From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/2025 8:20 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 18/12/2025 6:20 am, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >   
   > ...   
   >   
   >>>>>> My intuition goes the other way. Hardware random number generators   
   >>>>>> create information out of "nothing".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But not information that is specified (as in CSI), which is the   
   >>>>> critical distinction, and why Dembski and others give this so much   
   >>>>> attention.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's a substantial retreat from conservation of information.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm not unreasonably unwilling to give a few yards.   
   >>   
   >> That concession only lasted a few paragraphs.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It seems to me that by claiming the genomes contain complex   
   >>>> *specified* information you're assuming what you're trying to prove.   
   >>>   
   >>> Genes are typically hundreds units long (i.e. complex) and code for   
   >>> functional proteins among a vast majority of nonfunctional   
   >>> combinations (i.e. specified). So no question-begging there.   
   >>   
   >> That's not what specified means. Specified means that it confirms to a   
   >> pre-existing specification. That's what makes it the argument   
   >> circular. But if you want to concede that CSI is nothing more than an   
   >> appeal to incredulity, be my guest.   
   >   
   > I disagree.   
   >   
   > Here's how to think of it. According to some estimates, the functional   
   > fraction of proteins is between 10^-11 and 10^-77 (from foldable to   
   > specific enzymatic behaviour). These numbers and their interpretation   
   > are debated and qualified of course, but provide an indicative reference.   
   >   
   > The total number of sequences evolution could realistically sample on   
   > Earth over ~4 billion years is estimated to be 10^40 (all organisms, all   
   > generations, all mutations).   
   >   
   > Therefore, any fraction less than maybe 10^-30 and certainly 10^-50 is,   
   > in effect, specified. If it cannot be found by evolution, it must be   
   > conforming to a pre-existing specification.   
      
   What is your association with the ID perps and the Discovery Institute's   
   ID scam unit?   
      
   Pretty much only someone deeply involved in the ID scam would still   
   think that these types of numbers mean anything, and you would have to   
   be an ID perp so delusional that you would go along with the bait and   
   switch scam and still think that there might be something worth   
   believing about the creationist scam.  Even a hard core IDiot like Mike   
   Gene quit the ID scam after the failure in Dover.  I had always   
   considered the ID perps to be a bunch of dishonest scam artists that   
   never believed their stupid junk and were only into the bait and switch   
   scam because it was their only means of pushing their Wedge agenda   
   forward.  Really, what kind of dishonest creationist would continue to   
   support the ID scam after the Bait and Switch started to go down?  We   
   know that Nelson kept supporting the bait and switch when he understood   
   that the ID science had never existed, and I had always thought that the   
   other ID perps were the same way, but if you are associated with the ID   
   scam that might mean that some of them are delusional true believers.   
      
   We already know that you are an IDiot so deluded that you wouldn't give   
   up when the ID perps rubbed your face in the fact that Biblical   
   creationists that are anti science because of their Biblical beliefs   
   would have never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any science with   
   respect to the Top Six.  The designer of the Top Six is not the designer   
   described in the Bible.  It would just be more science for Biblical   
   creationists to deny.  Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the ID   
   scam, but you started lying to yourself about one at a time so that you   
   would not have to deal with reality.  The scientific creationists had   
   used the Top Six as you started using them.  They are only meant to be   
   used to deny reality and need to be forgotten before moving on to the   
   next one to lie to yourself about reality.  They are used as single use   
   fire and forget denial stupidity.  Meyer in his book The God Hypothesis   
   used them as independent bits of gap denial.  He didn't try to develop a   
   single god hypothesis and instead used them to create a bunch of god   
   hypotheses.  Meyer was only using them for individual gap denial, he   
   wasn't using them to develop a god hypothesis that would deal honestly   
   with reality, and that is how you are dealing with reality.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> As for the non-coding regions of the genome, that raises questions of   
   >>> the functional proportion and degree of specificity.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If the laws of physics are invariant with respect to time-reversal   
   >>>>>> then information (in some senses) is conserved. But while T-   
   >>>>>> violation has not been observed, physicists believe that the laws   
   >>>>>> of physics are CPT- invariant, and as CP-violation has been   
   >>>>>> observed this implies that T- violation also occurs. There is also   
   >>>>>> the black- hole information paradox, wherein black holes appear   
   >>>>>> not to conserve information.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Creationists have been known to argue that evolution is impossible   
   >>>>>> because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ignoring that the law   
   >>>>>> does not preclude local decreases in entropy. (If the creationist   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)