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
Alan Fox:
CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations.
So bogus that the internet would be impossible without it. The lives we live would be impossible without that bogus concept. Alan one pile, just say anything. And Alan, what Phinehas is driving at is the design inference wrt biology would also be "The reverse!" from what you think it would do.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++
You don’t think such a discovery would be a real science stopper?
No! The reverse!!!
You don’t think it would be trivial and uninteresting?
No! The reverse!!!
You don’t think we’d be merely sorting signals into two piles?
No.
Are you suggesting that we might just throw money(!), much more money(!!), toward a closer look at the signal before we’d figured out exactly how much CSI it contained?
No (as phrased). CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone's calculations.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
And just how did you determine a gene duplication is a blind and undirected chemical process?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
AF:
Do you think a closer look would be merited? Why do you suppose that is?
My answer was in the comment.
The part about giving OOL theories a big boost? I didn't realize that you were interested in OOL theories. You know...since they are outside the theory of evolution and all. C'mon Alan. You were being so open and forthcoming there for a brief moment. Why go back to being coy all of a sudden? Why would you be loathe to admit that, given the scenario I outlined, much more money would be thrown at studying the signals because a design inference would be warranted? I note that a number of my questions went unanswered: You don’t think such a discovery would be a real science stopper? You don’t think it would be trivial and uninteresting? You don’t think we’d be merely sorting signals into two piles? Are you suggesting that we might just throw money(!), much more money(!!), toward a closer look at the signal before we’d figured out exactly how much CSI it contained? Any speculation as to why these were ignored I leave to the reader.Phinehas
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I thought proteins and their DNA codings contained CSI above a certain threshold.
Perhaps. So what?
If CSI is a numerical property it is, presumably, additive.
It can be. It depends on the CONTEXT. Two copies of the same book does NOT double the CSI.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
The only way there is life on other planets is if Intelligent Design is correct.
That seems a very odd thing to say, even for you.
It's actually covered in "The Privileged Planet"- chapter 16:
14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist. “This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”
If there is life on other planets, there is life on other planets. What connects ID to other planets?
ID says the universe is designed. Other palnets are in that universe.
There is no mention of other planets and other lifeforms being created elsewhere in the universe in the Bible, as far as I am aware.
ID doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. However there are plenty of UFOs and visitations in it.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF +++++
Does that double the CSI?
Why would it?
I thought proteins and their DNA codings contained CSI above a certain threshold. If CSI is a numerical property it is, presumably, additive. Or do special rules apply?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
The only way there is life on other planets is if Intelligent Design is correct.
That seems a very odd thing to say, even for you. If there is life on other planets, there is life on other planets. What connects ID to other planets? There is no mention of other planets and other lifeforms being created elsewhere in the universe in the Bible, as far as I am aware.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I wonder if you repeat the text and have two “piles” of text, do we have double the CSI?
Nope. Dembski covered that, as have many others. One kind of mutation is a gene duplication. And just how did you determine a gene duplication is a blind and undirected chemical process?
Does that double the CSI?
Why would it?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Alan, You are sadly mistaken, again, as usual. The only way there is life on other planets is if Intelligent Design is correct.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++ The Drake equation has what to do with the OoL? You're just funnin' with me, Joe. Without other examples of life elsewhere, we could be the only pile of people. But two piles, two independent piles... Does away with our uniqueness. From your point of view: one pile, good; two piles, bad.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
AF: CSI is an incalculable concept.
And yet I have showed you how to do so, complete with an example.
Ah yes, The Aadvark.I wonder if you repeat the text and have two "piles" of text, do we have double the CSI? One kind of mutation is a gene duplication. Does that double the CSI? If possible, please show your working.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Phinehas, Please keep your SETI signals out of my pile! ;) But please keep piling it on Alan. Alan of the one pile- he maketh the pile, he eateth from it and cometh hither to try to shareth.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
CSI is an incalculable concept.
And yet I have showed you how to do so, complete with an example. Why do you insist on being the fool?
It bears as much meaning as a couple of other words bandied around here, “design” and “intelligence”.
In context, those words mean quite a bit, Alan. They have a great deal of significance in science. Strange that you have issues with them.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But if it turned out to be genuine, that gives OOL theories a huge boost via the Drake equation.
The Drake equation has what to do with the OoL?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++++
Why do you suppose that is?
My answer was in the comment.
How much CSI did the aforementioned signal contain
CSI is an incalculable concept. It bears as much meaning as a couple of other words bandied around here, "design" and "intelligence".Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
AF (cont): Interestingly, my proposed specification and level of complexity were rather arbitrary and not rigorously set out in peer-reviewed mathematical formulas. How much CSI did the aforementioned signal contain, Alan? Are you suggesting that we might just throw money(!), much more money(!!), toward a closer look at the signal before we'd figured out exactly how much CSI it contained?Phinehas
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
AF:
Much more money would become available for a much closer look at the signal.
Do you think a closer look would be merited? Why do you suppose that is? Much more money? For science? You don't think such a discovery would be a real science stopper? You don't think it would be trivial and uninteresting? You don't think we'd be merely sorting signals into two piles?Phinehas
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++
Indeed SETI is all speculation. But IF they received a narrow band signal, and IF that signal had a recognizable specification (prime numbers, pi, etc.), and IF that signal was sufficiently complex (first 50 prime numbers, 50 digits of pi, etc), what do you suppose would happen then, Alan? Care to speculate?
Much more money would become available for a much closer look at the signal. But if it turned out to be genuine, that gives OOL theories a huge boost via the Drake equation. A huge "if" but still worth looking, in my view.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
There are threads on TSZ making clear the objections to this favourite canard of yours.
Those threads are all EVIDENCE-FREE, Alan. That means those "objections" don't amount to jack.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Alan, Seth Szostak from SETI disagrees with you.
I’d start to be a little bit impressed if your method could distinguish between a protein that had function with a protein that did not.
You still don't understand science, Alan. We make OBSERVATIONS and attempt to explain them. We OBSERVE proteins functioning and try to explain them- what they do, how they came to be, etc. The WHOLE WORLD would be impressed if people like you ever supported the claims of your position. But all you have is "That ain't designed" and hurl false accusations.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
AF: Indeed SETI is all speculation. But IF they received a narrow band signal, and IF that signal had a recognizable specification (prime numbers, pi, etc.), and IF that signal was sufficiently complex (first 50 prime numbers, 50 digits of pi, etc), what do you suppose would happen then, Alan? Care to speculate?Phinehas
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
...islands of function...
This is an analogy that just does not approach reality. Do you want to go through this again? Would a separate thread not make more sense? There are threads on TSZ making clear the objections to this favourite canard of yours.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF
The DNA , RNA and proteins in the living cell have function, all of which happens as well adapted components are put together in specific ways that achieve an observable end or carry out a process.
I'd start to be a little bit impressed if your method could distinguish between a protein that had function with a protein that did not. At present we can only test proteins we can find in the wild or that we synthesize. Telling us what we already know about existing proteins is no use at all.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++
They are using the specified patterns (you call them anomalies) to search for intelligence.
They don't know what any EM signal sent by ETs would look like. There is no precedent so nothing to base a specification on. They are assuming that deliberate signals would be sent on a narrow band which makes it easier to distinguish from things like pulsars that emit EMR on a wide spectrum. But it is all assumption. With no previous experience of ET, or indeed whether they exist near enough in time and space to be spotted (and if they are signalling) it is all speculation.
To me this means that SETI is at the very least as scientific as intelligent design.
I certainly think the search is scientific. I can't say the same for the ID movement.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
F/N: here comes the predictable rhetorical attempt to pretend that function is some vague, fuzzy meaningless entity. Text in asci code in English has function. The DNA , RNA and proteins in the living cell have function, all of which happens as well adapted components are put together in specific ways that achieve an observable end or carry out a process. Function is an observable, and often a measurable feature. So, it is reasonable to insist that we are looking at function and function that depends on specific configuration. Where that is not clearly the case, out of an abundance of caution the Chi_500 metric specificity variable goes to 0, its default value. This of course means it will miss cases, but that is not a problem given its purpose. And, the cases of DNA, RNA and proteins are not in any way dubious or fuzzy. red herrings and strawmen again. As is so sadly usual. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
AF: Functionally specific information -- as is stipulated -- has functional specificity [which you seem bound and determined to ignore], which distinguishes it from mere information carrying capacity; what so-called Shannon info measures. You will note that I identified the use of info capacity to achieve a function, in your case an expression in English. That functionality and specificity, joined to complexity that puts us into islands of function that are beyond the search capacity of the solar system since its founding, are where the outcome rests. Intelligence routinely and easily produces such, blind chance plus necessity has such a challenge to do so that it is not a credible explanation on the gamut of our solar system. (Our effective cosmos if you look and see the recent Nat Geog article on suggestions on interstellar flight.) KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Destructing Alan:
Things are much more sophisticated than that.
Yes, Alan, as with Intelligent Design. However it is you that went down this road. I am here to beat you with it.
Context is hugely important (where the artefact was found) so likely artefacts are never plonked in a pile on current scientific digs.Fragments that are found together are kept together and separate from fragments found elsewhere.
Yes, that is how Intelligent Design proceeds. There are different piles for differnt areas of investigation. The design inference from physics has it piles. The design inference from biology has its piles. The design inference from chemistry has it piles. The design inference from cosmology has its piles. Its piles and piles of design inferences, Alan.
That’s just silly, like your pile of rocks.
YOU brought up the piles. And you mangled your analogy in the process.
If evidence suggests an unexplained death was from natural causes such as a heart attack due to underlying medical condition, then further forensic investigation might be considered unnecessary but there is much more to forensics than just deciding if a crime has been committed or not.
Exactly how ID proceeds. We have looked and are still looking for materialistic answers, but given what we know the design inference is the best explanation to date. We haven't closed the door but seeing that all you have all bald assertions and false accusations, we ain't expecting anything of substance from you any time soon.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
@Alan Fox: Patterns are not anomalies. However anomalies ARE patterns.
I doubt anyone is going to be convinced by a default explanation
I'm in no position to judge the validity of SETI. SETI = Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. They are using the specified patterns (you call them anomalies) to search for intelligence. To me this means that SETI is at the very least as scientific as intelligent design.JWTruthInLove
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
And Alan knows about imagination because his position relies on it. Somehow, when we ain't lookin', natural selection allegedly does some amazing stuff. Again SETI works by understanding cause and effect relationships- they know what nature does and the know what takes an agency to produce.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 18

Leave a Reply