Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

# L&FP, 69: A way to understand Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or associated Information [FSCO/I] i/l/o Kolmogorov-Chaitin Complexity

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

It seems that it is exceedingly hard for some to understand what FSCO/I is about. In responding to an objector, I wrote as follows just now, and think it is worth headlining for reference:

Where, K-Complexity is summarised by Wikipedia, as a first level point of reference that would have been immediately accessible all along:

<<In algorithmic information theory (a subfield of computer science and mathematics), the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program (in a predetermined programming language) that produces the object as output. It is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object, and is also known as algorithmic complexity, Solomonoff–Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, program-size complexity, descriptive complexity, or algorithmic entropy. It is named after Andrey Kolmogorov, who first published on the subject in 1963 [1][2] and is a generalization of classical information theory.

The notion of Kolmogorov complexity can be used to state and prove impossibility results akin to Cantor’s diagonal argument, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and Turing’s halting problem. In particular, no program P computing a lower bound for each text’s Kolmogorov complexity can return a value essentially larger than P’s own length (see section § Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem); hence no single program can compute the exact Kolmogorov complexity for infinitely many texts.>>

From this, it is but a short step to imagine a universal constructor device which, fed a compact description in a suitable language, will construct and present the [obviously, finite] object. Let us call this the universal 3-D printer/constructor, 3-DP/C.

Thus, in principle, reduction of an organised entity to a description in a suitably compact language is formally equivalent in information terms to the object, once 3-DP/C is present as a conceptual entity. So, WLOG, reduction to compact description in a compact language d(E) is readily seen as identifying the information content of any given entity E.

For, d(E) is a program though it can simply be a functional organisational specification, as, causally in this logic-model world:

d(E) + 3-DP/C + n ==> E1, E2, . . . En.

Obviously, n is an auxiliary instruction setting the number of copies to be made.

I write ==> to imply a constructive causal process effected by a 3-DP/C.

From this we may come back to Orgel and notice his [1973] summary:

These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

We thus have a formal framework to reduce any entity to a description d(E), which is informational and has as metric

I = length[d(E)],

where a chain of Y/N q[s will yield I in bits, on the Kolmogorov assumption of compactness. I use compact, to imply that we can get a good enough estimator of I by using something compact. We do not have to actually build a most compact language.

Then, inject random changes in d(E) and observable sensitivity to perturbation would be an index of functional specificity of organisation. As a simple case try text strings in English as d(E) and a noisy, lossy transmission medium, giving d*(E). 3-DP/C can put out text strings on d*(E) but soon enough function will vanish as d(E) becomes gibberish.

d(E) –> lossy, noisy medium –> d*(E) + 3-DP/C + 1 ==> E*1

d*(E) –> LNM –> d**(E) + 3-DP/C + 1 ==> E**1

etc.

After a few generations, gibberish predictably will destroy configuration based functional organisation, starting with text in English.

And so forth.

Overnight, illustrating:

Now of course, 3-DP/C does not exist, though we could argue that the state of the art of technology can be seen as an early, primitive partial case. Venter et al are obviously doing engineering with life forms for example. And of course typing on a keyboard and outputting to a screen or paper are very low level examples.

Technology is not the issue, a formal representation to capture information content of a functionally organised entity is.

Conceive of say a 3-DP/C putting out worlds specified by various cosmological models. We soon enough see the point of cosmological fine tuning, e.g. see Barnes:

Similarly, contemplate the FSCO/I in an ABU 6500CT reel, using d(E) to output:

Then, let us contemplate as a related case, the von Neumann Kinematic Self Replicator:

With these in mind, now consider the configuration space, needle in haystack search challenge:

Thence, see the significance of active information:

It is thus clear that FSCO/I is a real world concept and the design inference import it carries is real, non trivial, not incoherent, and significant. END

PS, as a frequent objector is again demanding measured values of FSCO/I on pretence that it is incoherent and un-measurable, here is a longstanding illustration put up at UD many years ago, with three specific values building on information metrics in the literature:

CR, as we both know (never mind your rhetorical gambits) design theory is the scientific study of [candidate or tested] reliable signs of design. That is all it needs to be. So, our warrant status is [a] there are several reliable signs of design, [b] the natural world includes in the sub-world of biological life, signs of design, [c] the observed cosmos, as fine tuned, also shows signs of design. Case a establishes epistemic rights to draw warranted inferences on process of cause, notice not source of cause, that is as we both know, for later onward investigation. Case b shows results that could come from a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al, so as from Thaxton et al on c 1984, design theorists have freely noted that such designers could be within or beyond our cosmos, the inference to design is not inference to particular designer. This has been constantly side stepped or twisted for ideological agenda purposes by opponents. Case c is different, as root of reality is implicit in the cause of a cosmos. Even here, the difference is drawn between detection of design and identification of designer, here clearly one beyond the cosmos. Of course, the issue is now necessary being candidate root of reality, a topic in logic of being. This is not empty but requires respect for logic and linked questions of being and possible worlds. On years of experience, too many objectors are not willing to seriously engage here. However, it is established that inference to design on reliable sign is independent of the ontology or identity of designers, per basics of logic and evidence. KF kairosfocus
CR, signs of design point to process, that is independent of whodunit, and how the who got there. Beyond that are logic of being issues that are well known but which you side step. KF kairosfocus
Querius @115
So please don’t feed the troll. He just wants to waste your time.
You are probably right. Zero progress with CR. I will make a decision very soon. Origenes
Origenes @113, I think there's even a simpler definition for ID, but even if I hand it to "Critical Rationalist" on a silver platter, he won't lift a finger to understand, but he will continue with his one-way verbal baloney. I'm just giving him the opportunity do prove that he's here only to make noise. So far, he's done an excellent job in that regard. So please don't feed the troll. He just wants to waste your time. -Q Querius
Critical Rationalist @112, You're still evading my repeated challenge:
Querius: To make sense of ID, you’ll first need to create a simple, accurate definition of Intelligent Design.
Yes, it's far easier to blah blah than to define what you're criticizing. Thus, it appears you're not interested in accurately understanding the ID position or clarifying the argument as Origenes is suggesting, but merely in evading the challenge and splattering mud on the subject. -Q Querius
CR I propose the following clarifying definition of intelligent design, specifically “adapted” for CR: ID argues that the origin of items such as libraries full of science books, battleships, and the works of Shakespeare, is best explained by the inductive inference that one of the occupants in the causal chain leading up to such items, must be an intelligent designer. This does not imply the claim that the intelligent designer itself cannot be the result of purely natural processes, such as mineral deposition, erosion, RNA-world, and/or unguided evolution. IOW ID does not propose that an intelligent designer is the first unmoved cause, instead, ID argues that an intelligent designer must be an occupant in the causal chain leading up to items with certain specific characteristics. Origenes
CR, you have already obviously chosen to ignore: [1] that signs of design by an agent are empirically valid, whatever the ontological status of same,
Yes. They would be valid, according to ID, regardless of the otological status. It would have reach. Which is precisely the problem.
[2] the difference between contingent and necessary beings, where [3] given infeasible supertask of a transfinite causal-temporal chain, reality comes from necessary being as root. KF
So, when will ID, the supposedly scientific theory, be updated to includes this difference? We both know this will not happen. So, why are you appealing to it? What gives? critical rationalist
CR, you have already obviously chosen to ignore: [1] that signs of design by an agent are empirically valid, whatever the ontological status of same, [2] the difference between contingent and necessary beings, where [3] given infeasible supertask of a transfinite causal-temporal chain, reality comes from necessary being as root. KF kairosfocus
Critical Rationalist @109, Origines' quote @99 was . . .
Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or personal agent.
You then misrepresented, Origenes:
First, apparently, this is based on the definitions of words. If you define knowledge as something that only people create . . .
Origenes did NOT do so! His quote was about a mind and an "intelligent agent." He did NOT indicate that this "intelligent agent" was a person. The closest that science has come to what you're incorrectly asserting that Origenes wrote is called an "ancestor simulation." Look it up. Likewise . . .
Querius: To make sense of ID, you’ll first need to create a simple, accurate definition of Intelligent Design.
-Q Querius
Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or personal agent.”20
Where to begin? First, apparently, this is based on the definitions of words. If you define knowledge as something that only people create, then you'll conclude that knowledge in living things, like the receipt of bacterium, comes from people. It's circular. Second, it's confirmed based on experience? But suggesting the distant past will resemble the past is just a variation of the flawed idea that the future will resemble the past. And, according to KF, experience is not infallible. It only has to be good enough to get across the street. We can cross the street because fallible sources can be corrected, fallibly. So how can our experience confirm ID? Our experience is theory laden. It is neutral without first being put in some kind of explanatory framework. So, I'm at a loss here to explain how this works. Surely, any such conclusion would be based on explanations for our experience, not our experience itself. And explanations are not "out there" for us to experience. So, how can they come to us from experience? But let's ignore that for the moment and assume it's valid. If so, then it would also be valid to conclude.... Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that intelligent sources reflect systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages). They are well adapted for the purpose of designing things. So, this reflects a problem. If we take the idea that ID is based on our experience of information-flow, then it would also reach the same conclusion. It would be "confirmed by our experience". After all, this matches our experience in all of the trillions of interactions KF was referring to. Right? However, ID has not reached this conclusion. But, more than this, it suggests we cannot know this about the designer. How can we explain this? No one has developed a "principle of indiction" that we can actually use to provided guidance that we can use, in practice. If ID picks and chooses what part the distant past will resemble the past, then it's unclear how this reflects guidance. So, how can experience play the role of a source as claimed by ID? It denies the very process that it claims to rely on.
But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence. When we look at nature, we find high levels of CSI. A design inference may thus be made. This is the essence of the positive case for design.
And when we look at all of the known sources of intelligence we have experienced, we find high levels of CSI. A design inference may thus be made. Etc. Apparently, our experienced is reliable, except when it's not? critical rationalist
Critical Rationalist @107, To make sense of ID, you'll first need to create a simple, accurate definition of Intelligent Design. We can go from there. -Q Querius
@Q I don't see anything in Ori's quoted definition that indicates ID's designer is "immaterial, or that it somehow was uncreated, works by inexplicable means and methods, etc. " When will ID get around to this? critical rationalist
@Ori
Can Paley’s observation be extrapolated such that, as a general rule, every designed thing serves a person’s purpose? CR seems to think so, but I see no reason to suppose that this is the case.
To quote Paley…
“There cannot be design, without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order, without choice; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated”
IOW, the appearance of design refers to the appearance of a hypothetical purpose based on some hypothetical designer. Do you think our ability to design things is an unintended consequence, which caught our supposed designer off guard? To rephrase, something can lack the appearance of design, despite serving a purpose. If someone is trying to cover their tracks, that serves a purpose, despite not having the appearance of design. Right? I'm referring to the opposite. The very idea of the appearance of design refers to the appearance of serving a purpose, in the sense Ori is referring to, when a purpose might not actually exist. Otherwise this seem to be begging the question. To rephrase again, is there nothing designed for one purpose that could not also interpreted as serving other purposes? For example, if we’re kidnapped, can we not pry open doors with a screwdriver or use it as a weapon of self-defense, despite the fact that screwdrivers are designed to serve the purpose of driving and removing screws? critical rationalist
Jerry @104,
This begs the question of just what Evolution is.
Since evolution hasn't magically halted, Darwinism expects many new features and organs to be in continual evolution, which Darwinists can easily provide many genetic examples. Or not. I'd just like Critical Rationalist (ONLY) to address my challenge and provide a simple definition of the target of his attacks, namely Intelligent Design. Still waiting. -Q Querius
That makes no sense. ID provides no explanations that can be tested.
It makes fantastic sense. It may not be right but it provides a coherent explanation for something that is apparently impossible. ID identifies the presence of an extremely intelligent and powerful entity by the fine tuning of the universe. So we have the presence of this intelligence. Intelligence is a possible explanation for something that seems beyond the power of the laws of physics. And we know such an intelligence exists. There may be other intelligences but we know at least one exists. Granted this intelligence cannot be identified as the specific source for the physical phenomena identified. Intelligent interventions are not lawful and identifying when and how is not possible. But it cannot be ruled out. So the burden then is on how the physical forces could have caused the phenomena in question if it wasn’t the intelligence causing it. Not hard to understand what the issue is. It looks like you don’t understand the issues involved and maybe you should just ask questions. Someone will answer them if you remain polite. Aside: ID can certainly test the power of the current theories of naturalized Evolution. All current theories rely on hidden change to genomes which would leave forensic evidence in the various genomes and thus discoverable. This begs the question of just what Evolution is. It assumes it is changes in the genome when logic says it is some other place in the cell as yet unknown. jerry
All we get is the usual flood of unsupported assertions from Alan Fox and no reply from Critical Rationalist. I'm challenging Critical Rationalist to provide a *simple* definition of the target of his attacks. Let's see whether he responds or not. -Q Querius
Easily, because it [ID, presumably] allows for explanations that can account for what science has found.
That makes no sense. ID provides no explanations that can be tested. ID explains everything by explaining nothing. Alan Fox
How can a non-explanation for observed biological phenomena and processes become the best explanation?
Easily, because it allows for explanations that can account for what science has found. Of course, this has been explained probably hundreds if not thousands of times. But that doesn’t stop the disingenuous stupid responses. Which is what the previous comment is all about, being stupid. To deny ID is to commit the “begging the question” fallacy. jerry
Luskin TL~DR
It isn’t merely a negative argument against evolution.
It offers no alternative hypotheses to the theory of evolution.
It isn’t an argument for the supernatural, nor is it even focused on studying the designer.
No, it studiously avoids any explanation of how "Design" happens, nor any method of detecting "Design"events.
It isn’t a theory of everything.
Absolutely spot on, Casey.
It is a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information
Even that is a negative argument. CSI remains an equivocation, which nobody has managed to measure with any consistency. "Too much CSI therefore "designed"? How is that any sort of positive argument?
It is a historical science that uses uniformitarian reasoning based upon the principle that “the present is the key to the past.”
Hmm. Meyers argues the Cambrian Period (60 million years, akin to the time since dinosaurs walked the Earth) was too fast for evolution. Fossil evidence, however, shows many lifeforms already flourishing. The Cambrian organisms did not fall from the sky.
It is methodologically equivalent to neo-Darwinism, such that ID and neo-Darwinism are both bona fide scientific theories.
Yet there is no predictive, testable, scientific theory of "Intelligent Design".
It is a science that uses the scientific method to make scientific claims in fields such as biochemistry, paleontology, genetics, and systematics.
A few papers have emerged (heh) that purport so support "Intelligent Design" but none that have survived analysis in the mainstream of science.
It is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.
Back to negation. How can a non-explanation for observed biological phenomena and processes become the best explanation? Alan Fox
Intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence. 1. ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information The theory of intelligent design begins with observations of how intelligent agents act when they design things. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent agents. This present-day observation-based dataset establishes cause-and-effect relationships between intelligent action and certain types of information. William Dembski observes that “[t]he principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”15 Dembski calls ID “a theory of information” where “information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation.”16 A cause-and-effect relationship can be established between mind and information. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, the “creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”17 The most commonly cited type of “information” that reliably indicates design is “specified complexity.” As Dembski writes, “the defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create novel information and, in particular, specified complexity.”18 Though the terms were not originally coined by an ID proponent, Dembski suggests that design can be detected when one finds a rare or highly unlikely event (making it complex) which conforms to an independently derived pattern (making it specified). ID proponents call this complex and specified information, or “CSI.” Stephen Meyer explains that in our experience, only intelligent agents produce this type of information: “Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”19 “[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents — in particular ourselves — generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. … Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or personal agent.”20 By assessing whether natural structures contain the type of complexity — high CSI — that in our experience comes only from intelligence, we can construct a positive, testable case for design. And what happens when we study nature? Well, the past sixty years of biology research have uncovered that life is fundamentally based upon: A vast amount of complex and specified information encoded in a biochemical language. A computer-like system of commands and codes that processes the information. Molecular machines and multi-machine systems. But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence. When we look at nature, we find high levels of CSI. A design inference may thus be made. This is the essence of the positive case for design. 2. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A HISTORICAL SCIENCE THAT IS METHODOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT TO NEO-DARWINISM As we saw already, intelligent design is primarily a historical science, meaning it studies present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record to infer the best explanation for the origin of natural phenomena. Intelligent design uses uniformitarian reasoning based upon the principle that “the present is the key to the past.” Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, for example seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record. Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design (e.g., high CSI) in the historical record. So whether we appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, we are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning and scientific methods that are well-accepted in historical sciences. ID and neo-Darwinism are thus methodologically equivalent, meaning that either both are science, or both aren’t science. However, we can know that ID is science because it uses the scientific method. 3. INTELLIGENT DESIGN USES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ID uses the scientific method to make its claims. This method is commonly described as a four-step process of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. I now will illustrate this by referring to four scientific fields: biochemistry, paleontology, systematics, and genetics. ID and Biochemistry: Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity — such as codes and languages — invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21 Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function — indicating high levels of CSI. Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23 Conclusion: The high levels of CSI — including irreducible complexity — in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent. ID and Paleontology: Observation: Intelligent agents rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems. As four ID theorists write: “intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information … the intelligent design of a blueprint often precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a blueprint or preconceived design plan.”24 Hypothesis (Prediction): Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. Experiment: Studies of the fossil record show that species typically appear abruptly without similar precursors.25 The Cambrian explosion is a prime example, although there are other examples of explosions in life’s history. Large amounts of complex and specified information had to arise rapidly to explain the abrupt appearance of these forms.26 Conclusion: The abrupt appearance of new fully formed body plans in the fossil record is best explained by intelligent design. ID and Systematics: Observation: Intelligent agents often re-use functional components in different designs. As Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells explain: “An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems … [and] generate identical patterns independently.”27 Hypothesis (Prediction): Genes and other functional parts will be commonly re-used in different organisms.28 Experiment: Studies of comparative anatomy and genetics have uncovered similar parts commonly existing in widely different organisms. Examples of “extreme convergent evolution” show re-use of functional genes and structures in a manner not predicted by common ancestry.29 Conclusion: The re-use of highly similar and complex parts in widely different organisms in non-treelike patterns is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent. ID and Genetics: Observation: Intelligent agents construct structures with purpose and function. As William Dembski argues: “Consider the term ‘junk DNA.’ … [O]n an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.”30 Hypothesis (Prediction): Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. Experiment: Numerous studies have discovered functions for “junk DNA.” Examples include functions for pseudogenes, introns, and repetitive DNA.31 Conclusion: The discovery of function for numerous types of “junk DNA” was successfully predicted by intelligent design. In this way, we can see that intelligent design is a bona fide scientific theory that uses the scientific method to make its claims in multiple scientific fields.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the/ Origenes
Querius challenges others to do what he cannot. :) :) :) Alan Fox
And pray tell, what exactly is the “supposedly scientific theory of ID” that you’re criticizing?
Who can say? There is no "scientific theory of Intelligent Design". All I see are claims that the theory of evolution is wrong, followed by vigorous thrashing of straw-men, with the default to "therefore Intelligent Design wins". All attempts to define ID are various negative statements on this theme. Alan Fox
Critical Rationalist @92,
OW, the supposedly scientific theory of ID would need to become vastly more specific about its designer, in that it was immaterial, or that it somehow was uncreated, works by inexplicable means and methods, etc. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
And pray tell, what exactly is the "supposedly scientific theory of ID" that you're criticizing? You should either be able to provide a succinct definition, or admit that you are clueless about the subject of your reply. Yes, consider this a direct challenge. -Q Querius
CR
CR quotes Paley: “Because the watch not only serves a purpose, it is adapted to that purpose:”
Paley notes that a watch is made in order to serve a person. To serve a person’s purpose to keep track of time. Can Paley's observation be extrapolated such that, as a general rule, every designed thing serves a person’s purpose? CR seems to think so, but I see no reason to suppose that this is the case. Does a virus serve a person’s purpose? If so, whose purpose? Does a cat serve a person’s purpose? One thing is for sure, no cat believes that this is the case.
Cr: Again, let’s replace Paley’s watch with a designer… Is a designer something that we could have found laying around like a raw material, on a heath? Could it appear spontaneously like a crystal? A designer that designed bacterium would serve the purpose of designing bacterium, and it would be well adapted to that purpose.
A designer “serves the purpose of designing bacterium”, you say. How does this idea even make sense? Do you know what a “purpose” is? If so, whose purpose is being served here? Does the bacterium have the purpose to be designed? Or are you saying that the designer has a boss who has the purpose? Origenes
CR, you keep setting up and knocking over strawmen. What part of compact description in the context of Kolmogorov complexity is so hard to understand? KF kairosfocus
Modern Information Theory allows us to draw out degree of complexity and information content in a quantitative way. There are significant problems, which have yet to be addressed. From #64.
Note how a constructor’s means to achieve a purpose can be represented as a tree of subtasks it performs defined in constructor-theoretic terms. As a more fundamental unification, this allow trees to cross boundaries in ways that the current conception obscures, such as into the applications that open files, and even information and knowledge itself. It becomes more clear, not less. And it excludes cases when multiplication is not applicable. So, the entire system of the file, the program that reads it, the knowledge in us, etc. can be represented at a fundamental, unified way in constructor theory. It can cross those boundaries and different levels of explanation, that might have been obscured or even ignored all together because there was no place for them in the current conception of physics. Now contrast this with FSCO/I. It’s focused on bits of information, which doesn’t scale and would result in wildly different results depending on how you choose to represent it, etc.
To use your terminology, "continued evasion"? Again, "well adapted to serve a purpose" is more fundamental. It scales and has universal reach, unlike FSCO/I. But, by all means, feel free to explain how FSCO/I has further, and even universal reach? Or, perhaps I'm being charitable in that you see FSCO/I as being way beyond "being well adapted to serve a purpose", because it doesn't have reach? It's way beyond by nature of conforming something you already believe, and only that? critical rationalist
Let me rephrase the question, so the contradiction is more clear. Again to quote Paley... “A watch could not have been lying there forever, nor could it have formed during the solidification of the Earth. Unlike the stone, or a rainbow or a crystal, it could not have assembled itself by spontaneous generation from its raw materials, nor could it be a raw material. But why not, exactly, asked Paley: ‘Why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone; why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first?’ And he knew why. Because the watch not only serves a purpose, it is adapted to that purpose:” Again, let's replace Paley's watch with a designer... Is a designer something that we could have found laying around like a raw material, on a heath? Could it appear spontaneously like a crystal? A designer that designed bacterium would serve the purpose of designing bacterium, and it would be well adapted to that purpose. You cannot just swap the designer of bacterium with a rock, or even current day human designers. If you did, the result would be a lack of bacterium. Right? There must be some crucial difference, that explains that outcome. If it’s information, that can be brought into fundamental physics. Specific transformations must be possible, while others must be impossible. Etc. So, you have the same problem, as the designer would also exhibit the appearance of design. Otherwise, if you could swap out the designer of bacterium with a rock, and you still ended up with bacterium, then what does it mean to say the designer of bacterium designed bacterium? What the heck would be going on? IOW, the supposedly scientific theory of ID would need to become vastly more specific about its designer, in that it was immaterial, or that it somehow was uncreated, works by inexplicable means and methods, etc. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon. critical rationalist
CR, continued evasion. Adapted to a purpose, or Cicero's oh spilled letters will not make up a long poem are qualitative as we both know. Modern Information Theory allows us to draw out degree of complexity and information content in a quantitative way. This very OP shows algebraically and using a block diagram, how a compact description d(E) is formally equivalent informationally to E, a complex organised whole, where L[d(E)] gives a practical estimator of I, the information content. These, you can be presumed to know on simple reading. Therefore your repeated attempt to evade that quantitative analysis is a backhanded admission of its cogency, we know that blind needle in haystack "natural search" on gamut of our sol system is maximally implausible to find 500 bits worth of FSCO/I, and for the cosmos, 1,000 bits suffices. The typical 300 AA protein, can be compared to 900 bases to code it, thus 1800 bits basic information capacity, with thousands of proteins required for a cell, and a metabolic process-flow architecture that is also enormously complex. Thus, we have precisely one known causal factor plausibly capable of such, intelligently directed configuration, with Venter et al pointing the way. KF kairosfocus
CR, we both know the context as was already drawn out, modern information theory, where the discovery of coded algorithmic information in DNA gives explicit information.
I’m still not following you, as DNA reflects a storage medium that is well adapted to serve a purpose. This is a special case of being well adapted to serve a purpose, not some competing criterion. In addition, modern information theory allows us to bring information into fundamental physics by reformulating it into constructor-theoretic terms of which physical transformations must be possible to support it, etc. So, it’s not that Paley’s criteria for the appearance of design is somehow 200 years out of date, but that we have learned more about living things in that time that exhibit the appearance of design. Namely, the recipe used in von Neumann’s replicator-vehicle model of high-fidelity replication meets that criteria. IOW, it seems that whet you’re trying to say is, Paley's criteria is more applicable to living things, now, than it was 200 years ago, not that Paley’s criteria is not a fundamental part of ID. Is that an accurate conclusion? If not, then where did I get it wrong? critical rationalist
PM1, the evidence is, that the shoe is on the other foot. First, there is no credible road to OoL in a Darwin pond or the like. Second, there is no credible empirically substantiated road to origin of major body plans. Third, there is no credible blind watchmaker road to coded algorithmic information in D/RNA. What we see instead is a clear case of ideological imposition of evolutionary materialist scientism. BA77 is right to challenge that ideology and to suggest that it is his fault as he cannot recognise that Darwinists imagine there are such mechanisms is a case of begging the substantial question by attacking the unwelcome messenger. The current rhetorical tactics used to attack James Tour speak volumes on the failure to deal with substance. KF kairosfocus
CR, we both know the context as was already drawn out, modern information theory, where the discovery of coded algorithmic information in DNA gives explicit information. The OP is using a model to draw out how as Orgel and Wicken were aware in the 1970's, functionally specific organisation is informational. Notice, a compact description language gets us to an estimator of K-complexity, with information metric, where for instance bit length is capable of conversion to a negative log probability metric. This development is 200 years beyond Paley on qualitative recognition of contrivance and 2000 years beyond Cicero on recognising blind search challenge in a configuration space. You obviously wish to reverse those advances in order to play dismissive rhetoric over qualitative discussions; obviously, a back handed admission of cogency. Sorry, the substance is there, first, explicit algorithmic information in DNA, then implicit, description language information, consider a suitably compressed DWG file. KF kairosfocus
@81
‘Darwinists’ don’t ‘deny’ teleological purpose because of their philosophical tendencies; they just think there is sufficient evidence to show that no designer is required. You’ve been told that over and over and over again. Why can’t you, at the very least and out of decency, admit that? Is your stance so fragile that you have to attack a straw man version of your opponents views?
It doesn't matter how often people tell BornAgain77 that "Darwinists" accept the reality of teleology. He cannot absorb information that contradicts what he already believes. PyrrhoManiac1
CR, we both know that measurable, functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information is 200 years beyond Paley’s valid but qualitative observation.
Way beyond in what sense, KF? This is incredibly vague. I'm suggesting this is not a counter example. It’s a subset of Paley’s criteria. It’s a special case. That’s my point. Yet, you still haven't given an example that doesn't overlap. Being well adapted to serve a purpose is a more fundamental way to express that same criteria. This is like saying 2+2=4 is way beyond mathematics, which is a category error. 2+2=4 is a special case of mathematics. So, again, in what way is it "way beyond" Paley's criteria? Please be specific. Of course, I've been asking this repeatedly and haven't receive an answer. critical rationalist
CR, we both know that measurable, functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information is 200 years beyond Paley's valid but qualitative observation. That you sdeem so desperate not to admit it, tells us the power of that advance. KF kairosfocus
"Disassemble a passenger jet, which comprises about 6,000,000 parts. "2. Reassemble them randomly," An experiment was conducted with fruit flies. They were exposed to various things to see if they would evolve. In some cases, certain body parts appeared in the wrong places, or they died, or they were so weakened that they could not survive in the wild/their normal environment. At best, the same genetic material only got rearranged. It showed no evidence of evolution. relatd
"they just think there is sufficient evidence to show that no designer is required" JVL, Just-So-Stories. Fairytales. Emergences, magix, and pooferies. Andrew asauber
So, to continue this question along the lines of Origenes’ comment, where is fault tolerance specified in DNA? First, as KF likes to remind us, biological replicators operate via von Neumann's replicator-vehicle model. In regards to a bacterium, first the recipient of how to make a copy of the bacterium is copied. Then the vehicle is constructed using the recipe. The recipe undergoes an error correction process during the copying phase. The vehicle does not get copied as that would require it to somehow scan itself at an atom by atom level. Even then, that would replicate all the errors the vehicle had accumulated having worn out, which would result in an error catastrophe. Second, Does everyone who has a mutation that effect's their hands end up with no fingers? After all, there are people with six fingers instead of five. Why don't those people end up with no fingers? A person who has six fingers did not end up with the recipe that included the blueprint for a complete extra finger. Right? Rather, a mutation in those genes affects how some other genes are expressed during the development process. So, those people end up with six fingers instead of five. However, in some cases, mutations result in significantly fewer fingers as well.
Disassemble a passenger jet, which comprises about 6,000,000 parts. 2. Reassemble them randomly,
Wait, I thought this was about Neo-Darwnism? No one thinks this reflects the latter. critical rationalist
Bornagain77: And although Darwinists, because of their atheistic metaphysics, are forced to deny that any real teleological purpose exists anywhere in the universe, Darwinists simply can’t do any research into biology without illegitimately reaching over into the ID camp and using words that directly imply teleological purpose. 'Darwinists' don't 'deny' teleological purpose because of their philosophical tendencies; they just think there is sufficient evidence to show that no designer is required. You've been told that over and over and over again. Why can't you, at the very least and out of decency, admit that? Is your stance so fragile that you have to attack a straw man version of your opponents views? It's pretty sad if one of your criticisms is that someone uses words you think imply actual design. Sounds like you're really reaching to find fault instead of making a scientific argument. JVL
Sandy @74,
Yep , we readily admit that Darwinists ‘appear’ to be smart .
Hilarious!!! They have the appearance of intelligence. -Q Querius
Kairosfocus @67,
BTW, years ago I used my MSO 97 to make an empty doc file, then used another program to open it up, what a mess with seemingly empty repetitive elements etc, seeming junk. I changed just one element. Then I went back to MSO, the document refused to open.
Let me also add that your experience demonstrated a low level of fault tolerance. You change one bit and the entire data set becomes inoperable. Contrast this with changing "bits" in DNA. So, to continue this question along the lines of Origenes' comment, where is fault tolerance specified in DNA? It's known that DNA includes strings that are less or more susceptible to mutation. This "specification" is integrated into the design parameters. Naturally, Darwinists will invoke their unscientific gods-of-gaps, MUSTA, MIGHTA, and EMERGED, to explain anything. Here's a thought experiment. 1. Disassemble a passenger jet, which comprises about 6,000,000 parts. 2. Reassemble them randomly, keeping only the subcomponents that become FUNCTIONAL to any level of utility. Occasionally disassemble these to try to achieve higher levels of functionality. 3. Repeat until the entire aircraft has been reassembled. 4. Note how many billions of years it takes to achieve a flying aircraft. This can be simulated by Monte Carlo analysis on a computer. • Now recognize that biological organisms are billions of times more complex. • Recognize that each component has a matter of minutes to finish assembly or become randomized again. • Recognize that many assemblies can occur that are non-functional and cannot be disassembled. • Recognize that parts from other devices are mixed in, including bicycles, pogo sticks, and chain saws. Now maybe, just maybe, some people will finally appreciate how absurd the Darwinist faith actually is. -Q Querius
@KF
CR, you have been shown why, 200 years beyond Paley, we have more advanced information concepts, with quantification. Further, it seems you are unaware that information, entropy and probabilities are connected, as is laid out in my always linked. If you are so aware then your arguments would be deliberately misleading.
Again, you seem to be confused. Just like 2+2=4 is a special case of mathematics, FSCO/I is a special case of being "well adapted to serve a purpose." The latter is more fundamental. This is not misleading. Perhaps you can give a specific example? The one you provided overlaps, as it a special case. And yes, we have more advanced information concepts. See the constructor theory of information, which brings information into fundamental physics and lacks the problem of circularity in other theories like Shannon's etc.
We present a theory of information expressed solely in terms of which transformations of physical systems are possible and which are impossible – i.e. in constructor-theoretic terms. Although it includes conjectured laws of physics that are directly about information, independently of the details of particular physical instantiations, it does not regard information as an a priori mathematical or logical concept, but as something whose nature and properties are determined by the laws of physics alone. It does not suffer from the circularity at the foundations of existing information theory (namely that information and distinguishability are each defined in terms of the other). It explains the relationship between classical and quantum information, and reveals the single, constructor-theoretic property underlying the most distinctive phenomena associated with the latter, including the lack of in-principle distinguishability of some states, the impossibility of cloning, the existence of pairs of variables that cannot simultaneously have sharp values, the fact that measurement processes can be both deterministic and unpredictable, the irreducible perturbation caused by measurement, and entanglement (locally inaccessible information).
critical rationalist
CR claims: "Something with the appearance of design would be well adapted to serve some hypothetical purpose." Yet, teleological 'purpose', hypothetical or otherwise, simply does not exist within his Darwinian worldview.
teleological – adjective exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea." - William Provine - the late Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, said in a 1994 debate with Phil Johnson at Stanford University "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
And although Darwinists, because of their atheistic metaphysics, are forced to deny that any real teleological purpose exists anywhere in the universe, Darwinists simply can't do any research into biology without illegitimately reaching over into the ID camp and using words that directly imply teleological purpose. The renowned J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology)”
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees with Noble and Talbott’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/ In summary, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their biological research, words that directly imply teleological purpose, falsifies Darwinian evolution and proves that the design we overwhelmingly see in biology is real, and is not merely an 'appearance' and/or 'illusion' of design.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77
And, a single instruction calling up a teapot file has not removed the need for information to be somewhere describing the teapot.
Which is my point! You've just picking and choosing where the need for FSCO/I is. You've pushed it into some inexplicable mind, that exists in an inexplicable ream, that operates via inexplicable means and methods and is driven by inexplicable motives. This just pushes the problem up a level without improving it. critical rationalist
It can indeed be said that it is “improbable” that Shakespeare’s Hamlet came about by monkeys banging away on typewriters. Similarly, it is “improbable” that an iPhone comes about by purely natural processes such as mineral deposition and erosion.
This again? The works of Shakespeare explicitly refer to other human beings. It also refers to explanatory concepts like love, rivalry, allegiance, etc. which are explanatory and also refer to other human beings. Only people can create explanatory knowledge. So, the best explanation for Shakespeare work is a person. However, there is no explanatory knowledge in a bacterium. Nothing in a tiger knows, in an explicatory sense, about how its stripes help improve its food supply. This is non-explanatory knowledge. As such, comparing the two is highly flawed. Right? And we should be embarrassed?
It means what it says. How you calculate probability matters. Otherwise, it's just incredulity, dressed up.
Why is it not the case?
By nature of being, well, unrelated. Specifically, the opposite of this would be true as well.
Note how a constructor’s means to achieve a purpose can be represented as a tree of subtasks it performs defined in constructor-theoretic terms. As a more fundamental unification, this allow trees to cross boundaries in ways that the current conception obscures, such as into the applications that open files, and even information and knowledge itself. It becomes more clear, not less. And it excludes cases when multiplication is not applicable.
If this unification makes if more clear how constructor tasks are related and cross boundaries, it also becomes more clear of where tasks are not related and do not cross boundaries. This is the contrast. Again, we're referring to the appearance of design in something specific, like an organism, not how much appearance of design there is in the entire world. critical rationalist
:) Yep , we readily admit that Darwinists 'appear' to be smart . Sandy
Gobbledygook riddled with baseless unnecessary assumptions. Why on earth should ID accept your incoherent definition of intelligent design?
First, this criticism could be applicable to just about anything. So how can it be used in a critical way? For example...
Your comment is Gobbledygook riddled with baseless unnecessary assumptions? Why should I accept it?
See how that works? Or should I say, doesn't work? Get back to me you have an actual criticism of what I wrote. Second, what does your acceptance have to do with it? That would be like saying whether 2+2=4 is a special case of mathematics depends on whether you accept it or not. What's in question is, are there examples where they do not overlap. Quibbling over the definition of words is not such and example. Again, I'm suggesting Paley's criterion for the appearance of design is a more fundamental. It's like general relativity, compared to Newton's laws. It scales. It has universal reach. But if it doesn't have universal reach, then how is it applicable to what would be our designers? critical rationalist
CR, you have been shown why, 200 years beyond Paley, we have more advanced information concepts, with quantification. Further, it seems you are unaware that information, entropy and probabilities are connected, as is laid out in my always linked. If you are so aware then your arguments would be deliberately misleading. So, to charity: my first two textbooks on information were the Connor series and Taub and Schilling, you can probably get copies through Amazon. The base of modern information metrics is negative log probability. We adjust, we use weighted sums we account for redundancies, all explained in standard textbooks. This gives an additive result, tied to the compounding of probabilities, using well known properties of the log function. BTW, neg log base two gives information in bits and is equivalent to counting the length of a chain of two-state unbiased elements. This carries the meaning, the information in one book can be added to that in another, providing there is surprise, i.e. two copies of the same book, apart from number of copies, is the same information. Which is precisely what d(E) shows. As an analogue, there is just one null set, all the references to it are just referencies to it. Take up von Neumann's construction of N using it, we have infinite references and implication, each natural is also unique, a structure organised on {}. From this, each value in ZQRCR* is also unique though there will be diverse ways to refer to them, e.g. 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 etc refer to the same rational. Just so, truly synonymous reference to d(E) is just that. The actual ideal L[d(E)] is a minimum, a compact description language simply approaches it. And, a single instruction calling up a teapot file has not removed the need for information to be somewhere describing the teapot. Such can even be reverse engineered from the teapot and used to create another copy of the pot. And more, the desperation to reject FSCO/I backhandedly speaks for itself on how powerful it is as a sign of design. KF kairosfocus
CR
CR: First, I’d again point out, it’s well adapted to serve a purpose.
Ori: I do not understand what you mean by the term “purpose.” Whose “purpose” is being served? What purpose are you referring to?
CR: Something with the appearance of design would we well adapted to serve some hypothetical purpose. This would reflect whatever problem said hypothetical designer may have wanted to solve, what hypothetical goal it had, etc. when it supposedly designed whatever is in question.
Gobbledygook riddled with baseless unnecessary assumptions. Why on earth should ID accept your incoherent definition of intelligent design? Origenes
First, again, this is like asking an ID proponent, who is the designer of Bacterium? How did they do it, etc? Should I expect an answer. If not, why? Second, you're getting hung up on the definitions of words, again. Words are shortcuts for ideas. And I've given examples of this many times. Something with the appearance of design would we well adapted to serve some hypothetical purpose. This would reflect whatever problem said hypothetical designer may have wanted to solve, what hypothetical goal it had, etc. when it supposedly designed whatever is in question. For example, imagine something was designed, but that design reflected a careful attempt to appear to be random or natural. It would have been designed, but not exhibit the appearance of design. Right? critical rationalist
CR @64
3.1.1 Appearance of design Something with the appearance of design is often described as “improbable” [27, 28].
Let’s put this in perspective. It can indeed be said that it is “improbable” that Shakespeare’s Hamlet came about by monkeys banging away on typewriters. Similarly, it is “improbable” that an iPhone comes about by purely natural processes such as mineral deposition and erosion.
This is misleading because probability measures are multiplicative; so that would mean that two independent objects with the appearance of design would have much more of that appearance than they do separately.
“Misleading”? When you have an oil refinery AND a library filled with science books, then, sure, you have more “appearance” of design, then separately. What is your point with “misleading”?
But that is not the case when the two objects have unrelated functionalities (such as, say, internal organs of different organisms).
Why is it not the case?
In contrast, two organs in the context of the same organism, coordinating to the effect of gene prop- agation, do have a greater appearance of design than either separately.
So, it works exactly the same. What “contrast” are you talking about then? Two organs in the same organism “have a greater appearance of design than either separately”, just like two independent objects have, as you have argued. There is no contrast here. And what could possibly be your point with this (non-existent) contrast? Origenes
From an earlier thread, starting out regarding information.
Only organized systems are well adapted to serve a purpose. Strings that are random, in they merely have some order, are adapted, but not well adapted. If you can swap one string's content with the content of some other random string and it has no impact on how well it serves purpose of, say, being the recipe of a bacterium, then it wasn't well adapted to serve that purpose in the first place. Both strings are both equally poorly adapted at serving that purpose. Their ability to serve that purpose does not get any worse. However, if a string that is well adapted to serve the purpose of being the recipe for a bacterium, then you cannot replace it with just any other string. Right? You cannot change it without causing a significant reduction in its ability to serve that purpose. If you could, then it's unclear how the string was actually playing the role of the recipe of a bacterium in the first place. Again, a rock can be used to tell time by using it as a sun dial. But it's not well adapted to serve that purpose. You could replace it with some other rock, or even some non-rock, like a stick, tree, even a person. The knowledge of how to tell time is in us, not the rock. However, this is not the case with the watch. It is well adapted to serve the purpose of telling time. You cannot vary it significantly without a corresponding reduction in its ability to tell time.
Is this not a more fundamental way of saying the same thing? IOw, Paley perfected the criteria for the appearance of design. Oddly, functional specificity was easier, it is easy to see that for configuration-sensitive function, missing, disoriented, poorly coupled, defective or missing parts, beyond reasonable tolerance, will undermine function. When something is well adapted to serve a purpose (configuration-sensitive), changing it will cause it to serve that purpose less, if even at all (undermine function).
So, the issue will not fit into the small bag you are trying to stuff it into to disregard key issues that make all the difference. See above. It's unclear how the criteria of being well adapted to serve a purpose is a small bag. It's a more fundamental criterion that actual scales. It's a far bigger bag. In fact, it's a bag that is so big it has universal reach As I pointed out in an earlier thread... ‹blockauote> No, I pointed out that the means by which you might choose to represent the watch, in bits, would vary wildly depending on the particular digital format you choose to represent it. Right? For example, the very same watch could appear to have wildly more or less of the appearance of design depending on what format you happened to chose to represent it, digitally. If you store it as a 12K by 12K png, that would be vastly more bits than, say, parametric format. You'd have to somehow use the most efficient digital representation possible, and that format might not have even been invented yet. For example, someone just recently invented a way to reduce the size of a Neural Radiance Field by 100 times. As such, did a watch represented as an NRF suddenly just have much less of the appearance of design? And what about a description in a string of text? Words are shortcuts for ideas, which would represent other information in the receiver, etc. As such, it's unclear how this could be accurately used, in practice, to identify how much a thing has the appearance of design. Being well adapted to serve a purpose does not have this problem, as it would be format independent and wouldn't even require a digital representation at all. It simply scales in ways FSCO/I cannot. Again, a watch is well adapted to the purpose of telling time. A rock is not, despite the fact that you can use it to tell time as a sundial. We are well adapted to use a rock to tell time, not the rock. I don't even need to appeal to Auto CAD, etc To reiterate, I have still yet to see an example of how the shoe does't fit. It's that you seem to object to wearing it consistently. At this point, you seem to be hung up on having the right definition of words, as opposed to actualiy addressing the ideas and explanatory
critical rationalist
CR, files in standard format are by definition cases of functional information. Yes, there will be redundancies and sometimes contextual omissions e.g. files assume your PC already has key fonts loaded. Files can be corrupted, so the information is functionally specific. It uses coded information with strings of glyphs, 1/0 then ASCII etc, which depend on framing and configuration. This extends from strings to more complex arrays that use pointers to set them up. Thus, configurational specificity and coupling are a part of the function, i.e. they are organised. And in the beyond a threshold sense, 500 - 1,000 bits, they are complex. BTW, years ago I used my MSO 97 to make an empty doc file, then used another program to open it up, what a mess with seemingly empty repetitive elements etc, seeming junk. I changed just one element. Then I went back to MSO, the document refused to open. So, we see functionally specific, complex organisation. Where, obviously, these files are informational, with associated information, and they obviously use info carrying capacity of the number of bits used as an index of the amount of functional information. Whether the coding is compact much less at a minimum, this is an upper bound, and a Zip or the like lossless compression can help us see how much redundancy is there. From such facts, any responsible person may readily see that functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] is a coherent, relevant, useful and ubiquitous phenomenon and concept. We can extend to say a nut and bolt, which can be reduced to a DWG file format or to NC control code. Machines can then be set up to create these in quantity, just look at the bins in a hardware store, or look under the bonnet/hood of a car. Here, except perhaps for stamped symbols on a bolt head, the information is implicit in the organisation of the nut and bolt. We could go on and on, pausing to note that the same pattern is pervasive in the world of life and in the physics of the cosmos. The rhetorical pretence that FSCO/I is meaningless or incoherent etc is a mark of desperate opposition, a back handed implicit acknowledgement of its significance and power as a strong sign of design. KF PS, if you can call up a tea pot with one command, that is the problem. The description of the pot is loaded elsewhere and the command indexes and pulls it. kairosfocus
PS, Wikipedia confesses:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the director of the US National Institutes of Health. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.[1][2] Collins raises arguments for the idea of God, drawing from science and philosophy. He cites many famous thinkers, most prevalently C. S. Lewis, as well as Saint Augustine, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Theodosius Dobzhansky and others. In 2007 Christianity Today judged it one of the best books of the previous year.[3] . . .
The cover of the book of course features a certain molecule of note. kairosfocus
CR @63
CR: First, I’d again point out, it’s well adapted to serve a purpose.
I do not understand what you mean by the term "purpose." Whose "purpose" is being served? What purpose are you referring to? Do you mean to say that something has a *function* within a system? Origenes
Of course, predictably, you will continue to deny that file size measures are an index of FSCO/I,
What format? How much of the means to interpret the context is in us, or the program that reads the file? In OpenGL, you can specify an entire teapot using a single command. So, if a file contained that command, then you’re going to get wildly varying results, compared to another file that code contains the individual polygons that would make up the exact same teapot. Of course, polygons are an approximation. You can use more points / faces to become more accurate, but that increases the file size dramatically. Your render could apply a subdivision process to counteract this. On the other hand, you can use parametric Boolean descriptions that would result in a vastly more highly accurate representation, with a much smaller file size. Again, how you choose to represent something would result in wildly varying levels of appearance of design. This is entirely why the constructor theory of life has an entire section on the appearance of design.
3.1.1 Appearance of design Something with the appearance of design is often described as “improbable” [27, 28]. This is misleading because probability measures are multiplicative; so that would mean that two independent objects with the appearance of design would have much more of that appearance than they do separately. But that is not the case when the two objects have unrelated functionalities (such as, say, internal organs of different organisms). In contrast, two organs in the context of the same organism, coordinating to the effect of gene prop- agation, do have a greater appearance of design than either separately. This can be expressed naturally in constructor-theoretic terms for programmable constructors. Consider a recipe R for a possible task T. A sub-recipe R? for the task T? is fine-tuned to perform T if almost any slight change in T? would cause T to be performed to a much lower accuracy. (For instance, changing the mechanism of insulin production in the pancreas even slightly, would impair the overall task the organism performs.) A programmable constructor V whose repertoire includes T has the appearance of design if it can execute a recipe for T with a hierarchical structure including several, different sub-recipes, fine-tuned to perform T. Each fine-tuned sub-recipe is performed by a sub-constructor contained in V : the number of fine-tuned sub-recipes performable by V is a measure of V ’s appearance of design. This constructor-theoretic definition is non-multiplicative, as desired..
Note how a constructor’s means to achieve a purpose can be represented as a tree of subtasks it performs defined in constructor-theoretic terms. As a more fundamental unification, this allow trees to cross boundaries in ways that the current conception obscures, such as into the applications that open files, and even information and knowledge itself. It becomes more clear, not less. And it excludes cases when multiplication is not applicable. So, the entire system of the file, the program that reads it, the knowledge in us, etc. can be represented at a fundamental, unified way in constructor theory. It can cross those boundaries and different levels of explanation, that might have been obscured or even ignored all together because there was no place for them in the current conception of physics. Now contrast this with FSCO/I. It’s focused on bits of information, which doesn’t scale and would result in wildly different results depending on how you choose to represent it, etc. critical rationalist
CR seems to be arguing that the concept of complex specified functional organization/information is superfluous and can be replaced by the term “well-adapted.”
Huh? First, I’d again point out, it’s well adapted to serve a purpose. What gives? Apparently, you think the “to serve a purpose” part is superfluous and can be replaced with nothing? Second, I’m suggesting it’s a more fundamental. It has universal reach. FSCO/I is a special case of being well adapted to serve a purpose. it does not scale. That’s as incoherent as suggesting I claimed we can replace 2+2=4 with mathematics. 2+2=4 is a special case of mathematics. For example, you can use Newton's laws to launch satellites into space. But once in orbit, you need general relativity to create a Global Positioning System. Newton’s laws are an approximation. They do not scale. They lack the reach of general relativity. It’s more fundamental. Right? Like Newton’s laws, CSFO/I does not scale. It lacks the same reach as “being well adapted to serve a purpose.“ critical rationalist
Alan Fox, "I’m perfectly happy in acknowledging the design aspect of living organisms. But the source of that design is the evolutionary process." Well that is not a surprise. Many leading Darwinists will readily admit that life overwhelmingly 'appears' to be designed,
“Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21 "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now." - Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1988) “The real core of Darwinism … is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention.” - Ernst Mayr - Foreword in Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982) Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full The Ongoing Battle Against Darwinism — Moving Towards a New Biology - Mar 13, 2021 Excerpt: “It was one of the great merits of Darwin himself to show that the purposiveness of organic structure and function was apparent only. The teleology of adaptation is a pseudo-teleology, capable of being accounted for on good mechanistic principles, without the intervention of purpose, conscious or subconscious, either on the part of the organism or of any outside power” - Julian Huxley, one of the co-founders of the neo-Darwinian Synthesis - Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Allen and Unwin, 1942, p 412 https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/the-ongoing-battle-against-darwinism-moving-towards-a-new-biology-5a0b9be1d389 Adaptation - by Richard C. Lewontin - 1978 Excerpt: Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each or­ganism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.,,, https://dynamics.org/~altenber/LIBRARY/REPRINTS/Lewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf etc.. etc..
The fatal problem for Darwinists, (aside from the fact that they have ZERO real-time empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes, and natural selection in particular, can produce this overwhelming 'appearance of design', and/or overwhelming 'illusion of design'), is that in order for us to even be able to have an 'illusion of design' in the first place, 'real design' must be present somewhere in nature. Otherwise, It simply would be impossible for us to say that such and such is merely an 'illusion of design' if we did not first have 'real design' present somewhere in nature to compare the illusion of design to. But alas, for Darwinists there simply is no 'real design' to be found anywhere in nature in order for us to ascertain whether something is only an illusion of design or whether it is real design. According to Darwinian metaphysics, and especially with their denial of free will, not even human artifacts exhibit 'real design'. For instance, according to Darwinian metaphysics, Einstein himself was not responsible for discovering the theories of relativity.
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
In fact, Alan Fox himself has denied that he himself is responsible for writing, (and/or designing), his very own sentences.
BA77: “So AF holds that the ‘niche”, not AF himself, is responsible for the information that he himself is writing in his posts?” Alan Fox: “Yes, sort of, though I don’t know,,,,” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-for-darwinism-pregnancy-is-the-mother-of-all-chicken-and-egg-problems/#comment-771084
To state the obvious, this is insane. Since Alan Fox, via his denial of free will, is not really responsible for writing any of his own sentences, why should we believe anything that he is only 'appearing' to write? And not that I ever expect an honest answer from Alan Fox, but my question to him is, "If nothing in nature can be said to be 'real design', (not even your own sentences), how in blue blazes are you, or anybody else, able to tell whether something is only an illusion of design and that it is not real design? i.e. Exactly what is your measuring standard for differentiating 'real design' from that which is only an 'illusion of design'? Supplemental note as to how complete the Darwinist's denial of 'real design' is.: "It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts."
Teleology and the Mind - Michael Egnor - August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
Verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77
But of course for months you have been in self discrediting denial of something so commonplace Wikipedia cannot but acknowledge it, much less leading voices. KF
*chuckles* I'm just disagreeing with you. Alan Fox
And remember, I'm perfectly happy in acknowledging the design aspect of living organisms. But the source of that design is the evolutionary process. Alan Fox
KF, if you are talking about Francis Collins, he's no friend of the ID "movement". Alan Fox
AF, instantly, results are results, and you obviously failed to note that the head of the project is in fact, on the impact of what he learned across his career precisely a design thinker. Now, too, we need not expend needless energy on marginal or disputed cases when we have direct knowledge of coded algorithmic information. But of course for months you have been in self discrediting denial of something so commonplace Wikipedia cannot but acknowledge it, much less leading voices. KF kairosfocus
Please don’t feed the troll. He will just tell you that he didn’t miss it, but that it’s completely irrelevant and flawed.
Very poor mind-reading, Querius. Of course, I'm aware of the Human Genome Project. I wasn't aware any ID proponents were involved in the production and analysis of data. The equivocation that led to confusion over what constitutes a functional sequence was a storm in a teacup. Alan Fox
Relatd @54,
You missed the completion of the Human Genome Project?
Please don't feed the troll. He will just tell you that he didn't miss it, but that it's completely irrelevant and flawed. The subsequent interaction will proceed for 250 more messages of the general tone and significance of: Related: No, it isn't. Alan Fox: Yes, it is. Related: No, it isn't. Alan Fox: Yes, it is. Related: No, it isn't. Alan Fox: Yes, it is. It's pointless to argue with someone based solely on assertions and counter-assertions ad nauseam. -Q Querius
Origenes @53,
Where are the instructions located?
Indeed. While there are a lot of chemical "instructions" that are followed mechanistically, the big challenge is that the organism's "design documents" are missing. These would include design intent, performance specifications, tolerances, safety margins, resilience, quality criteria, yield rates, and many other "design parameters" that are missing from each of the components alone. One can see a dramatic example of what I'm suggestion in considering the biological energy cost in the growth of the leaves of deciduous versus evergreen trees. Evergreen leaves are far more expensive considering the additional components required for their longevity, including waxes and insect repellent chemicals not found in other leaves. -Q Querius
AF at 50, You missed the completion of the Human Genome Project? relatd
Querius @52 Contextual information must play a huge role in an organism. In order to maintain homeostasis, the right proteins must be produced at the right time, in the right amount, and transported to the right places. Where are the instructions located?
Indeed. Origenes
Kairosfocus, Regarding the OP, I thought this might be an interesting place to start:
From this we may come back to Orgel and notice his [1973] summary:
These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
Let's take the concept of 42-ness as information. Some people can imagine (after training) 42 as a conceptual quantity--just as most of us can at least imagine zero-ness, one-ness, two-ness, three-ness, and many-ness. 42 can be symbolized in many ways including: Forty two XLII lllllll lllllll lllllll lllllll lllllll lllllll 101010 2A The conceptual information symbolized by each of the above is identical, but the information in the symbology itself varies, likely has larger or smaller domains (binary versus hex) and may not be readily apparent. Additionally, context also determines the significance of the information. I'm not just thinking of measured versus counted, significant digits, or the difference between 42 cents and 42 million dollars, but more like the least versus the most significant digit in a string such as an RGB color value or 42 feet in the circumference of the earth, for example. Abstraction level is always a factor in information presented as well as precision. So, going back to Orgel, the "minimum number of instructions" also includes all of the contextual issues mentioned above. Things might be FAR more informationally complex than we realize. -Q Querius
AF, no, Orgel gave a basic framework turning on K complexity. Above, I have drawn out this and have given cases. I also note that FSCO/I is as commonplace as computer files, which of course have basic metrics and obviously exist as instances, shattering claims about incoherence. Use a compact description language say a compression of a DWG or the like, and we can readily see how K-Complexity works. The formalism of a 3-DP/C helps us see how information content corresponds to entity. Durston et al and others have worked to deal with redundancy of file size. However with say a first cell of 1 million bases, if 10% are functional and we move to information content 1 bit each we are well beyond threshold. Enough has been on the table for 50 years for a reasonable person. KF kairosfocus
Any reasonable person would have acknowledged that from 1973 on an adequate basic framework has been on the table.
Orgel's "specified complexity" is a qualitative description, not a measurable property. Alan Fox
I am also sure Dr Puccio has gone over the use of empirical data from the world of life at length, of course predictably to no avail.
I don't recall Giuseppe Puccio succeeding in showing how to calculate "FSCO etc", though he may have had a go with "CSI". There is a bit of an issue whether your "FSCO etc" is the same as "CSI" is the same as Durston's "FSC" Alan Fox
AF, your memory is inaccurate,. I notice you have skipped over three specific values based on published functional bit values.
What are you referring to? Alan Fox
AF, your memory is inaccurate,. I notice you have skipped over three specific values based on published functional bit values. I am also sure Dr Puccio has gone over the use of empirical data from the world of life at length, of course predictably to no avail. Any reasonable person would have acknowledged that from 1973 on an adequate basic framework has been on the table. KF kairosfocus
The conclusion from Durston & Chiu FSC can be measured by extending Shannon uncertainty to include the joint variables of data and function. This measure can provide an estimate of the variability and hence the size of the functional sequence space for a specific functional protein. It also can measure change in a sequence due to mutation relative to the required functionality. The information calculated from an observed sequence ensemble constrained by the specified functionality then reflects the underlying sub-molecular information structure that could be used to reconstruct the structural or functional properties of the molecule. FSC thus provides a foundational measure that can form the basis for more detailed analysis. Seems to admit that putative calculations depend on assuming probabilities that are only guesses. I don't think this is KF's pot of gold. Alan Fox
Interesting that you offer Kirk Durston's efforts to develop an idea he calls "functional sequence complexity" which he claims is a property of the biopolymers: DNA, RNA, and proteins. From here In the case of proteins, the measure of FSC provides an estimate for the target size of a protein family in the amino acid sequence space, revealing that functional sequences occupy an extremely small fraction of sequence space. Well, that looks dodgy in itself. How rare functional proteins are in sequence space is unknown, so any probability measures will be guesses. However, I'll work through the paper and see what I find. Alan Fox
AF, in between phone calls, I dug up an illustration from 2014 and have appended to OP.
Where? Does it begin at "PS, as a frequent objector is again demanding measured values of FSCO/I..."?
Of course, predictably, you will continue to deny that file size measures are an index of FSCO/I...
Computer file size measures are an indication of the size of computer files. Are you saying that a description of a thing can be converted to a computer file and the size of the file establishes the "FSC etc" of the thing?
...and that the values published for proteins and given since 2014, count. Nine years of denial, indeed going back to the Mathgrrl sock puppet, more like twelve as this issue was hammered out thoroughly at that time. KF
My recollection is that Mathgrrl (Patrick May) was banned here and the calculation of "complex specified information" (CSI) was never done for any real object or process. Alan Fox
PPS, as for nebulous and undefined, even if previous discussions were discounted, the above is quite definite and for that matter there was a definition on the table in Orgel, 1973 that should have satisfied any reasonable party. For record of reference:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
But, the rhetorical, selectively hyperskeptical dance goes on and on and on . . . At this point we have an epistemic right to do a confession by projection type analysis. Namely, the concept and readily recognisable information measure FSCO/I is so telling that it must be frustrated, distorted, misrepresented, obfuscated, denied and dismissed at any cost. A back handed admission of its decisive nature. In this case, we must put it alongside AF's stunt of pretending superior biochemistry knowledge so that he set out to similarly deny the reality of coded algorithmic information in the cell. I again point to Lehninger and heirs:
"The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function." [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/ The sad rhetorical pattern is all too clear. kairosfocus
PS, Durston et al, 2007: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18062814/ also see https://p2c.com/sites/default/files/documents/blogs/kirk/functional-complexity-press.pdf kairosfocus
AF, in between phone calls, I dug up an illustration from 2014 and have appended to OP. Of course, predictably, you will continue to deny that file size measures are an index of FSCO/I, and that the values published for proteins and given since 2014, count. Nine years of denial, indeed going back to the Mathgrrl sock puppet, more like twelve as this issue was hammered out thoroughly at that time. KF kairosfocus
Can anyone help find one of KF's repeated "FSC etc" calculations that I somehow have missed. Alan Fox
AF, repeatedly done and repeatedly ignored. Including by you. KF
I don't recall any example, let alone repeated ones. If such is the case, how hard can it be for you to link to one such example? Alan Fox
AF, repeatedly done and repeatedly ignored. Including by you. KF kairosfocus
CR, no, the clock at best would be part of an arrangement to tell time, but which would be well below 500 bits. KF kairosfocus
...there have been any number of cases...
One will be enough. If it is already done, then, surely, it can be the work of moments to copy and paste that example.
We now have to recognise that this is denial. KF
Yes you seem to be in denial. Where are these calculations of "FSC etc"? Alan Fox
AF, false, there have been any number of cases but you and others have refused to accept the simple fact. We now have to recognise that this is denial. KF kairosfocus
KF CR seems to be arguing that the concept of complex specified functional organization/information is superfluous...
As well as undefined, nebulous, incalculable... Alan Fox
There is no excuse for the line of objections that have tried to make it out that FSC thence FSCI and even FSCO/I are incoherent, meaningless and/or unquantifiable.
The fact that nobody has shown such a calculation is enough for me. Come on KF, rise to the challenge. Show us how you calculate the "FSC etc" of something. Alan Fox
O, CR is pushing an inadequate concept. KF kairosfocus
KF CR seems to be arguing that the concept of complex specified functional organization/information is superfluous and can be replaced by the term "well-adapted." Not sure why he believes that this makes sense, or where he is going with this. His proposal seems to be mere unjustifiable conjecture. Origenes
Cr, of course, we may refine some rocks and construct a clock, as has been done for 1,000 years.
You can use a stone brick to tell time as a sundial. That knowledge is in us, not the brick. Such clocks do embed in their functional organisation complex, functional information that can be reduced to a compact description d(E) then fed to a 3D-P/C, which would then produce a functional watch of the same type. In this case, the stone is well adapted for the purpose of telling time. T
Worse, if said watch is found to be replicating itself, as Paley pointed out, such requires additional FSCO/I.
The genes of a bacterium is well adapted for the purpose of being a recipe for reproducing bacterium. IOW, the two circles of the Venn diagram I keep asking for still overlap. critical rationalist
AF, if you pause a moment and look at the OP you will precisely see a formalisation of longstanding ideas and discussions on how to measure functional sequence complexity. Take the algebra or the illustration, both make the same point, building on Orgel, 1973 who used Kolmogorov. That is, from the very first moment when specified complexity was raised by an eminent OoL researcher, fifty years ago, how it is measurable was identified. There is no excuse for the line of objections that have tried to make it out that FSC thence FSCI and even FSCO/I are incoherent, meaningless and/or unquantifiable. KF kairosfocus
Cr, of course, we may refine some rocks and construct a clock, as has been done for 1,000 years. Such clocks do embed in their functional organisation complex, functional information that can be reduced to a compact description d(E) then fed to a 3D-P/C, which would then produce a functional watch of the same type. See, illustration I added, to help those who struggle with algebra. L[d(E)] where d(E) is in some compact description language is an estimator of the functional information in E. FSCO/I is then further estimated by subtracting a threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits, to identify cases where say forest fires melting ores that pool in conveniently randomly shaped rocks then get blown together or the like will be utterly implausible and evasive. Worse, if said watch is found to be replicating itself, as Paley pointed out, such requires additional FSCO/I. Or, setting aside functional organisation, ponder text strings. There, with suitable allowance for redundancy [e,g. qu -- means most info is in the q] we can pretty directly read info content. Such as in your objections. This of course reflects how we are 200 years beyond Paley now. KF kairosfocus
Ori: However, there is little to no FSCO/I i/l/o Kolmogorov complexity to identify.
As I said, meaningless. Unless you can explain how we measure the "FSC etc" of, well, anything. Alan Fox
CR
Can a stone brick not be replaced with a concrete block?
Sure. Why do you ask? You seemed to have missed this:
Ori: However, there is little to no FSCO/I i/l/o Kolmogorov complexity to identify. This shows you that the term “well adapted” does not quite capture those aspects of an artifact that ID is interested in to argue for design.
Origenes
Arguably, a brick stone is “well adapted” for a purpose.
It is? But, again…
… a rock can be used to tell time by using it as a sun dial. But it’s not well adapted to serve that purpose. You could replace it with some other rock, or even some non-rock, like a stick, tree, even a person. The knowledge of how to tell time is in us, not the rock.
Can a stone brick not be replaced with a concrete block? What about adobe? Or even rocks, found in nature, by using the knowledge in us? critical rationalist
CR claims that "We are well adapted to use a rock to tell time, not the rock." Yet, "Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,,"
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
More specifically, "the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality" is captured with what is termed the ‘Persistence of Self-Identity" (which may also be termed ‘the experience of ‘the Now”), which is a defining quality of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
The mental experience of 'the now' is far more problematic for Darwinian materialists than they apparently realize. Dr. Suarez states the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, (paraphrase) “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
In short, we each seemingly watch from some mysterious outside perspective of time as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we seem to be standing on our own personal, tiny, 'island of now’ as the river of time continually flows past each of us. And in the following article Stanley Jaki states the irresolvable dilemma for materialists as such “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
In fact, around 1935 Einstein was directly asked by Rudolf Carnap (who was also a fairly well respected philosopher of his time), “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” Rudolf Carnap – Philosopher
Einstein’s answer to Carnap was ‘categorical’, he said, “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
The Mind and Its Now – May 22, 2008 – By Stanley L. Jaki Excerpt: ,,, Rudolf Carnap, and the only one among them who was bothered with the mind’s experience of its now. His concern for this is noteworthy because he went about it in the wrong way. He thought that physics was the only sound way to know and to know anything. It was therefore only logical on his part that he should approach, we are around 1935, Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the day, with the question whether it was possible to turn the experience of the now into a scientific knowledge. Such knowledge must of course be verified with measurement. We do not have the exact record of Carnap’s conversation with Einstein whom he went to visit in Princeton, at eighteen hours by train at that time from Chicago. But from Einstein’s reply which Carnap jotted down later, it is safe to assume that Carnap reasoned with him as outlined above. Einstein’s answer was categorical: The experience of the now cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement. It can never be part of physics. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
The specific statement that Einstein made to Carnap on the train, “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” was a very interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.
from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, the Quantum Zeno effect, Quantum information theory, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality, etc..), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.,,, March 2023 - https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-a-center-of-the-universe/#comment-777672
In fact, I hold that it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way; “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.” Thus CR may claim that humans "are well adapted to use a rock to tell time, not the rock" but the fact of the matter is that we could never tell time in the first place unless we first had an immaterial mind with the subjective experience of 'the now' which is completely transcendent of space time itself. Without that 'outside perspective' of 'the now' we simply could not tell if time was passing in the first place. Moreover, our ability to tell time, i.e. 'the now', is shown, via quantum mechanics, to precede the existence of space-time, matter-energy, itself and is therefore irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations, (i.e. just-so stories), of Darwinian evolution. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
Emergent! Emergent! No intelligence required!
As I just said in comment #22, I am comfortable with the idea of some Deistic Creator setting up this universe with all that that entails, including emergent properties. Water is not like oxygen and hydrogen. (Google sp3). But I cannot think why this Deistic Creator created this universe? Science cannot answer "why" questions. Philosophy asks such questions but so far fails to find answers. Religion? Most here would be better placed than me to offer the religious answer to this "why". Alan Fox
I find it quite reasonable to assume a Deistic Creator of the Universe as the answer to "Design", apart from motive. Why did the Creator create the Universe and everything in it? I have no idea, myself. I suggest the question is unanswerable. Alan Fox
...to argue for design.
Are you arguing that entities display an aspect of being designed. I think that argument, as far as it goes, is won. What would be far more interesting would be some sort of demonstration that entities are "Designed" and what that process of "Design" entails. What "Designed"? How did it "Design"? Where did it "Design"? When did it "Design"? And the biggie... Why did it "Design"? Alan Fox
However, there is little to no FSCO/I i/l/o Kolmogorov complexity to identify.
Baseless (meaningless, really) assumption unless you can explain how to measure "FSC" and its growing undefined variants. Can you distinguish whether a brick stone (?) indeed has little or no "FSC"? Alan Fox
Thanks for confirming your penchant for inappropriate analogies, KF. An oil refinery is like a living cell. Mind you, neither refineries nor living cells break the (descriptive and predictive) laws of physics or chemistry. Alan Fox
AF, the process-flow reaction set as a whole is highly complex, key to life and easily exceeds the organisation of an oil refinery. KF kairosfocus
CR Arguably, a brick stone is "well adapted" for a purpose. However, there is little to no FSCO/I i/l/o Kolmogorov complexity to identify. This shows you that the term "well adapted" does not quite capture those aspects of an artifact that ID is interested in to argue for design. Origenes
AF, metabolising, encapsulated, smart gated, coded information using self replicating cell. KF
Nice poster! I, as an undergraduate, had a much earlier version on my wall way back. It shows how much progress has been made over the last half-century in biochemistry. What have "Intelligent Design" and its proponents contributed to that advance? As everyone here seems to like poor analogies (in fact, KF's poster can be described as a poor analogy of what happens inside a living cell) note how all the chemical pathways illustrated involve small steps and chemical intermediates. A bit like biological evolution with transitional species. Alan Fox
From an earlier thread, starting out regarding information.
Only organized systems are well adapted to serve a purpose. Strings that are random, in they merely have some order, are adapted, but not well adapted. If you can swap one string’s content with the content of some other random string and it has no impact on how well it serves purpose of, say, being the recipe of a bacterium, then it wasn’t well adapted to serve that purpose in the first place. Both strings are both equally poorly adapted at serving that purpose. Their ability to serve that purpose does not get any worse. However, if a string that is well adapted to serve the purpose of being the recipe for a bacterium, then you cannot replace it with just any other string. Right? You cannot change it without causing a significant reduction in its ability to serve that purpose. If you could, then it’s unclear how the string was actually playing the role of the recipe of a bacterium in the first place. Again, a rock can be used to tell time by using it as a sun dial. But it’s not well adapted to serve that purpose. You could replace it with some other rock, or even some non-rock, like a stick, tree, even a person. The knowledge of how to tell time is in us, not the rock. However, this is not the case with the watch. It is well adapted to serve the purpose of telling time. You cannot vary it significantly without a corresponding reduction in its ability to tell time.
Is this not a more fundamental way of saying the same thing? IOW, Paley perfected the criteria for the appearance of design.
Oddly, functional specificity was easier, it is easy to see that for configuration-sensitive function, missing, disoriented, poorly coupled, defective or missing parts, beyond reasonable tolerance, will undermine function.
When something is well adapted to serve a purpose (configuration-sensitive), changing it will cause it to serve that purpose less, if even at all (undermine function).
So, the issue will not fit into the small bag you are trying to stuff it into to disregard key issues that make all the difference.
See above. It's unclear how the criteria of being well adapted to serve a purpose is a small bag. It's a more fundamental criterion that actual scales. It's a far bigger bag. In fact, it's a bag that is so big it has universal reach. As I pointed out in an earlier thread...
No, I pointed out that the means by which you might choose to represent the watch, in bits, would vary wildly depending on the particular digital format you choose to represent it. Right? For example, the very same watch could appear to have wildly more or less of the appearance of design depending on what format you happened to chose to represent it, digitally. If you store it as a 12K by 12K png, that would be vastly more bits than, say, parametric format. You’d have to somehow use the most efficient digital representation possible, and that format might not have even been invented yet. For example, someone just recently invented a way to reduce the size of a Neural Radiance Field by 100 times. As such, did a watch represented as an NRF suddenly just have much less of the appearance of design? And what about a description in a string of text? Words are shortcuts for ideas, which would represent other information in the receiver, etc. As such, it’s unclear how this could be accurately used, in practice, to identify how much a thing has the appearance of design. Being well adapted to serve a purpose does not have this problem, as it would be format independent and wouldn’t even require a digital representation at all. It simply scales in ways FSCO/I cannot. Again, a watch is well adapted to the purpose of telling time. A rock is not, despite the fact that you can use it to tell time as a sundial. We are well adapted to use a rock to tell time, not the rock. I don’t even need to appeal to Auto CAD, etc.
To reiterate, I have still yet to see an example of how the shoe does't fit. It's that you seem to object to wearing it consistently. At this point, you seem to be hung up on having the "right definition" of words, as opposed to actually addressing the ideas and explanatory theories they represent. critical rationalist
W, correction for record. KF kairosfocus
CR, Paley addresses contrivance, there is an onward issue of information content in such organisation, and then a further issue of a threshold beyond which it is maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are maximally implausible as causal explanations. Until we had a quantifiable metric for information then for inferring information quantity in organisation, we could not address functionally specific, complex information. That is, until K-complexity was on the table the general issue could not be tackled. Though, explicit information such as in DNA could be addressed as the information content is readily accessible; the 500 - 1000 bit threshold obtains for this case also. Oddly, functional specificity was easier, it is easy to see that for configuration-sensitive function, missing, disoriented, poorly coupled, defective or missing parts, beyond reasonable tolerance, will undermine function. So, the issue will not fit into the small bag you are trying to stuff it into to disregard key issues that make all the difference. KF kairosfocus
It seems that it is exceedingly hard for some to understand what FSCO/I is about. In responding to an objector, I wrote as follows just now, and think it is worth headlining for reference:
Paley make it really simple. The criterion for the appearance of deign is being well adapted to serve a purpose. Nothing in the OP doesn't fit this criteria. critical rationalist
Alan Fox That is inherent in the emergent properties of RNA. It happens without any codes being necessary or involved.
Why you keep talking with Alan Fox is a mystery for me. whistler
AF, metabolising, encapsulated, smart gated, coded information using self replicating cell. KF kairosfocus
Andrew at 8, And there you have it. :) relatd
It's an Emergent Property of my Comments to be Absolutely Metaphysically Correct. Andrew asauber
AF at 6, Emergent! Emergent! No intelligence required! Warning: The first sock volley is on its way. relatd
...you have to get to self replication...
That is inherent in the emergent properties of RNA. It happens without any codes being necessary or involved. Alan Fox
AF, you have to get to self replication, much less sexual reproduction. But the point is to show how we can identify FSCO/I i/l/o Kolmogorov complexity. KF kairosfocus
What process of evolution?
In populations of sexually reproducing species, genetic mutations and other sources of variation (google meiosis) result in new genetic combinations (genotypes) resulting in changed phenotypes that are subject to performance testing in their immediate niche environment, leading to differential reproductive success and change in allele frequency. With bacteria, things are much simpler but easier to observe. https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8 Alan Fox
AF at 2, What process of evolution? Note: I have my Multiple Sock Launcher on standby... relatd
It is thus clear that FSCO/I is a real world concept and the design inference import it carries is real, non trivial, not incoherent, and significant. END
That "thus" is doing a lot of work. Still you give no clue how to quantify "FSCO" for any entity, system, or process. It certainly has no relevance to living systems or the process of evolution Alan Fox
L&FP, 69: A way to understand Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or associated Information [FSCO/I] i/l/o Kolmogorov-Chaitin Complexity --> or, how d(E) + 3-DP/C + n ==> E, through Kolmogorov-Chaitin Complexity, can help us understand FSCO/I, the design inference and fine tuning etc kairosfocus