Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Keith S Shows Learned Hand How a Design Inference Works Using CSI

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In comment 58 to my Actually Observed thread ID opponent keith s shows ID opponent Learned Hand how the design inference works.

To use the coin-flipping example, every sequence of 500 fair coin flips is astronomically improbable, because there are 2^500 possible sequences and all have equally low probability. But obviously we don’t exclaim “Design!” after every 500 coin flips. The missing ingredient is the specification of the target T.

Suppose I specify that T is a sequence of 250 consecutive heads followed by 250 consecutive tails. If I then sit down and proceed to flip that exact sequence, you can be virtually certain that something fishy is going on. In other words, you can reject the chance hypothesis H that the coin is fair and that I am flipping it fairly.

Keiths then goes on to with some mistaken interpretations of Dembski’s work.  But that’s all right.  The important thing is that even one of our most inveterate opponents agrees with the basic thrust of the design inference. We are making progress.

Ironically, later in the post Learned Hand writes:

I think I’ll start a clock on any ID supporter actually testing whether CSI can detect design without knowing (or assuming) in advance whether the subject is designed.

Well, LH, he is far from an ID supporter, but will keiths example work?

Comments
hang on, let me help wd400 and keiths move those goalposts again. They must be tired by now.Mung
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Rather, I am referring to calculations that many people have done. ... which relate in no way to CSI as Demski defines it, or processes that are proposed to create biological sequences. We understand your "nuance" well enough, we also understand that its irrelevant.wd400
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
"You claimed to be able to do a calculation that no one has done." No. That is false. I never claimed to be able to do a calculation that no-one has done. Rather, I am referring to calculations that many people have done. I am referring to calculations on the basic underlying informational requirements. I am referring to the fact that even if we cannot do a precision calculation of all natural processes (something that you acknowledged was not necessary anyway), then we can at least do a basic calculation showing that some of the basic underlying components of such systems are beyond the universal probability bound. Such calculations have been done by many people. Please understand the nuance and do not misrepresent my position again. Now, if you would like me to "admit" that no-one has calculated the odds of a complex biological system like the bacterial flagellum arising under all natural processes, including Darwinian evolution, then I am more than happy to do so. This is true, in part, because Darwinists have not offered any kind of probability analysis of their own theory that RM+NS can produce such a system. They have not offered any grounded reason for believing that something like Darwinian evolution has any reasonable likelihood of producing the systems in question given the resources of the known universe. The implications of this fact are quite interesting as I detailed @166, but are somehow lost on the faithful Darwinist. There remain issues to discuss if you are interested. Namely, are there natural processes that you would propose are responsible for producing biological systems that are not chance-based? If so, I for one would be very interested to hear about them. And if you can describe them in some detail, then perhaps we could even get a sense of the probabilities of such processes actually producing biological systems. The ironic thing in all of this is that your basic argument, when we cut through all the rhetoric, is essentially that because the alleged natural processes (Darwinian evolution and otherwise) are too unknown to be calculated with any confidence, then we cannot say that they didn't produce the system in question. Sure. And because my kid's theory about space vortices in my garden producing the bacterial flagellum is too unknown and vague to calculate the probabilities, then we cannot say his theory isn't true. The lack of clear probability calculations for something like Darwinian evolution is primarily and foremost a problem for, and a failing of, Darwinian evolution, not intelligent design. You want someone to take Darwinian evolution (or whatever other natural process you have in mind but have never mentioned) seriously? Great. Provide us with some evidence and some calculations that such a process has a reasonable probability of producing biological systems within the resources of the known universe. If you can't do it, then your alleged mechanism is just a story. Remarkably, it seems to be only folks like Behe who are actually doing work to see what Darwinian evolution can in fact do. The materialist just accepts it as an article of faith. ---- By the way, part of the problem here seems to be that you are focused in on all possible natural scenarios, even vaguely described ones and unnamed ones. Even if we take the view that CSI has to provide some precision calculation of all natural processes (a view that is questionable, but that is a discussion for another time), this is obviously limited to known natural processes, not imaginary ones. By everyone's admission, apparently, Darwinian evolution cannot be calculated because it is too vague and unknown to do so. Therefore the probability of a Darwinian process does not constitute a known number that needs to be taken seriously or included in any CSI calculation. Again, the way around this is to provide some reasonable probability analysis of Darwinian evolution. Behe has done some work in this area and provided some initial results. And the results are quite clear and strongly support the argument that many biological systems lie far beyond the capabilities of Darwinian evolution.Eric Anderson
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Eric, The issue is simple. You claimed to be able to do a calculation that no one has done -- not you, not me, not Dembski, no one. We simply don't have the required information. Now you are trying to substitute an easy but useless calculation for the impossible one that you said was "trivial". The probability of "a system arising through purely natural processes" (your own words) is not the same as the probability of a system arising purely by chance. This is Evolution 101. How long have you been involved in the ID debate, again? A decade? If you can't back up your claim -- and we both know you can't, because no one can -- then just admit it.keith s
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
I have been away for a couple of days and have not been able to follow up on comments. Time permitting, I may get through most of the comments in the next couple of days, but in the meantime, I just wanted to correct a potential misrepresentation by keith of my position. This jumped out at me as I was scrolling below my prior comment @166. @167, keith claims that CSI is useless and that I should eat crow. He further claims that I failed to support my claim and that I even backtracked on what I said. Let us review the conversation, disjointed though it may be: @98 I questioned whether it was necessary to calculate with precision the precise probability of a problem arising before determining whether CSI exists.
I hope you aren’t saying that we have to be able to calculate, with precision, the precise probability of a system arising through purely natural processes before we can determine whether CSI exists.
keith responded with a very reasonable statement:
You don’t need a precise value, but you do need to show that it is less than Dembski’s UPB.
This is a reasonable position to take (and, as a side note, I would add that it avoids the flaw Elizabeth Liddle has incurred in the past). To this I responded that it [meaning, again, dear reader, a non-comprehensive, non-precision-value calculation with respect to any biological system] “is trivial to do with many biological systems and has been done many times.” At this point keith demanded a link (and has continued to do so). Such calculations are legion (do an internet search for “odds, origin of life” or “odds, protein formation” or any similar such searches and you will find dozens, if not hundreds of results). Such calculations can also be found in numerous books, including Meyer’s Signature In the Cell, books on origins, etc. There is no shortage. Rather than play this game, I attempted to have a focused conversation with keith by homing in on the real issue. Specifically @131 I homed in on calculations that have been done regarding amino acid sequences for proteins or nucleotide sequences for DNA. After all, under any theory of biological construction, these are a minimum complement of complexity that would be required to construct whatever biological system we are talking about. And these easily exceed the universal probability bound by orders of magnitude. keith then refocused his attention on some statement Bill Dembski apparently made in which he declined to try to calculate the odds of the bacterial flagellum forming by purely natural processes. (I should state categorically here that I have not even bothered to track down the Dembski quote keith is referring to, as it is not germane to the point I am making, and a battle over 'he-said, she-said' would only be a distraction. I am perfectly happy to assume, for purposes of the present discussion, that Dembski said he couldn’t calculate the odds of the bacterial flagellum forming by purely natural processes.) Finally @150, I laid out a detailed response to the issue, noting that the chance formation of even a modest protein lies beyond the universal probability bound number proposed by Dembski. @156 keith accused me of changing the question. That was the exchange. ----- Now, it is certainly possible that keith and I have miscommunicated with each other. Goodness knows it is easy enough to do, particularly with short bursts of weblog activity. I have endeavored to home in on whatever keith’s specific objection is, but have not yet been able to put a finger on it. I am happy to continue a rational discussion toward that end. In either case, I believe his accusation about me changing the question and failing to answer does not hold. Again, we know that at a minimum what is required for any biological system are the relevant DNA sequences and/or amino acid sequences. Further, keith and I have agreed that we don’t need to be able to calculate the precise probability of the entire system arising through natural processes. Fine. I’m even happy to assume that no-one can do so because we simply don’t know all the required parameters to build such a biological system. So let’s at least calculate what we do know is required. The existence of information in DNA and protein structures is a well-known problem for naturalistic biological theories. Many researchers (ID opponents though they may be) have recognized that such structures cannot have arisen by chance. This is precisely why the hunt is on for some other cause. Is there perhaps some kind of natural law that brings them together? Perhaps arising out of the chaos, a la Kauffmann? Perhaps some kind of combination of chance and natural law? This is a well known issue and the hunt is on in the research community – and very actively indeed – for some cause, any naturalistic cause that can account for such structures. Much of the effort has been focused on OOL, but it is not limited to that arena. Now, as I carefully outlined @150, the logical and appropriate response to these awful probabilistic odds that beset any naturalistic theory is for the materialist to claim that he has discovered some kind of designer substitute which can breach the gaping chasm of the universal probability bound. This was Darwin’s approach; and Dawkins’ as well. But to deny that biological systems are wildly improbable structures – something that we would never otherwise hope to see arise in the real world – would be a strange position to take (though some who fear neither rationality or logic have indeed taken such a position). Now perhaps keith simply objects to my reference to a “chance” process. If keith has some other natural process in mind that is not chance-based (note that law-based processes are irrelevant for purposes of creating information-rich structures), then I am certainly open to hearing about it. wd400, for example, has specifically acknowledged that Darwinian evolution is chance-based. ----- I should add that there are a couple of remaining interesting issues on this whole topic that merit thoughtful discussion: First, is it true that the concept of CSI requires a complete and full knowledge of all probabilities under all imaginable naturalistic scenarios? Second, what are the odds of a particular biological system arising under Darwinian evolution? Third, if we don’t know the odds of a particular biological system arising under Darwinian evolution (or any other naturalistic scenario), but we do know that similar systems have arisen through design, then what is the most reasonable inference that can be drawn? (Note that the issue wd400 and I have been briefly discussing relates to the second and third questions above – namely, is Darwinian evolution a chance-based process and, if so, what are the odds of a biological system arising through such a chance-based Darwinian evolution? And what reasonable inferences can be drawn? These are related to, but different from the specific point I have been focusing on with keith.)Eric Anderson
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Helpful tips are always welcome. Do you have any, keith? We're waitingJoe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Thank you, Silver Asiatic. I hope Upright won't find it too painful to accept editorial tips from a Darwinist. :-)keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
keith s @ 226 That seems to me to be quite considerate and helpful. For myself, I would appreciate editorial corrections on my work, from friend or foe. I hope our on-going battles don't cause us to overlook a friendly gesture.Silver Asiatic
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
I'm ready. Ask for a dedicated thread. Barry will give you one.keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
I might respond by saying "Anytime you're ready Keith", but that appears to be an empty provocation where you are concerned.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
Don't kid yourself, Upright. If I had been criticizing content instead of style it would have taken me hours to type everything in. Don't change a thing about the content itself. Please.keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Well it appears that Keith's dramatic refutation of semiosis is now complete. Somehow, I imagine he was hoping for more than punctuation. (btw, I spelled Thomas Sebeok's name the same way his mother did)Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
The sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,4,…} can be placed into such a correspondence, so they have the same cardinality.
It is a contrived correspondence, keith. The derived one-to-one correspondence is given when determining if one set is a proper subset of the other. Do you understand the difference between contrived and derived, keith?Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
1. Dembski’s CSI is not the same as Orgel’s specified complexity.
It is an extension of it. The difference is Dembski's is more technical.
2. Dembski’s CSI requires the consideration of “chance hypotheses”.
Specification does, as well as all design inferences.
3. The use of CSI to detect design is circular.
No- well only if all scientific methodology is circular
4. Your challenge is empty and cannot be met (the current OP notwithstanding). 5. In Dembski’s equation, P(T|H) stands for the probability of reaching the target T by means of any of the chance hypotheses represented by H. 6. H includes “Darwinian and other material mechanisms”, which means that you have to consider all possible evolutionary pathways.
It is up to you and yours to supply H, you have failed miserably and now you want to blame ID? Really?
7. No one can calculate P(T|H) for a naturally occurring biological phenomenon like the flagellum, which means that no one knows whether life exhibits CSI under Dembski’s definition.
LoL! You conflate a definition with an equation and you are obviously willfully ignorant of the fact that you and yours need to provide H. It is obvious from your failure that H is 0 and you lose, infinitely.Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Actually keiths, you aren't any good at those. For one you don't understand ID and for another you are very challenged in most every way. Heck you can't even learn when spoon fed. All you can do is spit up and mess yourself. Why is that?Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Joe, Besides proofreading, I'm also good at teaching ID to IDers and explaining infinity to the mathematically challenged.keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Well now we know what keith s is almost good for. He is almost good enough to proof-read someone else's work. :razz:Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Upright, Some corrections for your website. Under "An Operational Definition of Intelligence", you misuse the word "intractable":
It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell.
I've pointed this out before. Why not look it up this time? Under "An Easy Understanding of Semiosis": 1. The following needs to be rephrased:
The physical conditions required to translate an informational medium into physical effects are coherently understood.
As opposed to incoherently? 2. This...
Because these unique conditions can be found in any instance of translated information,
...is self-contradictory. Replacing 'unique' with 'essential' might help. 3. It should be bats "homing in", not "honing in". 4. This clause is a bit too dramatic:
we would eviscerate the word “information” of all its meaning,
Try 'strip' or 'empty' instead. Under "A Timeline of Semiosis", 1) the semicolon should be replaced with a comma here:
American logician Charles Sanders Peirce began writing on “semiosis”; the study of signs.
2) You italicize the names of Peirce and Miescher for some reason, but not the other names in your timeline. Also, your italicization of Nobel Prizes is awkward. 3) Of Miescher, you write:
The importance of his discovery would be decades away.
That would be better phrased as follows:
The importance of his discovery would not be recognized for decades.
4) You misspell Thomas Sebeok's last name as "Sebock". I'll pass along any others I see, but those are the ones that jumped out at me. You're welcome.keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Man UB that sucks. Hopefully no harm will come of it.Mung
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
UB:
I would not want to leave the impression that RB has any of the, er, motivations of some that argue from his point of view. At least to my mind, there is a clear distinction.
Thanks, UB. (I think.)Reciprocating Bill
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Ah, one more thing before I move on. I would not want to leave the impression that RB has any of the, er, motivations of some that argue from his point of view. At least to my mind, there is a clear distinction.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Thanks WMJ, I had not even gotten that far.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
It protects websites, wordpress blogs, etc.William J Murray
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
UB, I don't know what kind of security software you use, but I use this company and have been very satisfied: http://sucuri.net/William J Murray
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
RB, I used the term "dimensional" to describe the system, in place of the term "one-dimensional", which has been used in the literature to appropriately describe the codon code. Surely this doesn't form the basis of a counter-argument. People may call whatever they wish. The physics remain the same. - - - - - - - - - - - WJM, thanks. I only had the site up to do some testing. Bill found it, and you see the outcome.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Oh what a lovely morning. The sun is out, the sky is bright, and some unknown “entity” tried to run my credit a couple of times overnight. Ain’t it great? But it’s my fault, I left the door open to do a little testing of back-end functionality and I will certainly pay for my mistakes. There is no doubt about that.Upright BiPed
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
I don’t see the link. UB – do you have a website up? I’ve been waiting for this for years! Where’s it at?
He disabled it a few minutes after Reciprocating Bill gave a reference to it. Of course you can search for Google cache of the website.Me_Think
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
I don't see the link. UB - do you have a website up? I've been waiting for this for years! Where's it at?William J Murray
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
We seem to be atcross-purposes, UB. I thought you were saying: IC has existed on earth since information organized the first living cell. is "…predicted in theory and confirmed by experiment." Never mind, I can see there is a history, here, and we can all wait for the grand opening of your website. I echo RB in congratulating you on a neat layout.Alicia Renard
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Although there are no author credits on the site, it took me about 2 minutes to learn UB’s name and even view a nice photo of him (neither of which I’ll share).
He should at least remove his name from source code. There is no point hiding an ip address registrant information without removing author from source code , and there is always those other 3 domains and sites which archive the ip address owners from days when it was not hidden.Me_Think
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply