Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci-News: Moths Produce Ultrasonic Defensive Sounds to Fend Off Bat Predators

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists from Boise State University and elsewhere have tested 252 genera from most families of large-bodied moths. Their results show that ultrasound-producing moths are far more widespread than previously thought, adding three new sound-producing organs, eight new subfamilies and potentially thousands of species to the roster.

A molecular phylogeny of Lepidoptera indicating antipredator ultrasound production across the order. Image credit: Barber et al., doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117485119.

Bats pierce the shadows with ultrasonic pulses that enable them to construct an auditory map of their surroundings, which is bad news for moths, one of their favorite foods.

However, not all moths are defenseless prey. Some emit ultrasonic signals of their own that startle bats into breaking off pursuit.

Many moths that contain bitter toxins avoid capture altogether by producing distinct ultrasounds that alert bats to their foul taste. Others conceal themselves in a shroud of sonar-jamming static that makes them hard to find with bat echolocation.

While effective, these types of auditory defense mechanisms in moths are considered relatively rare, known only in tiger moths, hawk moths and a single species of geometrid moth.

“It’s not just tiger moths and hawk moths that are doing this,” said Dr. Akito Kawahara, a researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

“There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.”

In the same way that non-toxic butterflies mimic the colors and wing patterns of less savory species, moths that lack the benefit of built-in toxins can copy the pitch and timbre of genuinely unappetizing relatives.

These ultrasonic warning systems seem so useful for evading bats that they’ve evolved independently in moths on multiple separate occasions.

In each case, moths transformed a different part of their bodies into finely tuned organic instruments.

[I’ve put these quotes from the article in bold to highlight the juxtaposition of “evolved independently” and “finely tuned organic instruments.” Fine-tuning is, of course, often associated with intelligent design, rather than unguided natural processes.]

See the full article in Sci-News.

Comments
You have not the least justification for assuming that a particular function is unique and there is plenty of evidence (starting – but not ending – with Keefe and Szostak) that potential function is widespread in protein sequences.
Hi Alan It depends on the application. Besides the sequence problem there is another problem which is the waiting time problem to fixation. This blind and unguided dog does not hunt. Universal common descent is not going to make it as a hypothesis and it is important this realization comes sooner then later.bill cole
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Why is Alan so afraid of people trying to quantify the concept of information, with respect to biology, as posited by Francis Crick? Why is Alan so afraid to tell us of this methodology used to determine that blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, produced all bacterial flagella? Why is Alan so afraid to develop his notion of the NICHE designs? Why does the evidence point to honing of existing designs, for example? And why is Alan so afraid to learn what Intelligent Design actually is and what it argues against?ET
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
You believe God created everything anyway.
Alan the psychic blowhard, strikes again! No, Alan. Only losers on an agenda says crap like that. As Dr Behe said many years ago:
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
ID does NOT claim that everything is intelligently designed. Lying about ID and erecting strawmen is all Alan is reduced to. Priceless...ET
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: reducing a log operation to its result and making a simplifying substitution then finding a general bound is a reasonable procedure. As for why is I(T) the info value of the target, the answer is obvious, it is just that; take the neg log prob. "take the neg log prob". Is that the way trendy math people talk? It's not obvious. You can't just keep waving your hands about and hope no one asks you for specifics. You and others had this 500-bit threshold in mind. That was the standard. Then Dr Dembski thought: you know what, for some situations/patterns/sample spaces the threshold might be less than 500-bits (or more!) AND why not try and make the whole idea a bit more rigorous mathematically. So he had a think and came up with the metric in his 2005 monograph. If he wanted to just stick with the 500-bit threshold there would have been no point in revising and extended (his words) his previous work. And, in fact, using his metric, for the case of flipping coins and getting all tails it looks like the threshold is reached at 401 flips and not 500. According to my calculations which no one has disputed. I think you looked at his metric, tore it apart, interpreted each of the parts as number of bits (even though he explicitly stated that the threshold for his metric was being greater than 1), renamed parts, came up with I(T) (which you did not clearly define) and decided that had to meet the same old criterion of being 500-bits or more. Dr Dembski would never have bothered creating that metric if all he wanted to do was to stick with the already existing 500-bit threshold. AND, as we've seen, for certain cases, the threshold is less than 500-bits. That, in fact, was part of his point: for each individual case/situation/pattern/sample space a tighter, more mathematical threshold might exist. But you just tore his new metric apart and tried to make it fit into the old threshold. You read a couple books on information theory and remembered a rule about logs and for years and years no one questioned what you did. They didn't understand Dr Dembski's mathematics so they figured you knew what you were talking about. But you can't clearly define or evaluate the terms you came up with. What's the point in creating them if you're just going to say: it all has to meet the same 500-bit limit? You created them then brushed them under your blather of math. If you want to stick with the 500-bit threshold, fine. You do that. But don't attempt to do some clever mathematics (badly) and then say Dr Dembski's new method of calculating a threshold for individual cases gives the same results. The point is that it might not. That's why he created it. AND, again, I got a different threshold for flipping a coin and getting tails trying to honestly use the metric Dr Dembski elucidated and explained. Do you agree that for that particular case and event the threshold is 401 flips? Yes or no? I'm not going to ask you about K2 and I(T) anymore because you don't even know what they mean so you can't tell what values they can take on for a particular situation.JVL
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
JVL, reducing a log operation to its result and making a simplifying substitution then finding a general bound is a reasonable procedure. One, that gives a telling result on origin of cells and body plans including our own. Your onward demands are either given from outset, for sol system the threshold [given WmAD's statements] is 500 bits with 398 on the clock so an additional 100 or so, Which is where you started the needless song and dance. As for amount of information, as much as can be produced by all the intelligence in reality and expressed in the cosmos. As for why is I(T) the info value of the target, the answer is obvious, it is just that; take the neg log prob. And we could go on endlessly. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Yes, I made simplifying substitutions True dat. then drew out generous bounds for info beyond a threshold metrics. Bounds that deliver a powerful general result. That is what is material, once we see that the structure of the WmAD expression gives an info beyond a threshold value. The bounds deliver a general result, given cosmos capability to search and implicit scattered nature of found and similar targets. That general result is powerful. One may thereafter wish to debate particular models and estimates by WmAD, Abel, Durston et al, but it is a very different thing when that is in the context of a powerful general result. It is the side stepping of that general result that is in the end telling. Why didn't you just declare bounds on the original terms? Why the change of notation? And why make it look like one of your new terms was still a function dependant on T? So, to be very, very clear, for the particular example of flipping a coin 400 times and getting 400 tails: What are the bounds for K2? What are the bounds for I(T)?JVL
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
JVL, that is now an outright lie, sustained in the teeth of repeated correction. Working out that - log2[prob ] --> information is NOT "reworked Dr Dembski’s metric." You did not seem to know what neg log prob means, you obviously have no regard to background and even explanatory step by step notes on the info theory and now excerpt from a classic text on the subject; apparently you found it rhetorically convenient to sidestep why I would have in my library two copies of editions of Taub and Schilling, not to mention the Connor series and other works. That should have been a clue, but that was not convenient. Yes, I made simplifying substitutions then drew out generous bounds for info beyond a threshold metrics. Bounds that deliver a powerful general result. That is what is material, once we see that the structure of the WmAD expression gives an info beyond a threshold value. The bounds deliver a general result, given cosmos capability to search and implicit scattered nature of found and similar targets. That general result is powerful. One may thereafter wish to debate particular models and estimates by WmAD, Abel, Durston et al, but it is a very different thing when that is in the context of a powerful general result. It is the side stepping of that general result that is in the end telling. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: All along, there has been refusal to acknowledge plainly and work with the reduction of – log2[ . . . ] and the link thereby to information and to information beyond a threshold. I'm not the one who reworked Dr Dembski's metric, introducing new terms (K2 and I(T)); that was you. And, it seems that you can't even specify what those terms are numerically for a particular, simple example. You just talk in general about stuff when I'm asking you to be specific about terms you came up with. So, again: Can you actually compute YOUR TERMS K2 and I(T) for the very particular case of flipping a fair coin 400 times and getting 400 tails? Yes or no? I was able to calculate a specific value for Dr Dembski's metric; the mathematics was elementary. You changed the metric into something you seemingly cannot calculate. Why did you make the change if you can't calculate it? See why I have declared intellectual independence and refuse to allow endless hyperskeptical objections to veto what on warrant I can know with good reason? Perhaps you'd like to justify that by computing the terms you created as replacements for terms in Dr Dembski's metric that were calculable as I have shown.JVL
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
Note, by using bounds driven by search capability of the cosmos or sol system, we have general results; far more powerful than any particular detailed calculation, eg by using tables of protein families to estimate redundancy. For any reasonable person, a general result is preferable to one that depends on detailed assumptions, scenario and compiled data on proteins etc. Such general results with examples were on the table hundreds of comments ago. The sullen resistance, foot dragging, side stepping, implicit half concessions pulled back and resort to polarisation tell us that the objectors have lost on merits.kairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
See why I have declared intellectual independence and refuse to allow endless hyperskeptical objections to veto what on warrant I can know with good reason?kairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
F/N: The distraction continues. Having bounded variables to go into the log reduction, having provided the result that for cases relevant to cell based life and body plans, we are well beyond threshold where intelligently directed configuration is the by far and away best explanation, the material question is over. I(T|H) can be assessed on capacity then adjusted as Abel, Durston et al have published, but it is implausible that redundancy makes a practical difference. Thresholds have been given generous bounds for sol system and cosmos. All along, there has been refusal to acknowledge plainly and work with the reduction of - log2[ . . . ] and the link thereby to information and to information beyond a threshold. That resistance and distraction tell the story, and they are why we need to refocus the main thing and conclusion on merits: life is credibly the result of design, also body plans up to our own. Observe the significance of that and the onward distractive behaviour. Where, the behaviour so far gives little confidence that any going along with onward distractions will have any fruitfulness. Enough has been done but determined objectors will never acknowledge any significant result, a sad fact of life. In the end that unresponsiveness and that hyperskeptical polarisation are telling. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Life is credibly designed...
Maybe, but what you've amply demonstrated is it is a matter of belief rather than anything that can be shown mathematically. It is bizarrely simplistic to pluck some arbitrary threshold from... the air... and claim anything beyond is a product of design. You believe God created everything anyway. The bogus mathematical argument is pointless.Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Can you actually compute the terms you came up with: K2 and I(T)? Yes or no?JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
AF, reasonable bounds. You are dealing with me here, not WmAD and we need not further side track. I took each atom in the cosmos or sol system as an observer, and a fast chem rxn time as a bound on time for an observation, with a timeline since the singularity as a bound on observations of all 10^80 or 10^57 atoms, where that is a generous estimate as most are H and He, many bound up in stars etc. Give the 10^57 sol sys atoms registers of 500 bits to observe each 10^-14 s, 1000 bits for the cosmos as a whole. You have 10^111 or 10^88 observations as bounds. Configuration space for 500 or 1,000 bits is 3.27*10^150 or 1.07*10^301. In each case span of possible search is negligible relative to the config space. Once we can find functionally specific, complex information . . . which can be implicit in organisation to achieve function per Wicken wiring diagram . . . beyond reasonable threshold, there is only one empirically warranted, analytically plausible source, intelligently directed configuration. This is plain but equally plainly you have resisted it and sought to distract attention from it through every rhetorical stunt. That backfires, it is an implicit admission that you have no substantial reply on the focal, decisive point. So your continued objections and distractions are of no material value as the main point is decided on merits, long since. Life is credibly designed, body plans are, including ours. The 160 year long agenda to expel design has failed. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
PPS, I again remind, as just one example
293 kairosfocus August 7, 2022 at 5:06 am F/N: The point of the above is, it is highly reasonable to use a threshold metric for the functional, configuration based information that identifies the span beyond which it is highly reasonable to draw the inference, design. First, our practical cosmos is the sol system, 10^57 atoms, so 500 bits FSCO/I, X_sol = FSB – 500 in functionally specific bits Likewise for the observable cosmos, X_cos = FSB – 1,000, functionally specific bits And yes this metric can give a bits short of threshold negative value. Using my simple F*S*B measure, dummy variables F and S can be 0/1 based on observation of functionality or specificity. For a 900 base mRNA specifying a 300 AA protein, we get X_sol = [900 x 2 x 1 x 1] – 500 = 1300 functionally specific bits. Which, is comfortably beyond, so redundancy is unlikely to make a difference. Contrast a typical value for 1800 tossed coins X_sol = [1800 x 0 x 0] – 500 = – 500 FSBs, 500 bits short. If the coins expressed ASCII code in correct English X_sol = [1800 x 1 x 1] – 500 = 1300 FSBs beyond threshold, so comfortably, designed. [We routinely see the equivalent in text in this thread and no one imagines the text is by blind watchmaker action.] A more sophisticated value using say the Durston et al metric would reduce the excess due to redundancy but with that sort of margin, there is no practical difference. Where, in the cell, for first life just for the genome [leaving out a world of knowledge of polymer chemistry and computer coding etc] we have 100 – 1,000 kbases. 100,000 bases is 200,000 bits carrying capacity, and again there is no plausible way to get that below 1,000 bits off redundancy. Life, credibly, is designed.
Where, of course, redundancy was long since addressed by Abel, Durston et al. It is quite clear from the above that you still resist the simple reduction to information in bits directly implied by - log2[ . . . ] where that was established as a basic metric for information decades ago. Similarly the algebra of logs leads to thresholds in the Dembski expression, which is why I used threshold metrics from over a decade ago as is drawn out in my always linked. Again side stepped and/or distracted from and resisted. That suggests that you were unfamiliar with the established result of an information metric, then with the significance of the product rule for logs given WmAD's expression. You no longer have an excuse. Information is first measured as carrying capacity and redundancy can be addressed for practical cases but makes no effective difference for the main point. That main point is your obvious underlying objection but you cannot deal with it substantially on merits. Which is telling.kairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
JVL, what I am saying is that once we have a reasonable bound, and can see the result for relevant cases -- as was long since shown -- we have the material answer. Therefore, I have no need to go on and on with what is patently distractive. The material result is, there is good reason to conclude that cells and body plans include intelligently directed configuration as key cause. KF PS, and BTW, the bounds set limits for plausible ranges for terms involved in the threshold values implicit in Dembski's expression.kairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Well, it seems like Kairosfocus is just not going to even try and compute his version of Dr Dembski's 2005 specified complexity metric from his monograph Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence for the second example I have proposed: flipping a fair coin 400 times and getting 400 tails. I shall give you my result from computing Dr Dembski's metric for that example. I argue that the only thing I have to do is change the '10' in my previous example with '400' so I get: (Oh, after the first step all the 'equals' should properly be read as 'approximately equals.) X =-log2(10^120•2•2^-400) = -log2(2^398.63136•2^-399) = -log2(2^-0.36864) = 0.36864 Which is below Dr Dembski's threshold of 1 to conclude that the event or sequence exhibited enough specified complexity to be definitely designed. Please don't shout at me, I'm just trying to calculate his metric fairly. If you think I've made a mathematical mistake then please point it out specifically. Because I didn't come up with the metric if you have a problem with it then do not blame me. Can I just say, it's clear that one more coin flip getting all heads would clearly step over Dr Dembski's specified complexity line. 401 fair coin flips, all tails would meet the criteria of his metric. A more complicated pattern would increase pS(T) and thereby mean an increase in the number of trials/flips required to meet the threshold. In some sense, looking at the very simplest case puts a kind of lower bound, based on his metric, for detecting sufficient specified complexity that leads to a conclusion of design. It's close to 400 events or choices? Based on actually calculating Dr Dembski's metric. Most of the time, it would be much higher than that. Once again, I am not casting judgement on Dr Dembski's metric, I am only trying to explore its implications. I was hoping to get Kairosfocus to do something similar with his version of Dr Dembski's metric but, alas, he seems to have excused himself from the discussion. For whatever reason. I would still very much like him to give values for his K2 and I(T) for any of the examples I have dealt with. He came up with those terms so, if they have any meaning, he should be able to evaluate them. We shall see if he deigns to enlighten us with the numerical thinking behind his formulation.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
CD, yes, we are dealing with lower bounds on complexity. It is enough for a reasonable person -- not to be assumed at this stage -- that for an average 300 AA protein, we have 900 bases, and so 1800 bits carrying capacity. Bits can be seen i/l/o basic info theory, notice how that was ducked time and again. For our effective cosmos, the sol system, 10^57 atoms as observers each overseeing 500 bits/coins changing 10^14 times/s for 10^17 s we can examine 10^88 states. Sounds huge till one sees that the config space for 500 bits is 3.27*10^150, so one can only search a negligible fraction. Needle in haystack search challenge sidelines blind mechanisms. Intelligence uses understanding to compose effective, functional complex organisation. And the objectors know this, they are seeking to suppress what should be a commonplace. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
LtComData: We are talking about computing Dr Dembski's specified complexity metric from his 2005 monograph: Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. I have decided to compare and contrast the results of that metric on some basic and simple examples with the alternate metric proposed by Kairosfocus many years ago now, I think. I have computed the result for the example of flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting 10 tails and hoped that Kairosfocus would show what his alternate interpretation of that metric would compute to. He . . . well . . . avoided giving a direct answer. I am now asking for him to give his result for the example of flipping a fair coin 400 times and getting 400 tails. I can easily compute Dr Dembski's metric for that example but I'd like to hear Kairosfocus's response first. Does flipping a fair coin 400 times and getting 400 tails give evidence of specified complexity and therefore design? If, after the dialogue with Kairosfocus is resolved, you'd like to discuss the application of Dr Dembski's metric to some of the other situations you list then perhaps we can do that. But first I'd like to resolve the simple case.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
:lol: To talk only about amino-acids "metric" is a bad joke. We should be talking about all associated cell processes combined metrics and "probability " of all processes to function/cooperate/help each other forming interconnected systems from the first cell. Actin nucleation core Action potential Afterhyperpolarization Autolysis Autophagin Autophagy Binucleated cells Biochemical switches in the cell cycle Branch migration Bulk endocytosis CDK7 pathway Cap formation Cell cycle Cell death Cell division Cell division orientation Cell growth Cell migration Cellular differentiation Cellular senescence Chromosomal crossover Coagulative necrosis Crossing-over value Cytoplasm-to-vacuole targeting Cytoplasmic streaming Cytostasis DNA damage DNA repair Density dependence Dentinogenesis Dynamin Ectopic recombination Efferocytosis Emperipolesis Endocytic cycle Endocytosis Endoexocytosis Endoplasmic-reticulum-associated protein degradation Epithelial–mesenchymal transition Exocytosis Ferroptosis Fibrinoid necrosis Filamentation Formins Fungating lesion Genetic recombination Hertwig rule Histone methylation Interference Interkinesis Intracellular transport Intraflagellar transport Invagination Karyolysis Karyorrhexis Klerokinesis Leptotene stage Malignant transformation Meiosis Membrane potential Microautophagy Mitotic recombination Necrobiology Necrobiosis Necroptosis Necrosis Nemosis Nuclear organization Parasexual cycle Parthanatos Passive transport Peripolesis Phagocytosis Phagoptosis Pinocytosis Poly Potocytosis Pyknosis Quantal neurotransmitter release Rap6 Receptor-mediated endocytosis Residual body Ribosome biogenesis S phase index Senescence Septin Site-specific recombination Squelching Stringent response Synizesis Trans-endocytosis Transcytosis Xenophagy +all still unknown processes :)) Good luck!Lieutenant Commander Data
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: your ongoing game is a waste of time and distraction. Are you saying you can't compute your K2 and I(T) for the example of getting 400 tails in a row when flipping a fair coin? I can compute Dr Dembski's metric, easily.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
JVL, your ongoing game is a waste of time and distraction. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
So, let's ratchet things up a bit. Let's try testing a very similar scenario except let's go for 400 tails in a row. An extremely unlikely event if everything is by chance I think you'll agree. I don't think it's difficult updating my work with Dr Dembski's metric (all I have to do is put '400' in where I had '10' before) but I will first give Kairosfocus a chance to tell us what his version of the metric comes up with (i.e. what his K2 and I(T) are) and what his conclusion is before I chime in with my results. Again this is just testing Dr Dembski's metric from his 2005 monograph.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
I just noticed an omission in the above comment, it should read . . .
. . . since you once said that a result using Dr Dembski’s metric that came out to -20 that that meant that that sequence was 20 bits shy of the threshold . . . since I got a result of -389 . . .
JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: since you haven’t responded yet. You didn't address anything to me after I responded to you. So I asked another question. And, you haven't said what your K2 and I(T) are for the particular example I worked out using Dr Dembski's metric. You came up with those so, if they have any meaning, you should be able to specify their values for a given example. Nor have you answered my follow-up question: since you once said that a result using Dr Dembski's metric that came out to -20 . . . since I got a result of -389 or so does that mean that that particular test sequence was 389 or so bits below threshold? This is just a sincere and simple test of yours and Dr Dembski's specified complexity formula. You seem to avoid actually doing any calculations. If I don't hear back from regarding actual values of K2 and I(T) then I shall move on to another example with more 'bits' and see if you agree or disagree with the results, and why, and (hopefully) what your own version of the metric shows. But, truth be told, I'm not holding my breath since you actually seem to be about tossing lots of math around without actually doing any.JVL
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
AF, see the just above. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
JVL, further doubling down in the face of a response . . . since you haven't responded yet. That is telling. Ultimately, telling on a rhetorical strategy of distractions, side tracks and polarisation. One, that reveals through what is evaded and dismissed or forgotten, the dirty secret of the long term ID objector. Not having a substantial response, side track and polarise. It is clear, the design inference on signs is well warranted, functional information like the text of objections is an observable and that blind watchmaker needle in haystack search becomes hopeless once 500 - 1,000 bits are on the table. Indeed, it is obvious that bits are a natural info metric, starting with the carrying capacity of two state elements. In an info theory context, - log2[probability] gives info in bits. Then, as WmAD's expression reduced algebraically shows, - log2[probability*threshold_index] gives information short of, at or beyond threshold in bits. Where we can work through redundancy as Durston et al have, we can set dummy variables to enfold functionality and specificity, we can use bounds for thresholds, with 500 - 1,000 bits a very reasonable and even generous threshold. The net result is, that relevant cases such as the 900 bases for a typical 300 AA protein, 1800 bits info capacity in a functional, specific entity, are so far beyond sol system threshold, 1300 bits, that redundancy makes no practical difference. The net result is FSCO/I in the cell and in body plans -- OOL 100 - 1,000 kbases in the genome, 10 - 100+ mn bases for body plans eg for arthropods -- is so far beyond threshold that redundancy is irrelevant. Credibly, life and body plans come from the only observed source for FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Well, Related, let's agree to meet up in the hereafter and compare notes. Though an eternity of talking to you is not the most attractive proposition, I have to say. Perhaps I'll get to go to Hell where all the interesting folks are.Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
AF at 471, If you think that this life is all there is, I've got 2,000 years of testimony that says different.relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Only humans, Related. I suspect you and everyone that thinks God has a purpose for us humans that involves an eternity of hosannah-ing are in for a bit of a disappointment.Alan Fox
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 23

Leave a Reply