NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 20 2015,08:59) | | ...you need to demonstrate complex information that could not occur probabilistically arising because natural selection is doing something that pure dumb-luck can't. |
Narrowing in on what seems to be the key point.
And moving away from biology, which seems to be the sore point, as similar issues in other fields don't result in the same visceral and irrational rejection of natural law plus chance/randomness.
Consider stellar spectra. They are complex. They are information, they convey very precise details about the composition of the star and useful information about the intervening matter, if any, plus useful distance information (via red shift). Much information. The information is complex, the meaning is not trivially 'read off' the surface data, but the information is there and it is meaningful.
Stellar composition and stellar position are both effectively random. Natural law working on the random distribution of matter results in stellar genesis, and the life-cycle of the star results, often enough, in nucleogenesis. The materials and processes involved leave their signature, so to speak, in the stellar spectra.
So how is this not a demonstration that complex information can occur probabilistically, by dumb-luck, which you assert is not possible?
Where is there anything other than dumb-luck and natural law involved? Why is the information of the stellar spectra not complex and meaningful information? Why is the red-shift of the spectrum not meaningful and complex information about the distance of the star?
Where does this example fail to meet the honest portions of your criteria for complex meaningful information arising from purely natural law with probabilistic 'dumb-luck'?
Is it, could it be, that it is not about biology, and that it is entirely driven by natural law, which you reject out of hand for biology, for reasons yet to be satisfactorily supported?
|
