"Specificity is key to understanding"
In the thread If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do, blipey said the following:
If that is true then one has to wonder what we understand about the theory of evolution and universal common descent.
I say that because neither of those offers anything specific. With UCD no one even knows whether or not the transformations required are even possible. And that means no one can specify the mutations that cause the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
Heck I have asked for a specific hypothesis to support the anti-ID position and have yet to see one.
blipey also said:
Which I take to mean that evolutionitwits are dumber than 2nd graders because they cannot provide any specifics to support their position.
As a matter of fact UCD is determined by examining the circumstantial evidence in the light of UCD. Meaning if one was not biased towards UCD the circumstantial evidence would not support UCD.
In contrast Intelligent Design has (at least) two specified concepts that can be objectively tested-
1) Irreducible Complexity
2) Specified Complexity/ Complex Specified Information
The complexity limit is set to 500 bits. That is all specified information of 500 bits or more can be safely inferred to be from an intelligent source.
(That some people refuse to understand those concepts is not a refutation of them.)
Specificity is key to understanding.
If that is true then one has to wonder what we understand about the theory of evolution and universal common descent.
I say that because neither of those offers anything specific. With UCD no one even knows whether or not the transformations required are even possible. And that means no one can specify the mutations that cause the physiological and anatomical differences observed.
Heck I have asked for a specific hypothesis to support the anti-ID position and have yet to see one.
blipey also said:
UCD is a pretty 2nd grade idea to grasp Joe.
Which I take to mean that evolutionitwits are dumber than 2nd graders because they cannot provide any specifics to support their position.
As a matter of fact UCD is determined by examining the circumstantial evidence in the light of UCD. Meaning if one was not biased towards UCD the circumstantial evidence would not support UCD.
In contrast Intelligent Design has (at least) two specified concepts that can be objectively tested-
1) Irreducible Complexity
IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287
2) Specified Complexity/ Complex Specified Information
"Complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple formula or algorithm. A specification, on the other hand, is a match or correspondence between an event or object and an independently given pattern or set of functional requirements."-- Stephen C. Meyer in Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: From the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life
"For a pattern to count as a specification, the important thing is not when it was identified but whether in a certain well-defined sense it is independent of the event it describes."--Wm Dembski pg 15 NFL
"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
"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."--Stephen C. Meyer in The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories"
"If it is shannon information, not algorithmically compressible, and can be processed by an information processor into a separate functional system, then it is complex specified information."--CJYman
The complexity limit is set to 500 bits. That is all specified information of 500 bits or more can be safely inferred to be from an intelligent source.
(That some people refuse to understand those concepts is not a refutation of them.)
posted by Joe G @ 8:26 AM
17 Comments:
At 6:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Very good Joe.
Can we look at some enumerated examples?
At 6:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Can we look at some enumerated examples?
OK:
1- No specific hypothesis has been given for the anti-ID materialsitic position
2- No specific mutations connecting the various alleged changes have been given by the anti-ID materialistic position
3- No specific genetic differences have been linked to specific anatomical and physiological differences
4- All the evidence for universal common descent can be used to support differing points of view
At 7:24 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh. Behe's dover testimony killed #2.
can we have numerated examples, Joe?
calculate some CSI for me.
At 7:59 PM,
Joe G said…
2- No specific mutations connecting the various alleged changes have been given by the anti-ID materialistic position
Oh. Behe's dover testimony killed #2.
You are lying Richie. If someone could provide such data then Behe wouldn't be saying that no detailed explanation exists.
can we have numerated examples, Joe?
I gave four- do you need more?
calculate some CSI for me.
Ya Richie- I am just waiting to do things for you.
How about YOU provide a specific hypothesis for your position.
Once that is done you could provide the data for points 2-4.
All of that should be easy considering yours in the reigning paradigm with allegedly overwhelming evidence. However it has become obvious that you couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.
At 8:17 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No-one has ever calculated CSI in a robust manner. You wont be the first.
Good luck with your fairy dust.
At 12:36 AM,
blipey said…
So, basically, you have all the answers. In fact, if you wanted to you could win the Nobel Prize this year. But you're holding out, because you don't like Rich?
They give money away for the Nobel Prize, Joe. Think about it. Don't hold back; show the world what you know.
There's a million dollars out there for you.
At 7:59 AM,
Joe G said…
No-one has ever calculated CSI in a robust manner.
Yes, it has been done.
Counting to 500 is grade-school stuff. Identifying biological function is just above grade-school stuff.
2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.
However no one has done anything with evolution in a robust manner.
As I have said here we are in the 21st century and we still don't know whether or not any amount of accumulated mutations can account for the transformations required.
Good luck with your fairy dust.
LoL! Richie's position relies on magical mystery mutations- IOW Richie your position needs the fairy dust.
I take it you sprinkle it on the school kids to get them to buy into your unscientific position.
At 8:03 AM,
Joe G said…
So, basically, you have all the answers.
I never said nor implied such a thing clowny. But thanks fopr once again proving to be a dishonest moron.
They give money away for the Nobel Prize, Joe.
Yes they do. And if you could just demonstrate that accumulated mutations can account for the transformations required, then you would win one.
Heck the field of biology is wide open when it comes to the evolution of new body poarts and plans.
NO ONE can demonstrate anything beyond slight variations. Therefore you could easily win the NP just by substantiating your position!
At 8:08 AM,
blipey said…
You have claimed multiple times that the EF has been used. You have claimed multiple times that CSI has been calculated. You've claimed multiple times to have done these things yourself.
Yet when asked to do them, you never do. That leads to either of two conclusions. One, you've never done them so can't show us and just SAY that you can do such things. Two, you can do them, but are only holding back because you don't like Rich.
Is that how science gets done in ID Land, Joe. "We can do all the work, but CHOOSES not to, because you all are poopy-pants."?
So, how about showing us an example of the calculation of CSI? It doesn't even have to be a new example. Just copy someone else's work like in a textbook example.
If you showed us a working example, we'd stop hounding you about it. Or is option one the correct position?
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
So, how about showing us an example of the calculation of CSI?
I did in my response to Rich:
Counting to 500 is grade-school stuff. Identifying biological function is just above grade-school stuff.
2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.
But how about you blipey? You have never supported anything about the materialistic position. You don't even understand science.
So until you start supporting your position then you can find some other blog to pollute.
c-ya
At 11:36 AM,
Joe G said…
You have claimed multiple times that the EF has been used.
Yes, how do you think people determine design is present, by flipping a coin?
You have claimed multiple times that CSI has been calculated.
Yes it is as easy as counting the bits of specified information present.
You've claimed multiple times to have done these things yourself.
Yes, it is easy if you know how.
Yet when asked to do them, you never do.
That would be a contradiction. Either I have done it or I haven't.
That leads to either of two conclusions.
I bet there are more conclusions than that which can be drawn from what I posted.
One, you've never done them so can't show us and just SAY that you can do such things. Two, you can do them, but are only holding back because you don't like Rich.
Here is another- I do not yield to morons who cannot support their own position.
IOW if you twats would only ante up I may be a little more inclined to keep spoon-feeding you.
Other than that you can read the available ID literature as opposed to continuing to argue from ignorance.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Same road, different day
The above is a link to blipey's history of avoidance and distraction.
That link is also the scene of blipey's first false accusation leveled at yours truly. And when that false accusation was exposed the clown went away for a while so it could avoid all attempts to get it to ante up with something, anything to support its position (that couldn't also be used as evidence to support some other position).
The following is deja vue all over again:
What is your experience pertaining to research? How many research projects have you worked on?
Saying something evolved is as vague as one can get, but guess what? That is all we get from evolutionitwits.
Ask around, with anyone you like, and see if anyone thinks that they know what accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. Be sure to get specifics and make sue to get back to me with a list of people who do.
At 2:43 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.
You woefully fail to understand Dembski's flawed word. Your idiocy delights me though. You have non addressed his corruption of compressibility WRT to Shannon information. What if all the nucleotides are the same? How much information then.
This from the man who understands everything. Truly pathetic.
And then we have non biological things. How much CSI in a baseball Joe?
You odious twat.
At 7:44 AM,
Joe G said…
2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.
You woefully fail to understand Dembski's flawed word.
Just saying so doesn't make it so.
Most likely you don't understand Dembski. And I say that because you have proven to be ID ignorant.
What if all the nucleotides are the same?
BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION you moronic twat.
And then we have non biological things.
Yes we do.
How much CSI in a baseball Joe?
How much information is required to manufacture one?
That is all you have to do- determine how much information was required for the task and count the bits.
At 11:52 AM,
CJYman said…
Here is a simple example of measuring for a specification:
since a specification includes, but is not limited to function, I will use an example of specification based on compressibility, since compressibility is a way of independently formulating a certain pattern.
ie: 111111111111111111111111111111
can be independently formulated as:
"print '1' 30x", so let's attempt to find if this specified pattern is also a specifiation and here's the equation to use:
? = -log2[number of bit operations * number of specified patterns * probability of pattern]
Let's first calculate the number of specified patterns that have the same compressibility (specificity in this case) as the string of 30 1s. If the above string = 30 bits, then there is only one other pattern with the same compressibility -- a string of 30 0s.
So, we multiply 2 by the probability of the pattern in question:
2 * 1/1,073,741,824
Now, let's calculate how many bit operations it took to arrive at the pattern in question:
Let's say we started at a random 30 bit string such as "100011101111100010111010000010"
and arrived at the pattern in question (30 1s) in only 30 random bit flips/operations then:
? = -log2[ 30 * 2 * 1/1,073,741,824]
? = (approx) 24
24 is greater than 1 thus we have a specification and it is beyond random chance processes to generate the pattern of 30 1s from a random 30 bit string within 30 random bit operations. Thus, we must begin to look at causal options other than chance to arrive at the pattern in question in the above scenario.
Now, when measuring for a functional specification (within a set of functional "islands"), you apply the same equation, however, when measuring the specificity you take into account all other FUNCTIONAL patterns (able to be processed into function by the system in question)that have the same probability of appearance as the pattern in question -- instead of taking into account all equally probable and compressible patterns.
Furthermore, according to the NFL Theorem, an evolutionary algorithm based on problem specific information is necessary in order to arrive at better than chance performance, which is exactly what a specification is calculating.
The next question: will a random set of laws cause an information processing system and evolutionary algorithm to randomly materialize?
According to recent work on Conservation of Information Theorems (which I won't get into at the moment since I'm already taking over joe's blog post -- sorry joe) ID theorists state that the answer is "NO!" In fact, getting consistently better than chance results without previous problem specific information is to information theory what perpetual motion free energy machines are to physics.
Merely produce an information processing system and evolutionary algorithm from a truly random (high thermodynamic entropy/low information) set of laws and ID Theory is falsified.
At 2:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Thanks CJYman, however if you hang around you will find out that you don't know what you are talking about, it is all subjective and you cannot provide a valid example of a biological structure that exhibits CSI.
Think about it- blipey is a clown and Richie Hughes idolizes Borat.
Entertaining yes. But capable of understanding ID? No. And definitely not capable of supporting their own position.
At 2:45 PM,
Joe G said…
How to make a baseball- no details:
"Construction varies. Generally the core of the ball is cork, rubber, or a mixture of the two, and is sometimes layered. Around that are various linear materials including yarn and twine, sometimes wool is used. A leather cover is put on, in two pieces, and stitched together using 108 stitches of waxed red cotton thread. Rolled stitching is flatter and creates less air-resistance. This is the type of stitching used for major league balls and is ideal for the game and everyday play. Official Major League balls sold by Rawlings are made to the exact MLB specifications (5 ounces, 108 stitches) and are stamped with the signature of Commissioner Allan "Bud" Selig on each ball."
The more specifications required the more information required-
First you would need a BOM (bill of materials)
1- a specified core
2- specified material that will be wrapped around the core
3- specified leather cover
4- specified thread
That's just the BOM. Next you would need assembly instructions-
How tightly to wrap the core
Direction of wrapping
How much material to use
The cover would be cut in a specified manner
It would then be sewn in a specified manner.
After the ball is made it would then be tested to see if it meets the specifications- weight, diameter/ circumference and rebound.
All those bits of information, taken together, are what would determine if CSI was present or not. It should be obvious that specified information is present and that CSI just puts a lower limit on the number of bits required.
Post a Comment
<< Home