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
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
SETI works this way: 1. Specify a pattern. 2. Look for the pattern. 3. If pattern found, test whether there are natural explanations for the pattern. 4. If no natural explanation found, conclusion: aliensdidit.
No. That's completely wrong. SETI have no pattern or specification. They are monitoring the EM spectrum and looking for anomalies. What they can say about any anomaly will have to wait until something anomalous is found. Their search is purely speculative. I doubt anyone is going to be convinced by a default explanation - "We can't explain this signal, so it must be aliens" - but until there is something anomalous to examine, it's all imagination.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
@Alan Fox: SETI works this way: 1. Specify a pattern. 2. Look for the pattern. 3. If pattern found, test whether there are natural explanations for the pattern. 4. If no natural explanation found, conclusion: aliensdidit. I think that's exactly the activity-flow kairosfocus posted for detection of intelligent design.JWTruthInLove
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Things are much more sophisticated than that. 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.
What a jerk. Two piles- designed or not. It does not matter if there are many piles of designed objects for any one site. Alan Fox:
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.
Umm first they have to make that decision, Alan. The entire investigation depends on that decision- design/ crime or not. As for SETI- they have said what they are looking for and explained it. Again that you think your ignorance means something is funny, but that is it.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
Well they do- one for possible artifacts and another for dirt and rocks.
Things are much more sophisticated than that. 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.
They do- crimes and non-crimes
That's just silly, like your pile of rocks. 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.
They [SETI] depend on knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as with ID.
SETI (receiving no public finance) depend on donations! And they are speculating. They do not know what they are looking for because there is no precedent, no pattern to know what to look for. But they are not claiming the existence of invisible, disembodied, imaginary designers. And, as I said, they are processing signals in the electromagnetic spectrum for anything that seems anomalous. Until they have something odd to look at there is no more to be usefully said.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Again, for Alan: Archaeology, two piles- designed or not Forensic science, two piles- designed or not Geez the two pile method seems to work just fine within science. Two piles. The same two piles that ID makes, according to Alan.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I don’t accept for one moment that any archaeological dig just sorts things into two piles,
Well they do- one for possible artifacts and another for dirt and rocks.
I doubt forensic science investigations end up with two piles.
They do- crimes and non-crimes
SETI is another matter and one apparently misunderstood by you.
Your faklse accusations mean nothing, coward.
SETI do not know what is out there.
They depend on knowledge of cause and effect relationships, just as with ID. Archaeology, forensic science, SETI and ID all depend on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. OTOH your position depends on ignoring that and pressing on regardless.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
OK so the two pile methodology is good in science (see archaeology, forensic science and SETI) except when it comes to Intelligent Design- is that right, Alan?
I don't accept for one moment that any archaeological dig just sorts things into two piles, except perhaps when riddling possible artefacts like small potsherds and other fragments from spoil. Extracting artefacts from substrate and accretions is only the precursor to detailed examination and recording context is also a crucial element of any dig. I doubt forensic science investigations end up with two piles. They might perhaps sweep an area for clues such as cartridge cases etc. SETI is another matter and one apparently misunderstood by you. SETI do not know what is out there. The search for extra-terrestrial intelligent life is speculative and is looking for anything unusual. But there is no pattern to match or any of idea what a signal from ET might look like. The work will start once and if an anomaly is found. Then the process of deciding if it indeed an attempt at communication from ETs can begin. What that might involve, would seem pointless to speculate until there is something to work with. Echos of Jocelyn Bell and the pulsar signals that were initially designated "LGM" (little green men). Now I can see that at some level of analogy an ID proponent could claim to be thought experimenting in the same way as SETI researchers, niether having a pattern to guide them in what to look for but SETI are looking for anomalous signalsat in the electromagnetic spectrum - real phenomena. ID "research" appears to be looking for imaginary phenomena.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
I wonder if franklin and Alan realize that the only reason we are even discussing Intelligent Design is because their position has proven to be useless, trivial and most of its claims are either flase or untestable. I guess that would bother me to the point of belligerence too.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
OK so the two pile methodology is good in science (see archaeology, forensic science and SETI) except when it comes to Intelligent Design- is that right, Alan? Do you ever get tired of holding up those double-standards?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
eric: Those tens of thousands of people who work in fields such as nanotechnology, biotech, and pharmaceuticals? We were all just imagining them. They don’t exist.
Yeah, eric, I'm sure the fields of biotech and pharmaceutical (pharmacology and its related field toxicology) aren't the least bit concerned with chemistry and how molecules bind to a receptor and with what affinities or even how they might elicit a biological response? Then there is the issue concerning what metabolites(and if they are reactive or not) are produced when a drug or non-therapeutic compound is administered or contacts a organism. I mean common sense and a bit of reflection should be all that is needed to determine this information so you in this field would need any knowledge of chemistry outside of stuff bumps into each other and some sticks together.franklin
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Alan mentions meiosis above. That is strange because his position can't account for that either.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
So how is function quantified?
Function is an observation. Once observed we can see how specified the function is.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
eric: 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 agree with Alan's question about function. Do proteins binding protons and acting as intra & extracellular buffers count as an observable function? If yes, how many proteins can function in this regard? If no, why do you consider a non-bicarbonate buffering systems (most vertebrates) as being a non-funcitonal aspect of protein function?franklin
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Evolution does not address the issue of where the first living organisms came from.
Then it cannot say anything about its diversity as the two are directly connected.
Evolution needs self reproducing, imperfectly replicating, self-sustaining organisms before it can do its work.
Umm, Alan, you are equivocating as ID is OK with evolution by design- genetic algorithms are examples of this.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I doubt many archeologists count bits when they attempt to distinguish a human-made stone arrow head from a frost-flaked chip of rock.
Non-sequitur. Two piles, Alan. Please TRY to stay focused and not try to change the subject.
Are there any papers on distinguishing artefacts by assessing CSI?
They assess artefacts via counterflow or work. And CSI = counterflow and work.
Pattern-matching whether DNA, fingerprints, tyre-tracks fibres from clothing is pretty well-established.
Cause and effect relationships. Very good, Alan
How is CSI used in forensics?
TWO PILES, Alan. Two piles- YOU brought it up, now choke on it.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF ++++++++
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.
OK. So how is function quantified? And how does that quantity enter into the calculation?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF
However, I think it is important to keep in mind that self-reproduction is, logically, irrelevant to the substantive question at hand.
Indeed. Evolution does not address the issue of where the first living organisms came from. It assumes life as a given. Evolution needs self reproducing, imperfectly replicating, self-sustaining organisms before it can do its work.
There are mutations going on regularly in organisms.
.Indeed. Somatic mutations can result in cancers, especially where tissue is turning over rapidly such as in epithelial cells and sex organs.
You and I each have more mutations now than we did when we were born. There is no logical reason, on Darwinian principles, why we don’t see individual organisms evolve into something else over their lifetime, other than the question of time.
Here you are in complete misunderstanding. The only mutations that matter to evolution are mutation in your genome. The genome that you inherited from your parents resulted in you developing into you. The genetic information that you pass on to your offspring is a result of a process called meiosis where genes can be shuffled during crossover and recombination. It is also possible (statistically almost certain) that there will be some variation from the genome that grew you caused by mutations. Your offspring's genome will be a mix of you and the other parent's genes. They will inherit some mutations (which in all likelihood will be neutral. Mutations to not cause changes during the lifetime of an individual. It is when genes containing mutations are passed on and affect the development of the offspring that the changes in alleles that selection can work on occur. Genomes, as far as the lifetime of any one organism is concerned, are fixed.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
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. Counting bits is the easiest, most objective and obvious way to establish a complexity threshold. And yes, that aspect, is quite simple. If you think it is trivial, fine. We also think it is pretty elementary. Yet it is an important aspect because it allows the elimination of false negatives. I suspect you already know this, though. Ironically, the fact that many people fight tooth and nail in opposition to this very basic point speaks volumes about how important it is and how challenging it is to their a priori philosophical framework.Eric Anderson
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF +++++++ Joe:
Archaeology, two piles- designed or not
Hmm. I doubt many archeologists count bits when they attempt to distinguish a human-made stone arrow head from a frost-flaked chip of rock. Are there any papers on distinguishing artefacts by assessing CSI?
Forensic science, two piles- designed or not
Pattern-matching whether DNA, fingerprints, tyre-tracks fibres from clothing is pretty well-established. Difficult to say more about a DNA sample or a clothing fibre without a sample to compare it to. How is CSI used in forensics?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
kf @334: The "self-reproducing" canard is such an absurd response to the challenges facing a purely natural creation story. You have done a great job of addressing this issue. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that self-reproduction is, logically, irrelevant to the substantive question at hand. There are mutations going on regularly in organisms. You and I each have more mutations now than we did when we were born. There is no logical reason, on Darwinian principles, why we don't see individual organisms evolve into something else over their lifetime, other than the question of time. Imagine there were an organism that lived for millions of years. Would it eventually turn into something else? On Darwinian principles, why not? There are a few things that self-reproduction does bring to the table in support of the evolutionary story: it (i) keeps an organism (in the sense of a lineal descent line of organisms) alive for millions of years, allegedly long enough for some of the mutations to add up to something novel, (ii) provides additional copies so that there are more possible opportunities for mutation (in the population as a whole, that is, not necessarily in any specific line), (iii) provides more opportunities for extraneous copies of genetic material, mistakes, and other mutations during the reproduction process, and (iv) in the case of sexual reproduction, allows for recombination. At the end of the day, however, all of these are simply ways to get more opportunities, more resources for mutation to do its creative work. It tells us precisely nothing about whether mutations can in fact create the biological systems we see in nature. So the self-reproducing refrain often trotted out is at most a way to get more mutation opportunities, though, unfortunately, all those additional opportunities are still swallowed up as but a rounding error in the vast probability space. More importantly, it does nothing to address the substantive issue at hand: the creation of functional biological systems.Eric Anderson
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Archaeology, two piles- designed or not Forensic science, two piles- designed or not Geez the two pile method seems to work just fine within science.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Alan, Determining design is huge. That you cannot understand that just demonstrates that you are scientifically illiterate.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF +++++++ KF's insertion: 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 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. KF So you seem to be confirming that CSI is merely a count in bits, in the case of letters as a 1 in however many possibilities (I guess 2^7)times the number of letters. For a protein the 1 in 20 times number of residues. Above the threshold, ... Design! I get that, I really do. And the process seems to me trivial and useless. This cannot be all that Dembski means when he talks about CSI, really? Sorting things into two piles?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Alan Fox
I have told you that pasting edits into past comments is a disreputable way to attempt dialogue.
And who are you to make such a claim? Your incapcity to engage in an honest discussion proves that you are just a belligerent waste of skin.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Why I am allowed to post here is beyond me.
That is beyond me too. You definitely don't have anything to offer, not even a valid criticism. And again, I did not insult you. I have just made observations. It is not my fault that you act the way that you do and say the crap that you say.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
AF is corrected here. KF +++++++++
You have again been corrected at 385 above.
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.
Your behaviour at this point is so outrageous, that I have refrained from snipping Joe, even though I do not like the words he has used. (Though I am even more suspicious of the second word he used, that in this sense is not in my vocabulary, I hope it is not one of those really nasty American idioms.)
Your incapacity to honestly moderate your own blog posts had already been noted. Joe's childish insults just make me smile. They and your inability to deal with them must probably reflect badly on you, but that's your problem.
Your willful misrepresentation is indeed a form of deliberate falsehood intended to mislead. Please stop it.
Why I am allowed to post here is beyond me. You know I think ID is dangerously political nonsense. I have never posted anything here that I knew was not true I am not going to gratuitously insult anyone here but I will post what I think without caution as and when I feel like it unless Barry or anyone else cancels my account. That again is their choice. ++++++++++ AF is corrected here, KFAlan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
It is useless to discuss anything with Alan without a moderator to keep him honest. And it is even doubtful that a moderator would help. The mod would just get pissed off and say Alan is a lost cause...Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
AF: You know full well that the sense of specification that has been defined since NFL has to do with an independent description that allows us to recognise that a case E is or is not in T, separate from simply listing members of T in W. 123 characters in standard English counts. The case just given is CSI, it is specific in the functional sense and it is dFSCI, as it is in a standard digital code, ASCII. Your behaviour at this point is willful and willfully misleading, hoping to profit by making misrepresentations appear to be truth or from sowing confusion in the minds of onlookers. This is beyond the pale of reasonable and civil discussion. Stop it. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Ignore my comments then.
That is what you do, Alan- ignore comments. And then you act as if your ignorance means something. Strange, that...Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
have told and shown you how to measure CSI you lying sack.
Well, you say you can count the bits of something
I said more than that you lying sack. Geez Alan you are just a pathetic little imp and no one regards you as a fair interlocutor. So perhaps you should crawl back to your swamp and wallow in its stench.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 18

Leave a Reply