Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent thread by Dr Sewell, AF raised again the Shallit-Elsberry list of eight challenges to design theory from a decade ago:

14 Alan FoxApril 15, 2013 at 12:56 am Unlike Profesor Hunt, Barry and Eric think design detection is well established. How about having a go at this list then. It’s been published for quite a while now.

I responded a few hours later:

______________

>>* 16 kairosfocus April 15, 2013 at 2:13 am

AF:

I note on points re your list of eight challenges.

This gets tiresomely repetitive, in a pattern of refusal to be answerable to adequate evidence, on the part of too many objectors to design theory:

>>1 Publish a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI>>

It has long since been shown, objections and censorship games notwithstanding, that reasonable quantitative metrics for FSCO/I and so for CSI, can be built and have been built. Indeed Durston et al have used such to provide a published list of values for 15 protein families.

>> 2 Provide real evidence for CSI claims >>

Blatant, all around you. But, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Just to pick an example {–> from the list}, a phone number is obviously functionally specific (ever had a wrong number call?) and — within a reasonable context [though not beyond the 500 bit threshold] complex.

>> 3 Apply CSI to identify human agency where it is currently not known >>

FSCO/I is routinely intuitively used to identify artifacts of unknown cause, as IIRC, WmAD has pointed out regarding a room in the Smithsonian full of artifacts of unknown purpose but identified to be credibly human.

>> 4 Distinguish between chance and design in archaeoastronomy >>

The pattern of Nazca lines or the like, fit within the nodes-arcs pattern and collectively exhibit FSCO/I similar to other complex drawings. The 500 bit threshold is easily passed. If you want to contrast odds of a marker wandering randomly in a random walk, the difference will be trivial.

In short this is a refusal to use simple common sense and good will.

>> 5 Apply CSI to archaeology >>

Just shown, this is a case or repeating much the same objection in much the same context as though drumbeat repetition is capable of establishing a claim by erasing the underlying fallacies. Being wrong over and over and over again, even in the usual anti-design echo chambers, does not convert long since corrected fallacy into cogent reasoning.

>> 6 Provide a more detailed account of CSI in biology
Produce a workbook of examples using the explanatory filter, applied to a progressive series of biological phenomena, including allelic substitution of a point mutation. >>

There are book-length cogent treatments of CSI as applied to biology [try Meyer’s SITC for starts {{ –> . . . I know, I know, this was published 2009, six years after the “challenge,” but AF is raising it in 2013, TEN years after the challenge}}], and that is not enough for the objectors, there will never be enough details.

Similarly, the objection starts within an island of existing function and demands a CSI based explanation of a phenomenon known to be well within the threshold of complexity. This is a strawman tactic.

>> 7 Use CSI to classify the complexity of animal communication As mentioned in Elsberry and Shallit (2003: 9), many birds exhibit complex songs. >>

What?

Is there any doubt that bird or whale songs or bee dances for that matter are long enough and complex enough to be FSCI? That they function in communication? That we did not directly observe the origin of the capacities for such but have reason to see that they are grounded in CSI in the genome and related regulatory information expressed in embryological development that wires the relevant nerve pathways?

So, are you demanding a direct observation of the origin of such, which we do not have access to and cannot reasonably expect, when we do have access to the fact that we have indications of FSCO/I and so raise the question as to what FSCO/I is a known reliable, strongly tested sign of as best causal explanation?

>> 8 Animal cognition
Apply CSI to resolve issues in animal cognition and language use by non-human animals. >>

Capacity for language, of course, is biologically rooted, genetically stamped and embryologically expressed. So it fits into the same set of issues addressed under 7 just now.

Repetitive use of fallacies does not suddenly convert them into sound arguments.

Nor, can one reasonably demand solutions to any number of known unresolved scientific problems as a condition of accepting something that is already well enough warranted on reasonable application of inductive principles. That is, it is well established on billions of test cases without significant exception, that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause.
____________

To suddenly demand that design thinkers must solve any number of unsolved scientific questions or the evidence already in hand will be rejected, is a sign of selective hyeprskepticism and a red herring tactic led away to a strawman misrepresentation, not a case of serious and cogent reasoning. >>

=========

(*And yes, AF, I am modifying French-style quote marks to account for the effect of the Less Than sign in an HTML-sensitive context. No need to go down that little convenient side-track again twice within a few days. Especially, as someone by your own testimony apparently living in a Francophone area.)

NB: BA77’s comment at 17 is worth a look also. Let’s clip in modified French style, that he may clip and run that readeth:

>> Mr. Fox, it seems the gist of your eight ‘questions’ from ten years ago is that you doubt whether or not information, as a distinct entity, is even in the cell? In fact I remember many arguments with neo-Darwinists on UD, not so many years back, who denied information, as a distinct entity, was even in the cell. Is this still your position? If so, may I enlighten you to this recent development???,,,

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram – Sebastian Anthony – August 17, 2012
Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored.
http://www.extremetech.com/ext…..ingle-gram

That DNA stores information is pretty much the mainstream position now Mr. Fox,,,

Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

That information is a distinct entity in the cell is pretty uncontroversial Mr. Fox, so why the list of eight questions? The only question that really matters is can purely material processes generate these extreme levels of functional information? Perhaps you would like to be the first Darwinist on UD to produce evidence that material processes can produce enough functional information for say the self assembly of a novel molecular machine?>>

The much underestimated and too often derided BA77  continues at 18:

>> Mr. Fox, as to the fact that a cell contains functional information, I would like to, since Dr. Sewell approaches this from the thermodynamic perspective, point out something that gets missed in the definition of functional information in the specific sequences of DNA, RNAs, and proteins. There is a deep connection between entropy and information,,

“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
http://www.scientificamerican……rts-inform

And what is particularly interesting about this deep connection between information and entropy is that,,,

“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

And yet despite the fact that entropic processes tend to degrade information, it is found that the thermodynamic disequilibrium of a ‘simple’ bacteria and the environment is,,,

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong
http://books.google.com/books?…..;lpg=PA112

Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a…..ecular.htm

Moreover we now have good empirics to believe that information itself is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium:

Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_…..ave-t.html

In fact, Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum information/entanglement by the following method:,,,

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..134300.htm

And yet, despite all this, we have ZERO evidence that material processes can generate even trivial amounts classical information much less generate massive amounts transcendent ‘non-local’ quantum information/entanglement,,,

Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design
https://vimeo.com/32148403

Stephen Meyer – “The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.”

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

The Afters – Every Good Thing – Lyric Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY2ycrpbOlw >>

Joe puts in a good knock at 25:

>>Earth to Alan Fox,

Neither you, Shallit, Elsberry nor the NCSE need concern yourselves with CSI. That is because all of you can render CSI moot just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind and undirected processes can account for what we call CSI.

It is that simple- demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce CSI and our argument wrt CSI, falls.

However seeing that you all are nothing but cowards, you won’t do that because that means actually having to make a positive case. And everyone in the world knows that you cannot do such a thing.

The point being is that your misguided attacks on ID are NOT going to provide positiove evidence for your position. And only positive evidence for blind and undirected processes producing CSI is going to refute our arguments. >>

I picked back up from BA77 at 26:

>> BA77: The connexion between entropy and information is indeed important. I like the expression of it that runs like: the entropy of a body is the average missing info to specify the exact microstate of its constituent particles, that exists if what one knows about the system is the thermodynamic macrostate defined by its macro-level thermodynamic properties. This of course implies the degree of freedom or lack of constraint on the particles, and links to the situation where a rise in entropy is often linked to a rise in disorder, a degradation of availability of energy.  >>

_______________
And, dear Reader, what do you think AF’s answer is, several days later on this the 19th of April in this, The Year of Our Risen Lord, “dos mil trece” [= 2013]?

Dead silence, and heading off to other threads where he thought he could score debate points.

(In short, he raised dismissive talking points and stayed not for an answer. Sad.)

Let us hope that headlining the above will at least allow others who need and want such, to find a reasonable summary answer to the NCSE talking points. END

PS: Dembski and Luskin have responded at one time or another to the S-E team, try here and here (part II here; complete with with AF popping up here at no 3).

Comments
...to suggest that I am a Nazi by invidious association...
That is a very serious allegation that I suggest you substantiate or withdraw.Alan Fox
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
F/N: I see some disparaging remarks above concerning "faith" and its alleged roots in blind adherence to authority. It seems AF et al need to first understand the logic of worldview roots and adherence to first plausibles. Namely, that for any claim A that we see as needing to be "proved," we may ask, why should we accept it. From this we see that there is a pattern of further argument or observations and reasoning etc, B that leads us to see A as warranted. That leads on to C, D , etc. So, we have the choice of infinite regress, an absurdity: turtles, all the way doooown. Or else, question-begging circularity at some point, where we loop back. Or else we take a framework of first plausible points, F, as credibly true without further "proof." F is our faith point, our worldview. It can only escape infinite regress or circularity by being:
a: partly self evident (e.g first principles of right reason) b: partly held to be so on trust in our collective experience of the world, with c: a further context of comparative difficulties -- across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power . . . elegant simplicity without simplisticness [notice, the reference to in effect a grand inference to best explanation] -- among alternate "live option" start points F1, F2, F3 . . . Fn.
So, the proper question is not to imagine that faith is equated to blind adherence to some authority or other. Instead, we have no choice but to walk by faith, as the basis for all else, including faith in reason and in credible testimony and expertise or authorities, starting with the dictionary, teachers etc. Of course to have reasonable faith we then need to go through the chain above, and it is reasonable to audit authorities as I am currently doing with orthopedic surgeons. (De Yahd-man is at the head of the pack.) I am fairly sure (having taken time to investigate) that, if given a fair hearing -- as opposed to being subjected to self-refuting and self-serving selective hyperskepticism as we saw too much of in the thread above, the historic NT Christian Faith of Apostles, martyrs, confessors, and ecumenical creeds, will pass with flying colours. I am also quite certain, on good reason, that he trendy evolutionary materialist scientism and associated so-called new atheism etc of our day will at once collapse so soon as its account of the human mind and its capability to know, reason and make moral judgements is soberly examined. never mind how it loves to dress up in the holy lab coat and fly the flags of science, with a brazen confident manner. A view of the world that radically undermines reason, knowledge and morality is not even a starter. When it comes to the core design inference, the matter is quite simple in the end, as was aptly stated by Stephen Meyer in reply to an objector to his SITC:
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . . . [W]e do know of a cause—a type of cause—that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information . . .
The matter, in the end, is a s simple as that. And yes, despite what the advancers of many silly objections and demands for "endorsement" thereby imply, Meyer is openly using a formulation that is essentially the same as my own functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, with particular reference to the digital, coded, algorithmically functional information to be found in DNA in cell based life. The time has come to stop the silly rhetorical games, objectors, and to make a sober and honest, informed and open minded assessment of what is on the table in front of us all. Starting with the realities of cell based life such as DNA, mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes and protein manufacture and the conundrum for materialist views, of the origin of life. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Joe: If that is so, then this is now a test of EL and the rest of the TSZ crowd. For, if they make themselves willing harbourers and enablers of and accessories to slander, willful continued misrepresentations held on to in the teeth of step by step correction then they remove themselves from the circle of civil discussion, period. AF has openly -- on demonstrated false accusation -- stated that CSI is "a bogus concept." In the teeth of simple examples and more sophisticated ones, involving metrics relevant to the origin of life and of major body plans, he has tried to suggest that it is useless for calculation, that it is not measurable, and that it is part of some nefarious Creationist, fundamentalist, right-wing theocratic plot to subvert science and civilisation alike. When he has been corrected, step by step, point by point, he has doubled down on misrepresentations, showing himself to be guilty of willfully continued misrepresentations. As well as the slander by false accusation and malicious insinuation already seen. (And recall this is in a context where not so long ago there was an attempt at TSZ tracing to OM and RTH -- enabled by the TSZ crowd including EL the blog owner -- to suggest that I am a Nazi by invidious association; which BTW EL I am pretty sure is actionable in British law . . . American law on tort being currently in a first class mess on matters linked to defamation.) So, now we have come to the point where TSZ will need to step up to the plate and show its true colours. I, for one, on track record, am not holding my breath in hopes that the leadership will come down on the side of basic civility. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
One may not start out by questioning authority but when each new experience demonstrates authority’s assertions don’t gel with reality and one starts examining the basis of those assertions, faith is a common casualty.
Exactly! I questioned the evolutionary authorities and found their assertions do NOT gel with reality! That is when my faith in evolutionism became a casualty. Good call, Alan.Joe
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
So Alan posts a challenge, has it answered and then runs back to TSZ to spew more BS about UD? Typical for a coward.Joe
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
AF's tactics exposed and headlined for record, here. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Onlookers (attn AF, EL & ilk at TSZ, etc): Over the past few days, AF has unfortunately shown just why after eight years he has made no progress in understanding or soundly interacting with design theory or thinkers. This has come to a head in his remark at 454 above, where he stated:
CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations.
That is a flat out false accusation of sustained fraud by the design theory movement and associated thinkers, and when he has been confronted with cases in point, including taken from his own comments, he has only been evasive or dismissive, returning to some variant of this false accusation or concepts pretty directly tied to it. However, in his mind he thinks himself justified in his behaviour -- a typical problem with ideologues. Why is that? This can be seen from what he has further plainly stated at 400 above:
I think ID is dangerously political nonsense. I have never posted anything here that I knew was not true . . .
In short, first he imagines himself to be defending the materialist orthodoxy from some dangerous attack, an attack by what others elsewhere have called -- by way of false accusation -- "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This can be seen from his further remark at 448 that plainly reflects this assumption that the framework for design thought is Bible-based fundamentalism (by way of irrelevantly injecting a reference to the Bible projected unto design theory supporters, into a discussion on SETI):
There is no mention of other planets and other lifeforms being created elsewhere in the universe in the Bible . . .
Now, such attacks have long since been corrected and pointed out to him, but he is not listening, he is too full of his ideological frame of thought and the pattern of thinking and arguing that has led him so far astray. But isn't he sincere, never speaking that which he knows to be false, as he also declared in the cited snippet? I am afraid, however, duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness go beyond merely not speaking what one KNOWS is not true. They include not speaking that which one SHOULD KNOW is not true. And particularly, they require refraining from manifestly false accusations (how many slanderers imagine they are speaking the truth?!!) and from refusing to attend to or heed correction. Of which unfortunately we have all too much evidence of in hand, even just in this thread. I simply again point to the UD weak argument correctives again (which were already linked and are accessible on this and every UD post), on the attempt to politicise what design theory is about and the related attempts to conflate it with the already successfully smeared creationists. Let it further suffice to note that the creationists themselves make it plain that they differ fundamentally with design thinkers. The WAC's make plain why: creationism in the usual sense is about starting with scripture held to be accurate record of origins from the Creator, and adjusting science to fit that record. Design theory is about what can be inferred on tested reliable inductive sign that indicates cause across chance, necessity and design. The antecedents of design thought lie in those Bible thumping fundies -- NOT -- Plato [cf. here on The Laws, Bk X c. 360 BC], Cicero and co. All of this is in the easily accessible corrective record, but AF has chosen to refuse to heed his duties of care to seek the truth before speaking in reflection of what is well warranted as true. On being corrected, he has either ignored it or has resorted to some of the worst debate tactic comebacks that distort, dismiss, evade or twist about the truth. That is, he has plainly, repeatedly spoken in willful defiance of duties of care to truth, fairness and warrant, hoping to profit from what is false or what is a misrepresentation or what is a false accusation being perceived as true. Such, sadly, is willfully deceptive. (Cf. definition here.) And at length when corrected, he has sought to twist about the matter, projecting falsehood and misrepresentation to others as if that justifies his behaviour. Now, let us -- in steps of thought, proceed to correct some key points in his comment at above, by way of record: 1 --> Observe his opening tactic in comment 465 above [the main focus for this response], responding to a step by step presentation in above that lays out facts, develops rational argument on such facts and then draws up corrective conclusions and calls, after many days of repeated, unheeded correction of falsehoods:
I’m not going to respond to the following numbered points: 2. (FSC is irrelevant to this thread) 3. ad hominem 4. ditto 5. irrelevant 7. ad hominem 8. Juvenile 10. Garbled 12. Durston does not talk about CSI so irrelevant 16. ditto 17. ditto 18. ad hominem and the bafflegab in the PS So, to the remaining points:
2 --> First, foremost he begins by willfully ignoring the baseline directly presented fact in comment 459 no 1, which lays out the contrast of FSCO/I with random strings and strings that reflect order, and thus also DEMONSTRATES the existence of CSI . . . complex, AND specified information. That is, CSI (regardless of merits and demerits of any particular metric model) cannot be "bogus" -- fraudulent -- as it is objectively and readily shown to be an actual observable phenomenon:
1 –> CSI is an observable and measurable entity, as can be seen, again, by a very simple example of three different strings:
1] OSC/ mechanical order (like in a crystal of NaCl): wewewewewewe . . . 2] RSC/chance strings (such as may happen with a rock matrix):iw3ertujshkjsdbvhsdv . . . 3] FSC/organised functionally specific strings (such as may happen in an informational polymer like RNA/protein): this string is a case of functionally specific information . . .
3 --> So, if one shuts ones eyes to patent facts again presented in correction, then one begins on the wrong foot. 4 --> He then proceeds to the key step of arbitrarily dismissing remark 2 of 459, on the fact that functional sequence complexity speaks to strings that exhibit FSCO/I and thus Complex Specified Information. Note no 2 from 459, which AF dismisses with the bland -- and obviously false-- assertion that "FSC is irrelevant to this thread":
2 –> FSC [--> as was directly exemplified in 1 of 459, just cited] depends crucially on the specific configuration of matched components, which drastically constrains the number of possibilities, relative to the configuration space of possible arrangements, scattered or clumped of same components. [Think about how many ways the parts of a car engine can be arranged in working order, vs the number of ways such could be clumped or scattered that would not work.] This is why the concept of an island of function [T] in a much larger sea of non-functional gibberish [W - T], out of the field of possibilities W, makes sense.
5 --> That is, I have given an example of FSCI in 1 of 459, pointing out that it exhibits functional sequence complexity and have tied it directly to Dembski's definition of CSI in NFL, pp. 144 and 148, which AF should be aware of. Let me cite that definition as it has long sat in the IOSE introsummary page that AF has openly brushed off with a wave of his hand:
p. 148: “The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [[cf. here below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function . . . In virtue of their function [[a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways [[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole] . . .” p. 144: [[Specified complexity can be defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [[chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [[the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [[ effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [[ effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
6 --> In short, CSI is directly connected to function, is manifested in patterns that restrict acceptable configurations to narrow zones T in the wider space of possibilities W ["islands of function"] and so functional sequence complexity per Abel, Trevors, Durston et al is directly relevant to the concerns of this thread. Demonstrated by fact and reasoning, to be further warranted in the end at 16 and 17[b!] of 459 by extensively citing from a 2007 paper just how Durston et al deduced the following directly relevant cases of FSC that then fit in the Chi_500 metric model reduced from the Dembski 2005 expression, namely: Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold; and -- by simply using the fact of function of protein families to see that S = 1 and taking up the I value they deduce from Shannon's H as extended in the paper cited in detail at point 14 of 459 for the functional state, yield that:
17 –> Durston et al do not discuss a specific threshold of reasonable search resources, but the needle in haystack threshold for the solar system already given is reasonable. Durston’s metric brings in the redundancy of the actual code used [as opposed to the distribution that is chemically possible] and so we may freely insert it into the Chi_500 metric expression, as was done in the IOSE and in discussion threads here at UD before that, some years back now . . . with AF doubtless looking on:
Using Durston’s Fits values — functionally specific bits — from his Table 1, to quantify I, so also accepting functionality on specific sequences as showing specificity giving S = 1, we may apply the simplified Chi_500 metric of bits beyond the threshold:
RecA: 242 AA, 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond
xxiii: And, this raises the controversial question that biological examples such as DNA — which in a living cell is much more complex than 500 bits — may be designed to carry out particular functions in the cell and the wider organism.
18 –> So, not only is it a matter of reasonable description, modelling and quantification, but this is closely linked to serious work that has appeared in the peer reviewed literature, for some years now. AF, you are willfully misrepresenting what you do or should know better than. That, sir, FYI — as you know or full well should know, is willfully deceptive and in defiance on your part of duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness.
7 --> So, AF is willfully ignoring the actual presentation of facts, reasoning and evidence that warrants the conclusions, the better to snip and snipe points where corrections are specifically made on the long record of willfully ignoring such facts and evidence, to pretend that such are ad hominem attacks. That is already the proper explanation for the dismissive remarks he makes on points 3, 4, & 7 & 8 etc. Indeed, we see such a warranted correction at 18, which he dismissed "ad hominem." As for the PS to 459, it directly responded to his prior willful politicisation of and false accusations regarding the matter in defiance of the facts and evidence in record long since. He may brush it aside with a clever quip but it is unfortunately well warranted and corrective of a major political smear he seems to have bought into. 8 --> So we see the consistent tactics of willfully ignoring facts and evidence, in order to snip out points where after many attempts to correct on facts and evidence, it has had to be directly put that there is a willful falsehood and continued misrepresentation problem at work. 9 --> To which AF replied by making further dismissals of evidence and further willfully false accusations. Compounded by the rhetorical tactic of twisting about the problem and projecting the blame to the one correcting. Shoot the messenger instead of deal with the message. 10 --> Point 10 of 459 is dismissed as "garbled." Let us see, in context:
10 –> In addition, there may be post copying adjustments that point to further CSI — such as in the maturation of mRNA with snipping and possible rearrangements, addition/stripping of headers etc. [Cf here the ISO OSI 7-layer comms model and how similar mechanisms do appear in the living cell.]
11 --> This is particularly revealing of underlying refusal to address material evidence that Af should know about if he is to comment with knowledge on CSI, FSCO/I and FSC. In the context of discussing duplication (of strings of info) -- raised as an intended objection by AF and before him by Mr May, P, in the sock-puppet persona of MathGirl -- and why it does not in itself increase the CSI stock of the cosmos, it had been pointed out at 9 of 459, immediately preceding -- note the "In addition" a the start of 10 -- that:
. . . Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name. However, the duplicating mechanism may indeed be further FSCO/I as can be seen from a photocopier or the highly complex DNA transcribing mechanism in the living cell.
12 --> So, the immediate context is the making of mRNA, and it is pointed out that on completion of transcription, mRNA is subject to processing, snipping and possible rearrangements. It is also noted that headers may appear in bio-molecules similar to the same pattern in the well known OSI seven layer info system model that underlies the Internet. 13 --> Surely, such processing transforms a mere duplicate into something else and points onwards to something else that has the functionally specific complex organisation to do this, and to do it correctly on a reliable basis. 14 --> So, far from being "garbled," what is on display here is AF's willful ignorance -- these things have been pointed out to him, and/or he has had access to research them by making simple web searches -- that was then covered over by making a rhetorical dismissal. 15 -> This is a patent case of speaking in willful disregard of duties of care to accuracy, truth and fairness, as well as of defiance of correction, in the interests of a continued willful misrepresentation. 16 --> the is a similar pattern in response to point 12 of 459. Let us cite 11 - 13 as this gives context:
11 –> Where also (contrary to your just counting bits caricature) it has been carefully specified right there in the name, that the issue is a joint specificity- complexity criterion; as has been pointed out by Dembski et al for years and indeed as traces back to Orgel’s distinctions in 1973 and to Wicken’s identification of functionally specific complex organisation in 1979 that you also ignore. (Cf. here for the cites and comments that have been repeatedly pointed out, linked and/or cited to you, and which you willfully ignored the better to continue willful misrepresentations.) 12 –> One that may as Durston et al show, be adjusted for redundancy that comes up in the code or possible substitutions. 13 –> Where also — as you full well know or should know — that joint between complexity and specificity [especially functional specificity] is a crucial distinction from mere info carrying capacity, aka info in the Shannon sense.
17 --> It is simply not true that Durston et al do not discuss CSI, the whole 2007 paper is on measuring the information in FUNCTIONALLY specific bio-molecule sequences that are complex. let us note the title and the methods section of the abstract:
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins Kirk K Durston1*, David KY Chiu2, David L Abel3 and Jack T Trevors4 . . . . We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families. Considerations were made in determining how the measure can be used to correlate functionality when relating to the whole molecule and sub-molecule. In the experiment, we show that when the proposed measure is applied to the aligned protein sequences of ubiquitin, 6 of the 7 highest value sites correlate with the binding domain.
18 --> That is why they discuss functional sequence complexity -- in a context where from NFL we can see that the issue is functional info in biological contexts and that specificity in that context is cashed out in terms of function in the biological context. Where, proteins are notoriously the workhorses of the cell. Durston et al then use Shannon's H in null, ground and functional states of long sequences of chained bio-monomers to quantify its information content, and this built on a base where they discussed it across several peer-reviewed papers over the course of years. 19 --> If this is "misunderstood," it is misunderstood in a context where AF has been repeatedly corrected on the point, but has consistently defiantly ignored or brushed it aside. Such behaviour, in a context of associated false accusations of fraud ["bogus"], is willful and irresponsible relative to his manifest duties of care to truth, accuracy, warrant and fairness. 20 --> Not least, this is a specific case that -- in a patently biological context (protein families that function across the world of life) -- demonstrate FSCO/I in measurable action, and thus also CSI in measurable action. So at this point AF's case has collapsed and he has no cause for complaint that he has had to be brought up short for irresponsible misbehaviour in the teeth of repeated, easily accessible correction. 21 --> So, how does he address the explicit, detailed citation and summary on the relevance of FSC to FSCO/I and CSI in the world of life, as I gave in points 16 and 17 of 459? He simply compounds the problem by saying ditto twice, i.e he refuses to attend to direct evidence of his error presented in detailed correction. This is willful and it is fair comment to say it is closed minded and a case of continued misrepresentation compounded by false accusations of fraud ("bogus")in the teeth of adequate correction. 22 --> A this point the substantial issue has been settled, but let us continue on at least a snippet basis (ignoring further twist-about accusations or insinuations, ad hominems and personalities for the moment), to see how AF continues to try to brush aside the correction that he has rejected. 23 --> The first detail point begins:
[KF:] CSI is an observable and measurable entity [--> NB: with a textual snippet from AF and and biological examples given, with links to the derivation of the metric for Chi_500, and with the Durston case highlighted] … [AF:] So you keep saying. But you fail to explain how to measure it for any meaningful example.
24 --> Willfully misleading falsehood and continued misrepresentation. 25 --> AF then introduces a novel case, demanding that I address it (it was in fact already taken up by Joe):
Try the nine residue polypeptide, oxytocin . . .
26 --> AF knows or should know that 9 AA's are represented by 27 mRNA bases, and come form a space of 20^9 possibilities for relevant protein space, where the maximum number of bits per 20-state element (disregarding redundancies) is 4.322, yielding ~ 39 bits as carrying capacity; well within the 500-bit limit for FSCO/I. He also knows that it is bio-functional. So, on a simple model of informational capacity adequate for this purpose, we already know that oxytocin is not beyond the threshold where design would be inferred. Chi_500 = 39 - 500; i.e. we are 461 bits short of the relevant threshold of exceeding the search capacity of the solar system's 10^57 atoms. 27 --> His attempt to dismiss point 6 of 459 is revealing, given what we have already seen -- which includes not only a correction that shows just how CSI is quantifiable and measurable in general and in cases relevant to the biological world, but also AF's unjust and slanderous assertion that CSI is "bogus" i.e. fraudulent:
[KF:] You objected that CSI cannot be quantified. [AF:] I wouldn’t put it as strongly as that. CSI may be a measurable quantity. We have yet to see a meaningful definition or a clear reproducible way of calculating this (let’s say) alleged property of an entity.
28 --> I think this is an unacknowledged, unapologetic retraction in part. AF probably realises that the accusation of fraud he has made will not wash, so he sneaks in a modification without accounting for his false accusation. But this will not wash, as in fact meaningful definition and actual calculations both simple and sophisticated have been presented, just willfully ignored. 29 --> This is continuing misrepresentation, with all that that means given duties of care to truth, accuracy, fairness and warrant ignored by AF as already pointed out. 30 --> Notice the artfully placed snip-off (do I dare say "quote mining" . . nah, we all know that only those wretched "creationists" do such . . . ) that cuts out the justification again given above in this comment, i.e. my point that duplication itself is not creating novel FSCO/I but that the duplicating mechanism may well be more FSCO/I and further processing will likely inject FSCO/I:
[KF:] You tried to then raise the issue that has been addressed for years, of duplication of information. Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name. [AF:] Right so all entities that are identical only contain one measurable quantity of CSI. So CSI literally doesn’t add up. If you have a gene duplication event followed by drift mutations in the redundant gene does that then have more CSI?
31 --> See how, by quote mining, a strawman has been set up and pummelled? And, how the problem of crossing a sea of gibberish to reach relevant novel body plans on a new island of function has been ducked? In a context of assumed junk DNA where there would be no natural selection pressure of differential reproductive success to filter for function, i.e. we are here looking at a pure random walk? Notice, utter absence of observed, empirical warrant for novel body plans emerging by such "drift"? 32 --> Let's just say: just-so story. 33 --> Nor should we forget the underlying issue: why should copying information to a new site or medium be even imagined to be creation of novel -- never before existing -- information? That is why I pointed out that duplication already tells us that nothing new is appearing at this stage. But mature the mRNA by snipping up and rearranging etc, push in headers on informational molecules when assembled to dispatch them and snip off for use or the like, or do much the same with information in the Internet and we are dealing with transformation, thus new information. 34 --> Notice, how AF tries to brush aside the evidence from all around us that when we need specific arrangements of well matched parts to function, it leads to narrow zones in the space of possible configurations, and it then leads to the challenge of search and the question that with limited atomic & temporal resources [10^57 atoms and 12 - 14 bn years in our effective universe, absent discovery of warp drive] we are only reasonably warranted in expecting to pick up the bulk of the distribution, not the narrow special zones:
Needles in haystacks and islands of function are repackaged arguments from incredulity. And you seem to be back to bit counting.
35 --> Of course, immediately, when one counts functionally specific bits, one is not merely counting bits, as has been repeatedly pointed out to AF but willfully ignored in the rush to make up strawman targets. Right from the beginning with Orgel in 1973 it has been recognised that the joint between specificity [which may be based on function] and complexity is pivotal in distinguishing organisation from the mere order of a repetitive, low information necessity-shaped crystal structure and chance based mixtures of polymers in a tar or the like:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.]
35 --> But, AF cannot resist the temptation of a willful misrepresentation that sets up a strawman target. 36 --> This continues into the attempt to dismiss the inference on what is known from sampling theory into a supposed fallacious appeal to personal incredulity. (Of course, one has a perfect epistemic right to be incredulous in a scientific context where there is an absence of empirical evidence of FSCO/I arising by blind chance and mechanical necessity but plenty of it arising from intelligent action.) 37 --> But it is in fact well known that blind samples tend to represent the bulk of a distribution, and that as a result when one has the equivalent of a truck full of beans with some few gold beads in it by comparison on steroids, a blind sample made by pulling out a handful will overwhelmingly be likely to only pick up beans. (The calculated comparison is that of using up the resources of our solar system to take a one straw sized sample of a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy. Even if that were somehow superposed on the galaxy in Earth's neighbourhood, with overwhelming likelihood the only expected result of such a sample will be straw and nothing else, not suns not planets etc.) 38 --> Strawman tactics continue:
I asked “So how is function quantified? And how does that quantity enter into the calculation?” This remains unanswered.
39 --> Function in the world of life -- as was pointed out to AF but predictably ignored in the interests of setting up and knocking over strawmen -- is of course observed (which gives it objective character) and may be measured in many cases, e.g. the degree of activity of a candidate enzyme in promoting a relevant reaction. 40 --> This is implicit in functional specificity, which appears in the Chi_500 expression as S [which based on observation and resulting objective warrant takes up values of 0 -- not functionally specific as default, and 1 when such is shown to be present]. Let us remind ourselves, by again clipping the relevant part of the IOSE intro-summary that AF has brushed aside:
chi is a metric of bits from a zone of interest, beyond a threshold of "sufficient complexity to not plausibly be the result of chance," (398 + K2). So, (a) since (398 + K2) tends to at most 500 bits on the gamut of our solar system [[our practical universe, for chemical interactions! ( . . . if you want , 1,000 bits would be a limit for the observable cosmos)] and (b) as we can define and introduce a dummy variable for specificity, S, where (c) S = 1 or 0 according as the observed configuration, E, is on objective analysis specific to a narrow and independently describable zone of interest, T: Chi = Ip*S – 500, in bits beyond a "complex enough" threshold NB: If S = 0, this locks us at Chi = - 500; and, if Ip is less than 500 bits, Chi will be negative even if S is positive. E.g.: a string of 501 coins tossed at random will have S = 0, but if the coins are arranged to spell out a message in English using the ASCII code [[notice independent specification of a narrow zone of possible configurations, T], Chi will -- unsurprisingly -- be positive. Following the logic of the per aspect necessity vs chance vs design causal factor explanatory filter, the default value of S is 0, i.e. it is assumed that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are adequate to explain a phenomenon of interest. S goes to 1 when we have objective grounds -- to be explained case by case -- to assign that value. That is, we need to justify why we think the observed cases E come from a narrow zone of interest, T, that is independently describable, not just a list of members E1, E2, E3 . . . ; in short, we must have a reasonable criterion that allows us to build or recognise cases Ei from T, without resorting to an arbitrary list. A string at random is a list with one member, but if we pick it as a password, it is now a zone with one member. (Where also, a lottery, is a sort of inverse password game where we pay for the privilege; and where the complexity has to be carefully managed to make it winnable. ) An obvious example of such a zone T, is code symbol strings of a given length that work in a programme or communicate meaningful statements in a language based on its grammar, vocabulary etc. This paragraph is a case in point, which can be contrasted with typical random strings ( . . . 68gsdesnmyw . . . ) or repetitive ones ( . . . ftftftft . . . ); where we can also see by this case how such a case can enfold random and repetitive sub-strings. Arguably -- and of course this is hotly disputed -- DNA, protein and regulatory codes are another. Design theorists argue that the only observed adequate cause for such is a process of intelligently directed configuration, i.e. of design, so we are justified in taking such a case as a reliable sign of such a cause having been at work. (Thus, the sign then counts as evidence pointing to a perhaps otherwise unknown designer having been at work.) So also, to overthrow the design inference, a valid counter example would be needed, a case where blind mechanical necessity and/or blind chance produces such functionally specific, complex information. (Points xiv - xvi above outline why that will be hard indeed to come up with. There are literally billions of cases where FSCI is observed to come from design.) xxii: So, we have some reason to suggest that if something, E, is based on specific information describable in a way that does not just quote E and requires at least 500 specific bits to store the specific information, then the most reasonable explanation for the cause of E is that it was designed.
41 --> In turn this is reflected in Dembski's CSI-defining remarks as already cited from NFL, that in the biological context specificity is cashed out as function, and it appears in the work of Durston et al as functional sequence complexity. There is no justification whatsoever for the strawman tactic. 42 --> This one takes the cake for setting up and knocking over strawmen through quite mining in the interests of Alinskyite rhetoric of ridicule:
[KF:] It also shows that – per willingness to spend a fair sum of money — it is generally accepted that humans do not exhaust the set of potential intelligences. [AF:] Obscure to the point of inscrutability!
43 --> What was left off? Just, the context of noting that if people are spending millions on searches for signals from extraterrestrials, then they obviously do not think that humans exhaust the list of possible intelligences. (It being a well known objection tactic that an objector pretends that only human intelligence can be considered as reasonable and empirically justified so the design inference is out of order somehow.) ++++++++ Such a context of willful, persistent misrepresentation in the teeth of duties of care to truth, evidence, fairness, warrant etc more than justifies taking strong measures to notify the unwary onlooker that something is seriously amiss with what is going on in the comments. Especially after many attempts to correct have been willfully ignored and dismissed. Especially, in the further context of a willful false accusation of fraud, that has not been acknowledged, retracted openly and apologised for. Indeed, this case more than merits headlining -- as a capital example of what is not to be done in discussing design theory. I intend to do so shortly, for record and in hopes that in future this will not ever happen again. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2013
April
04
Apr
26
26
2013
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
OK to recap- Alan is OK with archaeology, forensic science and SETI using two piles. But he is against ID doing so (the two piles are designed or not), for reasons he never divulges. :roll: Then Alan talks about CONTEXT because when it suits him, context is important. After he talks about context Alan pulls polypeptides from his butt, ie NO CONTEXT, and asks us to measure their information. :roll: And finally Alan still plays obtuse wrt CSI even though he uses CSI every day and the world couldn't get by without it. :roll: Is that about right, Alan? :razz:Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Aaln Fox:
If ETs showed up they’d be real entities.
There is more evidence for ETs then there is for your position, Alan. Does that bother you too? And if meeting the designer(s) is the only way to get you to accept Intelligent Design, then it is clear that you don't give a damn about science- clearer.Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
In SETI and Intelligent Design, SETI researcher Seth Shostak wants to assure everyone that the two don’t have anything in common. However it is obvious that Seth doesn’t completely understand ID’s argument, and he misrepresents the anonymous quote he provided. Seth on ID:
The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA--which is a complicated, molecular blueprint--is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.
Yes specified complexity is used as evidence for design. Not mere complexity and not organized complexity. A hurricane is an example of organized complexity. DNA is an example of specified complexity. Seth on IDists on SETI:
"upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn't their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning--a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" anonymous IDist(s)
(No IDist claims complexity implies intelligence so methinks Seth made it all up) What does Seth say about his made-up quote?:
In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume.- S Shostak
1- All that quote said was about RECEIVING, not searching. 2- And if you did RECEIVE a signal of that nature you would claim it as such 3- By ID’s standards of complexity is related to probability your narrow band meets the complexity criteria
An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial.- Shostak
Not if we use the word complexity in terms of (im)probability then that sine wave would meet the criteria. However Seth does add some insight:
Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add -
Exactly! And if natural astrophysical processes can be found that generate such a tone then you would have to search for something else. Something that natural astrophysical processes cannot account for.Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Earth to Alan Fox- FSC is the same thing as CSI wrt biology. Just because you choose to be willfully ignorant of this that isn't a refutation. CSI is an observable and measurable entity…
So you keep saying. But you fail to explain how to measure it for any meaningful example.
You are just lying now.
Try the nine residue polypeptide, oxytocin. As it was the first polypeptide to be sequenced and synthesized, it seems an appropriate example. Compare it with the hypothetical (at least I made it up) polypeptide whose sequence is RHHRKST. I’m especially interested if you get a different numerical result for the two entities.
My goodness, you are just ignorant as to how science operates. CONTEXT Alan. We don't just see polypeptides floating around. That said, 9 residues maps back to 27 nucleotides. 27 x 2 = what, Alan? Then we check for specificity. If any ole 9 residues or sequence order will do, then it ain't specified. So, 9 residues has an information carrying capacity, ie Shannon information, of 54 bits, Alan. Then it matters if there is some function as to if that information is A) specified and B) just how specific is it.Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
AF: That's an interesting and informative article. Thanks for sharing it. However, I'm not sure I see how it relates to the scenario I outlined. That SETI is looking for simplicity as an indication of "artificiality" has no bearing on whether specified complexity could indicate the same. In fact, you've agreed that the scenario I outlined, which did not consist of a simple tone or green square, would likely provoke a similar reaction. Supposing otherwise would stretch the bounds of credulity. So are you now saying that the scenario I outlined would not merit a similar inference?Phinehas
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Phinehas, AF, I read through the above link from AF and found a few problems with it. It's no wonder therefore that AF is as confused as he is. What do others think? :)PeterJ
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Ah well, never mind, Phinehas.Here is an article that might help clarify where I was going. I especially like the mention of context. ;) ByeAlan Fox
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
AF: That's too bad. If you do decide to return, my questions will be waiting for you. ;) Unfortunately, the atmosphere at TMZ wasn't particularly to my liking, though Liz was a generous enough host.Phinehas
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Sometimes, with some people, the best way to show the car is broken is to try starting the ignition and driving the thing.
But I can't even see the damn car!Alan Fox
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
AF: You have been caught out in a flat case of false accusation of fraud -- "bogus," and have taken no heed. You have given no indication of correcting willful, continued misrepresentations of facts, patiently and repeatedly pointed out to you in correction (from multiple sources and I suspect across the course of eight years), and at the end, you have twisted about reluctantly given, well-justified corrections on your behaviour into further false accusations of personal attacks. These substantiate the concerns that you are showing yourself the closed minded ideologue and propagandistic rhetor using "any means deemed necessary." (Which I will further document in a moment, as a lesson for the onlooker, as obviously you will pay no heed to correction.) Now at length you want to take up your ball and run home, on the pretence that it is I who need to amend my ways. Sadly, utterly revealing. Pull up your socks, man! KF ++++++++
Could you please walk me through exactly how you got (rather emphatically) to D without making any sort of inference to design whatsoever?
I am disinclined to comment further here until Kairosfocus mends his ways and stops editing into other peoples past comments. It's unethical and unacceptable. Did you ever find your way over to The Skeptical Zone? (Ah, I see you registered) I could start a thread there if you like.Alan Fox
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Alan Fox, What do you think about trying to run through a relatively straightforward example of the very thing you are looking for folks such as kairosfocus to provide? In other words, you provide the meaningful definition of CSI and way of calculating it. Now, I understand that this has you doing the work that others should have done -- and they say they have done already -- and I also understand that one of your points is that no meaningful definition or unambiguous method has yet been given. Nevertheless, I hope you'll agree that simply trying may prove educational for all of us. Sometimes, with some people, the best way to show the car is broken is to try starting the ignition and driving the thing.LarTanner
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
AF: I can't say I'm following you. Frankly, I'm not really interested at the moment in whether or not CSI, as currently formulated, is a valid concept. As pointed out earlier, it wasn't included in my outlined scenario in any sort of explicit way. To review what we've established so far (and BTW, I totally agree with your answers to my questions, though I must confess that whatever point you are making with that last one is still too subtle for me to grasp): Given the following scenario. A. SETI receives a narrow band signal from space. B. The signal had a recognizable specification (prime numbers, pi, etc.). C. The signal was sufficiently complex (first 50 prime numbers, 50 digits of pi, etc.). The response would be. D. Much more money! Could you please walk me through exactly how you got (rather emphatically) to D without making any sort of inference to design whatsoever?Phinehas
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
1: AF is corrected here. KF 2: AF: You have a false accusation of fraud -- not merely a claim of error -- on the table to deal with. KF 3: Functional sequence complexity speaks of strings – . . . -*-*-*-* - . . . – which are functionally specific, and complex enough to be relevant to CSI & FSCO/I. Where also, such is WLOG as anything reducible to a set of nodes and arcs can be reduced to a network list thus strings. Attempts to sweep functional sequence complexity off the table are ill-informed or ill-intentioned. KF +++++ If franklin and CLAVDIVS are still checking in, could I ask if they would like to visit TSZ hereAlan Fox
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
1: AF is corrected here. KF 2: AF: You have a false accusation of fraud -- not merely a claim of error -- on the table to deal with. KF 3: Functional sequence complexity speaks of strings – . . . -*-*-*-* - . . . – which are functionally specific, and complex enough to be relevant to CSI & FSCO/I. Where also, such is WLOG as anything reducible to a set of nodes and arcs can be reduced to a network list thus strings. Attempts to sweep functional sequence complexity off the table are ill-informed or ill-intentioned. KF +++++++ Quick response to Kairosfocus in comment # 459. I'll try and work with your bullet points. I'm not going to respond to the following numbered points: 2. (FSC is irrelevant to this thread) 3. ad hominem 4. ditto 5. irrelevant 7. ad hominem 8. Juvenile 10. Garbled 12. Durston does not talk about CSI so irrelevant 16. ditto 17. ditto 18. ad hominem and the bafflegab in the PS So, to the remaining points: 1.
CSI is an observable and measurable entity...
So you keep saying. But you fail to explain how to measure it for any meaningful example. Try the nine residue polypeptide, oxytocin. As it was the first polypeptide to be sequenced and synthesized, it seems an appropriate example. Compare it with the hypothetical (at least I made it up) polypeptide whose sequence is RHHRKST. I'm especially interested if you get a different numerical result for the two entities. 6.
You objected that CSI cannot be quantified.
I wouldn't put it as strongly as that. CSI may be a measurable quantity. We have yet to see a meaningful definition or a clear reproducible way of calculating this (let's say) alleged property of an entity. 9.
You tried to then raise the issue that has been addressed for years, of duplication of information. Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name.
Right so all entities that are identical only contain one measurable quantity of CSI. So CSI literally doesn't add up. If you have a gene duplication event followed by drift mutations in the redundant gene does that then have more CSI? 11.
Where also (contrary to your just counting bits caricature) it has been carefully specified right there in the name, that the issue is a joint specificity- complexity criterion
In reply to a comment by Eric Anderson, who asserted:
Alan, you know, or should know, that the design inference is not just a count of bits. There has to also be an observable function, or specification, if you will.
I asked "So how is function quantified? And how does that quantity enter into the calculation?" This remains unanswered. 13.
Where also — as you full well know or should know — that joint between complexity and specificity [especially functional specificity] is a crucial distinction from mere info carrying capacity, aka info in the Shannon sense
See 11. I asked for clarification and as yet remain unanswered. 14. I'm sorry, sometimes your stream-of-consciousness verbal diarrhoea masks any possible kernel of content. 15.
It is by now well known or should full well be known that the log reduction of the 2005 Dembski equation that then sets limits based on the 10^57 atoms of our solar system acting as searching agents for the lifespan of the system, at a rate equal to that of the fastest chemical rxns, gives a quantification that yields bits beyond the threshold of a needle in haystack search that per sampling theory, makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and mechanical necessity could act together or separately to find shorelines of islands of function in the sea of gibberish implied by the FSCO/I in something beyond 500 bits of complexity: Chi_500 = I*S – 500.
Needles in haystacks and islands of function are repackaged arguments from incredulity. And you seem to be back to bit counting. 19. You seem to be agreeing with me about SETI 20. ditto 21.
In short SETI does in fact show that it is understood that coded information in a functionally specific complex organised context, would be a sign of design by intelligence.
If ETs showed up they'd be real entities. Maybe we could get them to perform intelligence tests to see how intelligent they were. This semantic trick with "intelligence" becomes tiresome.
It also shows that – per willingness to spend a fair sum of money — it is generally accepted that humans do not exhaust the set of potential intelligences.
Obscure to the point of inscrutability!
So much for that particular strawman tactic.
:rolleyes: Finally:
So, AF, you have been duly corrected on your main errors, and this summarises the corrections.
Absolute nonsense. All you have done is repeat the same old bafflegab. No demonstration of how to calculate CSI, just words to obscure the paucity of your response. Finally, finally: I told you to stop editing into past comments. The practice is unethical. Yet, when corrected, you persist and I shall therefore not be making any further responses to you via this website until you mend your ways. Good day, Sir.Alan Fox
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
AF: You have a false accusation of fraud -- not merely a claim of error -- on the table to deal with. KFkairosfocus
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
So CSI is a "bogus" concept that the world cannot live without. How does that work, Alan?Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Intelligent Design” is nothing more than an empty catchphrase.
Is it? Good luck proving that bit of tripe, Alan. Do you really think that your bald spewage means something?
“Intelligent Design” inferences don’t work in practice.
Yes they do. Your ignorance means nothing here, Alan.
If “ID” inference operates as described by Joe or KF, then it only tells us what we already know.
So we already know that the universe and living organisms are designed? Then why aren't we teaching that in schools? I see Alan is still upset because his position has absolutely nothing. Natural selection? Proven to be impotent. Genetic drift? Always known to be impotent So all Alan has to attack ID like a belligerent little child.Joe
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Joe: You are reminded to get back up on the wagon, and also of a certain message. KFkairosfocus
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
PJ: I hope the just above will be of help. KFkairosfocus
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
AF: Why do you insist on continuing willful misrepresentations, in the hopes of making such seem true? Do you not recognise that at this point they go to character? FYI's (or at least for the sake of onlookers who might think your remarks have any merit whatsoever): 1 --> CSI is an observable and measurable entity, as can be seen, again, by a very simple example of three different strings:
1] OSC/ mechanical order (like in a crystal of NaCl): wewewewewewe . . . 2] RSC/chance strings (such as may happen with a rock matrix):iw3ertujshkjsdbvhsdv . . . 3] FSC/organised functionally specific strings (such as may happen in an informational polymer like RNA/protein): this string is a case of functionally specific information . . .
2 --> FSC depends crucially on the specific configuration of matched components, which drastically constrains the number of possibilities, relative to the configuration space of possible arrangements, scattered or clumped of same components. [Think about how many ways the parts of a car engine can be arranged in working order, vs the number of ways such could be clumped or scattered that would not work.] This is why the concept of an island of function [T] in a much larger sea of non-functional gibberish [W - T], out of the field of possibilities W, makes sense. 3 --> Your repeated verbal dismissals of such basics just show closed mindedness and selective hyperskepticism, because evidently you do not wish to go where such points and the easiest way to object is to willfully distort and dismiss basic concepts. But after a certain point it is no more misunderstanding, it is willfully continued misrepresentation, sadly, with all that this implies. 4 --> You have actually been corrected in this thread several times and have simply ignored correction in order to further spew out your talking points. 5 --> In addition, a focus on strings is WLOG, as complex arrangements can be reduced to clusters of nodes and connecting arcs, leading to a string that describes the list. Indeed, that is more or less how something like AutoCAD, etc works. 6 --> You objected that CSI cannot be quantified. On being confronted with a correction, more than once in this thread, you have ducked and dodged. For instance, contrast:
AF, 385: . . . We don’t know how to measure CSI of something … anything … because nobody can tell us how! KF, ed note to 385: AF, why do you insist on a continued willful misrepresentation in the teeth of the evident truth presented to you any number of times, including above in this thread? Your remarks just above are 123 ASCII characters in standard English [clearly objectively recognisable], at 7 bits per character. This gives us I*S = 861 * 1 = 861 functionally specific bits. Applying the Chi_500 metric [--> Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold] that AF tries to imagine does not exist or is unusable: Chi_500 = 861 = 500 = 361 bits beyond the solar system threshold This is a second live demonstration in several days to AF. Let us see his next excuse for — sadly, predictably — dismissing and misrepresenting it. AF, 390 to Joe: you say you can count the bits of something … anything … and if greater than 2^500 or 10^150 it must be designed and if not it still might be. Trivial and useless. And unendorsed, so far. Would any other ID proponent like to confirm that Joe’s CSI is Dembki’s CSI? AF, 400: [KF:] You have again been corrected at 385 above. [AF:] I have told you that pasting edits into past comments is a disreputable way to attempt dialogue. You can do better than that. Please stop it . . .
7 --> Willful distortions, evasions and red herrings led away to such strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight. In this case, it is entirely in order to correct a willfully obtuse objector who continues to distort and misrepresent in the teeth of correction by exposing that fact, right there in his comment. Especially after there has been adequate notification and correction. And the personal attack that I am dishonest in moderating Joe is laughable. He slips off the wagon from time to time, but at least tries. That speaks volumes by contrast. 8 --> And here is your sentence at this point: this correction is going to be linked or appended in this thread so soon as you show yourself playing the drumbeat talking point misrepresentation game again. 9 --> You tried to then raise the issue that has been addressed for years, of duplication of information. Does duplication create new info de novo? Nope, from its very name. However, the duplicating mechanism may indeed be further FSCO/I as can be seen from a photocopier or the highly complex DNA transcribing mechanism in the living cell. 10 --> In addition, there may be post copying adjustments that point to further CSI -- such as in the maturation of mRNA with snipping and possible rearrangements, addition/stripping of headers etc. [Cf here the ISO OSI 7-layer comms model and how similar mechanisms do appear in the living cell.] 11 --> Where also (contrary to your just counting bits caricature) it has been carefully specified right there in the name, that the issue is a joint specificity- complexity criterion; as has been pointed out by Dembski et al for years and indeed as traces back to Orgel's distinctions in 1973 and to Wicken's identification of functionally specific complex organisation in 1979 that you also ignore. (Cf. here for the cites and comments that have been repeatedly pointed out, linked and/or cited to you, and which you willfully ignored the better to continue willful misrepresentations.) 12 --> One that may as Durston et al show, be adjusted for redundancy that comes up in the code or possible substitutions. 13 --> Where also -- as you full well know or should know -- that joint between complexity and specificity [especially functional specificity] is a crucial distinction from mere info carrying capacity, aka info in the Shannon sense. 14 --> Your bland declaration that the construct FSCO/I has not been "endorsed" is a bit of dismissive ad hominem, in a context where on being challenged to show yourself competent to address basic info theory [by contrast with the undersigned who has had to teach such in the context of teaching telecomms . . . cf. again a basic intro in my always linked briefing note through my handle here on] has repeatedly been corrected by reference to not only Orgel-Wicken but also Dembski and Meyer (cf clip here on; Dembski in the often used cite from NFL pp. 144 and 148 in discussing CSI's nature and definition, points out that in biological contexts, specification is cashed out as FUNCTION.) as well as Abel, Trevors, Durston et al. in their use of OSC/RSC/FSC, and its quantification tracing to work by Szostak and onwards to the significance of Shannon's H metric of average info per symbol in light of redundancies leading to non-uniform distribution of symbols; e.g. e is about 1/8 of typical English text and Q is most often followed by U, save with things like Iraq or QANTAS. 15 --> It is by now well known or should full well be known that the log reduction of the 2005 Dembski equation that then sets limits based on the 10^57 atoms of our solar system acting as searching agents for the lifespan of the system, at a rate equal to that of the fastest chemical rxns, gives a quantification that yields bits beyond the threshold of a needle in haystack search that per sampling theory, makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and mechanical necessity could act together or separately to find shorelines of islands of function in the sea of gibberish implied by the FSCO/I in something beyond 500 bits of complexity: Chi_500 = I*S - 500. 16 --> Let me clip from the linked briefing, where it discusses the quantification by Durston et al. 2007. Pardon length, it is needed at this point, making substitutions for non-English symbols:
11 --> Durston, Chiu, Abel and Trevors provide a third metric, the Functional H-metric in functional bits or fits, a functional bit extension of Shannon's H-metric of average information per symbol, here. The way the Durston et al metric works by extending Shannon's H-metric of the average info per symbol to study null, ground and functional states of a protein's AA linear sequence -- illustrating and providing a metric for the difference between order, randomness and functional sequences discussed by Abel and Trevors -- can be seen from an excerpt of the just linked paper. Pardon length and highlights, for clarity in an instructional context:
Abel and Trevors have delineated three qualitative aspects of linear digital sequence complexity [2,3], Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC). RSC corresponds to stochastic ensembles with minimal physicochemical bias and little or no tendency toward functional free-energy binding. OSC is usually patterned either by the natural regularities described by physical laws or by statistically weighted means. For example, a physico-chemical self-ordering tendency creates redundant patterns such as highly-patterned polysaccharides and the polyadenosines adsorbed onto montmorillonite [4]. Repeating motifs, with or without biofunction, result in observed OSC in nucleic acid sequences. The redundancy in OSC can, in principle, be compressed by an algorithm shorter than the sequence itself. As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2,3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6] . . . . Shannon uncertainty, however, can be extended to measure the joint variable (X, F), where X represents the variability of data, and F functionality. This explicitly incorporates empirical knowledge of metabolic function into the measure that is usually important for evaluating sequence complexity. This measure of both the observed data and a conceptual variable of function jointly can be called Functional Uncertainty (Hf) [17], and is defined by the equation: H(X f(t)) = -[SUM]P(X f(t)) logP(X f(t)) . . . (1) where X f denotes the conditional variable of the given sequence data (X) on the described biological function f which is an outcome of the variable (F). For example, a set of 2,442 aligned sequences of proteins belonging to the ubiquitin protein family (used in the experiment later) can be assumed to satisfy the same specified function f, where f might represent the known 3-D structure of the ubiquitin protein family, or some other function common to ubiquitin. The entire set of aligned sequences that satisfies that function, therefore, constitutes the outcomes of X f. Here, functionality relates to the whole protein family which can be inputted from a database . . . . In our approach, we leave the specific defined meaning of functionality as an input to the application, in reference to the whole sequence family. It may represent a particular domain, or the whole protein structure, or any specified function with respect to the cell. Mathematically, it is defined precisely as an outcome of a discrete-valued variable, denoted as F={f}. The set of outcomes can be thought of as specified biological states. They are presumed non-overlapping, but can be extended to be fuzzy elements . . . Biological function is mostly, though not entirely determined by the organism's genetic instructions [24-26]. The function could theoretically arise stochastically through mutational changes coupled with selection pressure, or through human experimenter involvement [13-15] . . . . The ground state g (an outcome of F) of a system is the state of presumed highest uncertainty (not necessarily equally probable) permitted by the constraints of the physical system, when no specified biological function is required or present. Certain physical systems may constrain the number of options in the ground state so that not all possible sequences are equally probable [27]. An example of a highly constrained ground state resulting in a highly ordered sequence occurs when the phosphorimidazolide of adenosine is added daily to a decameric primer bound to montmorillonite clay, producing a perfectly ordered, 50-mer sequence of polyadenosine [3]. In this case, the ground state permits only one single possible sequence . . . . The null state, a possible outcome of F denoted as ø, is defined here as a special case of the ground state of highest uncertainly when the physical system imposes no constraints at all, resulting in the equi-probability of all possible sequences or options. Such sequencing has been called "dynamically inert, dynamically decoupled, or dynamically incoherent" [28,29]. For example, the ground state of a 300 amino acid protein family can be represented by a completely random 300 amino acid sequence where functional constraints have been loosened such that any of the 20 amino acids will suffice at any of the 300 sites. From Eqn. (1) the functional uncertainty of the null state is represented as H(X 0(ti))= - [SUM] P(X 0(ti)) log P(X 0(ti)) . . . (3) where (X 0(ti)) is the conditional variable for all possible equiprobable sequences. Consider the number of all possible sequences is denoted by W. Letting the length of each sequence be denoted by N and the number of possible options at each site in the sequence be denoted by m, W = m N. For example, for a protein of length N = 257 and assuming that the number of possible options at each site is m = 20, W = 20257. Since, for the null state, we are requiring that there are no constraints and all possible sequences are equally probable, P(X 0(ti)) = 1/W and H(X 0(ti))= - [SUM](1/W) log (1/W) = log W . . . (4) The change in functional uncertainty from the null state is, therefore, Delta-H(X 0(ti), X f(t j)) = log (W) - H(X f(ti)). (5) . . . . The measure of Functional Sequence Complexity, denoted as z, is defined as the change in functional uncertainty from the ground state H(X g(ti)) to the functional state H(X f(t i)), or z = delta H (X g(ti), X f(tj)) . . . (6) The resulting unit of measure is defined on the joint data and functionality variable, which we call Fits (or Functional bits). The unit Fit thus defined is related to the intuitive concept of functional information, including genetic instruction and, thus, provides an important distinction between functional information and Shannon information [6,32]. Eqn. (6) describes a measure to calculate the functional information of the whole molecule, that is, with respect to the functionality of the protein considered. The functionality of the protein can be known and is consistent with the whole protein family, given as inputs from the database. However, the functionality of a sub-sequence or particular sites of a molecule can be substantially different [12]. The functionality of a sub-molecule, though clearly extremely important, has to be identified and discovered . . . . To avoid the complication of considering functionality at the sub-molecular level, we crudely assume that each site in a molecule, when calculated to have a high measure of FSC, correlates with the functionality of the whole molecule. The measure of FSC of the whole molecule, is then the total sum of the measured FSC for each site in the aligned sequences. Consider that there are usually only 20 different amino acids possible per site for proteins, Eqn. (6) can be used to calculate a maximum Fit value/protein amino acid site of 4.32 Fits/site [NB: Log2 (20) = 4.32]. We use the formula log (20) - H(Xf) to calculate the functional information at a site specified by the variable X f such that X f corresponds to the aligned amino acids of each sequence with the same molecular function f. The measured FSC for the whole protein is then calculated as the summation of that for all aligned sites. The number of Fits quantifies the degree of algorithmic challenge, in terms of probability, in achieving needed metabolic function. For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space. In general, the higher the Fit value, the more functional information is required to encode the particular function in order to find it in sequence space. A high Fit value for individual sites within a protein indicates sites that require a high degree of functional information. High Fit values may also point to the key structural or binding sites within the overall 3-D structure.
11[a] --> Thus, we here see an elaboration, in the peer reviewed literature, of the concepts of Functionally Specific, Complex Information [FSCI] (and related, broader specified complexity) that were first introduced by Orgel and Wicken in the 1970's. This metric gives us a way to compare the fraction of residue space that is used by identified islands of function, and so validates the islands of function in a wider configuration space concept. So, we can profitably go on to address the issue of how plausible it is for a stochastic search mechanism to find such islands of function on essentially random walks and trial and error without foresight of location or functional possibilities. We already know that intelligent agents routinely create entities on islands of function based on foresight, purpose, imagination, skill, knowledge and design.
17 --> Particularly note:
The measure of Functional Sequence Complexity, denoted as z, is defined as the change in functional uncertainty from the ground state H(X g(ti)) to the functional state H(X f(t i)), or z = delta H (X g(t i), X f(t j)) . . . (6) The resulting unit of measure is defined on the joint data [--> i.e. complexity based on number of informational elements] and functionality [--> based on observed biofunction] variable, which we call Fits (or Functional bits). The unit Fit thus defined is related to the intuitive concept of functional information, including genetic instruction and, thus, provides an important distinction between functional information and Shannon information [6,32] . . . . In general, the higher the Fit value, the more functional information is required to encode the particular function in order to find it in sequence space.
17 --> Durston et al do not discuss a specific threshold of reasonable search resources, but the needle in haystack threshold for the solar system already given is reasonable. Durston's metric brings in the redundancy of the actual code used [as opposed to the distribution that is chemically possible] and so we may freely insert it into the Chi_500 metric expression, as was done in the IOSE and in discussion threads here at UD before that, some years back now . . . with AF doubtless looking on:
Using Durston’s Fits values -- functionally specific bits -- from his Table 1, to quantify I, so also accepting functionality on specific sequences as showing specificity giving S = 1, we may apply the simplified Chi_500 metric of bits beyond the threshold:
RecA: 242 AA, 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond
xxiii: And, this raises the controversial question that biological examples such as DNA -- which in a living cell is much more complex than 500 bits -- may be designed to carry out particular functions in the cell and the wider organism.
18 --> So, not only is it a matter of reasonable description, modelling and quantification, but this is closely linked to serious work that has appeared in the peer reviewed literature, for some years now. AF, you are willfully misrepresenting what you do or should know better than. That, sir, FYI -- as you know or full well should know, is willfully deceptive and in defiance on your part of duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness. 19 --> There is also some discussion of SETI and whether there is specification involved in assessing the use of narrowband, evidently modulated or at least evident carrier, signals. The answer to this is obvious. To maintain a steady carrier at a narrowband transmission and to modulate it with an intelligence bearing signal that is recognisable, would be signs of functional specificity. Unfortunately, the more likely forms of transmission for an advanced culture going about its business, broadband coded frequency hopping signals or the like will only appear as an increment of noise, save to those who have the code to pull it out of the apparent sea of noise. In short the SETI is looking for what we can, in the context of maybe someone is saying hi, here we are. 20 --> At the same time, as natural oscillators are possible, the presence of a case of a narrowbad signal or periodic one that is explicable on natural factors, would not count. Pulsars do not count as signs of intelligence, though if one were to be found with a coding on the signal, that would be a different story. That's why Sagan's Contact used a modulated signal in a pattern that is quite specific and unlikely to be "natural," the sequence of primes. 21 --> In short SETI does in fact show that it is understood that coded information in a functionally specific complex organised context, would be a sign of design by intelligence. It also shows that - per willingness to spend a fair sum of money -- it is generally accepted that humans do not exhaust the set of potential intelligences. So much for that particular strawman tactic. ++++++++++ So, AF, you have been duly corrected on your main errors, and this summarises the corrections. Now, I would advise you to attend to such correction and amend your ways. KF PS: In some of his remarks, AF makes reference to ID being a dangerous political movement and to the Bible. It is evident from this that he is in material part motivated by the ID = Creationism smear pushed by the NCSE et al. His behaviour above and elsewhere in and around UD for the past eight years, should thus be understood as that of an ideologue who supports the evolutionary materialist scientism agenda that likes to fly the false colours of "science" in our day [whether as an actual atheistical materialist or as a fellow traveller makes but little difference . . . ], seeking to oppose what he perceives to be an opposed political movement by "any means deemed necessary," and too often using subtler forms of Alyinskyite tactics of misrepresentation, polarisation and attempting to discredit. Hence the refusal to actually engage substance on science, especially where he patently has gaps in his understanding. Hence we can understand the resort to attempted drumbeat repetition of sloganeering talking points meant to dismiss what he obviously cannot cogently address on the merits. Hence the enabling behaviour of quietly going along with those who use more blatant forms of neo-marxist tactics, though outright abuse. He believes that all the angels are on his side, and only devils and fools or incompetents on this. It is therefore fair comment to summarise per the patterns that have been evident: he projects unto us or is willing to go along with the projection to us, of an imagined hidden right wing fundamentalist theocratic nazi-like tyrannical agenda that threatens "progress" illuminated by the light of "science" and "reason." In short, he is playing at dirty, deeply polarised politics, not genuine discussion of science at a table of civility. He is posting drumbeat talking points here to enable the dismissal of what is said here, and to try to make us look like idiots [note the common school-yard taunt on this . . . ] or evil, ignorant and incompetent hypocrites. No wonder he almost never takes up the actual discussion on merits beyond dismissive talking points or snippets he can wrench to fit into his talking points. In first reply, he is hereby pointed to the UD weak argument correctives from here on that address the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" and onward linked slanderous, loaded talking points. He is pointed here, to highlight that in fact Fascism, which he -- doubtless following a common error -- imagines is right wing, is actually an ideology of nihilistic, superman as political saviour, messianic statism, on the left end of the political spectrum. It is indeed to the right of Stalin's Communism, but that is the only sense of "right" that is relevant. In addition, any species of political messianism is an attempt to substitute a political order and leader for loyalty to God our Saviour, and is both idolatrous and profoundly anti- [= counterfeit] Christian. So it is unsurprising to see a visual demonstration here -- NB the discussion to go with it -- that Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker's Party in particular were Anti-christian. And finally, AF and ilk would be well advised to heed Plato's warning on the question-begging imposition of evolutionary materialism on a culture's trend-setters and where it leads to historically, radical relativism o knowledge and morals, multiplied by the rise of nihilist factions who are taught to think that the highest right is might, leading onwards to chaos and to attempt to restore order, open or veiled tyranny:
[[The trendy philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne] . . . They say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
kairosfocus
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
I simply can't follow Alan's logic: "Yes. “Intelligent Design” is nothing more than an empty catchphrase. “Intelligent Design” inferences don’t work in practice." How can we not look at certain objects and infer design? And why is it not possible to work out the complexity involved in that design? To me this just seems obscure, therefore, if Alan is correct, what am I not understanding? (if indeed I am even understanding his position correctly) Can someone please help me out here. Thanks :)PeterJ
April 25, 2013
April
04
Apr
25
25
2013
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++
I think you might be confused on your last answer. (Or maybe I’m the one confused?)
Judging by your follow-up, neither of us are confused.
...yes, we would throw much more money toward a closer look at the signal without paying attention to CSI.
I predict that if SETI finds an EMR source that looks suspicious (though what sort of signal would arouse suspicion is impossible to guess), interest would be huge and donations would pour in to fund further investigation.
Is it your position that, in the SETI scenario I outlined, an inference to intelligent design played no role of any significance?
Yes. "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than an empty catchphrase. "Intelligent Design" inferences don't work in practice. Nobody has shown what CSI is in any consistent way and nobody can show how to apply the various bit-counts to any real situation. If "ID" inference operates as described by Joe or KF, then it only tells us what we already know. As soon as an unknown parameter is allowed in (as it must with ET) then you might as well use a crystal ball.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
AF: I think you might be confused on your last answer. (Or maybe I'm the one confused?) If CSI is a bogus concept that would not figure into anyone's calculations, then I would think your answer would be, yes, we would throw much more money toward a closer look at the signal without paying attention to CSI. In any case, I appreciate your candid answers. Here's a follow-up question: Is it your position that, in the SETI scenario I outlined, an inference to intelligent design played no role of any significance?Phinehas
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 18

Leave a Reply