This is not shocking to me at all.
2. The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.
I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.
Biology = function -> structure -> sequence (teleology inferred)
Evolution = sequence -> structure -> function (naturalism a priori)
We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.
Accidental as in without purpose or ultimate reason. You could say unintended, unplanned, or fortuitous…
But I was looking at the ‘bigger’ picture in hope for some resolve in post 975 when I asked, “What do we do and how do we find common ground?” We can all argue until we are blue in the face (or fingers) but it is rare that we actually attempt to find a resolve or common ground. I think there can be a common ground if both sides are not so dogmatic with their beliefs. At least I can hope after looking through these last posts…
It makes no difference how complex something appears to be. Biological systems and structures are not specified in advance. You cannot calculate the probability of any given structure, because there are an astronomical number of equally complex structures that are functionally equivalent.
Creationists seem to think there is only one route to a given function, or only one structure that can enable a given function. I would like to see you try to demonstrate that, particularly since there are several billion different living embodiments of the human genome, each quite different and each quite human.
I gave the example of a bridge hand. Creationist math would calculate the probability of a specified set of cards being dealt, whereas the relevant critera is the probability that any given hand will produce game. The set of different deals that will result in game points being scored is astronomical, even though it is a fraction of the number of possible different deals.
One side requires them to be dogmatic in their beliefs; the other side realizeds that the one side is an organized attack. As long as FR is an open board allowing the fanatics to post inciting articles there will be no middle ground. But then, we are not a science forum so I guess that is to be.
sequence -> structure -> function -> Survive? if yes continue to next generation.
The sequences that encode for the best functions will be preserved and eventually dominate the population.
Invoking a designer sitting at a work bench whittling away at sequences is superfluous when the struggle to reproduce/survive shapes the sequence over time.