it’s pretty good. I’ll leave it running.
BTW, compare, for a coin-toss generated sequence:
3 1 2 2 3 7 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 6 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 5 3 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 2 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 4 3 1 1 2 5 2 4 2 1 1 1 3 1
Product=4.953e+29
Please provide the citation that states the intelligent designer had or needed an origin.
I’ll wait.
LoL! Seeing that you are ignoring those two books, you don’t understand the argument.
Liz- you are conflating specificity with CSI- you have only managed to create one part of CSI- the “S”