Bob O'H
Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Dembski is trying to whip up fervour from the troops:
The argument from incredulity vs. The argument from gullibility
Turn your irony meters off first.
Ha! I love this one:
| Quote | ID is the only theory under which certain research could be validated.
For example, it is observed that introns (’junk’ to RM+NS) have Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) of the same order as human langauge. Studies have revealed that unexpressed introns are informationally more dense than exon expressions.
Anyone who has designed any sort of code knows the importance of embedding documentation in the source. When the code is compiled the documentation does not appear in the resulting binaries.
Similarly, introns are not trascribed.
Source code documentation contains information about the algorithms such as:
- Meta-data (ontological descriptions)
- Pseudo code (methodological descriptions)
- Copyright information (intellecutal property notifications)
If we believe that genetic code is designed by an intellect, then shouldn’t we be looking for the copyright information? This intellect would probably have considerable legal abilities, not to mention foresight.
Exam question: What impact would this have on genetic patents?
Comment by Collin DuCrâne — May 27, 2006 @ 8:37 pm |
Based on his previous posts, I don't think he's joking.
Bob
--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)
|
