PROOF against evolution

"Random process is simply incapable of producing the quality and quantity of information observed in DNA"Good thing that natural "selection" isn't just random. "Selection" is pretty different from "random", no?So the "random process" line of argument is a red herring. Or wild goose chase. Or a lame duck. I don't know, one of those zoologically-themed idioms of speech.You may not think that natural selection is up to the task either, but at least argue about natural selection, not "randomness".

What measure of "complexity" or what measure of "information" do you want to use? The fact that these terms are being used rather interchangeably, despite rather different possible meanings of both terms, creates problems.If you want to compare either the "complexity" or "information" of DNA in different species, how do you propose we measure it?

quote:

---

Is this how you all dispatch opponents who begin to score points here...

---

Oh my God, you ARE delusional.You passed over my post completely asking yo to provide a definition of "information" or "complexity" and to even specify which one you were talking about.I suspect you think I'm being "picky" or something, but being able to clearly define what it is you're talking about is absolutely essential to any discussion about "information", "complexity", and evolution. Creationists typically shift between two (or among three or more!) definitions without, apparently, even realizing it. You seem to be doing the same. Which is why Percipient can say something like he disagrees with crashfrog yet doesn't agree with you. Y'all are mixing up terms and definitions so much the "debate" is useless.So, how about "scoring a point" and clearly defining just what you mean when you say "information"? Not a dictionary definition, mind you, but a definition specific enough that we can clearly declare whether one strand of DNA contains "more information" than another strand, for example.If you do that, then we can stick to this one definition and actually make some progress.

quote:

---

ll one need do is read my rebuttals to the posts Percey specified as in violation and one should clearly see that Percey's charges are unfounded. Someone, anyone prove otherwise.

---

Well, looking at your message #64, I see you completely ignored Percy's points 1 and 4, which were the meat of the matter. For point #3, all you did was provide a name and a link. You did not address the criticism that your original assertion was a mere "bare assertion."Point #2 is the only point you have addressed at all. Although your original claim is deeply flawed, I think you at least justified your stating it.So, as far as I can tell you accept without comment Percy's 2 most damaging points, and missed the point of one of the criticisms you did reply to.

Nancy Pearcey, in the article you link to, uses the following definition:"The information content of any structure is defined as the minimum number of instructions needed to specify it."Is this the definition you wish to stick to for this discussion, Buz?