I think Arthur is twisting what was said.

Ya see IDists are usually very clear that undirected processes are being debated- design is natural.

Therefor a “natural origin” is BS.

So knowing Arthur I would need to see the quote in context.

Without that he doesn’t have anything but a strawman.

I am also pretty sure that what IDists are saying pertains to the OoL and not any subsequent evolution.

IOW the context is very important.

So Arthur needs to concentrate on getting proteins in a scenario in which not one existed.

Then he will understand the complexity = improbability argument.

My understanding is that this claim is made by Meyers in his new book and also by others such as Axe and Kirk Durston. I believe that Arthur Hunt believes functioning proteins are far more common than what Meyers, Axe and Durston believe.

A claim that is being made by ID proponents (as in Meyer’s paper) is that work such as this shows that functional proteins are so rare in sequence space that the natural origin of new proteins is so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

Who made that claim Art?

Do you have a reference?

Methinks you have erected another strawman.

Not if you measure complexity as ID theorists propose, roughly as a reflection of the (im)probability of occurrence.

That is one way of determining complexity.

Again, if we measure complexity as a matter of improbability, then it is utterly lacking in living things.

Yes, because living things are designed.

However if we look at living things from a non-telic PoV then their mere existence defies the probabilities and the complexity is infinite.

Also niwrad was talking about information carrying capacity- not information and not CSI.

If we accept the pronouncements of the ID vanguard (Dembksi, Durston, Axe, et al.), the information in molecular terms is related to the fraction of all possible sequences that may actually perform a function (satisfy a specification, catalyze a reaction, etc.).

Not any function- a specific function.

And regardless of what you want to call it your position still can’t account for it.

Your claim surprises me. No complexity in biology? Bio systems are the more complex things in nature.

Not if you measure complexity as ID theorists propose, roughly as a reflection of the (im)probability of occurrence.

No specification in biology? At every level, many bio systems meet precise physical chemical geometrical morphological functional specifications.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand.

No information in biology? Only the genomes in the cells contain Gbytes of information. And these complexity, specification and information are present in the same time just in little bio systems, justifying the inference of CSI.

Again, if we measure complexity as a matter of improbability, then it is utterly lacking in living things.

For example a functional DNA sequence of n bases contains at minimum 2*n bits of CSI (each possible A-T-G-C base counts 2 bits). In reality the DNA strand contains additional CSI due to its geometrical shape, functionality, etc. However we can be sure that at least 2*n bits exist only for the digital sequence per se, exactly as when we deal with a 2*n-bit-long message (independently from the code and the meaning of the message). Really I don’t understand as you can deny the existence of CSI before such example.

Curiously enough, Stephen Meyer, in Ch. 8 of his new book, explains why this reasoning is wrong. I recommend that you pick up his book and think long and hard on this chapter.

You are not talking about specified information. Just information. There is a big difference.

Of course if you deny even the CSI now I understand because you deny the cCSI. In fact the cCSI of an interface is the sum of the CSI of its two parts, then 0 + 0 = 0 (according to you). Hence our discussion should start far backwards than the cCSI concept.

Here’s the reality of the situation. If we accept the pronouncements of the ID vanguard (Dembksi, Durston, Axe, et al.), the information in molecular terms is related to the fraction of all possible sequences that may actually perform a function (satisfy a specification, catalyze a reaction, etc.). This is something that can be measured at the bench. When such measurements are done, the answer invariably shouts “no CSI”. There is no CSI in biology, not because of atheism or materialism or anything else of a philosophical bent, but because direct experimental measurement tells us that there is no CSI in biology. I see no reason to take seriously any position that treats CSI as other than a fanciful fiction. Because that is what it is.

I explain this conundrum (well, it’s a problem for ID theorists) in this essay. It may help you to read very carefully my summation of the field of protein evolution, as it spells out the errors that abound in ID articles.

Arthur Hunt #41
You cannot, because any and all such direct wet-bench measurements yield the opposite answer, that there is no CSI in biology.

Your claim surprises me. No complexity in biology? Bio systems are the more complex things in nature. No specification in biology? At every level, many bio systems meet precise physical chemical geometrical morphological functional specifications. No information in biology? Only the genomes in the cells contain Gbytes of information. And these complexity, specification and information are present in the same time just in little bio systems, justifying the inference of CSI.

The fact that in many cases this CSI is difficult to measure precisely doesn’t mean that CSI doesn’t exist. Also in astronomy it is difficult to calculate precisely the number of the stars, yet nobody denies their existence. However in some cases it is possible to easily establish a lower bound to the CSI content of a bio system. For example a functional DNA sequence of n bases contains at minimum 2*n bits of CSI (each possible A-T-G-C base counts 2 bits). In reality the DNA strand contains additional CSI due to its geometrical shape, functionality, etc. However we can be sure that at least 2*n bits exist only for the digital sequence per se, exactly as when we deal with a 2*n-bit-long message (independently from the code and the meaning of the message). Really I don’t understand as you can deny the existence of CSI before such example. A DNA strand is complex because contains many bases; it’s specified because it specifies instructions to make proteins; it contains information because a sequence of symbols specifying instructions entails bits. This case clearly meets the three conditions for CSI.

Of course if you deny even the CSI now I understand because you deny the cCSI. In fact the cCSI of an interface is the sum of the CSI of its two parts, then 0 + 0 = 0 (according to you). Hence our discussion should start far backwards than the cCSI concept.

And you continue. At least the other evolutionists in their comments provide some technical contributes. As such I respect their interventions (also if sometimes the tone is questionable). Instead your comments are: technical contribute = 0, pure derision = 100%. Where are your arguments? Have you a minimum interest on the truth or your unique intention is to mock and offend people?

The intelligent reader is able to distinguish who, despite his ignorance, however tries to honestly add a little contribute to the debate and who, despite his alleged “wisdom”, is only a polemist.

Arthur Hunt,

In my post I deal with CSI interfaces between CSI systems (the picture I provide shows clearly that). Your example of the polyadenylation complex that seems to have an interface with zero CSI doesn’t refute my statement (the CSI of the two parts of a CSI interface must be strictly correlated and this is the reason we can call the whole “coupledCSI”). I didn’t say that all interfaces must have CSI.

The problem as I see it is that no biological interfaces – none whatsoever – have been shown to possess CSI (let alone cCSI). OTOH, as I have shown, biological interfaces can and do exist in the utter absence of CSI.

… For the same reason the same example of the polyadenylation complex again doesn’t refute my claim that the 3-D shape of most enzymes fits its target in a so complex manner to justify calling this interfacing cCSI. May be the polyadenylation complex is not similar to enzymes because the bindings it entails are loose or for other reasons.

You don’t know anything about what you are criticizing but are still moved to make false assertions. What is the point?

Nevertheless in molecular biology many examples of proteins-to-proteins interactions deserve the concept of cCSI given their high specificity and complexity.

Prove it. Give us one example – JUST ONE – of an example from molecular biology in which CSI has been measured and found to be as massively large as IDists claim.

(You cannot, because any and all such direct wet-bench measurements yield the opposite answer, that there is no CSI in biology.)

My post wanted to be only a brief and humble note on the concept of cCSI.

You are too modest! I’ve seen your website! There are many thousands of words there on cCSI.

Eventually ID theorists will judge if it is worth considering.

And people wonder why ID is not making the headway some would expect! The onus is on you to make it happen.
And, quite frankly, I’m a bit surprised that no leading ID theorist has chimed in on your work. After all, if not at UncommonDescent, IDs premier venue, then where? Have your brought your work to Dr Dembski’s attention via email perhaps? It might be the case that this blog post escaped his attention.

Given that ID after all is detection from signs, I remind you and your likes that the subtle sarcasm of your comment (and the impoliteness of other evolutionist commenters too) are clear signs of lack of arguments.

On the contrary my dear fellow. I’m chock full of argument. What would be a clear sign of a lack of arguments would be an unstated aversion to putting your ideas into a venue where they can be critiqued openly by experts in the field. Sound familar?

My post wanted to be only a brief and humble note on the concept of cCSI. Eventually ID theorists will judge if it is worth considering.

P.S.
Given that ID after all is detection from signs, I remind you and your likes that the subtle sarcasm of your comment (and the impoliteness of other evolutionist commenters too) are clear signs of lack of arguments.