What does “specified” mean in this context? Are the results of the lottery in the opening post specified to those specific winners?
If we specify them after they occur as you are doing, then it is extremely easy for natural processes to produce improbable and specified events. For example, specifying the sequence of lottery numbers after people win the lottery produces an extremely improbable and specified event.
Specification is so subjective it has no real use in the real world. To you this may not be specified: ghbbbdjkdgh
But to my sister, this means something. It’s specified. Specification is pretty useless.
I’m also currently looking at a cloud that looks like a rabbit. Crazy improbable but it’s also specified. There’s a recognizable pattern
That’s the claim ID has been making for decades without one iota of supporting evidence.
@Edgar_Tamarian, they are right. There is no evidence that proteins are specified. The claim that they are specified, in of it self, presumes a designer, making the whole line of reasoning circular and question begging.
Another ID proponent with the texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Take what is allowed to enter a cell through the membrane. I think it’s reasonable to speak of such recognition/rejection as specified without it presuming a designer. What do you think? Or perhaps more to the point, what is allowed to enter and exit from compartments within the cell.
It just seems to me that specification is rather important to a cell but I don’t see that this presumes a designer. So is it just proteins being specified that is an issue?
Good thoughts. Perhaps we continue that question on another thread.
by specified I mean a given function that a specific protein performs, by saying proteins are not specified it means throw set of amino acids in any random sequences you will get a protein of the desired function.
Yes, and this has just about nothing to do with evolution. We do not need specified proteins for evolution to work.
You’re still just describing the function you found after the fact, not predicting it beforehand. That still makes the “it’s too improbable” arguments quite worthless.
in a single cell, you need specific proteins with specific functions, not any but specific, for example, proteins that are involved in transcription, translation and so on, the is basic functions for a cell to keep alive and replicable. So, it is not we found after, but knowing what minimal cell needs to be alive are the functions that I mean are specified "before’’.
I understand that this example a bit deviated from the original construction of ‘’ thread’’, but I needed to explain why original construction is worthless in the first place
Feel free to start a new thread so that you can understand that there is nothing in evolution that requires specific functions or specific proteins to arise. Of course, with a question-begging appeal to a designer in the first place, you can smuggle specification in, but we don’t like circular arguments. This, however, is off topic on this thread.
The thread makes its point quite well. How it relates to biology is a different question. Until you understand the point being made here, it would be best not to move on to another topic.
I’m not sure how this applies to DNA sequence. There are gated channels for ions like calcium and sodium, but I don’t see many ID theorists saying base elements are specified.
The problem is that proteins and RNA molecules only become important once they emerge, much like the lottery numbers are specified once there is a winner.
In the same way, the winners of those lotteries needed specific numbers in order to win. Therefore, lottery numbers are specified in the same way that proteins and RNA are specified.
But we don’t know all of the possible combinations of elements and molecules that are needed for a cell to be alive. We only know which ones have emerged. Your claims of what is required is limited to what emerged and wasn’t predicted prior to those features emerging. You are looking at just the lottery winners and ignoring all of the other possible tickets that could have won.
Science is about observable nature, you cannot bring unknown possibilities into the discussion. in contrast, I am just looking in nature what we know about this specific life is required, I am not interested in hypothetical ‘‘silicon made’’ creatures
Again, this is the same as saying the winners of the lottery are the only ones who we observed winning, and then ignore all of the players who didn’t win.
in fact, you even can not possibly know whether there are other players or not, in the same way as you cannot possibly know if this universe is the only universe or there are billions other universes Since it is outside of the knowledge of Science, Science cannot observe outside observable nature what might or might not be other possibilities. Your example is by definition of science is unscientific. As you bring into ‘‘possible outcome’’ unobservable-unknown possibilities. Of course, if you define in that way then the probability of anything and everything is 1 since there are always unobservable-unknown possibilities of everything. But that is not Science
Correct. Therefore, we can’t calculate any probabilities when it comes to functions emerging in life because we don’t know how many possible functions there are.
Quite the opposite. I am saying that we can’t calculate the probability of function arising in genomes in a scientific manner because it requires knowledge of what we don’t know and haven’t observed. ID/creationists claim they can make these probability calculations which is the unscientific claim.
If we know all of the variables then we can calculate probabilities, as in the case of the lottery.
Not correct. We can calculate probability of certain protein with respect to a given life-form requires that protein function to be alive.
The word ID and creationist together offends me, please do not use together