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

Friday, April 18, 2014

Measuring CSI in Biology- a Repost

Just a mere mention of the word information wrt biology causes evoTARDgasms so intense that if all the TARDs were together it would cause an earthquake. Yet a little history demonstrates that Sir Francis Crick talked about biological information in his "Central Dogma". For example:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
Each protein consists of a specific sequence of amino acid residues which is encoded by a specific sequence of processed mRNA. Each mRNA is encoded by a specific sequence of DNA.  The point being is biological information refers to the macromolecules that are involved in some process, be that transcription, editing, splicing, translation and functioning proteins. No one measures the biological information in a random sequence of DNA nor any DNA sequence not directly observed in some process. The best one can do with any given random DNA sequence is figure out its information carrying capacity. You couldn't tell if it was biological information without a reference library.

And Leslie Orgel first talked about specified complexity wrt biology:

In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
As far as I can tell IDists use the terms in the same way. Dembski and  Meyer make it clear that it is sequence specificity that is central to their claims.

That is the whole point- if sequence specificity matters the tighter the specification the less likely blind physical processes could find it. Yup those dreaded probabilities again, but seeing yours doesn't come with a testable model it's all we have. See Is Intelligent Design Required for Life?

With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

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

ETA for OMagain:
 First, as observed in Table Table1,1, although we might expect larger proteins to have a higher FSC, that is not always the case. For example, 342-residue SecY has a FSC of 688 Fits, but the smaller 240-residue RecA actually has a larger FSC of 832 Fits. The Fit density (Fits/amino acid) is, therefore, lower in SecY than in RecA. This indicates that RecA is likely more functionally complex than SecY.  (results and discussion section) 
And more TARD- what else when he has been exposed as an asshole:

So you are saying that you can measure the FSCO/I in a protein but can’t measure it in a paragraph of text?
I did it with text. I used the definition of an aardvark.

Also, I find it odd that “FSCO/I” does not appear in the article you link to, neither does “CSI”. Why not?
If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I. Just read this OP.

So if you can indeed measure FSCO/I did it increase or decrease in Lenski’s experiment after the citrate mutation occurred? Please show your working!
The protein does the same thing. No new functionality arose. And you need to show us how what occurred was a blind watchmaker process. And yes, show your working! 

Here is a formal way of  measuring biological 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 5:05 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow, Richie with his usual cowardly non-response.

    I noticed that it was totally evidence-free. And it misrepresents. Nonnatural design? Strawman. The design is fully natural. Also those "natural" laws are evidence for ID. Strange that Devine was ignorant of that.

    Why didn't Devine just provide a model demonstrating blind and undirected processes actually doing something like producing what Dembski claims his equations were designed?

    I will tell you why- Devine's position is untestable and unscientific. It doesn't even have a methodology beyond declaration.

    So what was the point, Richie?

  • At 6:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The choice is not between chance and ID, but between natural laws and ID.

    Dumbass. For one Dembski does NOT say that it is chance vs ID. He states it is between necessity, chance and design.

    The paper is junk, Richie.

  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Furthermore, Dembski's decision process is flawed, as natural explanations are eliminated before chance.

    Wrong. For one chance is part of the natural explanations. First up, according to Dembski, is regularity/ necessity/ law (yes he gives you guys the laws). Next is probability- that is regularity/ necessity/ law and improbable coincidences together.

    I don't know if his misrepresentations are intentional or not but they definitely exist.

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, what happened to you? You post a link to an article you think does something to ID yet it is rife with errors.

    Nice job cupcake

  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh it was just in case someone scientifically literate who used 'normal math' (not JoeMath) came by.

    It's pointless talking to you about it, it's beyond you. For readers who want a laugh, here are your thoughts on measuring CSI:

  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Richie is a scientifically illiterate ass who doesn't understand anything but to post bald links to articles he obviously doesn't grasp. Otherwise he would have said something about it yet he hasn't.

    And dumbass, my thoughts on measuring CSI are in this OP. IOW you are just proud to be an ignorant asshole.

  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So Joe, what would you do if Larry Moran called you an IDiot to your face.

  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Richie gags on the big one wrt CSI and is forced to try a distraction.

    Richie wants to know what I am going to do if a proven liar and ignorant asshole calls me an IDiot to my face.

    Well first I would like to know if there is a difference in sound between "idiot" and "IDiot". Is the "ID" in "IDiot" strongly stressed with the "iot" spoken normally?

    So at least I would let him get the word out, just for curiosity. Anything after that is contingent.

  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    It sound like "idiot".

  • At 10:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You sound like an idiot Richie. Larry sounds like an idiot on an agenda.

    You both are in the 99th percentile in your respective class of idiots.


  • At 10:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…


    Joe lays another egg. Catch you later, Chubs.

  • At 10:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Richie is not only an idiot but also ignorant or at least lacks reading comprehension skills and I lay an egg?

    How does that work, cupcake?

  • At 10:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bwaaakka.. big talker Joe. Not.

  • At 11:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What the fuck are you talking about, cupcake? Are you upset because you don't understand the words I post? Or are you upset that I called out another cowardly evoTARD and he blew a gasket?

    But Richie is too much of a cowardly imbecile to realize that Larry is the asshole who is the big talker. And Larry is the asshole who has been exposed as an ignorant asshole on an agenda.

    And that, too, makes Richie very upset.

    Does Larry frost your cupcake, Richie?

  • At 11:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe,always posturing about meet ups.

    *cough cough* parking lot.

    And let's remember who went back to alter his blog, Cupcake. You're so stupid.

  • At 11:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What posturing? Is Larry upset and unable to function?

    Have Larry take some Viagra and he may be able to frost your cupcake again. Maybe even leave you with a little cream filling.

    Cowards trying to defend other cowards, it just doesn't get any more pathetic and desperate than that


Post a Comment

<< Home