Comments on Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

If you have a mechanism that you can model and test that is robust enough to validate the observations then you don’t need to observe it directly.

Bill again agrees that the scientific case for macroevolution has been verified.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

This is an assertion that I think is as false as anything.I ever heard an intelligent person state. The evidence is a functioning eukaryotic cell. The evolutionist canard of “no evidence” when there is a smoking gun is astonishing. Let’s agree to disagree.

“This is soooo complex and I don’t understand it, therefore it was Designed!” isn’t an argument Bill. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. Never.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

It turns out just the opposite is true for generating sufficient amounts of functional information.

When we asked you to provide the model by which a mind was able to physically produce a functional sequence, the best you could come up with was, in effect, “A mind did it, with its mind.”

So, sorry, no.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Mutations happen but they are not the source of a de novo functional sequence.

De novo functional sequences, of the sort you are referring to here, do not occur. ID itself demonstrates this is not the case. Like you guys keep saying, it is too improbable.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

When we asked you to provide the model by which a mind was able to physically produce a functional sequence, the best you could come up with was, in effect, “A mind did it, with its mind.”

So, sorry, no.

With the above communication you demonstrated the process.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

Also, if simple adaptations can evolve, why can’t slightly more complex ones also evolve in longer time, and so on?

You keep on asking

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

You keep on asking

If you ever answered people wouldn’t have to keep asking.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

With the above communication you demonstrated the process.

So your Designer used human designed electronics and the internet to physically produce proteins? How did you determine that Bill?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

With the above communication you demonstrated the process.

Really. Functional DNA sequences were produced by human beings typing on laptops hundreds of millions of years ago.

Really.

[Rich_Hampton]

@colewd

de novo functional sequence

Any sequence or just proteins?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Really. Functional DNA sequences were produced by human beings typing on laptops hundreds of millions of years ago.

Really.

And all gravity is represented by starlight being deflected by the Sun?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rich_Hampton

Any sequence or just proteins?

I would say all or most sequences that are functional.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

And all gravity is represented by starlight being deflected by the Sun?

I can also presume this is intended to be an intelligent response.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

I can also presume this is intended to be an intelligent response.

Just to get you thinking about all the mechanisms science identifies as causes and how they are validated. You were happy that I claimed that evolution could be validated with a modeled and tested mechanism short of observing transitions. We know a mind can generate long sequences and purposefully arranged parts so a mechanism has inductively identified based on the evidence inside cells.

Identifying beyond this is interesting but not necessary to make this a scientific hypothesis. We can make the same case for gravity. We have a modeled and tested mechanism called mass/energy. We still are struggling to figure out anything beyond this.

[Faizal_Ali]

You have no model of ID. “A mind did it with its mind” is not a model.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Richard Dawkins validated the model. We can model a search if we have the sequence generated by a mind. More likely we can apply that sequence to generate cellular material. The model exists and it has been tested perhaps more then any model in history as we are testing it continually on this website.

500 bits above generated by a mind

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

To all.
Why on earth it has been decided to abruptly close the exiting exchanges with gpuccio about his FI methodology that took place these last few days at the scholar corner?
This decision is incomprehensible to me at a time when @gpuccio was about to respond to several important objections (I am thinking in particular of tornadoes and the immune system). It’s really frustrating to be deprived of the chance to learn more about gpuccio’s ideas. All this gives the disturbing impression that, for lack of the best arguments, the debate has been deliberately avoided.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Mercer

I know this. I know that even evolutionists are not ready to believe such nonsense. Rather, they believe that the RV+NS mechanism can do the job. But, as I explain at 272 and 328, this belief is not warranted.

You don’t know anything of the sort. It’s obnoxious to falsely attribute beliefs to other people, Gilbert

I think you misunderstood my answer to @Timothy_Horton at 329.
Here is what he said: « Explain to us again why this is relevant since no one in science says or thinks proteins arose through one random event? »
To which I answered that I knew evolutionists are NOT ready to believe such nonsense. So you see John, I am not falsely attributing beliefs to other people, quite the contrary.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Why on earth it has been decided to abruptly close the exiting exchanges with gpuccio about his FI methodology that took place these last few days at the scholar corner?

Doesn’t really make sense to me either.