Professor: God Would Not Create the Giraffe’s Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 28, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

One thing evolutionists agree on is that their theory is also a scientific fact. It is a curious point of consensus given that, of all the many, many evolutionary claims, it is the one that is most obviously and undeniably false. It is not that evolutionists fail to prove their theory to be a fact. They most definitely have done so, many times over. But their proofs are not scientific. Read more

Comments

kairosfocus:
FYI Robb, a photon is not a coded signal, as is the genetic information we are specifically dealing with, quantum events are discrete state, but hey are not digitally coded information, and that should be fairly obvious.
First of all, I was asking tgpeeler why such photons do not qualify as "INFORMATION in the sense of messages being communicated and causing other reactions". Perhaps you could answer that. Second, if you want to add a requirement that the message be "coded", why can't we say that a 121.6 nm wavelength is code for "the hydrogen atom transitioned from level 2 to level 1"? Or, if you're talking about a prescriptive message, a 121.6 nm wavelength is code for "the receiving hydrogen atom must transition from level 1 to level 2". You might object that this mapping is dictated by the laws of physics, while the genetic code is not. Or you might object that translation is far more complicated in the case of the genetic code. But please explain why the mapping from wavelengths to energy level transitions doesn't constitute a code. Does the word "code" entail something more than a mapping?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

OOPS: the comparative case of a refinery and a cell is here, also make sure to look at the biochemistry map of the cell's metabolic operations linked onward from Fig I.2 (here it is). Awesome!kairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Robb, Really now. We saw again just above yet another instance of your red herring and strawman, on H atom UV emissions. The best reply to your latest distractor and strawman, is to excerpt TGP in 45 [just above what you posted in 46], as he sums up his main challenge -- answered by neither you nor MF: __________________ >> To recap. It looks like we are in substantial agreement (please confirm or deny) that in order to have information in the sense that we are talking about, the following things are required. 1. symbols 2. rules (or language) 3. free will 4. intentionality or purpose 5. rules of reason And I would add one more as I reflect upon numbers 1-5 above and that is “mind.” Something must create the symbols, agree on the conventions, and exercise free will, intentionality, and the (one hopes, right) rules of reason. It appears to me that it is logically impossible for atoms to somehow organize themselves according to some set of immaterial rules in order to communicate an immaterial message. Thus the necessity for what we typically name “mind.” If I understand your position, it is that all of these things may ultimately be explained by reference to eons of time and the outworking of physical laws and constants. If my understanding is correct, then your task now becomes to explain 1-5 plus mind in terms of these laws and randomness. It’s easy to see where I am headed with this. If information in the human realm is something that expresses a message in order to achieve a certain end (bring about a change of mind or a specific action, say) then biological information, in this sense is undeniably the same. Instructions in DNA result in the creation of certain proteins and not others so that the organism can live. It’s also true that everyone on the planet that has thought about this in any serious way or has done any research into origin of life studies realizes that life and information are, if not synonymous, are at a minimum inextricably linked. Given that, and given that everyone also recognizes that the information technology found in microscopic cells that can reproduce itself, interact with its environment, and process energy is orders and orders of magnitude more complex than anything human engineers have been able to build gives us prima facie reason to consider intelligence as the source of this information. In fact, to my unschooled mind, the meager case I have presented in these short paragraphs seems to me to be enough to place the burden of proving otherwise squarely on the shoulders of those who deny the role of intelligence (mind) in biology. >> _________________ Yes, deterministic laws of physics in complex situations can help give rise to complex effects, especially where chaos is involved. That is utterly immaterial to the question of he source of complex functional digitally coded information and/or similar "wiring diagram" style functional organisation of systems that achieve a definite collaborative function as a result, whether the network of a chemical refinery, or the micro-refinery of the living cell. (Onlookers, cf. here.) When I did counter-cult studies many years ago [onlookers, cf a case in point here], I learned that one trick is that manipulative and propagandistic groups major on minors and side issues and on polarising, and will zero in on the tiniest real or imagined fault they can find, to distract attention from the issue in the main. Do you know how your actions in this thread are therefore coming across to me, in that light of some pretty sobering experiences I have had of dealing with rescuing victims of manipulative and propagandistic groups? Let's just say I would much prefer to see you focus on the main issues that have been put again and again and again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Onlookers (and Robb]: Cf 52 above; which responds to Robb at 46, further to TGP in 51: Robb, 46: Classical physics needn’t produce such obviously simply results. Consider a snowflake, or an n-body system, or a weather system . . .
Once again, that statement is responsive to tgpeeler's statement about classical physics producing a simple outcomes. Why do you keep complaining that it isn't responsive to other arguments that it wasn't intended to address?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Robb, and yet if you want to take information 'out of context' to basic physics, the fact that all of reality reduces to transcendent information is not predicted from an atheistic/materialistic position, but is instead firmly a Theistic postulation,,, John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is 'information'. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Zeilinger's principle The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation - Anton Zeilinger - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Robb, you very well know the context of information being talked about is symbolic coded information (specifically functional 'prescriptive' information): Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ The main problem, for the secular model of neo-Darwinian evolution to overcome, is that no one has ever seen purely material processes generate functional 'prescriptive' information. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining 'the cybernetic cut', in this following Podcast: Programming of Life - Dr. Donald Johnson interviewed by Casey Luskin - audio podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/11/programming_of_life.html The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532/ Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel - 2009 Excerpt: "A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called non linear dynamics(i.e. language,information). http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf i.e. There are no physical or chemical forces between the nucleotides along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes the sequence of nucleotides to exist as they do. In fact as far as the foundational laws of the universe are concerned the DNA molecule doesn't even have to exist at all. God is God (HD Version)Steven Curtis Chapman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8u1in165g4bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Robb, you very well know the context of information being talked about is symbolic coded information (specifically functional 'prescriptive' information): Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ The main problem, for the secular model of neo-Darwinian evolution to overcome, is that no one has ever seen purely material processes generate functional 'prescriptive' information. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html http://www.us.net/life/index.htm Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining 'the cybernetic cut', in this following Podcast: Programming of Life - Dr. Donald Johnson interviewed by Casey Luskin - audio podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/11/programming_of_life.html The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532/ Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel - 2009 Excerpt: "A monstrous ravine runs through presumed objective reality. It is the great divide between physicality and formalism. On the one side of this Grand Canyon lies everything that can be explained by the chance and necessity of physicodynamics. On the other side lies those phenomena than can only be explained by formal choice contingency and decision theory—the ability to choose with intent what aspects of ontological being will be preferred, pursued, selected, rearranged, integrated, organized, preserved, and used. Physical dynamics includes spontaneous non linear phenomena, but not our formal applied-science called non linear dynamics(i.e. language,information). http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf i.e. There are no physical or chemical forces between the nucleotides along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes the sequence of nucleotides to exist as they do. In fact as far as the foundational laws of the universe are concerned the DNA molecule doesn't even have to exist at all. Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com/ God is God (HD Version)Steven Curtis Chapman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8u1in165g4bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

F/N: Onlookers, I shakin' me head -- mi ca'an believe it! Robb needs to look here at the protein synthesis process as discussed by Wikipedia, and maybe at the video with narration in the context of my discussion here, then come back to us on how this is even remotely analogous to the quantum transition of a H atom that emits a photon of light. FYI Robb, a photon is not a coded signal, as is the genetic information we are specifically dealing with, quantum events are discrete state, but hey are not digitally coded information, and that should be fairly obvious. Even if we were to regard this as "yes I am here," that would be one bit. Utterly irrelevant to the 1,000 bits threshold we are dealing with for inferring with high confidence to intelligently directed configuration or design. Of course the emission of a photon is a contingent event, and is a part of a contingent cosmos, with other interesting aspects. That points onward to a chain of causes that will trace to a necessary being at the root of our observed cosmos. And since we are here to observe the photon, as intelligent C-chemistry observers in a cosmos finely tuned for such life, that in turn points to a necessary being with the knowledge, intent and capacity to create a universe. Robb may well have intended a distractive beclouding argument, but he simply opens the door to the significance of the cosmological inference to design on a finetuned observed cosmos. So he now has two issues to deal with, not just one.kairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Onlookers (and Robb]: Cf 52 above; which responds to Robb at 46, further to TGP in 51:
Robb, 46: Classical physics needn’t produce such obviously simply results. Consider a snowflake, or an n-body system, or a weather system . . .
I reproduce my response so the just above note will be plain (especially without my esrlier remarks being sliced apart and and diced then having isolated snippets strawmanned out of context): _________________ >> A snowflake does not encode functionally specific, informational messages. Break it and you still have tiny ice crystals, just not so pretty and symmetrical. No message or function is lost. Its regularity is due to the forces and atom alignments of the somewhat polar H2O molecule. The diversity and complexity are due to random, micro scale atmospheric factors and the specific history of a given flake; e.g. the general shape type depends on temperature of formation. Weather systems, similarly do not encode messages on symbols arranged according to structural and meaningful rules. N body problems display great complexity of behaviour indeed, but that has nothing to do with storing functionally specific complex information on rules that specify symbols, alphabets, meaningful symbol strings, and implementing machinery.
[Insert, cf here TGP, 51: >> Of course classical physics can explain snowflakes, crystals, and weather patterns. But, uh, er, um, all of those things have one thing in common, NO INFORMATION. In any case this is irrelevant. How about you just falsify my claim by providing ONE example of information created solely by a physical law or an algorithm based upon a physical law? You can’t do it because you need SYMBOLS, RULES, FREE WILL, PURPOSE, RATIONALITY, AND MIND in order to produce information. >>]
Why do you [i.e. Robb] keep on diverting to such long-since corrected irrelevancies [the snowflake example has been corrected ever since TBO in the 1984 The Mystery of Life's Origin and beyond to Orgel's 1973 paper that first explicitly spoke of specified complexity in the ID-relevant sense], i.e. it is a crystal, not a code] , as though they were counter-examples to the nature of meaningful, symbolic coded information such as seen in text strings in posts here, or in DNA strings that code for specifically functional proteins that have to go though a code-based chaining, then fold under internal or chaperoning forces, agglomerate and maybe have activating additions? And, the functionality of the protein molecule depends on its overall structure, based on the specific sequence of its amino acids. And, of course, the specific context it fits into in the cell. A snowbank is just a pile of snow crystals, and a snowball is just a ball of such crystals, with some regellation under pressure to make things stick together through partial melting and refreezing. >> ________________ I think this excerpt makes it plain that Robb needs to actually address the substantial matter on the table, even at long last. Functionally specific, complex information, especially that associated with digital codes, is a reliable signature of intelligently directed configuration, i.e. design. That is a matter of billions of cases of direct observation, with no counter-instances where we have observed it coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. All t5hat would be required for the objectors to this claim is to provide a relaible counrer-observaiton. They cannot, and the analysis of the relvant configuration space and he state search capcity of our observed universe tells us that such is going to be hard indeed to come by: our whole universe as observed, across its lifespan could not credibly scan through 1 in 10^150 of the states for FSCI of just 1,000 bits, equivalent to about 20 words in coherent and contextually responsive English, or a short part of a typical computer program. the DNA comp0lements of simple parasitic organisms start at over 100,000 bits of info storage capacity, and it is notorious that they code information digitally, info that guides the algorithmic step by step assembly of proteins. We reliably know a very good source for such FSCI, and we don't know of any good empirically anchored reason to conclude that the alternative, blind chance and mechanical necessity, could get us to FSCI. Snowflakes, weather systems and n-body problems [cf my discussion of one such here] are utterly irrelevant to that, and so constitute a strawman led away to by a red herring distractor. Pardon, but it is high time we address serious issues on their serious merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
Or read Dawkins or Crick or Monod or anybody writing about biology and you can’t escape INFORMATION in the sense of messages being communicated and causing other reactions.
If that is the sense of INFORMATION that you're talking about, consider transfers of energy between hydrogen atoms. If a hydrogen atom emits a 10.2 eV EM wave, that means that the atom has transitioned from energy level 2 to level 1. If it is absorbed by another hydrogen atom at level 1, it will cause the atom to transition to level 2. How this is any less of a "message being communicated and causing other reactions" than gene expression? Certainly it's less complicated, but your argument is based on the presence of information, not the presence of complicated mechanisms. (And since emission frequencies are discrete-valued, it's digital information, to boot.)R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Rob: Your attempted counterpoints were anticipated above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

R0bb: So according to your definition of “meaning”, EM waves from the sun contain a very important meaning, by virtue of the fact that their function is indispensable to biology. Yes R0bb, part of the design inference is that our sun was designed for sustaining living organisms on this planet. It is all in "The Privileged Planet".Joseph_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Yet the presence of CSI means there is intentional design. It means there was more than blind, undirected forces at work. A long sequence of prime numbers doesn't mean anything. But if we detected that in a signal it would mean that someone intentionally put it there.Joseph_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
And BTW function and meaning are interchange-able- as in if there is a function then meaningful informatin is present.
So according to your definition of "meaning", EM waves from the sun contain a very important meaning, by virtue of the fact that their function is indispensable to biology. Perhaps an operational definition of "meaning" is in order so we can all agree on what has meaning and what does not.R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Dembski is just saying that we don’t have to know the meaning in order to say that CSI is present.
Where did you get that idea? He explicitly says that CSI need not have semantic content:
That is not to say that that semantic content is necessarily lacking from CSI. But it is not required. (No Free Lunch, page 147)
R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 52:
Why do you keep on diverting to such long-since corrected irrelevancies, as though they were counter-examples to the nature of meaningful, symbolic coded information such as seen in text strings in posts here, or in DNA strings that code for specifically functional proteins that have to go though a code-based chaining, then fold under internal or chaperoning forces, agglomerate and maybe have activating additions?
When have I done that?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

R0bb, Dembski is just saying that we don't have to know the meaning in order to say that CSI is present. And BTW function and meaning are interchange-able- as in if there is a function then meaningful informatin is present.Joseph_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
Duh. What do I need to do, write a dissertation on this? Of course classical physics can explain snowflakes, crystals, and weather patterns. But, uh, er, um, all of those things have one thing in common, NO INFORMATION.
kairosfocus:
A snowflake does not encode functionally specific, informational messages.
Neither of these points has any relevance to my response to tgpeeler. tgpeeler said:
"If I were being driven by an algorithm of some type based upon physical law then what you would see is something like this: jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj (classical) or this: hgieoahjvahijjoivo (quantum).
And I responded that classical physics doesn't necessarily produce simple results like jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 50:
Also, it is highly noteworthy that you do not speak at all of Abel, Trevors et al, who have done a quantification of functional sequence complexity, contrasting FSC to OSC [orderly] and RSC [random]. When therefore, you cherry-pick the name Durston from the circle around Abel et al, and neatly omit that his quantification with the principals of FSC was premised on the functionality of the relevant information, that is sadly telling, utterly telling.
Joseph quoted Weaver, pointing out that Shannon information does not entail meaning. My counterpoint was that at least some ID leaders also define information in a way that doesn't entail meaning. Why is it "sadly telling" that I don't mention Trevors and Abel?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

LoL! Information, in the sense that Dembski, Meyer et al., is all about meaning/ function.
Your quote from Weaver and my response to it referred to "meaning", not "meaning/function". Dembski:
To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required. For the ordered pair (T,E) to constitute complex specified information, an intelligent agent need only be able to identify the pattern T independently of E. How the intelligent agent identifies the pattern is irrelevant. In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern. Is this a weakness of CSI? Not at all. Counterintuitive as it may seem, semantics, far from helping to detect design, can actually hinder its detection.
R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

R0b b:
What’s difficult to understand is why you repeatedly quote this, when the definitions of information proferred by Dembski, Marks, Meyer, and Durston do not entail meaning, or even syntax.
LoL! Information, in the sense that Dembski, Meyer et al., is all about meaning/ function. Meyer makes that very clear in "Signature in the Cell".Joseph_{January 2, 2011
January
01
Jan
2
02
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

F/N: A snippet from Godfrey-Smith: ___________________ >> The most distinctive biological role for informational concepts, and the one that has generated the most discussion, is in the description of the relations between genes and the various structures and processes that genes play a role in causing. For many biologists, the causal role of genes should be understood in terms of their carrying information about their various products. That information might require the cooperation of various environmental factors before it can be "expressed," but the same can be said of other kinds of message. An initial response might be to think that this mode of description is entirely anchored in a set of well-established facts about the role of DNA and RNA within protein synthesis, summarized in the familiar chart representing the "genetic code," mapping DNA base triplets to amino acids. However, informational enthusiasm in biology predates even a rudimentary understanding of these mechanisms (Schrodinger 1944). And more importantly, current applications of informational concepts extend far beyond anything that can receive an obvious justification in terms of the familiar facts about the specification of protein molecules by DNA. This includes: 1 (i) The description of whole-organism phenotypic traits (including complex behavioral traits) as specified or coded for by information contained in the genes, (ii) The treatment of many causal processes within cells, and perhaps of the wholeorganism developmental sequence, in terms of the execution of a program stored in the genes, (iii) The idea that genes themselves, for the purpose of evolutionary theorizing, should be seen as, in some sense, "made" of information.. >> ___________________ the highlighted phrase -- "" -- is revealing, as "enthusiasm" implies excess rather than substance. Observe as well that he tendency of the excerpt is to distract attention away form what is known about the DNA, RNA, enzyme, ribosome protein synthesis process, the onward functionality of proteins based on their specific sequence, and the vital importance of proteins as the workhorse molecules of the cell. This is FSCI, a reliable signature of design. But attention now is shifted elsewhere, to what is exactly not at stake on the inference from sign to design. To set up a strawman on what is not at focus is a well known tactic. Onward,the highlighted phrase invites belittling and dismissal.kairosfocus_{January 2, 2011
January
01
Jan
2
02
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Markf, there is nothing to argue about, just something to concede. ID is not what you said it was. Of course, even if it were it would still be more sensible than the alternative. the information in DNA which is yet gain different from the information in a computer programme That's like saying the information in the code for Microsoft Word is different than the code for Apple Pages. It's true but it misses the point. The point, of course, is that DNA is programming code.tribune7_{January 2, 2011
January
01
Jan
2
02
2011
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: The unresponsiveness revealed at 60 - 61 is revealing. I have commented on it at Null's Hello World thread at 88, here, which thread also contains an earlier remark at 85, here, on MF's unresponsiveness to corrections there, here. GEMkairosfocus_{January 2, 2011
January
01
Jan
2
02
2011
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

#59 vj Thanks for the reference but I don't have time or money to read every ID book that is recommended to me and the video didn't work (went into a loop). However, I don't dispute that the nature of information in a snowflake is in some respects different from the information in DNA which is yet gain different from the information in a computer programme or an English sentence. In fact that is the main point I have been trying to make - information is a word with many shades of meaning. No doubt you are aware of Peter Godfrey Smith's survey of some of the many uses of the word in the context of biology.markf_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

#58 Tribune Please excuse me but I really don't want to go over all those arguments yet again.markf_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

markf (#54) Happy New Year. Regarding the information in the genome: I just wondered if you've read Dr. Don Johnson's latest book, The Programming of Life, yet (available at http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Life-Donald-Johnson/dp/0982355467 ). In the meantime, you might like to have a look at Dr. Johnson's Website, ScienceIntegrity.net and especially this video on the information in life, or this one at http://vimeo.com/11314902 . These videos might give you a clearer idea about why the information in life is completely different from that contained in a snowflake.vjtorley_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

markf (1) Life appears designed (2) We have eliminated known alternatives to design Therefore design. You have to concede that that makes a lot more sense than: (1) Life appears designed (2) We have eliminated known alternatives to design Therefore not design. Still, you are inaccurately describing ID. ID is the claim that 1. Design is a phenomenon. 2. It can be quantified. 3. Aspects of biology match the quantifications of design. 4. Life is designed. And since this process is potentially falsifiable and is based on observations of nature, ID is natural science.tribune7_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

F/N 2: Let's put it another way: object code in machine language implies source code created by a knowledgeable, skilled programmer. Or, even if there is direct composition in machine code, there are symbols, codes, rules and a meaningful pattern that on the observed evidence -- the other possible source of high contingency, chance, is not a credible means of searching a vast configuration space for the relevant islands of function -- is best explained on intelligent design.kairosfocus_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

F/N: On definitions: A: AmHD: >> in·for·ma·tion (nfr-mshn) n. 1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction. 2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge. 3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information. 4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers. 5. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data. 6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome. 7. Law A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment. infor·mation·al adj. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >> Wiki (and note the use of a diagram illustrating the ASCII codes fro Wikipedia . . . ): >>Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is an ordered sequence of symbols. As a concept, however, information has many meanings.[1] Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation . . . . Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. [notice how Wikipedia, reliably materialistic, neatly omits that we are seeing an algorithmic process that tells us nothing about the source of said information! While of course the only observed source of such prescriptive information that triggers a step by step process is intelligent designers] . . . >>kairosfocus_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply