sledgehammer
Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
| Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36) | Dembski | Quote | | I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here. |
If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
| Quote | | The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers). |
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself? |
By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:
(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)
- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).
Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.
--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind
|
