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, June 22, 2020

More Proof that Joshua Swamidass is Totally Clueless about CSI

-
CSI is complex specified information. It is defined as 500 bits or more of specified information. The 500 bit limit is alleged to be beyond the probability bound. That limit was set in "No Free Lunch"- Wm. Dembski. How does this relate to Joshua Swamidass? In his clueless CSI bullshit challenge, Joshua states:
1. Each sequence has a different CSI, either 5, 10, 100, 150 or 200 bits of CSI to be precise.
What. The. Fuck?

500 bits of specified information to get to CSI.

500 bits, Joshua. 500.

 Not only is Joshua's CSI challenge just a parlor game of which sequence has an encrypted message. But his bit count doesn't add up.

 Joshua lies when he says he understands ID's arguments.

posted by Joe G @ 8:09 PM  

19 Comments:

  • At 5:17 AM, Blogger JV said…

    He's just asking if you can determine the amount of CSI.

    Can you, yes or no?

     

  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Holy shit, you are dense. By his own reckoning there isn't any CSI is any of those sequences.

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger JV said…

    Holy shit, you are dense. By his own reckoning there isn't any CSI is any of those sequences.

    But you reported him as saying:

    Each sequence has a different CSI, either 5, 10, 100, 150 or 200 bits of CSI to be precise.

    What is his definition of CSI? It doesn't sound like it's the same as yours.

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He does not get to make up his own definition of CSI. He is clearly butchering Dembski. That you cannot grasp that says quite a bit about you.

     

  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger JV said…

    He does not get to make up his own definition of CSI. He is clearly butchering Dembski. That you cannot grasp that says quite a bit about you.

    It doesn't sound like he's using the same definition but I'll leave you two to fight it out. I'm sure he's enjoying the whole thing.

     

  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Clearly he is just ignorant of the CSI concept. And I am sure he is enjoying his ignorance. After all ignorance is bliss.

    Also, there isn't anything to fight about. Joshua has been counted out- TKO of his own making

     

  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I suppose his point is that if you assert that 500 bits of CSI is good enough to infer design then you have to show you can determine how much CSI is present so you know if you're at the 500 bit limit.

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, CSI is NOT the only tool we have to determine design exists. I do NOT need CSI to tell me that A) nature did not produce any of those sequences and B) Only an intelligent agency can.

    Also I seriously doubt that nature can produce 100 bits of specified information.

    If Joshua wants to refute ID's claims then the way to do so is to step up and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce it. Flailing away at ID with ignorance doesn't do anything to ID

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Again, CSI is NOT the only tool we have to determine design exists. I do NOT need CSI to tell me that A) nature did not produce any of those sequences and B) Only an intelligent agency can.

    I didn't say it was your only tool. I'm merely saying that IF you're going to promote examples which have more than 500 bits of CSI then you really should be able to show how you determine how much CSI there is for a particular example.

    Also I seriously doubt that nature can produce 100 bits of specified information.

    It's about how do you show how much CSI there is.

    If Joshua wants to refute ID's claims then the way to do so is to step up and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce it. Flailing away at ID with ignorance doesn't do anything to ID

    Yes but the question on the table at the moment is the amount of CSI present. If you're going to use the amount of CSI as an argument then you need to ba able to show how you determine how much CSI there is.

    You support the more than 500 bits of CSI criteria. How do you determine when there is more than 500 bits of CSI? It's a very fair question.

     

  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger JV said…

    If you can't measure the amount of CSI then you can't use the amount of CSI to support your position because you don't know how much there is.

     

  • At 5:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    With respect to biology, the specified information has been measured and CSI exists.

    With respect to an encyclopedia, the specified information has been measured and CSI exists.

    With respect to the assembly instructions of an Ikea chest of draws, the specified information has been measured and CSI exists.

    Yes but the question on the table at the moment is the amount of CSI present.

    LoL! You're clueless. CSI either exists or it doesn't. It is a yes or no.

    How do you determine when there is more than 500 bits of CSI?

    Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about. How do we determine there is 500 bits or more of SI? We compute the sequence specificity required to produce the special effect observed.

    With text we use Shannon's methodology. With proteins we use what I have linked to on this blog- peer-reviewed papers that measure just that.

    With Joshua's examples we just point, laugh and tell him to get to work with respect to learning about ID and CSI.

    Read "No Free Lunch". That's where the concept originated. Then go from there.

     

  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger JV said…

    With respect to biology, the specified information has been measured and CSI exists.

    Yes but you support the position that more than 500 bits of CSI implies design. So how can you tell when there's more than 500 bits of CSI?

    With respect to the assembly instructions of an Ikea chest of draws, the specified information has been measured and CSI exists.

    I don't think that particular example was in contention but okay: how much CSI is there in an IKEA chest of drawers?


    LoL! You're clueless. CSI either exists or it doesn't. It is a yes or no.

    That's not really the claim though is it?

    Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about. How do we determine there is 500 bits or more of SI? We compute the sequence specificity required to produce the special effect observed.

    Okay, show how that is done for a couple of examples. Like an IKEA set of drawers. Or for trilobite. That would be a lot more interesting and pertinent.

    With text we use Shannon's methodology. With proteins we use what I have linked to on this blog- peer-reviewed papers that measure just that.

    Fine, show how it's done for an IKEA chest of drawers or a trilobite.

    With Joshua's examples we just point, laugh and tell him to get to work with respect to learning about ID and CSI.

    Read "No Free Lunch". That's where the concept originated. Then go from there.

    You still need to be able to give some worked out examples. I've asked for a couple. Why don't you pick some and demonstrate? You could use the sequences provided in the challenge you referred to in the original post . . .

     

  • At 6:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look, Jerad, it's obvious that you are just flailing about. I have provided the papers and examples It's all on my blog.

    The claim is if CSI exists then it was intelligently designed, without any doubt. However, no one has observed nature producing 100 bits of SI, so that would be a problem for the naturalists.

    Meaning even if the CSI threshold isn't reached it doesn't mean nature did it.

    Joshua already admitted that his examples do not contain CSI. That pertains to the sequence with the alleged hidden message.

     

  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger JV said…

    Look, Jerad, it's obvious that you are just flailing about. I have provided the papers and examples It's all on my blog.

    Well, it sounds like someone on another blog is paying attention to you and maybe driving fraffic to your site. Why not just give the links again so that no one gets the wrong impression?

    The claim is if CSI exists then it was intelligently designed, without any doubt. However, no one has observed nature producing 100 bits of SI, so that would be a problem for the naturalists.

    100 bits, 500 bits, you still need to show how you determine the amount of CSI.

    Meaning even if the CSI threshold isn't reached it doesn't mean nature did it.

    I'm not saying that. I just want to know how you determine the amount of CSI.

    Joshua already admitted that his examples do not contain CSI. That pertains to the sequence with the alleged hidden message.

    That's not in what you posted.

    Look, just provide a couple of examples! That's all you need to do.

     

  • At 7:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad:
    That's not in what you posted.

    Yes, it is. His highest bit count is 200. That means not one of his sequences contains CSI. Even if you take the total bot count of all the sequences you are left with less than 500 bits. Meaning there isn't any CSI there. 465 bits of information carrying capacity, total. To have CSI you need 500+ and it isn't just capacity, either.

    Read "No Free Lunch". That's where the concept originated. Then go from there.

    You don't even understand the concept, Jerad.

    With 4 different nucleotides how many bits of information is there in each one? 2. 2^2 = 4

    2 bits per nucleotide. 64 different coding codons means there is 2^6 = 64, so 6 bits per amino acid, stop, start- roughly. Technically tryptophan may have more info because it has only one coding codon.

    But again anyone can search my blog if they are really interested in what I have to say. Or they can just read the literature so they don't ask questions that prove they don't understand the concept.

     

  • At 4:43 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I'm pretty sure the idea is: When the amount of CSI exceeds 500 bits then you can infer design. Which means you have to be able to detect and measure CSI.

    Anyway the claim was that the different sequences have different amounts of CSI in them. The sequences are alpha-numeric. Which means they can have 36 different values for each position so there is a lot of bits of information present in each sequence.

    Is any of it complex and specified?

    If any of the sequences were generated by a simple algorithm then the amount of complex information required to reproduce the sequence would be less then the length of the sequence (which may go on indefinitely). Consider the multiples of 2. That sequence goes on forever but it's very simple to generate the sequence with very little 'information'.

    I think what's being asked of you is: can you figure out which parts of the sequences are determine and which aren't. The determine parts contain CSI the undetermined parts do not.

     

  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad:
    Anyway the claim was that the different sequences have different amounts of CSI in them.

    Are you stupid? Joshua admitted that not one of the sequences contains 500 bits of SI. That means there isn't any CSI.

    And you are too stupid to read, too. He said there is encryption at play.

    His challenge proves that he doesn't understand CSI. His challenge proves that he is just a clueless ass.

    His challenge has NOTHING to do with CSI.

    Your ignorance of CSI is also duly noted. Good luck with that

     

  • At 5:02 AM, Blogger JV said…

    I don't read his blog or whatever it is; I only read what you post.

    I'll leave you to it. I'm sure he's making some comments about your reaction to him.

     

  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one there makes comments about what I say. They are all willfully ignorant and proud of it.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home