Still nothing from you on an "actual" case from the real world to support the claim you made.  The universe is not artificial.  Your just so descriptions of hypothetical cases are artificial.



Because we cannot deductvely point to any actual example where such a fitness function exists. We can speculate as you have done, but these speculations are nothing more than articles of faith.  Probability theory provides the basis to be skeptical of the existence of any fitness funtions derived solely by materialistic processes because of the exponential inflation of the degrees of freedom and therefore the large number of possible unworkable fitness functions as compared to the relatively few workable ones. 

While design is very proficient at carefully selecting boundary conditions and deriving fitness functions that are quite cabable of searching solution space for optimums, it is this observation that humans are able to select workable fitness functions that enspire evolutionary biologists to think that natural selection, genetic processes and chemic relationships together acts as a fitness function to generate observed diversity but there is no good evidence to support this imagination.


I understand that you cling to these imaginative stories and hold them as an article of faith that perhaps one of these ideas will somehow overcome the theorems that strongly suggest otherwise.


Strange that an architect thinks he knows more about chemistry than a Chemical Engineer.  Still no example of an actual rare event that overcomes the theoretical limits obtained by accounting for the probablistic resources.


Inert is not a term generally used to describe the chemic properties of biological coding systems. Affinity is the term generally used.  The relative differences in affinity between coding bases is very very small.

Now how about that actual rare event that overturns the concept of a universal probability limit?

In your case not too rare, you often think you know a lot more than your words reveal.


Elements and molecules that are chemically inert have no reactive affinity at all. 

The basic elements that could potentially make up self-replicating polymers are not prone to the combinations that would allow for construction of the appropriate polymers.  Instead they combine in unfavorable configurations by competing cross reactions that destroy any potential to form constructive biologically important configurations.  You are creating unrealistic "just so" narratives with your wishful thinking.

A just so narrative is one that is offered with no direct support for the central claim being made.


I distinguish between supported claims and just so narratives.  You have made a claim that rare events disprove the notion of a limit on probability based on limited resources for chance to act.  I ask for support and all I get are "just so" and "what if" narratives.  Let me show you the difference between the two of us.


I provide the observed evidence and a scientific basis for why observed evolutionary processes can't on their own, derive the diversity we observe.  This evidence and basis supports the narrative.  It is not "just because" as your claims are.


There is a great deal of direct and indirect evidence supporting the existence of God.  You turn a blind eye to and go out of your way to deny the evidence, primarily through a prior commitment to materialism, whereby you hijack much the evidence and claim it for your own and then out and out dismiss the historical evidence.


Probability and chemical reaction kinetics, chemical affinity and association characteristics provide the basis to demonstrate that self replicating polymers with the unique characteristic of being able to increase complexity and associated function cannot be derived by chemical means alone.  If chemistry alone can account for life, we would be able to observe the low level chemical characteristics that enable this.  Instead we observe that while chemicals can be purposefully guided to form these kinds of polymers, they do not form of their own accord.  Once again, science and mathematics supports my claim.

Still anxious to see support for your claim.

Yes.  Genetic engineers use design to generate and place large increases of new information into systems that lack them.  Medical researchers have great success designing chemical corrections to biological disfunction indicating that design is quite capable of improving biological function. Design is demonstrating that it can evolve biological systems.

Still waiting for your positive and actual case where a rare event overturns probability theory.

English language allows for paraphrasing.  Still waiting. 

And each one you dropped when you were alerted to the logical and technical problems your examples contained.  None were valid.  I realize you are at a disadvantage because of your weaknesses in probability analysis, but you should not make claims that you are unable to support with sound principles from the subject area.

Still waiting.  Why not revive what you think is the best of the five and this time support it vigorously?

Then you have failed to support your claim. I'm not sure why I should be surprised, though.  Your problem is not that you try to reason, your problem is that your reasoning is flawed and your technical support is abysmal.

Its a shame you won't continue this thread. I have more thoughts on the matter.

For example, can you tell me the difference between how we recognize something designed against a field of random events?

Because it occurs to me that you do accept that there are material explanations for some things, that it, there are events that your designer didn't do.  For example, Hurricanes and the results of FW.

Can we say that you accept these as true? Can we say that it is a necessary condition of the UPB, probability theory and ID that there are random events that aren't affected by a designer or god?

Because if ALL events are affected by God, then how do you seperate them?

So, I assume that the UPB hinges on the idea that random events do indeed happen. That they are free of a Designers Will.  That is, a necessary condition of the Universe, as ID postulates, is that there are random events.

Can we say that you are human? And that you understand this?

Again, you seem to hinge your world view on the Necessity that there are random events that have no contingency (not that each event is not contingent, but that Randomness itself exists as a Necessary Condition).

Or, does your designer control all those events, but make them appear contingent... which means they are all Determined (and yet Randomness (or FW) is a Necessary part of the Universe?!?!!?!)?


Please clarify your view so we can continue this discussion.