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

Sunday, February 10, 2008

"Specification- The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence"*

ABSTRACT: Specification denotes the type of pattern that highly improbable events must exhibit before one is entitled to attribute them to intelligence. This paper analyzes the concept of specification and shows how it applies to design detection (i.e., the detection of intelligence on the basis of circumstantial evidence). Always in the background throughout this discussion is the
fundamental question of Intelligent Design (ID): Can objects, even if nothing is
known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an
intelligent cause? This paper reviews, clarifies, and extends previous work on
specification in my books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch.--Wm Dembski


*Wm. Dembski on Specification

CJYman has also weighed in on specification:

CJYman on Specification
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.

148 Comments:

  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um,

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Option 1: ID can determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.

    Option 2: ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to.

    Which is correct, 1 or 2 ?


    Still waiting for you to clarify this.

    On the other comments you linked to you said this about calculating CSI:

    JG: 2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.

    If all that is involved in determining CSI is counting nucleotides, what good is the number? There are many well known natural process that increase the size and complexity of a genome (duplication with mutations, frame shifts, etc.) Since CSI can by your own definition increase naturally, that certainly kills the claim that a measure of CSI above a certain value indicates intelligent design, right?

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton,

    This thread is clarification.

    On the other comments you linked to you said this about calculating CSI:

    JG: 2-bits per nucleotide Richie. Then all you have to do is to count the nucleotides involved in the structure you are investigating.

    If all that is involved in determining CSI is counting nucleotides, what good is the number?


    You don't read very well. The two bits per nucleotide is for biological function.

    The number, if greater than 500 bits, is as close to a "proof of desogn" as one can get without direct observation or designer input.

    There are many well known natural process that increase the size and complexity of a genome (duplication with mutations, frame shifts, etc.)

    Let's see some real-life examples of biological function arising via non-telic processes. Something constructive as we already know that random mutations can destruct things.

    Since CSI can by your own definition increase naturally, that certainly kills the claim that a measure of CSI above a certain value indicates intelligent design, right?

    By my definition CSI has never been observed to arise via non-telic processes.

    You need to read all what I post and not select what you want.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring.


    Umm this thread is about SPECIFICATION.

    Can your string be compressed? No.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: Option 1: ID can determine specificity and therefore design when there in is no pre-existing pattern to compare to.

    Option 2: ID can determine specificity and therefore design only when there is a pre-existing pattern to compare to.

    Which is correct, 1 or 2 ?

    Still waiting for you to clarify this.


    JG: This thread is clarification.

    OK, so it's option 1, which is exactly what I said a week ago that you made such a stink over. Is it that hard for you to commit yourself to an answer?

    Of course, you're still making the same beginner's error in calculating probabilities by assuming that the "specified" genomic sequences had to assemble spontaneously all at once. For your 30 bit string example

    Let's say we started at a random 30 bit string such as "100011101111100010111010000010"

    that may be true, but it is certainly NOT true for long nucleotide sequences that are not "one shot" random events but have have evolved and been filtered by natural selection over billions of years.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course, you're still making the same beginner's error in calculating probabilities by assuming that the "specified" genomic sequences had to assemble spontaneously all at once.

    Of course you are an asshole who doesn't know what he is talking about.

    I never said nor implied that the sequence had to assemble spontaneously all at once.

    The calculation doesn't require it.

    However if you want to think that nucleotides can form outside of living organisms and without agency involvement- and then form into some sequence- it is up to you to demonstrate that such a thing is even possible.

    BTW once again you display your ignorance- natural selection doesn't act on nucleotide sequences unless they are in living organisms.

    Mutations do not occur in a vacuum- they also require a living organism.

    To replicate DNA or RNA you need a stockpile of free nucleotides- however they are only found in living organisms (or synthesized in some lab). Nucleotides are never found in nature outside of a living organism.

    So you have an origin problem.

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger Thorton said…


    I never said nor implied that the sequence had to assemble spontaneously all at once.

    The calculation doesn't require it.


    Did you flunk high school math? The calculations you are offering as evidence depend on it.

    Have you never played draw poker? The odds of getting a royal straight flush on a one-time deal are 1 in 2,598,960. However, if the rules allow for a discard and redraw, the odds get somewhat better. If the rules allow for unlimited discards and redraws from the remaining 47 cards, the odds of putting together such a seemingly rare hand approach certainty.

    The simple fact is that you cannot correctly calculate the odds of a poker hand or a genome by taking a one time snapshot. You have to take into account the rules of the game and the history of the sequence being calculated.

    Your CSI calculations do neither, hence they are meaningless.

    In the case of the genome, we know the rules of the game, RM+NS, which allow for an accumulation of traits over time which increase the probability of survival.

    IDists like Meyer and Dembski know it too (at least they should by now, after being called on their mistake enough times), but conveniently ignore scientific reality.

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I did very well in math and the calculations do not depend on spontaneous, all at once, appearance of a nucleotide sequence.

    Have you never played draw poker?

    Yes I have and it involves artificial selection. IOW intelligent design.

    In real life nucleotides do not form outside of living organsims.

    In the case of the genome, we know the rules of the game, RM+NS, which allow for an accumulation of traits over time which increase the probability of survival.

    Random mutations to a non-replicating molecule?

    Just to replicate you need a stockpile of that you are replicating. And it needs to be very close by.

    IOW you start with the specified complexity that needs explaining in the first place. Which means either you are ignorant of that fact or perhaps just being a bit dishonest.

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Thorton:
    "The simple fact is that you cannot correctly calculate the odds of a poker hand or a genome by taking a one time snapshot. You have to take into account the rules of the game and the history of the sequence being calculated.

    Your CSI calculations do neither, hence they are meaningless.


    You calculate the odds based on probabilistic resources available. Ie: trials and time. Thus, CSI only needs to take into account random rules and a random history. IOW: if you arrive at a specification, the only thing know is that random chance is not a viable explanation.

    In fact, evolutionary algorithms are a necessity in order to arrive at CSI (as an information theoretic measurement of probability) and even then it never generates CSI, it merely allows it to unfold according to previous informational planning -- deeper level of CSI.

    So, can you provide any evidence that an information processing systems, an evolutionary algorithm, and then CSI will generate themselves from a random set of laws?

    Must you appeal to "chance of the gaps" non-explanations?

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I did very well in math and the calculations do not depend on spontaneous, all at once, appearance of a nucleotide sequence.

    Please show me in those probability calculations where the cumulative nature of the mutations and the effects of natural selection filtering are accounted for.

    Of course you can't do it, because such things aren't there. That's why Meyer and Dembski got laughed at by both biologists and mathematicians. That's why not one single person has used Dembski's Explanatory Filter since he came out with the idea 10 years ago.

    You still keep ignoring the scientific fact that mutations can and do increase the size and complexity of the genome. That means your CSI measure can increase through purely natural means.

    I'll ask again - how does a genome CSI measurement of >500 bits indicate design when we know that genome sequences can achieve that size via purely natural and non-intelligent causes?

    What is the CSI of the smallest self-replication molecule you know of? Not the smallest genome, the smallest self-replicating molecule.

     
  • At 6:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Would you care to prove that my string can't be compressed?

    Can you tell if I designed it or not?

    Should be easy for a design detecting wiz such as yourself...

     
  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, a clarification would be answering the question. A clarification is not stating that you have clarified (but really avoided the question).

    Which thing is ID:

    1. Detects design without comparing item to anything else?

    2. Only detects design after comaparing thing to something else?

     
  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Would you care to prove that my string can't be compressed?

    Science doen't prove a negative. It is up to you to demonstrate that it can be compressed.

    Can you tell if I designed it or not?

    I would have to know more about the string than what you have provided.

    Science is not conducted in a vacuum.

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please show me in those probability calculations where the cumulative nature of the mutations and the effects of natural selection filtering are accounted for.

    Natural selection does not apply to non-living molecules- as Dobzhanky stated "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms". AND mutations do not occur to non-replicating molecules.

    What part of that don't you and your small mind understand?

    You still keep ignoring the scientific fact that mutations can and do increase the size and complexity of the genome.

    Two problems with that:

    1) Are all those mutations due to non-telic processes

    2) Mutations do not occur in non-replicating molecules

    I'll ask again - how does a genome CSI measurement of >500 bits indicate design when we know that genome sequences can achieve that size via purely natural and non-intelligent causes?

    And I will tell you AGAIN-

    Show us one genome arising from non-living matter via non-telic processes and you will falsify ID.

    IOW Throton all you are doing is ignoring the scientific data- no replication = no mutations. No living organisms = no natural selection.

    So now you have passed ignoarnace and you are into dishonest representation of scientific reality.

    Thank you for proving you are a dishonest asshole with no intention to deal with scientific reality.

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Which thing is ID:

    1. Detects design without comparing item to anything else?

    2. Only detects design after comaparing thing to something else?


    Design detection is not done in a vacuum. And just as with everything else in science it demands all of our current knowledge.

     
  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    how does a genome CSI measurement of >500 bits indicate design when we know that genome sequences can achieve that size via purely natural and non-intelligent causes?

    As I have said MANY times now- CSI relates to BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION, not just the number of nucleotides.

    What is the CSI of the smallest self-replication molecule you know of?

    4 bits, at most 8 (giving 4-bits per component, 2 components per compound):

    Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers


    Technically, the self-replicating compound made by the MIT group is called an amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE). This molecule was initially formed by reacting two other molecules. [

    The AATE replicates by attracting to one of its ends anester molecule, and to its other end an amino adenosine molecule. These molecules react to form another AATE. The "parent" and "child" AATE molecules then break
    apart and can go on to build still more AATE molecules."


    And if those added components are not available no replication takes place.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Kierra said…

    Can you tell if I designed it or not?

    I would have to know more about the string than what you have provided.

    Science is not conducted in a vacuum.


    According the the paper you refer to in your post, "the fundamental question of Intelligent Design (ID): Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"

    Therefore ID is claiming you can determine whether an object is designed simply by looking at that object "in a vacuum" so to speak. The only additional information that could be obtained about a given binary sequence is how it was generated (which would automatically give the answer), but ID does not claim to answer specific questions about how life came about since this would require knowing something about the designer.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: I did very well in math and the calculations do not depend on spontaneous, all at once, appearance of a nucleotide sequence.

    T: Please show me in those probability calculations where the cumulative nature of the mutations and the effects of natural selection filtering are accounted for.

    JG: Natural selection does not apply to non-living molecules- as Dobzhanky stated "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms". AND mutations do not occur to non-replicating molecules.

    What part of that don't you and your small mind understand?


    Er Joe...we're talking about your claim to be able to calculate the probabilities of formation of a nucleotide sequence. In particular, we're waiting for you to back up your claim that Meyer calculated the CSI of a minimal genome, and that a >500 CSI indicates design.

    Genomes and nucleotide sequences belong to living creatures. They replicate, mutate, and are subject to natural selection. What part of that don't you and your small mind understand?

    Now please show me in the Meyer probability calculations where the cumulative nature of the mutations and the effects of natural selection filtering are accounted for.

    I know your ignorance of biology has painted you into a corner, but at least make an effort to stay on topic and understand your own claims.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According the the paper you refer to in your post, "the fundamental question of Intelligent Design (ID): Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"

    Therefore ID is claiming you can determine whether an object is designed simply by looking at that object "in a vacuum" so to speak.


    Non-sequitur-

    "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"

    Does not mean design detection is done in a vacuum.

    The explanatory filter mandates a rigorous investigation taking into account ALL available data.

    The only additional information that could be obtained about a given binary sequence is how it was generated (which would automatically give the answer),

    We need to know the context of the sequence. Did it come about via flipping a coin, heads = 1 and tails = 0?

    but ID does not claim to answer specific questions about how life came about since this would require knowing something about the designer.

    ID wasn't formulated to answer the "how" and it does not require any information about the designer to do so.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: how does a genome CSI measurement of >500 bits indicate design when we know that genome sequences can achieve that size via purely natural and non-intelligent causes?

    JG: As I have said MANY times now- CSI relates to BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION, not just the number of nucleotides.

    No you didn't Joe. You specifically stated it was just the counting of the nucleotide, remember? Look at this exchange

    " Rich Hughes: No-one has ever calculated CSI in a robust manner.

    JG: 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."


    You can't even keep your story straight from week to week.

    Be that as it may, let's get back to your claim that Meyer calculated the CSI of a minimal genome. Please show me in those calculations where the effects of BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION are accounted for.

     
  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Genomes and nucleotide sequences belong to living creatures.

    Meyer's calculation pertains to what it takes to get the minimal genome. Meyer is inrterested in ORIGINS.

    Do try to follow along. You don't get to start with the specified complexity that requires an explanation.

    IOW thorton you have proven to be just an ignorant and dishonest imbecile.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The title of Meyer's article:

    "DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and explanation"

    What part of the Origin of Life don't you understand?

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG:Do try to follow along. You don't get to start with the specified complexity that requires an explanation.

    But you did. The whole point of this conversation is that you claimed you could calculate the CSI of any genome, and based on that number alone could conclude design. Now you have retreated to "well OK, we can get to 500 bits by natural processes, but we need some original CSI as a seed".

    You then admitted the smallest self replicator has only 8 bits worse case. That means anything with a CSI greater than 8 bits can arise via natural processes. Your ">500 bits = design" criteria is right out the window.


    You also told me Meyer calculated the CSI of the minimal genome, remember?

    T: Can you provide an example of a CSI calculation where there is no pre-specified pattern, like my example of the 500 scratch marks?

    JG: Like Stephen C. Meyer has done with the minmal genome?

    Now you admit he didn't do any CSI calculation at all, but say he was calculating the probabilities of getting a minimal genome. But you can't show where in his calculations he allowed for the accumulation of mutations, or allowed for the filtering effect of natural selection.

    Do you ever do anything except make empty claims?

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton,

    You are a dishonest moron.

    Take a look at the OP in the thread you are quote mining:

    "Specificity is key to understanding":

    "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"


    CSI has ALWAYS been about biological function.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton,

    There isn't any such thing as a CSI of 8 bits. To even qualify as CSI it has to be at least 500 bits of SPECIFIED information.

    You also told me Meyer calculated the CSI of the minimal genome, remember?

    He did. The number of bits required to get minimal biological function exceeds 500 bits.

    Now to refute the design inference all you have to do is to demonstrate that non-telic processes can account for the origin of minimal biological complexity.

    See also- Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks


    Or are you just to stupid to comprehend any of that?

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Talk talk talk, but still no CSI calculations from you or Meyer, and still no explanation of where biological function was accounted for in your probability calculations.

    Why is that?

    JG: You are a dishonest moron.

    The surest way to tell someone's arguments have been devastated is when they start flinging gratuitous insults, so thanks for that admission too!

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    First you sat this

    T: What is the CSI of the smallest self-replication molecule you know of?

    JG: 4 bits, at most 8 (giving 4-bits per component, 2 components per compound):

    Then you say this

    JG: There isn't any such thing as a CSI of 8 bits. To even qualify as CSI it has to be at least 500 bits of SPECIFIED information.

    You can't go two days without contradicting yourself.

    Too funny!

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger CJYman said…

    I seem not to have received a response to this comment of mine which I believe would clear up the matter somewhat. So, here it is again ...

    Thorton:
    "The simple fact is that you cannot correctly calculate the odds of a poker hand or a genome by taking a one time snapshot. You have to take into account the rules of the game and the history of the sequence being calculated.

    Your CSI calculations do neither, hence they are meaningless."


    You calculate the odds based on probabilistic resources available. Ie: trials and time. Thus, CSI only needs to take into account random rules and a random history. IOW: if you arrive at a specification, the only thing know is that random chance is not a viable explanation.

    In fact, evolutionary algorithms are a necessity in order to arrive at CSI (as an information theoretic measurement of probability) and even then it never generates CSI, it merely allows it to unfold according to previous informational planning -- deeper level of CSI.

    So, can you provide any evidence that an information processing systems, an evolutionary algorithm, and then CSI will generate themselves from a random set of laws?

    Must you appeal to "chance of the gaps" non-explanations?

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    T: What is the CSI of the smallest self-replication molecule you know of?

    JG: 4 bits, at most 8 (giving 4-bits per component, 2 components per compound):

    Yup you got me!!! Wow. My answer was incorrect- why? because I answered the wrong question.

    My answer-4 bits, at most 8 (giving 4-bits per component, 2 components per compound) refers to the smallest self-replicating molecule.

    I don't know of any self-replicating molecules that contain CSI. (DNA isn't self-replicating)

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Talk talk talk, but still no CSI calculations from you or Meyer, and still no explanation of where biological function was accounted for in your probability calculations.

    Your ignorance and stupidity is not a refutation. Meyer calculated the CSI required to get the minimal biological functionality as being far greater than the 500 bits required to meet the standard.

    The surest way to tell someone's arguments have been devastated is when they start flinging gratuitous insults,

    That means I win as all anti-IDists can do is to fling gratuitous insults, lie, misrepresent and deceive.

    Why is that?

    And why do you choose to misrepresent and lie about ID when all you have to do is to actually substantiate YOUR claims?

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CJYman,

    Thank you very much for your posts.

    However do not expect "them" to acknowledge the contents.

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW thorton,

    When I say:

    You are a dishonest moron.

    It is an observation, not an insult.


    To blipey (and kierra),

    In order to tell if blipey's string- 100011101001011100010111010101- is designed or not I would need to know where he got it from.

    For example, did it just pop into his bitty little head, was it found on the wall of a cave, was it on a piece of paper or what?

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    You're welcome Joe. I'm always keen on joining the ranks and fighting for science in the face of either misunderstandings or pure willful ignorance.

    One more thing:

    Algorithmically compressible patterns are those patterns which can be fully compressed or which contain only patterns which can be fully compressed.

    ie:

    1. 101010101010101010101010101010 can be fully compressed as "print 10X15"

    2. 1111111111 can be fully compressed as "print 1X10"

    3. 11111111110000000000 is composed of two fully compressible patterns and can be formulated as "print 1x10, 0X10"; it is slightly more random than the above patterns, however it is still compressible

    4. blipeys submitted pattern:
    100011101001011100010111010101
    can be formulated as "print 1, 0X3, 1X3, 01, 0X2, 10, 1X3, 0X3, 10, 1X3, 010101"
    and as can be seen there are many incompressible aspects to the pattern as a whole, the pattern as a whole is not compressible and it is not composed of only compressible patterns, and those compressible patterns that it does contain are extremely highly probable even if we arrived at that pattern in a truly random fashion in the first shot.

    In fact, based on the length of the pattern, and the rules of statistics, we could actually expect slightly longer compressible stretches of ones or zeros even if the pattern was arrived at truly randomly.

    In a truly random bit pattern we can expect to see half of the pattern as 1s, half of those 1s next to another 1, half of those 1s which are already next to a 1 will be next to another 1, etc.

    Dembski has shown the math in "Specifications: Patterns which Signify Intelligence" which shows that algorithmically compressible patterns take up such a small amount of the search space that they will almost always equate to a specification and a potentially high one at that (unless you throw extremely high probabilistic resources, compared to the pattern's length, at the pattern).

    Furthermore, when it comes to CSI in living organisms we are dealing with functional specificity, not compressible specificity, as Joe keeps pointing out.

     
  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: Your ignorance and stupidity is not a refutation. Meyer calculated the CSI required to get the minimal biological functionality as being far greater than the 500 bits required to meet the standard.

    Sorry Joe, but you're lying, plain and simple.

    Meyer did no calculations on the CSI of the minimal genome. He merely tried to calculated the probability of the minimum genome spontaneously assembling all at once, and came up with a worthless number because of his false assumptions.

    If he did CSI calculations, why can't you present them?

    If he did CSI calculations, what specific value for the CSI did he get?

    I'm sure you won't be upset when I point out that you're a liar because it's an observation, not an insult.

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Meyer calculated the CSI required to get the minimal biological functionality as being far greater than the 500 bits required to meet the standard.

    THAT is what 4^300,000 represents. CSI corresponds to 10^150.

    Now if you want an exact number all you have to do is take the minmal genome, count the nucleotides required, multiply by 2 and that would be the minimum CSI required for a biological organism.

    He merely tried to calculated the probability of the minimum genome spontaneously assembling all at once, and came up with a worthless number because of his false assumptions.

    You keep saying that as if it is true. However you have failed to provide any evidence to support your claim.

    What false assumptions does he make? Please enumerate them or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

    Remember he is calculating what it takes to get minimal biological functionality.

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Meyer calculated the CSI required to get the minimal biological functionality as being far greater than the 500 bits required to meet the standard.

    THAT is what 4^300,000 represents. CSI corresponds to 10^150.


    Meyer didn't calculate the CSI. The 4^300,000 doesn't represent the CSI, it's the probability Meyer calculated for a minimal genome forming if it had assembled spontaneously all at once. The 10^150 is the UPB. The three aren't the same thing Joe. You can't even recite the ID party line properly

    Now if you want an exact number all you have to do is take the minmal genome, count the nucleotides required, multiply by 2 and that would be the minimum CSI required for a biological organism.

    LOL! You can't even get the math right either! The CSI by Meyer's definition is not the number of nucleotide base pairs x2 (for 2 bits/pair). It's the -natural logarithm of that number

    For a minimal genome size to sustain life, currently estimated to be around 600K base pairs, the calculated CSI is

    CSI = -ln (2x600,000) = 14 bits.

    So we can specify the minimun genome size in 14 bits

    Is 14 more than or less than 500 Joe?

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    THAT is what 4^300,000 represents. CSI corresponds to 10^150.

    Meyer didn't calculate the CSI. The 4^300,000 doesn't represent the CSI, it's the probability Meyer calculated for a minimal genome forming if it had assembled spontaneously all at once.

    1. Meyer does not assume the sequence formed spontaneously, all at once.

    Until you can get that through your thick demented head there is no use going any further.

    However-

    2. 500 bits of specified information corresponds to 10^150- Wm Dembski in "No Free Lunch"

    3. 4^300,000 exeeds 10^150, therefor it follows that it corresponds to more than 500 bits of specified information.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    For a specified pattern of 1/4^300,000 ...

    CSI calculation:

    -log2(probabilistic resources*specificity)=
    -log2(10^150*1/4^300,000)=
    -log2(such a small negative number that my calculator won't do the calculation)=
    An extremely large number greater than 1 which is therefore a very large specification which corresponds with a high amount of CSI

    This calculation tells us that given the whole space and time of our universe, the above pattern would not build itself up randomly. It doesn't need to all of a sudden come together. It can come together piece by piece and, as long as it isn't guided in any way (ie: by an evolutionary algorithm which employs a selection measure), then it can't come together randomly.

    ... as I posted already, twice, and have not been responded to yet ...

    You calculate the odds based on probabilistic resources available. Ie: trials and time. Thus, CSI only needs to take into account random rules and a random history. IOW: if you arrive at a specification, the only thing know is that random chance is not a viable explanation.

    In fact, evolutionary algorithms are a necessity in order to arrive at CSI (as an information theoretic measurement of probability) and even then it never generates CSI, it merely allows it to unfold according to previous informational planning -- deeper level of CSI.

    So, can you provide any evidence that an information processing systems, an evolutionary algorithm, and then CSI will generate themselves from a random set of laws?

    Must you appeal to "chance of the gaps" non-explanations?

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: Meyer didn't calculate the CSI. The 4^300,000 doesn't represent the CSI, it's the probability Meyer calculated for a minimal genome forming if it had assembled spontaneously all at once.

    JG: 1. Meyer does not assume the sequence formed spontaneously, all at once.

    Until you can get that through your thick demented head there is no use going any further.


    Yes he did Joe. All his calculation are simple multiplications of individual probabilities. Combining probabilities that way is only valid for independent events, and doesn't take into account any iterative positive feedback or filtering due to natural selection.

    He even talks about the improbability of such a sequence forming randomly:

    "Meyer: Conversely, to have a reasonable chance of finding a short functional protein in a random search of combinatorial space would require vastly more time than either
    cosmology or geology allows."

    It's that draw poker thing again. You need to account for the history of the sequence, not just calculate the probabilities as a one time random shot.

    For someone who claims to know mathematics, you sure are ignorant of basic probability theory.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: CSI calculation:

    -log2(probabilistic resources*specificity)=
    -log2(10^150*1/4^300,000)=
    -log2(such a small negative number that my calculator won't do the calculation)=
    An extremely large number greater than 1 which is therefore a very large specification which corresponds with a high amount of CSI

    This calculation tells us that given the whole space and time of our universe, the above pattern would not build itself up randomly. It doesn't need to all of a sudden come together. It can come together piece by piece and, as long as it isn't guided in any way (ie: by an evolutionary algorithm which employs a selection measure), then it can't come together randomly.

    ... as I posted already, twice, and have not been responded to yet ...

    You calculate the odds based on probabilistic resources available. Ie: trials and time. Thus, CSI only needs to take into account random rules and a random history. IOW: if you arrive at a specification, the only thing know is that random chance is not a viable explanation.


    Pure unadulterated horsecrap. As has been pointed out many times before, it is trivially easy to exceed the 10^150 UPB by multiplying probabilities as Meyer did.

    I can put 100 ping pong balls numbered 1 to 100 in a bag and pull them out randomly. The resulting sequence will have a probability of 100!, or 9x10^157, well over your UPB. Does that mean the sequence was intelligently selected?

    And before you star on about "well, that sequence wasn't specified", I'll point out that ALL sequences that I can pull out will have the same probability, even if I get 100, 99,98,97,96,etc. in a row.

    Claiming rarity due to matching some specified pattern only means something if you specified the pattern before hand.

    If you could pick the winning lottery number consistently before the numbers are drawn, you could make a good case for intelligent manipulation of the draw. Pointing to the numbers after the fact and going "see, they make a pattern" is absolutely useless.

    Tell me, where was the pre-determined pattern sequence that Meyer matched his minimum genome sequence with?

    Where is your before the fact specification?

    The 4^300,000 number was what Meyer claimed is the total possible number of nucleotide combinations. Can you tell me precisely what percentage of that number will result in a functional protein, and which won't?

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, is my string designed? Or not? I'm failing to grasp the usefulness of this ID thing. If it can't even determine the designed-ness of a binary string I think it may not last....

     
  • At 10:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Let me get this right. In order to tell me if my string was designed or not, you would need me to tell you if I designed it or not?

    I think this ID thing has something going for it!!!

     
  • At 10:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, Joe:

    Let's say I found it on a piece of paper. You should now be able to tell me if it were designed, right?

    Out of curiosity what new insight would that piece of info give you that would then enable you to tell me if it were designed?

    Eagerly awaiting your design or no-design answer.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, is my string designed? Or not?

    So you CAN'T follow along. Thanks for proving, once again, that you are a moron.

    I'm failing to grasp the usefulness of this ID thing.

    I wouldn't expect a moron like you to grasp science.


    Let's say I found it on a piece of paper. You should now be able to tell me if it were designed, right?

    If you found it on a piece of paper do you think that nature, operating freely, could have put it there?

    Or does your bity little mind think that some agency involvement was required?

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JG: 1. Meyer does not assume the sequence formed spontaneously, all at once.

    Until you can get that through your thick demented head there is no use going any further.


    Yes he did Joe.

    No, he does not, thorton.

    Combining probabilities that way is only valid for independent events, and doesn't take into account any iterative positive feedback or filtering due to natural selection.

    Natural selection doesn't act on non-living matter. And anything that precedes that minimal genome would be non-living matter.

    IOW by relying on NS to filter something that is non-living and non-replicating you further expose your ignorance.

    Next thorton proves my point:

    He even talks about the improbability of such a sequence forming randomly:

    "Meyer: Conversely, to have a reasonable chance of finding a short functional protein in a random search of combinatorial space would require vastly more time than either
    cosmology or geology allows."


    BINGO!!! IOW Meyer is saying that it doesn't have to form spontaneously, all at once. He is saying even given all the time in the universe it couldn't happen.

    It's that draw poker thing again.

    Draw poker is a bad analogy- 1) Draw poker requires intelligent intervention. 2) Draw poker has a very limited number of possibilities.

    The origin of the minimal genome cannot have intelligent intervention in your scenario. Also there are so many cross-contamination possibilities as well as degradation of any intitial molecule- nucleic acids are more likely to degrade outside of a living cell than they are likely to stay around intact.

    For someone who claims to know mathematics, you sure are ignorant of basic probability theory.

    You seem to be ignorant of just about everything.

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JG: CSI calculation:

    That is PROOF thorton cannot follow along. CJYman posted the calculation, not me.


    Also thorton, as I and CJYman have told you many, many times now- to falsify the design inference pertaining to biological organisms all YOU have to do is to substantiate YOUR claim that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms via non-telic processes.

    IOW you can bitch, moan, lie and misrepresent ID all you want, but in the end the ONLY way to refute ID is to actually substantiate YOUR position's claims.

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For someone who claims to know mathematics, you sure are ignorant of basic probability theory.

    Let's see-

    500 bits of specified information corresponds to 10^150- Wm Dembski in "No Free Lunch"

    4^300,000 exeeds 10^150, therefor it follows that it corresponds to more than 500 bits of specified information.

    Yet thorton stated:

    For a minimal genome size to sustain life, currently estimated to be around 600K base pairs, the calculated CSI is

    CSI = -ln (2x600,000) = 14 bits.

    So we can specify the minimun genome size in 14 bits


    thorton must think that 14 > 500

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tell me, where was the pre-determined pattern sequence that Meyer matched his minimum genome sequence with?

    He matched it against what it takes to have minimal biological activity.

    Not just any sequence of nucleotides will do. The sequence has to be specific enough so that the proper proteins are formed to sustain the organism, and to allow for its replication.

    And to get proteins involves an obviously intelligently designed process:

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

    Now, all YOU have to do is to show that such a process- transcription, editing, proofreading, error-correction and translation came about via non-telic processes.

    And then explain why that the free nucleotides do not form sequeneces. Nor do the free amino acids form a polypeptide chain until they are moved into position by another molecule.

    IOW here we have the essentials for a living organism, in very close proximity, and nothing happens until commanded.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Natural selection doesn't act on non-living matter. And anything that precedes that minimal genome would be non-living matter.

    Of course it does you moron. ANY system of imperfect self-replicators that compete for resources in order to replicate will experience natural differential selection pressure. That includes the smallest self-replicating molecules up to the largest known genomes.
    Where on the continuum of complexity we define a certain self-replicator to be "life" has no bearing on the physical laws and processes affecting their replicating ability.

    Of course Meyer didn't take into account that fact when doing his "gee whiz, that's a really big number!!" probability calculations, which is why they're worthless.

     
  • At 10:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Natural selection doesn't act on non-living matter. And anything that precedes that minimal genome would be non-living matter.

    Of course it does you moron.

    Is that why evolutionary scientist Dobzhansky stated the "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms"?

    ANY system of imperfect self-replicators that compete for resources in order to replicate will experience natural differential selection pressure.

    But you don't get replication until ALL the parts are in place. Duh.

    What resources are nucleotides or even amino acids competing for?

    Do rocks also compete for resources? If "no", why not?

    That includes the smallest self-replicating molecules up to the largest known genomes.

    That smallest molecule always stays the same and it only replicates in the presence of its singular components.

    The largest genomes require quite a bit to replicate- and not only is replication required but parts of the genetic sequence unzip and allow the formation of new molecules which build and sustain the orgganism.

    But anyways- anyone who reads the essay can see that Meyer takes everything into account. 10^150 exhausts ALL probabilistic resources in the universe- and as YOU quoted- including the vast amount of time at hand.

    However, Meyer's calculations are worthless to ignorant morons, such as yourself.

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    T. Dobzhansky quote can be found in, "Discussion of G. Schramm's Paper," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their molecular Matrices, ed.SW Fox (New York:Academic Press, 1965), 310

    Section C of Meyer's essay deals with attempts of pre-biotic natural selection.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    But anyways- anyone who reads the essay can see that Meyer takes everything into account. 10^150 exhausts ALL probabilistic resources in the universe- and as YOU quoted- including the vast amount of time at hand.

    Sure, and when I pull those 100 numbered ping pong balls out of the bag at random I have exhausted ALL the probabilistic resources in the universe too. So whatever sequence I get must be designed!!

    Hallelujah!
    Hallelujah!

    I just proved the intelligent ping pong ball sequence designer exists!!

    I'd read on the web about just how dense you are, but it's something else to see it first hand.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyways- anyone who reads the essay can see that Meyer takes everything into account. 10^150 exhausts ALL probabilistic resources in the universe- and as YOU quoted- including the vast amount of time at hand.

    Sure, and when I pull those 100 numbered ping pong balls out of the bag at random I have exhausted ALL the probabilistic resources in the universe too.

    Only a moron would think so. So thanks for once again proving the obvious.

    I'd read on the web about just how dense you are, but it's something else to see it first hand.

    When morons call me "dense" I take it as a compliment. It should also be noted that not one of those morons can substantiate the claims of their position.

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    Where did you find the string?

    Let's say I found it on a piece of paper.

    Then it is obvious some intelligent agent put it there.

    What is the point of your investigation?

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    DNA and the Origin of Life:
    Information, Specification, and Explanation


    "Though the probability of assembling a functioning biomolecule or cell by chance
    alone is exceedingly small, it is important to emphasize that scientists have not generally
    rejected the chance hypothesis merely because of the vast improbabilities associated with
    these events. Very improbable things do occur by chance. Any hand of cards or any
    series of rolled dice, will represent a highly improbable occurrence. Observers often
    justifiably attribute such events to chance alone. What justifies the elimination of the
    chance is not just the occurrence of a highly improbable event, but the occurrence of an
    improbable event that also conforms to a discernible pattern, (indeed, to a conditionally
    independent pattern, see section 2.5)."-page 17


    On protein sequence specificity:

    "Functioning proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all;
    their amino acids must link up in a specific sequential arrangement just as the letters in a
    meaningful sentence must. In some cases, even changing one amino acid at a given site
    can result in loss of protein function. Moreover, because there are twenty biologically
    occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is
    small, i.e. 1/20. (Actually the probability is even lower because there are many nonproteineous
    amino acids in nature). On the assumption that all sites in a protein chain
    require one particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 100
    amino acids long would be (1/20)100 or roughly 1 chance in 10130. We know now, however, that some sites along the chain do tolerate several of the twenty proteineous
    amino acids, while others do not. The biochemist Robert Sauer of M.I.T has used a technique known as “cassette mutagenesis” to determine how much variance among
    amino acids can be tolerated at any given site in several proteins. His results have shown
    that, even taking the possibility of variance into account, the probability of achieving a
    functional sequence of amino acidsvi in several known (roughly 100 residue) proteins at
    random is still “vanishingly small,” about 1 chance in 1065—an astronomically large
    number [36; 58: 59; 60; 30, pp. 246-58]. (There are 1065 atoms in our galaxy) [60].
    Recently, Doug Axe of Cambridge University has used a refined mutagenesis technique
    to measure the sequence specificity of the protein Barnase (a bacterial RNase). Axe’s
    work suggests that previous mutagenesis experiments actually underestimated the
    functional sensitivity of proteins to amino acid sequence change because they presupposed (incorrectly) the context independence of individual residue changes [58]. If, in addition to the improbability of attaining proper sequencing, one considers the need for proper bonding and homochirality, the probability of constructing a rather short
    functional protein at random becomes so small (no more than 1 chance in 10125) as to
    appear absurd on the chance hypothesis. As Dawkins has said, “we can accept a certain
    amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much” [37, pp. 54, 139]." pages 15-16

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    "Though the probability of assembling a functioning biomolecule or cell by chance
    alone is exceedingly small, it is important to emphasize that scientists have not generally
    rejected the chance hypothesis merely because of the vast improbabilities associated with these events.


    There's your big problem right there Joe. Neither the theory of evolution nor anyone in the biological community thinks functioning biomolecules or cells arose strictly by chance alone.

    The preponderance of evidence is they arose via completely unguided natural processes that allowed for the development of more complex self replicators from simpler ones through the iterative process of mutations and differential reproductive success.

    You've only had that explained to you a hundred times, but you stil keep making the same stupid claim. Is it any wonder you're considered such a dork?

     
  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Thorton:
    "Sure, and when I pull those 100 numbered ping pong balls out of the bag at random I have exhausted ALL the probabilistic resources in the universe too. So whatever sequence I get must be designed!!

    Hallelujah!
    Hallelujah!

    I just proved the intelligent ping pong ball sequence designer exists!!


    Is this guy serious!?!?!?!?!

    And was he seriously trying to say he knows something about math, probabilistic resources, specified patterns, and probabilities?!?!?!?!?!

    I'd seriously just *LOVE* to see how he calculated for his above inference to design!

    Here, I'll even give him the equation, to start him off ...

    -log2(probabilistic resources * number of specified patterns of same probability * probability of the pattern in question)

    Oh, and he doesn't need to give an exact number. Even just an explanation of the math involved to reach the above pattern as a specification would be enough.

     
  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Wow, are you stupid, Joe. The fact that I found the string written on a piece of paper offers ZERO information ABOUT the string.

    Perhaps I just found something lying around in nature (a set of leaves, green and red let's say). I then wrote the corresponding values on a piece of paper: 1 = green, 0 = red.

    The fact that someone wrote them down does nothing to tell whether the string itself was designed.

    Someone gave you a degree in something?

    Then someone else employed you?

    That's amazing.

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The fact that I found the string written on a piece of paper offers ZERO information ABOUT the string.

    YOU are the asshole spouting off about some string of 1s and 0s.

    In order for me to say anything about it I would have to do the investigating first hand.

    No investigator in their right mind would take what you have to say and actually try to conduct an investigation from that alone.

    The fact that someone wrote them down does nothing to tell whether the string itself was designed.

    If someone wrote it down means it was designed. WHAT is was designed for or what it pertains to are other questions.

    To determine that requires a rigorous investigation.

    And yes I am stupid for letting an imbecile like you take up my time.

     
  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There's your big problem right there Joe. Neither the theory of evolution nor anyone in the biological community thinks functioning biomolecules or cells arose strictly by chance alone.

    You are pathetic. That is only part of one paragraph of a very long article.

    The theory of evolution is silent on the origins of living organsims and the biological community doesn't have a clue.

    From Meyer's article:

    "Thus, the need to explain the origin of specified information created an intractable dilemma for Oparin. On the one hand, if he invoked natural selection late in his scenario, then he would need to rely on chance alone to produce the highly complex and specified biomolecules necessary to self- eplication. On the other hand, if Oparin invoked natural selection earlier in the process of chemical evolution, before functional specificity in biomacromolecules would have arisen, he could give no account of natural selection could even function. Natural selection presupposes self- eplication system, but selfreplication requires functioning nucleic acids and proteins (or molecules approaching their complexity)—the very entities Oparin needed to explain. Thus, Dobzhansky would insist that, “prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms” [72, 73]."

    The preponderance of evidence is they arose via completely unguided natural processes that allowed for the development of more complex self replicators from simpler ones through the iterative process of mutations and differential reproductive success.

    Except that Meyer just refuted such a scenario.

    There isn't any evidence at all for that scenario. None, nada, zilch, zip. No data, no evidence and no observation supports that scenario.

    You've only had that explained to you a hundred times, but you stil keep making the same stupid claim.

    I am still waiting for the DATA. So far the data points to an intelligent design- that is why Dean Kenyon, once on the fore-front of chemical evolution, switched to ID, the scientific data. That is why Anthony Flew, once a prominent atheist now accepts ID.

    I have explained all this many times before. And that is why I know all evolutionitwits are intellectual cowards and drooling imbeciles.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CJYman,

    Unfortunately thorton is serious- these chumps are nothing but drooling screamers. Entertaining? Sometimes, sure.

    But in the end they are what they are.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, if someone wrote it down, that means that someone wrote it down. It says NOTHING about the string itself, only about the WRITING of the string.

    I could copy a string that someone had designed. Or, I could write down th values of a randomly generated string. They could be the same thing, we don't know.

    The writing has nothing to do with whether the string itself was designed.

    This argument is almost too stupid to believe, even coming from you.

     
  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What are the mechanisms of this rigorous investigation that you want to undertake? Anything specific? Could you give us your method of determining whether it is designed.

    Let's say you found this string in your email. That's all the info you have. I could email it to you if you like. That would be the starting point. From that, you tell me whether it was designed or not.

    You really have no idea how to go about an investigation. If you did, you'd be on the trail of whether or not my string is designed.

    Come on, Joe. What's the next investigative step? Do you know? I don't think you do.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, if someone wrote it down, that means that someone wrote it down.

    Which means it was written by an intelligent agent- ie it was designed.

    The writing has nothing to do with whether the string itself was designed.

    It does. It was designed by the person who wrote it.

    That is what an artifact is- something that some agency left behind. In this case the artifact is the string of 1s and 0s written on a piece of paper.

    What is the point of your investigation?

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What are the mechanisms of this rigorous investigation that you want to undertake?

    The FIRST thing is to determine what are we investigating and why.

    Then once I found that a dumbass moronic clown started it I would just shrug my shoulders, sigh and go home because I would realize that there isn't anything to investigate except the clown. And that would require a CAT scan to see if said clown even has a brain.

    Once the CAR scan came back showing that the clown was indeed without a brain I would rest my case.

    (to the tune of "My Name is Pancho")

    My name is blipey
    a pinhead like zippy.
    I'm neither man, nor woman nor gay.

    I'm not just a pinhead.
    In fact I am brain dead
    A dead brain that has rotten away.

    bye-bye clowny. Come back when you realize that the only way to refute ID is to actually evolve a spine, stand up and substantiate the claims of your position.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum up blipey's "challenge":

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    I point out that determining design relies on more than probability and that is what this thread is about.

    Had blipey actually read the artcle linked to in the OP he would have known that- actually seeing how long the dumbass clown has been involved in this debate it should have been obvious to it that the design inference relies on more than probability. I have told it that many times.

    I also point out that the string is canNOT be compressed.

    CJYman explains this fact.

    blipey ignores all of that- that is what an ignoramus does- and bumbles on regardless.

    I then press for details of the string and blipey becomes belligerent- even more so than usual.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. The writing is NOT a property of the string. Please. please, please! Tell me you will bring this argument to court with you! Please!

    If I write "RED" on a piece of paper, does that mean I wrote it in red? My guess is that it doesn't.

    If I copied a series of numbers onto a piece of paper, does that mean I designed the sequence?

    My guess is that it doesn't.

    If Joe gives blipey a sequence of numbers, which blipey then writes on a piece of paper, does that mean that blipey designed the sequence?

    Joe's answer: Yep

    Sane person's answer: Nope

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You didn't press for details, Joe. You've never asked one question about the string.

    What would you like to know about it?

    Remember, I can't tell you if it was designed or not--that would be cheating.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Once again, what does the writing of something have to do with the CONTENT of the something?

    Your argument is like saying that gasoline is made of dollar bills since we have to pay for gas.

    Please tell me you will bring this reasoning to the federal court system!

    PLEASE!

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, Joe. The writing is NOT a property of the string.

    I never said nor implied that it was.

    But thanks for once again proving that you are a dishonest moron.

    If Joe gives blipey a sequence of numbers, which blipey then writes on a piece of paper, does that mean that blipey designed the sequence?

    No. It does mean some agency, even an imbecilic moron, wrote the sequence on a piece of paper.

    You didn't press for details, Joe.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    The first is what is the purpose of the investigation. Next is what are we investigating. Also I asked how the numbers appeared- in your bitty little mind, on a piece of paper etc. More details requested.

    Once again, what does the writing of something have to do with the CONTENT of the something?

    Nothing and I never said nor implied otherwise.

    Ya see blipey YOU are just a demented and twisted fuckhead.

    And yes clowny, I plan on taking all my arguments to Court- that is if anyone actually steps up to stop what I have been doing for two years. Then all sane people will understand the intellectual cowardice inherent in all anti-IDists.

    To once again sum it up:

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?



    I point out that determining design relies on more than probability and that is what this thread is about.

    Had blipey actually read the artcle linked to in the OP he would have known that- actually seeing how long the dumbass clown has been involved in this debate it should have been obvious to it that the design inference relies on more than probability. I have told it that many times.

    I also point out that the string is canNOT be compressed.

    CJYman explains this fact.

    blipey ignores all of that- that is what an ignoramus does- and bumbles on regardless.

    I then press for details of the string and blipey becomes belligerent- even more so than usual.



    (Sonny & Cher in the background- "And the beat goes on...")

     
  • At 3:12 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: Had blipey actually read the artcle linked to in the OP he would have known that- actually seeing how long the dumbass clown has been involved in this debate it should have been obvious to it that the design inference relies on more than probability. I have told it that many times.

    LOL again! You are one of the funniest things on the web!

    Let me get this straight:

    1. You say a CSI value of >500 bits calculated strictly from the probability of an event occurring as Meyer did must indicate design.

    2. You say that we can't use strictly probabilities to indicate design.

    I bet you have a problem finding your ass with both hands, don't you?

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton also proves that he is a dishonest moron:

    1. You say a CSI value of >500 bits calculated strictly from the probability of an event occurring as Meyer did must indicate design.

    I didn't say that. As a matter of fact Meyer said:

    "What justifies the elimination of the chance is not just the occurrence of a highly improbable event, but the occurrence of an improbable event that also conforms to a discernible pattern, (indeed, to a conditionally independent pattern, see section 2.5)."

    Meyer calculated the CSI based on biological function coinciding with sequence specificty.

    IOW have just proven that you are a dishonest moron.

    2. You say that we can't use strictly probabilities to indicate design.

    That is EXACTLY what this thread is about- "Specification- The Pattern that Signifies Design".

    The thread is NOT "small probabilities- the slim chance that signifies design".

     
  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, since you never even implied that the content of the string was connected to the writing of it, what does writing it have to do with whether or not it was designed?

    I say nothing. You say otherwise.

    So, all bullshit aside, is my string designed or not? You've had 3 days to come up with an answer. That should be a breeze for a smart guy like you.

    So, what's your answer?

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Blipey: No, Joe. The writing is NOT a property of the string.

    JoeDipshit: I never said nor implied that it was.


    Just a few comments previously we had:

    Blipey: No, if someone wrote it down, that means that someone wrote it down.

    JoeAsshat: Which means it was written by an intelligent agent- ie it was designed.

    Blipey: The writing has nothing to do with whether the string itself was designed.

    Joe: It does. It was designed by the person who wrote it.


    Joe, do you fib so much your penis hurts?

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, since you never even implied that the content of the string was connected to the writing of it, what does writing it have to do with whether or not it was designed?

    As I said- once it is written on paper, typed, etched into a stone, it becomes an ARTIFACT.

    So, all bullshit aside, is my string designed or not?

    That would depend. If we keep it in the context of CJYman's example in the OP whether or not it was designed would depend on:

    Did the person doing the random bit flipping specify the sequence in question (blipey's sequence) before-hand? If "yes" then design would be inferred. If "no" then design would not be inferred.

    Do I expect you to understand that? No. But that is why you are a clown. Now go put on your make-up and juggle something.

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, are you so stupid that you're a fereaking clown?

    Oh, that's right, you are a freaking clown!

    If someone writes something down on paper it becomes an artifact.

    That does NOT mean the writing is the property of the string.

    It does mean that the agency writing can write it down in a manner it designs- that is unless it was pre-specified exactly how to write it down.

    And yes, once something becomes an artifact design is a given. But that doesn't make the writing the property of the string. The writing is just the recording/ binary representation of the string.

    Oh, your penis envy is duly noted.

     
  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    (to the tune of "My Name is Pancho")

    My name is blipey
    a pinhead like zippy.
    I'm neither man, nor woman nor gay.

    I'm not just a pinhead.
    In fact I am brain dead
    A dead brain that has rotten away.


    Ole'

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, again. You ARE stating that you can't ever know if my string was designed unless you ask me if it was designed?

    Come on, Joe. You just came across this string. If ID can't tell me whether or not it was designed, ID is useless.

    Since you claim ID is not useless, show me how it works.

    Is my string designed or not? If you can't answer this simple question, how are you supposed to convince people that ID has any worth?

    You haven't even gotten started on figuring out if the string is designed. ID = Completely useless.

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    And remember, Joe, ID states that nothing need be known about the designer in order to infer design.

    So, when you state:

    Did the person doing the random bit flipping specify the sequence in question (blipey's sequence) before-hand? If "yes" then design would be inferred. If "no" then design would not be inferred.

    you are NOT doing ID work. ID claims to be able to recognize design without knowing ANYTHING abut the designer.

    So, is my string designed or not?

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hmm Joe. So if I draw the sun, did I design the sun? Man wrote the Bible - proof there is no god? Aren't you supposed to be able to do it on information content alone.

    How much CSI is "SNAKE OIL"?

     
  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: Did the person doing the random bit flipping specify the sequence in question (blipey's sequence) before-hand? If "yes" then design would be inferred. If "no" then design would not be inferred.

    So in other words, if someone tells you the sequence was designed then your giant brain can infer it was designed. If someone tells you the sequence wasn't designed then you can infer it wasn't designed.

    Damn Joe, The EF of yours sure has some practical value!

    So tell me Joe, where did you go to see the exact pre-specified sequence for that 600K base pair minimal genome before the DNA researchers sequenced it?

     
  • At 7:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So if I draw the sun, did I design the sun?

    No Richie Retardo- IF you could follow what I stated- if you draw the sun then you designed the drawing.

    That drawing is an artifact- artifacts, by definition, are designed.

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You ARE stating that you can't ever know if my string was designed unless you ask me if it was designed?

    Only a moron would think so.

    TRY to stay in context. The context, as I have explained, pertains to CJYman's example:

    "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"


    Come on, Joe. You just came across this string.

    Again if it was on a piece of paper then it is an artifact. Therefor it is designed.

    Or do you think that nature, operating freely, can put a binary sequence on a piece of paper?

    What else do you want?

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JG: Did the person doing the random bit flipping specify the sequence in question (blipey's sequence) before-hand? If "yes" then design would be inferred. If "no" then design would not be inferred.

    So in other words, if someone tells you the sequence was designed then your giant brain can infer it was designed. If someone tells you the sequence wasn't designed then you can infer it wasn't designed.

    Only twisted minds can infer that from what I said. So it figures the moron triplets would all come to the same inference.

    So tell me Joe, where did you go to see the exact pre-specified sequence for that 600K base pair minimal genome before the DNA researchers sequenced it?

    "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"


    CSI has ALWAYS been about biological function.

     
  • At 7:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another prediction fulfilled!!!:

    Did the person doing the random bit flipping specify the sequence in question (blipey's sequence) before-hand? If "yes" then design would be inferred. If "no" then design would not be inferred.

    Do I expect you to understand that? No. But that is why you are a clown. Now go put on your make-up and juggle something.


    Ya see no one knows the outcome, except for the person "randomly" flipping the bits. IOW no one has to tell me anything about the designer except that the ending sequence of 30 bits was EXACTLY as said flipper stated before the flipping started.

    IOW say I was passing a crowd of people. One guy grabs me and explains the amazing thing that Criss Angel just did- Criss predicted an outcome of a 30 bit binary sequence.

    Interested I ask how he did it. The guy tells me that Criss started out with a 30 bit binary sequence displayed. He then was blid-folded and pressed the buttons under each number. After each digit he was lead back to the start and turned around several times. And after just 30 flips he achieved the desired sequence!

    I shake my head and walk away.

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    What else do I want? I want you to tell me if the binary sequence was designed?

    Don't tell me that paper was designed.

    Don't tell me that it takes intelligence to write it down.

    Tell me if the sequence-in and of itself-is designed.

    Is it a randomly generated sequence of numbers?

    Did I design it in some way?

    How do you know?

    Put your money where your mouth is, Joe.

    USE ID to DO something. Anything.

     
  • At 11:06 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Excellent last comment, Joe, as it shows that Pre-Specifications can be and indeed already have been used to detect plagiarism and "cheating." This has already been discussed by Dembski. Specifications take the concept just one step further, as a specification uses the same math, but the event doesn't have to be pre-specified by anyone. The event is specified all on its own. ie: biological function is specified by RNA passing across a communication channel whether we human investigators want it to or not.

    But, then again, if Blipey and Thorton did some of their own research, they should know this by now and I wouldn't have to do all their homework for them.

    Blipey:
    "You ARE stating that you can't ever know if my string was designed unless you ask me if it was designed?"


    ... Only in the case of pre-specified patterns, where we already know a certain pattern was intelligently chosen ... ie: the chriss angel example mentioned by Joe above.


    blipey:
    "Come on, Joe. You just came across this string. If ID can't tell me whether or not it was designed, ID is useless."


    When it comes to a specification, the error is made on the side of caution. With your chosen pattern, measuring for a specification, strictly using only pattern and no other context (ie: it's written on lined 11" X 8" paper) we can only know that the probabilistic resources are equal to all those provided by the universe, and since the pattern is algorithmically random (highly incompressible) our measurement will not give us a specification.

    blipey:
    "Since you claim ID is not useless, show me how it works."


    Ummm that's what we've been doing. As I noted above, pre-specifications identify plagiarism or "cheating." Now, can you come up with a specification (CSI) by random processes -- only a random set of laws, random variables, and chance.

    Here, let's set up a little experiment. Start with 30 randomly generated bits. Now, spin them to your hearts content and see if you ever generate CSI. It's about time you started backing up your position (whatever that is).

    thorton:
    "So tell me Joe, where did you go to see the exact pre-specified sequence for that 600K base pair minimal genome before the DNA researchers sequenced it?"


    That is an example of a specification as opposed to a pre-specification. The coded pattern creating function existed before anyone discovered it. Then, it was discovered to be functionally specified. Well, wadya know ...

     
  • At 11:24 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Hi Joe. I generally try to stay away from you these days. You scared me the last time we met on the web. But something drew me back to your blog, and I've been reading up on this thread. I want to understand something. You seem to be implying that any string of 1s and 0s written down by a person must be designed. Do you mean that, although the the number sequence itself may be random, the piece of paper with the sequence on it must be designed? I'm just trying to understand where the distinction lies. Seriously. Try to tell me if I've got this right without insulting me, please, and without repeating my real name. We know that you know it. There's no reason to invade my privacy, since I have never invaded yours and have, in fact, protected it. Can you do me that courtesy? Thanks.

     
  • At 11:44 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Let me clarify my question. If you see a piece of paper with letters written in human handwriting on it, you know that, whether the sequence was designed or not, the writing on the paper was. Have I got that right?

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

    Hi Joe. I generally try to stay away from you these days. You scared me the last time we met on the web.

    LoL!! IF I scared you then you were already afraid.

    You seem to be implying that any string of 1s and 0s written down by a person must be designed.

    I am saying that anything written down becomes an arifact. An artifact, by definition, is something made by some agency.

    IOW nature, operatinmg freely, couldn't have produced it.

    And that is what ID and ALL design-centric venues do- determine what some agency did vs, what nature, operating freely can do.

    Do you mean that, although the the number sequence itself may be random, the piece of paper with the sequence on it must be designed?

    Correct- the sequence would then be irrelevant.

    Say I was doing my spelunker thing. And while in a cave I saw that sequence of 1s and 0s etched on the walls of one of the caverns.

    I could and would infer that some intelligent agency had been there and I would set out looking for more clues.

    Now go back to my "Criss Angel" example. Let's change it so that instead of Criss Angel picking the final sequence, he was on TV and told a large TV audience (say 1 billion people), to pick a sequence.

    Then even if one person guessed the correct finished sequence I would not infer that sequence was the result of intentional design.

    Pretty much like lotteries are run.

    However if lotteries only allowed ONE person to buy a ticket per drawing, and that pperson, whoever it was, won consistently, someone would infer the lottery was fixed.

    But in that same scenario with no one ever winning the lottery people would believe that chance is at play.

    And herm- you didn't protect my privacy- you protected those who may have shown up at my house or place of work.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thorton,

    It could have turned out that living organisms are NOT dependent on sequence specificity- meaning any sequence of nucleotides could have spawned living organisms.

    Then ID would never have been formulated.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CJYman,

    Again we must remember who we are dealing with.

    Drooling morons have their own agenda and they don't care about reality.

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What else do I want? I want you to tell me if the binary sequence was designed?

    Again design detection is not conducted in a vacuum you moronic twit.

    Whether or not the sequence was designed depends on the context.

    As I told hermagoras:

    Say I was doing my spelunker thing. And while in a cave I saw that sequence of 1s and 0s etched on the walls of one of the caverns.

    I could and would infer that some intelligent agency had been there and I would set out looking for more clues.

    Now go back to my "Criss Angel" example. Let's change it so that instead of Criss Angel picking the final sequence, he was on TV and told a large TV audience (say 1 billion people), to pick a sequence.

    Then even if one person guessed the correct finished sequence I would not infer that sequence was the result of intentional design.

    Pretty much like lotteries are run.

    However if lotteries only allowed ONE person to buy a ticket per drawing, and that pperson, whoever it was, won consistently, someone would infer the lottery was fixed.

    But in that same scenario with no one ever winning the lottery people would believe that chance is at play.


    And again I don't expect you to understand that.

    IOW you may as well go wallow in your ignorance.

     
  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Thanks Joe.

    Okay, let me tell you the story of two friends.

    My first friend sleepwalks. But it's a strange form of sleepwalking. Every night, she gets up, goes downstairs to the kitchen table, grabs a sheet of paper and starts writing. Nothing but strings of 1s and 0s. She fills up a single page with these numbers, then leaves it there and goes upstairs and back to sleep. She never remembers doing any of this in the morning.

    My second friend is in an institution. (I know, I know.) He had a traumatic brain injury and all his higher functions seem to be gone. He has ceased talking or communicating with anybody at all. Nobody knows how much of a person is left. He eats and shits and sleeps, but that's about all.

    Except that he spends all day, every day, filling sheet after sheet of paper with 1s and 0s. Isn't that amazing? Sometimes he'll go on just writing 0s -- hundreds in a row -- sometimes he'll alternate 10101010, and sometimes the sequence will seem random. But still, he's utterly catatonic and shows no signs of intelligence whatsoever.

    My question is: is the writing on all of those sheets designed? Is only some? And if so, how do you know which is designed and which not?

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JG: It could have turned out that living organisms are NOT dependent on sequence specificity- meaning any sequence of nucleotides could have spawned living organisms.

    Then ID would never have been formulated.


    So how did you or the IDists figure out that the sequences we see today are the only ones that are capable of producing life?

    Out of Meyer's estimated 4^300,000 possible nucleotide sequences for a minimal genome, what percentage will self replicate? 10%? 5%? .001%?

    You currently have a sample set of ONE. That is equivalent to saying "Well, the guy who won last week's big Powerball lottery must have cheated. The number picked must have been intelligently designed, because the number selected was very improbable, and his big cash prize was dependent on the sequence specificity of the numbers he picked."

    I notice you are now editing or refusing to post some of my comments. Should I call Ben Stein and report another case of censorship?

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I notice you are now editing or refusing to post some of my comments.

    That's because I have noticed that you have never provided one piece of data that would substantiate YOUR position.

    If you want to post on my blog you have to follow my rules:

    Attention All anti-IDists

    and

    Your Attention Please Blog Comments

    As we have been telling you morons for years ALL you have to do to make ID go away to to actually substantiate the claims made by your position.

    for example you ask:

    So how did you or the IDists figure out that the sequences we see today are the only ones that are capable of producing life?

    There you go- find other sequences that will work- just as I said:

    It could have turned out that living organisms are NOT dependent on sequence specificity- meaning any sequence of nucleotides could have spawned living organisms.

    Design is a scientific inference based on our current knowledge.

    THAT is how ALL scientific inferences are made- based on the available data, evidence and observations.

    BTW, I have also noticed that your comments are absent in all of my blogs pertaining to biology. Why is that?

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks Joe.

    You're welcome

    Okay, let me tell you the story of two friends.

    Not interested.

    What I am interested in is YOU actually finding and posting the scientific data which supports your position that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

    Heck I would even settle for the scientific data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans and then tie that to genetic accidents (ie couple the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences).

    We know there are differences in the protein-coding reions, yet those prtein products all function the same- that is they perform the same task. So those genetic differences can't explain the physiological and anatomical differences unless you call upon some magical mystery process, that nature cobbled together, that allows for similar protein function yet very different body plans.

    But anyways- for sleep walkers I would put stuff all around their bed, perhaps even some tacks- yeah, that's the ticket- and when they did their sleepwalking thing they would stumble over the obstacles and impale themselves with tacks.

    But that's just me...

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible. And that is exactly what has happened.

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Earth to the moron thorton,

    All I want is for YOU to substantiate YOUR claim that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

    The following is also asking YOU to suport YOUR claims:

    Heck I would even settle for the scientific data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans and then tie that to genetic accidents (ie couple the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences).

    We know there are differences in the protein-coding reions, yet those prtein products all function the same- that is they perform the same task. So those genetic differences can't explain the physiological and anatomical differences unless you call upon some magical mystery process, that nature cobbled together, that allows for similar protein function yet very different body plans.


    There is a reason why there isn't anything to be found in peer-reviewed journals demonstrating that either is possible, never mind the mechanism.

    However it is obvious that you would rather live your life spewing shit with your head up your ass.

    Now I understand the reason why your comments are absent from my blogs dealing with biology.

    Do you have to sit back from your keyboard to prevent the drool from ruining it? Or do you use a keyboard cover?

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    So, I've been gone for a few hours ... has anyone shown an example of CSI forming from a random set of laws , random variables, and chance (absent intelligence) yet?

    BTW: a person who is incoherently writing a string of ones and zeros would most likely not produce CSI since we are indeed assuming that the person is incoherent (unable to reflect on how their actions impact the future). Thus, the patterns produced will all average out to be around the mark of statistical randomness.

    But what if the person is writing a long sting of 1s? Well, first we must find out if they are capable of writing anything else or else the probability of the string = 1. If it doesn't, then calculate for a specification.

    If a specification is produced, in that case they may be subconsciously thinking something such as, "wow, this line looks pretty" and continue to mind numbingly produce a long string of ones or the person may be reflexively writing something that was created while they were intelligent (in the sense of being coherent). In those cases, we know that the pattern is not created by complete chance, and we have good reason to suspect some type of barely functioning intelligence behind the pattern. Further psychological investigation may proceed to discover this barely functioning intelligence.

    Furthermore, if a cryptographer was to examine those seemingly random 1s and 0s and discovered an extremely highly improbable (beyond probabilistic resources) specified pattern (ie: coherent coded message), then you would definitely have some reason to infer intelligent action. Maybe the person is channeling something, maybe the subconscious is tapping into something, maybe the person is just faking their incoherence.

    [cue music] "This example was brought to you by the design inference, a registered trademark of Intelligent Design Theory; in conjunction with Specifications and the Explanatory Filter.

    Product not guaranteed to work with those who refuse to understand the relevant concepts. In that case side effects may include
    1. blind drivel about how said concepts are useless
    2 overwhelming compulsion to save the world from IDiots
    3 incoherent rambling and posting the same questions which have been answered millions of times
    4 refusal to actually read relevant answers and explanations and
    5 an elated feeling of being "above" all relevant explanations and ID research.

    As brains are not included with product, the consumer is recommended to supply his or her own brain."[fade out]

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, you refer to my supposed "position that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes." As this is not my position, I don't need to offer evidence for it.

    But I still don't know whether the writing on those sheets of paper is designed or not.

     
  • At 12:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you refer to my supposed "position that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes." As this is not my position, I don't need to offer evidence for it.

    What is your position? And what is your issue with ID?

    But I still don't know whether the writing on those sheets of paper is designed or not.

    Are you telling me that you think tat nature, operating freely, could have put that writing on the paper? Just what do you think the options are?

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, I don't take a position on the origin of life. And neither, I think, does evolution. I don't have an "issue" with ID except that I don't think it's science.

    As for the writing on the paper. I don't think nature ever operates "freely." But those examples seem to be to be both produced by humans and produced without purpose or active intelligence. That is to say, those strings of 1s and 0s seem truly to be the outcome of undirected firings in the brain. I wonder if they falsify your claim that anything produced by a person becomes an artifact and is designed. These seem like undesigned artifacts to me.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, I don't take a position on the origin of life.

    Then you take the position of an intellectual coward for trying to disparage those who do.

    And neither, I think, does evolution.

    I blogged about that:

    Origin of Life and Evolution- why the connection cannot be broken

    I don't have an "issue" with ID except that I don't think it's science.

    Why? ID doesn't have an issue with evolution. It just has an issue with blind, unguided processes as having sole domion over the processes.

    IOW I bet you don't think ID is science because you don't understand what ID is and what is being debated.

    For example how is it scientific to say that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor and that the differences are due to genetic accidents, when that premise cannot be objectively tested?

    And what happens when the SAME data that is used to "confirm" universal common descent can also be used tgo "confirm" alternative views?

    As for the writing on the paper. I don't think nature ever operates "freely."

    So do you think there are invisible angels writing things down?

    But those examples seem to be to be both produced by humans and produced without purpose or active intelligence.

    The example of the etchings in the cave- I would love to see some unactive intelligence do that.

    Just because YOU don't see the purpose doesn't mean there isn't one.

    As for the writing on the paper for all we know it was someone who translated the number 598,066,645 into binary.

    That is why the context is importatnt. And that is why people like you avoid it.

    That is to say, those strings of 1s and 0s seem truly to be the outcome of undirected firings in the brain.

    That's blipey for ya. Do you expect anything but undirected firings from a clown?

    I wonder if they falsify your claim that anything produced by a person becomes an artifact and is designed.

    Talk to Webster, Oxford and all the other valid reference books about it.

    I do understand that you need to redefine words to suit your needs, but that is another sign of intellectual cowardice.

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    I remember the Origin of Life blog. That was the one where you pretended to be smarter than a Johns Hopkins physicist because he wouldn't play your freshman philosophy games. Good times, good times.

    You still haven't answered my question about my friends (the ones who write 1s and 0s while either dreaming or without higher brain function). Are the strings of 1s and 0s they produce designed or not?

     
  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I remember the Origin of Life blog.

    Good for you. I remember you didn't post a response. Again a sign of intellectual cowardice.

    That was the one where you pretended to be smarter than a Johns Hopkins physicist because he wouldn't play your freshman philosophy games.

    Umm Oleg avoided the issue altogether. Mine is not a philosophic issue- it is reality.

    That being if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes then there would be no reason to infer their subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    Logic 101.

    Ya see hermy, the ONLY reason why the two are kept separate is there isn't any evidence to support a non-telic OoL.

    But get life started and then an imaginary tale can take the place of science.

    It is a good story- imperfect replicators, slowly but surely, climbing up the ladder they are building. Sometimes to all but get wiped out and start again.

    Nice story, zero substance.

    You still haven't answered my question about my friends

    First you have to prove that you have any friends.

    Then you will actually have to substantiate your position and tell me why the anti-ID position is scientific and if it isn't what are you doing to stop its spread?

    But anyways- for sleep walkers I would put stuff all around their bed, perhaps even some tacks- yeah, that's the ticket- and when they did their sleepwalking thing they would stumble over the obstacles and impale themselves with tacks.

    But that's just me...

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    The Mystery is Revealed!!!!

     
  • At 3:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hermagoras,

    When you said:
    Okay, let me tell you the story of two friends.

    And I responded:
    Not interested.

    It means that I did not read your post beyond that point.

    (However the word "sleepwalks" caught my eye-it was in close proximity to the last sentence that I had read)

    I don't care about stories. I care about scientific data and it appears that once again you are unwilling and unable to provide any.

    That seems par for the course for all anti-IDists.

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Fantastic! We have an answer. Joe has determined that my string was designed. He has come down firmly on the side of design!

    Can we see the equation he used to determine this? Uh, no.

    Can we examine the experiment he did to determine design? Uh, no.

    We can, however, look at his process:

    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible.


    That's right. It's designed because Joe thinks it is. Now, THAT'S SCIENCE!!!

    Nice work, Joe. Are you going to take this argument to court? Please.

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can we see the equation he used to determine this?

    Do you think archaeologists and forensic scientists are limited to equations when conducting their business?

    How naive are you?

    Can we examine the experiment he did to determine design?

    We can look at the data. That data demonstrates without any doubt that you are a twisted moron bent on deception and misrepresentation.

    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible.


    That's right. It's designed because Joe thinks it is.

    That's wrong. I came to the design inference for the reason provided.

    Nice work, Joe. Are you going to take this argument to court? Please.

    No worries clowny. In Court your side will HAVE to answer the questions posed.

    ALL intelectual cowards will be exposed.

    IOW my day in Court will be the beginning of the end of your type of Nazi academics.

     
  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hermagoras, Blipey, and Joe G:

    Hermagoras, here is an answer to your question.

    Blipey, if you understand what I'm saying here, you can figure out the answer to *your* question.

    Joe G, I can understand that some people who ask questions here don't really want an answer, however just in case Hermagoras does, I've decided to answer him and see if he wants to actually engage in rational discussion.

    Just a little something that everyone here needs to remember:

    A specification technically only measures what chance and law on its own will not do. The reason that we *infer* intelligence, is for 4 reasons (in fact some are very similar to how past evolution is inferred):

    1. Intelligence is another causal factor aside from chance and law because intelligence can control law and chance to produce a future target, however law and chance are blind.

    2. Intelligence has been observed creating specifications.

    3. To date there is no known specification, in which we know the cause, which has been generated absent intelligence.

    4. According to recent information theroems and experiments with information processing sysems and EAs, intelligence is necessary for consistently better than chance results (equating consistently better than chance results with perpetual motion machines). The better than chance results of evolution are balanced with knowledge of the problem/target incorporated into the behavior of the algorithm, thus guiding it to the solution.

    Since CSI measures what chance and law (absent intelligence) will not produce, then it errs on the side of caution. ie: if an intelligent agent writes down a random string of 1s and 0s (ignoring the fact that it is written on a piece of lined 8" X 11" piece of paper, which itself may measure as a specification) then there will be no CSI measured. This only tells us that the string itself carries no signs of intelligence.

    Therefore, a specification may not catch every single case of intelligent action, however everything that it *does* catch is *necessarily* a result of intelligence. So far, no one has shown any different.

    Furthermore, the issue of artifact on an intuitive level that Joe G brought up is relevant since most of us could look at something and intuitively realize the difference between an intelligently produced artifact and something that only law and chance has produced. However, it must be remembered that the intuitive case is different than the scientific case as based on measurements of specification.

    So, now let's look at the sleepwalking example, and let's measure for a specification of the pattern (ignoring any other context other than the string itself).

    "100011101001011100010111010101"

    I ask what the pattern represents so that I can calculate probabilities and resources.

    You answer, "oh just a pattern chosen out of an equal probability of 1s and 0s that was arrived at in one trial."

    "Then, let's continue":

    The above string is algorithmically incompressible (and also quite close to statistical randomness -- although there should be one set of four 1s and one set of four 0s). Since algorithmically incompressible strings take up the majority of possible patterns, our measure of specificity will be at least 1/2.

    Let's check the equation:

    -log2 [probabilistic resources (size of trial * number of trials) * specificity (number of specified patterns or unspecified patterns depending on pattern in question * probability of pattern in question)]
    -log2 [30 * 1 * 536870912 * 1/1073741824]
    -log2 [30 * 1 * 1/2]
    -log2 [15] = approx -3.9

    Therefore, no intelligence and the string itself is not *necessarily* the result of intelligence. Hence, we default to merely chance and laws as per the explanatory filter.

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CJYman,

    Seeing that I have featured a couple of your posts in a couple blogs it is obvious that I respect and accept what you say.

    However just answering their questions is no fun. No fun at all I tell you! ;)

    For ONCE I would love them to produce some scientific data that would support their position.

    Disparaging ID is not going to change the fact that their position is hopelessly defenseless.

    But anyways- you now know where the fun is- and come on you must have smiled at my binary conversion scenario...

     
  • At 8:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Awesome! This IS science, for we have a disagreement.

    Joe says that the string IS designed.

    Reasoning?

    He apparently saw the assignment given to a bunch of students. I find this hard to believe.

    cjyman says the string IS NOT designed.

    Reasoning?

    The string is sufficiently random enough to have "not necessarily" required intelligence to design it.

    Now, both will publish their results and may the best theory win.

    Good luck Joe.

     
  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Context, you brain-cell challenged clown.

    Context, which is something I asked YOU, the provider of the string, to provide.

    I came to the design inference in the context YOU specified- that the sequence was written on a piece of paper.

    I then followed up on that initial information myself because YOU were unwilling to help out.

    Now that I have solved the case you get all sourpuss about it- just because I didn't let you tag along.

    He apparently saw the assignment given to a bunch of students.

    I saw the RESULT of a question posed to a math class.

    I find this hard to believe.

    I find it hard to believe you have the capacity to use a computer, yet here you are.

    cjyman says the string IS NOT designed.

    Context- that tricky yet importatnt part you keep avoiding.

    Another sign of intellectual cowardice.

    But anyways CJYman solved it in the context of his example in the OP- with the given that the flipper didn't have anything riding on any particular outcome.

    And he did offer the caveat:

    "Therefore, no intelligence and the string itself is not *necessarily* the result of intelligence. Hence, we default to merely chance and laws as per the explanatory filter."

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    CJYman, Thanks for your polite and considered explanation. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with you about (for example) precisely what the NFL theorems have shown. And I certainly don't agree with you about evolutionary algorithms. Dembski and Marks have already withdrawn one pre-publication version of their attack on Schneider, which was riddled with major errors. I doubt they'll manage to get the latest one published, but if they do, I imagine they'll have to withdraw it too.

    But that's not what I was asking about. I was interested in a side claim Joe seems to have made: that is, that all number strings of any length, written down by a human being, are designed inasmuch as the writing itself, not the sequence, speaks to intelligent directed activity. I wanted to know if these hypothetical examples were exceptions to this rule or confirmations of it, or if Joe can't tell. (Aside to Joe: they're hypothetical examples, not real people. Since your blog is called "Intelligent Reasoning" rather than "Endless Insults," I thought you might consider the examples in the long and noble tradition of thought experiments -- part of the history of reasoning to be sure.)

    CJYman, what do you think of this claim of Joe's, if indeed he has made such a claim? Do you buy it?

     
  • At 11:51 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hey Joe,

    Your binary conversion scenario was good. It actually showed how scientific investigation is performed with context. You made an excellent point.

    ... and your example was creative ... a good response to blipey.

    Now, I guess, as you said "we'll just have to wait for them to produce evidence for their position ... whatever that is.

    ... later ...

     
  • At 11:57 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    And yes ... the fun sometimes is in a good ol' rhetorical hidden insult flinging battle. ;)

    I can honestly see why you get so sarcastic sometimes ... I'm actually more like that myself in the "real world."

    CJYman

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hermagoras,

    I don't insult people, I make observations.

    And every observation I have made pertaining to anti-IDists is spot on.

    If you don't like my observations then change the way you try to debate.

    I STILL don't care about your story. I am not interested in any of your games.

    ALL I am interested in is for you to show us how the anti-ID position is scientific when not even the most basic of objective testing cannot be conducted to confirm it.

    As far as evolutionary algorithms go- you guys will have a point when they do not require ANY agency intervention.

    As for EAs that humans construct- they will only be good when we understand what makes an organism what it is and what mutations can really do.

    That is because if we think that mutations can bring about endless changes that is how we program the EAs.

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I certainly don't agree with you about evolutionary algorithms. Dembski and Marks have already withdrawn one pre-publication version of their attack on Schneider, which was riddled with major errors.

    Are you talking about his "Evolution of Biological Information" article?

    If so then you should read the following-

    Tom Schnieder’s ‘the And-multiplication Error’ Article Refuted

    Note this response:

    "Ev starts with a population of creatures with random chromosomes. Part of the chromosome contains a "gene" with a weighting matrix and a threshold. The other portion of the chromosome has certain positions chosen to be the binding sites.

    On each cycle, *every* position on the chromosome is evaluated with the gene to see if it binds there. Mistakes are counted when the selected positions are not bound, and when other positions are bound by mistake. The half of the creatures with the most mistakes are killed off and replaced by clones of the better half. Mutations are performed each cycle.

    The goal of Ev is to show that the Shannon information content of the chromosome can increase from zero to a (turns out) predictable number of bits over time. It does so. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the evolution of the modern protein synthesis mechanism.

    Ev does demonstrate the evolution of a code, however."


    and this refutation:

    The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
    Has Tom Schneider Really Solved It?


    Or is there anthor article by Schneider?

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey clowny-

    To the guy living in a second story apartment his floor is below him.

    To the guy living in the first floor apartment, the second story floor is above him.

    Can you believe that!!? The floor is both below and above at the same time!!!!!

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you're saying that the string is both designed and not designed? That's great. That's why we like you Joe. You're funny, even if only by accident. My offer training is still good. If you'd like to harness your innate abilities, my classes are very reasonably priced.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    cjyman,

    I really don't understand how you could say that Joe's classroom scenario is a good response to the question at hand.

    It failed to address any of the problems brought up in previous posts. Your answer dealt with details brought up both by myself and you--a reasonable comment based on previously presented data.

    Joe made some shit up (not in a "suppose this happened" manner) and used it as if it were real data. It failed to address any of the points such as recording the color of leaves as one walks by, etc. It did not address the string itself, but only addressed one specific instance where we already knew design was a factor.

    He created a scenario in which design was the only outcome possible and then concluded that design occurred.

    If ID is supposed to be able to distinguish between designed and undesigned, shouldn't Joe come up with a scenario where both outcomes are equally likely?

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You don't insult people, jackass? That's comical. Do you even read your own blog? How about your ow comments? We already know that you don't read the comments of other people before replying to them (by your own admission to Hermagoras).

    I eagerly await your claim that you have read all of Hermagoras's comments in their entirety and that this claim somehow doesn't conflict with:

    It means that I did not read your post beyond that point.

    That should be fantastically entertaining.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, Schneider has responded to Truman here. His response to various creationist claims is here. Dembski and Marks's errors and response are chronicled here. Note that, among creationist critics, only Dembski and Marks have tried to get their "refutation" published in a legitimate scientific journal. They withdrew the first attempt and have been unable to get the latest version published.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We already know that you don't read the comments of other people before replying to them (by your own admission to Hermagoras).

    That's wrong. I didn't respond to that part I didn't read.

    I eagerly await your claim that you have read all of Hermagoras's comments in their entirety and that this claim somehow doesn't conflict with

    Except that since CJYman responded to it and hermy replied, I have read that post in its entirety.

    And now hermy admits he made it up!

    Aside to Joe: they're hypothetical examples, not real people.

    So why aren't you riding him for making up a scenario?

    So, you're saying that the string is both designed and not designed?

    It all depends on the CONTEXT.

    But thanks for proving, once again, that you are an imbecilic moron- that is not an insult, just an observation based on your ignorance-driven responses.

     
  • At 12:40 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are you going to admit that you made up the classroom scenario?

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hermagoras,

    The "response" to Truman is a joke. I followed the first link- alleged multiplication errors- and he didn't provede ANY data which would demonstrate that a protein of 300 amino acids could evolve from non-living matter.

    He just utters some simplistic stuff about probabilities saying that's not how it goes. Yet he never provides any data to refute the premise at hand.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Are you going to admit that the theory of evolution is based on made up narratives?

    I have the same amount of scientific data that supports my classroom scenario as you can provide that would demonstrate that the transformation of land mammal to fully aquatic mammal is possible via an accumulation of genetic accidents, is possible.

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hello Hermagoras,

    you write:
    "CJYman, Thanks for your polite and considered explanation."


    You're welcome. I try my best with what information I have. Your turn.

    Hermagoras:
    "And I certainly don't agree with you about evolutionary algorithms. Dembski and Marks have already withdrawn one pre-publication version of their attack on Schneider, which was riddled with major errors."


    The err was actually on the side of the program (a bug actually). Garbage in Garbage out. The error was acknowledged and the updated version is now online.

    If you don't agree, at least please provide come evidence that a random set of laws and variables acting in conjunction with nothing but chance will generate an information processing system that will follow an evolutionary algorithm to produce consistently better than chance performance. But, then of course your gonna have to refute or somehow wiggle around this:

    "A "learner... that achieves at least mildly than better-than-chance performance, on average, ... is like a perpetual motion machine - conservation of generalization performance precludes it.”

    --Cullen Schaffer on the Law of Conservation of Generalization Performance. Cullen Schaffer, "A conservation law for generalization performance," in Proc. Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, H. Willian and W. Cohen. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1994, pp.295-265.

    Better than chance performance is offset by active information, which is characteristics of the future problem to be solved being programmed into the behaviour of the search algorithm (which is almost an exact quote by the authors of the NFLT).

    I can honestly see why Joe gets so frustrated sometimes. His position *is* the common sense intuitive one -- taking into consideration that we must constantly remind ourselves, when looking at life, that it is not the product of intelligence -- and as I've attempted to show, it is backed up by COI Theroems, NFL Theorems, the math behind CSI, and the experimental evidence that Marks and Dembski are working on. All we are asking for is some type of experimental data or theoretical foundation for your position and you won't even provide us with a concise summary of your position.

    Hermagoras:
    "I doubt they'll manage to get the latest one published, but if they do, I imagine they'll have to withdraw it too."


    Sure, they'll withdraw it ... if it contains errors. But, lets see what the batting average is. No one can provide any evidence of CSI being generated through random processes. The last error re: active information was a direct error of the program itself in question. No one has even attempted to attack the mathematical foundation yet as far as I can see.

    So, what are your doubts founded upon? Blind faith on your part? Sorry for being a little sarcastic but now can you see what I feel like I'm dealing with? Furthermore, since Joe G's online personality is a little different than mine, I can see how some commentors make him go crazy sarcastic just as much as I'm sure a fundamentalist religious nutjob would make you go crazy as you try to reason with him. My apologies for the "nutjob" part. I personally don't see you as a nutjob ... just someone who refuses to look at evidence and won't back up their own position with evidence.

    Hermagoras:
    "But that's not what I was asking about. I was interested in a side claim Joe seems to have made: that is, that all number strings of any length, written down by a human being, are designed inasmuch as the writing itself, not the sequence, speaks to intelligent directed activity."


    Joe is attempting to make an extremely valid point re: context to show that a random string can indeed be an *artifact* of intelligence depending on context.

    Hermagoras:
    "CJYman, what do you think of this claim of Joe's, if indeed he has made such a claim? Do you buy it?"


    I buy the claim that context is extremely important and that in the context that he provided, after some investigation, it was discovered that the string was the result of intelligent action. That is an example of something that a specification may not catch but further investigation could catch.

    Then there's blipey's example which is very hard to deal with because there is not enough contextual information (other than the sheet of paper could be a pre-specified artifact because it matches a pattern that we know intelligence is capable of -- straight sided 8" X 11" lined paper -- and if I remember the exchange correctly, this is something that Joe took into consideration).

    It seems that Joe's style is more along the lines of the investigative aspect as put out by Mike Gene in the Design Matrix and my style is more along the lines of the mathematical, probabilistic, theoretical, and experimental aspects as put out in the COI and NFL Theorems and by CSI, active information, and experimental work with information processing systems and evolutionary algorithms. Both styles are perfectly complimentary and necessary in a scientific investigation.

    It seems that the frustration and endless sarcasm on Joe's part is brought about by no one being able to answer his claim re: how to test and confirm the non-telic position. Have you bothered to provide any evidence (observations) or even theoretical foundation that information processing systems, evolutionary algorithms, and CSI will generate themselves absent previous intelligent cause?

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, Truman assumes that "step-wise development of binding sites by random mutations is not reasonable" (from his paper). So his calculations are all based on the premise that a protein must evolve all at once.

    However, as Schneider notes:
    But as everybody learns in school, only independent probabilities can be multiplied. Every step in the evolution of a protein is dependent on the previous steps. Therefore it is incorrect to multiply amino acid probabilities, and the computation is wrong. Selective processes can work with even a slight advantage and as many computer simulations show will rapidly converge on a good solution. This has spawned the field of designing things like airplane wings by selective processes.

    Truman repeats Spetner's error (among others). Truman is refuted because his assumptions are wrong, and he's working from premises that rules out the possibility of complex evolution in the first place.

    Let me give you an example. There was a famous law case (People v. Collins) in the 60s where a California couple was convicted of a crime based on statistical evidence. The jury was asked to multiply a number of probabilities, including the presence of a black man with a moustache, a blonde woman, and an interracial couple in a car. Now, you can see what's wrong here: if there's a black man and a white woman in a car, chances are much higher that there's an interracial couple in the car. But the jury convicted based on the BS statistic of multiplying dependent probabilities.

    That's what Truman does here. He finesses a bit by using Yockey's calculations and saying that "Yockey generously added all amino acids which might be tolerated by cytochrome c at each position." But the basic error is the same.

    As for Schneider providing "ANY data which would demonstrate that a protein of 300 amino acids could evolve from non-living matter," that it not the point of his paper. So, nice goal-shifting.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, it might be worth looking at bFast's commentary here on a similar issue. bFast seems to be one of the most reasonable of the pro-ID people on Uncommon Descent. His point about simultaneous mutations, however, is correct, contra gpuccio (and, I think, jerry).

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    hermagoras,

    You would believe anything as long as it "supports" you PoV.

    Joe, Truman assumes that "step-wise development of binding sites by random mutations is not reasonable" (from his paper). So his calculations are all based on the premise that a protein must evolve all at once.

    Then how about some scientific data that shows a protein can evolve step-wise?

    THAT is the ONLY thing that will refute Truman. REAL data.

    "Thus, the need to explain the origin of specified information created an intractable dilemma for Oparin. On the one hand, if he invoked natural selection late in his scenario, then he would need to rely on chance alone to produce the highly complex and specified biomolecules necessary to self- eplication. On the other hand, if Oparin invoked natural selection earlier in the process of chemical evolution, before functional specificity in biomacromolecules would have arisen, he could give no account of natural selection could even function. Natural selection presupposes self- eplication system, but selfreplication requires functioning nucleic acids and proteins (or molecules approaching their complexity)—the very entities Oparin needed to explain. Thus, Dobzhansky would insist that, “prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms” [72, 73]."--Stephen C. Meyere

    IOW ALL you & Scheieder have are imaginary tales and fanciful stories.

    But what you need is some scientific data to support your claims.

    As for Schneider providing "ANY data which would demonstrate that a protein of 300 amino acids could evolve from non-living matter," that it not the point of his paper.

    Until he does then neither Truman nor Spetner are refuted. You can only refute something by actually providing the scientific data that contradicts it.

    You cannot refute something with "just-so" stories.

    If someone wants to depend on step-wise evolution of non-living matter they had better have the science to demonstrate that such a thing is possible.

     
  • At 9:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How does bFast's response help you?

    Is there any data to support consecutive mutations?

    I have been asking for such data for decades and have never found an answer. IOW I have been asking for mutations accumulating in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery (many proteins coming together to form one functional unit) and new body plans. Nothing pertaining to that is in the peer-reviewed literature.

    The ONLY thing you have is one new protein-to-protein binding site that Ms. Smith (ERVblog) reported (in HIV).

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    cjyman,

    Joe did ZERO investigation. He made that story up out of whole cloth because he can't answer the question. There was no investigation happening at all.

    And, pardon me if I got this wrong, but are you agreeing that the writing of the string itself can alter the information of the string? If so, I'm going to have to lump you into the same pie as Joe--the crazy pie.

    The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:

    1A. I could have been walking down the road recording the color of leaves that I passed on the road (green=1, red=0).

    1B. I could have been recording the length of scratch marks on the side of the road (long=1, short=0).

    1C. I could have found and/or produced the digits in innumerable other ways.

    2. The writing of the string in most of those ways has NOTHING to do with the content of said string--the leaves would still be laying the way they did if I had written it down or not. The scratch marks would still be there had I written it down or not. Etc.

    3. Can you tell if the string itself was designed?

    THAT'S IT.

    Context is stupid WRT ID. The ID claim is to be able to detect design without knowing anything about the designer. If context is provided, you will necessarily know something about the designer. So which is true:

    1. ID needs to know something about the designer to figure out if a thing is designed.

    (In this case, ID is useless, because you are pre-supposing a designer and then...TA-DA, finding one.)

    2. You can tell me if my string was designed by looking at it.

    (In this case, ID would be spectacularly useful.)

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Joe, Truman is the one doing the alleged refutation. But his mathematical assumptions are wrong. The burden is on the refuters of Schneider. And nobody will publish their refutations in a reputable journal, so all they're left with is creationist web sites. (It might help if Truman could even spell Schneider's name right consistently.)

    What Schneider is doing is simply this: a model of evolution by steps should allow for the development of complex information. So, let's develop a computer model and see if this can happen in theory. Truman's "refutation" of Schneider says, in effect, that evolution can't proceed in step-wise fashion, and so complex information cannot evolve. In other words, if we reject the theoretical presumptions of evolution, then evolution can't work in a computer model. Well, duh. This is a matter of rejecting the very thing that Schneider was testing! It's idiotic.

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So what clowny is saying is because he and his ilk choose to be willfully ignorant and act like moronic imbeciles, ID is useless- to them.

    Context is stupid WRT ID.

    THAT is stupid and proves you don't even understand the context.

    The ID claim is to be able to detect design without knowing anything about the designer.

    Without knowing the designer.

    Obviously if we even suspect that what is being investigated is designed we have already assumed a designer capable of such a thing.

    If context is provided, you will necessarily know something about the designer.

    So you are proud of being ignorant.

    All investigations are conducted under some type of context.

    There is the thing being investigated, its location, the surroundings- IOW as I said the EF mandates a thorough investigation.

    You appear to be to stupid to understand that simple and basic fact.

    So which is true:

    1. ID needs to know something about the designer to figure out if a thing is designed.

    (In this case, ID is useless, because you are pre-supposing a designer and then...TA-DA, finding one.)


    One can make assumptions about the designer by studying the design in question.

    2. You can tell me if my string was designed by looking at it.

    (In this case, ID would be spectacularly useful.)


    So you don't understand that the EF mandates a thorough investigation. Willfull ignorance is not a refutation.

    If you are good at being a clown then do it. You are obviously clueless when it comes to science and even more so when it comes to ID.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe did ZERO investigation.

    Prove it.

    He made that story up out of whole cloth because he can't answer the question.

    I answered the question.

    There was no investigation happening at all.

    It happened. And I can provide the witnesses if you decide to sue me.

    Good luck getting it filed...

    And, pardon me if I got this wrong, but are you agreeing that the writing of the string itself can alter the information of the string?

    Umm I NEVER said NOR implied such a thing, so who would he be agreeing with?

    Methinks this is just another of your twisted and demented inferences. Your posts wouldn't be complete without them.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible. And that is exactly what has happened.


    Now that I could prove in a Court of Law. Once I hand over my "blipey archieve" there isn't a judge or jury who would disgree with my assessment.

    And if clowny testified that would seal the deal.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Herm & CJYman,

    To clarify- all I am looking for is evidence for agency intervention.

    “Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely.” - Del Ratzsch in his book Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science, pg 5

    “An artifact is anything embodying counterflow.” Pg 6

    “Humans (and perhaps other finite beings) sometimes generate counterflow with no relevant mindful or occurrant intention.”

    He goes on to say “Counterflow entails artifactuality and agency, but neither pattern, design*, nor intention.”


    *Design (Del Ratzsch):
    i- a pattern is an abstract structure which correlates in special ways to mind, or is mind correlative.

    ii- a design is a deliberately intended or produced pattern

    iii- to be designed is to exemplify a design

    As herm eluded to earlier, intent/ purpose is a dividing "line" between design and artifact. However intent/ purpose is subjective, especially when all one has is the artifact.

    And in herm's hypothetical example no one can possibly know if intent/ purpose was present. However we do know that agency involvement was present.

    So we go with what we have to work with.

    agency involvement- check

    Then- "accident or intent (design)".

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    hermagoras,

    If Schneider or anyone else wants to use that computer program as evidence for biological evolution they have to show how it corresponds to biological reality.

    Joe, Truman is the one doing the alleged refutation. But his mathematical assumptions are wrong.

    You say they are wrong but offer NOTHING to substantiate the claim.

    Also Truman says much more than just probabilities.

    What Schneider is doing is simply this: a model of evolution by steps should allow for the development of complex information.

    Shannon information:

    The goal of Ev is to show that the Shannon information content of the chromosome can increase from zero to a (turns out) predictable number of bits over time. It does so. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the evolution of the modern protein synthesis mechanism.

    Ev does demonstrate the evolution of a code, however."


    That still stands.

    Do you understand the following?:

    "Thus, the need to explain the origin of specified information created an intractable dilemma for Oparin. On the one hand, if he invoked natural selection late in his scenario, then he would need to rely on chance alone to produce the highly complex and specified biomolecules necessary to self- eplication. On the other hand, if Oparin invoked natural selection earlier in the process of chemical evolution, before functional specificity in biomacromolecules would have arisen, he could give no account of natural selection could even function. Natural selection presupposes self- eplication system, but selfreplication requires functioning nucleic acids and proteins (or molecules approaching their complexity)—the very entities Oparin needed to explain. Thus, Dobzhansky would insist that, “prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms” [72, 73]."--Stephen C. Meyer

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Let's go, Joe. People's Court.

    You couldn't provide a witness for that assignment if your life depended on it. And you know it.

    In fact, you took the binary string and converted it to decimal first. You then wrote your story to uh...answer the question.

    So, bullshit on you.

    Is my string designed or not. You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself.

    If you examined the lesson that the class did, you have cheated. That information was not included in the string (and, in fact, your story is not even true).

    WAS THE FUCKING STRING DESIGNED OR NOT? HOW DO YOU KNOW? WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

    That's how science works, dickmunch. Show us the evidence--you don't have any, asshole.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is my string designed or not.

    I already answered that question.

    You claim to be able to determine design by just examining the string itself.

    I never made that claim you lying loser.

    Here is my answer AGAIN:

    The string 100011101001011100010111010101

    has the same probability of occurring. Was it designed? How do you know?


    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible. And that is exactly what has happened.


    Now that I could prove in a Court of Law. Once I hand over my "blipey archieve" there isn't a judge or jury who would disgree with my assessment.

    And if clowny testified that would seal the deal.

    If you really want to meet me clowny just tell me when you are in the New England area again.

    I will kick you bitty head in and take my chances with the Court.

    Ya see all the nonsense you have posted on my blog will prove that you deserved a good ass-stomping and I will be acquitted of any wrong doing.

    Oh BTW YOU don't have a clue how science works.

     
  • At 2:41 PM, Blogger CJYman said…

    Hello blipey,

    In order for me to continue this discussion with you, you are going to have to show me that you at least know a little about what you are talking about and so I will need an answer from you for the following question:

    Give me two reasons why the pattern “1111111111" can have a different probability than the pattern “1111111111.”

    blipey:
    “Joe did ZERO investigation. He made that story up out of whole cloth because he can't answer the question. There was no investigation happening at all.”


    He made up the story because when you originally posed the question, you wouldn’t give him any context. So, he created a scenario where, given investigation into that scenario it was determined that the string was designed.

    Blipey:
    “And, pardon me if I got this wrong, but are you agreeing that the writing of the string itself can alter the information of the string? If so, I'm going to have to lump you into the same pie as Joe--the crazy pie.”


    The writing itself (the ink marks) can have a different probability than the information content represented by the string itself.

    The writing itself carries with it an amount of complexity and specificity, especially if it is written with synthetic ink on a straight sided 8" X 11" piece of lined paper. But, I’ve already explained this. The information content of the string itself isn’t altered, but if the context surrounding the string is highly improbable and specified then we can come to the conclusion that the string, although itself is random, was written down by an intelligent agent without ever seeing the intelligent agent. But, I’ve already explained how the math behind a specification (not taking into consideration surrounding context of the pen marks and type of paper) would err on the side of caution and pronounce the information content of the string itself as being able to be arrived at by random processes (assuming it is indeed a *bit* string).

    A pattern of 0s and 1s written with synthetic on a piece of paper is the result of previous intelligent cause. What it represents is not necessarily the result of previous intelligent cause.

    When we measure the probability of nucleotides in a string of DNA, we are measuring the actual pattern and not some representation.

    Did you even read my comment re: why a specification infers intelligence? (about 33 comments before this one)

    Are you getting any of this yet?

    Blipey:
    “The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:”


    Talking around?!?!?!?!?! Ummm ... no. Attempting to explain with reference to context, with someone not understanding what context is? Ummmm ... yes!!

    Blipey:
    “1A. I could have been walking down the road recording the color of leaves that I passed on the road (green=1, red=0).

    1B. I could have been recording the length of scratch marks on the side of the road (long=1,
    short=0).

    1C. I could have found and/or produced the digits in innumerable other ways.

    2. The writing of the string in most of those ways has NOTHING to do with the content of said string--the leaves would still be laying the way they did if I had written it down or not. The scratch marks would still be there had I written it down or not. Etc.

    3. Can you tell if the string itself was designed?

    THAT'S IT.”


    Was the string written in ink on a piece of paper? Do you want to know if the information content represented by the string is designed or do you want to know if the string itself as written on the paper is designed?

    I’ve already explained that a pure mathematical approach using specifications and ignoring any other contextual information would err on the side of caution and tell us that the information content of the string itself is able to be explained by chance, and thus we defer to chance – no *necessary* intelligence involved. There is your answer (which I already gave above, but you conveniently ignored, so I wonder if you're gonna ignore this one too).

    Blipey:
    “Context is stupid WRT ID. The ID claim is to be able to detect design without knowing anything about the designer. If context is provided, you will necessarily know something about the designer. So which is true:”


    I’m sure Joe G would say that “It is obvious that *YOU* are the one who is stupid WRT ID.”

    However, I’m not Joe G, so I’ll be a little nicer.

    ID claims that you can detect design because you know what effects are necessarily the result of an intelligent designer. So far, no one has shown any counter examples with regard to Complex Specificity.

    Yet again, you provide evidence that you haven’t really understood what is context. Tell me, what does context have to do with a designer? Actually, if you answer this question honestly, you will see why we can know that the cause of the pattern is intelligent by merely studying the pattern in question without ever seeing the designer or knowing anything about him other than that he is intelligent – which is the conclusion that we reach by merely studying the effects that he left behind.

    Blipey:
    “1. ID needs to know something about the designer to figure out if a thing is designed.

    (In this case, ID is useless, because you are pre-supposing a designer and then...TA-DA, finding one.).”


    All ID needs to know is that intelligence produces certain patterns (CSI) that chance and law do not produce. Then, we merely look for those patterns. But, you should know this by now.

    Blipey:
    “2. You can tell me if my string was designed by looking at it.

    (In this case, ID would be spectacularly useful.)”


    Both myself and Joe already referenced how pre-specifications are spectactularly useful in detecting intelligently intended cheating and plagiarism (remember the Chriss Angel example), which actually rules out any spooky “supernatural” cause when it infers ID.

    I’ve also referenced how intelligence creates specifications consistently and that no one has shown a specification being created merely by a random set of laws and variables and chance.

    And yes, once probabilities and surrounding context (ie: probabilistic and specificational resources) can be assigned, then we can look at your string and tell you if it is *necessarily* designed or not. But, I’ve already shown you the conclusion that measuring for a specification (ignoring any extra context) of your string would come to in an earlier comment of mine. You must have missed it or purposefully ignored it. I already shown you (with a calculation for specification) that the information content represented by your string could have been arrived at by random processes and thus we defer to random process and conclude that it was not *necessarily* designed.

    BTW: we can’t truly use measurement for CSI on a pattern unless we can actually study the pattern in question, as opposed to merely a written representation of that pattern. IE: when measuring the probability of nucleotides in DNA we can actually arrive at probabilistic measurements by studying the pattern in question (the actual DNA). You will notice that your ability to comprehend what I have written here depends entirely on your ability to answer the first question I posed at the top of this comment.

     
  • At 6:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Give me two reasons why the pattern “1111111111" can have a different probability than the pattern “1111111111.”

    1. Different sample sets are involved: the elements of the first pattern could be have possible values of {0,1,2,3} while the elements of the second pattern have only {0,1} as possible values.

    2. The patterns could be the results of different iterated processes, making each successive element have a different probability.

    He made up the story because when you originally posed the question, you wouldn’t give him any context. So, he created a scenario where, given investigation into that scenario it was determined that the string was designed.

    The scenario that Joe proposes assumes design from the beginning. He took as his starting point "Design" (the class must design something). Then, in a miracle of science, came to the conclusion of "Design". As I pointed out above, shouldn't one take as their starting position a NEUTRAL ONE?

    There was no investigation as the process had only one step:

    Premise: Teacher says, "Design something."

    Step 1. It's designed.

    The writing itself (the ink marks) can have a different probability than the information content represented by the string itself.

    Sure, but no one ares about that. Everyone knows that paper is designed and everyone knows that language is designed. We want to know about the information contained in the string. I gave several examples of possible context (which Joe seems to have ignored): leaves along a road, scratch marks on a wall, the possibility that I designed the string and wrote it down, the height of mountain peeks taken from south to north...etc.

    It is a given that the act of writing takes intelligence. What is not a given is that the world was designed. What is not a given is that my string was designed. By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?

    I'm not asking you to do no investigation, but I AM asking you to show some work (well, Joe anyway). I think your answer to the question was acceptable. You came to a conclusion based on work that you did. Joe avoided doing any work at all.

    The information content of the string itself isn’t altered, but if the context surrounding the string is highly improbable and specified then we can come to the conclusion that the string, although itself is random, was written down by an intelligent agent without ever seeing the intelligent agent.

    The bolded part is the crux of the matter. As I said before, it is a given that intelligence is required to write something down. We are interested in the pattern itself. It could have been produced by rain--a gash in the mud, followed by three roundish holes, followed by three gashes, a hole, a gash...

    When we come by 4 hours later and see this pattern, who can we know it was created by the rain? Or how can we know it was designed? You said, "even though the pattern itself was random". How can you determine that? Isn't that what ID is about, determining what is designed and what is random?

    Are you getting any of this yet?


    Yes. I don't think I can be more clear as to why none of it matters? We want to know if the pattern is designed or not. Who the hell cares about the writing of it (in so far as the writing doesn't include errors). Is the fall of leaves designed? Are the holes in the ground designed? Who cares about the writing? This is a trivial thing that Joe (and yourself to some extent) keeps harping on.

    Blipey:
    “The question that Joe (and perhaps yourself) is talking around is very simple:”

    Talking around?!?!?!?!?! Ummm ... no. Attempting to explain with reference to context, with someone not understanding what context is? Ummmm ... yes!!


    I understand what context is. If you know that something is designed (which is exactly what Joe's example consists of), it doesn't take much to figure out that the thing was designed.

    I've given you any number of contextual possibilities for this string. They seem to have all been ignored in favor of making up a trivial case. How about working out if the marks in the ground were designed? Or the leaves on the ground?

    Was the string written in ink on a piece of paper? Do you want to know if the information content represented by the string is designed or do you want to know if the string itself as written on the paper is designed?

    First sentence. Who cares, see above.

    The second sentence. More about the information, but in a specific case using a context provide previously: I would like to know if the holes in the ground were designed. I suppose this is just about the same thing as telling me if the information content of the string is designed.

    There is your answer (which I already gave above, but you conveniently ignored, so I wonder if you're gonna ignore this one too).

    You must not be reading this thread to carefully. I gave you credit (three times now, actually) for answering the question. Please go back upthread and read my very specific comment crediting you with saying "The String is not Designed" and Joe with saying "The String is Designed". It's right up there.

    All ID needs to know is that intelligence produces certain patterns (CSI) that chance and law do not produce. Then, we merely look for those patterns. But, you should know this by now.

    I keep hearing it. Tell me if the holes in the mud are designed or not.

    You will notice that your ability to comprehend what I have written here depends entirely on your ability to answer the first question I posed at the top of this comment.

    You highly over-estimate the profundity of your comments.

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The scenario that Joe proposes assumes design from the beginning.

    That's false.

    He took as his starting point "Design" (the class must design something).

    That is also false.

    My starting point was the sequence YOU provided.

    Then you said the sequence you found was on paper.

    Then, in a miracle of science, came to the conclusion of "Design".

    Investigation is not a miracle.

    I just followed the clues.

    We want to know about the information contained in the string.

    We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket? Or you and all the other ignorant morons on this planet?

    It is a given that the act of writing takes intelligence.

    It is? How do you know?

    What is not a given is that the world was designed.

    It isn't a given that the world exists via non-telic processes either.

    What is not a given is that my string was designed. By looking at the string, can ID tell me if it was designed or not?

    Again, ID, like ALL scientific venues, requires a thorough investigation as mandated by the EF.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    blipey your continued ignorance is cringe-worthy.

    You are obviously a clue-less moron who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it.

    Do you think that a coroner can tell the cause of death without a thorough examonation of the body?

    Do you think that SETI gets its evidence in a vacuum?

    By your "logic" fire investiagtors should be able to tell if arson was committed just because there was a fire.

    You must not be reading this thread to carefully.

    Your projection is duly noted.

    And about your initial string:

    It was designed.

    It was designed by the twisted and demented "mind" of blipey.

    I know because blipey's purpose in life is to distract from the topic and deceive people using any and all means possible. And that is exactly what has happened.


    Now that I could prove in a Court of Law. Once I hand over my "blipey archieve" there isn't a judge or jury who would disgree with my assessment.

    And if clowny testified that would seal the deal.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    CJYman,

    If you haven't figured it out by now blipey is not interested in an explanation.

    blipey,

    Whether or not your sequence was designed DEPENDS SOLELY on the context- Where was it found? What detected it?

    Any meaning the string might have is a separate question. And one that may never be answered.

    Stonehenge- design determined and many years of research to try to determine who built it, how and why.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This thread is closed. blipey if you have anything else to say to CJYman do so on his blog:

    Reality Cheque- CJYman's blog

    BTW, your "leaves along the road...", was just you MAKING SHIT UP!!!

     

<< Home