Ian Musgrave’s “Intelligent Design Challenge”

_{William Dembski

January 31, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I received the following email dated 1.31.08 from Ian Musgrave:

Dear Dr. Dembski

Determining where a genome has been produced or altered by an intelligent designer is a matter of some importance. Consider the
claims that the HIV virus was engineered as a biowarfare weapon, or the concern that virulence genes from other organisms could be inserted into viruses and bacteria to “weaponise” them. For example the engineered mouse pox virus that turned lethal (Nature. 2001 May 17;411(6835):232-5 see also Nat Genet. 2001 Nov;29(3):253-6) and limits on the sequencing of the 1918 strain of the flu to stop flu from being weaponised (Fed Regist. 2005 Oct 20;70(202):61047-9,). A method that could reliably detect the action of human intelligent design in the genomes of microorganisms would be of significant advantage.

Thus we issue the “Intelligent Design Challenge”. Below are 6 gene sequences. At least one of them has been produced by a human designer. All you have to do is to determine which one(s) have been acted on, what the designed sequence does, and explain the method you used to determine this (in sufficient detail to replicate your determination eg. if you used an approximation of Chaitin information, a brief description of the algorithm you used [not the entire program]). Given your interest in design, you may wish to participate. You migght also like to pass this on to your colleagues.

The first successful determination of the designed sequence(s) and their function will win a copy of OpenLab 2007, the best of Science Blogging. You may wish to Reminding everyone again, the comments will be opened at 10:30 pm Australian Central Daylight Savinng Time (GMT +10:30), 1 February.

Sequence 1:
attatcacaa aatggtgtga tcttatcaat
agcactactt gcttaactag ctaatgtcgt
gcaattggag tagagaacac agaacgatta
actagctaat ttttttagtt ggatggcaat
tgttggaatt cacagctttt tagttggaat
tttagttaat catcaaacac ttaaaataag
taaaaagtat gttattttag gttcgatttt
tccaattatg gcattaacaa atactcttgt

Sequence 2:
gatagtagtg ggtggaatag tgaagaaaac
gaagctaaaa gtgatgcgcc cctaagtaca
ggagggggtg cttcttctgg aacatttaat
aaatacctca acaccaagca agcgttagag
agcatcggca tcttgtttga tggggatgga
atgaggaatg tggttaccca actctattat
gcttctacca gcaagctagc agtcaccaac
aaccacattg tcgtgatggg taacagcttt

Sequence 3:
attatcacaa aatggtgtga tcttatcaat
agcactactt gcttttttta gttggatggc
aattgttgga attcacagct ttttagttgg
aattttagtt aatcatcaaa cacttaaaat
aagtaaaaag tatgttattt taggttcgat
ttttccaatt atggcattaa caaatactct
tgtaattaga aaaaaattaa aagctttatt
aggagagggt aaggttcaaa aaggactcaa

Sequence 4:
agtagtgggt ggaatagtgt taactagcta
agtagaaaac accgaacgaa ttaattctac
gattaccgtg actgagttaa ctagctaaaa
gaaaacgaag ctaaaagtga tgcgccccta
agtacaggag ggggtgcttc ttctggaaca
tttaataaat acctcaacac caagcaagcg
ttagagagca tcggcatctt gtttgatggg
gatggaatga ggaatgtggt tacccaactc

Sequence 5:
ttttatttgt ttaatagtta aaaaaagcgt
taactagcta atgcataaac gacatcgcta
atgactgtct ttatgatgaa ttaactagct
aatgggtcga tgtttgatgt tatggagcag
caacgatgtt acgcagcagg gcagtcgccc
taaaacaaag ttaaacatca tgttatgttt
tatctatttt attagttaaa aaagttttga
atttttatct atttttagtt aataaaagtc

Sequence 6:
ggagggagat catcagatca aagtaataaa
ttcaccaagt acctcaacac caagcaagca
ttggaaagga tcggcatctt gtttgatggg
gatggaatga ggaatgtggt tacccaactc
taccaaccca acaaggtgaa aagtggtcaa
tatcaacaaa ataacaccta caacaggtta
attgagcctg acaatgcaac aagtgcagcg
agcagcatga ccagcttgtt aaagctgttg

Yours sincerely
Ian Musgrave

========================================
Ian F. Musgrave Ph.D, ian.musgrave@adelaide.edu.au
Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Pharmacology, School of Medical Sciences
Co-convener, Healthy Aging Research Cluster
University of Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

Comments

heh, that's what I get for not doublechecking a news media source...never mind being lazy and using such a source in the first place. :DPatrick_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST}

Patrick, Thanks for recognizing (@8) that the "Challenge" incorporated Venter's work. By the way, it seems that the sequences for the watermarks that you just gave include extra leading and trailing characters. Here are the codings for the actual watermarks themselves, with quantity of characters in brackets: TGTCGTGCAATTGGAGTAGAGAACACAGAACGA [33] (CRAIGVENTER) GTAGAAAACACCGAACGAATTAATTCTACGATTACCGTGACTGAG [45] (VENTERINSTITVTE) CATGCAATGTCGATGATTACCCAC [24] (HAMSMITH) TGCATAAACGACATCGCTAATGACTGTCTTTATGATGAA [39] (CINDIANDCLYDE) GGTCTAGCTAGTAGCGCGAATGACTGCCTATACGATGAG [39] (GLASSANDCLYDE) So there are only 33 + 45 + 24 + 39 + 39 = 180 characters = 360 bits. Also by the way, the code isn't Venter's invention. It's just the common representation of codons in the genetic code. __________ jpark (37), Thanks, but I was only confirming what Patrick pointed out at comment (8). I was also curious to see what the non-watermark characters looked like when converted into text, and what resulted from using alternate reading frames.j_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST}

j, Thanks for posting that complete reference! When I wrote my first hypothetical scenario I assumed that the surrounding characters would not form English words and mostly be gibberish. So your comment bares that assumption out. As an interesting study a program could be written to convert entire genomes using Venter's cypher. Then this information could be searched for any legible English words, taking into account substitutions due to the limited 20 character set. I'd assume that at most we'd find words like "can" and "as" and whatnot. Assuming other groups adopt the Venter cypher for watermarks, this should allow people to find other watermarks and other genomes. Also, the other major thing to note is that since Musgrave only challenged us with 3 out of 5 parts of the entire watermark the amount of informational bits would NOT exceed the UPB of 500 informational bits. The 3 portions are only 117 characters, thus 234 informational bits. I find it hard to believe that Musgrave knows so little of ID that he'd contrive a challenge where the only result could be a false negative based upon the limitations of the EF. But here is the complete sequence for the entire watermark: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/01/scigenome101.xml TTAACTAGCTAATGTCGTGCAATTGGAGTAGAGAACACAGAACGATTAACTAGCTAA TTAACTAGCTAAGTAGAAAACACCGAACGAATTAATTCTACGATTACCGTGACTGAGTTAACTAGCTAA TTAACTAGCTAACATGCAATGTCGATGATTACCCACTTAACTAGCTAA TTAACTAGCTAATGCATAAACGACATCGCTAATGACTGTCTTTATGATGAATTAACTAGCTAATGGGTCGATGTTTGATGTTATGGAGCAGCAACGATGTTACGCAGCAGGGCAGTCGCCCTAAAACAAAGTTAAACATCATG TTAACTAGCTAAGGTCTAGCTAGTAGCGCGAATGACTGCCTATACGATGAG TTAACTAGCTAA That's 380 characters and 760 informational bits, thus the Explanatory Filter would be able to detect the design.Patrick_{February 4, 2008
February
02
Feb
4
04
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PST}

Where can one find studies that apply specified complexity analysis to real-world phonomena to show the presence or absence of design?langej_{February 3, 2008
February
02
Feb
3
03
2008
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PST}

WOW J... Do we have a winner here?jpark320_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST}

Just for the record, here are decodings in the three different possible reading frames, with "watermarks" highlighted: Sequence 1: attatcacaaaatggtgtgatcttatcaatagcactacttgcttaactagctaatgtcgt gcaattggagtagagaacacagaacgattaactagctaatttttttagttggatggcaat tgttggaattcacagctttttagttggaattttagttaatcatcaaacacttaaaataag taaaaagtatgttattttaggttcgatttttccaattatggcattaacaaatactcttgt 0: IITKWCDLINSTTCLTSXCRAIGVENTERLTSXFFXLDGN CWNSQLFSWNFSXSSNTXNKXKVCYFRFDFSNYGINKYSC 1: LSQNGVILSIALLAXLANVVQLEXRTQNDXLANFFSWMAI VGIHSFLVGILVNHQTLKISKKYVILGSIFPIMALTNTL 2: YHKMVXSYQXHYLLNXLMSCNWSREHRTINXLIFLVGWQL LEFTAFXLEFXLIIKHLKXVKSMLFXVRFFQLWHXQILL Sequence 2: gatagtagtgggtggaatagtgaagaaaacgaagctaaaagtgatgcgcccctaagtaca ggagggggtgcttcttctggaacatttaataaatacctcaacaccaagcaagcgttagag agcatcggcatcttgtttgatggggatggaatgaggaatgtggttacccaactctattat gcttctaccagcaagctagcagtcaccaacaaccacattgtcgtgatgggtaacagcttt 0: DSSGWNSEENEAKSDAPLSTGGGASSGTFNKYLNTKQALE SIGILFDGDGMRNVVTQLYYASTSKLAVTNNHIVVMGNSF 1: IVVGGIVKKTKLKVMRPXVQEGVLLLEHLINTSTPSKRXR ASASCLMGMEXGMWLPNSIMLLPASXQSPTTTLSXWVTA 2: XXWVEXXRKRSXKXCAPKYRRGCFFWNIXXIPQHQASVRE HRHLVXWGWNEECGYPTLLCFYQQASSHQQPHCRDGXQL Sequence 3: attatcacaaaatggtgtgatcttatcaatagcactacttgctttttttagttggatggc aattgttggaattcacagctttttagttggaattttagttaatcatcaaacacttaaaat aagtaaaaagtatgttattttaggttcgatttttccaattatggcattaacaaatactct tgtaattagaaaaaaattaaaagctttattaggagagggtaaggttcaaaaaggactcaa 0: IITKWCDLINSTTCFFXLDGNCWNSQLFSWNFSXSSNTXN KXKVCYFRFDFSNYGINKYSCNXKKIKSFIRRGXGSKRTQ 1: LSQNGVILSIALLAFFSWMAIVGIHSFLVGILVNHQTLKI SKKYVILGSIFPIMALTNTLVIRKKLKALLGEGKVQKGL 2: YHKMVXSYQXHYLLFLVGWQLLEFTAFXLEFXLIIKHLKX VKSMLFXVRFFQLWHXQILLXLEKNXKLYXERVRFKKDS Sequence 4: agtagtgggtggaatagtgttaactagctaagtagaaaacaccgaacgaattaattctac gattaccgtgactgagttaactagctaaaagaaaacgaagctaaaagtgatgcgccccta agtacaggagggggtgcttcttctggaacatttaataaatacctcaacaccaagcaagcg ttagagagcatcggcatcttgtttgatggggatggaatgaggaatgtggttacccaactc 0: SSGWNSVNXLSRKHRTNXFYDYRDXVNXLKENEAKSDAPL STGGGASSGTFNKYLNTKQALESIGILFDGDGMRNVVTQL 1: VVGGIVLTSXVENTERINSTITVTELTSXKKTKLKVMRPX VQEGVLLLEHLINTSTPSKRXRASASCLMGMEXGMWLPN 2: XWVEXCXLAKXKTPNELILRLPXLSXLAKRKRSXKXCAPK YRRGCFFWNIXXIPQHQASVREHRHLVXWGWNEECGYPT Sequence 5: ttttatttgtttaatagttaaaaaaagcgttaactagctaatgcataaacgacatcgcta atgactgtctttatgatgaattaactagctaatgggtcgatgtttgatgttatggagcag caacgatgttacgcagcagggcagtcgccctaaaacaaagttaaacatcatgttatgttt tatctattttattagttaaaaaagttttgaatttttatctatttttagttaataaaagtc 0: FYLFNSXKKRXLANAXTTSLMTVFMMNXLANGSMFDVMEQ QRCYAAGQSPXNKVKHHVMFYLFYXLKKFXIFIYFXLIKV 1: FICLIVKKSVNXLMHKRHRXXLSLXXINXLMGRCLMLWSS NDVTQQGSRPKTKLNIMLCFIYFISXKSFEFLSIFSXXK 2: LFVXXLKKALTSXCINDIANDCLYDELTSXWVDVXCYGAA TMLRSRAVALKQSXTSCYVLSILLVKKVLNFYLFLVNKS Sequence 6: ggagggagatcatcagatcaaagtaataaattcaccaagtacctcaacaccaagcaagca ttggaaaggatcggcatcttgtttgatggggatggaatgaggaatgtggttacccaactc taccaacccaacaaggtgaaaagtggtcaatatcaacaaaataacacctacaacaggtta attgagcctgacaatgcaacaagtgcagcgagcagcatgaccagcttgttaaagctgttg 0: GGRSSDQSNKFTKYLNTKQALERIGILFDGDGMRNVVTQL YQPNKVKSGQYQQNNTYNRLIEPDNATSAASSMTSLLKLL 1: EGDHQIKVINSPSTSTPSKHWKGSASCLMGMEXGMWLPNS TNPTRXKVVNINKITPTTGXLSLTMQQVQRAAXPACXSC 2: REIIRSKXXIHQVPQHQASIGKDRHLVXWGWNEECGYPTL PTQQGEKWSISTKXHLQQVNXAXQCNKCSEQHDQLVKAV And for ease of reference, here's the key for decoding the sequences: Amino Acid | Letter | Corresponding Codons Alanine | A | GCT, GCC, GCA, GCG Arginine | R | CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, AGG Asparagine | N | AAT, AAC Aspartic acid | D | GAT, GAC Cysteine | C | TGT, TGC Glutamic acid | Q | CAA, CAG Glutamine | E | GAA, GAG Glycine | G | GGT, GGC, GGA, GGG Histidine | H | CAT, CAC Isoleucine | I | ATT, ATC, ATA Leucine | L | TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG Lysine | K | AAA, AAG Methionine | M | ATG Phenylalanine | F | TTT, TTC Proline | P | CCT, CCC, CCA, CCG Serine | S | TCT, TCC, TCA, TCG, AGT, AGC Threonine | T | ACT, ACC, ACA, ACG Tryptophan | W | TGG Tyrosine | Y | TAT, TAC Valine | V | GTT, GTC, GTA, GTG (Inapplicable) | X | TAG, TGA, TAAj_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST}

Joseph 34 I agree. See my post regarding The 1000 Genomes project "The 1000 Genomes Project will involve sequencing the genomes of at least a thousand people from around the world." and the Archon X Prize for Genomics “$10 Million to the First Team to Sequence 100 Human Genomes in 10 Days”DLH_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST}

DLH, My point is that in some biological warfare emergency the scientists would have the whole infecting organism to work with. What Patrick did was awesome but just think what could have been accomplished if he had the whole organism to work with.Joseph_{February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PST}

[...] Comments DLH: Joseph 25 Thanks for the clarification and highlighting the importance of direct analysis. [...]Musgrave Addendum to “Intelligent Design Challenge” | Uncommon Descent_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST}

Joseph 25 Thanks for the clarification and highlighting the importance of direct analysis. Appreciate your expertise. By "clues to content" I was inferring from news of volume of terrorist channel "chatter" related to inferring something major was developing. Similarly, encrypted transmissions between financial facilities. This is not direct inference, but gives some higher probability based on past associations. Similarly the use of anonymizers to reroute emails by rerouting to avoid associative detection. Patrick's reference to finding the sequence in the NIH web site states: "This Genbank entry is for the designed molecule". That appears a reliable source for the data and evidence of human design, (without relying on the analysis which identified the watermarks.)DLH_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PST}

Ah well, Patrick, it might have to be retitled: 'OpenLabToEveryoneButIdists 2008' That may have some issues with typesetting the title though ... and that thing about ID. You know, that elephant in the room that no one notices. I hope Musgrave autographs a copy of the book for you!AussieID_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

will he be in ‘OpenLab 2008, the best of Science Blogging’?
Considering the entries that made it into the previous compilation, I kind of doubt that...Patrick_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PST}

I think an important aspect has been sadly neglected in the above responses: Did Patrick win a copy of 'OpenLab 2007, the best of Science Blogging'? IF Patrick did a sterling job at answering this challenge, will he be in 'OpenLab 2008, the best of Science Blogging'? It is all about winning, no? In this case anyway???AussieID_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST}

What will Ian Musgrave send next, letters from the zodiac?godslanguage_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST}

Bob It was Venter himself who employed the concept of intelligent design detection. What're the odds of those watermarks showing up by way of random mutation and natural selection? Just say "close to zero" Bob - don't waste any time trying to figure out precisely how close to zero. Instead envision a courtroom scenario where Venter is accusing someone of stealing his artificial genome. Can the accused plausibly make an argument that the Venter watermarks showed up in a different organism by chance mutations? Would Judge Jones of Dover fame need coaching from the NCSE to make that call? This is funny stuff. It's okay to laugh. DaveScot_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PST}

Can I just ask for a clarification from Patrick - are you claiming that sequences 1, 4, 5, and 6 are all designed (by humans)? And just an observation - you found the sequences by looking for them in the synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium, i.e. you used your knowledge of possible designers. I suspect part of point of the challenge is to see if design detection can be done without using that sort of knowledge. BobBob O'H_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PST}

“When conducting research- ie to determine design or not- the researchers must have a first-hand look at that which is being investigated.”
Yes that would help, but is it “required”? --DLH
I guess you could count on others but do you really want to do that?
e.g., Patrick was able to identify some of the strings based on published information.--DLH
Then he is relying on their expertise. And that is OK as long as that expertise can be trusted. What would have been the case if Patrick hadn't been so smart or the data wasn't published?
In cryptography, even if the message itself cannot be deciphered, tracking the source and destination can show that the strings were intelligently sourced, and give clues to its content. etc.--DLH
One of my areas of expertise is in cryptography. I got to travel around the world providing secure communications to businesses and militaries. But anyways, by tracking the encrypted message you are doing so first-hand. However even knowing its source will not give you any clues to the content. The only way to do that is to ask the sender and hope the answer is truthful or try to decipher the message. All that said I do understand your point. My point is is it is better to do the investigation first-hand or at least get the data from a trusted source. Musgrave isn't a trusted source. Or perhaps he can be trusted to be misleading...Joseph_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PST}

Joseph "When conducting research- ie to determine design or not- the researchers must have a first-hand look at that which is being investigated." Yes that would help, but is it "required"? e.g., Patrick was able to identify some of the strings based on published information. In cryptography, even if the message itself cannot be deciphered, tracking the source and destination can show that the strings were intelligently sourced, and give clues to its content. etc.DLH_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

For us non-latin readers, Kairos #14 Tertium non datur = "there is no third (possibility)". See: Law of the excluded middle. and False dilemmaDLH_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PST}

Something else to ponder- When conducting research- ie to determine design or not- the researchers must have a first-hand look at that which is being investigated. With Ian's "challenge" all we have is what he provided. And we have very good reasons to not accept what he provides- he is a proven anti-ID zealot. It would also be interesting to see how the sequences Ian says are not designed arose via purely stochastic processes.Joseph_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

I take it Musgrave doesn't understand that ID does not stand or fall on his challenges. IF (big if) Ian really wanted to refute ID all he has to do is to demonstrate that stochastic processes can account for living organisms and the IC structures they contain. THAT would be a challenge- for ID to stay unfazed in the light of such data. And great job Patrick!Joseph_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST}

Casey Luskin wrote (13): "Dr. Musgrave might then proclaim that the ID proponent is wrong, when in fact he is the one who is wrong because he assumed from the beginning that no naturally occurring gene sequence was designed. This is something to keep in mind if anyone submits analyses here." Surely the answer, then, is to call him on it. Do the ID analysis, see which sequences drop out as having been designed (whether by human or other agency). If he then says that ID got it wrong, and some of the sequences are natural, respond with the ID results to point out that, in fact, ID predicts that these "natural" sequences were actually designed.Clarence_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

Gentlemen: Well done! The catches that IM chose sequences below 500 bits of information storage capacity, and also went on to implicitly beg the question by assuming that sequences not designed in the recent past by human agents were not created by agents at all, are sadly telling on the level of ID critics. But, we may make an observation or two: 1 --> Absent an argument that the sequences come form an original life form, we are looking at sequences that arguably originated here on earth [and in a highly contingent situation (we are not simply dealing with natural regularities originating in mechanical necessity), the sequences are from origin by design or by chance -- and that could include use of chance or pseudo-chance techniques by intelligent designers; cf my remarks on tumbling dice], so we can identify an Earth life-form probabilistic resources bound, off say a measure of the available number of Carbon atoms on the surface down to the deep crust of the earth. 2 --> That restricted scope of matter would at once shift the balance dramatically in favour of holding that the sequences -- if shown to be biofunctional* -- are (at least in part) designed one and all by some UNSPECIFIED -- agent. ________ * Notice, Professor Musgrave, the relevant conditionalities: I am speaking of detected bio-function as a particular form of specification. 3 --> That leads to the issue highlighted above, that the EF detects design, not specific designER(s). [Ever heard of a coroner's verdict on autopsy that there was murder by an unknown party?] 4 --> I would therefore also observe the following, from my always linked, section A, following from here:
we all intuitively and even routinely accept that: Functionally Specified, Complex Information, FSCI, is a signature of messages originating in intelligent sources. [Compare the text of the challenge -- chance or necessity or agency or a combi of the three?] Thus, if we then try to dismiss the study of such inferences to design as "unscientific," when they may cut across our worldview preferences, we are plainly being grossly inconsistent. Further to this, the common attempt to pre-empt the issue through the attempted secularist redefinition of science as in effect "what can be explained on the premise of evolutionary materialism - i.e. primordial matter-energy joined to cosmological- + chemical- + biological macro- + sociocultural- evolution, AKA 'methodological naturalism'," is itself yet another begging of the linked worldview level questions. For in fact, the issue in the communication situation once an apparent message is in hand is: inference to (a) intelligent -- as opposed to supernatural -- agency [signal] vs. (b) chance-process [noise]. Moreover, at least since Cicero, we have recognised that the presence of functionally specified complexity in such an apparent message helps us make that decision. (Cf. also Meyer's closely related discussion of the demarcation problem here.) More broadly the decision faced once we see an apparent message, is first to decide its source across a trichotomy: (1) chance; (2) natural regularity rooted in mechanical necessity (or as Monod put it in his famous 1970 book, echoing Plato, simply: "necessity"); (3) intelligent agency. These are the three commonly observed causal forces/factors in our world of experience and observation. [Cf technical, peer-reviewed, scientific discussion here. Also, cf. Plato's remark in his The Laws, Bk X, excerpted below.] Each of these forces, clearly, stands at the same basic level as an explanation or cause, and so the proper question is to rule in/out relevant factors at work, not to decide before the fact that one or the other is not admissible as a "real" explanation . . . . Then also, in certain highly important communication situations, the next issue is whether the detected signal comes from (4) a trusted source, or (5) a malicious interloper, or is a matter of (6) unintentional cross-talk. (Consequently, intelligence agencies have a significant and very practical interest in the underlying scientific questions of inference to agency then identification of the agent -- a potential (and arguably, probably actual) major application of the theory of the inference to design.)
5 --> Dr Musgrave's artful design has backfired, especially once additional empirically anchored techniques have helped commenters above to provisionally identify certain of the relevant sequences, and watermarks in them. 6 --> That is the sequences as presented were designed, as a part of a message, intended to discredit the design inference. But the message itself shows how chance, necessity and agency can be combined to form a particular outcome that manifests FSCI, so is per reliable inference, designed as a whole. For, reliably, FSCI is an artifact of agency in action in all cases where we directly know the causal process, and on good statistical thermodynamics-related principles as say are discussed at introductory level in my always linked, APP 1 point 6. 7 --> This wider conclusion is independent of whether or not the particular sequences used were modified in the recent past by human agency or not. The purposeful SELECTION of the sequences and their being embedded in a message is itself a substantiation of the empirically anchored point of the design inference. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PST}

Yes, Mapou, I believe that Musgrave - a fellow Aussie, I'm disappointed to say - did 'design' a trap to "throw eggs in the faces of ID proponents." The question will be, after all the testing of this hypothetical idea, was the egg fresh, hard boiled or rubbery? I hope that there is an element of bounce ... right back at him. Patrick: thank you for employing the rigour of scientific investigation. Your response was candid and quite powerful. I am always quite pleased how so many of the bloggers @ UD are able to use their inherent/earned skills to evaluate the issues. ID continues to bubble along and grow in momentum. Thank you to all who continue to use the tools of science to work scientifically, although the Thumbsmen will of course ignore such obviousness.AussieID_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PST}

Bravo, Patrick. That was an impressive performance. Venter clearly knew his watermarks were inarguably beyond the edge of evolution - their appearance in any organism would prove beyond reasonable doubt that his artificial genome was the source. Without explicit admission Venter applied the principles of ID in the very act of inserting those designed sequences.DaveScot_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PST}

I second Casey Luskin's analysis. Musgrave appears to be assuming that "not produced by a human designer" means "not designed". Unless, of course, all of the given sequences that he knows were "not produced by a human" are simply random. I also agree with Patrick that "design detection does NOT happen in a void; thus the spurious set of directions to determine 'what the designed sequence does' based upon the sequences alone" is an unreasonable constraint. And I personally think Dr. Musgrave is asking too much: a cryptographic technique that can decode some but not all messages may still be a useful tool; and just because I can't spot an intentionally camouflaged soldier in a thickly wooded area - at night - doesn't mean I'm blind.Gerry Rzeppa_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PST}

#17 Casey then it seems the challenge has an inappropriate assumption: namely, that naturally occuring gene sequences were not designed. I agree; the challenge is invalidated from the fact that IM put as a starting assumption what instead is the issue to be solved. However, as I stated in my previous post, IM's challenge can be discarded also in its weaker form of simple discrimination about "natural" (i.e. non human) and "non natural" processeskairos_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PST}

#9 Patrick Excellent post both for the content and for what it implies: that IM's challenge is really pathetic and unfair (but after all what could you expect from a guy with students such as AS ...). I would only focus again our attention to the fact that, in absence of contextual information (and this is just the way it has been stated by his author!), IM's challenge is a ridiculous one. From a computer science point of view the DNA sequence can be compared to sequence of highly compressed information, such as for example MP3 or JPEG sequences. But, in absence of any reliable information about the encoding/decoding algorithms "nature" put in function to use them, simply there's no way to recognize other "non-natural" encoding/decoding algorithms. So, the question is. Did Mr. Musgrave understand this point before throwing his challenge? If the answer is NO I'm sorry to say that the challenge does only prove his deep ignorance about CS problems. But if the answer is YES I'm sorry to say that the challenge does only prove something that is much ethically worse. Tertium non daturkairos_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PST}

Let me first say that I have my doubts that this challenge was issued in good faith. AussieID makes a good point. But let's be charitable and assume for the moment that it was issued in good faith: If I understand Dr. Musgrave's challenge correctly, he is asking you to discriminate between naturally occuring biological gene sequences, and gene sequences that were designed by humans. Dembski's methods of design detection can discriminate between informational patterns that are produced by chance/law, or alternatively were produced by intelligence. When there is real design to be detected, Dembski's methods of design detection can work regardless of whether the designer was human or non-human. But Dr. Musgrave's challenge seems to only allow intelligent design when it is human design. If we assume that Dr. Musgrave's challenge was issued in good faith, then it seems the challenge has an inappropriate assumption: namely, that naturally occuring gene sequences were not designed. Dr. Musgrave may think that the correct "answer" is that only certain sequences were designed, because he knows they were designed by humans. But someone applying rigorous methods of design detection might find that other sequences were designed as well. Dr. Musgrave might then proclaim that the ID proponent is wrong, when in fact he is the one who is wrong because he assumed from the beginning that no naturally occurring gene sequence was designed. This is something to keep in mind if anyone submits analyses here.Casey Luskin_{February 1, 2008
February
02
Feb
1
01
2008
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PST}

AussieD, So what you saying is that it's a trap designed to throw eggs in the faces of ID proponents. Am I reading this right?Mapou_{January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply