Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Calculating CSI for Babies

In an effort to stop the incessant whining from non-contributing commentors Richie Retardo Hughes and blipey the clueless clown, I offer the following (not that I expect either one of the moron twins to understand it):

Calculating CSI for babies-

First you take a sample of specified information- for this example I have chosen the abstract from “Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested Cladistic Analysis of Human Y Chromosome Variation”:
We surveyed nine diallelic polymorphic sites on the Y chromosomes of 1,544 individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and the New World. Phylogenetic analyses of these nine sites resulted in a tree for 10 distinct Y haplotypes with a coalescence time of~150,000 years. The 10 haplotypes were unevenly distributed among human populations: 5 were restricted to a particular continent, 2 were shared between Africa and Europe, 1 was present only in the Old World, and 2 were found in all geographic regions surveyed. The ancestral haplotype was limited to African populations. Random permutation procedures revealed statistically significant patterns of geographical structuring of this paternal genetic variation. The results of a nested cladistic analysis indicated that these geographical associations arose through a combination of processes, including restricted, recurrent gene flow (isolation by distance) and range expansions. We inferred that one of the oldest events in the nested cladistic analysis was a range expansion out of Africa which resulted in the complete replacement of Y chromosomes throughout the Old World, a finding consistent with many versions of the Out of Africa Replacement Model. A second and more recent range expansion brought Asian Y chromosomes back to Africa without replacing the indigenous African male gene pool. Thus, the previously observed high levels of Y chromosomal genetic diversity in Africa may be due in part to bidirectional population movements. Finally, a comparison of our results with those from nested cladistic analyses of human mtDNA and b-globin data revealed different patterns of inferences for males and females concerning the relative roles of population history (range expansions) and population structure (recurrent gene flow), thereby adding a new sex-specific component to models of human evolution.

Then you count the number of characters. That bit of information has 1868 characters including spaces. So to figure out the exact number of bits you would take 1868 and multiply it by 5 (bits per character)- 1868 x 5= 9340 bits of specified information.

So in this case CSI = 9340. (that is unless you want to get anal about non-essential characters so the prediction is...)

32 Comments:

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. The CSI = 9340. So, does this mean it was designed? Or not designed? What conclusions can we draw based on this number?

    I'm truly excited about this; I think I'm learning something.

     
  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Really Joe?

    How much information in "the complete works of Shakespeare"?

    You fail to spot what even Dembski has.

    Still no CSI for a baseball I see.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Great. The CSI = 9340. So, does this mean it was designed?

    Yes that would be the safe inference- that the arstract was designed.

    What conclusions can we draw based on this number?

    That the article has purposeful information.

    I think I'm learning something.

    If you really want to learn something just read the books I told you to read:

    1. "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratszch

    2. "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene

    3. "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

    4. "The Edge of Evolution" also by Behe

    5. "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" edited by John Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer

    6. "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards

    Once you have read the books if you have specific questions then ask them.

     
  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Really Joe?

    Really Rich, you are a whiny little baby.

    You fail to spot what even Dembski has.

    And you fail basic IQ tests.

    Still no CSI for a baseball I see.

    Still no specifications nor assembly instructions. Oh well...

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How much information in "the complete works of Shakespeare"?

    That is irrelevant. What matters is if we can determine whether or not said works are indeed the result of agency activity, was it intentional or accidental or did nature, operating freely, produce it.

    Just like archaeology, forensic science and SETI.

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Just like archaeology, forensic science and SETI."

    None of which use the EF, nor anything like it.

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, anything with a (CSI < 9340) is not designed? Is that your prediction?

    Or is it anything with a (CSI > 9340) is designed?

    What is the CSI of a mud puddle? How does it fit into the 9340 Model of CSI?

     
  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe, you say that is specified information. Specification by definition means matching a pre-defined pattern.

    Where can I find the before-the-fact specification used to make your determination that the words represent specified information?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't I take 1868 scrabble tiles with the same letters, mix them up in a bag and pull them out randomly, and get a nonsense gobbledygook paragraph with exactly the same amount of CSI you just calculated? So what good is your number?

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Just like archaeology, forensic science and SETI."

    None of which use the EF, nor anything like it.

    SETI has already admiitted they are looking for signals that cannot be attributable to laws or chance- that is the EF.

    Archaeology looks for signs of work- and work is something that neither nature, operating freely nor chance can produce. Again the EF.

    And forensics is pretty much the same thing.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I have already told you the lower limit for CSI is 500 bits of specified information. That is spelled out in "No Free Lunch".

    I am not going to get into that with you. Read the book.

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you say that is specified information. Specification by definition means matching a pre-defined pattern.

    I said it was complex specified information and the words do match a pre-defined pattern. If the words were not pre-defined the article and language would be useless.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't I take 1868 scrabble tiles with the same letters, mix them up in a bag and pull them out randomly, and get a nonsense gobbledygook paragraph with exactly the same amount of CSI you just calculated?

    You are wrong. The scrammbled letters do not match any pre-defined pattern.

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So something with 500 bits of CSI is designed?

    What's the CSI of a mud puddle? Is it below 500 bits?

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You are wrong. The scrammbled letters do not match any pre-defined pattern.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you know that pattern was "specified" in your example is because you examined it before hand.

    Now, ID says you cannot examine the designer before hand. So, that's right out. That means the random drawing and the abstract text could both be the desired pattern. Without looking at them first, there is no way to tell.

    So, without looking at the pattern first to see what it is, how do we know it is specified?

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As a matter of fact Richie, anyone trying to debunk a design inference would use the EF.

    And that is exactly what the "Ghost Hunters" do when going over all the evidence they collect.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ghost Hunters is one of the stupidest shows on television. A real disappointment from SciFi.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you know that pattern was "specified" in your example is because you examined it before hand.

    Science works by examining what we can. Do you think someone can tell if an object is designed or not without examining it?

    Psychic scientsis. Go back to being a clown.

    Now, ID says you cannot examine the designer before hand.

    I didn't examine the scientists who wrote the paper.

    So, without looking at the pattern first to see what it is, how do we know it is specified?

    The design inference counts on someone examining the evidence. THAT is how SCIENCE works- via observations and careful examination of the data and evidence.

    Thanks for proving that you are clueless.

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So something with 500 bits of CSI is designed?

    500 bits of specified information is CSI. And yes there is not doubt that something with CSI is designed.

     
  • At 5:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No. You said the design was complex and specified because it fit a preconceived pattern. The idea that ID wants to foist on us is that they can tell if something is complex and specified by examining it. Not by agreeing that it is like something else we've already seen.

    We know the abstract was designed. How about a mud puddle? Do we know it is designed? How?

    Taking something that we are unsure of and examining it for design is helpful. Telling us something is designed that we PREVIOUSLY know was designed is not useful.

    Please apply your example to something useful.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ghost hunters is excellent.

    Being a clown, however, is one of the lowest professions on Earth. A real disappointment to humans.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No. You said the design was complex and specified because it fit a preconceived pattern. The idea that ID wants to foist on us is that they can tell if something is complex and specified by examining it. Not by agreeing that it is like something else we've already seen.

    blipey you have proven to be totally ignorant about ID and science.

    The words in the abstract fit a pre-defined pattern.

    The ONLY purpose of the abstract, as evidenced by the title of the blog, was to show you how to calculate CSI. To do that I used a known design.

    Now you want to make some big deal out of it.

    IOW you cannot stay focused on the topic at hand.

    How about a mud puddle? Do we know it is designed? How?

    We would have to examine it as well as its surroundings.

    Telling us something is designed that we PREVIOUSLY know was designed is not useful.

    Again your ignorance-driven anger is getting the best of you. The example was just to show you how to calculate CSI- nothing more, nothing less.

    Please apply your example to something useful.

    Please read the books I told you to and don't come back until you do.

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I said it was complex specified information and the words do match a pre-defined pattern. If the words were not pre-defined the article and language would be useless.

    The individual words are defined in an English dictionary, but the order of the words that gives the article its meaning are not pre-specified anywhere to my knowledge.

    I could just as easily write each word on a piece of paper, mix them randomly and come up with another paragraph of pure gobbledygook. I might even get lucky and get a few coherent sentences. No matter what I got, it would still have exactly the same calculated CSI value and meets your new definition of "specified."

    You are wrong. The scrammbled letters do not match any pre-defined pattern.

    Where is your pre-defined pattern for the order of the words?

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    500 bits of specified information is CSI. And yes there is not doubt that something with CSI is designed.

    Suppose you are out hiking in the deep woods and come across a rock with 500 distinct scratch marks on it. The marks are mostly the same size, some vertical, some diagonal, some overlapping. There is no physical indication at all that tells you the age or origin of the marks.

    How would you tell if the marks represent an intelligently designed message from some neolithic tribesman, or are just the result of an animal sharpening its claws?

     
  • At 11:47 PM, Blogger Rudy Lyle said…

    Joe

    I am a research scientist and grad student at a fairly respectable engineering school. I have been led to investigate the mathematical reasons for why evolution is not true.

    One of my research projects involves the calculation of CSI from various natural features in order to show that nature is designed. I have been forced to undertake this research on my own initiative and time and money as questioning darwinism is not popular, even in my field of science.

    I have been surveying what other prominent ID thinkers have to say about my project. In short, my latest ideas have been measuring the number of bits of information along transects through a predetermined volume of soil space. Since the darwinian ecologists have invented explanations for the arrangement of soil micro-organisms along particular resource gradients that they just imagine to be responsible for all sorts of things like population size or reproduction or mutation or take your pick of whatever you can imagine to be stupid. they do it.

    anyway, if one were to take a particular volume of soil, say, a big volume 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters. Run say 100 random skewers through that soil and draw 50 random locations on each skewer to measure the size and volume of the particle at each location.

    You would very quickly surpass the UPB. These measurements would be strongly correlated with certain parameters of the microbial community. I have yet to show this but I think I can make it happen in the lab and verify my hypothesis.

    What is important here is that we have shown that whole soil microbial communities are a function of intelligent design. Take away the complexity inserted by intelligence, then you lose your soil microbial community. Since this is the darwinian source of explanation for why species are different or in one place or the other (like productivity or other things that the evolutionists have stolen from engineers). then establishing it to be of intelligent design would be a strong thrust in favor of ID.

    I am tired of them getting owned in the blogosphere yet you never hear of this in the scientific literature. My results are publishable in some of the top journal in my field, but of course I have to bow down and kiss the ring of the establishment, or else make it on my own. This is why I am interested in your feedback: if the top ID thinkers and yes even critics are behind me, or at least respecting me, then it is that much stronger a case for the special status of each and every human life we can make.

     
  • At 12:28 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And yes there is not doubt that something with CSI is designed.

    By this critereon, something with a CSI value of 1 is designed.

    So, what's the 500 threshold for?

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And yes there is not doubt that something with CSI is designed.

    By this critereon, something with a CSI value of 1 is designed.

    Wrong again, as usual. For CSI to exist at all there is a lower limit of 500 bits of specified information.

    You can read all about it in "No Free Lunch".

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The individual words are defined in an English dictionary, but the order of the words that gives the article its meaning are not pre-specified anywhere to my knowledge.

    The order of the words is irrelevant.

    I could just as easily write each word on a piece of paper, mix them randomly and come up with another paragraph of pure gobbledygook. I might even get lucky and get a few coherent sentences. No matter what I got, it would still have exactly the same calculated CSI value and meets your new definition of "specified."

    If specified words are present and tghose specified words add up to 500 or more bits, then CSI is present.

    And that means that there is no way that nature, operating freelu nor chance, given any amount of time, could have produced it.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Suppose you are out hiking in the deep woods and come across a rock with 500 distinct scratch marks on it.

    Then, as archaeologists do, you try to determine if those marks are a sign of work, ie counterflow.

    How would you tell if the marks represent an intelligently designed message from some neolithic tribesman, or are just the result of an animal sharpening its claws?

    Either way the marks are not the result of nature, operating freely.

    A thorough investigation, as mandated by the explanatory filter, would then follow to figure out what you just asked.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rudy,

    Thank you for posting on Intelligent Reasoning.

    You work is very interesting and adds a different twist to the debate.

    I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: The individual words are defined in an English dictionary, but the order of the words that gives the article its meaning are not pre-specified anywhere to my knowledge.

    JG: The order of the words is irrelevant.

    So you think the order of words is irrelevant to the information content of a passage. Interesting.

    T: Suppose you are out hiking in the deep woods and come across a rock with 500 distinct scratch marks on it.

    JG: Then, as archaeologists do, you try to determine if those marks are a sign of work, ie counterflow.

    You omitted the part in my scenario where I specifically stated "There is no physical indication at all that tells you the age or origin of the marks."

    ID proponents keep telling us they can tell if something was designed solely by examining the object itself, in this case the patterns on the rock. Now you are you now saying something more, that we need evidence of how the designer implemented the design.

    Which story is correct? What if I showed you a photo of the rock with the scratches. How would you determine if the 500 marks were in a pattern that was purposely made?

    T: How would you tell if the marks represent an intelligently designed message from some neolithic tribesman, or are just the result of an animal sharpening its claws?

    JG: Either way the marks are not the result of nature, operating freely.

    So an animal sharpening its claws is not part of "nature operating freely." Interesting claim again. Can you give an example of what you would consider "nature operating freely"?

     
  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you think the order of words is irrelevant to the information content of a passage. Interesting.

    It is interesting that you would infer that because I never said nor implied such a thing.

    The order is unimportatnt to dectecting design. The words are enough to do that.

    Once design is determined then we can figure out what it means.

    You omitted the part in my scenario where I specifically stated "There is no physical indication at all that tells you the age or origin of the marks."

    Right, that is why further investigation is required. Science is not conducted in a vacuum.

    ID proponents keep telling us they can tell if something was designed solely by examining the object itself, in this case the patterns on the rock.

    Again research is not done in a vacuum.

    Now you are you now saying something more, that we need evidence of how the designer implemented the design.

    Wrong. All we need to know is what nature, operating freely, is capable of coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies are capable of.

    Which story is correct? What if I showed you a photo of the rock with the scratches. How would you determine if the 500 marks were in a pattern that was purposely made?

    It would be difficult. Normally archaeologists have more than a photo to look at.

    So an animal sharpening its claws is not part of "nature operating freely."

    It would be an example of an animal doing something.

    Nature, operating freely means no agency involvement. Animals = agency.

    Read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratszch.

    Also an artifact can be something like a hook that a crow made to get at soemthing:

    artifact:

    "It may be suggested that the maker of an artifact need not be a human being. For example, in a recent experiment a New Caledonian crow called Betty bent a piece of straight wire into a hook and used it to lift a bucket containing food from a vertical pipe (Weir at al., 2002). Betty's hook may be regarded as a simple artifact made for the purpose of gaining access to the food bucket."

     
  • At 8:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Rudy Lyle is SO a sock puppet. Come on, Joe. Can't your design-testing self come up with that one on your own?

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rudy Lyle is SO a sock puppet.

    Then who is he?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home