“Actually Observed” Means, Well, “Actually Observed”

_{Barry Arrington

November 17, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to a recent thread I made the following challenge to the materialists:

Show me one example – just one; that’s all I need – of chance/law forces creating 500 bits of complex specified information. [Question begging not allowed.] If you do, I will delete all of the pro-ID posts on this website and turn it into a forum for the promotion of materialism. . . .

There is no need to form any hypothesis whatsoever to meet the challenge. The provenance of the example of CSI that will meet the challenge will be ACTUALLY KNOWN. That is why I put the part about question begging in there. It is easy for a materialist to say “the DNA code easily has more than 500 bits of CSI and we know that it came about by chance/law forces.” Of course we know no such thing. Materialists infer it from the evidence, but that is not the only possible explanation.

Let me give you an example. If you watch me put 500 coins on a table and I turn all of them “heads” up, you will know that the provenance of the pattern is “intelligent design.” You do not have to form a chance hypothesis and see if it is rejected. You sat there and watched me. There is no doubt that the pattern resulted from intelligent agency.

My challenge will be met when someone shows a single example of chance/law forces having been actually observed creating 500 bits of CSI.

R0bb responded not by meeting the challenge (no surprise there) but by suggesting I erred when I said CSI can be “assessed without a chance hypothesis.” (And later keith s adopted this criticism).

I find this criticism odd to say the least. The word “hypothesis” means:

A proposition . . . set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

It should be obvious from this definition that we form a hypothesis regarding a phenomenon only when the cause of the phenomenon is unknown, i.e., has not been actually observed. As I said above, in my coin example there is no need to form any sort of hypothesis to explain the cause of the coin pattern. The cause of the coin pattern is actually known.

I don’t know why this is difficult for R0bb to understand, but there you go. To meet the challenge, the materialists will have to show me where a chance/law process was “actually observed” to have created 500 bits of CSI. Efforts have been made. All have failed. The now defunct infinite monkeys program being just one example. It took 2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years to get the first 24 characters from Henry IV part 2.

UPDATE:

R0bb responds at comment 11:

That’s certainly true, but we’re not trying to explain the cause of the coin pattern. We trying to determine whether the coin pattern has CSI. Can you please tell us how to do that without a chance hypothesis?

To which I responded:

1. Suppose you watched me arrange the coins. You see a highly improbable (500 bits) pattern conforming to a specification. Yes, it has CSI.

2. Now, suppose you and I were born at the same time as the big bang and did not age. Suppose further that instead of intentionally arranging the coins you watched me actually flip the coins at the rate of one flip per second. While it is not logically impossible for me to flip “all 500 heads,” it is not probable that we would see that specification from the moment of the big bang until now.

So you see, we’ve actually observed the cause of each pattern. The specification was achieved in scenario 1 by an intelligent agent with a few minutes’ effort. In scenario 2 the specification was never achieved from the moment of the big bang until now.

The essence of the design inference is this: Chance/law forces have never been actually observed to create 500 bits of specified information. Intelligent agents do so routinely. When we see 500 bits of specified information, the best explanation (indeed, the only explanation that has actually been observed to be a vera causa) is intelligent agency.

To meet my challenge, all you have to do is show me where chance/law forces have been observed to create 500 bits of specified information.

Comments

MT & Jerad: Again and again, you . . . I speak here to J and ilk . . . have set up a strawman, to knock it over and claim a tainted rhetorical triumph. I must speak in such stringent terms, for cause. I explain, mostly for benefit of the onlooker. Yes, any single outcome of a toss of 500 coins faces odds of 1 in 3.27*10^150, as the latter is the number of possible outcomes, W. What you (in the teeth of repeated correction for literally years to my certain knowledge) insistently leave out is clustering of patterns of outcomes; something that is a commonplace of say statistical thermodynamics used to for instance analyse why the 2nd law of thermodynamics obtains. Indeed, my favourite intro to stat thermo-d, L K Nash, discusses just the example of coins, though it goes for 1,000. As the binomial theorem will instantly show, the overwhelming bulk of coin toss outcomes will be 500 coins in a near 50-50 H/T distribution, in no particular pattern, i.e. gibberish, let us call this subset G. By contrast, let us define 500 H as E in a set T of simply describable, relatively rare patterns such as 500 H, 500 T, alternating H/T, and the close like. The proper comparison is E to G, or else even T to G. And the odds of being in G rather than T are utterly overwhelming. Where, on tossing a set of 500 coins, using the 10^57 atoms of the sol system as tosser-observers for as many sets of coins, 10^14 times per s for 10^17 s, one would sample as one straw to a cubical haystack comparably thick as our galaxy. Under those circumstances, zone T (and E in it . . . ) is effectively unobservable by blind chance coin toss. Which is the whole point of Dembski's now longstanding subset T in W discussion of Complex Specified Information in NFL. I predict, on track record, that you will duck, dodge, twist or brush aside and/or studiously ignore this correction. Please, prove me wrong. That, would be a breath of fresh air and a sign that we are finally seeing movement beyond the bigotry and dismissive contempt of the blatant no concessions to "IDiots" policy. It is high time for such a change. But, I am not holding my breath. KFkairosfocus_{November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Jerad @ 121 Yes,probability of any sequence of coins is the same.I found old threads about it here at UD. That doesn't stop UD from putting up more 500 coins threads.Me_Think_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Regarding generating so many heads in a row when flipping a fair coin. Let's suppose you start with one million people all with a fair coin. On each 'pass' you ask everyone to flip their coin and if they get tails they sit down. Just before this process ends you expect to get, by pure chance, someone who flipped about 20 heads in a row. As has been said several times in this thread all sequences of 500 Hs and Ts are of equal, extremely low probability. The probability of getting all Hs is the same as getting any other specified pattern. But, if you flip a coin 500 times (or flip 500 coins) you get a highly improbably sequence every time. It is only the human mind-set that assigns some special attributes to a sequence of all heads. Barry is wrong, it is possible, albeit highly improbable, to get 500 heads by chance. Just like it's highly improbable, but possible, to get any other specified sequence of Hs and Ts.Jerad_{November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

#96 error correction: missing word 'in' at the end of the third question.
Forget the coin flipping. Let’s get real. :) See the below questions, based on an interesting commentary gpuccio posted in another thread:
can we regard the constant flux of information between epigenome-genome-epigenome as the only possible way to correctly describe cell differentiation? Is that flux ever interrupted, from the zygote to the adult being to a new zygote? Which of the following levels does the information reside in? 1 – genome, both coding and non coding 2 – genome methylation 3 – histone modifications 4 – chromatin modifications 5 – transcription factors network 6 – regulatory RNAs (all the various forms) 7 – post-translational modifications 8 – asymmetric mytosis 9 – cell to cell signaling 10- all of the above 11- none of the above how do those different strata interact? are they independent, parallel networks which ensure a supreme redundancy and robustness, or do they work, at least in part, in sequences?

Dionisio_{November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

wd400 @ 69 -
Whoops, I know see that Bob O’H already presented the sample with replacement example. And yes, Learned Hand, you have it.
And I took it from Peredur, the son of Evrawk.Bob O'H_{November 18, 2014
November
11
Nov
18
18
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

HeKS:
First of all, Barry is right in saying that you did not meet the challenge.
Barry seems to have missed my response to the challenge altogether, and I don't want him to be deprived of the opportunity to explain why it fails.
Second, why not link to my actual post so people can decided for themselves whether or not the agree?
Sorry, that was sheer laziness on my part. I don't always provide links for everything.
On the matter of your response to this challenge, Ewert agreed that I was “exactly right” with respect to what would be required to meet the challenge and in my criticism of your use of him as a source (see here).
I'd be very interested to read your conversation with Ewert. Can you ask his permission to share it?
Here’s my extensive post about CSI, which also clears up much of the definitional confusion present in this discussion: https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-518656
There certainly is definitional confusion. I invited you repeatedly to provide a reference from the ID literature to support your interpretation. That invitation still stands.R0bb_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Robb,
Without a chance hypothesis, how do I determine that it’s highly improbable?
*sigh* Never mind R0bb. If all you want to do is play definition derby in response to a straightforward challenge, that is all the answer I need. You’ve got nothing. OK.
You're right. I've got nothing. I'm a loser. But maybe you could humor me and answer the question anyway.R0bb_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

BA, It's hard to tell exactly what your sneering jabs at wd400 mean. Perhaps you think that by limiting your comments to sarcastic unpleasantries rather than substantive comments you won't be caught out in another error? Obviously it makes it hard to continue a discussion. (That might be a good thing from your perspective; these last few threads have hardly covered you in glory. It's never too late to take a deep breath and try, as kairosfocus would say, to do better. Bydand.) It seems to me—and please tell me if I'm wrong—that you're claiming these are opposite statements: A: "In 58 Keith knows the process that generated the sequence — flips of fair coin. Are you saying we have to know what process generated something in order to calculate CSI of that thing?" B: "I read it again. Keith says the outcome is unlikely if the coin is fair and being tossed fairly. So he concludes that specific chance hypothesis is very unlikely to explain the result." Those are compatible statements, not opposites. Keith assumes a fair coin toss. Given that well-understood universe of probabilities, he can say that if he gets 500 heads then something other than raw probability is affecting the outcome. But he can only say that if he knows the odds of a fair coin toss. If he doesn't know whether the coins are double-sided or weighted, or whether there's a selective process at work, then he can't even begin to guess at the odds of intelligent intervention.Learned Hand_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

keiths:
The challenge cannot be met, even in principle. It is an empty challenge.
As usual, you're confused. How does your conclusion follow?Mung_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Right... so to use CSI in biology you've have to be able to calculate the probability of a protein/sequence/organ or one like it? In fact, to assess CSI we need a "chance hypothesis” and its probability density?wd400_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

wd400 @ 111. Which, as I said, is exactly the opposite of what you said in 108. Good job.Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

@R0bb #20
Contrary to Barry’s assertion that I “responded not by meeting the challenge”, I actually did point to a working example in response to his challenge. Here’s a summary of that example: 1) Ewert calculates that the pattern has 1,068,017 bits of specified complexity under the chance hypothesis of equiprobability. 2) The pattern is known to have been created by natural processes. 3) In practice, equiprobability is the only chance hypothesis that IDists (other than Ewert) ever consider. HeKS responded, but I doubt that many, if any, IDists will agree with his response.
First of all, Barry is right in saying that you did not meet the challenge. Second, why not link to my actual post so people can decided for themselves whether or not the agree? On the matter of your response to this challenge, Ewert agreed that I was "exactly right" with respect to what would be required to meet the challenge and in my criticism of your use of him as a source (see here). Here's my extensive post about CSI, which also clears up much of the definitional confusion present in this discussion: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/heks-strikes-gold-again-or-why-strong-evidence-of-design-is-so-often-stoutly-resisted-or-dismissed/#comment-518656HeKS_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

I read it again. Keith says the outcome is unlikely if the coin is fair and being tossed fairly. So he concludes that specific chance hypothesis is very unlikely to explain the result.wd400_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

wd400 @ 108. Just exactly the opposite of what keiths said at 58. Read it again. Try harder this time.Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Actually, contrary to what Fair Witness believes, nobody is unfairly smuggling anything into the argument. ID relies on the same method of inference that Charles Darwin himself used to make his inference for evolution. i.e. presently known cause known to produce the effect in question:
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video https://vimeo.com/32148403
Simply put, nobody has ever seen unguided processes produce a single protein or molecular machine, whereas intelligence has done both:
Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video (notes in video description) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo Can Even One Polymer Become a Protein in 13 billion Years? – Dr. Douglas Axe, Biologic Institute - June 20, 2013 - audio http://radiomaria.us/discoveringintelligentdesign/2013/06/20/june-20-2013-can-even-one-polymer-become-a-protein-in-13-billion-years-dr-douglas-axe-biologic-institute/ Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:
Science - Fuz Rana - Unbelievable? Conference 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u34VJ8J5_c&list=PLS5E_VeVNzAstcmbIlygiEFir3tQtlWxx&index=8 Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw
Verse and Music:
Psalm 104:24 How many are your works, LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Glorious Day - Casting Crowns http://myktis.com/songs/glorious-day/
bornagain77_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

In 58 Keith knows the process that generated the sequence -- flips of fair coin. Are you saying we have to know what process generated something in order to calculate CSI of that thing?wd400_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

wd400, ask keiths. See his analysis @ comment 58. He is correct when he writes:
To use the coin-flipping example, every sequence of 500 fair coin flips is astronomically improbable.
Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Barry,
To answer the second question you need to know whether the phenomenon has low probability and conforms to a specification.
And how do you know if phenomenon has low probability?wd400_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Why wouldn’t you think we are simply using the dictionary definition of complex...
Because Dembski (and others) have written a very large body of work using a completely different definition of "complex." Orgel might have meant "complex" in the sense that you define it, but Dembski definitely isn't using the word that way.Learned Hand_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

adapa@ 80 Why wouldn't you think we are simply using the dictionary definition of complex, which is NOT simply many pieces. Here: adjective 1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system. 2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery. 3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem. Interconnected, involved arrangements, intricate, hard to understand...... So there you go. Complex. It differs from things that aren't interrelated, interconnected, involved arrangements. Pebbles on a beach are none of these things.phoodoo_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

"Specified Complexity" is a dishonest attempt to smuggle (as Matt Dillahunty so aptly puts it) a designer into an argument. *Specified* means someone arranged it that way. The only way to tell if someone arranged things (objects, information, DNA) is 1) You witnessed them doing it, or 2) It conforms to a pattern that you have other independent evidence for, or experience of, that someone arranged things that way. And even case #2 is not conclusive. This is the same tactic as with the basic term "Intelligent Design", and Irreducible Complexity. It is an attempt at circular logic where you bake the answer into the question from the start. I'm not even sure Complexity is a valid objective measure of anything - I am damn sure that Specified is not. And for the purposes of your "challenge" you have apparently defined Specified along the lines of "something so improbable that they will never find an example of it, so I Win !" Shame on you, Barry.Fair Witness_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

This is worth reposting: keiths, to Barry:
By the way, are you ever going to admit that you were wrong about the need for chance hypotheses in establishing the presence of CSI and about the non-circular use of CSI to detect design?
I love the irony. Barry K. Arrington, the self-described “President” of UD, doesn’t understand ID and requires tutoring from ID critics.keith s_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Don't kid yourself, Barry. See this comment:
Barry, People infer design all the time — sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. The question isn’t whether design can ever be inferred. It’s whether it can be inferred in the cases under dispute, particularly those involving biological phenomena. I await any ID proponent’s demonstration that the flagellum or any other naturally occurring biological phenomenon is designed. By the way, are you ever going to admit that you were wrong about the need for chance hypotheses in establishing the presence of CSI and about the non-circular use of CSI to detect design?
keith s_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

keiths, you gave the store away in 58. Thanks.Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Barry,
To answer the second question you need to know whether the phenomenon has low probability and conforms to a specification.
Low probability with respect to the chance hypotheses. There is an 'H' in P(T|H). Dembski put it there for a reason. You're fighting a losing battle, Barry.keith s_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

To answer the second question you need to know whether the phenomenon has low probability and conforms to a specification.Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Barry, You are missing a simple and obvious point. The question...
How did X come about?
...is distinct from the question...
Does X exhibit CSI?
If you observe the process by which X arises, you can answer the first question. To answer the second question, however, you need to know the value of P(T|H). It's right there in Dembski's equation. And as Dembski explains, H must encompass "Darwinian and other material mechanisms". Chance hypotheses, in other words. Squirm all you like. You were wrong, and Dembski and the rest of us are right.keith s_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Forget the coin flipping. Let's get real. :) See the below questions, based on an interesting commentary gpuccio posted in another thread:
can we regard the constant flux of information between epigenome-genome-epigenome as the only possible way to correctly describe cell differentiation? Is that flux ever interrupted, from the zygote to the adult being to a new zygote? Which of the following levels does the information reside? 1 - genome, both coding and non coding 2 - genome methylation 3 - histone modifications 4 - chromatin modifications 5 - transcription factors network 6 - regulatory RNAs (all the various forms) 7 - post-translational modifications 8 - asymmetric mytosis 9 - cell to cell signaling 10- all of the above 11- none of the above how do those different strata interact? are they independent, parallel networks which ensure a supreme redundancy and robustness, or do they work, at least in part, in sequences?
Dionisio_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

keiths @ 91. Just as soon as you acknowledge that one need not form a hypothesis about a cause of an phenomenon when one actually observed the cause of the phenomenon. I made the same mistake you are above. But having had that mistake pointed out, I'm comfortable admitting I was wrong. Try it! God knows you've demanded other people do it often enough. (If the shoe was on the other foot, I think we would have seen an OP by now titled something like, "So-and-So Simply Won't Admit that Orgel and Dembski Weren't Talking About the Same Thing Even Though it's Self Evident.") One does need to have such hypotheses to calculate CSI, because CSI is not about identifying one single way in which an event occurred. You need to know all the other ways in which it might have occurred, as well.Learned Hand_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

keiths @ 91. Just as soon as you acknowledge that one need not form a hypothesis about a cause of an phenomenon when one actually observed the cause of the phenomenon.Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2014
November
11
Nov
17
17
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply