Posted: Mar 28, 2011 1:25 pm
Calilasseia wrote:Shrunk wrote:Tyrannical wrote:I would try and test if interesting genetic events occur at a frequency higher than chance. Since anything can happen by random chance, intelligent design would be altering the probability so that the desired change would more likely occur. By examining current life now and trying to measure the likelihood of it occurring versus other outcomes you can measure the absolute influence. You could then test those results against a baseline of Brownian motion to get a simple number indicating direct influence on the probability.
Well, there is a bit of problem in defining what an "interesting genetic event" might be, since that would assume one would know all the possible consequences of such an event, including in combination with other "events". But basically, it seems to me something along those lines might be interesting to pursue if the ID crowd actually believed it was possible to detect the actions of the "designer" they are convinced exists. So I wonder why they have not done anything like that?
Because, at bottom, they're more interested in apologetics than science?
And, of course, this one of those times where the IDiocreationists tip their hands and reveal that they are not just misguided, or stupid. They know very well that they are lying and try to cover it up. There's absolutely no reason why, if the mathematical model for CSI that Dembski claims to have devised actually existed, that someone on that blog would be able to provide it to MathGrrl. The fact that no one has done so demonstrates that either a) the equation does not exist and the IDiocreationists are lying, or b) the equation does exist, but they realilze that if it is applied to MattGrrl's scenarios, it demonstrates that evolutionary processes are able to produce CSI (and the IDiocreationists are lying).