Proof that Joshua Swamidass is Clueless

-
Moar Proof that Joshua Swamidass is helplessly clueless::

If you can’t solve this puzzle with an objective metric, it means you can’t objectively determine the CSI of objects. I do not think this is a solvable puzzle, but because I generated the sequences I know the right answer. For each of the following sequences, I know the correct CSI. I can give a few hints, and a promise:

1. Each sequence has a different CSI, either 5, 10, 100, 150 or 200 bits of CSI to be precise.
2. Each sequence was constructed with about five lines of python code.
3. I’m saving the code used to generate this, and the answer key, and can produce it when you are done trying.

Remember, it is not enough to just permute these 5 numbers and try all combinations. You have to produce an implementation of ASC that produces results (1) consistent with these numbers and (2) able to identify which ones have high CSI. Of course, you could submit a function that always emits zero. It would be less than CSI in all cases, but it would be unable to determine which sequences were high or low.
If you cannot solve this puzzle (and I think it is impossible to solve), then it seems we have demonstrated that ASC cannot practically identify high CSI.

The Sequences

98d50ad729eb9af79bedc1eb64d555083513057ddfa6e86892fc6360d843e168

ce98c8f3aaddcac18d724c93ccde9b5af87f1967fe4481700d0832c5b003f4a2
451834bb93b6de3e8f87255f14789b728b544304027343000e57eabba0573318
1319730bc751757d7ae1b1f21f81978b9a2ee6d96685f03afc93d257c7d21d66

19385699c280f99b6825aa165c38191b9d7b6f150cf504f25b9934e96b90261d

Good luck, and share this widely in your networks.

DUMBASS! First off science is not a parlor game. You must be an infant, Joshua.

Secondly, the thing about CSI is to determine is an intelligent agency produced it or did nature do it? That said, if someone saw those sequences carved into a cave wall they would rightly infer an intelligent agency did it. No one would ever think nature could carve any of those sequences via erosion or what have you.

With DNA we OBSERVE functionality via the formation of functioning proteins. That functionality has a sequence specificity. Meaning not just any sequence will produce that functioning protein. So we have an observation of functionality. Next we want to know how it came to be that way. That is where ID comes in.

And it still remains that to refute any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what ID says was intelligently designed.

This challenge has nothing to do with calculating CSI.

This challenge is about guessing which sequence has an encrypted message.