I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
Newtonian/classical physics were discarded because further evidence indicated that they were insufficient to describe the universe.
(
sorry for the long post- hard to condense some stuff!)
right, Newton started with the simplest explanation first - that's understandable- it appeals to us.
I understand the principle- I just think nature has proven it to be a fallacious one: a more useful amendment might be:
The simplest explanation is usually the most tempting one?
And you haven't pointed out why evolution fails.
For pretty much the same reason I would say
Darwinian evolution was born directly out of classical physics, it was the Victorian age reductionist model of reality at the time- it made perfect sense- that we might expect life to have developed by the same general mechanism as physics and chemistry before it, by a handful of simple immutable laws + lots of time and space..
So I agree with the first part- life
does develop by a similar mechanism to physics & chemistry-
only today that means by volumes of information, guiding, pre-determining how, where and when development occurs
So, what is this entirely objective fingerprint for ID?
same as SETI uses- specified information, because specified information denotes the capacity for anticipation- a phenomena unique to creative intelligence- nothing supernatural in this observation (unless you consider intelligence itself supernatural as some do)
SETI is built on the premise that things with thoughts and technology like ours (but more advanced) would spend a large amount of effort to make themselves known to other intelligence. So they look for things that can't be explained by nature.
Agreed- because we do not observe specified information originating by natural means-
it is anomalous
Can you present any of this weighty evidence... complexity on its own is insufficient.
I could not agree more- it's not about complexity- as above- the random noise SETI receives in radio waves from space is extremely 'complex' yes?- but they are looking for 'simplicity' 'clarity' within that complexity, as the sign of information and hence intelligence, are they not?
DNA is not merely a vast quantity of information, it is an information
system. A hierarchical digital one no less.
Someone at SETI wrote 'WOW' in the margin beside a mere handful (6?) of anomalous amplitudes.
if they received the digital instructions (and system to decode it) which described how to build even the simplest living organism- the evidence for ID would be irrefutable.
in ANY other context- the quality and quantity of specified information in even the universal constants, far less life, would be conclusive.
So the real determining factor here is not so much the evidence
for - but the resistance against- it is in the perceived 'profundity' of the implication in this case- and that's fraught with massively subjective perceptions- understandably
Can you actually support this?
You keep implying that there is a barrier or limit to the variation possible in evolution, but aside from falling back on an analogy of self writing computer code I haven't seen evidence.
well it's a vast topic, and I always prefer to try to give a good quick definite example where possible, rather than defer- but you could look at epigenetics for a start- it's a whole separate layer of info from DNA- but you also have the gene regulatory network- somewhat analogous to the operating system or mother board in the computer- regulating what information goes where- i.e. systems beyond those governing mere natural variation.
Beyond that you also get into the necessity of creating whole new protein string types - required new genes- to ceate a vast array of new body plans during the Cambrian-
you can argue natural mechanisms of course, but the point, which is not really so controversial anymore- is that we cannot simply extrapolate superficial natural variation in traits to account for the entire biosphere by the same mechanisms. There clearly ARE barriers- not to say jumping them is impossible- but whole new difficulties arise in doing so, which is borne out in the observed stasis/lack of evolution appearing in the fossil record.
