Evolution of the human eye

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That seems a strange thing to say when we even have an entire industry today searching and using design in nature to improve human technology called Biomimicry.

The Innovators Using Nature's Design Principles to Create Green Tech
Using the design principles that nature has been using for millions of years to improve technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WjBvFwQpYU&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake

I think you are allowing your bias to get in the way and throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not talking about ID as in trying to prove God but design in nature. It is commonly recognized that there is design in nature by most scientists. Afterall even Darwin supporters acknowledge there is design in nature when they coined the phrase that Darwins theory is "Design without a Designer".

Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes

But even when it comes to ID there are different sciences like archaeology and the search for intelligent life in the universe programs SETI that use ideas like specified complexity to search for ID. They use it to detect the signatures of intelligence and ID in things like the radio signals in outer space or the inscriptions or artefacts found in archaeology to determine whether they were made by intelligence or not. This has been used for many years by science.

The same principles used to search for ID in biology. Its just a higher level of information search than Shannon information which is used in engineering. It looks for not only complex information that has a high improbability of happening by chance and also specified information which the more specific it is the more likely it was caused by intelligence. Even Francis Crick recognised the specified complexity in DNA when he mentioned that that protein had specified complexity IE

“By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in the protein… information means here the precise determination of sequences either of bases in nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

Dawkins used specified complexity in his example of how natural selection works when he used his famous search algorithm ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

So I am not talking about irreducible complexity or proving God but the science of searching for intelligent signals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That seems a strange thing to say when we even have an entire industry today searching and using design in nature to improve human technology called Biomimicry.

The Innovators Using Nature's Design Principles to Create Green Tech
Using the design principles that nature has been using for millions of years to improve technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WjBvFwQpYU&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake

I think you are allowing your bias to get in the way and throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not talking about ID as in trying to prove God but design in nature. It is commonly recognized that there is design in nature by most scientists. Afterall even Darwin supporters acknowledge there is design in nature when they coined the phrase that Darwins theory is "Design without a Designer".

Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes

But even when it comes to ID there are different sciences like archaeology and the search for intelligent life in the universe programs SETI that use ideas like specified complexity to search for ID. They use it to detect the signatures of intelligence and ID in things like the radio signals in outer space or the inscriptions or artefacts found in archaeology to determine whether they were made by intelligence or not. This has been used for many years by science.

The same principles used to search for ID in biology. Its just a higher level of information search than Shannon information which is used in engineering. It looks for not only complex information that has a high improbability of happening by chance and also specified information which the more specific it is the more likely it was caused by intelligence. Even Francis Crick recognised the specified complexity in DNA when he mentioned that that protein had specified complexity IE

“By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in the protein… information means here the precise determination of sequences either of bases in nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

Dawkins used specified complexity in his example of how natural selection works when he used his famous search algorithm ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

So I am not talking about irreducible complexity or proving God but the science of searching for intelligent signals.
Equivocation fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem is that this is all just hand waving. It is not evidence. You do not even have proper definitions. The "watch" argument is just on of many failed creationists arguments that I am not going to go into right now. All I care about is the fact that there is no scientific evidence for your claims. An argument from ignorance, which is what you posted, is a logical fallacy.
I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not talking about proving God or irreducible complexity as used in the Dover trial on creationism. I am not even talking about creationism. I am talking about legitimate methods used to detect certain independently determined patterns in design and ID which has been used by the sciences for years and is well accepted. The same principles used in other sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program are being applied to biology to determine design. Even supporters of Darwins theory like Dawkins acknowledge specified complexity in nature.
Twice I have asked a question, your inability to answer this question confirms the claim that you have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. Would you care for three strikes and you are out? If you cannot answer this question you cannot claim to have scientific evidence:
What reasonable test could refute "design"?
I OK well the test of specified complexity is what used in the sciences as I have mentioned to falsify whether something is intelligently designed or not. This method is used in a number of sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program are just a couple of examp-les. If its good enough for other areas of science then its good enough for Biology.

Like I said even Dawkins one of the most famous scientists in support of evolution also agrees and uses specified complexity as the measure for refuting creation and verifying evolution (natural selection) with his "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" algorithm.

All specified complexity is doing as with using Dawkins algorithm is unlike Shannon info that only determines the probability of information being complex or not, specified complexity not only determines complexity but also determines its specific outcome. So as opposed to a sentence of gibberish Dawkins "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is specified as it relays specific information that has use (communicates a message).

Applied to proteins with long strings of say 150 amino acids like language it sends a precise message to produce the functional 3D folds in proteins. This equates to a high level of specified complexity. Dawkins uses his algorithm to falsify ID by showing that natural processes can generate the same level of specified complexity thus (the design without a designer argument). He doesnt deminish the fact that what we see in nature is designed but just not intelligently designed.

But his algorithm been shown to be false because he only searches for 1 result being his WEASEL sentence rather than having all possible outcomes which would make it near impossible to find his WEASEL sentence when all possible specified outcomes were included.

When we apply this to proteins its even more impossible as the search space for all possible sequences is massively vast and functional proteins are astronomically small. Science has also verified that specified complexity is only produce by intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Equivocation fallacy.
How is it an Equivocation fallacy when it meets the criteria for measuring specified complexity which is a science. It either meets it or it doesnt. How is Dawkins able to use the same criteria to refute ID and this is never regarded as a fallacy. IN fact supporters of evolution don't refute the arguemnet that specified complexity can find design in nature. They just refute that its intelligently designed.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think you have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not talking about proving God or irreducible complexity as used in the Dover trial on creationism. I am not even talking about creationism. I am talking about legitimate methods used to detect certain independently determined patterns in design and ID which has been used by the sciences for years and is well accepted. The same principles used in other sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program are being applied to biology to determine design. Even supporters of Darwins theory like Dawkins acknowledge specified complexity in nature.
I OK well the test of specified complexity is what used in the sciences as I have mentioned to falsify whether something is intelligently designed or not. This method is used in a number of sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program are just a couple of examp-les. If its good enough for other areas of science then its good enough for Biology.

Like I said even Dawkins one of the most famous scientists in support of evolution also agrees and uses specified complexity as the measure for refuting creation and verifying evolution (natural selection) with his "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" algorithm.

All specified complexity is doing as with using Dawkins algorithm is unlike Shannon info that only determines the probability of information being complex or not, specified complexity not only determines complexity but also determines its specific outcome. So as opposed to a sentence of gibberish Dawkins "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is specified as it relays specific information that has use (communicates a message).

Applied to proteins with long strings of say 150 amino acids like language it sends a precise message to produce the functional 3D folds in proteins. This equates to a high level of specified complexity. Dawkins uses his algorithm to falsify ID by showing that natural processes can generate the same level of specified complexity thus (the design without a designer argument). He doesnt deminish the fact that what we see in nature is designed but just not intelligently designed.

But his algorithm been shown to be false because he only searches for 1 result being his WEASEL sentence rather than having all possible outcomes which would make it near impossible to find his WEASEL sentence when all possible specified outcomes were included.

When we apply this to proteins its even more impossible as the search space for all possible sequences is massively vast and functional proteins are astronomically small. Science has also verified that specified complexity is only produce by intelligence.

You are just repeating nonsense and have now admitted that there is no evidence for ID or "design" or any other of your claims.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How is it an Equivocation fallacy when it meets the criteria for measuring specified complexity which is a science. It either meets it or it doesnt. How is Dawkins able to use the same criteria to refute ID and this is never regarded as a fallacy. IN fact supporters of evolution don't refute the arguemnet that specified complexity can find design in nature. They just refute that its intelligently designed.

Where did they ever do that? It is an equivocation fallacy because you are using different definitions of "design" in your post and pretending that you used only one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That seems a strange thing to say when we even have an entire industry today searching and using design in nature to improve human technology called Biomimicry.

The Innovators Using Nature's Design Principles to Create Green Tech
Using the design principles that nature has been using for millions of years to improve technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WjBvFwQpYU&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake

I think you are allowing your bias to get in the way and throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am not talking about ID as in trying to prove God but design in nature. It is commonly recognized that there is design in nature by most scientists. Afterall even Darwin supporters acknowledge there is design in nature when they coined the phrase that Darwins theory is "Design without a Designer".

Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes

But even when it comes to ID there are different sciences like archaeology and the search for intelligent life in the universe programs SETI that use ideas like specified complexity to search for ID. They use it to detect the signatures of intelligence and ID in things like the radio signals in outer space or the inscriptions or artefacts found in archaeology to determine whether they were made by intelligence or not. This has been used for many years by science.

The same principles used to search for ID in biology. Its just a higher level of information search than Shannon information which is used in engineering. It looks for not only complex information that has a high improbability of happening by chance and also specified information which the more specific it is the more likely it was caused by intelligence. Even Francis Crick recognised the specified complexity in DNA when he mentioned that that protein had specified complexity IE

“By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in the protein… information means here the precise determination of sequences either of bases in nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

Dawkins used specified complexity in his example of how natural selection works when he used his famous search algorithm ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

So I am not talking about irreducible complexity or proving God but the science of searching for intelligent signals.
There still isnt a measurement for design.

So you are, as usual, in error.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are just repeating nonsense
How is it nonsense when other sciences and scientists use the same measure for dectecting design in nature and even supporters of evolution use the same criteria for measuring design in nature based on specified complexity like Dawkins does. If there is no acknowledgement of design in nature then why would they claim that evolution (natural selection) is design in nature without the designer.
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer

So doesnt the above paper acknowledge that there is design in nature when it says that Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms.

Why do other sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program use specified complexity to look for signs of intelligent design if there wasnt such a thing as ID in these scientific areas. Why can't this same method be used in biology to see if it has specified complexity like they do in these other areas of science. You sem to be ignoring all other science for the sake of refuting it being applied to nature.

Didnt Dawkins in using a specified complex algorithm as a measure to show how NS can produce complex and specified information actually acknowledge that nature has specified complexity.

and have now admitted that there is no evidence for ID or "design" or any other of your claims.
Where have I admitted there is no evidence for ID. You are reading stuff into my posts. I said that Supporters of evolution like Dawkins have admitted that there is design as measured by specified complexity in nature but they have tried to show that this is the result of natural processes (natural selection). But that doesnt mean I agree with them. I was only mentioning this to show that even supporters of evolution, those opposed to creationism even acknowledge that there is design in nature.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There still isnt a measurement for design.
So what about the sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program who look for intelligence in the signals in the universe and inscriptions, symbols, markings and artefacts their archaeological finds to determine whether they were made by natural random causes or intelligence. Isnt that measuring design. What about when scientists measure natures designs to improve technology. Isnt that measuring design in nature. Why would they claim they are Using Nature's Design Principles.

So you are, as usual, in error.
So what does the paper mean when it states
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer and admits natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms.

Despite whether the claim is true or not are not even Darwinists acknowledging that organisms have design when they say natural selection accounts for design. Why do so many people admit there is design in nature.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So what about the sciences like archaeology, language and the SETI program who look for intelligence in the signals in the universe and inscriptions, symbols, markings and artefacts their archaeological finds to determine whether they were made by natural random causes or intelligence. Isnt that measuring design. What about when scientists measure natures designs to improve technology. Isnt that measuring design in nature. Why would they claim they are Using Nature's Design Principles.

So what does the paper mean when it states
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer and admits natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms.

Despite whether the claim is true or not are not even Darwinists acknowledging that organisms have design when they say natural selection accounts for design. Why do so many people admit there is design in nature.
Still no measurement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Still no measurement.
You never explain why or support your claim with reasoning or evidence. Just unsupported assertions. So what about information theory or specified complexity. Are not these measuremnet methods for determining the complexity and specific information in the world. Otherwise if you disagree you are wiping out entire scientific theories and sections of science.

Tell me how can a scientists like Richard Dawkins claim
natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms.
if there was no way to determine the “design” of organisms in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You never explain why or support your claim with reasoning or evidence. Just unsupported assertions. So what about information theory or specified complexity. Are not these measuremnet methods for determining the complexity and specific information in the world. Otherwise if you disagree you are wiping out entire scientific theories and sections of science.

Tell me how can a scientists like Richard Dawkins claim
natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms.
if there was no way to determine the “design” of organisms in the first place.

If I'm wrong then surely you can give us a a way to meassure design?

All you are talking about is different meanings of design and detecting design.

So again, you are in error.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If I'm wrong then surely you can give us a a way to meassure design?
I just gave you the way scientists measure design. How do you think Dawkins was able to measure the specified complexity of the information in his alogrythim "ME THINKS IT IS A WEASEL" from gibberish. If he couldnt do that and had no measuring method then his whole experiemnet would be useless. How do scientists tell the difference betweem gibberish within any information or whether its specific to a meaning or use or whether it is comeplex or not. If they did not have some way to measure design then they would be mistaking all sorts of random marks and shapes as design. Scientists measure design and information by using things like information theory and measuring the level of complexity and specified information.

All you are talking about is different meanings of design and detecting design.

So again, you are in error.
Once again if I am talking about detecting design how can we talk about it of we dont have some way to detect it. Once again I will ask you why do scientists claim that natural selection produces design in nature.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I just gave you the way scientists measure design. How do you think Dawkins was able to measure the specified complexity of the information in his alogrythim "ME THINKS IT IS A WEASEL" from gibberish. If he couldnt do that and had no measuring method then his whole experiemnet would be useless. How do scientists tell the difference betweem gibberish within any information or whether its specific to a meaning or use or whether it is comeplex or not. If they did not have some way to measure design then they would be mistaking all sorts of random marks and shapes as design. Scientists measure design and information by using things like information theory and measuring the level of complexity and specified information.

Once again if I am talking about detecting design how can we talk about it of we dont have some way to detect it. Once again I will ask you why do scientists claim that natural selection produces design in nature.
Woooosh.

You are in way over your head.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Where have I admitted there is no evidence for ID. You are reading stuff into my posts. I said that Supporters of evolution like Dawkins have admitted that there is design as measured by specified complexity in nature but they have tried to show that this is the result of natural processes (natural selection). But that doesnt mean I agree with them. I was only mentioning this to show that even supporters of evolution, those opposed to creationism even acknowledge that there is design in nature.

When you did not or could not answer a reasonable question that I asked you three times. But then you probably do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and what the first requirement to have evidence is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When you did not or could not answer a reasonable question that I asked you three times. But then you probably do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and what the first requirement to have evidence is.
I gave that requirement. Design has to meet a certain criteria of complexity and also be specified. Therefore when it doesn't meet this criteria then is proven to be not intelligently designed (falsified). Basically this is done through information theory. We know how to verify if something is complex through the level of information it can carry or not through Shannon information.

We also know if something is specified or not by whether it meets a certain criteria which is whether the complexity is specifically arrnaged and has function as opposed to no specification or function. So if the thing being tested doesnt meet these criteria then it can be falsified.

I gave a simple example of how to determine whether something is specified and complex used a sentence of gibberish which can be complex but not specified. But a sentence that means something or gives instructions to do something is also specified information. So a Shakesspears sonet is specified and complex as it has meaning and a mechanics manual gives instructions is also specified and complex.

This can be applied to the cell and DNA which is like a computer code that is complex and specified towards instructions that do something, have meaning and function. If it doesnt meet these criterion then it can be falsified. I cannot make any more simple.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I gave that requirement. Design has to meet a certain criteria of complexity and also be specified. Therefore when it doesn't meet this criteria then is proven to be not intelligently designed (falsified). Basically this is done through information theory. We know how to verify if something is complex through the level of information it can carry or not through Shannon information.

We also know if something is specified or not by whether it meets a certain criteria which is whether the complexity is specifically arrnaged and has function as opposed to no specification or function. So if the thing being tested doesnt meet these criteria then it can be falsified.

I gave a simple example of how to determine whether something is specified and complex used a sentence of gibberish which can be complex but not specified. But a sentence that means something or gives instructions to do something is also specified information. So a Shakesspears sonet is specified and complex as it has meaning and a mechanics manual gives instructions is also specified and complex.

This can be applied to the cell and DNA which is like a computer code that is complex and specified towards instructions that do something, have meaning and function. If it doesnt meet these criterion then it can be falsified. I cannot make any more simple.
Sorry that is a hand waving test. You need something more concrete. You need to be able to be specific about the "criteria". You need to be far more specific in what you mean by design. You do not have a proper test. By definition you do not have evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry that is a hand waving test.
It is not hand waving as it is based on science. The determination of ID is based on the scientific principle of observation theory. The measurements of information in DNA are a widely recognised science and based on information and probability theory used in many other fields. It determines the level of information in certain situations that can infer intelligent design/agents and excludes other events that don’t meet these requirements such as random natural processes.

When there is low probability as compared to high probability then the information can be said to have high complexity. But certain info (specified complexity) can only be created by intelligence because its chosen and specified in a certain direction and creates function. Specified complexity is a well-known and accepted scientific measure for determine intelligence in different fields like cryptography, forensics, archaeology and astronomy.

The fact is in biology it is widely recognised that there is specified complexity in the form of language codes and molecular machinery and when measured by these scientific criterion point to an intelligence and not a natural chance process.

You need something more concrete. You need to be able to be specific about the "criteria". You need to be far more specific in what you mean by design. You do not have a proper test. By definition you do not have evidence.
I gave the basic requirements for determining intelligent design which though simplistic meets the requirements for determining specified complexity. This description does really cover the basics and any more detail only verified this.

Intelligently design info not only has Shannon information (complexity level) but also has specified information which produces function which is obviously specified towards a specific meaning, instruction that produces some functional outcome. This can only be produced by intelligence as it requires a high level of choice that produce that function and outcome.

For example though simple the following really explains things well. It just means the greater the complexity and specification in the sequences the greater the probability that it can only be produced by intelligence and not chance IE

First- nehya53nslbyw1`jejns7eopslanm46/J
This is complex and defies reduction to a simple rule but is not specified complexity because it doesn’t specify any meaning, instruction or function.

Second- ABABABABABABABABABABAB
This is not complex but simple and highly ordered nor specified as it doesn’t produce any meaning or function.

Third- TIME AND TIDE WAIT FOR NO MAN
This is complex (defy reduction to a simple rule as above) and is specified because it has meaning and performs a communication that tells humans something. It has function as it relays a message about life and this can only be produced by humans. Just like DNA.

DNA is both complex and specified because the amino acid sequences are a code or language which give instruction and communicate a function which is to build proteins that build phenotypes. We know that many scientists have compared the Cell and DNA to computer language and machines designed by humans thus it follows that these natural machines are also have the same qualities of being design by intelligence.

But an analogy of similarities is not the only reason that supports ID in DNA. It also constitutes an inference to the best explanation. Such arguments don't just compare degrees of similarity between different effects, but instead compare the explanatory power of competing causes with respect to a single kind of effect. So an inference to DNA being intelligently designed is the best explanation compared to a chance natural cause.

I am not going to go into further detail as this would take pages of how specified complexity in biological codes and machinery meet the requirements of human made machinery and language and thus can be inferred as being intelligently design. The fact is it is supported by the science and if you want more detail of that science then these papers will help.

These papers show how to determine specified complexity and how DNA meets those requirements.
On the improbability of algorithmic specified complexity
An event with low probability is unlikely to happen, but events with low probability happen all of the time. This is because many distinct low probability events can have a large combined probability. However, some low probability events can be seen to follow an independent pattern. Algorithmic specified complexity (ASC) measures the degree to which an event is improbable and follows a pattern. We show a bound on the probability of obtaining a particular value of algorithmic specified complexity. Consequently we can say that high ASC objects are improbable.
On the improbability of algorithmic specified complexity

Structural Complexity of DNA Sequence
In modern bioinformatics, finding an efficient way to allocate sequence fragments with biological functions is an important issue. This paper presents a structural approach based on context-free grammars extracted from original DNA or protein sequences. This approach is radically different from all those statistical methods. Furthermore, this approach is compared with a topological entropy-based method for consistency and difference of the complexity results.

In this paper, we give a method for computing complexity of DNA sequences. The traditional method focused on the statistical data or simply explored the structural complexity without value. In our method, we transform the DNA sequence to DNA tree with tree representations at first.


Then we transform the tree to context-free grammar format, so that it can be classified. Finally, we use redefined generating function and find the complexity values. We give a not only statistical but also structural complexity for DNA sequences, and this technique can be used in many important applications.
Structural Complexity of DNA Sequence

This is a different approach but still uses specified complexity to determine the difference between something originating from an intelligent cause as with the finely tuned universe argument which is then applied to biological machines and codes which are said to also be finely tuned.

Just in the same way that the probability is against the universe producing the just right conditions for intelligent life happened by chance the probability that DNA and the astronomically rare functional proteins that produce life is against all probability of being produced by natural chance causes and a better explanatiuon is that it was caused by an intelligence.

Using Statistical Methods to Model the Fine-tuning of Molecular Machines and Systems
However, in this paper we argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. We also discuss the statistical methods underpinning fine-tuning and present a framework for such analysis.

We define fine-tuning as an object with two properties: it must a) be unlikely to have occurred by chance, under the relevant probability distribution (i.e. complex), and b) conform to an independent or detached specification (i.e. specific).
Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems - ScienceDirect
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.