Looking for sources on the information argument continued

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

@DaveB

I’m getting the idea that you don’t understand the ID information argument very well.

I think I understand it perfectly well, thanks. It’s all just based on the idea that some particular arrangement is just one out of all possible arrangements(be it order of bases in a sequence of DNA, letters in a sentence, atoms in some structure) and if there are lots of possible arrangements it would be very unlikely to pick the specified one by chance in one or a few attempts.

That’s basically all ID arguments about information ever.

Agreed. @DaveB, do you know of any exceptions? Let’s get a prediction from “ID Theory.”

I have a library of random, 110-residue protein sequences that are juxtaposed essentially as dimers, but very constrained to fit in (and not disrupt) a particular structural motif–the immunoglobulin fold.

@DaveB, how many of those dimers do you predict that one would have to screen to get immunoglobulins with measurable beta-lactamase activity?

@Rumraket

@DaveB

Simple complexity: sdflkeoijb lkasd elifdkg iedlji ghckeq iemdboprn dkqzehd

That’s specified complexity, by definition. You just specified it. That’s literally what specified complexity is, complexity you specify. You having now specified that sequence, it would be extremely unlikely to blindly and randomly pick it from the total set of all possible letter sequences of equal length.

@DaveB, do you now see the circularity of your argument?