Your claim that it is site-specific is objectively false. Are you not challenging my point that it also causes enormous human suffering?
It would seem to me that if you are going to challenge experts, you should have a greater-than-Wikipedia level of knowledge, no?
And for us westerners, your practice of not denoting quotes is unethical.
@Midhun Discourse is a complex and takes some time to learn it’s features. If you need help getting quotations right, let us know and we can help.
I presumed that the usual readers & contributors of Peaceful Science are familiar with the term “specified information” or “functional information”. It refers to biologically meaningful information existing in biopolymers such as DNA, RNA and protein in the form of alternative arrangements of discrete monomeric units. The adjectives “specified” or “functional” is added before “information” inorder to distinguish it from mere Shannon information.
Refer this 2003 nature article: (Functional information: Molecular messages | Nature)
This is incorrect.
Specified Information as defined by Dembski (2005) has no biological interpretation. Non-biological interpretation is also problematic.
The “Functional” in Functional Information is not merely an adjective, but a distinctly different interpretation from Shannon Information. Nothing about FI suggests that it cannot come about by natural processes.
To my knowledge FI is not a useful measure outside of evolved biological functions. I don’t think you can even interpret FI for"designed" function outside the context of evolved function.
Through Abductive reasoning or Inference to the best explanation method.
The line of reasoning can be outlined as:
Premise One: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of functional information.
Premise Two: No materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of functional information necessary to produce the first cell.
Conclusion: Intelligent design is the most rational explanation for the origin of the functional information in the first cellular life.
Are you saying that we know for sure that ATP synthase originated through random accidental mutations getting fixed by selection or drift? What are the proofs for this extraordinary claim?
What did I tell you all? Not that I doubt most of you felt the same way.
And now ensues another endless discussion in which a creationist remains stubbornly impervious to all corrections and considers this a victory. Take it away…
Yeah.
To my statement “The only evolutionary mechanism that can be invoked is random accidental mutations getting fixed by selection or drift. But do we know of any significant biological innovation that originated solely through this mechanism of evolution?”, you replied: “All of them. No reference you give contains a counterexample”.
The very first reference itself contains a counterexample. The mutations were generated as a result of microbe’s response to stress. How can you invoke stress-response in the evolution of a primitive self-replicating system?
Sure. I’ll watch this and after that will reply my thoughts.
If organisms are designed to evolve, we’ll find built-in cellular mechanisms with the potential to generate heritable variations. We find exactly the same in living systems. From meiotic recombination to horizontal gene transfer, the examples of such mechanisms are many.
I never said so. Various evolutionary mechanisms were found to have the potential to generate new information. I have listed many of those mechanisms in my initial post. My disagreement is only with the purported innovative power of accidental random mutations plus fixation.
Thanks😊
I agree
Isn’t a link to their paper sufficient to identify them? I provided the link at the end of quotation. So I think your complaint is silly.
Which cannot be falsified. A designer could act in a manner identical to - and indistinguishable from - evolution. The Designer could be evolution itself.
A one word answer, which perhaps leaves some ambiguity.
I’ll take it that you are agreeing that a beaver does design a dam and a bird does design a nest. That’s not how I understood “design” but we can go with your understanding.
So here we have two examples of purely natural design. Yes, it’s biological systems, but it is normally accepted as part of nature. It seems to me that birds and beavers both are using trial and error methods, which I take to be examples of pragmatism. And I accept that some intelligence can be attributed to that.
Evolution, itself, is a trial and error system. So, using the same meaning of “design”, I would count evolution as a system of intelligent design.
That argument is invalid. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.
I’m familiar with the term “specified information”, and it’s use by Dembski et al. I also know that they consistently fail to say what is specified or where.
If you are simply referring to information in macromolecule sequences, you would be better off not calling it “specified” information, because doing so when you cannot say what is “specified” about it makes you look like bad.
That article does not[1] mention “specified” information.
as far as i can tell using my phone. ↩︎
Why would that be any less than the innovative power of systems that, when induced, increase the rate of mutation? They’re still mutations. There’s still lots of individuals in the population that get neutral or deleterious ones from those “induced” systems. They still get fixed by drift and selection.
The SOS response repairs damaged DNA. Damaged as in bonds are broken so the DNA molecule is not intact. When it repairs damaged DNA, mutations are randomly created as an unavoidable byproduct. Those are mutations, they’re random, and they have to get fixed by drift and selection.
You have omitted the main question. Here it is again:
What was designed, how, when and by who?
If you don’t know, then just admit it. Don’t pretend that the question wasn’t there and that my “How do you know?” was about design in general rather than about those specifics. That looks really bad.
I’m trying not to pigeonhole you as just another dumb and dishonest creationism advocate who doesn’t know how obvious his ignorance, fallaciousness and mendacity is. You’re making that difficult.
This assumes that the first cells had large amounts of functional information, which may not be true. Also, evolutionary processes can produce large amounts of functional information, as can be shown by genetic algorithms. So your conclusion is doubly unwarranted.
Of course, if those mechanisms were not designed, they would still exist in the form they do. So that argument gets you nowhere.
Evolutionary theorists have already accounted for the phenomena you are talking about.