Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What is “Evidence”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is a follow up to my Stupid Things Atheists Say post. Evolve is being obstinate in his idiocy. He does not seem to understand the rather simple distinction between “evidence” and “evaluation of evidence.” I will try to help him (whether a fool such as he can be helped remains to be seen; there are none so blind as those who refuse to see). I will try to spell it out in terms adopted to the meanest understanding:

What is “evidence”? The dictionary defines the word as follows: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” The rules of evidence that I use in court define relevant evidence as anything that has a “tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”  Note that for evidence to be evidence it need not compel a conclusion; it need only have a tendency to lead to the conclusion.

Suppose I am trying a case and the key issue in the trial is whether the light was green. I put on two witnesses who testify the light was green. Is this testimony evidence? Of course it is. The testimony has a tendency to make a fact of consequence to the case (i.e., the light was green) more probable than it would have been without the evidence. My opponent then puts on three witnesses who testify the light was red. That is evidence also.

The evidence closes; we make our closing statements; the jury is charged; and off the to the jury room they go. The jury then evaluates the evidence. Now suppose the jury comes back and says, “we find as a matter of fact that the light was red.” I lose the case. Did I lose the case because the jury had “absolutely no evidence” on which to find that the light was green?  Of course not. I presented evidence (i.e., testimony) that the light was green; presenting evidence is, after all, what a trial is about.  I lost the case not because there was no evidence the light was green.  I lost because the jury was unpersuaded by the evidence I submitted.

Now, if someone comes along and says I lost the case because there was “absolutely no evidence the light was green,” we would say that person was an idiot. Of course there was evidence. The evidence just did not persuade the decision maker.

Now, the evidence for God: All of the things I listed in my last post are evidence that God exists. Let’s take fine tuning as an example. There are a few possible explanations for fine tuning: Inexplicable brute fact; multiverse; God did it. The fact that God is at least a possible explanation for fine tuning means that fine tuning is evidence for the existence of God.

Who is the jury? Everyone is a juror. We all evaluate the evidence for God’s existence and come to a conclusion. I find the evidence from fine tuning very persuasive. If I were on the jury I would vote “God exists.” The fact that you would vote “God does not exist” does not mean there was “absolutely no evidence.” You are like the jurors who believed the light was red and were unpersuaded by the evidence that the light was green. It is not a matter of whether there was no evidence. It was a matter of the evaluation of the evidence.

I hope that helps. I doubt that it will since your ideological blinders seem to make you incapable of seeing anything outside of your narrow dogmatic myopic point of view.

Comments
And again Zachriel demonstrates that its position doesn't meet the criteria of science. And then Zachriel flat out lies:
The model is the evolutionary algorithm, which models the basic process of replication, variation, and selection.
The model for intelligent design evolution is the evolutionary algorithm which employs a goal-oriented targeted search to actively solve a problem.Joe
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Mung: What is “scientific evidence” and how do you propose that we distinguish “scientific evidence” from “other forms of evidence”? Science is based on hypothetico-deduction and objective verification. If you were to be visited by an angel, you may consider this evidence, even if you could not provide scientific support for your belief. You still seem to be conflating the model with the thing being modeled. The former is necessarily artificial, while the latter may or may not be artificial.Zachriel
February 21, 2015
February
02
Feb
21
21
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Sorry ,Kf , thought we were done, let me get back to youvelikovskys
February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel: It is reasonable to distinguish scientific evidence from other forms of evidence. Why is it reasonable to distinguish scientific evidence from other forms of evidence.? What is "scientific evidence" and how do you propose that we distinguish "scientific evidence" from "other forms of evidence"?Mung
February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
VS, I simply need to repeat, as this is what you need to address: ________________ >> 233 kairosfocus February 16, 2015 at 3:37 pm VS, you have clearly crossed the final line into willful misrepresentation. You seem to imagine that by rhetorically substituting “making assumptions” for the actual process of abduction per serious candidate explanations you can pretend that I am begging questions. It is utterly unlikely that a discussion will suffice to move you, so I note here for record for the interested onlooker, on 2350 years of documentation, that it is a reasonable cluster of factors to asses forces of mechanical necessity, chance, and ART or design as having causal effect; something we routinely do down to today. In that context we may reasonably assess characteristic signs of each factor, per aspect of an object or phenomenon, etc. Mechanical necessity leads to regularities such as F = m*a with low contingency under closely similar initial conditions, i.e. this is how we infer to mechanical laws. Secondly, for many cases — e.g. dropping a common die — there is high contingency under similar initial conditions. A likely explanation is chance driven stochastically distributed outcomes in many forms, c.f. statistics in various forms. However, in certain cases it is maximally implausible per needle in haystack search challenge reasons, that chance will hit on outcomes that are functionally specific AND complex such as an Abu 6500 C3 reel, which one does not routinely assemble by shaking up a bag of parts. Such cases of FSCO/I on trillions of cases, have a consistently known cause, intelligently directed configuration. So reliable is this that — save where ideological a prioris such as Lewontiniam materialism obtain — we routinely recognise cases of FSCO/I as designed. Indeed, that FSCO/I is a reliable signature of design. Per the vera causa principle, we are epistemologically and logically entitled to infer design from FSCO/I. Such is reasonable inference, not question-begging assumption. For more on the design inference at 101 level, here may prove helpful. KF PS: Observe above the resistance to a simple matter of fact by way of a red herring led away to a strawman. Venter et al have for decades demonstrated that molecular scale intelligent design of living cells is a reality not speculation. This leads to in the qualitative sense functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. For values, say, for the moment that an artificial functional protein of 300 AAs was inserted successfully into a gene. This requires 3 base pairs per AA, and therefore 900 bases. As each base has 4 possible values, that’s 2 bits per base on a first estimate basis. 1,800 bits of FSCO/I. Onwards experimentation may lead to some AA’s being less constrained, as Durston et al did for protein families. But the basic approach is clear to the reasonable mind. >> _________________ When you can bring yourself to accurately characterise the inductive inference process relative to the deep past of origins and the reason why there is a challenge relating to cause of FSCO/I, then some progress will be possible. KFkairosfocus
February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel, you seem to have lost your way. Not uncommon in these debates.Mung
February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Mung: Including theoretical models of evolution. It would include, as well, evolutionary algorithms. That's right. Scientific models are designed. However, pointing out that models are designed doesn't determine whether the model represents a natural or artificial phenomenon. In the case of models of planetary motions, weather, and evolution, they model natural phenomena.Zachriel
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Mung: And you are making claims about what the model can demonstrate without a model. Zachriel: The model is the evolutionary algorithm, which models the basic process of replication, variation, and selection. So you can't produce a model to substantiate your claim. I know that. You know that. So why pretend otherwise? Let's review: kairosfocus: the search space for just 1,000 bits of FSCO/I so overwhelms the atomic and temporal resources of our observed cosmos that there is a fail. Zachriel: In fact, evolutionary algorithms show that the process can quickly search structured spaces, even if those spaces are vast. Indeed. By design. And lest we forget: Zachriel: All models are designed... Indeed.Mung
February 17, 2015
February
02
Feb
17
17
2015
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Zachriel: All models are designed, whether mathematical models of the solar system and rocket trajectories, or weather simulations. That would include, of course, models of evolution. Including theoretical models of evolution. It would include, as well, evolutionary algorithms.Mung
February 17, 2015
February
02
Feb
17
17
2015
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
KF: VS, you have clearly crossed the final line into willful misrepresentation. Please clearly point it out, did I misquote your statement actual absence of empirical evidence that undirected natural factors- chance and/or mechanical necessity (a reasonable understanding of “nature”) — can and do in our observation credibly account causally for FSCO/I. Let me try again, the question on the table what caused the FSCO/I is the cell to exist and as you have said with inductive reasoning one cannot have definitive proof. Scenario one- all non IDists are correct and the cell and the FSCO/I occurred by nature , in which case when we observe the FSCO/I in the cell it is empirical evidence that nature can cause FSCO/I. Scenario two - the cell is designed by an unknown designer at unknown time thru unknown means which created FSCO/I, it which case one could say FSCO/I in the cell represents " actual absence of empirical evidence that undirected natural factors- chance and/or mechanical necessity (a reasonable understanding of “nature”) — can and do in our observation credibly account causally for FSCO/I Now sure you can say that scenario 2 is your opinion, what you can't do to to declare ,there is no empirical evidence , therefore design is best explanation without assuming scenario one's entailment, that it represents positive empirical evidence, is false, that is assuming one's conclusion. You seem to imagine that by rhetorically substituting “making assumptions” for the actual process of abduction per serious candidate explanations you can pretend that I am begging questions. I am not pretending anything It is utterly unlikely that a discussion will suffice to move you, Just show where I am mistaken and I will admit mea culpa, mea culpa ,mea maxima culpa so I note here for record for the interested onlooker, on 2350 years of documentation that it is a reasonable cluster of factors to asses forces of mechanical necessity, chance, and ART or design as having causal effect; something we routinely do down to today. I In the same documentation things which men believed as necessary for design have been shown to have natural explanations. Again you are assuming the cell is not one of those cases, you can only assume that the cell is the former not the latter.velikovskys
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: As you know full well from the UD Darwinism essay challenge, the first problem for evolutionary materialists et al to answer is OOL in a Darwin warm pond or the like That's not the question that was raised, which presupposed reproductive entities. Mung: And you are making claims about what the model can demonstrate without a model. The model is the evolutionary algorithm, which models the basic process of replication, variation, and selection. Mung: Whatever model you build will either need to be designed or it will fail. All models are designed, whether mathematical models of the solar system and rocket trajectories, or weather simulations.Zachriel
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Mung: Post your version of “the standard evolutionary algorithm.” Zachriel: Sure. Descent with modification, that is, populations of replicators with variation. That hardly qualifies as an algorithm, and what is it that make it "the standard evolutionary algorithm"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm Mung: You and I both know that EA’s are designed. You have a standing challenge here at UD to demonstrate otherwise. Zachriel: You’re conflating the model with the thing being modeled. Or are you saying we can’t build theoretical models. How do you think they calculate rocket trajectories? Or predict weather, for that matter? And you are making claims about what the model can demonstrate without a model. We are talking about your assertion, the one which has no basis whatsoever in fact. Zachriel: Or are you saying we can’t build theoretical models. You're babbling. I just invited you to build your theoretical model. You can't. You won't. Whatever model you build will either need to be designed or it will fail.Mung
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
VS, you have clearly crossed the final line into willful misrepresentation. You seem to imagine that by rhetorically substituting "making assumptions" for the actual process of abduction per serious candidate explanations you can pretend that I am begging questions. It is utterly unlikely that a discussion will suffice to move you, so I note here for record for the interested onlooker, on 2350 years of documentation, that it is a reasonable cluster of factors to asses forces of mechanical necessity, chance, and ART or design as having causal effect; something we routinely do down to today. In that context we may reasonably assess characteristic signs of each factor, per aspect of an object or phenomenon, etc. Mechanical necessity leads to regularities such as F = m*a with low contingency under closely similar initial conditions, i.e. this is how we infer to mechanical laws. Secondly, for many cases -- e.g. dropping a common die -- there is high contingency under similar initial conditions. A likely explanation is chance driven stochastically distributed outcomes in many forms, c.f. statistics in various forms. However, in certain cases it is maximally implausible per needle in haystack search challenge reasons, that chance will hit on outcomes that are functionally specific AND complex such as an Abu 6500 C3 reel, which one does not routinely assemble by shaking up a bag of parts. Such cases of FSCO/I on trillions of cases, have a consistently known cause, intelligently directed configuration. So reliable is this that -- save where ideological a prioris such as Lewontiniam materialism obtain -- we routinely recognise cases of FSCO/I as designed. Indeed, that FSCO/I is a reliable signature of design. Per the vera causa principle, we are epistemologically and logically entitled to infer design from FSCO/I. Such is reasonable inference, not question-begging assumption. For more on the design inference at 101 level, here may prove helpful. KF PS: Observe above the resistance to a simple matter of fact by way of a red herring led away to a strawman. Venter et al have for decades demonstrated that molecular scale intelligent design of living cells is a reality not speculation. This leads to in the qualitative sense functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. For values, say, for the moment that an artificial functional protein of 300 AAs was inserted successfully into a gene. This requires 3 base pairs per AA, and therefore 900 bases. As each base has 4 possible values, that's 2 bits per base on a first estimate basis. 1,800 bits of FSCO/I. Onwards experimentation may lead to some AA's being less constrained, as Durston et al did for protein families. But the basic approach is clear to the reasonable mind.kairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
KF: As to your drumbeat attempts to insinuate that an inference to best explanation on empirical evidence and lined analysis is a question-begging assumption Not all all, it is you who is assuming that complexity in the cell is not caused by natural causes therefore design. Bluster does not conceal that fact. it inadvertently reveals the depth of the bankruptcy of a priori materialism and its fellow travellers In other words" look over over there ,an elephant" they can only falsely project and accuse, instead of forthrightly putting up empirically grounded argument. Well there is a saying about clutching at straws. KF I am not accusing ,merely pointing out the obvious. You cannot make the statement actual absence of empirical evidence that undirected natural factors- chance and/or mechanical necessity (a reasonable understanding of “nature”) — can and do in our observation credibly account causally for FSCO/I. without the assumption that the FSCO/I is the cell is not due to natural causes. A more effective rebuttal might consist of an actual argument rather than an adjective laden meandering What amount of FSCO/I did Venter add to the existing cell was there loss of FSCO/I as well, just curious?velikovskys
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
VS, what are you talking about? Have you heard of Craig Venter and others? As if, the obvious point that it is in principle possible were not already enough. As to your drumbeat attempts to insinuate that an inference to best explanation on empirical evidence and lined analysis is a question-begging assumption, it inadvertently reveals the depth of the bankruptcy of a priori materialism and its fellow travellers . . . they can only falsely project and accuse, instead of forthrightly putting up empirically grounded argument. Well there is a saying about clutching at straws. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
VS, an inductively well warranted inference to best explanation in the face of an open contest of potentially relevant causal candidates Yes, I am aware of what best explanation consists of, my objection is that the design option seems to be the default position. Neither the designer nor his unknown means are subject to the same probabilty calculations as are evolutionary processes . If those calculations are impossible then one cannot say the design option is best. — cf here most recently — is not assuming the conclusion and you know it or should full well know it; Let's see This is contrasted with the actual absence of empirical evidence that undirected natural factors- chance and/or mechanical necessity (a reasonable understanding of “nature”) — can and do in our observation credibly account causally for FSCO/I. You are assuming that FSCO/I in the cell is not empirical evidence of natural causation .That is the question,therefore you cannot conclude that as evidence for design. If you do you are assuming the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion. Likewise one cannot discount ID because the is no empirical evidence that design can create FSCO/ I in a living cell.velikovskys
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
ForJah
That’s all the inference does for me…if you are then going to say that we are in a computer program then it simply means that there ARE laws outside of this universe, and not created by it. ALSO it would remain true that the LAWS are the cause of the universe, and not God directly. So while it may be true that we owe the origination of the integration of the laws to an intelligence, the LAWS are the direct cause of why we are here, NOT Design.
Ok, the part I bolded is good. We keep looking for the origin of things and we find that only an intelligence can be the origin of the laws. But now you say that the laws are the direct cause of why we are here and not Design - but you're looking for the 'direct cause'. I'm not sure what that is when looking for origins. We could call God the 'ultimate cause' of the universe because the laws only act in the ways they are created to act. For example, the 'direct cause' of you existing could be your beginning as a fertilized egg. But then we see your parents as a cause, then going back through humanity, then the origin of life on earth, then the origin of earth, then the origin of the universe, then the origin of the laws of the universe ... then we still have God as the cause. That's evidence.Silver Asiatic
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Me_Think, This is interesting to me. You seem to demand that any "higher dimension" also be a natural dimension, or one with some sort of "natural constraints". Strange. But, if your understanding is correct (and I have no understanding about it myself), it seems to indicate to my mind that there is a reason, perhaps, for God to create with a "Big Bang", as it were. I dunno, just the first thing that hit me.Brent
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
MT, as has already been pointed out, there is no need to resort to side-track debates on higher dimensions etc -- though I note that a major though speculative theory in Physics explains particles and space on 11 dims, most of which are "rolled up" -- but instead a very direct inductive inference from the astonishing fine tuning of the cosmos. Fine tuned co-adaptation of parts that leads to function in a narrow zone of a config space is a strong indicator of design. We already know from logic of cause and of being that we have a necessary being at the root of reality. Fine tuning points to one capable of co-ordinated sophisticated design, just water is astonishing and rooted in fundamental cosmological physics. Of course, with the sheer raw power to effect a cosmos that in aggregate disposes of a huge quantity of energy, including in the fabric of space. Beyond, there are other aspects as were discussed above. What we need to do is to see the signs, take them seriously on their own substantial basis then address the usual comparative difficulties. If you imagine there is a serious worldviews option without difficulties, think again. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
F/N: Let me clip the discussion of the 6500 reel etc: >> Now, it should be readily apparent . . . let’s expand in step by step points of thought [u/d Feb 8] . . . that: a –> intelligence is inherently purposeful, and b –> that the fishing reel is an example of how the purposeful intelligent creativity involved in the intelligently directed configuration — aka, design — that c –> leads to productive working together of multiple, correct parts properly arranged to achieve function through their effective interaction d –> leaves behind it certain empirically evident and in principle quantifiable signs. In particular, e –> the specific arrangement of particular parts or facets in the sort of nodes-arcs pattern in the exploded view diagram above is chock full of quantifiable, function-constrained information. That is, f –> we may identify a structured framework and list of yes/no questions required to bring us to the cluster of effective configurations in the abstract space of possible configurations of relevant parts. g –> This involves specifying the parts, specifying their orientation, their location relative to other parts, coupling, and possibly an assembly process. Where, h –> such a string of structured questions and answers is a specification in a description language, and yields a value of functionally specific information in binary digits, bits. If this sounds strange, reflect on how AutoCAD and similar drawing programs represent designs. This is directly linked to a well known index of complexity, from Kolmogorov and Chaitin. As Wikipedia aptly summarises: In algorithmic information theory (a subfield of computer science and mathematics), the Kolmogorov complexity (also known as descriptive complexity, Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, algorithmic entropy, or program-size complexity) of an object, such as a piece of text, is a measure of the computability resources needed to specify the object . . . . the complexity of a string is the length of the shortest possible description of the string in some fixed universal description language (the sensitivity of complexity relative to the choice of description language is discussed below). It can be shown that the Kolmogorov complexity of any string cannot be more than a few bytes larger than the length of the string itself. Strings, like the abab example above, whose Kolmogorov complexity is small relative to the string’s size are not considered to be complex. A useful way to picture this is to recognise from the above, that the three dimensional complexity and functionally specific organisation of something like the 6500 C3 reel, may be reduced to a descriptive string. In the worst case (a random string), we can give some header contextual information and reproduce the string. In other cases, we may be able to spot a pattern and do much better than that, e.g. with an orderly string like abab . . . n times we can compress to a very short message that describes the order involved. In intermediate cases, in all codes we practically observe there is some redundancy that yields a degree of compressibility. >> KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
PS: Z has just repeated a distractive side track point regarding FSCO/I in the 6500 reel, refusing -- again -- to engage a reasonable response. That speaks volumes. I just note, as is immediately evident from the post the primary reason for using the reel is to illustrate the nodes-arcs pattern that defines FSCO/I and leads directly to the structured string of Y/N q's to describe. This directly indicates information content, as Orgel pointed out in 1973, immediately following a well known cite (as my 2nd hand copy shows, just flip the page) -- and I find the consistent failure to bring that up telling. And, it is quite reasonable to point out that due to its functional complexity just the main gear will be well beyond a threshold of 125 bytes. Where also, reduction to strings points to the common cases of coded text including with R/DNA, for which many calculations have been shown over years. In essentially every case, objectors have refused to acknowledge such values, including with Durston et al. So, we have reason to know the objections are selectively hyperskeptical and unresponsive to adequate answer, and so are patently unreasonable.kairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Z, you again resort to dismissive caricatures. As you know full well from the UD Darwinism essay challenge, the first problem for evolutionary materialists et al to answer is OOL in a Darwin warm pond or the like where the challenge to the magical powers of incrementalist evolution cannot be appealed to. The only serious vera causa meeting answer on the FSCO/I involved including the self replication subsystem necessary to cell replication, is design. Design sits at the table from the root, OOL. Second on origin of body plans, you have no empirical, vera causa passing direct observation, just a priori impositions and ideological exclusions. Third, as exactly the case of the 6500 reel shows which you are so eager to distract from, FSCO/I works by correct arrangement and coupling of correct correctly oriented parts per a Wicken wiring pattern. That is, FSCO/I inherently comes as deeply isolated islands in vast config spaces. The needle in haystack search challenge is real for OOL and OO body plans alike and talk about "big numbers" is a case of label and dismiss not serious thinking. The big numbers are real, readily pass thresholds where blind search on gamut of solar system or observed cosmos are at low end comparable to trying to find needles in a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy by picking the equivalent of one straw at random. Not a plausible search strategy. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
MT, I find it amazing to see the notion of everything having a cause popping up again as though the matter has not been adequately addressed. In a nutshell, a fire exemplifies contingent being, exhibiting dependency on on/off enabling causal factors heat, fuel, oxidiser, chain rxn. That is why it needs not exist, begins, is sustained, ends. Now, consider a serious candidate being without that kind of dependence, it will not have beginning or end, it will be either impossible as a square circle or else will necessarily be in any possible world. For instance, the truth in 2 + 3 = 5 is like that. Now, you know or full well should as it has been pointed out to you that God is not understood by any serious person to be a contingent being, but as the eternal one, a necessary being -- by sharp contrast with parodies such as a spaghetti monster or a unicorn, or even a perfect island etc. So, your argument is ill informed to the point of verging on a strawman tactic. No, there is no infinite causal regress of contingent gods. Indeed, just the point that nothing -- non-being -- has no causal powers so if ever there were an utter nothing that would forever obtain implies that our world is rooted in necessary being with adequate capacity to be causal root. The real issue is, which candidate makes best sense, why? And, there are serious reasons for holding that God aptly fills the bill. Cf 98 above https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-is-evidence/#comment-547642 and onwards. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: I intended to provide a familiar recognisable example of the phenomenon, and gave in outline the method of quantification by highlighting the nodes-arcs pattern and its link to a structured string of Y/N q’s ... But didn't provide the actual calculation. kairosfocus: As has been repeatedly pointed out (including in the technical literature), evolutionary algorithms are designed, work WITHIN islands of function with nice fitness functions that point uphill (the real FSCO/I problem is to get TO such islands in vast seas of non function with strictly limited blind search resources, i.e. the needle in haystack search challenge . . . The claim is that that islands are isolated, but that depends on the structure of the landscape. Your statement, then, would not be that evolutionary algorithms can't traverse complex landscapes, but that they can only traverse certain types of complex landscapes, which was our position from the get-go. If the landscape is structured such that points in a multidimensional space (the more the merrier) are correlated with nearby points, then evolutionary algorithms can effectively navigate the space. kairosfocus: For, they do not answer to the real challenge posed by the design theorists: how to get to an island of complex function — i.e. to a new body plan that for first life would require something like 100,000 base pairs of DNA and associated molecular machinery, and for other body plans from trees to bees, bats, birds snakes, worms and us, at least 10 million bases, dozens of times over — without intelligent direction. The appeal to BIG NUMBERS shows you don't understand the evolutionary process. It's the structure of the landscape that determines whether an evolutionary algorithm can effectively navigate the space.Zachriel
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Z, Why do you keep playing at zero concession, dismissive strawman caricatures? I intended to provide a familiar recognisable example of the phenomenon, and gave in outline the method of quantification by highlighting the nodes-arcs pattern and its link to a structured string of Y/N q's; such as is the basis for say a DWG file for AutoCAD or a similar format, likely to be used by the engineers of Abu Garcia. I obviously do not have access to the CAD files for a 6500 C3 reel, but that does not prevent reasonably inferring and indicating that just the main gear will easily exceed 125 bytes worth of descriptive information to specify it; gear design is a serious, sophisticated exercise. (--> Do you seriously intend us to accept that it is plausible for the DWG files for the 6500 C3 will in aggregate be 1/8 k byte or less? That is revealing on unreasonableness and utter unwillingness on any flimsy excuse to face an inconvenient reality long since identified by Orgel and Wicken, FSCO/I . . . ) So, confidently, we are well past the relevant threshold where FSCO/I can be seen as present . . . and that was easily known by objectors BEFORE trying rhetorical gambits. Similarly, over years your response and that of your ilk of objectors to cases of direct digitally coded strings . . . readily quantified . . . such as with text in posts or R/DNA (and proteins by extension) shows that the presented objection is not the true issue, as FSCO/I is calculable not just observable as a phenomenon. Indeed, going back to 1973, Orgel gave a framework for just that -- likewise distracted from and dismissed. Your dismissive rhetoric in response to a reasonable answer is revealing of the underlying problem of selectively hyperskeptically refusing to address the reality and relevance of FSCO/I . . . likely, because of a priori ideological commitment to Lewontin's evolutionary materialism or one of its fellow travellers. KF PS: As has been repeatedly pointed out (including in the technical literature), evolutionary algorithms are designed, work WITHIN islands of function with nice fitness functions that point uphill (the real FSCO/I problem is to get TO such islands in vast seas of non function with strictly limited blind search resources, i.e. the needle in haystack search challenge . . . again repeatedly pointed out including in the recent post on FSCO/I, so again, strawman caricature tactics), and generally require oodles of intelligently provided active information. Not to mention, typically, a fair amount of fine tuning to get them to work. So this is a case of clinging to a long since answered objection. PPS: Here is a longstanding answer I have made: >> . . . GA's do not only start on the shores of an island of function, but also the adaptation targets are implicitly pre-loaded into the program [[even in cases where they are allowed to wiggle about a bit] and so are the "hill-climbing algorithm" means to climb up to them. This point has been highlighted by famed mathematician Gregory Chaitin, in a recent paper, Life as Evolving Software (Sept. 7, 2011):
. . . we present an information-theoretic analysis of Darwin’s theory of evolution, modeled as a hill-climbing algorithm on a ?tness landscape. Our space of possible organisms consists of computer programs, which are subjected to random mutations. We study the random walk of increasing ?tness made by a single mutating organism. [[p.1]
xi: Plainly, this more sophisticated approach is a model of optimising adaptation by generic hill-climbing, within an island of function; i.e. this is at best a model of micro-evolution within a body plan, not origin of such complex, integrated body plans. xii: So, while engineers -- classic intelligent designers! -- may well find such algorithms quite useful in some cases of optimisation and system design, they fail the red-herring- strawman test when they are presented as models of microbe to man evolution. xiii: For, they do not answer to the real challenge posed by the design theorists: how to get to an island of complex function -- i.e. to a new body plan that for first life would require something like 100,000 base pairs of DNA and associated molecular machinery, and for other body plans from trees to bees, bats, birds snakes, worms and us, at least 10 million bases, dozens of times over -- without intelligent direction. xiv: Instead, we can present a key fact, one that Weasel actually inadvertently demonstrates. That is: in EVERY instance of such a case of CSI, E from such a zone of interest or island of function, T, where we directly know the cause by experience or observation, it originates by similar intelligent design. And, given the long odds involved to get such an E by pure chance -- you cannot have a hill-climbing success amplifier until you first have functional success! -- that is no surprise at all. >>kairosfocus
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Brent @ 217
As for me, I’m speaking of God, an uncreated creator, the uncaused cause.
Whoever is the uncaused cause has to be on higher dimensions. We know even 4th (spatial) dimension is impossible to manage. You can’t even tie a knot beyond 3rd dimension. A creator who creates in 4D or any higher dimension can’t even create a single atom as the atoms will have nP orbitals (n=the number of dimension). In 4th dimension, you have 4P orbitals, in 5th, 5P orbitals and so on. This will allow more than two electron per orbital- which will change the element ! Every element will have weird properties ! Atoms will collapse easily. Atomic bonding will be shot. Molecules forming will be difficult and weird.Me_Think
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
ForJah, I obviously didn't understand your position. Sorry. What do you mean by God not having personhood? What is the problem with that for you? I suppose you've mentioned it in a post upthread, so could you direct me if you have? Thank you.Brent
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
I'm not really sure where you are going with any of that? Where did I say the universe was eternal? And btw, a rock is a being. Rocks "are", they exist! i have no problem with "God" being the uncaused cause. I just define God as an uncreated creator that exists eternally. The only difference between my God and your God is that yours has personhood and mine does not.ForJah
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
As for me, I'm speaking of God, an uncreated creator, the uncaused cause. When I say God, I'm saying eternally existing being. If you understand the infinite regress problem, then you understand the necessity that somewhere, then, there must be an uncaused cause. Propose a natural cause for nature??? That'll never work. Supernatural it is, then.Brent
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Brent @ 215
Now, are you further suggesting an infinitely existing universe? I suppose you know this is untenable, right? You’ll immediately run into needing a natural cause to break the regress...... as it is nature itself that is in need of explanation.,
Are you suggesting ID Agent created universe? I suppose you know this is untenable, right? You’ll immediately run into needing a cause to break the regress - ID agent created universe, who created ID agent ? Who created the creator of ID agent.......ID agent himself is in need of explanation.Me_Think
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply