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
franklin seems to think that we cannot bring in our knowledge of human design to help inform us about biological systems because human designs don't have "charge" and don't stick together like atoms and molecules do. 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. ----- Look, this whole "But, but particles have mass and charge" nonsense is a complete red herring. Whenever you're ready to address the real issues, franklin, let us know.Eric Anderson
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, why don’t you quit wasting everybody’s time and just produce an example? Why the charade? Are you that dense?
Ignore my comments then. In fact, you do anyway! You have never given an honest reply to any question I have addressed to you.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
AF: You have again been corrected at 385 above. 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 willful misrepresentation is indeed a form of deliberate falsehood intended to mislead. Please stop it. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
You are being purposely misleading and obtuse!
I don't regard you as a fair interlocutor and you have not reciprocated by responding to questions that I have addressed to you. The ball is still in your court.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, why don't you quit wasting everybody's time and just produce an example? Why the charade? Are you that dense?bornagain77
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
I have told and shown you how to measure CSI you lying sack.
Well, 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?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
F/N: AF has just been corrected on his continued misrepresentations of FSCO/I and CSI, at 385 above. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, other than dodging my request for a specific example of Darwinian processes producing the functional information that you claim they can, and then dogmatically claiming that evolution is science, even though you can provide no example, is 'science' (it is not!) you have honestly addressed my question how exactly? You are being purposely misleading and obtuse!
"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003)
Whereas Darwinism has no identifiable falsification criteria (at least no criteria that a Darwinist will accept), one can easily falsify ID: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_Abornagain77
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Natural selection- trivial and useless genetic drift- trivial and useless random mutations- not defined and undetermined Yup Alan understands all about trivial and uselessness.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I get that ID proponents reject evolutionary theory.
Nope, we cannot reject that which does not exist.
ID brings nothing to the table.
How would you know? You can't even find the table.
We don’t know how to measure CSI of something … anything … because nobody can tell us how!
I have told and shown you how to measure CSI you lying sack. Does it make you feel good to lie, Alan?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
...your psoition doesn’t have anything that even measures up to CSI.
Of course not! How could anyone? We don't know how to measure CSI of something ... anything ... because nobody can tell us how! ========= 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
Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
The claim of ID is very specific, namely that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to produce functional information. Do you reject this very specific claim or support it?
I get that ID proponents reject evolutionary theory. I don't think we have an adequate or complete picture of the evolutionary processes that resulted in the pattern of extant and extinct life we observe but it is the only theory we have that fits the evidence and continues to progress in line with developments in the biological sciences. ID brings nothing to the table. I don't accept that ID proponents have raised any valid objections to the ToE other than scientists are already aware of. This is obvious from the way a new paper with controversial findings is often hailed as a problem for Darwinism when it is the scientists working in the field who are modifying and adding to the theory as more evidence and data accumulate. Now, Phil, are you going to have the courage to respond to those questions addressed to you or do you think you think communication is only one-way?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Yes Alan, we get it. CSI is trivial and useless to illiterate punks like you. That's fine. However we notice that your psoition doesn't have anything that even measures up to CSI. And that means, by your "logic" that your position isn't even trivial and worse than useless. Nice job.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, perhaps you would like to be the first atheistic Darwinist in the history of UD to show an example of this 'trivial and useless' threshold of 500 bits being broken by purely material processes?
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html
bornagain77
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
I see in another thread, KF states:
Chi = Ip*S – 500, in bits beyond a “complex enough” threshold
Joe appears to be correct. He and KF are both sorting entities into two sets, according to an arbitrary threshold. If this is all CSI is, then it is trivial and useless.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, The claim of ID is very specific, namely that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to produce functional information. Do you reject this very specific claim or support it? Being a atheist I hold that you reject it. If you indeed do reject it please stop playing these stupid games and show me the exact falsification of Abel's null or a exact example of a molecular machine by arising by Darwinian processes. Else-wise, why should you be considered anything more that a dogmatic Atheist who is willing to do anything it takes, with any deceptive means at his disposal, to protect his faithbornagain77
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
And Alan Fox belongs to both piles as he is not only trivial but very useless.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
CSI is a threshold, meaning you don’t need an exact number.
And there you have it, folks. Joe is merely sorting stuff into two piles. Trivial and useless.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Dembski has written how to do that. I have also, as have others.
If that were the case you would be able to show me where these calculations are.
I have, Alan. Again your ignorance and lies mean nothing to me.
They’re not trivial and useless, by any chance, are they?
Not to educated people.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character — or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author’s productive intention — is constituted by an author’s actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact
When discussing information some people want to know how much information does something contain? If it is something straight-forward such as a definition, we can count the number of bits in that definition to find out how much information it contains. For example:
aardvark: a large burrowing nocturnal mammal (Orycteropus afer) of sub-Saharan Africa that has a long snout, extensible tongue, powerful claws, large ears, and heavy tail and feeds especially on termites and ants
A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity. Now what do we do when all we have is an object? One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. The point is that you have to capture the actions required and translate that into bits. That is if you want to use CSI. However by doing all of that you have already determined the thing was designed Now you are just trying to determine how much work was involved. But anyway, that will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains- Data collection and compression (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control). CSI is a threshold, meaning you don't need an exact number. And it is a threshold that nature, operating freely has never been observed to come close to. Once CSI = yes you know it was designed. On Shannon Information and measuring biological information:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand? Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).
Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with. And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information. And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum. Moving on-
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
In order to be a candidate for natural selection a system must have minimal function: the ability to accomplish a task in physically realistic circumstances.- M. Behe page 45 of “Darwin’s Black Box”
With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance: from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], 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. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity 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.
Here is a formal way of measuring functional information: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007). See also: Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003). original posts can be found here, here and hereJoe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Dembski has written how to do that. I have also, as have others.
If that were the case you would be able to show me where these calculations are. Where are they? They're not trivial and useless, by any chance, are they? They do exist, don't they? You didn't imagine them, did you?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
So Alan's questions have been answered and now all he has is belligerence. Nice job, Alan.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I’m making no claims here.
Yes Alan, you don't have to keep reminding us that you are a coward.
I’m asking if there is a way of calculating Dembski’s CSI.
Dembski has written how to do that. I have also, as have others. Again your willful ignorance means nothing here.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Just because you, a proven imbecile, can say it is trivial and useless, that doesn’t make it so, Alan. You actually have to make a case and you can’t.
But still no calc!Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Alan Fox does know about trivial and useless because that is his entire position- trivial and useless.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, perhaps I would be less perplexed by your continued dogmatic claim...
I'm making no claims here. I'm asking if there is a way of calculating Dembski's CSI. Are you able to address the topic or do you want to continue derailing?Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
I gave you an example you dimwitted twit.
Unless we are talking about counting bits, you didn’t. And if you are just counting bits, you are back with trivial and useless.
Just because you, a proven imbecile, can say it is trivial and useless, that doesn't make it so, Alan. You actually have to make a case and you can't.Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
So, that falls back to the trivial and merely picking things as conaining CSI or not according to some arbitrary threshold. Useless.
Useles to you, perhaps. Then again you are useless. And why do you think the threshold is arbitrary? Especially seeing taht it has been explained amny times why that threshold was chosen? Do you really think that your ignorance means something? Really?Joe
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
I gave you an example you dimwitted twit.
Unless we are talking about counting bits, you didn't. And if you are just counting bits, you are back with trivial and useless.Alan Fox
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, perhaps I would be less perplexed by your continued dogmatic claim that purely material processes can produce the unfathomed levels of complex functional information we find in the cell if you were to ever actually cite a specific example of sophisticated function arising de novo in the cell. i.e. a molecular machine should do the trick!! You see Mr. Fox, despite your belittling of anyone who doubts your claim as ignorant, the fact of the matter is that, despite the cell being packed with molecular machines,,,
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/
,,,despite this,, we have no evidence that Darwinian processes can produce any molecular machines whatsoever,,
Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
Yet we have evidence that Intelligence can do as such,,
Whether Lab or Cell, (If it's a molecular machine) It's Design - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-01-25T15_53_41-08_00
I know that you, as an atheist, probably think this is a minor inconsequential detail that can be safely ignored, because it is brought up by IDiots, but I would beg to differ. What is to separate your claim that purely material processes can easily produce these molecular machines from a bald face lie if you don't ever actually produce an example of them doing as such?bornagain77
April 24, 2013
April
04
Apr
24
24
2013
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 18

Leave a Reply