Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Must CSI Include the Probabilities of All Natural Processes — Known and Unknown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on another thread, there has been some discussion (among other things) about whether the concept of CSI must include a calculation of probabilities under all natural processes.  There are a number of interesting issues relating to CSI that might be worth exploring in more detail (including Learned Hand’s comments @47 of that thread, and the issues I mentioned @139).

For now, however, I want to simply flag an issue that has been harped on for years by various individuals (Liddle, ribczynski, and in the recent thread, keith s and wd400).  In summary, the argument is that without knowing all the probabilities of all possible natural processes we cannot ever be certain that some natural process didn’t produce the biological system in question, say, the bacterial flagellum.  And since we cannot be certain that some natural process didn’t do it, then we cannot ever be certain that it was designed.

The primary problem with such an argument is that it pretends to deal in certainties — exhausting all possible natural processes, known and unknown, that might have produced such a system.  In practice, it is essentially a claim that unless we are omniscient, we can never conclude design.  Apart from the wildly one-sided approach to such a position, it ignores the fact that intelligent design is about drawing reasonable inferences.  No-one has ever claimed to be able to do an exhaustive analysis of all possible natural causes, including those that haven’t been well defined or even thought up yet.  Nor does any branch of science proceed on such a basis.  Rather, we draw upon what we do know, the processes that we are aware of, and then make reasonable inferences.  That is why it is called a “design inference,” not a “design deduction” or an “exhaust-all-other-possibilities-before-we-can-say-anything” approach.  The inference to design operates, as does all reasonable scientific effort, on the basis of known processes.

Part of the discussion on the prior thread has focused on whether a natural process, like Darwinian evolution, has any reasonable probability of producing a complex, functional biological structure such as the bacterial flagellum within the resources of the known universe.  For those who don’t have the time or the stomach to wade through all the comments in the prior thread, I offer the following more succinct summary of this particular issue, in the form of a hypothetical (but, unfortunately, very true to life) conversation between an ID Proponent and a Darwinist:

ID Proponent:  Everyone from Darwin to Dawkins acknowledges that many biological systems appear designed.  Nevertheless, rather than just assuming design, in order to be scrupulously careful in our analysis we are also going to examine known natural processes to see if they have a realistic chance of forming such biological systems given the resources of the known universe.  [ID Proponent adds additional details about specification, etc., and then says:]  We’ll call this concept CSI.  Now when we look at such biological systems, say, the bacterial flagellum, and do some basic calculations on even the most fundamental informational structures required to construct the system, it appears the system contains CSI.

Darwinist:  Wait, wait!  Your calculation of CSI must include all known natural processes.  You forgot to include in your calculation my theory, which is that random mutations can be selected and preserved over time to form more complex and more functional structures.  We don’t need to form things all at once.  The bacterial flagellum came about through slight, successive changes.

ID Proponent:  Sure.  I’m happy to include known natural processes.  Have we ever seen something like a bacterial flagellum arise through Darwinian evolution?

Darwinist: No.  But that is only because it takes too long.  Indeed, my theory includes the idea that it takes so long that we shouldn’t expect to see such systems arising.  Or, alternatively, under a version called “punctuated equilibrium” that it happens quickly and in rare, largely unobserved situations.  In either case, we should not expect to see it happen.

ID Proponent:  Um, that seems pretty convenient, doesn’t it?  But OK.  Let’s include the probabilities of such a system coming about through Darwinian evolution.  What are the odds of the bacterial flagellum arising through your theory of Darwinian evolution?

Darwinist:  No-one knows.  We can’t do the calculation.

ID Proponent:  Well if there is no well-recognized way of calculating the probabilities of Darwinian evolution producing the bacterial flagellum, then I suppose I can’t calculate it either.  However, that . . .

Darwinist:  Aha!  I knew it.  You can’t do the calculation!  Therefore, your CSI concept is bunk and I win.

ID proponent:  Hold on just a minute, let me finish.  Let’s think through this.  You are telling me that I need to take into account the probabilities of your theory producing the bacterial flagellum, and then you say that under your theory you don’t know what the probabilities are?  So what do you want me to include?  After all, it is your theory, not mine.  I am only interested in known natural processes, so if we don’t know whether your theory has any reasonable probability of producing the system in question then there is nothing to include.  At most, I guess we could add a caveat to our calculations that our number doesn’t include the probabilities of Darwinian evolution because no-one knows what those probabilities are.  Would that make you happy?

Darwinist:  No, you must include a calculation of probabilities under Darwinian evolution in order for your concept of CSI to be valid.  Otherwise, CSI is bunk.  You said you were going to include all natural processes in your calculation.

ID Proponent:  As I said, I am willing to include in CSI the probabilities of all known natural processes.  But I am not going to make up probabilities for some unknown, unconfirmed, process.  Again, if you have some details to offer about your theory that would allow us to include it in the calculation, I’m happy to do so.

Darwinist:  Nope.  Can’t be done.  I’m not going to tell you what the probabilities are under my theory.  But if you want to critique my theory and show that my theory isn’t plausible, you’ll have to come up with the probabilities of my theory on your own.

ID Proponent:  Hang on.  If I want to critique your theory I have to add some details to your theory that it currently doesn’t have?  Shouldn’t you be interested in knowing whether your theory has any reasonable probability of producing something like the bacterial flagellum?  Shouldn’t Darwinist theorists be anxiously and studiously analyzing what reasonable probabilities Darwinian evolution can overcome, what it can be expected to produce given the resources of the known universe, the “edge of evolution” so to speak?

Darwinist:  We don’t need to provide any such calculations because we believe Darwinian evolution did it.  And if you can’t provide the calculations for our theory then you can’t critique our theory.  Therefore your idea of CSI is bunk and we win!

 

Comments
"For clarify, please start your answer with a yes or no." Zachriel, you're asking for a miracle. :)Pachyaena
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I should note that Shannon’s H metric is in effect a weighted statistically driven probability rooted sum, i.e. it reflects the well known pattern that sampling of a population picks up its patterns, including frequencies that estimate population probabilities. chi = – log2 [ 10 ^ –120 * phi~S(T) * P(T|H) ] In Dembski's formula for specified complexity, is P(T|H) a probability distribution? In other words, a measure of the chance of the string occurring randomly? For clarify, please start your answer with a yes or no.Zachriel
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Joe said: "Please show me where KF says I am not correct, ie that we disagree." Joe, I didn't say that KF "says" you're not correct. I said according to KF you're not correct and according to you KF is not correct. Here's the evidence: On your blog you said: “If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I.” (bolding in original) KF says: "When the function is digital code such as D/RNA, we have digitally coded functionally specific info; a key subset. Complex Specified information is a generalised super set that does not tie specification to observed functionality..." And: "FSCO/I is instantly recognisable as an objective phenomenon. [...] Third, actually Dembski and Meyer use terms that cover much the same ground, and Behe in speaking of irreducible complexity speaks to a subset. For that matter, GP in emphasising dFSCI, speaks to another subset. CSI is an abstracted super-set where specification is abstracted. In NFL pp. 144 and 148, WmAD stresses that in biological life specification is on function.' And: "[--> cf dFSCI as so often used by GP, a subset of FSCO/I]" Joe, do sets = subsets = super sets? Are they the same thing?Pachyaena
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
P.S. Eric, if you're going to call evolution or evolutionary theory "Darwinian", the least you should do is include selection as Keith pointed out. Darwin definitely included (natural) selection.Pachyaena
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just honestly admitting that you believe 'God-did-it'. It's so very tiring to wade through the dishonest, empty, contradictory, sciency sounding pseudo-scientific claims that you IDers make that are all based on your religious beliefs. I'll touch on some of the things you said: "The careful work of intelligent design proponents like Behe to analyze the capabilities of Darwinian evolution ..." Please tell me that you're joking. See this for a start: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe "...contrasts sharply with the way in which Darwinists, for their part, analyze the competing design hypothesis." "Darwinists"? Many scientists, science writers, and other people who study evolution, including some who are religious, have thoroughly analyzed the claims of IDers and found them to be worthless. "Most wilfully misrepresent it; many make purely religious/philosophical-based attacks based on grade-school-level arguments about things like “bad design” or “evil in the world” and similar nonsense. If there are any metaphysics involved in the evolution/design debate, they are far more prevalent on the anti-design side of the aisle." "ID" is a willful misrepresentation. "ID" is based on and driven by religious/philosophical/metaphysical creationist beliefs and the infamous wedge strategy. "Perhaps more importantly, intelligent design makes a positive case,..." No, IDers constantly attack "Darwinism" and science, and baldly assert a lot of dishonest, contradictory, unsupported, pseudo-scientific nonsense. "...by pointing out that we have examples (billions of them) of information-rich structures, translation mechanisms, functional machines, and similar types of systems that we see in living organisms." So, life forms/living organisms are "structures" and "machines". Is the designer-creator a construction worker and mechanic? And don't you IDers often claim that intelligent design isn't mechanistic-mechanical and that the ID inference, hypothesis, theory, or whatever you call it isn't a mechanistic-mechanical inference, hypothesis, theory, or whatever you call it? "And in every case in which we know the provenance of such systems, it has always, without exception, been the product of a designing intelligence." Your assertions are based on your assertions that life forms/living organisms actually are "structures" and "machines". Are you a "structure" and a "machine"? "This contrasts sharply with the evolutionary storyline, which has never provided a single live example of a complex functional structure coming into being by, say, Darwinian processes. Rather, it just asserts that they all did, as a matter of fiat." "Darwinian?" Look at who is misrepresenting evolutionary theory. And what do you mean by "a single live example of a complex functional structure" and "coming into being"? Try not to misrepresent evolutionary theory with your answers. "Finally, RDFish makes some reference to intelligent design not following natural laws or transcending physical laws and such. This is just silly. Designers all follow natural laws when they design things. But they aren’t limited to what natural processes would normally produce on their own." Actually, your arguments are silly. Look, you IDers believe that the biblical-koranical, allegedly transcendental, supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, unlimited, uncaused god designed-created everything, including all physical/natural processes and laws (don't bother trying to deny that) yet you turn around and put limits on it when you think it's convenient for your arguments. Make up your minds. "RDFish confuses two very different things: (i) creating something in accordance with the requirements of natural laws (which every designer always does),..." Yep, you put limits (requirements) on your allegedly unlimited designer-creator-god. If it exists I don't think it will be happy about that. "...and (ii) saying that something came about on its own through nothing more than the interaction of natural laws (which, in the case of complex functional structures, no-one has ever witnessed)." There you go misrepresenting evolutionary theory again, and what do you mean by "complex functional structures" and "came about"? I have a couple more questions for you: When a landslide dams a river and a lake is one of the results, are the dam and/or the lake complex functional structures? Are the dam and/or the lake intelligently designed?Pachyaena
November 29, 2014
November
11
Nov
29
29
2014
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Eric:
I’ve given you a chance-based calculation...
Exactly. It's a classic bait-and-switch. You promised a calculation of the probability based on "purely natural processes", but you're trying to substitute a calculation based on pure chance. That kind of crap might work with the regulars here, but it isn't going to fly with critics or with intelligent onlookers.
...it cuts against your position and you imagine (though you have never described or assessed such a thing in any detail) that there are some other natural processes out there that need to be taken into account. I’m still waiting for you to let me know of a natural process that is not chance-based.
It's called "evolution", Eric. You may have heard of it. Evolution includes a powerful non-random element called "selection". How powerful? Run Dawkins' Weasel with selection, and it converges in a few seconds. Run it without selection, and you'd better have several quintillion lifetimes to spare. Yet the calculations you cite fail to take selection into account. They're useless for fulfilling your promise. You've been involved in the ID debate for over a decade, Eric. There's no excuse for continuing to misrepresent evolution this way, particularly when folks have been pointing out your mistake for years.keith s
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Pachy, Please show me where KF says I am not correct, ie that we disagree.Joe
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
keith s said: "I’ll bet he’s an evomat Alinskyite puppy beater, too." Well of course I am, and I'm an evil homosexual nazi too. :pPachyaena
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
KF, yep, I spoke the truth again.Pachyaena
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Joe, you apparently have a bad memory. On your blog you said: "If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I." (bolding in original) http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2014/04/measuring-csi-in-biology-repost.html According to KF you are not 'correct' and according to you KF is not 'correct'. One or both of you must do better.Pachyaena
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Pachy, I will note that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is rooted in a common phenomenon noted to be also characteristic of life forms by Orgel and Wicken in the '70's. When the function is digital code such as D/RNA, we have digitally coded functionally specific info; a key subset. Complex Specified information is a generalised super set that does not tie specification to observed functionality, which will be linked to a wiring diagram of some sort. As I long pointed out and as Orgel noted much longer ago, the chain of y/n q's that specifies the state is a metric of info, in bits. More complex metrics can be based on statistical patterns. Fits are functional bits, so used as an abbreviation by Durston et al, in the context of a metric based on the H metric. KFkairosfocus
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Pachy, sorry to have to break the news, but there you did it again. KFkairosfocus
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
With respect to biology you are not going to have CSI without FSC, meaning if you have CSI then you have FSC. If you are talking about CSI wrt biology then you are talking about FSC.Joe
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Are any IDers going to respond to this: mung said: “There are no derivatives of CSI.” A couple of questions to mung and all other IDers: Are CSI, FSCO/I, dFSCI, and FSC exactly the same thing? Are fits and bits exactly the same thing?Pachyaena
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
kairosfocus said: "Pachy, I am sorry but you are resorting to the turnabout accusation tactic, another sign of the agit-prop message dominance pattern. If you are serious, there is open to any objector a chaenge to host a pro evolution essay that addresses the full tree of life from root to twigs, which if grounded on observational evidence that warrants causal adequacy would in one stroke destroy not only this blog but devastate design thought. The UD owner has recently put into the pot, that a solid answer on a pivotal issue in it (effectively blind chance and necessity origin of FSCO/I . . . which descriptive term FYI comes directly from the remarks of Orgel and Wicken in the 1970?s) , would lead to the closing of UD blog. So, I have every right of fair comment to respond to the pattern of refuted and corrected talking attack points reiterated to the point of dreary familiarity and manifest fallacy of the closed mind, on terms familiar from the world of agit-prop. By contrast, I have laid out at length what my case is, here at UD and elsewhere as doubtless you are quite familiar. That offer I noted is of two years standing and remains inadequately responded to to date; I take the above remarks by you as an informal offer to take it up. KF" And: "KS, I suggest to you, that the astute onlooker who surveys the recent exchanges at and around UD, will find abundant reason to see that the less than happy conclusion that we are dealing with message dominance, zero concessions to “IDiots,” agit-prop tactics rather than a serious actual discussion on the merits, is warranted. A very good case in point is the lack of due responsiveness to the extended 1973 Orgel quote that fully justifies that FSCO/I and CSI as discussed by design thinkers is indeed organically connected to what Orgel and Wicken put on the table in the 1970?s. With a particular note on how a string of Y/N q’s that specify state from a field of possibilities is a metric of information. One that is as common as information metrics on file sizes on your computer. Where also, the just linked shows how, after several years you have failed to properly represent the way that design thinkers infer using a design inference explanatory filter, instead setting up and knocking over a strawman that you have insisted on endlessly recirculating in the teeth of cogent correction for weeks, on angels pushing planets, rain fairies and whatnot. If you want to know why I am drawing the conclusion that I am seeing a very familiar pattern from what I saw especially Marxist agitators do decades ago, look no further than such cases. KF PS: Kindly cf here as a further point of reference for that conclusion." KF, there's nothing "fair" in your comments so I have every right of fair comment to respond to the pattern of your refuted and corrected talking attack points reiterated to the point of dreary familiarity and manifest fallacy of the closed mind, on terms familiar from the world of agit-prop. KF, you do exactly what you accuse others of and you do it in spades. I doubt that it’s possible to be a more willfully dishonest, domineering, abusive, enabling, illogical, fact-less, evidence-less, obsessive, slanderous, low, wrong, ruthlessly attacking, patently falsely accusatory hypocrite than you are.Pachyaena
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Pachyaena @74: RDFish knows what is wrong as he has been around the block for a long time. But briefly: - As with any historical science, both intelligent design and traditional evolutionary theory seek to provide the best explanation for past events that cannot currently be examined or studied in real time. A natural part of making one's case in the historical sciences is to demonstrate the inadequacy of competing hypotheses. Intelligent design proponents have made their case for the inadequacy of something like Darwinian evolution by looking at what is required to produce such structures. Ironically, it seems to be only researchers like Behe who are actually doing the work to determine what Darwinian evolution can actually accomplish; Darwinists just assume it as a matter of faith. The careful work of intelligent design proponents like Behe to analyze the capabilities of Darwinian evolution contrasts sharply with the way in which Darwinists, for their part, analyze the competing design hypothesis. Most wilfully misrepresent it; many make purely religious/philosophical-based attacks based on grade-school-level arguments about things like "bad design" or "evil in the world" and similar nonsense. If there are any metaphysics involved in the evolution/design debate, they are far more prevalent on the anti-design side of the aisle. RDFish knows this. - Perhaps more importantly, intelligent design makes a positive case, by pointing out that we have examples (billions of them) of information-rich structures, translation mechanisms, functional machines, and similar types of systems that we see in living organisms. And in every case in which we know the provenance of such systems, it has always, without exception, been the product of a designing intelligence. Thus, intelligent design is based primarily on what we do know about how such systems arise and the real-time, verifiable cause and effect processes we see in the real world. This contrasts sharply with the evolutionary storyline, which has never provided a single live example of a complex functional structure coming into being by, say, Darwinian processes. Rather, it just asserts that they all did, as a matter of fiat. - Finally, RDFish makes some reference to intelligent design not following natural laws or transcending physical laws and such. This is just silly. Designers all follow natural laws when they design things. But they aren't limited to what natural processes would normally produce on their own. RDFish confuses two very different things: (i) creating something in accordance with the requirements of natural laws (which every designer always does), and (ii) saying that something came about on its own through nothing more than the interaction of natural laws (which, in the case of complex functional structures, no-one has ever witnessed).Eric Anderson
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Must CSI Include the Probabilities of All Natural Processes — Known and Unknown? Here is Dembski’s calculation for specified complexity. chi = – log2 [ 10 ^ –120 * phi~S(T) * P(T|H) ] Is that what we are using? If so, then it’s important to understand that phi~S(T) and P(T|H) must be independent clauses. The latter is usually construed to mean some sort of probability distribution, not every possible natural process. Do we treat P(T|H) as a probability distribution?Zachriel
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
keith: I've given you a chance-based calculation, as a ton of other people have done over the years, including faithful evolutionists who have looked at the issue and used that as a starting point. Yes, it is trivial to do so. That is all I've ever claimed, so stop harping on that point. I understand that you don't like it, because it cuts against your position and you imagine (though you have never described or assessed such a thing in any detail) that there are some other natural processes out there that need to be taken into account. I'm still waiting for you to let me know of a natural process that is not chance-based. Once you describe such a thing in some detail, maybe we can include it in the calculations.Eric Anderson
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
keith s:
Remember, “through purely natural processes” does not mean “through pure chance”.
Remember if you think that “through purely natural processes” does not mean “through pure chance”, it is up to YOU to demonstrate it. We are waiting...Joe
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
KeithS says, Pick one and give us the probability that it arose through purely natural processes. Show your work. Remember, “through purely natural processes” does not mean “through pure chance”. I say, Could "algorithmic process" serve as a proxy term for "purely natural processes" in your view? no argument here just a question peacefifthmonarchyman
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel: chi = – log2 [ 10 ^ –120 * phi~S(T) * P(T|H) ] Thought P(T|H) was supposed to essentially represent the length of the string, and the probability of it occurring randomly. So is P(T|H) a probability distribution or not? kairosfocus: I should note that Shannon’s H metric is in effect a weighted statistically driven probability rooted sum, i.e. it reflects the well known pattern that sampling of a population picks up its patterns, including frequencies that estimate population probabilities. That seems to be a yes. Is that correct?Zachriel
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
KS, I suggest to you, that the astute onlooker who surveys the recent exchanges at and around UD, will find abundant reason to see that the less than happy conclusion that we are dealing with message dominance, zero concessions to "IDiots," agit-prop tactics rather than a serious actual discussion on the merits, is warranted. A very good case in point is the lack of due responsiveness to the extended 1973 Orgel quote that fully justifies that FSCO/I and CSI as discussed by design thinkers is indeed organically connected to what Orgel and Wicken put on the table in the 1970's. With a particular note on how a string of Y/N q's that specify state from a field of possibilities is a metric of information. One that is as common as information metrics on file sizes on your computer. Where also, the just linked shows how, after several years you have failed to properly represent the way that design thinkers infer using a design inference explanatory filter, instead setting up and knocking over a strawman that you have insisted on endlessly recirculating in the teeth of cogent correction for weeks, on angels pushing planets, rain fairies and whatnot. If you want to know why I am drawing the conclusion that I am seeing a very familiar pattern from what I saw especially Marxist agitators do decades ago, look no further than such cases. KF PS: Kindly cf here as a further point of reference for that conclusion.kairosfocus
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
EA I should note that Shannon's H metric is in effect a weighted statistically driven probability rooted sum, i.e. it reflects the well known pattern that sampling of a population picks up its patterns, including frequencies that estimate population probabilities. Let me clip section A my always linked note:
To quantify the above definition of what is perhaps best descriptively termed information-carrying capacity, but has long been simply termed information (in the "Shannon sense" - never mind his disclaimers . . .), let us consider a source that emits symbols from a vocabulary: s1,s2, s3, . . . sn, with probabilities p1, p2, p3, . . . pn. That is, in a "typical" long string of symbols, of size M [say this web page], the average number that are some sj, J, will be such that the ratio J/M --> pj, and in the limit attains equality. We term pj the a priori -- before the fact -- probability of symbol sj. Then, when a receiver detects sj, the question arises as to whether this was sent. [That is, the mixing in of noise means that received messages are prone to misidentification.] If on average, sj will be detected correctly a fraction, dj of the time, the a posteriori -- after the fact -- probability of sj is by a similar calculation, dj. So, we now define the information content of symbol sj as, in effect how much it surprises us on average when it shows up in our receiver: I = log [dj/pj], in bits [if the log is base 2, log2] . . . Eqn 1 This immediately means that the question of receiving information arises AFTER an apparent symbol sj has been detected and decoded. That is, the issue of information inherently implies an inference to having received an intentional signal in the face of the possibility that noise could be present. Second, logs are used in the definition of I, as they give an additive property: for, the amount of information in independent signals, si + sj, using the above definition, is such that: I total = Ii + Ij . . . Eqn 2 For example, assume that dj for the moment is 1, i.e. we have a noiseless channel so what is transmitted is just what is received. Then, the information in sj is: I = log [1/pj] = - log pj . . . Eqn 3 This case illustrates the additive property as well, assuming that symbols si and sj are independent. That means that the probability of receiving both messages is the product of the probability of the individual messages (pi *pj); so: Itot = log1/(pi *pj) = [-log pi] + [-log pj] = Ii + Ij . . . Eqn 4 So if there are two symbols, say 1 and 0, and each has probability 0.5, then for each, I is - log [1/2], on a base of 2, which is 1 bit. (If the symbols were not equiprobable, the less probable binary digit-state would convey more than, and the more probable, less than, one bit of information. Moving over to English text, we can easily see that E is as a rule far more probable than X, and that Q is most often followed by U. So, X conveys more information than E, and U conveys very little, though it is useful as redundancy, which gives us a chance to catch errors and fix them: if we see "wueen" it is most likely to have been "queen.") Further to this, we may average the information per symbol in the communication system thusly (giving in terms of -H to make the additive relationships clearer): - H = p1 log p1 + p2 log p2 + . . . + pn log pn or, H = - SUM [pi log pi] . . . Eqn 5 H, the average information per symbol transmitted [usually, measured as: bits/symbol], is often termed the Entropy; first, historically, because it resembles one of the expressions for entropy in statistical thermodynamics. As Connor notes: "it is often referred to as the entropy of the source." [p.81, emphasis added. The section then goes on to show that on the informational view of entropy in Physics, that is not surprising, as entropy measures the average missing info to specify microstate given the thermodynamic parameters that define macrostate . . . including citing G N Lewis on that.]
A population sample of reasonable size and approach, will therefore embed an estimator of probabilities per the stochastic patterns of observation. And those will be what we are warranted to accept. As in, we deal with best current explanation per empirical warrant in science. This is the root of the point I have made over and over again based on empirical warrant and knowledge of relevant information observability, that the observed information content reflects the underlying probabilities so if one transmutes from the algebra of probabilities to that of information, one deals with what is needed. Information, as Orgel's extended quote supports (and as I have been pointing out all along only to be brushed aside dismissively) can be estimated from observed info-carrying contingencies, e.g. here 2 bits per base of D/RNA, and 4.32 bits per AA in proteins. That is what the chemistry and physics warrants, the source of mechanical and/or stochastic constraints on presumed blind chance and mechanical necessity. That is we have a chaining chemistry that is free among the bases, it is deeply isolated islands of fucntion and the after the fact of chem-phys driven chaining that we happen up[on such an island. Where as I have long pointed out we face maximally sparse needle in haystack search such that there is no good reason to expect to find the hundreds of proteins needed for 1st cell based life whether in AA sequence space or in D/RNA base space. For the latter, I am reminded of Meyer in Sig in the Cell, p. 302:
Shapiro and Miller have noted that he bases of RNA are unstable at temperatures required by currently popular high temperature origin-of-life scenarios . . . At 100 degrees C, adenine and guanine have chemical half-lives of only about one year; uracil has a half-life of twelve years; and cytosine a half-life of just twelve days . . . Stanley Miller concluded in 1998 that "a high temperature origin of life involving these compounds [the RNA bases] is therefore unlikely." Miller further noted that, of the four required bases, cytosine has a short half-life even at low temperatures . . .
Notice, how physics and chemistry are used by Shapiro and Miller as in this case rough indicators of very low probabilities? And, how this directly speaks to a major school of thought that has been widely promoted on OOL? Now, the world of life offers us a distribution that we may observe, across especially protein families, which allows us to see how flexible AA members in the chain are, and still retain once achieved fucntion. That implicitly points to the likelihood of getting tot hat function, and gives us a life history tested stochastic estimator of the shape and size of the island of function in AA sequence space. The only such empirical estimator we have. They consistently yield high information estimates, as Durston et al showed in their 2007 paper. (A paper BTW which builds on the H metric.) Coming back, we have an estimator of information which points to the weighted logged probability sum and what actually has dominated observations. (And log transformations are just that.) Up against it we have a shift the burden of proof exercise in dismissing the evidence we do have. Observational evidence should not be allowed to be dismissed by speculation; in science. And particularly, sparse search rooted in atomic and temporal resources is a major constraint, so that searches for golden searches in abstract higher order spaces face the fact that for a set of cardinality W, a sample based search is a subset. The set of subsets is of cardinality 2^W, where for just 500 bits, W = 3.27*10^150. Those who would dismiss such considerations need to answer to the cat out of the bag 1997 statement by Lewontin that speaks tot he prevalent attitude among evolutionary materialist elites by way of a review of Sagan's last book:
the problem is to get them [hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . 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. [NYRB, 1997. If you imagine this to be quote mined etc etc, I suggest that you read the fuller cite and notes at teh linked.]
Philip Johnson's reply of November that year is cogent:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In trying to understand the whys and wherefores of this exchange, we must never overlook the problem of that imposed a priori materialism, mind-closing ideological bias. KFkairosfocus
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Pachy, I am sorry but you are resorting to the turnabout accusation tactic, another sign of the agit-prop message dominance pattern. [Sinister music plays]
I'll bet he's an evomat Alinskyite puppy beater, too. KF, the reason the "evomat" message is dominant (at least in scientific circles) is that we have the better message.keith s
November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Pachy, I am sorry but you are resorting to the turnabout accusation tactic, another sign of the agit-prop message dominance pattern. If you are serious, there is open to any objector a chaenge to host a pro evolution essay that addresses the full tree of life from root to twigs, which if grounded on observational evidence that warrants causal adequacy would in one stroke destroy not only this blog but devastate design thought. The UD owner has recently put into the pot, that a solid answer on a pivotal issue in it (effectively blind chance and necessity origin of FSCO/I . . . which descriptive term FYI comes directly from the remarks of Orgel and Wicken in the 1970's) , would lead to the closing of UD blog. So, I have every right of fair comment to respond to the pattern of refuted and corrected talking attack points reiterated to the point of dreary familiarity and manifest fallacy of the closed mind, on terms familiar from the world of agit-prop. By contrast, I have laid out at length what my case is, here at UD and elsewhere as doubtless you are quite familiar. That offer I noted is of two years standing and remains inadequately responded to to date; I take the above remarks by you as an informal offer to take it up. KFkairosfocus
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Eric #59:
Quite the contrary. We’re right back to the ridiculous argument you’ve been making all along. Namely, because no-one knows how to run a probability calculation with precision on something like the bacterial flagellum, that we therefore cannot draw any reasonable inferences regarding the origin of the bacterial flagellum. That is nonsense.
What's nonsensical is your misrepresentation of my position. Take another look at our exchange: Eric:
I hope you aren’t saying that we have to be able to calculate, with precision, the precise probability of a system arising through purely natural processes before we can determine whether CSI exists. [Emphasis added]
keiths:
You don’t need a precise value, but you do need to show that it is less than Dembski’s UPB.
Eric:
Which is trivial to do with many biological systems and has been done many times.
Contrary to your strawman, I am not asking for "a probability calculation with precision on something like the bacterial flagellum". I'm asking you to provide what you claimed you could provide. If it's "trivial" and has been done "many times", as you say, then it should be easy. Right? You claim to be able to do it:
Let’s take a single component or a few components and run some basic calculations on them. And they clearly exceed the probability bound and contain CSI.
Let's take your favorite example: a functional protein of 300 residues or so. Pick one and give us the probability that it arose through purely natural processes. Show your work. Remember, "through purely natural processes" does not mean "through pure chance". Good luck.keith s
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
Eric #59:
I thought that might be the Dembski quote you were referring to. I haven’t talked to him personally about this issue, so I can’t say whether he ever “admitted the attempt failed.” The quote you provided @43 certainly doesn’t say that. He simply says that his example “doesn’t fit the bill.” Meaning, presumably, that the bacterial flagellum is too complex to be “simple enough on which the probability calculation can be convincingly performed.”
Come on, Eric. The flagellum is depicted on the cover of the book (No Free Lunch), and the calculation appears in a section entitled Doing the Calculation. Dembski's goal was to provide a convincing probability calculation, but in his own words, his calculation "didn't fit the bill." In other words, he failed. As have you. You claimed that such calculations were "trivial" and had been done "many times". Yet you haven't provided or linked to a single example of what you promised, which was a calculation of the probability of "a [biological] system arising through purely natural processes". Instead, you're trying to substitute the much easier but irrelevant calculation of the probability that something arose purely by chance. "Natural processed" and "pure chance" are not the same, as you know (and have been reminded many times). Can you back up your claim, or not? Provide an example of a calculation showing the probability of a biological system arising "through purely natural processes." If you can't, then withdraw your claim.keith s
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson, what's wrong with what RDFish said?Pachyaena
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
RDFish @71: That is wrong on so many fronts. And you know it.Eric Anderson
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Joe said: "OTOH you cannot make your case." Joe, you make a case against yourself, this blog, and ID every time you post a comment.Pachyaena
November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply