tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post7908294525955809791..comments2023-02-22T02:03:51.007-08:00Comments on Applied Intelligent Design: Why Evolution is Completely FalseApplied Intelligent Designhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13945831146597800546noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644289929290056557.post-61769037595718396692014-08-11T01:21:47.439-07:002014-08-11T01:21:47.439-07:00Hello. This post is relevant to yours:
http://ort...Hello. This post is relevant to yours:<br /><br />http://orthodoxchristian-blogger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-i-think-biological-macroevolution.html<br /><br />This is basically a summary of my discussion with David Abel.<br /><br />Evolution as dynamics (oscillation around basins of existing function) exists but as the major mechanism behind biological novelty does not. It is only a secondary phenomenon and almost always is noise.<br /><br />The first and subsequent novel biological functions require programs (genetic and epigenetic code) and programs cannot rise other than by intelligence. Therefore abiogenesis is as false as macroevolution.<br /><br />In David's book 'The First Gene' there is a nice illustration of this. A 2D graph showing protein function against ordered sequence complexity (x) and random sequence complexity (y). Nothing really out of the ordinary. However, next to this graph there is a corresponding 3D graph with an added axis z representing functional sequence complexity. In 3D it clearly demonstrates the idea of biofunction: the same function as in 2D is hovering over the horizontal plane (ordered sequence complexity vs random sequence complexity). It is only functional sequence complexity that has capacity to carry biological information. Evolution is represented on the 3D graph as small noise or statistically insignificant 'waves' on the XY plane. Evgeny Selenskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com