Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 31 2008,18:57)|
|Man, these comments are richly dumb.|
|The amusing thing is, the best that Ian Musgrave can hope to prove is that nature may fundamentally be designed, yet we may not be aware of it. Somehow, I don’t think that’s quite the point he wishes to make.|
How does it make that point, precisely? By pointing out that you can't detect "design"? That would make ID the science of "we think it happened, but the evidence has all been randomized". Oooh, that's not much of a science at all, is it? It sounds kind of like guessing.
|Hmph…my immediate reaction is that only 480 informational bits are required to encode each of those sequences. Oops?|
I'm pretty sure Ian already knows this. Hell, I noticed it too. If you can't detect design in so much as a 480-bit sequence, how could you be expected to detect it in general?
I'm gonna reiterate that I'm pretty sure you could positively demonstrate the impossibility of detecting design in these sequences, except possibly by brute-force comparison to known sequences (and wouldn't that be a bitch). This is a subversion of the initial intent, but it does answer the implicit question regarding design detection. :p
I was thinking brute force. Dammit, one of the guys around here must have software that does that. [looks around]
But unfortunately, I doubt I would recognize it.
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut