We need a new variant of FDR’s famous sign: “The Buck Doesn’t Even Slow Down Here”. 
LOL! Except for the process of evolution which has been empirically demonstrated and scientifically verified for over 160 years. For some unknown reason Bill always forgets about that. Always.
That’s not a test Bill. You need to generate your 500 bits using only your mind. No fair using other physical mechanisms like a keyboard, computer, the AC circuits in your house.
Let’s see just your mind produce the physical product for us to inspect Bill. That’s what you’re claiming for biological objects, just a mind manufactured them.
Then why were you going on and on about God in your defense of ID?
Major logic fail there. That evolution can produce 500 bits of “information” does not mean that “intelligence” could not do it as well.
Irrelevant. The model by which gravity is viewed as a force that curves spacetime is confirmed by experiment. It does not mean that the only way anything can be curved is by gravity.
Similarly, if intelligence is shown to be able to create 500 bits if FI, that does not mean everything that contains 500 bits of FI was creatd by intelligence.
Generate a model of a competing mechanism.
Already been done and showed to you dozens of times Bill. Go watch the evolving soft robots video you keep dodging.
We don’t have to, you have no examples from biology that is known to exhibit 500 bits of FI.
Bill, that’s beyond the pale. Are you really claiming that you’ve never seen “evolutionists” offer evidence? That’s certainly not rhetorical.
Maybe you should retract your claim.
Here is a protein that I think will be functional, IF we have a cell to put it in.
Take any protein, like say TopoIsomerase II, and make all the chiral Amino-Acids the D-form. I expect it has a good chance of working if we can have a cell that has all of its chiralities reversed!
The challenge was not if you could name a known functional protein. The challenge was for you or someone to create a new one de novo.
If I told you an arbitrary function I wanted a protein to perform, could you then with perfect foreknowledge, just make up a sequence of amino acids that would fold correctly and carry out that function under a set of conditions I specify?
The question is of course rhetorical. Nobody can do that. The protein engineers that can make novel proteins have the advantage of many years of learning and study, trial and error research, and tools like advanced computer modeling software, and they’re standing on the shoulders of centuries of accumulated scientific progress. Nobody can just think up a protein sequence that will carry out a specific function, much less synthesize it out of thin air.
Because they aren’t God, that’s why.
Ahh of course, the ultimate gap-reasoning. Since no known mind can do it there must be an unknown mind that can do the impossible. Live without a brain, think without having to eat, know without having to learn, push things without a body, and create without raw materials.
Uh-huh, that makes sense.
They aren’t evolution, either.
This is where I see a major breakdown in this particular argument. It goes something like this (correct me if I’m wrong):
I don’t feel qualified to asses (1) really, so I will grant that for the moment. The bit I want to address is (4). The problem with ID for me here is that it seems like they go just far enough to prove their point, but don’t continue with the logic. The question to me isn’t can God make proteins out of nothing, but did he?
So a human mind can design a functional sequence, great. But a human doesn’t have the power to create a functional protein out of nothing, right? So then this is when ID turns to God’s power, we switch to a superior, omnipotent mind. This is why I think the ID tendency to argue through analogy (rather than direct evidence, generally) is problematic. When you make the human → God leap, you get a lot more than a better mind. If God can design and instantiate a functional protein out of nothing, then why can’t he design a system that creates the functional protein itself?
We see an everyday example of this with machine learning and artificial intelligence. A data scientist can either try to directly program the solution, or they can create a system that finds the solution itself.
If God can do anything, then we can’t use his power as an argument for one thing vs. another. There is no reason to think he couldn’t do both. “God did it” works both ways. And this, then, is why methodological naturalism is an important viewpoint for the Christian. Because God can do all things, it means we cannot use his omnipotence or omniscience as a distinguisher between what could be and what is.
In short, “minds design functional sequences” has very little weight in this argument since minds can also design systems that design functional sequences. The argument may be correct, but it’s not specific enough to rule out the other options.
Good point. It is oddly restrictive to insist that if God did it, it had to be by just make it appear all at once in an instant. God could have created sequence space to ensure that new proteins could occasionally evolve through an evolutionary process, using observed mutation rates and population sizes.
How does Sal, or Bill, or anyone know that God didn’t create sequence space for that very purpose, to facilitate the evolution of novelty and adaptation?
This is the problem with the counterarguments to the design argument. They create straw men and attack the straw men. The design argument is evidence of design…hard stop. The design argument does not make the human to God leap.
I don’t think your comment on 500 bits is right but you have found the last possible argument for evolution. The issue is there are very few conditions where this can work given the length of the sequences and the precision of the functions.
The mere observation of sequences that can create functional 3D machines tells us the design was for diversity. Sequences are great for generating almost unlimited diversity, Thats what makes the chance and necessity argument so difficult. If there is 500 bits or more of information in the genome than the best explanation for this is a mind as the cause at this point. If you can engage with this point the idea becomes very interesting without invoking God into the discussion.
You can substitute “Designer” for “God”, and @Jordan’s point applies just as well. The issue is the ID Creationists’misuse of logic.
What if you insert the evidence of design which is the real argument? The misuse of logic is on the counter argument side. When you are busy creating straw men it is easy to forget the real argument you are challenging.