As @swamidass has already shown, evolution does produce functional information.
Ok, start there. Show us the generation of organisms before the spliceosome emerged and the generation after. Show us how the change over that generation was produced by an intelligence.
Does that help?
So lets use antibiotic resistance in E. coli as our example. The mutation conferring antibiotic resistance occurs once in every 250 million divisions, on average. If we transfer 1 billion bacteria to liquid media containing antibiotics and ignore natural selection then we would expect just 4 out of every billion bacteria to have this mutation when the bacteria are allowed to divide and increase their numbers. The probability of the mutation being found in nearly 100% of the population after the population expands is very very low. So what do we find? After the population expands nearly all of the bacteria have the same mutation, a highly, highly improbable event. What caused this highly improbable event? Natural selection.
In my opinion he has not shown this. He has made an interesting argument but all I think he is demonstrating a cell losing regulation through mutation. He can define function as loss of regulation but there is nothing really new here as we know mutations of pre existing information can find some function. I donât believe novel FI has been created here at best it is modified of existing FI. We end up only in a game of definitions.
The spliceosome conservatively requires greater then 5000 bits of FI. Again the only know source of FI (certainly this magnitude) is conscious intelligence. You and I have created this much FI in our conversations so we have a possible cause.
Do you think cancer can create a spliceosome? What cancer can do is cause rapid stem cell division and break cell cycle check points and up regulate check point proteins. It does what embryo cells do because that is the path it up regulates through mutation or inadequate amounts of regulating small molecules.
I need a functional multicellular eukaryotic cell for cancer and all this FI to be present as a working assumption.
Can you please show us how Hazen and Szostak used âloss of regulationâ in their calculations?
I am still waiting for the evidence backing this assertion.
I am still not seeing any reference to the measurement of FI as laid out by Hazen and Szostak. Are you now using a different definition of FI?
Not to Creation, because Darwin did not explain how life began (he did speculate). Darwin was not the first to propose evolution, or that selection happens; Darwinâs key idea is that selection happens naturally, and this has been found to be better than all the existing theories of evolution that existed at the time.
I agree that statistics are not always necessary for inference, but the formalized method is correct. Statistics allow us to make inference in the presence of uncertainty.
With respect to the question of this topic, where arguments are based on probability, we can make statements objective statements about right/wrong ways of doing things based on mathematics.
Unrelated, but REALLY cool. A word game based on âevolving wordsâ.
http://www.ersimages.com/weasel/index.htm
I previous mentioned that your sentence IS testable in a formal way (but it would be a lot of work, so letâs not go there). But the inference here is that you type the sentence - we do not infer that some previously unknown colewd exist because we have prior knowledge of your existence.
It is incorrect to leap to conclusions about things that may not exist. Itâs OK to look for evidence of something you think might exist.
Kirk and Joshua are discussing this so lets follow along.
I have made an estimate based on Huntâs paper and a complex requiring 170 proteins ranging from 200 AAâs to 2500 AAâs. Since the total sequence space is some where around 1 million bits I think were safe at 5000. If you disagree please show why it is less then 5000 bits.
For starters follow the discussion between Kirk and Joshua.
This is the assertion that needs evidence:
âAgain the only know source of FI (certainly this magnitude) is conscious intelligence.â
16 posts were merged into an existing topic: What was Dembski thinking? (CSI math)
I think we have common ground here so we have some foundation.
Darwins argument was against creation as an inference to the explanation for the diversity of life. You are right that he is assuming a living organism as a starting point. If you want me to cite how he argued for inference to the best explanation, I will.
No but if we see a similar sentence and donât know the author we can safely assume conscious intelligence was the cause. This is the design argument. It is limited but very powerful.
Conscious intelligence can create large amounts of FI with a high degree of certainty.
So basically to know if something is designed you have to compare and match it to something else already known to be designed. That technique doesnât work for biological life since you have no examples of known designed biological life to compare to.
This is a false roadblock. Biology contains FI and the english language contains FI. Thats all the equivalence you need. Dawkins used this equivalence in the blind watchmaker with weasel.
What independent specification for biological life do you have which allows the use of the CSI as a valid argument for the ID of biological life? Iâve never seen any IDer produce an independent before-the-fact specification for anything biological. All theyâve done is take after-the-fact descriptions of genomes or proteins and declare them to be specifications.
Hardly. Once again you have not supported the assertion only intelligently designed things can have FI.
Designed lawn sprinklers have FI and rain clouds have FI, both water your lawn. Therefore rain clouds are intelligently designed. Is that your argument?
The description of the event itself does not need to be provided before the fact for it to be independent. This is the big point of CSI that it allows pattern detection after the fact, contra Fisherian hypothesis testing which only allows before the fact rejection region specification.
This is not the argument. Try again 
Then you agree non designed things can have FI too. That means merely having FI is not a valid indication of ID.
Please explain how to determine the FI or the CSI of a rain cloud.
Give me your list of non designed items and how you determined they were not designed.
LOL! Sorry, no shifting of the burden of proof. Are you now claiming rain clouds are designed?
I am shifting the burden of proof as you are assuming the rain clouds are not designed. If that is the basis of your argument you need support. You are the one who is trying to compare not designed with designed. So support the claim not designed or lets move on.