Convergent evolution at the level of mutations. Just as I’ve described before. These are “homoplasies” that break the tree like structure of nested clades. They are also the “mutual information” and “functional information” that @EricMH (and much of ID) is convinced cannot arise by natural processes. Here we see it arising, unequivocally, all the time.
I suppose it is possible that God is directly guiding these mutations to cause cancer, but I’m not aware of any theologian who would endorse such a view. Contingent on the theological claim, we might even call cancer a good “theological control” where most will agree God is not acting to cause cancer to metastasize, at least in most cases.
From your brief description it sounds like the destruction of said information.
Nope not at all. It is the creation of mutual information by a similar selective pressure. It once again seems to be a direct falsification of your claims. In this case is it very straight forward to measure the amount of mutual information gain. Maybe we should work out that math to demonstrate that cancer requires God’s intervention to develop, by your logic that is.
I’d have to read the article in depth to see what’s going on here. At one level, it isn’t possible to falsify my claim, because it is mathematically proven mutual information cannot be created by chance + determinism. No empirical evidence can ever contradict a mathematical proof. The only issue is misapplication of the theory, which perhaps I’m doing.
That is just not correct.
Experimental evidence can demonstrate that a mathematical proof either has (1) an undiscovered error, or (2) is being misapplied. In the case of ASC, I’ve seen both an error in the proof, that we have since fixed with a consequential qualification. We also see errors in how it is applied.
I can agree with this.