Existence of God

The Design Inference is expensive and probably hard to find - it may even be out of print. I very much doubt that Joralex has read it (his recent misrepresentation of the explanatory filter certainly shows that he lacked even a basic understanding). I was lucky enough to find a remaindered copy. I see you have the two-step down to an art form, PaulK : Open mouth... Insert foot!

​

I've read the Design Inference several times and I've corresponded with Bill Dembski on the matter. You shouldn't really speak when you don't know what you're talking about.To make things simple Dembski uses improbability as his measure of information (the base 2 logarithm of the inverse of the probability to get to "bits" - so 2 bits is a probability of 0.25). It is not the same as Shannon information at all. Have you read Shannon's original work? (I have - I even have my own copy). Do you know what you're talking about above? (It doesn't look like it).

​

Probability measures may be transformed into complexity measures and, from Shannon's work on communication theory, this is done via the 'inverse log base 2' transformation. This, in turn, may be appropriately labeled as an 'information measure', keeping with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory. This is what Dembski has done and your statement above is, thus, totally incorrect.

​

Let's see a retraction, please.Specification is a description which is (supposedly) independant of the data being considered.The fact is that nobody has done the specification let alone calculated the relevant probabilities for DNA. Any claim that DNA is an example of CSI is pure speculation. Not true but then since you've misunderstood the foundation it's easy to see why you cannot understand beyond this.

​

Joralex

You say "from Shannon's work on communitcation" "complexity measures" may be transformed from probability measures. However, I don't have any reference to Shannon talking about complexity. Could you give the formulat for "complexity" then.You say that Dembski has kept "with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory". Does this mean that PaulK is wrong and that Dembski is using Shannon information but perhaps with a mathematical transformation applied? Could you show this transformation? This would demonstrate conclusively that PaulK is wrong when he says "It is not the same as Shannon information at all.
".Could you discuss the specification of DNA? All I have ever seen on the web discussion this seems to think that a specific sequence is the only one to be considered. I mentioned earlier that I believe this to be wrong in that many, many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes.Once we have the definition of information, complexity and specificity that you are using it should be much clearer what CSI is. Thank you.(PS it does seem it will be hard to get the book, our city library doesn't have it, I will try the University later in the week )

Joralex, could we carry this on in the threads I have created for the purpose?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability measures may be transformed into complexity measures and, from Shannon's work on communication theory, this is done via the 'inverse log base 2' transformation. This, in turn, may be appropriately labeled as an 'information measure', keeping with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say "from Shannon's work on communitcation" "complexity measures" may be transformed from probability measures. However, I don't have any reference to Shannon talking about complexity. Could you give the formulat for "complexity" then. If you read again you'll see that I do not say that Shannon talks about complexity. Dembski explains the point fairly well in pages 94-96 of his book (The Design Inference).

​

The bottom line is that probability and complexity correlate with each other. All it requires is a 'calibration' of some kind (depending on the situation) and that's it. A good example (taken from Dembski) is that of opening a safe (combination unknown). Dembski (rightly) concludes that the likelihood of opening the safe (by chance) and the complexity of opening the safe are mathematically equivalent.You say that Dembski has kept "with all accepted protocols of complexity and information theory". Does this mean that PaulK is wrong and that Dembski is using Shannon information but perhaps with a mathematical transformation applied? Are you seeking to defend PaulK or are you seeking to understand this subject?

​

As I've already stated, the Shannon definition of information is solely for engineering purposes since this was his only objective. Shannon himself says (in his The Mathematical Theory of Communication) that "... semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem." Shannon is correct in this.

​

However, these other aspects of communication (vocabulary, syntax, semantics, etc.) are most definitely NOT irrelevant to the overall information problem that, IMHO, represents the Waterloo of the evolutionary paradigm.Could you show this transformation? This would demonstrate conclusively that PaulK is wrong when he says "It is not the same as Shannon information at all.
". As impressive as Shannon's work was, it was left to others to 'flesh-out' many of his ideas. Shannon based his work primarily on results from Nyquist and Hartley. It was Hartley that pointed out that the 'natural' choice as an information measure in a message is a logarithmic measure and base 2 was selected merely as a convenience (since it is very easy to transform from base 2 to any other base by simply multiplying by some constant).

​

Shannon and Dembski both employ that same standard.

​

For some of the above-mentioned 'fleshing-out' see A.I. Khinchin's Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory.Could you discuss the specification of DNA? All I have ever seen on the web discussion this seems to think that a specific sequence is the only one to be considered. I mentioned earlier that I believe this to be wrong in that many, many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes. Yes, many are possible just as many books may be written with the same characters and syntax-semantic rules.

​

No one is disputing that "many DNA sequences are acceptable outcomes" but this does not in any way imply non-specificity. Try randomly mixing the words of Shakespeare's King Lear and tell us what the result is. Similarly, eliminate the specification from any DNA sequence and see if the organism remains defined as such.

​

Try also Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science and Theology by Dembski - probably easier to get than the other.

​

Joralex

A reply to message #63, please, Joralex.I can also tell you that Zhimbo is also wondering why you are ignoring him.we both look forward to your replies, as you have a bit of a backlog. ------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Well if you know all about Dembski's work then how come you so badlt misrepresented his Design inference only a short time ago ?Intesetignly rather than retracting your wholly erroneous claim you abandoned the thread.So why exactly are you trying to demand a retraction from me - when you failed to do any such thing having made a major mistake in a subject you now claim to know well ?As for the comparison with Shannon information, if you cosnider Dembski's use of the Caputo case you will see that he does not use the exact sequence in his probability calculations at all. On the other hand Dembski's measure does not include the effects of redundancy, as Shannon does. Nor does Shannon make a distinction for intelligent sources.And if you know of ANY cases where CSI has been properly identified by applying Dembski's method let's see them (and nom Dembski's attempt to prove that the bacterial flagellum is CSI does't count - it was a complete mess).

Could you make it clearer where you think Joralex as committed his errors? And maybe in the threads on the topic of CSI that I have set up to try to make them easier to find in the future?

A line of Skulls for Mike the Viz (42)Where he says of Dembski's Explanatory Filter "There is no need to compute the probability or to compare it to any bound." and even suggests that it is a strawman to say that it is needed !As my reply pointed out, it is in fact an essential step in the Filter - yet Joralex was dismissing it as not only unnecessary but alleging that it was a misrepresentation.Either he knew what he was saying was false - and when he is crying "strawman" that would be a pretty blatant piece of dishonesty, or he didn't know what he was talking about, less than two weeks ago.

If I understand what you are saying:The CSI argument relies on saying something is too improbable to have happened without some intervention from a "designer". However, then no one is capable of arriving at a calculation of the probabilities involved?They can't mean that! Can they? Perhaps Joralex will explain what is really meant.

What I am saying is that it requires calculating the probability of every possible non-design explanation producing the observed result. It's pretty obvious that that is a difficult task for anything where we don't already have a good understanding of how it came to be.So far as I know nobody has bothered to do it for any non-biological example and there are no cases of anybody making any worthwhile attempt at a biological example.

quote:

---

Have you read Shannon's original work? (I have - I even have my own copy). Do you know what you're talking about above? (It doesn't look like it).

---

Cannot speak for the person to whom you are replying, but I have
read Shannon's paper ... it's freely available on the web, even
if I hadn't read it ten years ago in connection of my first degree.Shannon's measure of information is based upon the maximum number
of valid messages that a channel can communicate.He reduces the information content to the minimum required
for the receiver to accurately reconstruct the message as sent.Semantics are neglected ... as you stated elsewhere.His calculations also rely upon there being a set of UNIQUE
message entities/components ...Shannon information doesn't really seem to be of much use
(even as analogy) to DNA systems ... different sequences of
DNA can code for the same 'information' so Shannon's formulae
are invalid in that context -- hardly suprising when they were
developed to aid a very well specified engineering problem.If you want to try adding a concept of meaning to DNA, then that's
invalid too ... meaning is constructed in the 'mind' of an
'intelligent observer' ... it doesn't exist independently/objectively.There may e very specific definitions of information for biological
system usage, but one must not confuse them with the lay use of the
term.

No I'm sorry you've got that reversed. All your posts are the sounds of ignorance or even worse willfull ignorance! I stand by my statement that CSI is a completely bougus made up term with no science behind it. Prove me wrong if you can.

This old saw about information generating not being possible by natural means is a crock! It has no general support of scientist, which is no wonder as it has no verifiable science behind it. Another complete fabrication by someone with an anti-science bias.

quote:

---

Kudos to Joralex, for answering a question! Now, let us pray, he will cease to dodge issues about the eye.

​

I always answer - you just don't understand or don't like what you hear.
Sorry, I can't help that.

---

Joralex, you're far more self-deluded than I imagined if you think you've answered all the questions in the eye thread!!!What have I been telling you over and over again? - there are multiple specific unanswered questions you've ignored, both from me and Rei. Both Rei and I have reminded you of these.Would it help you if I started a new thread on "Questions Unanswered by Joralex re: the evolution of the eye"? Or can you find my reminder posts on that thread yourself?[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-27-2003]

That does happen, of course, we don't all get things the first time. But you can "help that". Sometimes it takes a rewording of the answer or smaller steps to help get from point A to point B.It seems to me too that there are some questions that haven't been answered at all. If we post those with a clear a working as possible will you then point to where you have answered them or clarify what the answers are?Added:
In my own case I have asked some follow on questions about CSI and haven't yet received an answer.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-27-2003]