We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.
Sunday, September 25th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.
You talk about the complexity of DNA and its specification. Those are conclusions, not data. The complexity of DNA refers to its physical structure, its arrangement of parts. How is that not data?What algorithm are you using to assess 'complexity?' What is the rate of false positives and false negatives for your algorithm? What types of confounding factors adversely affect your algorithm? We know that, given the conditions thought to occur on the early Earth, nucleotides can be produced spontaneously, those nucleotides can polymerize spontaneously, and a recent talk I went to showed that they might be duplicated spontaneously without complex catalysts. So, this 'complexity' you claim to see in DNA may not mean what you believe it means.Its specification is the fact that the coding areas of DNA are translated into specific proteins. Again, how is this not data?If that's how you're going to define 'specification,' then how does this support your conclusion? We know that things like antibiotic resistance can evolve. That is, evolution can produce a new specification. You seem to be a long way from concluding that complexity and specification provide strong evidence for design.-Anthony
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |