Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:
CSI- Complex Specified Information.
Information- see Shannon, Claude
(When Shannon developed his information theory he was not concerned about "specific effects":
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
And that is what separates mere complexity (Shannon) from specified complexity.)
Specified Information is Shannon Information with meaning/ function
Complex Specified Information is 500 bits or more of specified information
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 (including STOP), 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).
How much CSI is in a human Joe?
ReplyDeleteMore or less then a watermelon?
A tick?
If you can't say what use is CSI?
OM:
ReplyDeleteHow much CSI is in a human Joe?
Enough to demonstrate that humans are beyond the reach of accumulations of genetic accidents.
OM:
More or less then a watermelon?
How is that relevant?
OM:
A tick?
No thanks. Just got one off my dog yesterday.
OM:
If you can't say what use is CSI?
It is an indication of design. And that is all the difference in the world to any investigation.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteHow about revisiting the CSI of a cake? :)
Why? So you can choke on it and expose your ignorance again?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point in that?
I dunno, you're doing your golden oldies. The cake thread was hilarious. Bring it back!
ReplyDeleteThe golden oldies are for Kevin/ OgreMKV.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the cake thread was/ is hilarious due to the ignorant spewage of you and your fellow evotards.
Well, then bring it back! It's Friday, so it's listeners' request.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I always do as evotards request....
ReplyDeleteThen where's the cake, Joe? Bring in the cake!
ReplyDeleteDude, YOU are the cake-> cupcake. No intelligence required...
ReplyDeleteChicken, Joe?
ReplyDeleteNo thanks, I don't eat things with peckers on their faces.
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/42es8g9
ReplyDeleteAnd?
ReplyDeleteStrange that after all this time you are STILL too ignorant to properly phrase the question.
And even stranger that you are too much of a coward to support your position but you think your retarded actions mean something.
ID can't really do anything except get upset with evolution. Ohhh - and boost creationism.
ReplyDeleteHave a great 4th.
Except ID isn't upset with evolution and you still can't support your position.
ReplyDeleteAnd if ID boosts Creationism why do most creationists not agree with it?
Moron.
"And?"
ReplyDeleteWell, it's nice to see you acknowledge how useless CSI is.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteWell, it's nice to see you acknowledge how useless CSI is.
Actually all YOU did was expose YOUR ignorance once again.
Ya see moron all reasonable and rational investigators know it makes all the difference in the world if what they are investigating arose by chance, necessity or design. And it is very telling that you are too stupid to grasp that.
But ID has no imperical hurdle - soall that's left if 'looks designed (to me)'. So ID is clearly in the realm of opinion and NOT science. Which is fine.
ReplyDeleteNice projection as all your position has are:
ReplyDelete"It looks like a transitional to me"
"It looks like (universal) common descent to me"
"Genetic changes look like errors/ mistakes/ accidents to me"
"Anything but design!"
OTOH, as evidenced by all fields of investigation, design inferences can be falsified- ie there is an empirical hurdle-> we know not all deaths are homicides.
But of course I am sure you will still think your ignorance means something.
Ah, be we don't say " If not design, therefore random forces".
ReplyDeleteAnd someone clearly doesn't understand "emperical hurdle".
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteAh, be we don't say " If not design, therefore random forces".
No you say "Anything but design, no matter what the evidence demonstrates"
RichTard:
And someone clearly doesn't understand "emperical hurdle".
That would be you.
Intelligent Design is based on observation and experimental data has confirmed the design inference.
ReplyDeleteWe could make an observation and conduct experiments that would refute the design inference...
LOL Joe. Come back when you can calculate the (c)SI of.. well anything.
ReplyDeleteIDists are just selling snakeoil, and you're a simpleton.
Sed the coward who cannot produce a testable hypothesis nor any positive evidence for its position.
ReplyDeleteAnd your continued projections are duly noted- as is your ignorance.