Walking, water, and life are all natural, just like intelligent design.Below, a live organism consisting of 80% water debunks all three prongs of your bold assertion.
Posted on 07/13/2006 3:18:03 PM PDT by curiosity
I see its benefit as disproving an existing paradigm.
"if it is impractical it will be ignored." It is.
And you are doing a good job of it!!
Absolutley. Now DO you understand what I mean?
More nonsense... No possible knowledge of the computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. Where does he think the 1s and 0s or computation reside? Everything in the computations resides in the computer's materials, and with an old fashioned logic probe you can read them.
The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information...
...is Gilder's phrase, and it is as silly as saying that physics doesn't explain the fact that 2+2=4. Of course not. Physics does not explain mathematics.
If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information.
The digits of pi are determined. Is the string of Pi's digits in base 10 not information in the Shannon sense?
Going on...Gilder claims that information cannot be transferred from protein to DNA. But that is exactly what natural selection does. Proteins sequences that enhance the selection of the organisms enhance the propagation of their particular DNA, thus changing the DNA composition of the population.
Calling the atom 'a complex arena of quantum information' is just nonsense. I think Gilder thinks that anything he doesn't understand is 'information', when it's merely true that he doesn't understand information. The statement
This information processing in one human body for just one function exceeds by some 25 percent the total computing power of all the world’s 200 million personal computers produced every year....is numerically illiterate, in that operations cannot be compared with operations per second (power).
synthesis of protein molecules from a code, and then the exquisitely accurate folding of the proteins into the precise shape needed to fit them together in functional systems. This process of protein synthesis and “plectics” cannot even in principle be modeled on a computer. Yet it is essential to the translation of information into life.
Protein synthesis of course can be modeled on a computer - you don't need a computer, for heaven's sake, it's just a simple translation of a triplet code. We are very rapidly getting to the point where we can model protein folding. But the numerical difficulty of a computational process is no measure of its 'information content'. The weather is hard to model, but that doesn't mean raindrops carry information.
Gilder seems to be unaware that Michael Behe's book has been thoroughly debunked, and much of the last part of his article is standard 'God in the gaps' fare - that because we still don't understand some things, what we do understand must be wrong.
All in all, a very silly article, but I was never much of a fan of Gilder's. Non tech types are usually very bad at explaining highly technical ideas, because ultimately, to explain them, you need to understand them. (And since most tech types can't write, we're doomed!)
Scientifically, both have happened. Neither, however, necessarily is true in the political arena. As many people have noticed, the Discovery Institute doesn't discover anything, but it writes lots and lots of press releases.
Walking, water, and life are all natural, just like intelligent design.Below, a live organism consisting of 80% water debunks all three prongs of your bold assertion.
People are allowed to believe whatever they want. ID believers get their papers published when they are doing science.
It is, however, not popular in science to say that because we don't understand everything, the things we dont understand were cause by an unknown agent at an unknown time for unknown reasons using unknown methods and processes.
Generally speaking, an explanation requires the observation of a process or the assertion of a cause and effect relationship.
ID asserts that some hypothetical intelligence modifies the genome to produce new complex structures. Aside from the fact that "intelligent mutation" is directly contradicted by observation of mutations in evolving bacteria, we have the slight problem of understanding, in principle, how a genome knows how to anticipate need.
How, for example, does a genome know that a breeder wants googly eyes on a carp, and that googly eyed carp will be allowed to have more offspring? How does the information about changes in selection criteria get passed down to the genome?
I'm afraid you seem to misunderstand the question. I would like you to specify a current, specific piece of scientific work, coming out of bioinformatics, that is very negative to traditional evolutionary theory.
Sure doesn't look like it.
Sure does.
So did the flagellum evolve?
Sure doesn't
Absolutely. and there's a pretty good explanation of how it could have evolved.
The requirement that we know exactly how is bogus. In a forensic investivation, the existence of multiple possible paths is not a problem.
The alternative, that God or some unknown alien, designed a device for the specific purpose of killing infants and children, seems a bit far fetched.
because of the religious view of their attackers that all can be explained by random-mutations and natural selection.Post #120, Darwiniacs are disciples. Tick it off.
You conveniently ignore the empirical basis for ToE, the fact that it encompasses more than those two mechanisms, and the cast-iron certainty that a theory, any theory, which offers a better explanatory and predictive power over the accumulated and yet to be discovered evidence would be embraced. Not in an instant, like some mystical revelation, nor grudgingly over decades or centuries, but it would be embraced.
Why not give it to the world? Kudos, riches and fame beyond eternity. Or if these are mere trifles to you, the priceless satisfaction of the betterment of humanity. It mystifies me why nobody has yet done so.
Does a googol times. :-)
You could go further. Each cell in your retinal percevies light in zero dimensions. It perceives light at a single point. An array of cells on your retina is two dimensional, but, because you have binocular vision, your brain perceives the world in three dimensions. To do that, it has to reconstruct, not an image, but individual signals from two sets of light points.
Thanks to the Intelligent Designer, we have more than eyes with which to observe, quantify, and explore His intelligently designed creation.
Careful. Your designer may be upset you haven't figured out why you have two eyes.
Yes; you don't know what untestable means,
Ahh, no. You don't understand what I mean.
?Absolutely. and there's a pretty good explanation of how it could have evolved.
And you've observed this?
:-)
Read what I said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.