Evidence for God from Science

Sorry for my lateness...

[*] He says there are two possible explanations for any given entity; it is the product of "mindless natural processes" OR it is the product of an "intelligent agent".

As far as anyone can tell, those are the only possible scenarios. I have mentioned this several times over and nobody has been able to refute it, would you like to be the first?

[*] He specifically rejects the concept that "nothing caused the effect" (the third possible explanation being that nothing caused the entity).

If nothing caused the effect, then nothing will be. As far as anyone can tell we don't see nothing causing anything. We can say for a great deal of things that what caused the effect was intelligence.

So then where did the designer come from? (I know, it's a cheap shot , but he was presenting a scientific analysis.)

Then you don't understand that ID is about design detection or you just don't understand design detection. No pun intended of course. Design detection is not designer detection.

[*] Most of his presentation addresses the probabilities of reproducing a specific, predetermined result, namely what has already happened. That is only valid if the target result is the only possible result.

Consider a specific make and model of an automobile (say a 1960 VW Beetle). How likely is it that an independent design team, working without access to or knowledge of the target model could produce essentially the same design? The same wheelbase, the same weight, the same drivetrain, the same horsepower, ... obviously the probability is negligible.

Well, the target result IS the only possible result. What is variable is the method used to get there (sometimes there is only one method). For example, there are various types of sorting algorithms, one more efficient or faster then the other, but the result is identical (ie: to sort a set of objects in some ordered fashion). Searching algorithms search for some specific things, some require that the set of things are already sorted beforehand making the subsequent search faster. Radio receivers can demodulate predefined amplitude and frequency modulated signals from a carrier wave, the target result is the same overall. In some cases there is only one way to achieve a desired effect depending on the context of the system itself. What is taken into account is the possible configurations to achieve the effect itself. In the case of biology, it isn't just how you achieve the effect, its how you achieve the achieved effect. For example, since a sorting algorithm sorts, we have to take into account how the sorting algorithm came to be, how the sorting algorithms "sorted itself out sort of speak". There are probably hundreds if not thousands of these types of layers of "origination" we need to account for in biology.

To be a valid indicator of design in the way he is trying to do, he would need to use the number of possible workable "designs" and use that to calculate his probability of design. In the case of the automobile, the number of workable designs is nearly infinite, so the probability that our design team could produce a car is quite good. However, the probability they would reproduce a 1960 VW is virtually nil.

Like was said, the target result is the same because we are working within a predefined context. That is how all designs operate, cars travel on roads, can drive at certain speeds, can carry certain capacities, it is within that context designers create cars. Biology operates as well within its own context. In each given context we have problems and we have solutions (keys or access codes that can "open" the safe) to those problems, they are not infinite. This is an interesting topic nevertheless.

[*] He completely avoids the pertinent parameter, how many possible workable solutions are there? Biology isn't Grandfather's safe, there are many solutions to any problem (witness the diversity of life).

The diversity in life shows in fact common solutions to problems at the core (or molecular level). DNA (as well as transcription and translation) for example is common to all biology as it implements a base 4 system, unlike a base 2 system which natural selection for some odd reason (since it works by step-by-step gradual processes) skipped over to use a more complex base 4.

gman wrote:

waynepii wrote: [*] He says there are two possible explanations for any given entity; it is the product of "mindless natural processes" OR it is the product of an "intelligent agent".

As far as anyone can tell, those are the only possible scenarios. I have mentioned this several times over and nobody has been able to refute it, would you like to be the first?

[*] He specifically rejects the concept that "nothing caused the effect" (the third possible explanation being that nothing caused the entity).

If nothing caused the effect, then nothing will be. As far as anyone can tell we don't see nothing causing anything. We can say for a great deal of things that what caused the effect was intelligence.

So then where did the designer come from? (I know, it's a cheap shot , but he was presenting a scientific analysis.)

Then you don't understand that ID is about design detection or you just don't understand design detection. No pun intended of course. Design detection is not designer detection.

We both know the only reason for design detection is to prove the existence of a designer.

[*] Most of his presentation addresses the probabilities of reproducing a specific, predetermined result, namely what has already happened. That is only valid if the target result is the only possible result.

Consider a specific make and model of an automobile (say a 1960 VW Beetle). How likely is it that an independent design team, working without access to or knowledge of the target model could produce essentially the same design? The same wheelbase, the same weight, the same drivetrain, the same horsepower, ... obviously the probability is negligible.

Well, the target result IS the only possible result. What is variable is the method used to get there (sometimes there is only one method). For example, there are various types of sorting algorithms, one more efficient or faster then the other, but the result is identical (ie: to sort a set of objects in some ordered fashion). Searching algorithms search for some specific things, some require that the set of things are already sorted beforehand making the subsequent search faster. Radio receivers can demodulate predefined amplitude and frequency modulated signals from a carrier wave, the target result is the same overall. In some cases there is only one way to achieve a desired effect depending on the context of the system itself. What is taken into account is the possible configurations to achieve the effect itself. In the case of biology, it isn't just how you achieve the effect, its how you achieve the achieved effect. For example, since a sorting algorithm sorts, we have to take into account how the sorting algorithm came to be, how the sorting algorithms "sorted itself out sort of speak". There are probably hundreds if not thousands of these types of layers of "origination" we need to account for in biology.

Like was said, the target result is the same because we are working within a predefined context. That is how all designs operate, cars travel on roads, can drive at certain speeds, can carry certain capacities, it is within that context designers create cars. Biology operates as well within its own context. In each given context we have problems and we have solutions (keys or access codes that can "open" the safe) to those problems, they are not infinite. This is an interesting topic nevertheless.

If there was a goal (ie the current diversity of lifeforms), then design is a much more likely way of having achieved that goal. If, however, we wish to actually detect if design was truly necessary for the current diversity of life, we can't limit ourselves to only the one solution to the problem that we actually have - we must allow for any possible that could have solved it.

Requiring the same solution as the only solution dramatically decreases the odds. As an example, the odds of drawing the a spade from a well shuffled deck of cards is one in four. Replacing the card drawn and repeating the experiment, the odds of drawing a spade are again one in four. But if the only acceptable solution is the card drawn on the first trial, the odds drop to one in 52.

To be a valid indicator of design in the way he is trying to do, he would need to use the number of possible workable "designs" and use that to calculate his probability of design. In the case of the automobile, the number of workable designs is nearly infinite, so the probability that our design team could produce a car is quite good. However, the probability they would reproduce a 1960 VW is virtually nil.

Like was said, the target result is the same because we are working within a predefined context. That is how all designs operate, cars travel on roads, can drive at certain speeds, can carry certain capacities, it is within that context designers create cars. Biology operates as well within its own context. In each given context we have problems and we have solutions (keys or access codes that can "open" the safe) to those problems, they are not infinite. This is an interesting topic nevertheless.

You're assuming a goal again. All those parameters are standards arrived and refined at during development of cars. The earliest cars didn't travel on roads, there weren't any paved roads. They traveled on wagon tracks. The current solution is not the only possible solution.

[*] He completely avoids the pertinent parameter, how many possible workable solutions are there? Biology isn't Grandfather's safe, there are many solutions to any problem (witness the diversity of life).

The diversity in life shows in fact common solutions to problems at the core (or molecular level). DNA (as well as transcription and translation) for example is common to all biology as it implements a base 4 system, unlike a base 2 system which natural selection for some odd reason (since it works by step-by-step gradual processes) skipped over to use a more complex base 4.

Does the commonality of DNA, transcription, translation, ... across all life show a designer? Of could it show a common ancestor?

Could not another base be used? Could not two additional proteins (say "X" and "Y") have been included in the DNA coding mechanism making it a base 6 system? (I do recognize the base-6 system would probably have to use different proteins than the four currently used)

If there was a goal (ie the current diversity of lifeforms), then design is a much more likely way of having achieved that goal. If, however, we wish to actually detect if design was truly necessary for the current diversity of life, we can't limit ourselves to only the one solution to the problem that we actually have - we must allow for any possible that could have solved it.

Design detection is NOT applied to the diversity of life. If front-loading is the case, for example that the diversity of life is explained by the determined ordered sequence of chromosomes overtime instead of RM & NS overtime, the determination being that the instructions given the preloaded information were executed given enough time, ID can only look at the information content and NOT the diversity itself.

Requiring the same solution as the only solution dramatically decreases the odds. As an example, the odds of drawing the a spade from a well shuffled deck of cards is one in four. Replacing the card drawn and repeating the experiment, the odds of drawing a spade are again one in four. But if the only acceptable solution is the card drawn on the first trial, the odds drop to one in 52.

You're assuming a goal again. All those parameters are standards arrived and refined at during development of cars. The earliest cars didn't travel on roads, there weren't any paved roads. They traveled on wagon tracks. The current solution is not the only possible solution.

Context is important, biology even from a Darwinian POV must in some way act as a closed system. Within any closed system there are limits to change and acceptable solutions decrease. In a wide array of varying context there could be many more solutions to the same problem so all would be deemed "acceptable". The question now comes up is what is responsible for the solutions (as in my "sorting algorithm" example) regardless of how many there are. For example, there are many solutions to problems of roads, cars are designed to "adapt" to these varying contexts, and insofar intelligence is the only known phenomena that explains it. Are these accidental adaptations or are they purposeful? For Darwinism all these acceptable solutions seem to be accidental when they could in fact be purposeful instantiations of preloaded library of information.

There is nothing mysterious about this at all, humans hardly differ anymore more from chimps then they do from zebras at the genetic level(DNA) anymore then any of these differ from the simplest organisms on the planet. Instantiations would be the templates for these different living systems for varying contexts (this would explain all the missing links or intermediaries since you have templates predefined for varying contexts and not anything in between). In this case of ID, even if ID is meaningful at the OOL it would not be anymore less meaningful for subsequent "creation" or "evolution", the OOL is thus rendered not a separate problem/issue as Darwinist's infer, it would be part of it.

Does the commonality of DNA, transcription, translation, ... across all life show a designer? Of could it show a common ancestor?

Could it, would it and should it?

Could not another base be used? Could not two additional proteins (say "X" and "Y") have been included in the DNA coding mechanism making it a base 6 system? (I do recognize the base-6 system would probably have to use different proteins than the four currently used)

From a gradual POV a base 2 system would be more logical since its the simplest to implement (especially from a mindless natural standpoint). From an engineering POV both are acceptable but a base 2 is much easier to implement since logic can be summed down to true and false (1 and 0) values (ie: in computer circuit logic gates), base 4 would be magnitudes harder to implement, this also means all hardware and subsequent software needs to be disposed of and started from point A. This is quite the problem indeed for the Darwinism, skipping 2 bases since there is absolutely no trace of a ancestor base system.

godslanguage wrote:From a gradual POV a base 2 system would be more logical since its the simplest to implement (especially from a mindless natural standpoint). From an engineering POV both are acceptable but a base 2 is much easier to implement since logic can be summed down to true and false (1 and 0) values (ie: in computer circuit logic gates), base 4 would be magnitudes harder to implement, this also means all hardware and subsequent software needs to be disposed of and started from point A. This is quite the problem indeed for the Darwinism, skipping 2 bases since there is absolutely no trace of a ancestor base system.

I missed this base 2/4 point entirely. Could you or someone else expand on it a little?

I missed this base 2/4 point entirely. Could you or someone else expand on it a little?

Hi Byblos,

My point is simple.
*biological systems are information bearing and processing systems
*life needs discrete values or symbolic logic (DNA uses base 4, a, c, g, t) to give meaning to function before function can even be
*at least 2 discrete values are required (as is shown in human designs with binary base 2)
*no evidence exists for a base 2 implementation in biology anywhere
*a base 2 implementation is known to be the easiest and least complex solution to represent more complex functions
*a base 4 implementation is exponentially much more complex to utilize
*even if a base 2 system existed at one time, to get to a base 4 system you would need to start from scratch (can evolution, especially the origin of life tolerate such a thing? Logic and engineering tells us no)
*a step by step gradual process is what Darwinian evolution proposes, even for OOL since that is the most important step where a base system would be the starting grounds
*blind chance forces, oddly enough started utilizing the exponentially more complex base 4 system
*if that is the case, then that would have to be explained in no more then a single step (making this single step irreducible)
*if it happened in a single step then it didn't happen in a step by step gradual process (from a base 1, to 2, to 3 etc...)
*if it didn't happen in a gradual step by step fashion then blind chance forces are helpless to explain it

GOOD LUCK!

godslanguage wrote:

I missed this base 2/4 point entirely. Could you or someone else expand on it a little?

Hi Byblos,

My point is simple.
*biological systems are information bearing and processing systems
*life needs discrete values or symbolic logic (DNA uses base 4, a, c, g, t) to give meaning to function before function can even be
*at least 2 discrete values are required (as is shown in human designs with binary base 2)
*no evidence exists for a base 2 implementation in biology anywhere
*a base 2 implementation is known to be the easiest and least complex solution to represent more complex functions
*a base 4 implementation is exponentially much more complex to utilize
*even if a base 2 system existed at one time, to get to a base 4 system you would need to start from scratch (can evolution, especially the origin of life tolerate such a thing? Logic and engineering tells us no)
*a step by step gradual process is what Darwinian evolution proposes, even for OOL since that is the most important step where a base system would be the starting grounds
*blind chance forces, oddly enough started utilizing the exponentially more complex base 4 system
*if that is the case, then that would have to be explained in no more then a single step (making this single step irreducible)
*if it happened in a single step then it didn't happen in a step by step gradual process (from a base 1, to 2, to 3 etc...)
*if it didn't happen in a gradual step by step fashion then blind chance forces are helpless to explain it

GOOD LUCK!

Thanks, that was very helpful. And I see you're up early too on a Sunday morning (well I don't know where you are but where I'm at it's 5:00 a.m.).

P.S. I love your computer/software analogies, they make so much sense to me. Of course it helps that I'm an analyst myself (for a 100 years).

Thanks, that was very helpful. And I see you're up early too on a Sunday morning (well I don't know where you are but where I'm at it's 5:00 a.m.).

P.S. I love your computer/software analogies, they make so much sense to me. Of course it helps that I'm an analyst myself (for a 100 years).

Hi and thanks Byblos (don't think I have forgotten you're in information technology as well, I know you, Gman and a few others here are)

I find that since I am at a relative disadvantage (as a non-biologist, non-scientist etc...) I can only do my best to express what I already know from information technology. I find ID gives me a neat interface which I can access and understand biology through the use of my understanding in technology.

So there, if you are reading this Darwinists you can launch a bio-babble of terminology at me and I will eventually stop responding to you.


(p.s: it is 5:50 am here as well, Toronto, Canada)

godslanguage wrote:Hi and thanks Byblos (don't think I have forgotten you're in information technology as well, I know you, Gman and a few others here are)

We are scientists in a way, I got my degrees in computer science. Actually you would be amazed on how many genetic biologists turn into IT or C++, java programing. That's how I started... Plus you get paid more for it.

godslanguage wrote:

I missed this base 2/4 point entirely. Could you or someone else expand on it a little?

Hi Byblos,

My point is simple.
*biological systems are information bearing and processing systems
*life needs discrete values or symbolic logic (DNA uses base 4, a, c, g, t) to give meaning to function before function can even be
*at least 2 discrete values are required (as is shown in human designs with binary base 2)
*no evidence exists for a base 2 implementation in biology anywhere
*a base 2 implementation is known to be the easiest and least complex solution to represent more complex functions
*a base 4 implementation is exponentially much more complex to utilize

How so? Does that mean our use of a base 10 system is far more complex than binary? Why do programmers and computer engineers use base 8 or 16 (aka "octal" or "hexadecimal") rather than binary?

*even if a base 2 system existed at one time, to get to a base 4 system you would need to start from scratch (can evolution, especially the origin of life tolerate such a thing? Logic and engineering tells us no)
*a step by step gradual process is what Darwinian evolution proposes, even for OOL since that is the most important step where a base system would be the starting grounds
*blind chance forces, oddly enough started utilizing the exponentially more complex base 4 system
*if that is the case, then that would have to be explained in no more then a single step (making this single step irreducible)
*if it happened in a single step then it didn't happen in a step by step gradual process (from a base 1, to 2, to 3 etc...)
*if it didn't happen in a gradual step by step fashion then blind chance forces are helpless to explain it

That makes as much sense as the post somebody made that "disproved" evolution because there was no "three-legged species" between humans and their ancestors. The DNA base pairs (Guanine and Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine) only bind with their "partner" (G with C, A with T). A "binary" system could conceivably have existed at some time using just one base pair (eg G and C, perhaps) and then have incorporated the other base pair at some time later on. Or if all four existed in the abiogenetic "soup", "revA" could very well have been a base4 system. Note that this is really a "where did life come from" issue, not evolution.

How so? Does that mean our use of a base 10 system is far more complex than binary? Why do programmers and computer engineers use base 8 or 16 (aka "octal" or "hexadecimal") rather than binary?

First off, you are missing the ENTIRE point, but here is "why" anyways:

For a few reasons...
*for representation purposes
*much more intuitive for humans, address computer memory
*hex and octal are powers of 2, while decimal base 10 is not (2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, 2^4 = 16) - no base 10 here
*they map well into bytes well (1 byte = 8 bits, half a byte = 4 bits or one "nibble") since for 4 bits binary you have 16 possible combination (0-15 which can be "mapped" to a base 16 representation)
*thus, to represent a binary number: 1011 1111 base 2 its B (B = 1011 = 11, F = 1111 = 15) in hex or base 16
*2 hex digits = 8 binary digits long
*pointers for example are variables used store memory addresses that are 32-bit (or 4 bytes in length) which is very long
*binary 11111111111111111111111111111111 is 4294967295 in decimal, but in hexadecimal its only FFFFFFFF or (0xFFFFFFFFF for the correct representation).
*in BCD (binary coded decimal), you have 1111 1110 1010 0000, they can be added easily using 4-bit sequences etc... they are simply much more intuitive to use.
*You can do the relation for octal (base 8 -) if you like

That makes as much sense as the post somebody made that "disproved" evolution because there was no "three-legged species" between humans and their ancestors. The DNA base pairs (Guanine and Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine) only bind with their "partner" (G with C, A with T). A "binary" system could conceivably have existed at some time using just one base pair (eg G and C, perhaps) and then have incorporated the other base pair at some time later on. Or if all four existed in the abiogenetic "soup", "revA" could very well have been a base4 system. Note that this is really a "where did life come from" issue, not evolution.

No, it could not have. You see representing numbers is one thing, but computers WORK by using a base 2 system, NOT an Octal base 8 nor an Hexadecimal base 16 nor anything else, only 1's and 0's. Those 1's and 0's represent electrical signals flowing through silicon chips (TTL/CMOS chips) in tiny little devices called logic gates, these logic gates (AND, NOT, NOR, XOR, OR XNOR (ie: exclusively not OR)) build up much more complex logic circuitry such as latches, flip-flops such as JK, counters, all the way up to registers in CPU caches. Fetch, decode and execute instructions passed from dynamic to static memory at the CPU (cache), executed in ALU's (FPU's etc..) and passed back to memory or wherever else (ie: back to the screen). To add here, the CPU's internal clock processes data at some clock rate (measured in hertz (1 clock tick), mhz, ghz), while processing it looks at binary signals not octal, not hexadecimal, these are merely representations used at higher layer of abstraction.

If we are to use a completely different scheme, such as 1 = 5 volts, 0 = -5, 2 = 10 volts, 3 = -10 volts, we'd need to literally start from scratch, from point A, re-engineer ALL of computing, new starting representations and MUCH MUCH MUCH more complex build up of components (logic circuitry, magnetic disk drives etc...). Quite the problem indeed.

Just ask Claude Shannon about the advantage of Binary base 2 system. He will tell you it's unambiguous (little to no room for mistakes), can be copied flawlessly from one storage medium to another, easier to build more complex circuitry etc...

Finally, since there is a direct relationship between a base system, complexity and function, evolution is as much part of the problem.

Anyone at least in information sciences can easily see how this is a big problem for the blind chance hypothesis.

(btw, I should have mentioned that DNA is digital and not analog or continuous in nature since it uses discrete values to give meaning to function)

I apologize to have been so long replying to you.

godslanguage wrote:

If there was a goal (ie the current diversity of lifeforms), then design is a much more likely way of having achieved that goal. If, however, we wish to actually detect if design was truly necessary for the current diversity of life, we can't limit ourselves to only the one solution to the problem that we actually have - we must allow for any possible that could have solved it.

Design detection is NOT applied to the diversity of life. If front-loading is the case, for example that the diversity of life is explained by the determined ordered sequence of chromosomes overtime instead of RM & NS overtime, the determination being that the instructions given the preloaded information were executed given enough time, ID can only look at the information content and NOT the diversity itself.

Hunh????

godslanguage wrote:

Requiring the same solution as the only solution dramatically decreases the odds. As an example, the odds of drawing the a spade from a well shuffled deck of cards is one in four. Replacing the card drawn and repeating the experiment, the odds of drawing a spade are again one in four. But if the only acceptable solution is the card drawn on the first trial, the odds drop to one in 52.

You're assuming a goal again. All those parameters are standards arrived and refined at during development of cars. The earliest cars didn't travel on roads, there weren't any paved roads. They traveled on wagon tracks. The current solution is not the only possible solution.

Context is important, biology even from a Darwinian POV must in some way act as a closed system. Within any closed system there are limits to change and acceptable solutions decrease. In a wide array of varying context there could be many more solutions to the same problem so all would be deemed "acceptable". The question now comes up is what is responsible for the solutions (as in my "sorting algorithm" example) regardless of how many there are. For example, there are many solutions to problems of roads, cars are designed to "adapt" to these varying contexts, and insofar intelligence is the only known phenomena that explains it. Are these accidental adaptations or are they purposeful? For Darwinism all these acceptable solutions seem to be accidental when they could in fact be purposeful instantiations of preloaded library of information.

The point was that the probabilities stated in the video were bogus - the ONLY criteria for "success" in evolution is survival to pass on your genes. Any solution that survives is a "success". The fact that one specific solution (all the organisms that came into existence, were tested, and either went extinct or survived to the present) actually happened in no way implies it is the ONLY solution, nor even a particularly good solution. Actually, the reptilian solution managed to keep the world in good order for something like 150 million years. They can hardly be blamed for the planet running into the path of a asteroid. I doubt we humans will make it anywhere near that long and I don't think it'll take another asteroid. If overpopulation doesn't do us in (by disease, famine, lack of clean water, and/or pollution), wars over resources, or making our planet uninhabitable probably will.

godslanguage wrote:There is nothing mysterious about this at all, humans hardly differ anymore more from chimps then they do from zebras at the genetic level(DNA) anymore then any of these differ from the simplest organisms on the planet. Instantiations would be the templates for these different living systems for varying contexts (this would explain all the missing links or intermediaries since you have templates predefined for varying contexts and not anything in between). In this case of ID, even if ID is meaningful at the OOL it would not be anymore less meaningful for subsequent "creation" or "evolution", the OOL is thus rendered not a separate problem/issue as Darwinist's infer, it would be part of it.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here.

godslanguage wrote:

Does the commonality of DNA, transcription, translation, ... across all life show a designer? Of could it show a common ancestor?

Could it, would it and should it?

Could not another base be used? Could not two additional proteins (say "X" and "Y") have been included in the DNA coding mechanism making it a base 6 system? (I do recognize the base-6 system would probably have to use different proteins than the four currently used)

From a gradual POV a base 2 system would be more logical since its the simplest to implement (especially from a mindless natural standpoint). From an engineering POV both are acceptable but a base 2 is much easier to implement since logic can be summed down to true and false (1 and 0) values (ie: in computer circuit logic gates), base 4 would be magnitudes harder to implement, this also means all hardware and subsequent software needs to be disposed of and started from point A. This is quite the problem indeed for the Darwinism, skipping 2 bases since there is absolutely no trace of a ancestor base system.

"Logical" and "engineering" imply design. So why didn't The Designer use the simpler and more logical base2 system? (Just kidding).

And even if you're correct and your point applies (I'm not sure it does), throwing out an old design and bringing in a new one is called "extinction" Actually extinction is the "throwing out" part, the "bringing in the new" is the surviving species adapting to fill the niche(s) vacated by the extinction.

Hunh????

Instead of that you could ask a more specific question regarding design detection such as why its not applied to other things, such as the diversity of life. "Evolution" (phylogeny) seems to be a matter of an unfolding of existing preloaded information just as ontogeny is an unfolding phenomena of existing information just as the bacterial flagellum is an unfolding product of existing information, all a product of design. It seems its the chromosome, not the gene that initiates and is the "unit" of evolutionary change.

A couple of points and facts to think about:

*We are nearly identical at the DNA level to many species
*Advanced functions are displayed in lower level primitive life forms for which there is no apparent adaptive significance inherent
*Position effects of the chromosome are responsible for change since different configurations (ordering) render different expression of preloaded information (or "derepressed" which previously in a different state were not), this is thought to be the unit of "change" and it is far from random, they are determined ordered sequences
*DNA, of course, is the building block of function but not the actual template that specifies the output

The point was that the probabilities stated in the video were bogus - the ONLY criteria for "success" in evolution is survival to pass on your genes. Any solution that survives is a "success". The fact that one specific solution (all the organisms that came into existence, were tested, and either went extinct or survived to the present) actually happened in no way implies it is the ONLY solution, nor even a particularly good solution. Actually, the reptilian solution managed to keep the world in good order for something like 150 million years. They can hardly be blamed for the planet running into the path of a asteroid. I doubt we humans will make it anywhere near that long and I don't think it'll take another asteroid. If overpopulation doesn't do us in (by disease, famine, lack of clean water, and/or pollution), wars over resources, or making our planet uninhabitable probably wi

So far laboratory testing has failed to provide a single example of a set of changes that led to something remotely close to a bacterial flagellum , until then IC remains the best explanation. Nothing indicates function comes about via "success", what does that even mean? Nothing, your argument is all micro evolution (insignificant changes occurring on existing information, harmful most of the time) and nobody disputes some of these changes as they are self-evident (changes in skin color, size etc...). Until you can provide empirical support that blind chance produces these types of things then you are simply at a disadvantage, why should I prove you otherwise when you're the one making the big claims?

As I said about "solutions", there is more or less one solution to a problem in a given context, how you achieve that may vary depending on other variables such as relying on external mechanisms to achieve the effect.

I understand what you are getting at though about "solutions". For that all I can say is that in a given context your solutions drop substantially (ie: within a given general framework subsequently acts as a closed system). You don't particularity know how many solutions there are do you? Infinite solutions I'm sorry to say is absolute fantasy. The solutions are definitely finite and I agree that until the context of biology is explored more deeply then the presentation could be either misleading or it could be the actual fact of the matter that there are "keys" that open certain locks because within the context of locks there are keys and not sledgehammers or torches. These keys (which are finite) have the "knowledge" to do just that. I'm not a mathematician, but it seems that these types of things can easily be plugged to the equation, in fact I think he does just that: 10^140 instead of 10^40 if I recall correctly (thus, giving chance the benefit of the doubt that it could do it "other" ways as you say)

Just to add here, Dawkins evolutionary weasel program targets this phrase "ME THINKS ITS A WEASEL". Yaa see, even Dawkins knows that there are very limited "solutions" and that it takes search upon search to reach it over vast quantities of time.

( BTW, if you are interested, here is a new paper by William Dembski that was released early today: http://evoinfo.org/Publications/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf )

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here.

Well then, maybe the problem is that the only train of thought you do follow is Darwinian fairytales, I could be wrong.

And even if you're correct and your point applies (I'm not sure it does), throwing out an old design and bringing in a new one is called "extinction" Actually extinction is the "throwing out" part, the "bringing in the new" is the surviving species adapting to fill the niche(s) vacated by the extinction.

*Extinction occurs
*All designs degrade overtime
*Darwinian evolution causes it to occur (loss of information due to accumulation of random mutations to the point of extinction)
*Hence, Devolution