Joined: July 2006
Sal gives an "example"
|Seems your comrades are reluctant to provide probabilities based on random chance (not selection and chance) for:|
1. Turing Machines
2. Protein-Protein Binding sites of n-amino acids
Shall they provide the numbers of shall I? Of course if I provide the numbers you and your friends might question the authenticity, thus since I presume you want believable numbers I will let them take a stab at it.
The numbers for self-replicationg Turing Machines, I've already provided.
The numbers Behe gives for 1 6-amino-acid protein-protein binding sites are 1 in 10^20, therefore a process requiring 8 protein binding sites would be 1 in 10^160
Do you buy the numbers? If not, ask your comrades.
Since physics dictates protein configuration is not determined by law alone ( because physicsl allows many possible polymer configurations), then we go to the issue of chance. A figure of 1 in 10^160 satisfies the improbability of rejecting chance.
The two items an object must pass to be classified as designed (or looks designed) in a very austere formal EF are:
1. not product of law
2. more improbable than 1 in 10^150 ( less remote probablity are also acceptable, even 1 in 10^20 is promising give that there was a time PKI encryption was only about that strong) based on random chance.
Lot's of biological processes require more than 6 protein-protein binding sites. How about the construction of the cilium? That will do. Easily a probability of 1 in 10^150.
There is your example. And frankly, I gave examples several times. Apparently you're closing your mind to them. You can believe that natural seleciton can solve the problem of random chance. That is your choice. In that case you can believe natural selection can serve as an intelligent designer substitute.
But the object still satisfies the definition of something that would be labeled designed. Whether the ultimate cause was intelligence, is you decision. Nothing is forcing you to accept that conclusion. You're invited to believe something so improbable can be created through the process of a mindless Blindwatchmaker. However, I've given you an example of how we classify systems as a designed system. As I said, even Darwinists use the term "design" in a colloquial sense as well, and that is not to far from the kinds of objects the EF will affix the term "design" to. Whether intelligence causes all designs, is a separte issue. The EF does not answer that question formally.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand