Category: Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization
|August 2, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Books of interest, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Intelligent Design, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mind, Video|
Video: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Blurb at the Amazon page for the book: >>Throughout his distinguished and unconventional career, engineer-turned-molecular-biologist Douglas Axe has been asking the questions that much of the scientific community would rather silence. Now, he presents his conclusions in this brave and pioneering book. Axe argues that the key to understanding […]
In the current VJT thread on 31 scientists who did not follow methodological naturalism, it has been noteworthy that objectors have studiously avoided addressing the basic warrant for the design inference. Since this is absolutely pivotal but seems to be widely misunderstood or even dismissed without good reason, it seems useful to summarise this for […]
|July 13, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Astronomy, Atheism, Back to Basics of ID, Cosmology, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Fine tuning, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR||
It seems there is now a talking-point agenda to dismiss the fine tuning issue as an illusion. So, in the current thread on the big bang and fine tuning, I have clipped and commented on a recent article by Luke Barnes. However, comments cannot put up images [save through extraordinary steps], so it is first […]
|June 11, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Privileged planet, The Design of Life, Video|
Here: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Let us watch and ponder, then discuss. END Posts
|December 18, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?): embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must […]
BTB, 4: Evolutionary Materialism as “fact, Fact, FACT” and its self-falsifying self-referential incoherence
|November 13, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, brains and computation vs contemplation, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
One of the challenges commonly met with in re-thinking origins science from a perspective open to design, is that the evolutionary materialist narrative is too often presented as fact (not explanation), and there is also a typical failure to recognise that materialist ideology cannot be properly imposed on science. Likewise, there is a pattern of […]
|November 2, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Intelligent Design||
It does not take a lot of familiarity to know that a common and widely repeated accusation against ID is that it is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” that it tries to smuggle the strictly verboten “supernatural” into scientific thought on origins, and that it is a god-of-the-gaps appeal to ignorance by way of we […]
BTB, 2: But, do DNA and the living cell contain functionally specific complex organisation and associated information?
|November 1, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Information||
First, let’s see: And again, here is Crick in his March 19, 1953 letter to his son on his discovery: Notice, how emphatic Crick is: “. . . we believe that the D.N.A. is a code . . . “ Obviously leading scientists agree that DNA reflects coded information that is used in identifiable communication […]
FYI-FTR (& BTB, 1a): A headlined response to LM: “you guys steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence at all for intelligent design or for the existence of an intelligent designer”
|October 27, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Intelligent Design||
It has now been over a day since I responded to the above, and though LM has further commented in the thread, he has studiously refused to respond to the corrective. It is therefore appropriate to speak here for record, and in so doing it is necessary to point out the implications of LM’s speaking […]
|September 24, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
It is time to move on from preliminary logical considerations to key foundational issues relevant to design theory. Of these, the challenge of complexity, information and functionally specific organisation is first and foremost. Hence this post. We live in a technological age, and one that increasingly pivots around information. One in which we are surrounded […]
|September 10, 2015||Posted by DLH under Biophysics, Darwinism, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Genomics, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity|
Rockefeller University researchers found that part of a DNA repair protein known as 53BP1 fits over the phosphorylated part of H2AX “like a glove,” says Kleiner. This interaction helps bring 53BP1 to the site of DNA damage, where it mediates the repair of double-stranded breaks in DNA by encouraging the repair machinery to glue the […]
That is, why inferring design on functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, e.g.: and equally: . . . makes good sense. Now, overnight, UD’s Newsdesk posted on a Space dot com article, Is Our Universe a Fake? The article features “Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.” I […]
|June 26, 2015||Posted by Eric Anderson under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolution, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life, Self-Org. Theory|
Yesterday I watched a re-run of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. There. I said it. I love Star Trek. Notwithstanding the many absurd evolution-based plotlines. In this specific episode, Data referred to a particular characteristic of a newly-developing lifeform as an “emergent property.” I’ve looked into the “emergence” ideas in the past, and […]
FYI-FTR: Part 8, an objection — >>nobody has solved the OOL challenge from an ID perspective either. And they never will until ID proposes the nature of the Designer (AKA God) and the mechanisms used (AKA “poof”). >>
|June 6, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
The captioned comment comes by way of an email, from YM: >>nobody has solved the OOL challenge from an ID perspective either. And they never will until ID proposes the nature of the Designer (AKA God) and the mechanisms used (AKA “poof). >> (In addition, I have received a slander-laced remark from one of the […]
FYI-FTR: Part 7, But >>if you want to infer a designer as the cause of an apparent design, then you need to make some hypotheses about how, how, where and with what, otherwise you can’t subject your inference to any kind of test>>
Not so. With all due respect, EL’s error here is a case of failure to think through the inductive logic of abductive inference to best explanation on a tested, reliable sign. (And indeed the statistics of Type I/II error extend that to cases of known percentage reliability, especially when multiple aspects or signs are involved […]
FYI-FTR: Part 6, What about “howtwerdun” and “whodunit” . . . >>[the ID case has] no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to do, how she was doing it, what her capacities were, etc.>>
|June 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
One of the key diversions made by objectors to a design inference on empirically tested, reliable markers of design as causal factor, is to try to switch topics and debate about the designer. Often, this then bleeds over into assertions or suggestions on “god of the gaps” fallacies and even accusations of ID being “Creationism […]
|June 2, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Sometimes, one of the most telling issues in a debate is the point the other side utterly refuses to take up. The one it tries to pretend is just not there. Even, as it hastens off to a red herring dragged away to strawman caricatures laced with loaded accusations or insinuations and set alight to […]
FYI-FTR*: Part 2, Is it so that >>If current models are inadequate (and actually all models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not in itself make a case for design>>
|May 31, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Further for record* on the case for a designer: EL, here: >> . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer. If current models are inadequate (and actually all [the?] models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not […]
Let’s discuss: >> Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by [want of . . . ???] any evidence for the putative designer . . . >>
|May 30, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism|
In a current UD thread, Mung clips and comments: >> OT: Over at TSZ, fossils of reason occasionally appear, quite by accident. Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by any evidence for the putative designer – no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to […]
|May 28, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Information, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism||
Andre just asked me: can you please embed a flowchart of how communication works for [XXXX] … You know the one that goes like this input encoder medium decoder output. I don’t think [XXXX] understands the problems such a system has with accidental processes nor does he understand IC. Please KF. With a little bit […]
. . . noting a comparison to punched paper tape that brings out the role of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information:
And if you don’t think this is relevant, have a little chat with Dr Hubert P Yockey, in his Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, MA, 2005, I annotate:
U/D May 30: to aid in interpreting the Yockey analysis/Mapping, here is an annotated form of the Shannon model of 1948, which subsumes all functions in “transmitter” and “receiver” blocks:
(NB: Cf Royal Truman’s discussion, here.)
I think Gitt’s version of a layer-cake model is also instructive:
And finally, let me quote from Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son, Michael:
I trust, these will help us understand what is involved in/implied by the discovery that coded information is involved in the world of cell based life, along with translation, storage, sending, numerically controlled assembly and linked functionally specific complex organisation and associated information.
Of course, I expect this to make but little impression on those determined to dismiss the evident coded information in the heart of the cell, but that will send a clear message to the rest of us as to what is really going on. END
* Oddly, one of those students is now a Minister with responsibility for telecommunications.
PS: Let’s clip an onward, instructive exchange of comments, XXXX having long since vanished once the above was put up:
G, 555: >> carpathian: There are actually no exceptions at all but the data carried by the medium, is completely unrelated to how it is delivered.
M: >>the stereochemical hypothesis
A: >>Do people know what protocol actually mean or are we going to differ on its meaning? >>
M: >>Hi Andre, We’re trying to define a protocol for how we will go about defining the meaning of protocol.
K: >>the general and relevant meanings are readily accessible and clips have been given. Relevant here is a Wiki clip:
In telecommunications, a communication protocol is a system of rules that allow two or more entities of a communication system to communicate between them to transmit information via any kind of variation of a physical quantity. [–> notice, generality, which goes beyond particular discrete-state cases, albeit such cases are particularly important in creating the concept behind the term] These are the rules or standard that defines the syntax, semantics and synchronization of communication and possible error recovery methods. Protocols may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination of both.
Communicating systems use well-defined formats (protocol) for exchanging messages. [–> Format, of course extends beyond discrete state, and in fact all real world signals are analogue [consider impacts of power supply glitches and the role of decoupling capacitors if you doubt me], certain imposed standards and thresholds. Each message has an exact meaning intended to elicit a response from a range of possible responses pre-determined for that particular situation. The specified behavior is typically independent of how it is to be implemented. Communication protocols have to be agreed upon by the parties involved. To reach agreement, a protocol may be developed into a technical standard. A programming language describes the same for computations, so there is a close analogy between protocols and programming languages: protocols are to communications as programming languages are to computations.
In recent times digital comms has dominated and handshaking too, so I think there is a tendency of overly specific focus. The blunder above by an objector, on User Datagram PROTOCOL (it’s right there in the name) is emblematic.
Wiki is again instructive, speaking against known ideological bias:
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is one of the core members of the Internet protocol suite. The protocol was designed by David P. Reed in 1980 and formally defined in RFC 768.
UDP uses a simple connectionless transmission model with a minimum of protocol mechanism. It has no handshaking dialogues, and thus exposes any unreliability of the underlying network protocol to the user’s program. There is no guarantee of delivery, ordering, or duplicate protection. UDP provides checksums for data integrity, and port numbers for addressing different functions at the source and destination of the datagram.
With UDP, computer applications can send messages, in this case referred to as datagrams, to other hosts on an Internet Protocol (IP) network without prior communications to set up special transmission channels or data paths. UDP is suitable for purposes where error checking and correction is either not necessary or is performed in the application, avoiding the overhead of such processing at the network interface level. Time-sensitive applications often use UDP because dropping packets is preferable to waiting for delayed packets, which may not be an option in a real-time system. If error correction facilities are needed at the network interface level, an application may use the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) which are designed for this purpose.
The protocol context is that of interaction and a standardised programme of correct behaviour. That’s why the term was borrowed from the context of diplomacy, courts of law and royal courts. There is no reason to confine it to discrete state cases — which in reality are also analogue anyway.
As my response to your diagram request shows, the logic of what is going on is primary, attached labels, secondary:
1 –> To communicate there must be a co-ordinated in-commonness of corresponding elements . . . hence
2 –> the natural emergence of layered peer units in the comms system. As well,
3 –> we naturally have start point and destination and wish to send an understandable message.
4 –> This leads to standards, specifications and co-ordination regarding:
– modulation and/or encoding,
– ports/interfaces [at all sorts of levels, well do I recall incoming/outgoing specs for TTL, CMOS & ECL logic and for UARTs],
– power amplification and coupling to a channel/medium,
– detection of a message at the receiving end,
– demod and decoding,
– presentation to the sink.
5 –> All of this naturally leads to a need for standards within a comms system, and standardisation naturally tends to spread where there is an incentive to be in mutual communication, e.g. the spreading of AM radio and stereophonic records [the fate of quadraphonic records is instructive on failure to meet reasonable accord]
6 –> Terms for such standards, such as codes, modulation systems and protocols are secondary to the underlying realities they describe.
7 –> The dividing line here is that
– codes address content that uses discrete state elements [e.g. alphanumeric characters, codons for genes, binary digits],
– protocols are concerned with setting up co-ordinated communication with due regard to the natural layer-cake effect, and
– mod/demod is concerned with encapsulating, sending, propagating and receiving then recovering signals in the midst of noise (and having regard to bandwidth and channel capacity issues).
8 –> The upshot is, that once communication becomes a significant, non-trivial task, standards and a complex framework of specific rules embedded in the organisation of functional elements leads to a system that is in itself information-rich.
9 –> That is, any complex communication system implies functionally specific complex [irreducibly so in fact — all of the core has to be there and has to be right for the whole to work] organisation and associated information, FSCO/I.
10 –> FSCO/I, per trillions of observed cases, has just one empirically known source, design; a point backed up by the needle-in-haystack blind chance and necessity search challenge. Regardless of dismissive rhetoric to the contrary.
11 –> And in the discrete signal case, we further deal with code, which is a manifestation of a phenomenon that in itself strongly points to verbalising intelligence as root cause.
12 –> Where, when we come across entities that manifest FSCO/I like this, the underlying FSCO/I is embedded in the organisation of the system and
13 –> it can therefore in principle be retrieved and measured by analysing the system and subsystems on node-arc networks and devising a reasonable structured chain of Y/N q’s to specify the description.
14 –> The chain length of y/n q’s then is an index in functionally specific bits, of the info content of the organisation.
15 –> Such holds for hardware and for software insofar as the latter is embedded in moving or stored signals.
So, we see how the underlying logic of communication systems of any significant complexity points to design as credible source, due to the embedded FSCO/I.
In the world of the cell, as Yockey summarised in his diagram (cf. the just linked) and as we can see in action in other diagrams and a video there, the protein synthesis system embeds a communication system pivoting on D/RNA as string data structure coded elements that hold regulatory and assembly instructions as well as the content of such.
Where, too, the proteins, functional RNAs etc that come from the code further show FSCO/I that is remote from the physical-chemical action steps involved in the communication and assembly process. (Think, string chaining –> folding –> agglomeration and activation –> biofunction.)
Next, for proteins and proteinaceous enzymes [I here distinguish ribozymes], the functionally relevant configs are deeply isolated in AA sequence space, and for that matter AA-AA peptide bonds are themselves not the only chemically relevant possibilities in play.
Now, it is quite evident that cumulatively such strongly points to intelligently directed highly skilled configuration as cause, i.e. design.
But, it is predictable that such a conclusion will be stoutly resisted by all sorts of rhetorical artifices, due to a priori commitment to evolutionary materialism.
If you doubt me, note Lewontin in his notorious 1997 NYRB remark:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Those tempted to cry the accusation, quote-mining should see the annotated fuller cite as linked]
Until that ideological bewitchment is exposed, highlighted as a crude fallacy, and becomes utterly untenable as a violation of the vision of seeking empirically warranted truth that gave science the credibility it had, there will be no willingness to receive anything counter to such ideological closed-mindedness, no matter how compelling.
Hence my emphasis on showing the facts and inviting the reasonable onlooker to see for him- or her- self what is going on.>>