Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human evolution: Oldest hand-crafted flute so far is 35,000 years old

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The pieces of the ancient flute

comprise a 22-centimetre instrument with five holes and a notched end. Conard said the flute is 35,000 years old.

“It’s unambiguously the oldest instrument in the world,” said Conard. His findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Other archeologists agreed with Conard’s assessment.

Well, that’s reassuring.

The Hohle Fels flute is more complete and appears slightly older than bone and ivory fragments from seven other flutes recovered in southern German caves and documented by Conard and his colleagues in recent years.

Now, here’s the interesting part:

Roebroeks said it’s difficult to say how cognitively and socially advanced these people were. But the physical trappings of their lives — including musical instruments, personal decorations and figurative art — match the objects we associate with modern human behaviour, he said.

“It shows that from the moment that modern humans enter Europe … it is as modern in terms of material culture as it can get,” Roebroeks said.

That’s the thing about the evolution of human culture. It never actually seems to happen. Someone just makes a flute and starts playing it, and soon every tribe has a flute.

A bit like the history of mathematics, I suppose. Someone just invents an idea like the Pythagorean theorem or zero, and everyone just picks up from there.

Comments
And BTW how is it coming with that scientific data pertaining to opposible big toes?Joseph
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Mr Charrington, I have provided a design hypothesis- several times. Now if you want to understand why 500 bits of SI = CSI then read "No Free Lunch". Only ignorant people on an agenda come to blogs to try to learn about the specifics of a premise. That said there isn't anything that is FCSI with only one bit. So that you say things like that just further exposes your ignorance. And your ignorance is not a refutation. I also take it that you are not going to provide a testable hypothesis for the non-telic position. IOW it is ignorance all the way down for you guys.Joseph
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Joseph
A compuyer’s OS has more than 500 bits of (f)CSI. Living organisms contain more than 500 bits of (f)CSI.
As I have explained several times it seems very easy to get "more then 500 bits of FSCI". Very easy. What I'm asking you is hard, not easy. If 500 bits of FSCI indicates design, what does 499 bits indicate? If 500 bits of FSCI indicates design then please show me something designed with 500 bits of FSCI! Then show me something not designed with 499! Then show me something with but a single bit of FSCI! Just to see what such a thing looks like!Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Joseph
But speaking of hypotheses, what is the hypothesis for a non-telic origin of life?
Given that "hypothesis" is defined as a proposition, or set of propositions, 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, could you tell me what the "intelligent design" hypotheses is for the origin of life? Or would you be using the alternative definition?
a mere assumption or guess
Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
But speaking of hypotheses, what is the hypothesis for a non-telic origin of life?Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
R0b:
Dembski’s method is eliminative because the design hypothesis is never considered
That is false. It is eliminative so that the inference will not be biased towards a design inference. Also the last node of the EF mandates that specific criteria- that design hypothesis- be met before a design inference can be made. IOW what R0b is saying is that his ID ignorance trumps ID reality. BTW the design is independent scientific evidence of a designer. If you require meeting the designer(s) then you don't have any interest in science.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
vjtorley, the formula for CSI in the Specification paper is in fact the (negative log-scaled) probability of a certain composite event, or rather, an upper bound of this probability. As Dembski says in that paper:
As it turns out, the probability of some archer shooting some arrow hitting some target is bounded above by M*N*Phi_S(T)*P(T|H)
Descriptive complexity comes into play in defining what constitutes a legitimate target. Strictly speaking, CSI is nothing more than the probability of a broadly-defined composite event under a non-design hypothesis. Dembski's method is eliminative because the design hypothesis is never considered -- factoring in descriptive complexity does not change that. (And as Mark pointed out, the supposed logical link between simplicity and design is unclear. Both nature and humans produce both simple and complicated things. Sure, the complexity of human designs is limited by human brain capacity, but how does this apply to transcendent designers?) When we choose among hypotheses in real life, we weigh the merits and demerits of each hypothesis. Consistently ignoring the design hypothesis seems a poor approach. If someone confesses to a murder, Dembski's method ignores that confession and focuses solely on the probability of the victim dying by accident. In the case of biological origins, Dembski's method conveniently ignores a significant demerit of the design hypothesis, namely the complete lack of independent scientific evidence for intelligent entities existing hundreds of millions of years ago.R0b
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
vjtorely, The number of different proteins, although relevant, can't give us the CSI because those proteins occur in differing amounts. IOW your estimate in 151 is really, really low.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, Science goes by what we know. Science does not and cannot wait for what the future may or may not uncover. That is why science is a tentative enterprise and why inferences can be refuted.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Nakaxhima-san, Read "No Free Lunch". The math is explained in the book. That is how the 500 bits was obtained.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Mr Charrington:
Could you give me an example of a thing with 500 bits of FSCI?
A compuyer's OS has more than 500 bits of (f)CSI. Living organisms contain more than 500 bits of (f)CSI. Now to refute the premise that living organisms contain (f)CSI or that it is a reliable sign of design all you have to do is to actually start supporting your position. However it has become very obvious that you will not support your position but just try to bash ID with your ignorance.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
I see I wrote gobbledegook in the second paragraph above .... Second attempt: You feel that I have not given enough weight to the “specified” part of CSI - which you rightly describe as lack of descriptive complexity. Let's call it descriptive simplicity. But descriptive simplicity is not itself a sign of design or even life. A crystal has great descriptive simplicity. A brain has great descriptive complexity. One of my issues with Dembski’s paper is that descriptive simplicity, to the extent that it can be identified, is an arbitrarily chosen property of outcomes. He has always struggled with a satisfactory definition of "specified" and this does no better than previous attempts. To argue that an outcome is improbable given chance he needs to find a way to avoid the problem that all outcomes are improbable (which you point out). In this case he uses the property of descriptive simplicity but there is no justification. He could just have well chosen “physically large” or “old” or any other property.Mark Frank
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
Re #148 vjtorley Thanks once again for a thoughtful and polite response. Thank you also for conceding that the improbability of natural explanation is intrinsic to CSI. I know how hard it is to concede anything in these discussions and I only wish I had something to concede in return as it were. You raise two points. 1) I say it has to be the improbability of a known natural cause. You object to the word "known". But I think this is a very reasonable addition. You cannot even begin to assess the probability of an outcome given a chance cause without making some assumptions about the cause. We have no idea how probable the development a bacterial flagellum would be given some completely unknown natural cause. 2) You feel that I have not given enough weight to the "specified" part of CSI aka as descriptive simplicity. But descriptive simplicity is not itself a sign of design or even life. A crystal has great descriptive simplicity. In fact one of my issues with Dembski's paper is that descriptive simplicity is an arbitrarily chosen property which has no links to design or life. He needs to find some property of outcomes so as to outcomes so as to specify the outcomes and avoid the problem that all outcomes are improbable (which you point out). But he could just have well chosen "physically large" or "old" or any other property. Need to go now ... more laterMark Frank
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Mr Charrington You ask (#147):
Could you give me an example of a thing with 500 bits of FSCI?
Sure. I'd invite you to check out this paper by K. D. Kalinsky, entitled, Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? . I should point out at once that the formula used by Kalinsky for what he calls "functional information" is somewhat different from William Dembski's formula for CSI. Anyway, here it is:
A method to measure functional information has recently been published by Hazen et al. whereby functional information is defined as I(E_x) = -log(to base 2) [M(E_x)/N] (1) where E_x is the degree of function x, M(E_x) is the number of different configurations that achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, >= E_x, and N is the total number of possible configurations. (Ref: Hazen, R.M., Griffen, P.L., Carothers, J.M. & Szostak, J.W. (2007) 'Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity', PNAS 104, 8574-8581.)
Kalinsky goes on to calculate a significant level of information to be 185 bits, with reference to the evolution of life on Earth. Beyond this point, he considers that an intelligent design explanation is more likely, although a natural explanation cannot be positively ruled out. Kalinsky then gives some concrete illustrations. 1. Case One: the Venter Institute's synthetic genome for M. genitalium: The five 'watermarks' in the synthetic Venter genome are formed by choosing base pairs that, when translated into amino acids and using the amino acid single letter symbols, spell out the following five words: VENTERINSTITVTE CRAIGVENTER HAMSMITH CINDIANDCLYDE GLASSANDCLYDE. In this case, Kalinsky calculates that the number of bits of functional information is 259. However, he has already calculated that the significant level of information in the biological realm is 185 bits. He concludes:
These results indicate that it is about 10^22 times more probable that the watermarks required ID than that they could be produced by mindless natural processes.
Case 2. Case Two: a folded, functional protein domain: Kalinsky quotes an estimate that the frequency of occurrence of stable, folded functional protein domains, a structurally independent component of a protein, is somewhere between 10^-64 to 10^-77. He calculates that "[t]he functional information required, therefore, to code for a stable, folded protein domain is 213 to 256 bits," which exceeds his significant level of 185 bits, so he concludes that "ID is highly likely to be required to produce folded, functional protein domains." 3. Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein. Kalinsky calculates that the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information, so ID is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. 4. Case Four: the simplest life form: To quote Kalinsky:
It is estimated that the simplest life form would require at least 382 protein-coding genes. Using our estimate in Case Four of 700 bits of functional information required for the average protein, we obtain an estimate of about 267,000 bits for the simplest life form... [I]t is about 10^80,000 times more likely that ID could produce the minimal genome than mindless natural processes.
You also ask (#149):
What value of FSCI does the flagellum have, do you happen to know?
I believe the flagellum has about 30 proteins. 700 x 30 = 21,000 bits. Does that answer your question? Finally, you write:
What is the function of E. coli itself then? To make people who don’t wash their hands ill?
Biological functionality is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Thus it can only be ascribed to parts of an organism, and not to whole organisms. It is therefore meaningless to ask what the function of E. coli is. I'd like to finish with a quote from Kalinsky:
Actual mutations, insertions, deletions, and genetic drift may be chance events, but natural selection essentially guides the search and, hence, the search is not blind. On the one hand, it is assumed that natural selection explains how life could appear and diversify without requiring any intelligence, but on the other hand, terms that that are usually applied to intelligence, such as 'design' and 'selecting' are commonly applied to natural selection. It is very common to read articles where the author marvels at what natural selection is capable of. Of course, this raises the question, does natural selection, itself, require intelligent design? The fatal mistake made by many who appeal to natural selection is the assumption that natural selection, itself, does not require intelligent design. It is bad science that does not test its assumptions, so we must apply intelligent design detection to natural selection itself.
vjtorley
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Diffaxial (#101) You appear to have a strong background in anthropology and cultural studies. My acquaintance with these fields is somewhat limited. I do not wish to deny the role of serendipity, cultural constraints and slight, incremental improvements in the long history of technological innovation. I do however insist that on some occasions, people do get ideas for new ways of making things which are unambiguously better than old ways of making things. Intellectual progress is a real feature of science, technology and ethics. I found the following comments of yours rather worrying:
The essential insight here is that, while we often think of progress in human affairs and practices as “designed” by foresightful “minds,” the fact is that in many spheres of human activity no one agent or community of agents envisions or preconceives the course of events... Hence, while the struggle in this debate is often over the (in)appropriateness of the projection of human design activities into nature (such as when claims are made that purported saltations to CSI requiring design may be observed), we rather ironically find instead that processes often much like unguided evolution ultimately govern the course of much human innovation and “design.”
Maybe I am misreading you, but it seems to me that here, you are trying to argue for an account of human history which makes the role of the individual mind redundant. I have to say that I cannot follow you here. The history of science and technology cannot be satisfactorily explained by the metaphor of an unguided "herd" mentality, for two reasons. First, the metaphor is a borrowed one. The notion of the herd (i.e. society) having a mind of its own makes no sense if its members are mindless. Individual strivings may sometimes aggregate to a collective striving; but if individuals don't strive for anything in the first place, then society can't, either. Second, the metaphor entails relativism, if taken to its logical conclusion. For if our ideas emerge as the result of unguided forces, then that would mean that the idea of evolution does too. In which case: (i) the concept of truth no longer has any absolute meaning; (ii) we can no longer say that evolution is true - at best, we could only say that it is a useful idea; (iii) we can have no grounds for thinking that one society's ideas are better than another society's, so if the dominant culture in our society inculcates belief in evolution, but another society (or for that matter, a minority group within our society) inculcates an alternative mythological account, then we have no way to adjudicate between them. All I can say is: be careful what you wish for. You just might get what you want.vjtorley
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
vjtorley, What value of FSCI does the flagellum have, do you happen to know?
A proper appreciation of this point should make it easier for researchers to identify the function of any given biological structure.
What is the function of E. coli itself then? To make people who don't wash their hands ill?Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Mark Frank Wow, I'm surprised that this thread is still active. I've been away for a few days, so I'd just like to address some of your key points about CSI (and in passing, FCSI). You asked why I didn't cite Dr. Dembski's 2005 definition of CSI. Embarrassing confession here: I had forgotten where it was. Fortunately, you quoted a few words from Dembski's 2005 paper, which allowed me to Google it. For the benefit of anyone who's interested, the relevant paper is Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence . Dembski's paper also draws upon a number of subsidiary papers at certain points in his argument. I'll enumerate them here, and then respond to some of your key points. 1. Computational capacity of the universe by Seth Lloyd. (This paper sets an upper bound on the number of agents that can be embodied in the universe and the number of events that, in principle, they can observe, which is important for Dembski's definition of CSI.) 2. The Chance of the Gaps by William Dembski. (In this article, Dembski argues that it is a fallacy to go beyond the limits of the known, observable universe when assessing the likelihood that an observed event is due to chance.) 3. Irreducible Complexity Revisited by William Dembski. (In this article, Dembski links Behe's notion of irreducible complexity to his own notion of specified complexity, arguing that if the probability of an irreducibly complex system's originating by chance is low enough, it can be considered to exhibit specified complexity.) 4. Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller by William Dembski. (In this article, Dembski responds to criticisms by Ken Miller in his article, The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity' of arguments by Behe and Dembski that the bacterial flagellum could not have originated by chance.) I will now respond to your comments on the logic of ID. Let me begin with a concession. In Dr. Dembski's 2005 paper, Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, he writes:
Since specifications are those patterns that are supposed to underwrite a design inference, they need, minimally, to entitle us to eliminate chance.
I therefore concede that your claim (#99) that "The failure of natural causes is intrinsic to the definition of CSI" is correct. However, I would still contend that you have misrepresented the logic of CSI. For example, in #46, you write:
ID deduces intelligence from the presence of CSI and IC. However, if you look at the definition of these two you will see that they are defined in terms of "no natural cause". So in the end ID deduces intelligence from the lack of known natural cause. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
Some readers may not have noticed that you smuggled in the word "known." In fact, lack of a natural cause is part of the definition of CSI; however, lack of a known natural cause is not. Moreover, your comment makes it sound as if the logic of CSI is nothing more than "Gee, we can't think of any natural process that created this, therefore God did it." Not so. The whole point of CSI is to distinguish on mathematical grounds between patterns that do need a Design explanation from those that don't. In other words, the logic of CSI, with its mathematical measure of specified complexity, also allows it to be used to demonstrate that many patterns in the world around us do not require an intelligent designer. Specified complexity cuts both ways. In #56, you wrote:
CSI turns out to be a mathematical transformation of the probability of the outcome given a chance hypothesis. As CSI is the prime evidence for design it follows that the prime evidence for design is low probability of a chance hypothesis. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
Not so. Think of a pack of cards being shuffled. Any given shuffling is extremely improbable; but that does not mean it was designed. You are focusing on P(T|H), or the probability for the chance formation of the pattern. However, you have overlooked the other critical component of the definition of specified complexity: Phi-s(T), or the descriptive complexity of the pattern. More precisely, Phi-s(T) is the total number of possible patterns whose semiotic description (by an agent S) is at least as simple as the agent's description of pattern T. Other things being equal, highly specific patterns have a low descriptive complexity - i.e. a low value of Phi-s(T). They are easy to describe. And in #99 you wrote:
The whole point is you have CSI when the probability is very low given chance alone i.e. natural causes. The failure of natural causes is intrinsic to the definition of CSI. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
It should be clear by now that I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. I hope you will agree that it does not adequately represent the logic of CSI. Now let's complete the definition of specified complexity. In his 2005 paper, Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, Dembski writes:
[I]t is possible to define specified complexity so that it is not ... tied to the background knowledge of a semiotic agent S and to the context of inquiry within which S operates. Theoretical computer scientist Seth Lloyd has shown that 10^120 constitutes the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history. This number sets an upper limit on the number of agents that can be embodied in the universe and the number of events that, in principle, they can observe...
He continues:
We thus define the specified complexity of T given H (minus the ... context sensitivity) as Chi = –log(to base 2) [10^120 * Phi-s(T) * P(T|H)] ...Since specifications are those patterns that are supposed to underwrite a design inference, they need, minimally, to entitle us to eliminate chance. Since to do so, it must be the case that Chi = –log(to base 2)[10^120 * Phi-s(T) * P(T|H)] > 1, we therefore define specifications as any patterns T that satisfy this inequality.
As an example of specification and specified complexity in their context-independent form, let us return to the bacterial flagellum. Recall the following description of the bacterial flagellum given in section 6: “bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller.” This description corresponds to a pattern T. Moreover, given a natural language (English) lexicon with 100,000 (= 10^5) basic concepts (which is supremely generous given that no English speaker is known to have so extensive a basic vocabulary), we estimated the complexity of this pattern at approximately Phi-s(T) = 10^20 (for definiteness, let’s say S here is me; any native English speaker with a some of knowledge of biology and the flagellum would do). [Note: 10^20 = ((10^5)^4), where 4 is the no. of basic concepts used in the description of the flagellum - VJT.] It follows that –log(to base 2)[10^120 * Phi-s(T) * P(T|H)] > 1 if and only if P(T|H) < 0.5 * 10^(-140), where H, as we noted in section 6, is an evolutionary chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms and T, conceived not as a pattern but as an event, is the evolutionary pathway that brings about the flagellar structure (for definiteness, let’s say the flagellar structure in E. coli). Is P(T|H) in fact less than 0.5 * 10^(-140), thus making T a specification? The precise calculation of P(T|H) has yet to be done. But some methods for decomposing this probability into a product of more manageable probabilities as well as some initial estimates for these probabilities are now in place. These preliminary indicators point to T’s specified complexity being greater than 1 and to T in fact constituting a specification.
Note the modest, provisional wording here. Dembski is not arguing that it must be designed because he can't think of a natural mechanism through which it could have arisen. Rather, he is saying that preliminary calculations of the chances of the structure arising by chance suggest that the specified complexity is greater than 1, which would indicate that it was designed. Finally, you ask (#126) what the function of the bacterial flagellum is. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on this subject, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Bacterial :
Through use of their flagella, E. coli are able to move rapidly towards attractants and away from repellents. They do this by means of a biased random walk, with 'runs' and 'tumbles' brought about by rotating the flagellum counter-clockwise and clockwise respectively.
I would like to add that embedded functionality is a feature of living things (although it is found in molecules too). Living things (unlike contemporary computers) are built from the bottom up, by intrinsically adapted parts whose entire repertoire of functionality is "dedicated" to supporting the functionality of the whole unit which they comprise). A proper appreciation of this point should make it easier for researchers to identify the function of any given biological structure.vjtorley
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Joseph
As for the “complex” part that would just be in reference to the number of bits the specified information contains. That limit was set at 500 bits, but may be lower.
Could you give me an example of a thing with 500 bits of FSCI? 499? 501? 1? A million+ bits? Jerry
We have been discussing FSCI for the hundredth time on another thread and you can see the nonsense that some raise there to obstruct any understanding.
I'm not interested in discussing it. I just want some examples of what something with 1 bit of FSCI would look like, 499 bits, 500 bits, 501 bits. It seems to me that if 500 bits is the threshold of "design" then you must have such examples of things with 1 bit of FSCI (probably not designed?) 499 bits of FSCI (not designed perhaps?) 500 bits (designed for sure) and 501+ bits (designed!) Otherwise it seems to me that unless you have such examples the setting of the "limit" at 500 bits for design is based on a mathematical trick that does not relate to observed reality (i.e. if it did so relate you'd have given me the examples the first time I asked for them and have plenty more to hand).Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, in re 139, somewhere between defining information and giving a limit denominated in bits, you have to provide some precise method of arriving at that number. What is that method?Nakashima
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
jerry, I admire your candor in #132:
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about in terms of problems and my guess is that no one else does either.
Would that the rest of us could demonstrate such honesty. But then in #140:
So we get all sorts of bogus attacks on it but nothing of consequence. This is how I view your objections. If I saw a real one, I would recognize it.
By way of "helping you come to a better decision," which you say you've never seen someone on my side do, may I suggest that you seek to understand points before judging them as bogus?R0b
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
R0b, As Dr Meyer makes clear in "Signature of the Cell" Shannon information is useless because it is not concerned with content whereas information that ID is concerned with is all about content.Joseph
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
jerry:
Well if it is hard to understand what they are, then maybe there are not any problems.
Nah, they're hard to understand only when I'm the one articulating them. I recommend that you read about them from better writers.
So any time anyone brings up Shannon information, they are using an inappropriate concept for FCSI or the information contained in DNA relevant to how proteins are formed.
That would include kairosfocus, who explicitly defines information in a Shannon sense. You should let him know that he defined FSCI wrong when he coined the term.
The anti ID people don’t like that because they think they have an issue in CSI but can’t budge FCSI.
Yes, I admit that it's been impossible to combat the raging success of FCSI. At the local U, FCSI 401 and 402 filled up on the first day of enrollment, and I was lucky to get a textbook before they sold out.
Else they would at various times agree or help the ID people come to a better decision. Not once have I witnessed anyone who is anti ID do such a thing.
Interesting. I see people on both sides trying to be helpful and even agreeing now and then. Once in a blue moon, even I abandon my surly ways and agree with something or offer suggestions, like when I recommended to kairosfocus that he incorporate some aspects of Dembski's CSI measure into his FSCI measure, expressing agreement with Dembski's reasoning.
Consequently, there is no reason to accept any thing the anti ID people say especially when you get inane arguments over what is information when it is obvious to everyone in the biology field.
The definition of information isn't of much consequence. The problem is in defining information measures. Biology does so as a matter of convenience, while ID does so in order to draw conclusions about whether the information came from chance+necessity or not. In order to accomplish the latter, the definition must be unequivocal and have a valid logical link to the argument being made. That's what we dispute.R0b
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, My issue with people who have issues with IC and/ or CSI is that they cannot offer up an example from their position that demonstrates what an acceptable and rigorously defined premise is. IOW people like you need to stay focused on supporting your own position. THAT is where the problem is. That you refuse to do so exposes your agenda.Joseph
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
#135 I can confirm that I do know what Rob means when he talks about problems. #140 So when the anti ID people are so reflexively negative about anything to do with ID, no one will take them seriously because we know none of their objections are honest ones. Else they would at various times agree or help the ID people come to a better decision. Not once have I witnessed anyone who is anti ID do such a thing. Joseph - believe it or not I have many constructive and interesting discussions with ID proponents on this forum - gpuccio and vjtorley are two that spring to mind (see the debate with vjtorley starting at comment #48 above for an example). We point out problems in each other's view points (including FCSI) and we take those comments seriously. As a result I certainly learn and I hope they do. So in that sense we are helping each other come to a better decision. You seem to be so convinced that there are no problems with the concept of FCSI/FSCI that you assume that any objections are dishonest or nitpicking. I promise you that is not the case. I believe the concept to be deeply and importantly flawed. I don't even think the ID community has a consistent view of it. I enjoy trying to articulate those problems. In the process maybe I will discover I am wrong. But there is no point in doing that for an audience that believes I am not serious and almost immediately turns to insults.Mark Frank
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
"Or perhaps I seem to make up imaginary problems because it is hard to understand what they are" Well if it is hard to understand what they are, then maybe there are not any problems. One of the things that is going on here is that people are confusing Shannon Information with the information in the genome and how this leads to protein formation and they are not related. They are different concepts. So any time anyone brings up Shannon information, they are using an inappropriate concept for FCSI or the information contained in DNA relevant to how proteins are formed. Apparently Shannon information is correlation information and the information in the genome is of a causative nature. I will make a couple observation here. I just wrote on the other thread discussing CSI and FCSI or FSCI for the 100th time that there is no clear definition of CSI that anyone here could articulate. This was expressed as far back as 2 1/2 years ago and has arisen several times since. So pointing this out is nothing new. It is why we gravitated very quickly to FCSI which did not have CSI problems. Some others here continue to defend CSI but I am not one of them and do not feel it is necessary to do so because it is not needed in the origin of life debate or in evolution. If Dr. Dembski wants to pursue for his general approach to design detection and pursue CSI, more power to him and I support his efforts. But it is not needed in the evolution or OOL debate. Any attempts to impugn CSI is just an admission of weakness since it is not needed to make the evolution and OOL arguments. The anti ID people don't like that because they think they have an issue in CSI but can't budge FCSI. So we get all sorts of bogus attacks on it but nothing of consequence. This is how I view your objections. If I saw a real one, I would recognize it. There is a theory in social psychology called attribution theory which broken down to its essence is that we trust people who do not seem to be making decisions or judgments based on bias. If Dr. Wentz favors Obama on health care, then I had better pay attention to his arguments because he is a very conservative doctor politically. Or is Fred believe Bush made the right decisions on Iraq, then maybe I should take my knew jerk liberal view on this and re-evalutate it. If someone makes a decision against their known self interest then we believe this judgment is more likely to be an honest one. It could be wrong but it is probably come to from an honest reasoning process. So when the anti ID people are so reflexively negative about anything to do with ID, no one will take them seriously because we know none of their objections are honest ones. Else they would at various times agree or help the ID people come to a better decision. Not once have I witnessed anyone who is anti ID do such a thing. Consequently, there is no reason to accept any thing the anti ID people say especially when you get inane arguments over what is information when it is obvious to everyone in the biology field. If the anti ID people here were in a biology course making these comments the instructor would throw them out.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Shannon information can, at best, only determine the information carrying capacity. The information ID is concerned with is akin to the information used by information technology-information: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects. Dr Meyer discusses this in "Signature in the Cell". As for the "complex" part that would just be in reference to the number of bits the specified information contains. That limit was set at 500 bits, but may be lower.Joseph
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
jerry:
You seem to make up imaginary problems so it is hard to understand what they are.
Or perhaps I seem to make up imaginary problems because it is hard to understand what they are. I realize I'm a lousy communicator, but all of the problems I bring up have been explained before by more qualified people. If you have any questions or want to learn more about specific issues, just point them out and I'll be happy to recommend articles.R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
"which seems inappropriate given that you don’t understand the problems that we’re pointing out." What problems? You seem to make up imaginary problems so it is hard to understand what they are.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
I repeat: “You are straining to find objections not to solve issues and it is apparent so why should anyone take you seriously.” This could be the mantra of our responses to the anti ID posters here. They all seem to follow this pattern.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about in terms of problems and my guess is that no one else does either.
My guess is that Mark Frank will know exactly what I'm talking about if he reads my comments, as would Dembski if he were to read them. I'm sorry you don't. Your tone toward "anti ID people" is often quite disdainful, which seems inappropriate given that you don't understand the problems that we're pointing out.R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply