Well, it seems we have come to the end of this road, and it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you.

And you as well. I appreciate you taking the time to present your remarkably nuanced view. I look forward to discussions on other topics here with you — perhaps we’ll even end up on the same side!

Regards.

Well, it seems we have come to the end of this road, and it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you.

The measurement for CSI that I use is based on the most recent work on the subject by Dr. Dembski “Specifications: the Patterns which Signify Intelligence.” CSI can be measured at different points and with different givens … ie: from earth, given a full genome; or from our solar system, given nucleic acids; or our universe, given only matter and energy.

No matter what the crowd states, and Dr. Dembski has explained this (I’m very sure I’ve read him explain somewhere) and I believe I have adequately explained above, there is no *requirement/necessity*, in the measurement for CSI itself as based on the equation given by DR. Dembski, for direct intervention — that is, unless evolution can be ruled out, but I see no way that one can rule out evolution for two reasons …

1. the alternative, direct intervention, as it relates to the origin of CSI within our universe is about as useful as “last Thursdayism.” It may be true, but going as far back in time as we can until we get to the first CSI event, the only possible solution would be for a hand to “rip through space and time” and fashion the first instance of CSI. Is this scientifically useful? I vote, not at all!

2. no matter the improbability, there is always a way to set up a program to generate an event. Look at a car factory and the robots assembling the car in stages. That’s all an EA really is … a program (robot) used to generate a highly improbable and specified event efficiently.

… Oh, least I forget, there is another possibility … life has always existed in an infinite universe. But that is definitely for another discussion.

Since I am by no means an “interventionist,” I will not be able to defend the “interventionist” position which is what you seem to be asking of me. In fact, I will help you argue against such a position as it pertains to life.

All I have done (I believe effectively) is defend the position that CSI is indicative of previous intelligent causation — which is all that the equation for CSI, along with an understanding of organization, can tell us. Furthermore, that hypothesis has not yet been refuted through experimentation with computer simulation.

The equation for CSI can’t tell us exactly “how” the artifact was generated — through evolution or through a robotic warehouse, or through direct intervention, etc. It merely, literally tells us in a mathematical form, that we are not dealing with a uniform probability distribution … that is it. Then, the NFL Theorems take over and the argument for CSI as a reliable indicator of previous intelligence continues, which I have briefly touched on above.

So, I’m off to get me some more edumacation today, so I’ll be busy for the next couple days. I hope to hear from you again either in this thread or a future one.

…later…

PS. my position is somewhere in between/ a combination of Dr. Behe’s and Denton’s viewpoint.

I’m afraid that we’re discussing two different concepts. I’ll pick a few lines from your post to explain why I’ve come to this conclusion. Please let me know if you think my excerpts leave out relevant context.

“When you say “chance hypothesis” do you mean “de novo creation”?”

What else can you offer that utilizes only chance? Evolutionary algorithms sure don’t work only by chance.

. . .

CSI rules out chance very effectively

. . .

And yes, CSI does not take evolutionary mechanisms into account.

. . .

“We’re talking about evolution, not physics. I think I mentioned during one of our last discussions that you might be able to make a case for cosmological ID using the NFL theorems, but they are completely inapplicable when discussing the evolution that is observed in the one biosphere we know about.”

I have been making a case for cosmological ID this whole time

. . .

“CSI is supposed to show that intelligent intervention is required for a particular biological artifact to exist.”

I emphatically disagree!!!!!!! CSI requires no intervention as long as an evolutionary algorithm of any type can account for said pattern.

. . .

Simply, CSI provides evidence for evolution; it does not “rule out” evolution.

. . .

“…and changes in the length of a genome, for example, can be explained by known types of mutations.”

And because they are “known types of mutations” means what exactly in light of calculating for CSI?

It seems to me that your version of CSI is sufficiently different from that described by Dembski in No Free Lunch and in other papers as to be a completely different concept. Dembski’s CSI is supposed to demonstrate that intelligent intervention is required to explain how evolution occurred. It also is supposed to take into account known natural mechanisms; it is not merely a measurement of the probability of de novo creation.

I’m looking to gain a better understanding of CSI as described by Dembski, since it seems to be one of the primary positive claims in support of ID. Your cosmological CSI approach is interesting, and frankly I suspect easier to defend both scientifically and theologically, but it doesn’t shed light on CSI as described in No Free Lunch.

If you disagree or, even better, if you’d like to take a stab at a mathematically rigorous calculation of CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, for a real biological artifact, taking into consideration known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms, I’d love to continue the discussion.

“This isn’t my understanding from No Free Lunch, other papers, and other ID proponents on this site.”

You expect everyone to have the exact same understanding?

For such a core concept, one of the primary pieces of what is claimed to be positive evidence for ID, I definitely expect there to be agreement on the definition.

You do realize not everyone understands or has the same hypothesis for evolution, right?

There is ongoing research in numerous areas, but the core concepts of the theory are agreed upon and everyone uses the same definitions.

For example, It has been shown short peptides and RNA are catalytic.

I don’t think the CSI for a single proline or Val-Val dipeptide would be very high, yet they achieve remarkable catalysis and sterospecificity. It is possible that CSI started very low, and information was added with selection, energy, etc. over time.

http://www.scripps.edu/newsand.....large.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12713.long

Mustela:
“I would like to see that calculation.”

Excellent. Let’s look at an oil refinery, courtesy of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

Let’s begin with defining the connections between each “unit” in the diagram in terms of CSI.

We have 20 “units” or stations which can be connected in any way, since there is no regularity in the connections which can be defined by mathematical formula, and the connections themselves are not attracted to any specific station at the exclusion of the others through the physical properties of either the connectors or the stations. So, we can eliminate law and as long as the pattern is indeed not random, then we can say it is organized.

We are definitely looking at a specified event, since f(pattern of connections and specific stations)= functional event of a usable product. So, yes the pattern is functionally organized. If we can calculate a > 1 value for CSI, the oil refinery would be an example of FSCI.

Please excuse any small math errors as I am going through this relatively quickly.

So, there are 20 units, and thus approx 1.57 * 10^57 possible ways of connecting them.

Thus P(T|H) = 1/(1.57*10^57)

In order to calculate the specificity, we need to know, utilizing the same stations, how many possible combinations of connections will also produce a usable product. This is where feedback from a professional would be useful. However, if this is a very specific configuration, and any improper connection will shut down the process …

then S(t) = 1

Now, we could use 10^120 as our probabilistic resources, but to get a more accurate calculation we should take into consideration what would be necessary for this plant to operate in space. Would more components be required? If so, then our calculation of probabilistic resources should take into consideration that this configuration could only operate on certain planets. After calculating this, which I will provide as an estimate when I have some time to research the variables, we will arrive at an accurate value for the probabilistic resources.

Then, put it together:
CSI = -log2[M*N*s(T)*P(T|H), and we have the connection specified complexity.

But, there would of course be more to do. We need to figure out the CSI of every station/unit utilizing the above approach and then combine that value with the connection specified complexity to finally arrive at the CSI of the oil refinery depicted at the wikipedia link.

For whomever is interested, go ahead and do some research and make the calculations. I will do the same when and if I have time and we can compare results.

For now, though, I have shown that it is definitely theoretically possible to get a lower limit at least on the amount of CSI present in the above configuration. And I have already previously calculated a lower limit of CSI for the protein Titin in a likewise manner to show that it is indeed possible to do so.

So there you have it — an explanation, with some preliminary calculation showing that an oil refinery (which definitely requires foresight on the part of engineers) is definable in terms of organized CSI.

As a comparison, check out the schematic for this:
http://www.sciencemusings.com/.....733633.jpg

—————–
Who said there was no such thing as a Free Lunch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ50PYMXDCQ

———

It’s all in the numbers

The Beauty of Mathematics and the Love of God!

I bet you will NOT be able to read it without sending it on or telling at least one other person!

Beauty of Mathematics!!!!!!!
It was always fun to wow students via principles of 8 & 9:
1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321

0 x 9 + 1 = 1
1 x 9 + 2 = 11
12 x 9 + 3 = 111
123 x 9 + 4 = 1111
1234 x 9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 9 + 6 = 111111
123456 x 9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 9 + 8 = 11111111
12345678 x 9 + 9 = 111111111
123456789 x 9 +10= 1111111111

9 x 9 + 7 = 88
98 x 9 + 6 = 888
987 x 9 + 5 = 8888
9876 x 9 + 4 = 88888
98765 x 9 + 3 = 888888
987654 x 9 + 2 = 8888888
9876543 x 9 + 1 = 88888888
98765432 x 9 + 0 = 888888888

Brilliant, isn’t it?

And look at this symmetry:

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321

Mind Boggling…

Now, take a look at this…

101%

>From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%?

What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they
are giving more than 100%?

We have all been in situations where someone wants you to

GIVE OVER 100%…

How about ACHIEVING 101%?

What equals 100% in life?

Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help
answer these questions:

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O- R- K

8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

And:

K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E

11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%

But:

A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E

1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%

THEN, look how far the love of God will take you:

L-O-V-E-O-F- G-O-D
12+15+22+5+15+ 6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will
get you there, It’s the Love of God that will put you over the top!

Have a nice day & God bless you

You expect everyone to have the exact same understanding? You do realize not everyone understands or has the same hypothesis for evolution, right? So, why demand anything different as it pertains to ID Theory? At the end of the day, whichever hypothesis works the best will be used.

Mustela:
“When you say “chance hypothesis” do you mean “de novo creation”?”

What else can you offer that utilizes only chance? Evolutionary algorithms sure don’t work only by chance.

Mustela:
“If so, that’s not particularly interesting because no biologist claims that real biological artifacts arise de novo.”

Now, it looks like we are on the same page. The really interesting thing is not that biologists already intuitively know what the measurement for CSI tells us — although the fact that the specificity and complexity can be quantified is indeed interesting — but that no one to date has falsified or provided any theoretical underpinning to show that organized CSI can be generated absent previous intelligence through computational simulations.

Mustela:
“If by “chance hypothesis” you mean “non-intelligent causes” then your assumption of a uniform probability distribution ignores known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms and so is also not applicable to the real world.”

First, it should be obvious by now that I don’t see law as a subset of chance, yet law is a non-intelligent cause.

I thought I already defined chance earlier a few times … you know … uniform probability distribution, statistical randomness, lacking correlation, and unguided by rules or lawful constraints.

Mustela:
“If the Explanatory Filter is where known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms are taken into consideration, it cannot use a uniform probability distribution either.”

I’m sorry, but now this is turning into ID 101 and you should really do some research on the basic concepts of ID Theory. I’d love to explain ID Theory and my own hypothesis, but I just don’t have the time.

Very briefly, the EF doesn’t “use a uniform probability distribution.” The EF merely states that one must effectively rule out chance and then law in order to label a given event as intelligently designed. CSI rules out chance very effectively, and my previous explanation of organization rules out law — same type of idea as “the physics and chemistry (laws) of the ink and paper do not define the pattern and meaning within an essay.”

Mustela:
“I didn’t see anything in your calculations that make them applicable in the real world.”

You didn’t notice how the calculation rules out a uniform probability distribution if a value > 1 results?

Mustela:
“Are we using the word differently? I am using “assumption” in the mathematical sense. When you choose to measure against it, you are most definitely assuming a uniform probability distribution.”

Ah, yes, I see now. In a mathematical sense, we are “assuming” a uniform probability distribution in order to see if our assumption is correct. Given a uniform probability distribution, we will not get a value > 1, so if that > 1 value results, we know that we are not dealing with a uniform probability distribution. Simple as that.

Mustela:
“It’s deeper than that, though. By measuring against a uniform probability distribution, you are implicitly assuming that such a distribution reflects some aspect of the real world.”

Yes, there are such thing as uniform probability distributions.

Mustela:
“As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, it does not because it fails to take into account known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms. Those factors make the actual probability distribution of particular biological artifacts far from uniform.”

I’ve already dealt with this repeated “fact” of yours and you seem to be ignoring my response, or at least not understanding it. If I am being unclear, please ask for clarification on the issue.

Your understanding of the problem is lacking. Physics and chemistry on their own do no such thing, since the patterns we are discussing are not defined by the laws of physics and chemistry. If law did effect the sequencing of nucleotides, then they would not be able to carry information. We would merely be stuck with a repeating structure such as ACTGACTGACTG, which would then be defined and explained by chance + law, much like a crystal or a snowflake.

And yes, CSI does not take evolutionary mechanisms into account. As I already stated before, CSI itself is evidence of evolution for the main fact that CSI tells us that (barring direct intervention) we are dealing with a non-uniform probability distribution being matched with a correct search algorithm for efficient search.

Mustela:
“We already know the search space isn’t a uniform probability distribution because we know about physics, chemistry, and a number of evolutionary mechanisms.”

So, your main point is that CSI is redundant? I can see why you might say that, however, CSI actually gives us the quantification of an event that requires either direct intervention or an evolutionary algorithm. So, as far as providing a measurement, and providing evidence for evolution, CSI is not redundant.

Mustela:
“I’m afraid I must disagree. What I wrote is exactly correct. You can read the papers (sorry, link didn’t work) to confirm that.”

I’ve already read through the paper a few times and the authors explicitly state what I said. I can provide a few quotes upon request.

Mustela:
“Our search space is a given: the real world. Observation shows that evolutionary mechanisms work well in that environment.”

Yes, because, according to the NFL Theorems, there has been a “fortuitous” matching between a non-uniform probability distribution and search algorithm (relying upon the structure and information processing ability of life itself). If you want to provide evidence against the ID position, merely show that the above can be accomplished through only law + chance, absent intelligence. IOW, merely show me that CSI can be generated absent previous intelligent (foresighted for a future target) input.

Mustela:
“We’re talking about evolution, not physics. I think I mentioned during one of our last discussions that you might be able to make a case for cosmological ID using the NFL theorems, but they are completely inapplicable when discussing the evolution that is observed in the one biosphere we know about.”

I have been making a case for cosmological ID this whole time, and it is wholly dependent on the CSI calculated of systems within our universe — ie: the biosphere that we know about. If CSI was not calculated in living systems, then an evolutionary algorithm wouldn’t be necessary and there would be no argument for ID Theory in life based on specificity and complexity (improbability) at the biosphere level or the cosmological level. NFL Theorems are absolutely applicable to life, and evolution on our planet, since they imply accounting principles when it comes to the generation of efficiently produced [and specified or pre-specified] events — CSI.
IMO, there is no good case for direct intervention in abiogenesis, life, or evolution.

Mustela:
“CSI is supposed to show that intelligent intervention is required for a particular biological artifact to exist.”

I emphatically disagree!!!!!!! CSI requires no intervention as long as an evolutionary algorithm of any type can account for said pattern. Although, I am beginning to realize that a CSI calculation > 1 between two functional patterns, with a sea of “nonfunction” in between them, would definitely provide evidence against a purely darwinian account of evolution. But, this is really old hat, now that modern evolutionary research seems to be providing evidence that self-guided genetic engineering within life is most likely also responsible, along with darwinian random mutations, for evolution. Furthermore, there seem to be a fair amount of scientists who argue that natural selection hinders rather than helps evolution in certain contexts. But that is definitely for another discussion. Back to CSI …

Mustela:
“In order to do that, it must rule out known natural causes such as known evolutionary mechanisms. When a uniform probability distribution is assumed, those known natural causes are ignored, making any calculation inapplicable to the real world.”

I’ve adequately responded to that line of incorrect understanding above in previous comments (I’m quite sure) and definitely above within this comment.

We seem to be going around in a circle now, and I’m beginning to notice that I’m repeating myself and you seem to be ignoring some of my explanations and clarifications. For the record, I hate having to repeat myself if my responses are being ignored. It wastes too much of my time and tells me that we aren’t going to get any further in our discussion.

Simply, CSI provides evidence for evolution; it does not “rule out” evolution.

Mustela:
“My understanding is that the presence of CSI is supposed to be a clear and unambiguous indication that non-intelligent mechanisms are insufficient to explain the artifact under consideration.”

Almost bang on, except that could be misinterpreted. A robot in a car factory could be seen as non-intelligent. That robot is sufficient to a certain extent in explaining the existence of cars.
However, cars would not exist without intelligence, since that robot would also not exist without intelligence. IOW, that robot is neither defined by nor best explained by chance + law, absent intelligence. An evolutionary algorithm is really just an efficient search robot.

A simple way to understand the implication of CSI is that it provides a clear and unambiguous indication that the artifact under consideration can not be generated by chance + law, absent previous intelligence in that artifact’s causal chain.

Mustela:
“While some non-intelligent mechanisms may be involved, CSI is supposed to show that something else is also required.”

Correct … Intelligence is required somewhere down the causal chain.

Mustela:
“With all due respect, I don’t think you have. Your calculations don’t correspond to CSI as described in No Free Lunch…”

My calculations are based on Demsbki’s definition of a specified event being an event which can be formulated as an independent pattern, and all calculations coincide with his most up to date explanation of CSI as posted on his website under the paper “Specifications: the Patterns which Signify Intelligence.”

A more in depth look at why CSI effectively eliminates chance can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/pro/k.....htm#fsciis, especially in table of contents points A] and B].

Mustela:
“…and changes in the length of a genome, for example, can be explained by known types of mutations.”

And because they are “known types of mutations” means what exactly in light of calculating for CSI?

Again, if you don’t think that CSI points to intelligence, I suggest you use less words and merely provide evidence that chance + law absent previous intelligence will generate CSI. Until then, that ID hypothesis is standing strong.

I’ve already addressed where I disagree with Dembski on law being a subset of chance. Law can’t be a subset of chance if Dembski is correct that CSI adequately refutes the chance hypothesis. That is because law is defined by compressibility and a long enough compressible pattern will produce CSI. Thus, the EF is required to arrive at what I have dubbed organized CSI — designed objects (melding Dembski’s CSI with Treveor and Abel’s “organization.”)

The main point is extremely simple to follow and understand…

ahh0duhdu’;g nznb — defined and thus best explained by chance. Algorithmically complex and statistically random.

aaaaaaaaaaaa or afdsafdsafdsafds — defined and thus best explained by chance + law. Algorithmically compressible with an element of chance for the set of laws utilized and which letter(s) is/are utilized.

“DO you understand me?” — defined and thus best explained by chance + law + intelligence. Algorithmically complex, specified, sufficiently complex (improbable) in the context of this comment; foresight for communication required; historical contingency of the English language and our conversation shows how chance is included in the explanation; able to have arrived via evolutionary algorithm, thus the potential for law as an included explanation.

“Is your definition of CSI different from Dembski’s, then? ROb quotes Dembski in 234 as requiring that “Darwinian and other material mechanisms” be taken into account. The assumption of a uniform probability distribution fails to do that.”

There do seem to be a few areas where I disagree with Dembski … or at least some of his viewpoints in the past. I think that quote above is from before Dembski realized that evolution itself — even of the technically Darwinian type — is evidence of previous intelligence, which is something he definitely believes now as shown in his recent works.

Could you point me to a cite?

This sounds more like a cosmological ID argument than an evolutionary ID argument. Showing that intelligence is required for evolution to result in the diversity of life we see is different from showing that evolutionary mechanisms (and presumably the underly physics and chemistry) require intelligent intervention.

I have a question for you. Are all those “material mechanisms” you cite above, chance based? IE: are HGT, point mutations, duplicate genes, etc. random occurences? Or are they sometimes guided by the structure of life — from the laws that emerge from life’s organization?

Mutations are generally assumed to be random with respect to fitness, and bad mutations are culled by natural selection, which is not a random process. There is some interesting work being done on the evolution of evolvability and variable evolvability, which is quite interesting but doesn’t negate the basic concepts.

Looking forward to hearing from you again. Creating a CSI calculator would actually be quite simple. Collecting the data for the variables is the hard, yet very interesting, part.

I hope you’re right, but I think we still a ways off from a mathematically rigorous algorithm.