If you feel RW's pro-materialistic bias is unsubstantiated, feel free to tell us why.
Where to start? I would be happy to discuss the false claims, misrepresentations and omissions here.
http
://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Complex_Specified_Information
At least five different sources of active information have been discovered within the EV code. Perceptron structure, repeated queries, the hamming oracle, optimization of mutation and degree of mutation.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.3/BIO-C.2010.3
The claim cited is from the author of the software himself. No further information is presented. It is falsely presented ax fact. A fact that should by all accounts lead to a noble prize in mathematics I would think.
The formulation of probalities by Dembski is not synonymous with the need to identify the quality of biological information. This was first recognised perhaps by origin of life researcher Lesli Orgle and further acknowledged by other materialists even from the likes of Jack Szostak. It is disengenuos to call it a creation of anyone. It exists. Semantic information exists. There is no materialistic mechanism for the emergence of a semiotic system or digital code.
Here is some reading on a bit of modern thought on biological information, from a book that was attempted to be banned, can you believe it? Who else used to burn books
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818#t=toc
It is also not true that it has no scientific support outside of math and computation. Wow that is some irony there when claiming EV represents biology don't you think?
Experimental studies into functional protein sequences show It on a practical level. This is a direct biological question relating to the sequence hypothesis and functionality. Again not restrictive to IDers but biology generally.
Also it is not specifically valid to the concept of irreducible complexity which has not been refuted btw The translation system which evolution depends on is itself irreducible, this is well known as the chicken and egg problem. Although IC can be related to specified information since these sytems themselves have digital plans encoded in linear sequences. It merely refers to just functional sequences. To say the idea is invalid is at odds with biological thought since the sequence hypothesis and digital code was discovered some 60 years ago. And at odds with math in general, and the fact the biology has become an information science since the dicovery of digital code.
There is bait and switching, poor research, poor understanding of the concepts, omission of vast amounts of history and research and only a single software program cited as a counter? One that has been thoughly examined with the sources of active information in the code positively identified. Debunked as you guys might say.
A proper investigation would include some of the counter claims and vast amount of literature on the subject. There is very little scientific rigor in any pages I have seen. Which is not many.
The rest of the article is just misplaced opinion and poor logical arguments. Unsubstantiated? There is no substance at all!
I could gladly examine other pages, plasma cosmology etc.. but I never took RW seriously anyway And it derails from the thread. Who would? Scìence is available to all, truth only for the ones willing to ask questions and not fall in line with consensus and label everything else as woo or psuedo science. The articles are weak and biased to the point of stretching truth into lie.
No I won't bother with the talk pages thanks, not worth my time. Reading it isn't so....
Actually on second thought I am not happy to discuss really, your pages on these subjects are simply copy and pastes of previous refuted critiques. I waste far too much time arguing with fundamentalists, just like arguing with the religious no different.