Gpuccio: The rationale could be expressed as follows: there is no known necessity law that generates those levels of FI without any design intervention. Therefore, FI in non design systems can arise only by chance.
The last sentence is demonstrably false. Just as many ID-Creationists before him Gpuccio is ignoring processes which combine chance and necessity. Iterative processes which use feedback from selection and which retain heritable traits to produce each subsequent generation are empirically seen to created a virtually unlimited amount of new FI. The amount produced only depends on how long the process is allowed to run.
I don’t know of a model thats been generated that demonstrates this is true and given we are observing a sequence there is every reason to believe it is not.
Dawkins tried but he needed the information to find the information through a search algorithm.
Gpuccio: Leaving aside biological objects (for the moment), there is not one single example in the whole known universe where FI higher than 500 bits arises without any intervention of design
This is a 100% fallacious, completely circular argument. Gpuccio is defining with zero supporting reasons biological life as impossible to be designed, then using his own definition to claim biological life as impossible to be designed.
Indeed Gpuccio’s whole ID FI argument rests on fallacious reasoning.
Of course it’s a functional sequence. The soft robots have developed the ability to “walk” more and more efficiently as they evolve. Each subsequent generation with increased performance has increased FI.
If you don’t think walking is a function then what exactly is it?
It is not a sequence. DNA is a sequence. Proteins are built with sequences. The english language is built on sequences and so are telephone numbers. They are strings of abstract symbols that create meaning or perform a function.
The last time I checked “makes sense to Bill” wasn’t very persuasive scientific evidence.
I respectfully disagree.
If computer code which produces the performance observed in the visual graphics isn’t a sequence then what is it? ID-Creationists have generated twenty years’ worth of rhetoric comparing DNA to computer code.
A 1024 bit RSA key has usually been assumed to provide about the same security as a 128 bit symmetric encryption key. So a 2048 bit RSA key would provide about the same as a 256 bit symmetric key. Perhaps the appropriate probability is then around 2^{-256}
To get 512 bit equivalent would require a 4096 bit RSA key. And 4096 bit RSA keys are within range of what people can and do use.
Let’s not play tit-for-tat in the main topic. Short comments in the main topic that distract from the discussion rather than add to it are going to be moved here. If you have something thoughtful to add, then write a nice paragraph.
“Theory” does not refer to a mere retrospective explanation, which is what you are trying to do.
In science, the term “theory” refers to a scientific hypothesis whose empirical predictions have a long track record of being correct. Nothing of the sort exists for ID. You might have a hypothesis, but only if it makes clear empirical predictions.
Would you please make an effort to use more accurate terminology?
You have not offered this in the form of a scientific hypothesis, which is mechanistic and makes clear, testable, empirical predictions. It’s just assertions, and as such is not a good foundation for a scientific discussion.
