Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian Debating Device # 18: “Me or Your Lying Eyes”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The chutzpah Darwinists sometimes bring to the table is often breathtaking. This tactic is based on the old saw about the wife who catches her husband in flagrante delicto with another woman and the following exchange ensues:

Wife: “How could you?”

Husband: “How could I what?”

Wife: “Be in bed with another woman of course!”

Husband: “I’m not in bed with another woman.”

Wife: “I see her right there.”

Husband: “No you don’t.”

Wife: “Yes I do”

Husband: “Who are you going to believe, me our your lying eyes?”

It is not unusual for an exchange with a Darwinist to go like this:

Darwinist unambiguously advances proposition X.

IDer quotes the Darwinist and demonstrates that proposition X is an error.

Darwinist: “I didn’t advance proposition X. You are lying when you say I did.”

IDer: “Yes you did. I quoted you advancing proposition X just now.”

Darwinist: “No, you didn’t.”

IDer. “Uh, yes I did.”

Darwinist: [always implied; never stated]: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Here’s an example with a Darwinist who goes by Adapa :

In a previous thread William J. Murray advanced this proposition:

If something with CSI over the threshold limit can be shown at least in principle to be plausibly generated from some combination of natural laws and chance, then ID as a theory is falsified.

Adapa responded:

Since science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today, what you call “CSI”, then ID speculation (it’s never been a theory) has been falsified. You can go home now.

It is glaringly obvious that Adapa is saying not only that unguided natural forces are sufficient to produce the diversity of life but in fact have been demonstrated to have done so and therefore the ID position (i.e., that the process is guided) has been falsified.

If the idea “ID has been falsified” means anything at all, it means that Adapa is saying that the process has been shown to be unguided. That is, in fact, the whole point of Adapa’s comment. In summary, he is saying: “The idea that evolution is “guided” has been falsified. Go home now.”

William J. Murray asked Adapa to back up his assertion. Instead of backing up his position Adapa hurls verbal abuse at WJM.

Realizing that he is fighting a losing battle, Adapa then resorts to the “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes tactic.” He denies saying what he has just been quoted as saying:

Adapa again:

I [only] said then ID has been falsified by WJM’s offered falsification criteria.

In other words instead of admitting his error and retracting it, Adapa resorts to the “me or your lying eyes tactic.” He says he did not make the unqualified assertion that science has demonstrated that evolution is unguided. He says he made that assertion only in a qualified way. Adapa is saying that everything in his assertion is qualified by the phrase: “what you call ‘CSI.’” Blithering nonsense. Take the clause out and the meaning of the sentence does not change one iota. Adapa says ID has been falsified. Period. Indeed, that is the whole point of his assertion.

The “me or your lying eyes” tactic is hilarious in a sense, but at a more basic and important level, it is sad and pathetic.

Update: HT to Vishnu for point out that in the same thread Adapa had affirmatively used the word “unguided” to characterize his proposition: Here and Here

Adapa said:

The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.

All evolution requires is imperfect self-replicators competing for resources and the unguided processes take over from there.

Comments
keiths:
P(T|H) is a probability
Anyone here not know that? Anyone? Well, now you know.Mung
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
P(T|H) is a probability, not a measure of complexity.
Probability is a compelxity measure. Are you really that ignorant, keith? Really? Dembski goes over that in "No Free Lunch".Joe
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
You’re neglecting the most likely possibility, which is that you’re learning yet another thing about CSI from the critics.
We have ruled that out because our critics are ignorant about CSI.Joe
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Barry:
keiths @ 60. Yes, that you come to exactly the opposite conclusion from Dembski indicates one of two things: (1) you understand Dembski’s theory better than he does; or (2) you are wrong.
You're neglecting the most likely possibility, which is that you're learning yet another thing about CSI from the critics. Learned Hand already provided a relevant Dembski quote:
The monolith in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (a homogeneous rectangular solid) exhibits specified complexity. The sphericity of the stars do not. Both are simple according to our intuitive understanding. Yet natural processes spontaneously give rise to spheres but not to homogeneous rectangular solids.
As I wrote earlier:
By Dembski’s own equation, something exhibits CSI/specified complexity if P(T|H) is sufficiently low. P(T|H) is a probability, not a measure of complexity. A cylindrical crystal of pure silicon is not complex at all, yet it is highly improbable by purely natural processes. That’s why we have to grow them to make silicon wafers instead of just mining them somewhere. Dembski’s equation would therefore attribute CSI/specified complexity to such a crystal, despite its simplicity. “Complex specified information” is really “improbable (under natural processes) specified information”. “CSI” is a misnomer.
The cylindrical silicon crystal and the moon monolith are simple but improbable. It is their improbability, not their complexity, that qualifies them as exhibiting CSI. P(T|H) is a probability, and it's right there in Dembski's equation.keith s
November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
Correction. Andre did cite this paper in the comment that preceded the comment in which he made the quotation in question. So, from the context, one might infer whence the quoted text came. I withdraw the "without citation" remark.DNA_Jock
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
For those of you playing along at home, the paper that Andre quoted from (without citation) as proving his point that PCD is essential to life was Tulha et al 2012, PMID: 22617017 He somehow thinks that gup1-deletion cells cannot grow at all. But if you actually read the paper, this cannot be true.DNA_Jock
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Oh dear, Andre. Did you actually read the paper? How do you think they grow their gup1-deletion cells? "Yeast strains were grown until exponential phase (OD600 = 0.5–0.6) on YNB medium." This isn't a conditional mutation, it's a deletion. How on earth did you think they grew up the cells to do their experiments on? Yikes! Perhaps you should go easy on accusing others of dishonesty, and double-check whether you have any clue what you are talking about.DNA_Jock
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock.... The moment PCD became dysregulated due to a induced mutation, necrosis started on those cells they did not grow, they died..... sheets man why are you so dishonest?Andre
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Andre @65:
KF Unfortunately this is what we have to deal with……. Lies, obtrusiveness, denial. Frankly I’m tired of it and I think this is the average materialist modus operandi, to eventually get their opponents to give up and then declare victory. Intellectual honour really has sunk very low in our age; I give this example of DNA_Jock and I in a previous thread….. The exchange
DNA_JOCK said; Andre, Very interesting. gup1 strains are “incapable of undergoing apoptosis” yet they grow fine. rho-zero cells grow too, albeit slower. “PCD is essential to life” Game, set and match indeed.
What actually happens; What I actually said;
We demonstrate that gup1? mutant strain present a significantly reduced chronological lifespan comparing to Wt. Moreover, this mutant showed to be highly sensitive to acetic acid. Yet, while chronologically aged and acetic acid treated Wt cells die exhibiting apoptotic markers, gup1? mutant cells under the same conditions seems to be incapable of undergoing apoptosis. Instead, these cells appeared to be experiencing a necrotic cell death process.
this type of dishonesty is very tiresome…….
I understand that you are upset, but I gave you plenty of opportunity on the now closed “Heks-suggests-a-way-forward” thread to walk back from your wild claims that
No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.
it is not underrated function it is the only reason a cell can operate, PCD is involved in health and disease aspects of the cell. It is what makes cells work! It’s no Garbage man it is the CEO……
PCD can not evolve or even change, any type of change to it is lethal to the organism.
I am guilty of steering you towards the specific case of Type 1 PCD in S. cerevisiae, but you were the one who provided the abstract that states quite clearly that yeast cells lacking PCD still grow, albeit with “significantly reduced chronological lifespan”, thereby proving yourself wrong. Rho-zero cells would be another example. Perhaps you are now retreating to the position that PCD or necrosis are essential to life. That's a much weaker claim. I am genuinely puzzled as to what you consider dishonest here. Oh well.DNA_Jock
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
LoL! Seeing that Dembski expanded on the term specified complexity it is a given that it won't be exactly the same. It is still exactly the same concept as Orgel, et al. used.Joe
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
LH, reasonable discussion may be had on the origin of FSCO/I and thus also of specified complexity. On that, we can address inductive reasoning and evidence. Similarly, one may reasonably discuss metric models (though much of what has happened on the part of objectors is patently not reasonable). Bu,t the basic reality of FSCO/I is too broadly present in the world of systems that depend on functionally specific interactions of components wired together on a wiring diagram, to accept that it is reasonable to deny its reality, which is what too many objectors try to do. Likewise, it is not reasonable to fail to acknowledge that Orgel spoke of specified complexity, not merely complexity; the difference in terms is material and "specified complexity" in the context of Orgel's comparisons and also Wicken's remarks:
ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity [--> joint complexity-specificity criterion in the context of the organisation and function of life forms at micro, molecular level especially, per OOL]. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.] WICKEN, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
. . . supports the view that Thaxton, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Trevors & Abel, Durston et al are addressing the same phenomenon. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
KF,
The term specified complexity — used by Orgel, followed up by design theorists — is certainly being used by Orgel and by Dembski et al in a substantially equivalent way.
But not "exactly" the same. OK, thanks. I disagree that they're very similar, and I think that Orgel would too, but that's a matter of opinion. Your position is reasonable.Learned Hand
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Barry- I like this one from keith s:
P(T|H) is a probability, not a measure of complexity.
Probability is a measure of complexity and Dembski goes over this in "No Free Lunch". The more complex something is the lower the probability of it arising by chance. Rolling Yahtzee! has a lower probability than rolling 5 different numbers because a Yahtzee! is more complex to achieve. That keith cannot grasp that simple concept says quite a bit about keith.Joe
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
keiths @ 60. Yes, that you come to exactly the opposite conclusion from Dembski indicates one of two things: (1) you understand Dembski's theory better than he does; or (2) you are wrong.Barry Arrington
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
LH, please take time to examine the per aspect explanatory filter framework in light of the flowchart and discussion as follows: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-the-design-inference-warrant-and-the-scientific-method/ Notice the first decision node and the second with its emphasis on joint complexity and specificity, and the linked explanatory warrant. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Learned Hand!:
So for example, you need to know whether something has a law-like cause to tell whether it’s complex or not, per your citation.
Yes LH, science requires knowledge or else you will be lost when trying to do science. DuhJoe
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
Andre, I hear your concern. When there is a shift from seeking empirically warranted truth about our world and discussion on sound warrant to ideologically polarised, message domination tactics backed by nihilism and enabling behaviour of that nihilism, we face a sobering challenge. We need to recognise such faction tactics for what they are, and firmly block them. Then, we must clearly develop our thoughts and stand steadily in the face of a grinding, wearying slog. Gradually, the balance on the merits will become evident, and the factions will become increasingly obviously at variance with soundness and civility. Just imagine, being up on administrative procedures before folks with firing and resume tarnishing power who think and operate like we are seeing. Actually, we don't have to imagine too much, just ask many victims. Eventually, enough will wake up for a critical mass to be attained. Then suddenly many are going to jump ship adroitly seeking to land on their feet like cats as though nothing happened, no harm was done and no one was harmed. Just ask UB on why he had to take down his web site over the weekend. Ask those subjected to outing, slander, stereotyping and attempts to hold uninvolved family including minor children hostage. Then, ask the oh so genteel enablers just what they have been enabling. Enabling by tactics -- LH this has to be a tactic now -- such as refusing to acknowledge that Orgel did speak to specified complexity and did make strong distinctions that set a context for future follow up ten to twenty-five years later. It may seem a small thing, but by that insistence a partyline, Plato's Cave domineering story tactic is enabled, further enabling the nihilists. Just like that, KS, when you lend an aura of martyrdom to slander and insinuate without good reason, lying, that has consequences. And so on. We need to take due note and see the rot in science, science edu, punditry, policy, and civility. Nor is this just on origins science, awful things have happened in the name of the environment, climate, genetics of all sorts of behaviour [especially criminal, delinquent and disorderly and damaging sexual behaviours . . let's just say: porn plague], brains vs minds and more, shockingly more. Then we need to understand what happens when rots like that spread across a culture, and we need to stand up to stop the rot. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
LoL! @ keith- keith s, see THIS comment I still want to know why our opponents think that their willful ignorance refutes what we say.Joe
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
PS: Scientific reasoning is provisional and observation-controlled. In that context, chance based blind search hyps need to be empirically supported. I therefore can freely state that no hyps compatible with known or plausible physics, chemistry and thermodynamics in Darwin's pond or the like scenario is anywhere near a hope of being sufficient to cross the FSCO/I islands of function needle in haystack barrier to make a plausible OOL scenario. Much less, actually demonstrate capacity to generate relevant FSCO/I y solving the needle in haystack search problem. That's the root of the tree of life. The various chance and necessity based mechanisms for mutations etc that have some empirical plausibility have no credible capacity to bridge resource to config space ratio constraints, reasonable mut rates and pop scales with generation spans, to synthesise body plans needing 10 - 100+ mn bases of additional functionally specific bio info. While there has been much gleeful dancing around the term p(T|H), the rhetoric is not answering to what the actual evidence of FSCO/I in life forms and the source of FSCO/I point to. Particularly when we see that a search in a level 1 space of cardinality W is a subset so the blind search for a golden search comes from ste set of subsets of cardinality 2^W. Where, for 500 bits W = 3.27*10^150 already. Vera causa clearly points, design from the root up.kairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
KF Unfortunately this is what we have to deal with....... Lies, obtrusiveness, denial. Frankly I'm tired of it and I think this is the average materialist modus operandi, to eventually get their opponents to give up and then declare victory. Intellectual honour really has sunk very low in our age; I give this example of DNA_Jock and I in a previous thread..... The exchange
DNA_JOCK said; Andre, Very interesting. gup1 strains are “incapable of undergoing apoptosis” yet they grow fine. rho-zero cells grow too, albeit slower. “PCD is essential to life” Game, set and match indeed.
What I actually said;
We demonstrate that gup1? mutant strain present a significantly reduced chronological lifespan comparing to Wt. Moreover, this mutant showed to be highly sensitive to acetic acid. Yet, while chronologically aged and acetic acid treated Wt cells die exhibiting apoptotic markers, gup1? mutant cells under the same conditions seems to be incapable of undergoing apoptosis. Instead, these cells appeared to be experiencing a necrotic cell death process.
this type of dishonesty is very tiresome.......Andre
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
LH: The term specified complexity -- used by Orgel, followed up by design theorists -- is certainly being used by Orgel and by Dembski et al in a substantially equivalent way. (Kindly notice that second joint term, which implies that there is a core in common that meets reasonable criteria for being treated as effectively the same.) I state this, with particular reference to 1: wiring diagram, complex organisation and 2: resulting constraints on configuration, as opposed to 3: repetitive order (think, crystal unit cells) and to 4: chance-based randomness (think, the mixture of various crystals found in granite). Where also, 5: specified complexity, 6: understood in terms of the informational implications of wiring diagram nodes-arcs arrangement, leads straight to 7: information and its measurement, thence immediately onwards to 8: probability metrics. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
Sparc, Pardon, but you were already answered. In summary, the particular phrasing is my own, the result at bottom of synthesising concepts comon in engineering reflected in "wiring diagram" with the discussion in Orgel and Wicken. Dembski abstracts specification from functional terms but notes in NFL, that in bio contexts, specification is cashed out as function. Abel & Trevors spoke to functional vs random vs ordered sequence complexity (providing a most insightful illustration). Meyer, replying to Falk, used terms that are substantially equivalent. The underlying concept is widespread, the phrasing varies. The fact of FSCO/I is easily observed, the Abu 6500 c3 is just one of millions of possible examples. One that happens to come from what was originally a watch-making company and is simpler than a watch. Something like the D'Arsonval moving coil meter -- a commonplace in older indicating instruments -- is I think a little abstract, and clockwork is too complex. The wiring diagram of a fishing reel is intuitively obvious. Let me clip from Meyer more extensively (in the context of OOL), on the assumption that your motivation is truth seeking not message dominance:
The central argument of my book [Sig. in the Cell] is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past [--> historical and particularly origins science]. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form) [--> cf dFSCI as so often used by GP, a subset of FSCO/I]. Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question [--> vera causa applied] . . . . In order to [scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . . . The central problem facing origin-of-life researchers is neither the synthesis of pre-biotic building blocks (which Sutherland’s work addresses) or even the synthesis of a self-replicating RNA molecule (the plausibility of which Joyce and Tracey’s work seeks to establish, albeit unsuccessfully . . . [Meyer gives details in the linked page]). Instead, the fundamental problem is getting the chemical building blocks to arrange themselves into the large information-bearing molecules (whether DNA or RNA) [--> focuses on dFSCI] . . . . For nearly sixty years origin-of-life researchers have attempted to use pre-biotic simulation experiments to find a plausible pathway by which life might have arisen from simpler non-living chemicals, thereby providing support for chemical evolutionary theory. While these experiments have occasionally yielded interesting insights about the conditions under which certain reactions will or won’t produce the various small molecule constituents of larger bio-macromolecules, they have shed no light on how the information in these larger macromolecules (particularly in DNA and RNA) could have arisen. Nor should this be surprising in light of what we have long known about the chemical structure of DNA and RNA. As I show in Signature in the Cell, the chemical structures of DNA and RNA allow them to store information precisely because chemical affinities between their smaller molecular subunits do not determine the specific arrangements of the bases in the DNA and RNA molecules. Instead, the same type of chemical bond (an N-glycosidic bond) forms between the backbone and each one of the four bases, allowing any one of the bases to attach at any site along the backbone, in turn allowing an innumerable variety of different sequences. This chemical indeterminacy is precisely what permits DNA and RNA to function as information carriers. It also dooms attempts to account for the origin of the information—the precise sequencing of the bases—in these molecules as the result of deterministic chemical interactions . . . . [W]e now have a wealth of experience showing that what I call specified or functional information (especially if encoded in digital form) does not arise from purely physical or chemical antecedents [--> i.e. by blind, undirected forces of chance and necessity]. Indeed, the ribozyme engineering and pre-biotic simulation experiments that Professor Falk commends to my attention actually lend additional inductive support to this generalization. On the other hand, we do know of a cause—a type of cause—that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information . . . . [In conclusion,] it needs to be noted that the [[now commonly asserted and imposed limiting rule on scientific knowledge, the] principle of methodological naturalism [[ that scientific explanations may only infer to "natural[istic] causes"] is an arbitrary philosophical assumption, not a principle that can be established or justified by scientific observation itself. Others of us, having long ago seen the pattern in pre-biotic simulation experiments, to say nothing of the clear testimony of thousands of years of human experience, have decided to move on. We see in the information-rich structure of life a clear indicator of intelligent activity and have begun to investigate living systems accordingly. If, by Professor Falk’s definition, that makes us philosophers rather than scientists, then so be it. But I suspect that the shoe is now, instead, firmly on the other foot. [Meyer, Stephen C: Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell, SITC web site, 2009. (Emphases and parentheses added.)]
That should be quite clear. I speak to FSCO/I as that enfolds dFSCI, Irreducible Complexity and the Wicken wiring diagram. A 3-d nodes-arcs pattern can be reduced to a structured set of y/n q's that describe it with sufficient exactness to produce it, as AutoCAD etc routinely are used for. That is, discussion on strings is WLOG. And, just to underscore, the joint specificity AND complexity focussed on the same aspect of an object or process is pivotal. Where wiring diagram interactive functionality that depends on specific configuration is also pivotal. Lastly, such is an utter commonplace, so the consistent absence of admission of that fact of life in a technological world on the part of too many doctrinaire objectors to scientific design thought speaks inadvertent but sadly revealing volumes. FSCO/I is real, is observable, is reasonably quantifiable. Starting with y/n q chains at one bit per member, and capable of statistical refinement. That is linked to info as a measure or at least index of complexity, and onward to probability as a similar index. (Joe, above is quite right.) Can we at least acknowledge these things? One consequence, in terms of abstract configuration spaces (which are inherently multidimensional, to address yet another ill advised recent critique used as a point of inappropriate contempt-laced ridicule and mockery) is that FSCO/I naturally comes in deeply isolated clusters, metaphorically, islands of function. That terminology comes originally from Dembski BTW, though I picked it up from I believe GP's use here at UD years ago. It is apt. The result is that highly sparse blind search for such islands T1 . . . Tn will with maximal likelihood fail. Whether a saltshaker sprinkle dust or a connected dynamic-stochastic random walk with drift makes little difference. Nor does dust plus walk. Too little atomic and temporal resource, too much space. Sparse blind search for needles in haystacks will predictably fail. In this case, one straw sized sample to astronomically large haystacks. Designers instead use a well-proved approach: intelligently directed configuration based on knowledge, skill, creative imagination, precedent, applying or adapting the wheel, etc etc. And arguably we can spot traces of such design patterns in a more realistic tangled hedge with cross-links view of the iconic tree of life. (No, there is good reason to reject the idea of an out there observable single branching tree with broad-scale preservation of keys once acquired leading to a certain objector's claimed objective nested hierarchy. There are too many ad hoc auxiliary hyps on convergence, gene transfer and mosaics, there are too many disparities between traditional and various molecular trees. Tree-like trends with mods, reuse and adaptation of parts, diversities in embryological development programs, etc.) So, when one sees FSCO/I in protein synthesis, or in the materials and process flow network of cellular metabolism, or the digital code in D/RNA, that at minimum seriously puts design at the table as of right. On which, as Meyer pointed out Vera Causa kicks in. Decisively. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
BA, Thanks for the citation! I don't recall you providing it in the last thread--if so, I'm sorry I missed it. I was wrong about whether Dembski would consider a salt or quartz or whatever natural crystal complex. In your hurry to be ungracious, though, you've overlooked the point I was making just before: "If Orgel is looking at complexity in terms of the assembly instructions, then he would not consider a perfect cube of steel sitting on the moon to be complex. Therefore he would not consider it to have specified complexity. Dembski would." Your citation supports that pretty strongly. As Dembski says in the link you provided, a natural crystal would be specified if not complex because it follows "laws (that is, necessities of nature)". Where a subject is simple without a law-like explanation, for example, 500 fair coins landing heads-up in a row, he would find complexity. Or to stay with shapes, a perfect cubic meter of salt on the moon, where I assume there normally isn't any salt at all. If you think Dembski would deny that either of those things aren't complex by his definition, please say so. But I think I'm on firm ground here. As he wrote, "The monolith in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (a homogeneous rectangular solid) exhibits specified complexity. The sphericity of the stars do not. Both are simple according to our intuitive understanding. Yet natural processes spontaneously give rise to spheres but not to homogeneous rectangular solids." It's the contextual cause of something, not its composition, that gives rise to Dembskian complexity. But would Orgel find a crystal to be "complex" just because he found it on the moon? It still doesn't seem as if any of us have actually read his book. The direct excerpts I've seen make it sound like he's looking at whether the components are homogeneous. The analysis KF linked focuses instead on whether the assembly of something can be simply described. (And not assembly in situ according to natural means; it just refers to a list of components and an ordering of the parts.) In other words, Dembski's complexity depends on the circumstances of the thing. Not just what is it and what is it made of, but where is it? What could have caused it? In other words, what's its P(T|H)? If you don't know that, you can't tell how likely it was. So for example, you need to know whether something has a law-like cause to tell whether it's complex or not, per your citation. Nothing in any of the Orgel material I've ever seen requires the same knowledge. He's not looking at the cause of a thing in its context, is he? He's looking at its contents and composition. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear why. Your rude aside is quite off target: I comment largely to learn about these things, not because I'm an expert. Thanks for helping me learn more about how Dembski thinks of complexity. I hope this conversation helps refine your thinking as well. So do you still think that Orgel and Dembski are using the terms in "exactly" the same way? Kubrick's monolith, 500 heads in a row, the Caputo sequence: complex to Dembski, probably not to Orgel.Learned Hand
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
PPPPPPPPPPPPS: Have Dembski, Meyer, Marks, Behe, Johnson, Nelson, Sewell or even John Sanford ever referred to the particular descriptive phrasing from the underlying observable and recognisable reality and the widespread concept familiar from wiring diagrams, exploded views etc. developed by Kairosfocus.sparc
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Barry, see this comment.keith s
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Learned Hand on whether Bill Dembski thinks crystals are complex:
Orgel obviously does not think of “complexity” as a question of likelihood. Dembski does. Orgel does not think crystals are complex (and note that he does address that question without tying complexity and specificity together); I think Dembski would call them complex,
Bill Dembski on whether Bill Dembski thinks crystals are complex:
For instance, the formation of a salt crystal follows well-defined laws, produces an independently given repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but that pattern will also be simple, not complex.
Why Natural Selection Can't Design Anything LH, you really should take the time to understand an issue before you comment on it. Barry Arrington
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
Perhaps Dembski isn't the author of "No Free Lunch", but the author of "No Free Lunch" bases his specified complexity on that of those who used the term before him, ie that of Orgel, Dawkins, Davies and Kauffman.Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
In "No Free Lunch" Dembski makes it clear that he is using the term "specified complexity" in the way it was always used, that is used by Orgel, Dawkins, Davies, and Kauffman- see page 329. That Dembski tries to quantify it doesn't make it different. BTW, probability is a complexity measurement.Joe
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
KS, FTR, Gear trains are just one manifestation of FSCO/I. You leave off the general wiring diagram pattern and the particular case of string data structures carrying coded information. The Wicken wiring diagram pattern easily leads to a structured string of Y/n q's which is immediately an info metric. And more. KFkairosfocus
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
LH: Again, you overlook that Orgel particularly addresses specified complexity distinguishing it from order and from the complex randomness of granite crystals etc. And that is a pivotal point. I cannot force you to acknowledge it, but I can highlight it. I simply note for record. KFkairosfocus
November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply