|The whole truth
Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (OgreMkV @ May 16 2013,07:26)|
|Because I'm bored and tired and this takes minimal effort.|
From Joey's blog-o-crap.
|Living organisms are chck-full and replete with CSI because they are chock-full and replete with biological specifications. |
"chock-full" is apparently some Intelligent Design technical term meaning... something.
"biological specifications"... OK Joey, name one. Name one biological specification and how you determine if it is present or not.
That is they consist of and contain functional systems and subsystems that depend of sequence specificity.
Really? These systems DEPEND on sequence specificity? Let's get some numbers Joey... how specific do the sequences have to be Joe?
In DNA, there are 64 combinations of codons, but they only generate 20 amino acids (and three STOP codes). So, do some math and tell us how specific the DNA strand has to be.
For proteins, the picture is much more complex. Except for the active site, the vast majority of the protein is only involved in shaping the active site. Often, it doesn't matter what amino acid is in a particular spot as long as it's hydrophobic or hydrophilic or capable of bonding in a certain way with another amino acid. What's the range of specificity needed here Joey?
Be specific. Show your work. Give us a value, explain what it means and how you determined it.
And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning. Heck the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria requires some 250 specific proteins.
CSI = Shannon Information + function/meaning.
Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits).
How do you calculate the function/meaning? Give an example. Show your work.
This pisses evoTARDS off so they have to attack the concept because they know they cannot demonstrate unguided processes producing such a thing.
No one cares what you think biology does, doesn't, can do, or can't do.
The question is, can you do the things that you claim to be able to.
We all know that you can't Joey. And that's what makes this so much fun. You bluster and scream and threaten and try to pin it on 'unguided processes' and all this other stuff because you can't do a simple calculation.
You have claimed to have done it dozens of times, but you never provide a link.
This is on your blog Joey... I have a screen shot. So, when you change the above text because you keep getting called on it, then we'll all have a good laugh about you chickening out.
Remember Joey, this has nothing to do with biology, evolution, materialists, Darwinism, guided or unguided processes. This is very simply, can you do what you say?
My money is on "nope".
I'm positive that joey can't do it.
At joey's blog-o-crap post he quotes you:
"Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits)."
And responds with:
"If it must be then please show your work demonstrating that claim. I say function and menaing are observations- you know why we do science in the first place."
So, as joey has claimed before, meaning/function (CSI) is an 'observation' that cannot be measured/calculated even though he and other IDiots also claim that it can. joey claims that Shannon information is simply a measure/calculation of "information carrying capacity" that doesn't care about meaning/function. According to joey, meaning/function is "differentiated" from Shannon information.
Also according to joey (at least when he's not contradicting himself) "CSI" is meaning/function, biological information, complexity, specificity, and some other terms that he and the other IDiots put under the CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, dFSCO/I umbrella.
When joey or any other IDiot says that CSI is Shannon information with meaning/function, and that CSI is measurable/calculable in bits, but also that meaning/function cannot be measured/calculated, then what 'bits' are they saying can be measured/calculated? The bits in the Shannon information or the bits in the meaning/function? And if there are no 'bits' in meaning/function because meaning/function is just an observation, then how can meaning/function (CSI) be measured/calculated?
If the bits in the Shannon information are the only thing measurable/calculable, and are the only thing being measured/calculated, and if that measure/calculation is only of the "information carrying capacity", then how can CSI (meaning/function) be measured/calculated and what the fuck is 'CSI' other than 'It looks designed to me, therefor allah-yhwh-jesus-mohammed-holy-ghost-did-it.'?
"...ID does not deal with Shannon info as Shannon info is not concerned with meaning or content. CSI (in ID) is all about content and meaning."
He also says:
"IOW ID is an observation, which can be used as an underlying assumption from which to start the research."
Well, joey, what have you got to say?
And joey, exactly how would biological/evolution research change if that underlying assumption were employed? Be specific.
Have you ever discussed complexity and specification with dumbski? If so, what did he say about your understanding of and claims about CSI? Do you agree with his claims about CSI? If not, which parts do you disagree with? Be specific.
Do you think that I've misrepresented your claims, joey? If so, I hope that you will say so, here. Really I do.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27