Design and Nested Hierarchies

You can’t measure functional information, so that is not a falsification.

1 Like

I think the correct statement is that we cannot measure it accurately at this point. @Art has been writing since 2004 about scientists trying to empirically measure it in specific proteins. As we get more knowledge of how the cell functions the accuracy of that measurement will improve. The challenge is finding a mechanism that can produce it in large quantities.

High levels of preservation beyond what is expected by neutral mutations indicates functional constraint.

That’s a distinction without a difference. You can’t measure functional information, so you need a new falsification.

As already explained, that is easily achieved through negative selection.

1 Like

This is a false statement. You are leading with you chin making statements based on ignorance.

Why is negative selection occurring?

My irony meter just exploded.

I started a thread on that very subject. Perhaps you could make some comments over there.

1 Like

The problem T is you are trying to prove a negative with your statement. This is a classic creationist mistake. Saying it is difficult to measure accurately is sufficient.

That’s your whole argument, that natural mechanisms can not produce functional information, therefore design.

A post was merged into an existing topic: The Rock Pocket Mouse: A Model for Natural Selection

No it is not my argument. My argument is the mechanisms of matter are not powerful enough to explain what we are observing where mind can explain it. I watched people try to model matter as an adequate mechanism over the last 30 years and so far there is no sufficient mechanism to support this hypothesis. I am not saying it is impossible I am simply saying it has not been demonstrated to date.

That is a negative argument you have yet to support.

1 Like

I have supported it. You don’t have a model that can build a complex sequence without the sequence as the target. Dawkins needed a target to build a sequence containing about 90 bits of functional information.

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to support it.

Argument from ignorance and a shift in the burden of proof.

1 Like

A statement of the known limits of evolutionary mechanisms. This is reality. The sequential nature of DNA and amino acid based protein sequences is a real observation and they require a very powerful mechanism to account for their origin.

Yet another bare assertion with no evidence to support it.

1 Like

There is plenty of evidence the problem is that you are allergic to it :slight_smile: The sequence itself is the evidence.

I’m not allergic. Start a new thread and present it.

You have a black and white style of argument and continue of making accusations that I am arguing without evidence. We are both looking at the same evidence and coming up with different interpretations. I don’t think the discussion is productive any longer.

Let me point out that nothing that’s happened here for at least a couple of days has anything to do with “design and nested hierarchies”.


Agreed. Closing it down.