“Blown Away” Dan Peterson reviews Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell at The American Spectator

_{Clive Hayden

September 3, 2009

Education, Intelligent Design, Science}

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

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell is reviewed by Dan Peterson in The American Spectator (September 1st, 2009). Here is an excerpt:

“Of the approaches taken by ID theorists, Signature in the Cell is most closely aligned with the pioneering work on design detection published over the last decade by mathematician William Dembski, one of Meyer’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute. Dembski and Meyer both rely, at least in part, on information theory and probabilistic analysis to determine whether a phenomenon is best explained as the product of unguided “chance and necessity,” or of design by an intelligence…

Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.”

Comments

Jerry writes:
All the present phyla fossilized during the Cambrian so it is hard to argue for some mysterious other organism didn’t fossilize. As I said you can believe what you want but it is based on faith and nothing more. Remember there was little diversity in the Cambrian but major disparity. That fact alone argues against a common predecessor
One should be careful calling this a “fact”. The particular view of the Cambrian explosion jerry refers to is coming under more and more scrutiny and criticism as contrary evidence is accumulated and fossils reevaluated:
The impression of an explosion is heightened by a number of fossils with unclear affinities to extant phyla. At first, it was claimed that the Early Cambrian is replete with forms that have no obvious resemblance to extant phyla or even to other ancient groups (Gould 1989). Some species have characters that may place them as ancestral members of extant phyla (Conway Morris and Caron 2007), but controversy exists as to groups such as the halkyerids (Vinther and Nielsen 2005). A well-known taxonomic bias crept into studies of Cambrian and other early animal fossils. When a strange fossil was found, unclassifiable body parts influenced paleontologists to classify such organisms as members of new classes of extant phyla or even new phyla. Thus, a series of descriptions resulted in 21 named classes of the phylum Echinodermata (Levinton 2001). Ironically, this is precisely the opposite of what Gould (1989) argued was the failing of the great paleontologist Walcott, who supposedly tended to ally the strangest of organisms to conventional groups that had already been described. Gould may have been correct about Walcott, but he missed the rest of the picture.With gay abandon,paleontologists were naming early animal taxa and defining them as members of new phyla or classes. In effect, paleontologists are rewarded with recognition for discovering a new taxon when they assign it to a higher level of classification. (Wouldn’t you rather discover a new phylum than a new species of an existing genus?) The trend was accelerated with the second great investigation of the Burgess Shale by Harry Whittington and his colleagues. A weird, spiky, worm-like fossil was whimsically named Hallucigenia and thought to be a taxon unrelated to conventional known phyla (ConwayMorris 1977).Another fossil, previously thought byWalcott to be an annelid,was redescribed as belonging to a new phylum, perhaps related to mollusks (ConwayMorris 1985).This bias forced a notion of an evolutionary lawn, in which numerous unrelated taxa appeared suddenly in the Cambrian (and theOrdovician, in the case of Echinodermata),which fit nicely with Cloud’s (1968) concept of the polyphyletic origin of the animal phyla. Two important breakthroughs changed scientists’ conception of a Cambrian explosion as an evolutionary lawn of strange and unrelated shoots: (1) reexamination of themorphology of these “strange” creatures and (2) reconsideration of these disparate taxa as members of an evolutionary tree, which represents the morphological characters of different groups from the point of view of evolutionary relatedness. Many of the supposed oddball echinoderms, for example, were mistakenly classified as advanced, differentiated forms. Instead, they could be assigned to ancestral locations on an echinoderm evolutionary tree. Thus, the evolutionary lawn of echinoderms was transformed into a far more sensible evolutionary tree (Smith 1984). Second, a reexamination of characters began to show that other “oddballs” were not so strange, after all. The supposedly weird Hallucigenia was shown to be reconstructed upside down. It was unlikely that this worm sat on spikes, which instead projected upward to protect against predators. More deflating was the discovery that Hallucigenia was a mundane member of a larger Cambrian fossil group, the Lobopodia, related to living velvet worms (Ramskøld and Xianguang 1991).The effect was something like being in a dream and seeing a party of weird, colorfully dressed Harry Potter characters, only to wake up and realize that you were looking at your ordinary friends, wearing blue jeans and T-shirts.
Jerry again:
No phyla has a predecessor. If it had a predecessor than variants of this predecessor would have appeared during the Cambrian but they didn’t so the logical conclusion is that they don’t exist.
Again, as more fossils are examined, this absolute statement by jerry is coming under scrutiny:
Although Cloud (1968) systematically discredited nearly all described Precambrian bilaterian fossils, he was unable to discredit an annelid-like fossil found in 700-million- to 900-million-year-old rocks in China (Cloud 1986). Some tantalizing fossils that might be bilaterian have been found in the latter part of the Proterozoic, known as the Ediacaran (Fedonkin andWaggoner 1997), and bilaterian-like embryos have been found in the Ediacaran Doushanto Formation in China (Xiao et al. 1998). None of these can easily be placed on a tree of known bilaterian groups.A possible sister group to the trilobites has been described (Fortey et al. 1996).A large menagerie of fossils was found first in southAustralia (Glaessner andWade 1966) and later worldwide in Ediacaran-aged rocks. These fossils appear to belong to the Cnidaria and other groups of uncertain status. A recently discovered trace-like fossil, claimed to be one billion years old,may belong to a bilateral organism, but not necessarily a bilaterian animal (Bengtson et al. 2007).
Both quotes from: Levinton JS (2008). The Cambrian Explosion: how do we use the evidence? Bioscience 58(9): 855-864 jerry: So the Cambrian as of today is a show stopper for UCD jerry should catch up his reading of the literature on the Cambrian explosion before making such a declaration.Dave Wisker_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

"That is not correct. A string of 1000 As has less Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity than a shorter string of random As, Cs, Gs, and Ts. What definition of “information” are you using?" Since you understand the metrics we are talking about why bring up the question. You know as well as anyone that no one is talking about a string of A's. You answered your own question.jerry_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
We further know that it stores information, and that the elements are four state, the FSCI metric for that would be at the lower end: 200 k functionally specific bits, as 1 4-bit state is 2 bits.
I think of more interest would be a specific coding sequence and a value for FSCI specific to that sequence. Can you provide such? You may of course pick the string youself, the website I linked to has many settings for use when searching for strings. If FSCI can be determined with any degree of accuracy, please demonstrate it. If the best you can do is "at the lower end" type scales, then please indicate that also. Onlookers will also notice Kariosfocus did not address any of my questions regarding where he is getting his knowledge of the fitness landscape for the first replicatior or how complex that first replicator was. I believe his silence speaks volumes to that.Blue Lotus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Jerry#72
How is computing the number of possible nucleotides in a string of the same length of the one under consideration at all relevant to how that DNA strand might have evolved using the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory?
It is an indication of how rare any string is and whether it is possible for it to arise by natural processes or not.
No, it is not. Without taking into account the number of strands of that length that have the same function, related function, or other function entirely, it provides no information about rarity. Without taking into consideration the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory, it provides no information about whether or not those mechanisms could generate it.
The longer the string in the coding region the more information it contains.
That is not correct. A string of 1000 As has less Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity than a shorter string of random As, Cs, Gs, and Ts. What definition of "information" are you using?
The simple formula is a rough way of estimating the number of unique strings that could exist but only a small number of them are actually FSCI.
And how, exactly, are those identified?DeLurker_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
To see FSCI in action as a simple metric, cf here; which was there as a FAQ reference all along – you are objecting without doing homework, BL.
Jerry has indicated that it is trival to determine the FSCI for a coding DNA sequence. As per the previous comments in this thread. Kariosfocus, can you determine the FSCI in a string of coding DNA? Jerry noted
Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string.
Do you agree? I have provided a website where such sequences can be obtained. Please demonstrate for us all how you go about determining the FSCI in such a sequence.Blue Lotus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Jerry#70
Almost all the phyla appeared during the Cambrian. So pick one. No phyla has a predecessor.
You assert this again without evidence. Even if it were true that no pre-Cambrian fossils existed, their absence would not support your case because of the rarity of fossilization of soft tissues. The shells of the Cambrian organisms preserve better. There are, however, pre-Cambrian fossils. You can simply Google the term or look up "Ediacaran fossils" and follow the links from those sites. Finally, the fossil evidence is only part of the support for UCD. I invite you again to check out the evidence for common descent, paying special attention to the molecular evidence of ubiquitous genes.DeLurker_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

PS: Something with under 500 - 1,000 functionally specif bits would not fall within the FSCI threshold here. [Onlookers, again, a click away.]kairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (and BL):; To see FSCI in action as a simple metric, cf here; which was there as a FAQ reference all along - you are objecting without doing homework, BL. (Using a familiar red school house analogy: To the back of the class and stand in the corner wearing the old fashioned, dunce cap!) To see the more sophisticated metrics, cf here in the correctives -- and here from the peer reviewed literature on FSC, with the table of 35 values here. And to see the CSI metric cf here. Also, the first of these gives an actual calculation, for a screenful of information like the screen in front of you -- well, older tech. (What would happen to the screen's functionality if you were to inject more and more random noise?) For a DNA stand of 100+ k, we see that the strand is functional from its locus in an observed life form. We further know that it stores information, and that the elements are four state, the FSCI metric for that would be at the lower end: 200 k functionally specific bits, as 1 4-bit state is 2 bits. Such specifies a config space of ~ 1.148*10^602 cells. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
Substantial issues that address major matters of worldview and the path of our civlisation also need to be aired in the public, so that the ordinary man of good common sense can see for himself what the true balance is on the merits.
Quite right. The key word is "also". These substantial issues need to be aired both in venues where the technicial skill is available to assess them on a technicial level and at a level where the ordinary man of good common sense can see for themselves the merits of the case. The trouble is KF that you have concentrated on the man in the street and neglected to make your case at the higher technicial level. You cannot simply concentrate at the lay persons level and somehow expect your ideas to make it to the scientific level on their own. You have to work at it. Persuade. Convince with data. Results.
This becomes doubly important when Lewontinian imposed materialism is a censoring constraint on the relevant fields of science, and where that censorship extends to locking out of journal access and to unjustified career busting.
Atom made a similar claim that papers are being locked out of journals simply because they support ID. So, I ask you KF, what journal access has been restricted and for whom? You made the claim, now please back it up or retract it. What paper, what journal rejected it? On Weasel I asked "Such as why Dawkins’ Weasel and Dembski/Marks “Weasel” have totally different outputs, population sizes but are somehow magically “the same” nonetheless." Your response
I refer the reader there, as well as to the appendix 7 the always linked, which has comprehensively addressed the matter of the Weasel program c. 1986, since April.
Contains much ado about nothing. Nowhere is my question answered. Many questions I did not ask are answered. It's a simple device you use many times, say "the answer to your question is buried somewhere in this link" and you can appear to have addressed the issue. If you have the answer to why the two outputs look so different from the "same" program then please simply copy and paste it into this thread. Your device of claiming to have answered the question over and over fools nobody. If you have answered the question paste the answer here.
And, lamentably, if BL and others cannot be trusted to be fair or accurate on matters of such immediate access and direct observation
Throwing the first stone are we?
DNA is most credibly an ART-ifact of intelligence.
It's nice that you believe that. Now, if you can leave the man in the street level for a moment and push that viewpoint in the scientific arena with supporting evidence then perhaps you might get somewhere. I then asked "an you put a number on this “staggering quantity” of information or do you “just know” it’s there." You replied:
DNA for living organisms starts at 100,000+ 4-state bases. Moving to unicellular organisms capable of independent existence, we look at 300 – 500 k bases. 9the lower end being set by knockout studies, below which autodestruction of life occurs.) That DNA contains functional code-bearing information encoded as strings of amino acids [A/G/C/T] has been well known since the 1950’s – 70’s.
I'll take that as a "No, I can't put a number on it so here are some distractions from that fact". I then asked you what was happening when the "sampling" you speak of happens
The point of ’sampling” is that the cluster of 106150 states involved is a sample of the possible configs of the 10^80 atoms of our cosmos under all relevant conditions. that number is of course vastly more than 10^150.
Hundreds of words, but you could not say what is happenin when the sampling is taking place. I then asked you to define your “arbitrary initial conditions” and to define “shores of islands of function”
Of course the arbitrariness of initial conditions is a way of saying that nature per the relevant models is not purposefully directed to initial conditions.
It might be a way of saying that, but unless you provide a map then that's simply meaningless. The fact is you have no idea what those initial conditions were.
Similarly, shores of initial functionality for FSCI bearing entities will have the characteristic that they exhibit complex organisation to function, requiring at least 500 – 1,000 bits of information storage capacity;
You have no idea that that is the case. You have no idea what the first replicator consisted of. You have no idea how many "bits" of FSCI it had. You simply have no idea but make these claims as if you know.
That is, we have an architecture of islands of function if a functional information based entity is such that modest injection of random characters will soon destroy function.
And because you have no idea about the configuration of the inital replication it follows you have no idea about the architecture of islands of function either. If you did, then draw a map. Show some data on these initial conditions. Explain how you determined that.
think about what would happen if your hard disk were to be subjected to random injection of bits. In the case of DNA, our fear of mutation inducing radiation etc shows what we know intuitively about this.
And yet hard drives do not reproduce. If hard drives reproduced sexually they would probably not be so scared of random bits.
Shores of such islands of function occur when we see initial function suitable for improvement through the various hill-climbing algorithms.
That like saying water is wet. It does not move us on. You have no idea of the configuration of such islands of function.
my point on isolated islands of function in large config spaces is that undirected search strategies at the threshold of 1,000 or so bits, becomes implausible as a search strategy to get to initial functionality. for, 1 in 10^150 of the configurations is not effectively different from zero.
How many times does it have to be said? You have no idea what "initial functionality" means and yet confidently claim it's impossible. How do you know?
On origin of life proper, the first point is that our speculations should be confined to the base in evidence, if they are to be properly scientific.
What scientific evidence do you have for any sort of intelligent designer other then the (you claim) extreme odds against a natural OOL? Please try and answer the question asked here, not the one you wanted to answer.
And,t eh observed cases of life begin at about 100,000+ bases.
Yes, the observed cases. Do you think that the initial replicator will still be around after all this time? You have no idea about the configuration of the first replicator. Yet you make claims as if you know.
Of course, you are welcome to demonstrate that this has been done empirically.
Whereas you are more then welcome to demonstrate your claims regarding the first replicator and the arrangment of the fitness landscape at that point. Except you won't because you can't.
Also, as just pointed out, the issue is NOT a probability estimate, but a cosmos-scale search resources challenge.
You don't know what you are searching for so how can you determine the probability of it?
The reason why a tornado in a junkyard is unlikely to assemble a flyable Jumbo Jet is that the number of unflyable configs so vastly outnumber the flyable ones that the search resources of your tornado are predictably exhausted fruitlessly.
If you are searching the space randomly that is true. If you start from a config that flys and then breed the configs and favour the ones more like a 747 who knows what would happen? You example fails, as the Watch on the Heath example fails, because watches and 747s do not reproduce sexually.
What I and others have done is taken the “fitness landscape model” beloved of genetic Algorithm creators, and have set it in the wider context of a large configuration space, where the functionality is in specific regions amenable to hill climbing, but the relevant regions are surrounded by a flooding sea of non-function — and the islands of function are vastly less than 1% of the space.
And you've done this despite knowing nothing about conditions when OOL happened, despite knowing nothing about that first replicator. Yet you've alraedy drawn up the map that proves that a natural OOL is impossible. Why don't you write it all up and send it to Nature? If you've proven it then you can expect your Nobel in the post!
isolating the number of states accessible to our observed universe to1 in 10^150 or so of the possible configs. That is, the whole observed universe viewed as a search fot FSCI such as is found in life, will if undirected intelligently be a search not credibly different from zero.
And again, it's only you that views these sorts of searches as randomly exploring these sorts of spaces.
Such complex functional information is vulnerable to modest perturbation as can be seen by the experiment of randomly changing the bits in such a string of bits. After a rather short while as a rule the previously functional information will be corrupted.
Could you give an example of this? Take some complex functional information, determine the FSCI in it, randomly perturb it and then determine the FSCI in. Then we can see for ourselves how the value of FSCI changes and by how much.
On the merits, the issue is that once we know we face islands of function in large config spaces, the search resources of the observed cosmos will be vastly inadequate to perform more than an effectively zero scope search relative to the complexity of functional organisation required.
Except you've proven no such thing.
if he does so now, he will immediately find that unless we are beyond the threshold of 500 – 1,000 bits, FSCI does not come into the picture as a relevant consideration.
So I take it 500 is the smallest FSCI that an object can have? Could you give me an example of something with 499 FSCI? And explain why that is not designed and something with 1 more FSCI is?
BL needs to apologies for making willfully false accusations that he could easily have seen were not true, has he simply cared to check either the WACs or the always linked, much less discussions in other threads.
Yes yes, if you have then answer in your "always linked" the reproduce it here. Directing people to read entire websites because you can't be bothered to back up a claim you make is just not on.Blue Lotus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Jerry
So the information to produce these is immense and can be estimated by the formula I gave.
Do you have a worked example of the formula, or are you leaving the work of to somebody else?Blue Lotus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry I asked you about FSCI and you said
It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins.
I then asked you to give an example of how to determine the value for FSCI and you said
Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string.
I then noted that in fact I was looking for a worked example, not an explanation about how to calculate it. As you are claiming that a value for FSCI is easy to determine,not me, it's obviously you that should provide the proof. Yet you now say
I suggest you read a biology book about the transcription and translation process. Any good one will do as most cover it in detail.
When clearly that biology book will not have a word about FSCI so I don't know why you are saying to do that. It's either easy or it's not. If it's easy then please provide a worked example or retract your claim. If FSCI "is easy to measure" then I have provided you a link where DNA sequences can be obtained and it should be no trouble for you to do what you claim "is easy". I can think of only one reason why you would not simply provide a worked example after claiming that such measurements are "easy".Blue Lotus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

16] 37, It’s invalid. You do not define with rigour any of your terms and so it’s impossible to answer such claims scientifically. I suggest BL needs to look at the Glossary above before so confidently asserting that questions are being used without ~~rigorous~~ [adequate] definition. It would also help BL to realise that here is no generally accepted air-tight definition of things like: life, species, energy, matter, time or even nature and science itself in the sciences. Worse, definitions raise further terms and easily end in futile infinite regresses or circles, So, we first define by example then find adequate descriptions for use in practical work. An that has been done for the terms at issue. And, to disprove the claim that FSCI is the known product of intelligence all that would be required is to produce a case where say 143 ASCII characters worth of coherent and contextually responsive English text were credibly and observably produced by chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction. The actual fact is, there are no such empirical counter instances, and BL knows that; so, the actual objection is a diversion from the abundantly confirmed -- and Internet full of instances is exhibit no 1 -- fact that FSCI is an empirically reliable marker of intelligent design. As to the consequences thereof, given the establishment of evolutionary materialist methodological naturalism over institutional science in recent decades, the impact of FSCI and related markers of intelligence on science would be revolutionary. Indeed, that is precisely why they are being so stoutly resisted by the materialist establishment, using "any means necessary," fair or foul. 17] 37, Tell me, if these ideological and philosphical agendas are so offensive to you then why don’t you pull your finger out and publish the work which you say proves a designer was required for life. As to the peer reviewed publications issue, despite resistance by any means deemed necessary by the materialist establishment, these are mounting up paper by paper, and I have already given a review by Abel. 18] 37, Your FSCI work proves this, you claim. Scientific work is about provisional warrant not proof. As was logn since pointed out. 19] 37, If Dembski said it, it’s true. Onlookers, simply examine the appendix here. I am not appealing blindly to authority, but am looking at the issue on the merits. But, it is a convenient rhetorical idea hitman technique to use motive-mongering slander like that. And of course I have taken up the more recent points step by step in the Contest 10 thread, as already linked. 20] 37, you get to claim that Weasel latches “explicitly” (code) or “implicitly” (how it works) so you can have it both ways and not be wrong whatever way round you want to play it. In fact, I have set out to account for a particular pattern of evidence -- showcased o/p Weasel 1986 and have shown through actual demonstration runs that it can be accounted for on mechanism that latch and ratchet explicitly and implicitly. I have ALSO accounted for cases where there will be occasional slips as the population and mutation rate parameters move, AND for the disappearance of any semblance of ratcheting. But that5 doe snot fit the convenient ad hominem laced strawman mischaracterisation. 21] 39, It’s the other way around you see. The “ID” challenge has been found wanting already. It’s up to your side to show the evidence. Write the papers. Do the lab work. That work has been done at the first crucial level, and is increasingly in the peer reviewed literature, all the censorship efforts to lock it out notwithstanding. As BL et al at Evo Info -- he is now clearly a representative of that site -- know or should know. 22] 52, If this paper is peer reviewed and that gives it something worth considering, why are the tens of thousands of other peer reviewed papers that say things you don’t agree with not worth considering? In short, it's not about issues on the merits, it's about the continued dominance of the evolutionary materialist establishment. BL previously demanded peer reviewed work, and would not consider anything till it met that threshold. I supplied a case in point, not only of one paper, but a review on a programme of publications over several years, which have set the concept of functional sequence complexity and associated concepts in the professional literature, compete with published values for 35 protein families. So, the next objection is trotted out -- the combined authority of the establishment [so the various accusations over blindly adhering to Hoyle and Dembski were just turnabout false accusations after all . . . ] -- so not even peer reviewed papers will be considered on the merits. 23] 52, Of course “information” is present in living beings. DNA is digital after all. And you can remove the quote marks from “information” when you define in what way you are measuring and using that “information”. But proving that an intelligent designer was required for the origin of life, that life dragged itself up thos shores you keep going on about? Not so much. BL knows that DNA is complex, code-bearing, functional digital information, manifesting both instructions ands data structures relevant to those instructions. And, he knows that it is quite complex, of scope 100, 000+ bits for observed life forms. He has no empirically demonstrated evidence that such could originate by blind chance and necessity, but wishes to insist on such as the default assumption; inthe teeth of massive evidence that the known -- and only known, and only plausible -- source of such massive FSCI is purposeful intelligence: algorithms, language, code, instructions, data, and complex integrated function in the context of a Von Neumann self-replicator are all here. So, to hold on to what would otherwise be plainly an inferior explanation, he imposes the arbitrary and unjustified standard of proof that something is REQUIRED, knowing that science does not and cannot -- as a matter that deals with empirical fact -- rise to that standard. This is a manifest case of selective hyperskepticism. 24] who are these non-scientists you want to start doing science KF? What are they going to do? Spend a few years at university learning how to be a scientist then become scientists? What if they say the exact same things that the scientists are saying now that you don’t like? What then? Will you change you mind? Strawman again. In fact, since matters of science -- especially origins science -- are of general interest and since there is a manifest issue of imposition of ideology on institutional science, matters of science and science institutions funded by the public, as well as science education funded by the same public through taxation, are legitimate issues for public discussion on the merits. Nor are the key issues at stake so technical that the ordinary unprejudiced mind cannot grasp their essence. Just the opposite -- as the concept of FSCI illustrates. And, the ordinary man can also spot the sort of idea hitman rhetorical game and imposition of materialist censorship and control that are going on too. Most of all, i suspect strongly that the average man can understand the significance of the following line of argument that is highly relevant to the imposition of a priori materialism in the name of science, not only on science but education and policy generally: ____________ >> . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies. "Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home. Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history," one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit one's preferences. Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable — for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the death camp. In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real world . . . >> ____________ We could go on and on, onlookers, but the above is enough to substantially address the matters at stake. GEM of TKI PS; those interested in issues over Weasel should cf the remarks from here yesterday.kairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

8] you define B) as “the simplest living organism” but you simply do know know what the first replicator was at that first “shore of function”. So your claim is invalid because you simply do not know enougth about the starting conditions to say anything about probabilities. As a matter of fact, no: shorelines of function can relate to computer code, ASCII text based sentences in English, or even electronic or electro-mechanical or mechatronic systems that we are trying to debug and get to initially work. When it comes to the issue of probability -- and yes, I know it is now a common talking point to pretend that well tested means for estimating probability suddenly are deemed inapplicable to OOL as the results are inconvenient to the evolutionary materialist mythology of origins [i.e we are seeing worldview motivated selective hyperskepticism here] -- this is misdirected. my point on isolated islands of function in large config spaces is that undirected search strategies at the threshold of 1,000 or so bits, becomes implausible as a search strategy to get to initial functionality. for, 1 in 10^150 of the configurations is not effectively different from zero. On origin of life proper, the first point is that our speculations should be confined to the base in evidence, if they are to be properly scientific. And,t eh observed cases of life begin at about 100,000+ bases. but also, we know that self-replicating metabolic life shows a Von Neumann replicator in action: stored blueprint, code and code reader, effector machines to build a replica of the original. As any microcontroller designer can tell you, it is simply not reasonable to expect the functional information to do that to fit inside of 1,000 bits, or about 150 bytes. Of course, you are welcome to demonstrate that this has been done empirically. 9] 36, Is your “almost certainly” 1 in 10^150? I have cited Peterson, sumarising Meyer; it would be appreciated if you, BL, would avoid unnecessary personalisation. Also, as just pointed out, the issue is NOT a probability estimate, but a cosmos-scale search resources challenge. 10] 36, citing Wikipedia: These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events . . . Not at all. Probability is not even on the table, exhaustion of search capacity of chance and necessity is. (And that is the underlying material point in Hoyle's challenge, which --assertions [in Wikipedia!] to the contrary notwithstanding -- is not really a fallacy at all. The reason why a tornado in a junkyard is unlikely to assemble a flyable Jumbo Jet is that the number of unflyable configs so vastly outnumber the flyable ones that the search resources of your tornado are predictably exhausted fruitlessly.) And, on probability issues, you may find it instructive to consult the issues raised by Schutzenberger et al since Wistar in 1966. 11] 36, no need to address any of the points above, just simply repeat “Hoyle got a Nobel or similar”. Plainly BL has failed to read App 1 the always linked on the thermodynamics issues, and in particular the just linked section on Hoyle's valid point. Onlookers, you will easily see that he discussion there is not an appeal to authority -- itself a strawman distortion of what I said in the contest 10 thread [I pointed out how the ERRORS of a significant scientist like Hoyle can be highly instructive, citing his Steady State Universe Hyp; a blind appeal to authority is hardly one that speaks of learning form the errors made by eminent scientists!] -- but an argument ont eh merits. 12] 37, If you had a planet made up of 99% land and 1% water, but the water was arranged in such a way that it divided up the land into many “islands” your description would describe that situation just as well. Strawman. What I and others have done is taken the "fitness landscape model" beloved of genetic Algorithm creators, and have set it in the wider context of a large configuration space, where the functionality is in specific regions amenable to hill climbing, but the relevant regions are surrounded by a flooding sea of non-function -- and the islands of function are vastly less than 1% of the space. Notice, the relevant threshold degree of complexity for FSCI as we have presented it at UD starts at a threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits information-carrying capacity used. 1,000 bits corresponds to 10^301 configs, isolating the number of states accessible to our observed universe to1 in 10^150 or so of the possible configs. That is, the whole observed universe viewed as a search fot FSCI such as is found in life, will if undirected intelligently be a search not credibly different from zero. 13] 37, Define what you mean by “code based complex function” ? Define and give an example of a “modest pertubation”? Functionally specific complex information in the context of digital codes relates to cases like ASCII text and Computer programs where we have at least 1,000 or so bits of stored information. this is about 18 - 20 words of "typical" English text, or a similar number of words in a programming language. Such complex functional information is vulnerable to modest perturbation as can be seen by the experiment of randomly changing the bits in such a string of bits. After a rather short while as a rule the previously functional information will be corrupted. That is why such precautions ae taken to prtect memories, hard drives and telecomms links. And in the case of DNA, elaborate correction and repair subsystems are incorporated. 14] 37, you’ve simply no way of knowing not only what the shape and size of the islands were but no way of knowing the number and arrangement. I will ignore the implication of dishonesty on my part in the immediate context of the excerpt, apart form noting that such is inappropriate and unwarranted. (You have assumed and projected dishonesty on strawman mischaracterisations, BL. That's not cricket.) On the merits, the issue is that once we know we face islands of function in large config spaces, the search resources of the observed cosmos will be vastly inadequate to perform more than an effectively zero scope search relative to the complexity of functional organisation required. So, on knowing that FSCI is normally found in isolated islands [on the very nature of the specificity of coded instructions!], and that the search resources of the cosmos are hopelessly inadequate, we find it unsurprising to see that there is only one known source of FSCI -- a routinely observed -- thus empirically well warranted -- source. Namely, intelligent design. 15] 37, So tell me KF, what is the smallest amount of FSCI a thing can have? Please, again, don’t trouble yourself to answer these questions. I believe onlookers by now realise they are only asked to highlight the lengths you’ll go to to avoid address issues as you prefer simply to ignore difficult questions and repeat over and over the same shallow arguments. Plainly, BL has not troubled to simply read WAC 28 [or this appendix and this preliminary discussion in Section A my always linked], of which I am a co-author, and which discusses FSCI in its context an the onward more technical forms of complex specified information. if he does so now, he will immediately find that unless we are beyond the threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits, FSCI does not come into the picture as a relevant consideration. And, similarly, if something is not functionally specific -- i.e in an island of function context -- it similarly does not apply. (E.g. a sand pile or a granite rock is complex but not specific. the ASCII text for this paragraph is functional complex, specific and beyond the 1,000 bit threshold. Does BL find it credible to infer that this paragraph could reasonably have originated by random pecking at a keyboard covered in birdseed, or the like?) I also excerpt the immediately following -- now often repeated, Big lie style -- false accusation about my alleged evasion of difficult issues, as it needs to be pointed out just how strawman distortions are being used to support ad hominem demonisations, and dismissals, filling the atmosphere of discussion with incivility. this nees=ds to stop,a nd BL needs to apologies for making willfully false accusations that he could easily have seen were not true, has he simply cared to check either the WACs or the always linked, much less discussions in other threads. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

3] 36, Great way to divert the conversation. Great way to get the subject back onto safe ground for you. [This, in reference to my: going back to the excerpt from the Dan Peterson review, let’s refocus on the issue on the merits (which then led up tot he cited paragraph above).] This is a turnabout accusation: in effect, you are "diverting" us back to the original matter for the thread. In fact, the focus of this thread,as can be easily seen from the original post, is the Dan Peterson review, and its key point. I sought to refocus on the key issue as set by the OP on the merits, by spotlighting a money quote paragraph. 4] 36, Is that science then? “Almost certainly”? So there’s some doubt is there? Not 100% sure are you? That’s odd, because I thought you were touting this book as some kind of proof. Of course, as shown in outline above, scientific warrant is not and cannot reasonably be about proof in the demonstrative sense. Instead, especially on matters of origins, we deal with inference to best current explanation, which works in the opposite sense to the logic of demonstration: <blockquote.(i) in science, we find possible explanations E1, E2, E3 etc for a set of credible facts F1, F2, . . . Fn. On adequacy to the facts, cfoherence and comparative explanatory power, we accept the best current explanation provisionally, and remain open to correction and growth. (ii) in demonstrations, we work from accepted facts or axioms, and logically infer consequences drawing conclusions warranted by logical implication of the accepted premises. But, such premises in turn face the challenge of warrant, and possible infinite regress or circularity. So, we in the end all have first plausibles accepted as credible, but subject to challenge. Hence the significance of the philosophical method of worldview analysis through comparative difficulties. (This, I applied to Lewontinian materialism above.) Secondly, as already discussed, scientific work is provisional, so indeed, Meyer -- professionally knowledgeable in the Philosophy of Science -- is being duly careful and balanced. In that context, the issue of inference to best causal explanation is relevant: a --> It is observed that phenomena that occur tend to show patterns of low or high contingency. in the former case, under similar initial circumstances, outcomes will be highly consistent. In the latter, they will be significantly diverse. (For instance, contrast how a heavy object reliably falls if unsupported, vs, how, if it is a die, the uppermost face when it settles down is highly diverse.) b --> Where we see low contingency, we normally explain by regularities of nature [i.e. natural laws] tracing to forces of mechanical necessity. (Gravity makes unsupported heavy objects fall.) c --> Where high contingency is a factor, we see that it may be credibly undirected and more or less stochastic up to some probability distribution or other, or it may be credibly purposefully directed. ( A fair vs a loaded die.) d --> In the case of credibly undirected contingency, we infer to chance. e --> Where we see patters reflecting purposeful organisation of outcomes, and/or generally observed, empirically reliable markers of intelligent action, we infer to design. f --> At issue in the Peterson cite, is the claim that functionally specific, complex coded digital information such as in DNA is reflective of such a marker of intelligent action. g --> In support of that inference on best explanation, Peterson summarises Meyer: the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind. h --> the "almost certainly" part has to do with the implied configuration space of such DNA strands, which starts in observed organisms at about 100,000+ base pairs, capable of storing 200 k bits. But 200 k bits can specify 2^ 200,000 ~ 9.98 *10^60,205 distinct configurations. i --> Across its thermodynamically credible lifespan, the 10^80 or so atoms of our observed cosmos will go through ~ 10^150 states. That is, viewing the universe as generating environments that could allow DNA to emerge through undirected contingencies in still warm ponds and the like, and giving the most generous upper limit tot he proportion of relevant atoms, the observed universe would not across its lifespan go through an appreciable fraction of the relevant states to make stumbling across a functional DNA molecule by chance + necessity plausible. j --> But, in an information age, it is routine to see code-bearing functionally specific organised digital entities that are of that order of complexity; all known to be created by intelligent designers. k --> So on -- yes, provisional, just as Newtonian Dynamics was and Relativity is today -- inference to best explanation, DNA is most credibly an ART-ifact of intelligence. (But, that inference tends to trigger ideological explosions, as such may "allow a Divine Foot in the door." however, ideological "correctness" and warrant towards credible truth are not measured on the same scale of reference.) Third, I am not touting a book -- and ad hominem laced dismissive reference -- but am inviting discussion of a key issue on the merits. 5] 36, can you put a number on this “staggering quantity” of information or do you “just know” it’s there. DNA for living organisms starts at 100,000+ 4-state bases. Moving to unicellular organisms capable of independent existence, we look at 300 - 500 k bases. 9the lower end being set by knockout studies, below which autodestruction of life occurs.) That DNA contains functional code-bearing information encoded as strings of amino acids [A/G/C/T] has been well known since the 1950's - 70's. 6] 36, when the observed cosmos is “sampling” the configs what is it doing? What process is going on when this “sampling” is happening? The observed universe is generally seen as credibly originating in a high-energy singularity AKA the big bang, some 13.72 BYA. Subsequent to that event, matter condensed from energy, and atom formation led tot he creation of galaxies and the first generation of stars [Population II -- esp reflected today in globular clusters], which through successive fusion of heavier elements, cooked the heavier elements required for terrestrial planet formation and which serves as the material base for cell based life. (Satellites orbiting gas giant planets and Oort Cloud cometary forming regions are also relevant environments.) The physics of a cosmos well-fitted to the formation of such environments that are potentially life habitable, and further habitable for intelligent beings such as we are, is extraordinarily fine-tuned, as is briefly discussed in my always linked. (So, onlooker, it is sadly evident that BL has not even done the basic courtesy of checking out what I have accessible always one click away before commenting adversely in the most contemptuous tone. That should be borne in mind in evaluating what is going on. FYI BL, contrary to Mr Dawkins' notorious remarks, those of us who do not agree with evolutionary materialism are not all ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.) The estimate of 10^150 atomic states swept through by our observed cosmos across its estimated lifespan, approximates the sequence of states of 10^80 atoms, for 10^25 s, at a Planck time per state, 10^- 43s. To date, the observed cosmos has on the above timeline gone through about 4.3 * 10^17 s, i.e. ~ 1 in 50 millionth of the lifespan in view. The relevant states embrace the dynamical sequence of atom formation, galaxy and star formation in multiple generations, and formation of planetary systems with potential OOL sites of various kinds per the many relevant models. Onward, it would embrace any origins of life and of novel body plans thereof etc. (Indeed, it embraces the atoms of your body and the computer in front of you looking at the screen.) The point of 'sampling" is that the cluster of 106150 states involved is a sample of the possible configs of the 10^80 atoms of our cosmos under all relevant conditions. that number is of course vastly more than 10^150. But, as a result of the limit of the number of states that will be swept through in actuality, functional configurations that are isolated in potential state spaces that are well beyond 10^150 will be increasingly implausible to result form blind forces of necessity and/or chance. (As already noted, such are routinely observed to result from intelligent action.) 7] 36, A) Define “arbitrary initial conditions” B) Define “shores of islands of function” Of course the arbitrariness of initial conditions is a way of saying that nature per the relevant models is not purposefully directed to initial conditions. Similarly, shores of initial functionality for FSCI bearing entities will have the characteristic that they exhibit complex organisation to function, requiring at least 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity; while being vulnerable to modest perturbation. That is, we have an architecture of islands of function if a functional information based entity is such that modest injection of random characters will soon destroy function. (This is in fact a commonly observed characteristic:think about what would happen if your hard disk were to be subjected to random injection of bits. In the case of DNA, our fear of mutation inducing radiation etc shows what we know intuitively about this.) Shores of such islands of function occur when we see initial function suitable for improvement through the various hill-climbing algorithms. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (And Blue Lotus et al): In Parliamentary procedure, it is a key convention to direct one's remarks to the Speaker or Chairman, in major part as this allows the defusing of overheated interaction. There being no designated Chair here, I will speak to the onlooker, by way of focussing on objective matters. Having noted on the convention, it is first of all vital to refocus the issue at stake, and address the linked question of epistemological warrant in a scientific context, if we are to avert the unfortunate tendency of Darwinists to divert discussion of issues connected to intelligent design through distraction (red herrings) led out to misrepresentations (strawmen) and mischaracterisations (ad hominems) -- often compounded by resort to blaming the victim tactics [and, that is what I have highlighted in the parallel thread, which so irks the Darwinists -- they know the easy way to resolve the matter: return to civility]; turning the matter into personalities and polarisation, and undermining civility, a key protection for freedom of expression and thought. Now, the key matter at stake is the following excerpted summary from Dan Peterson's recent Am Spec review of Mr Meyer's recent Signature int eh Cell, which summarises a key ID pattern of thought on matters tied to biologically functional information: ___________ >> In Signature in the Cell Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind.>> ___________ I have elaborated this to the first level through a string of seven questions and in-brief notes, in 33 above, and those needing background on key terms may make reference to the UD glossary of key ID terms above. To resolve misconceptions unfortunately circulated far and wide through Darwinist strawman tactics championed by groups such as the NCSE and ACLU etc, please see the UD Weak Argument Correctives above as well. And, to see my own thought pattern on design, I refer the reader to the always linked through my handle (which has in it a hot table of contents that is a quick pointer to key matters). The remaining preliminary is the matter of epistemological warrant with particular reference to science (and linked mathematics). A good place to begin in this context, is with the now notorious remarks in a 1997 NYRB review by Mr Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . .
A few observations, which will naturally front-load the first comments by BL -- and it is noted that there is considerable repetition in the objections being made: 1 --> Lewontin here appeals to the goal of truth in knowledge ["correct view"], asserts the importance of logic and linked common sense ["reasonable test"] in that process, and imagines that "science [is] the only begetter of truth." 2 --> But, at once, this claim is reduced to absurdity. For, the claim that science is the "only begetter of truth" is not a SCIENTIFIC claim, but a philosophical one, and in its defence, L. has appealed to the value of truth and the role of reasoning, i.e. of logic. All of these claims fall under a different Department from science: philosophy and particularly epistemology, the critical study of knowledge and its justification. 3 --> That is, on the basic principles of the test of reason, L's claims are immediately self-referential and self-destructive by being self contradictory. Which means that his evolutionary materialism at once joins the class of views he would assign to the epistemological dustbin. 4 --> So, it would be wise instead to recognise that we have generally accepted common-sense derived principles of reasoning towards the goal of well warranted, credibly true belief," i.e. knowledge in its usual sense. Further to this, as scientific work requires resort to these tools of warrant, at once it is clear that here is no unique trademarkable "Scientific Method" that turns science into "the only begetter of truth." For, scientific methods overlap with those of many fields of serious investigation and discourse towards the truth. (This is in fact the consensus view of the field of study known as Philosophy of Science: there is no hard and fast demarcation line between science and non-science. And it is this province of philosophy which is the true locus of expertise on the warrant for scientific claims, a field that in our day all too many scientists -- including eminent ones -- are woefully ill-instructed on.) 5 --> Within that context, we observe a further challenge in L's thought: the imposition ["we are forced by our a priori adherence"] of evolutionary materialism as an external -- and in effect ideologically prejudicial ["a priori"] -- constraint on scientific inquiry. but surely, science at its best is the unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on experiment, reasoned analysis and discussion among the informed," leading to a growing body of empirically tested, more or less reliable body of provisionally known facts and theoretical models that are the fruit of an open-ended, open minded process of inquiry. 6 --> In that context, the recent imposition of "material causes" a priori -- AKA "methodological naturalism" -- means that when it is inconvenient to evolutionary materialism to do otherwise, the arbitrary constraint is imposed that only causes tracing to chance and mechanical necessity will be permitted in scientific discourse "no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." 7 --> That is, a well-known causal factor: intelligent action, is being a priori excluded as it might just "allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . " 8 --> Nor is this error a mere personal idiosyncrasy. Mr Lewontin is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and not only have they not corrected him for such errors, but they have imposed the same pattern of thought themselves in significant contexts and official publications, as we may see here. 9 --> A major context for these errors is of course origins science, including biological origins science. So, if we are to make progress on the issues addressed in the cited paragraph from the Peterson review, we must recognise the ideological conflict that is at work, and must not fall into the just highlighted errors. Also, since the remarks at issue are taken form a fairly large corpus of comments, I will address what seem to me on inspection to be pivotal excerpts (and since I have addressed a broad range of issues connected to the design controversy in a fair degree of details, with colleagues on the weak argument correctives and for myself in the always linked, I take it that the Onlooker will understand the injustice of the opening shot accusation by BL that I evade inconvenient points). Unfortunately, a bit of bush clearing will be necessary at the outset as BL prefaced his remarks with a considerable body of highly mischaracterising personalities: 1] BL, 36: Substantial issues need to be raised in substantial venues. Venues where people who are experts in the field can comment and help revise the work. Substantial issues that address major matters of worldview and the path of our civlisation also need to be aired in the public, so that the ordinary man of good common sense can see for himself what the true balance is on the merits. This becomes doubly important when Lewontinian imposed materialism is a censoring constraint on the relevant fields of science, and where that censorship extends to locking out of journal access and to unjustified career busting. 2] 36, Such as why Dawkins’ Weasel and Dembski/Marks “Weasel” have totally different outputs, population sizes but are somehow magically “the same” nonetheless. This is unfortunately an idea hitman turnabout accusation, ad hominem laced, strawman mischaracterisation based talking point intended to discredit M & D's analysis of Weasel as a search that per the showcased 1986 results and associated commentary showed ratcheting-latching behaviour, which I have most recently addressed in the appropriate thread -- for the umpteenth time -- here. I refer the reader there, as well as to the appendix 7 the always linked, which has comprehensively addressed the matter of the Weasel program c. 1986, since April. (And, lamentably, if BL and others cannot be trusted to be fair or accurate on matters of such immediate access and direct observation, that speaks sad volumes on matters that are as remote in time and space -- unobserved and essentially unobservable as a result -- as the origins of the cosmos and life in it.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

So aqccording to jerry in #72, the information in a string of aa's - a protein - can be calculated and it is more or les directly related to the number of aa's in that protein. But only a small number of the possible strings of thtat particular length contain FCSI, which is hard to calculate. So, in effect, neither jerry (nor anyone else) knows how to calculate FCSI in any given protein, certainly if it is not known whether the sequence of aa's under consideration is actually functional. All that is being asked of jerry is an example of how FCSI is calculated on a real protein sequence - and how that calculation would distinguish, for example, between a known enzyme, and an aa sequence of the same length generated at random. To which I would like to add the question, if FCSI is found in a particular protein, and that protein is then mutated or engineered to have a few substitutions that make the protein non-functional, would the calculation recognise this if repeated on the new sequence? If no-one can do this, it seems to me that FCSI is a pretty useless concept;and it seems to me that the designer whose input is supposed to be discoverable by this method is just as likely to be designing useless proteins as useful ones, if FCSI is the measure.damitall_{September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

"Could you oblige?" I suggest you read a biology book about the transcription and translation process. Any good one will do as most cover it in detail.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

"How is computing the number of possible nucleotides in a string of the same length of the one under consideration at all relevant to how that DNA strand might have evolved using the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory?" It is an indication of how rare any string is and whether it is possible for it to arise by natural processes or not. The longer the string in the coding region the more information it contains. The simple formula is a rough way of estimating the number of unique strings that could exist but only a small number of them are actually FSCI. Similarly the longer a sentence or a paragraph in language the more information it usually contains. Only those strings that are FSCI will be considered since they start the process going and only a few qualify out of the vast number of possibilities so finding useful ones is extremely hard. The process is actually much more complicated but the complexity and rarity of the gene alone is enough to show the immenseness of the problem for naturalistic processes to achieve. Meyers points out that there is over a hundred proteins involved in the translation process alone besides the actual one in the gene expression process. There are over 20 more involved in transcription. So the information to produce these is immense and can be estimated by the formula I gave. It will be an under estimate but since it is so rare, it does not matter. Feel free to find a more accurate way to estimate the information content but it will not be much less than my quick estimate. No naturalistic process has ever produced such rare relationships. It is quite common with intelligent inputs. Comments here being a good example. You should read Meyer's book since this is what this thread is about. He spends a couple hundred pages on it.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

nicholas.steno, There is another long analysis I made that is relevant to how one views the debate if you are interested in reading it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-commenters-win-one-for-the-gipper/#comment-299358jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

"First, please identify these lineages." Almost all the phyla appeared during the Cambrian. So pick one. No phyla has a predecessor. If it had a predecessor than variants of this predecessor would have appeared during the Cambrian but they didn't so the logical conclusion is that they don't exist. You are welcome to believe in the non existent organisms that would make your point but I will follow the evidence. Future excavations might uncover something relevant but as of now you have to believe in the come to believe in UCD. All the present phyla fossilized during the Cambrian so it is hard to argue for some mysterious other organism didn't fossilize. As I said you can believe what you want but it is based on faith and nothing more. Remember there was little diversity in the Cambrian but major disparity. That fact alone argues against a common predecessor. So the Cambrian as of today is a show stopper for UCD.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

i like jerry's formulation. i don't see why darwinists come on here and raise the same questions over and over again and they are never satisfied with the answers. i think the evidence for a signature in the cell is hard to argue with. what about the evidence from macroscopic biology? i've often wondered if the laws that govern the ecosystems also have CSI or maybe even FCSI? Since all organisms have FCSI, and ecosystems with more organisms would then have more FCSI? Am I correct? I have not seen this approach taken on UD yet and I wonder if it's worth thinking about some more.nicholas.steno_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

jerry#62
“Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?
Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string.
How is computing the number of possible nucleotides in a string of the same length of the one under consideration at all relevant to how that DNA strand might have evolved using the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory?DeLurker_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Jerry#60
The Cambrian Explosion is a show stopper for UCD.
Please provide some support for this claim.
These are separate lineages for which nothing preceded it.
First, please identify these lineages. Second, how do you determine that "nothing preceeded it" rather than "no fossil evidence has currently been found"? Remember that soft tissues do not fossilize anywhere near as well as shells and bones. Such constructs are one of the distinctive characteristics of the Cambrian "explosion". Why would you expect to find fossils of their predecessors?DeLurker_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Hello again Blue Lotus, When you ask for a measurement of CSI for proteins, are you defining "specified" in terms of folding vs. non-folding, or functional groups of proteins (in relation to each other) vs. non-functioning groups of proteins? Basically are we attempting to measure if a single protein has CSI or if a group of proteins which function in relation to each other has CSI?CJYman_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Blue Lotus, I don't mean to be sarcastic, but to echo your apparent style, perhaps you could email Dr. Dembski with your questions on CSI. I was merely making [what seems to me an obvious] observation that the paper seems to not come anywhere near providing support for the authors' conclusion. If you were indeed using the paper to make a point, I thought that you might understand it.CJYman_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

CJYman
Is there something that I’m missing?
Perhaps the authors of the paper would clarify if you emailed them? I'm sure the are contactable.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Jerry
Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string.
That's not quite what I was after. I mean, could you take a strech of coding DNA and show us the value of the FSCI in it? I mean, rather then explain how to do it, actually do it?
Another way to do this is to take each codon or group of three and assign the corresponding amino acid to it.
Would it be possible for you to demonstrate this also? Does this method affect the value calculated for the FSCI? DNA sequences seem to be be available: http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Could you oblige?Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

"Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?" Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string. This number has to be reduced somewhat for multiple codons coding for the same amino acid and reduced further for possible substitutions of one amino acid for another in certain proteins but it gets at the level of complexity of the issue. Another way to do this is to take each codon or group of three and assign the corresponding amino acid to it. Then for each group of three the calculation would be 20^m where m is the number of codons in the string. This would again have to be reduced somewhat for amino acids that could substitute for each other in certain proteins. These are rough calculations but magnitude of the measure is easy to estimate. I am sure there are refinements of this but this gets at the issue and the magnitude of the measure. Just as you can measure the complexity of a communications by calculating the possible letter/character strings in a sentence or paragraph and then reducing it by other strings that could communicate the same message.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Blue Lotus, In your above linked article, the authors only account for proteins up to 100 aa in length. If the function of a protein does only rely upon the hydrophilic or hydrophobic nature of amino acids, then yes, there is some plausibility to life having been able to search through protein space *of up to 100 amino acids* ... maybe. The significant problem with even this is that in order for proteins to be functional and selected and thus provide a cumulative step (within the DNA) toward other more complex proteins is that they have to interact with other proteins in a hand in glove interaction that proves to be either neutral or advantageous in relation to selection. The authors didn't even bother including the probability or any known rate of that occurring as far as I could see. Another main problem with their argument as a whole is that the longest protein in humans is 34,350 aa long. Again assuming protein function is only related to hydrophilic/hydrophobic nature of amino acids, that still leaves us with a search space of 10^10,340 which still only accounts for all potential protein sequences of 34,350 aa long. Add to that all the search space between 100 aa long proteins and 10,340 aa long proteins and that would be the protein space, on top of what the authors discuss, that life would have had to search through in order to generate the largest protein that it has indeed generated. So why did the authors cut a vast majority of the space out arbitrarily and then say that "all of functional protein sequence space [could] have been explored?" Is there something that I'm missing?CJYman_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

"The Cambrian Explosion is a show stopper for UCD. Please provide some support for this claim." These are separate lineages for which nothing preceded it. So one cannot claim that each of these descended in any way from previous organisms especially just one organism. You seem to want to make a big deal out of some common genes but you are begging a question here, namely that all these things arose naturally. You do not know that and would like to prove it. But asserting it does not make it so. IF some organisms did not arise naturally and an intelligence used similar parts in different lineages, then to claim UCD seems pointless but I guess you could do it. Suppose the lineages were designed by different intelligences at different times but used similar materials because the materials worked. Is that UCD? If you want to say it is then go ahead but the concept then has no meaning. If Craig Venter created a genome using most of the proteins in current life forms but uses some new ones, is that UCD? Nearly every life form has unique genes and some of the uniqueness is quite numerous. Is this indicative of UCD. It could be but it could also not be. You can only come to your conclusion by begging the question you want to prove. You are asserting UCD not necessarily proving it.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply