Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism

[wuschel]

Welcome to set theory.

Argument from excessive Greek. I give in and will not pursuit this particular route any further.

The argument that continuity cannot empirically be tested for is a much better fit in the context of a natural science dispute anyway (QM aside).

 

[drkitten]

You haven't proven yet that the phenotype is continuous, yet you assert a human to be a Turing machine of infinite size?

No, I assert that a human being is not a Turing machine.

For your enlightenment: The halting problem is in principle decidable for any finite size TM.

Are you possibly confusing a "finite size TM," which is gibberish, with a finite-state automaton, which is not gibberish -- but also not a TM?

Because if you are, then you need to demonstrate that DNA and the phenotype are regular expressions of tractable size in order for your argument to go through. Good luck with that....

 

[wuschel]

No, I assert that a human being is not a Turing machine.

This would include that it cannot (not even in principle) be simulated by one. One hell of a claim!

Prove it!

Semantics rant not addressed, since you have proven to very well understand what I meant, but could not resist the opportunity anyway.

Because if you are, then you need to demonstrate that DNA and the phenotype are regular expressions of tractable size in order for your argument to go through. Good luck with that....

I don't have to do any of that, because pointing out that the "complexity" claim is necessarily based on an unprovable assertion is fully sufficient to refute the whole argument, no matter what the conclusion.

The unprovable premise is that a human is at least so and so complex. Since the premise is unprovable, one cannot draw any conclusion from it. I do not see where "DNA" comes into play here at all.