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

Monday, April 25, 2011

Complex Specified Information

Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:

Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.

The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.

from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

See also:

Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” Nature, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003).


  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    It's hilarious that in support of ID you cite the Hazen et al paper that specifically describes complex emergent systems like biological life and how they don't require conscious purposeful designers to arise.

    You never even bothered to read the paper, did you?

  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have serious issues.

    I did NOT cite the paper in support of ID.

    You never bothered to read the OP, did you?

    BTW I take it that you didn't notice there isn't any evidence in support of their claim...

  • At 7:15 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Hi Joe

    I'll read papers you show in your main post. I'm not very familiar with CSI except what I read on different blogs/forums.

    BTW you and Thorton have the best insults ever.

  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW you and Thorton have the best insults ever.

    The difference is thoton insults because it doesn't have anything else, like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum. OTOH mine are more or less plain ole observations.


Post a Comment

<< Home