Which he can never seem to to do without using inappropriate teleological language, like comparing DNA to a computer code:‘In a message that is totally free of redundancy, after there’s been an error there is no means of reconstructing what was intended. Computer codes often incorporate deliberately redundant ‘parity bits’ to aid in error detection. DNA, too, has various error-correcting procedures which depend upon redundancy. ...'
Dawkins is apparently able to leap gigantic logical chasms in a single bound. Just once I would like to him explain exactly how he gets 'error-detection' and "error correction" where there is NO TARGET; "what was intended" where there is NO INTENT; and 'codes' where there is NO CODER.
He can't even discuss these things without using the language of design. If teleological language were profanity, every other word of Dawkins would be bleeped out.
Cordially,
[[Dawkins is apparently able to leap gigantic logical chasms in a single bound.]]
So isn’t Ken Miller- infact, they apparently compete to see who can make the longest chasm leaps.
[[Which he can never seem to to do without using inappropriate teleological language, like comparing DNA to a computer code:]]
Miller also has to always appeal to designed preassembled models in order to twist and manipulate his hypothesis’ when tryign to describe how somethign liek IC blood clotting ‘could arise naturally’.
Even Nat Geo has to leap incredible chasms when ‘describing’ how species evilved- My assessment of hte hsow last night showed they left out HUGE chunks of informaiton, deceitfully leavign the audience in the dark about the FACTS real implicaitons and interpretations. The show that followed ‘When whales walked’ was even worse when it came to huge chasm-like gaps- infact biological impossibilities that simply took common descent for granted.