The mechanism is evolution.
1 Like
An iterative process of random genetic changes filtered by selection feedback and carried forward as heritable traits. Same as the last 10,000 times you asked and were answered.
1 Like
Salvador agrees with you. I think it is a scientific claim yet I agree it is on the edge. The benefit I see is it holds sciences feet to the fire to make testable claims. The use I see at this point for ID is as a comparative hypothesis.
That’s like saying, “The strength of the leprechaun argument is that leprechauns create rainbows”.
And yet you think a supernatural deity poofing DNA into existence is reasonable. You are straining gnats while swallowing a camel.
Summary
This text will be hidden
Not at all.
Bill you’ve been dodging this question for two days now. Try hard to find the courage to answer.
Bill ignores the answer to his question for the 10,001st time. Anyone surprised?
1 Like
Selection feedback is hand waving. What is being selected for that allows the DNA to become organized. The only feedback mechanism that has been shown to work (Weasel) includes the sequence as a direct target.
I have always considered FI meaningful, and have always cited the papers by Szostak and by Hazen et al. It is closely related to SI, in effect one form of it The real problem with it is not meaninglessness or difficulty of computing it in practice. It is that when an amount of it large enough to be CFI (or CSI), that is not an argument that it cannot be brought about by natural selection. There is, in fact, no sensible argument that it cannot be brought about by natural selection acting over multiple generations. It may or may not be able to be brought about that way, but there is no general principle that it cannot.
4 Likes
LOL! Natural selection (i.e differential reproductive success) is a biological process which has been empirically observed to occur for over 160 years. But to Bill’s level of science understanding it’s just hand waving. 
That’s all you need to know about this discussion folks. 
What is the sensible argument that a flagellar with approximately 100k nucleotides to build can be brought about by natural selection?
Giltil: Interesting, that is not what I would have expected. I should look at that and some other proteins. I continue to disagree with you and gpuccio that these scores measure an increase of “information”. If one were to use cyprinid fishes as a criterion for deciding when something has an increase in information, then your numbers would show that there is a jump in information (1850 to 2215) when going from mere humans to the Mighty Minnow.
2 Likes
The same one you’ve heard 10,001 times now. The one supported with huge amounts of positive evidence. Really Bill, try something besides going “NUH-UH!” all the time.
Oh, I see you dodged the question on your de novo information claim again too. We’ll assume it’s because you’re too embarrassed to answer and undercut your own position.
You are plain wrong here. The argument from FI is not an argument from analogy. It simply states that any object or system exhibiting more than 500 bits of FI is necessarily a designed object or system. Why? Because the probabilistic ressources of the entire universe are insufficient to find the target by a random search.
As you said, an argument from analogy works as follow: thing A and thing B share an attribute. Thing A is designed. Therefore B is designed too.
The argument from FI works as follow: thing A exhibits high FI, therefore it was designed. Thing B exhibits high FI, therefore it was designed. Thing C exhibits high FI, therefore it was designed. Shall I continue?
I really did not understand your question. Maybe you can reframe it.
But evolution isn’t a random search for a specific target. It’s an iterative process with selection feedback which isn’t searching for any specific solutions, just a place near a local fitness maximum.
All that “500 bits” nonsense is a non-sequitur.
The big problem is all designed things may have high FI but not all things with high FI are designed. You fail Logic 101.
If the search is for a protein where does the feedback come from prior to the protein being built?
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge!
Yes you understood the question Bill. Why does copying information with changes in cases where the changes produce an improved function not count as new information?
1 Like
The question makes the assumption that improved function assumes an increase in information. Where has this been established? Improved function can come by decreased information. For the claimed mechanism to work increased information must be continuous.