Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 3, 2014 in Damned Lies and Statistics, Skepticism | 52 comments

Complex Specified Information

Complex AND specified?

This post is for any cdesign proponentsists ID-ists who would like to expound on the concept of complex specified information.

How exactly do you quantify complexity? Can you please demonstrate?

How exactly do you quantify specificity? Can you please demonstrate?

Here is a sample file. Go to it.

Share and enjoy!

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    I predict you will get two responses.
    1) silence.
    2) “This doesn’t apply”

    Which are the same two responses I’ve been getting for nearly a decade. But good luck.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      I don’t see any reason why we should place any faith in the idea of CSI if no one has managed to show how it is computed yet. The one attempt I’ve seen was incredibly bush-league: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#Calculation_of_specified_complexity

    • Joe G

      Damion, we have shown you how to compute it. Also if you could support blind watchmaker evolution you wouldn’t even have to worry about it. That you guys are making such a big deal about CSI is an indication that your position has nothing.

      As I said:

      ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

      1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

      2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

      3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

      4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

      You need to focus on #3 Damion.

    • Timothy Horton

      Why? Both #1 and #3 are completely unsupported assertions. That kills your IDiot argument dead right there.

    • Joe G

      #3 is very well supported. Blind watchmaker evolution can’t even produce testable hypotheses. It is a non-starter. And I know how upset that gets little Timmy Tantrum.

    • Timothy Horton

      The entire scientific community says you’re wrong but that never stopped you from your spittle flying IDiot rants.

      BTW Chubs, Behe gave up on arguing “irreducible complexity” years ago. He realized it was a big time loser. Apparently you didn’t get the memo.

    • Joe G

      LoL! That alleged scientific community doesn’t have any evidence to support their claims. And no Behe has not given up on IC, you are the loser.

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! That’s right Joe. The entire scientific community has zero evidence for evolution but the scientifically illiterate toaster repairman has proved ID. Guess we can all go home now.

    • Joe G

      Lol!@Timmy’s equivocation. I didn’t say anything about mere evolution. Grow up and learn to read. It’s as if you are proud to be obtuse.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      No more insulting nicknames. I’ve already referenced you both to the ground rules here.

    • Joe G

      Damion, Throw Timmy out. He has nothing to add and can only hurl insults. Everything he sez has been answered many, many times.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      I’d like to focus on #3, and the first step in my investigation is to ask whether CSI is actually something that can be measured. No point in trying to explain it if we cannot reliably detect it.

    • Joe G

      I provided peer-reviewed papers that tell you how to measure functional complexity wrt biology. That should be enough. That you continue tells me nothing will ever satisfy you wrt design and you are willing to accept the unscientific sheer dumb luck, ie a bunch of improbable coincidences.

    • Joe G

      Actually I have asked Kevin to make his case that his “challenge” is relevant. He never did. He did try but his attempt proved he doesn’t understand ID nor science.

      I also pointed out that evolutionary biologists claim to be able to detect design from non-design, as do forensic scientists and archaeologists. Meaning if he thinks his “challenge” refutes ID then it also refutes those other fields for the same reason.

  • Joe G

    Damion, Please tell us how this is relevant. I challenge you to make your case. Kevin never could. We do not see DNA sequences on paper. We actually observe them in living organisms. With science context is important. It’s as if neither of you comprehend science.

    That said, if file 1 refers to DNA, then take the number of characters and multiply by 2- 4 possible choices = 2^2= 2 bits per nucleotide. That will give you the number of bits and therefor the information carrying capacity.

    Also what is wrong with the peer-reviewed papers I provided that demonstrate how to measure functional complexity wrt biology?

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      As predicted.

    • Joe G

      Yes Kevin, you are scientifically illiterate. Don’t blame me for you failures. And I asked Damion to make his case. If he can I will not say “this doesn’t apply”. So stop being a child.

    • Timothy Horton

      Predicting Joe G will C&P a bunch of IDiot garbage he doesn’t understand and NOT compute any CSI is like predicting rain will be wet.

    • Timothy Horton

      If that’s your definition of ‘biological information’ then empirically observed natural processes like gene duplication followed by mutations to one of the pairs is NEW information. Nice own goal.

    • Joe G

      Please tell us how it was determined that a gene duplication followed by mutation is a blind watchmaker process. To do that you need to demonstrate blind watchmaker process can produce a living organism from non-living matter. And you can’t.
      See Spetner, “Not BY Chance” 1997

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! You’re right again Joe. Science can’t prove the Magic Invisible Mutation Pixies weren’t consciously directing those mutations so that means they must be true. Whatever were those scientists thinking?

    • Joe G

      LoL! ID doesn’t need anyone consciously directing the mutations any more than your computer requires a programmer there with it to make sure it runs.

      We have been over and over this Timmy. It’s as if you are unable to learn

    • Timothy Horton

      We know Joe. You think it’s MAGIC! Pretty much all your IDiot claims come down to “IT’S MAGIC!!” No mechanism, no physical evidence of outside conscious intervention, just MAGIC! That position has so much to teach science I’m sure.

    • Joe G

      What? Computers aren’t magic. Design isn’t magic. And design is a mechanism. However your position requires magic- magic to get life from non-living matter. And magical mystery mutations to get the diversity observed.

      Nice own goal Timmy

  • Joe G

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL

    With that said, to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system, then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2) and then factor in the variation tolerance:

    from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007):

    [N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon’s classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.

    Here is a formal way of measuring functional information:

    Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, “Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).

  • Joe G

    Here ya go for quantifying complexity. See also Kolmogorov complexity (Kevin thought that was Shannon information)

    That would be a start as it answers your first two questions.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      My first question was how you quantify complexity. You haven’t said what particular algorithm you have in mind here, and your first link mentions “several different ways that complexity can be quantified.” My second question was whether you could demonstrate how your preferred method works, by applying it to a mercifully small collection of data streams.

      In short, pick a pony and bet it.

    • Joe G

      Wow, in that last thread I told you 500 bits* = complex, as in the complex in complex specified information. You can apply it to your data streams. 2 bits per nucleotide.
      *500 bits of SI excedes the UPB. However I doubt blind watchmaker processes can produce 100 bits of SI

    • Joe G

      File 3 contains CSI- it has over 7,000 characters and they are arranged in a specified manner, ie English words.
      CSI is 500 bits or more and file 3 definitely excedes that.

    • http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      English words (any words or kanji really) are specified in the sense that people are trained from birth to recognise and assign specific meanings to them. If you can only assign specificity to strings of natural language, that strongly militates against your claim that we can recognise CSI when it crops up in biological contexts that do not involve humans communicating one with another.

    • Joe G

      Damion, I provided peer-review papers that tell you have to compute functional complexity wrt biology. I also explained what ID means wrt biological specification.

    • Timothy Horton

      You just can’t actually compute any CSI values. Got it.

    • Joe G

      I have. Others have too. YOU can’t. Big difference

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! Yeah Joe, you did one for a cake and one for an aardvark, both by counting letters. Big Important ID Scientist Joe with the Nobel Prize winning research.

      Damion has challenged you to show the work and the resulting calculated CSI values and you can’t. FAIL.

    • Joe G

      Yeah Joe, you did one for a cake and one for an aardvark, both by counting letters

      Moron. And we have noticed that no one has ever won a Nobel by using blind watchmaker research.

      And CSI is just to determine if it is present or not. And file 3 it is and I have explained why. OTOH you still have nothing wrt blind watchamker evolution and that you makes you bery upset.

    • Joe G

      Wow, Timmy has been exposed as an imbecile is every one of his “lines of argument”. Sweet

    • Timothy Horton

      Where’s the specification Joe? A specification is a before the fact design document outlining the requirements the design has to meet. All you IDiots have ever provided is an after the fact description.

      Painting the bulls-eye around the already existing bullet hole isn’t very impressive except to other IDiots.

    • Joe G

      Timmy sez:

      A specification is a before the fact design document outlining the requirements the design has to meet.

      That’s very narrow minded of you Timmy. Where is the specification for Stonehenge? Do you doubt it had one at that the specificatioin can be determined by investigation?

    • Timothy Horton

      I never claimed Stonehenge had a specification. You do claim biological organisms have a specification.

      Where is the before the fact specification Joe?

    • Joe G

      LoL! It figures that Timmy would totally miss the Stonehenge reference. And I have been over the specification thing with you ad nauseum.

    • Timothy Horton

      We know. You don’t have any pre-specified patterns for DNA. That means your “specified” complexity argument is worthless. You’ve had that demonstrated to you a hundred times but you still keep making the same IDiot claim.

    • Joe G

      Again it has been explained to you ad nauseum. And yes you are upset because blind watchmaker arguments are worthless

    • Timothy Horton

      You mean you’ve made the IDiot claim ad nauseum. Shitting up science discussions all over the web with your same IDiot nonsense in what you do.

    • Joe G

      What science discussions? You have no idea what science is. No materialist does

      But you do know quite a bit about shitting up discussions.

      Look, moron, premeditated murder they don’t need to find a documented plan. A fire investigator can determine arson without finding any document. The point is we do not need a prespecification to determine there was one. Duh

    • Timothy Horton

      Joe G; Also all English waors ARE pre-specified.

      But DNA sequences aren’t.

      Where are the before the fact specifications for the DNA sequences Joe?

    • Joe G

      Where’s the evidence that blind watchmaker process can produce DNA, Timmy?

      Again you guys worry about ID because you have nothing that remotely supports the blind watchmaker thesis.

  • Timothy Horton

    LOL! You mean like when you claimed one could measure CSI by counting the letters in a cake recipe?

    Joe G: “And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

    Again just count the bits in the instructions.

    For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    • Joe G

      Umm Timmy, that happens to be a fact and I provided a reference to support my claim. However that is all irrelevant as I have provided peer-reviewed papers that tell you how wrt biology.

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! So it’s a fact you can measure the information content of a cake by counting the letters.

      What happens when the identical recipe is written in a different language? According to you that changes the information content of the cake.

      When you get to the bottom of the stupid pit, quit digging.

    • Joe G

      What a moron you are. It’s a fact that For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.”

      Are you proud to be obtuse? And yes you are a bottom feeder

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! I loved this bit of scientific wisdom about CSI from you too:

      Joe G: “And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.”

      Looks like you’re toting around about 300 lbs of information spilling over your belt.

    • Joe G

      More moronic spewage from the master. Information is immaterial- it is neither matter nor energy. It doesn’t weigh anything.

      Just how proud of your ignorance are you?