Intelligent Design (pure)

[Ex-User (9086)]

I hope you realise that your explanation doesn't have to be indigestible the way it is now and it doesn't require oversimplifying to present it in some other way.

Bonus points for ascii.

 

[Teax]

at some point a black hole is going to be created as a result of this discussion and then we will all die

we haven't reached critical mass yet

I hope you realise that your explanation doesn't have to be indigestible the way it is now

I do realize it. I cannot help it any tipps?

and it doesn't require simplifying to present it in some other way.

doesn't this contradict the above?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I do realize it. I cannot help it any tipps?

It appears that you have started using variables, such as CSI, unknowns. It would be useful to reference the variables that you are using in a spoiler of each post so that anyone can access it without going back a few pages or even to another thread to begin memorizing the set of variables only to forget what was going on.

Another problem I find with your post is the subjective prioritisation of information. For example your usage of colours is not explained. Arbitrary lines beginning with variables that probably mean something, arbitrary listing.

Using words that rely on specific definitions, without providing, such as induction (which comes in many forms).

While your post might be a methodical and structured response to someone who keeps track of what was previously stated(assumedly WookieB), it doesn't support any other user engaging into the already present discussion.

Maybe a small summary of what holds and what changed in your theory in a single post since the beginning would reduce the repetition of old information.

doesn't this contradict the above?

I corrected to oversimplifying, in that reducing but not losing vital/important information.

Regarding the intelligent design vs non-intelligent. I'd argue that it's a false duality that separates simple actions from complex actions, calling comlexity as intelligent and the rest as generally inanimate and random.

If anything, it would be a single measure of complexity that increases from the most basic to the more and more complex processes, that at some artificially chosen point begin to be called intelligent.

 

[Jennywocky]

at some point a black hole is going to be created as a result of this discussion and then we will all die

Maybe we'll orbit just outside the black hole (if it rotates at a sufficient speed), and we'll outlive everyone else back on earth due to the time difference.... WELCOME TO RELATIVE IMMORTALITY.

(Well, if we move the discussion away from earth soon enough.)

 

[Teax]

thank you very helpful!

Another problem I find with your post is the subjective prioritisation of information. For example your usage of colours is not explained.

I was trying to link my text to the quote using matching colors, to reduce the overall text mass. Was it really that unintuitive? how can I do it better?

example: that is british english.

(Well, if we move the discussion away from earth soon enough.)

it's so heavy by now, we lack the technology to lift it. we're past the point of no return folks.

 

[Cherry Cola]

then when we return to earth the crazy dragon girl will have become an INFP again

I hope

otherwise fuck her

 

[TheManBeyond]

at some point a black hole is going to be created as a result of this discussion and then we will all die

hahahah indeed, i wish i could understand shit

 

[WookieeB]

Ok. Good. I'm going to respond over 3 posts.

(1)
So assuming the sample was picked randomly per your...

we assume the non-unknown-X objects are picked randomly
= for every other variable Z, we have objects that have Z and ¬Z, as part of the sample = with known X.

lets re-arrange the icons a little, just grouping like icons together to help with the visualization....

  Population - object has Y
▓ = has X
sample = premise                         induction = inference that the 'unknown-x' space between 
premise = a couple objects               the [color=SkyBlue]sample elements[/color] are the same as the
            [color=SkyBlue]with known X[/color]                       [color=SkyBlue]sample elements[/color]

              Y                                        Y
┌───────────────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────────────────────┐
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▲▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▲▓▓▓                     ▲    │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─┼────────────────────────┼────┘       └───────────────┼───────────────┘
  │                        │                            │
  │           objects with unknown X ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has Y)     │
 these are objects that we know has X ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has Y)    │
                                                        │
                                                        │
            the inference tells us that every object probably has X

...and we have basically the same thing.

Now for all the objects represented by unknown-x spaces, they are not identical objects. They may each have their own independent properties (a,b,c,d..), but none of those other properties has any bearing or effect on what X may be, and we know that ALL of the objects have Y.
[Independent object properties (a,b,c,d...) having no effect on X] = no bias. If there is no bias, the above inference is valid.


So now that we have above set, lets look at the ID inference.....

  Population - object has CSI
▓ = origin is ID
sample = a couple objects                 induction = inference that the 'unknown origin' space 
premise    with [color=SkyBlue]origin ID[/color]              (objects) between the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color] (objects)
                                          are the same as the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color] 

              CSI                                     CSI
┌───────────────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────────────────────┐
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▲▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▲▓▓▓                     ▲    │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─┼────────────────────────┼────┘       └───────────────┼───────────────┘
  │                        │                            │
  │           objects with unknown origin ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has CSI)     │
 objects that have origin ID ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has CSI)    │
                                                        │
                                                        │
            the inference tells us that every object probably has origin ID

That's it. Just fill in the variable letters (X, not X, unknown X, Y) and you have what ID is inferring. Simple.

 

[WookieeB]

(2)
Now we come to the BIAS part.

ID theory is saying there is no bias. A CSI object is a CSI object, regardless of whether it is a lifeform, or not a lifeform; regardless if it is man-made, or not man-made. There may be other factors unique to each object or object group (a,b,c,d....), but ALL the objects under consideration have CSI (the Y factor). ID is saying that these other factors (a,b,c,d...) have no direct association with the origin (x factor) of an object, so there is no bias.

But you are trying to indicate there is a bias. You at are saying that non-lifeforms (like Mt Rushmore) are a bias, but lifeforms are not. (or maybe the reverse of that - biased for lifeforms and not for non-lifeforms, im not sure)

Lets diagram that using the form from above....

   Population - object has CSI
▓ = origin is ID
sample = a couple objects                 induction = inference that the 'unknown origin' space 
premise    with [color=SkyBlue]origin ID[/color]              (objects) between the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color] (objects)
                                          are the same as the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color] 

              CSI                                     CSI
┌───────────────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────────────────────┐
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─┐┌ ─ ─ ┐│       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│            ││     ││       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│   ⁞
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓  .                  │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│ ▲          ││     ││       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓  │                  │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│ │          ││     ││       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▲▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▓▲▓▓▓└ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ▲ ─ ┘└ ─ ▲ ┘│       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─┼──────────┼──────┼────────┼──┘       └───────────────┼───────────────┘
 ID origin,  │  nonLife,   Life,                        │
 notLife     │  unknown    unknown                      │
             │  origin     origin                       │
             │                                          │
          Mt. Rushmore                                  │
                                                        │
            the inference tells us that every object probably has origin ID

So, again, ID theory is not making any disctinction between Life and nonLife in the inference. It is treating them the same as to the X-factor, origins.

But you are saying that there is a bias for nonLife objects. You may say we can infer for Mt Rushmore because it is a nonLife object and we see that nonLife objects make up the known values of origin. Perhaps you will also point to the known ID origin objects and note there are none of Life objects in there, so we cannot infer anything about them.

And you have diagrammed it similar as .....

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬life ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │               │ 
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │      ???      │   Cannot make any inference
  life │               │  │      ???      ├─── but ID tries to infer this.
       │               │  │      ???      │
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │               │
       └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
       this whole side is  "after induction"
       "before induction"

I did some edits to remove the nonCSI objects, cause those are not really in the discussion.

So because there is a bias for nonlife objects, we cannot infer for life objects. Sounds valid.....

But it is not. It is a trick. It doesnt really play out that way.

Let's look at some other examples to show how that doesnt work. Take MT Rushmore again as the example......

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬mfoP ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │               │ 
       │               │  │               │
       │      *        │  │      ???      │
  mfoP │               │  │      ???      ├── Cannot make any inference?
       │               │  │      ???      │
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │               │
       └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
       this whole side is  "after induction"
       "before induction"

  mfoP = mountain with faces of president(s)
  * - Mt Rushmore

So, among our sample premise are CSI objects that are NOT mountains with faces of presidents. Since MT Rushmore is an object that has mfoP, and it is opposite the biased category, I guess we cannot make any origin inference for a Mountain with presidents faces on it.

The problem is though is this is fallacious. There is nothing about a mfoP, or ¬mfoP, that has any bearing on origins. So we could just forget about the supposed bias, because there is none. And we do make an inference about Mt Rushmore, so again this bias is bunk.

^ another mountain with president's face, though it does happen to be from the South

How about another......

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬ljMF ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │               │ 
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │      ???      │
  ljMF │               │  │      ???      ├── Cannot make any inference?
       │               │  │      ???      │   
       │               │  │               │   
       │               │  │               │
       └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
       this whole side is  "after induction"
       "before induction"

  ljMF = life-sized jello cake of Megan Fox

In a wintery desert, I come upon a life-sized jello cake in the shape of Megan Fox. Supressing an urge to lick it, I guess I cannot infer anything on its origin since we have no experience with Megan Fox jello cakes.

But if there is nothing about a Megan Fox jello cake that has a bearing on it's origin, I can just ignore the supposed ljMF bias and use the ID inference based on the CSI.

You could do this over and over again until the cows come home. All you need to do is look in the X-factor area (unknown origin) and find one object or a group of objects that have a particular trait (a,b,c,d....) that is distinct from the group of origin=ID objects, and claim a bias based on that trait. But unless you can tie in some specific association between the trait and origin, there is no bias.

(This is rather funny, because picking the bias is a result of ID. The trait has to fall into a particular specification, then selected for use as the bias)

So back to lifeforms. There is one more possible event that has to be considered.

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬life ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│ 
       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
  life │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓├.
       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │       ▓       │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │       ▲       │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       └───────┼───────┘  └───────────────┘
               │
              A.I

What if an ID process creates Artificial Intelligence? Is AI considered life? If it is, then any bias based on the property of has-life would be destroyed. Better hope Skynet never comes about.

----

So you cannot keep any claim that there is a bias. Life and ¬life are both part of CSI. There is nothing about life(CSI) or ¬life(CSI) that demonstrates a different effect on what the origin property would be. So you really have no reason to list it as a bias.

Say "Goodbye" to the bias......

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                             ╔═════════╗
                        ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                        ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
        samples:        │      conclusions: │
                 CSI    │            CSI    │           
            ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
            │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
            ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
            ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
    (¬life) ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ▲    ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │    ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
remove─┤    │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
bias   ├────┤~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~┤  ├~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ─┤
       │    │               │  │               │ 
       │    │               │  │               │
       ▼    │               │  │               │    Inability to make inference
     (life) │               │  │       !       ├─── is fading away.
            │               │  │               │
            │               │  │               │
            │               │  │               │
            └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
            this whole side is  "after induction"
            "before induction"

..... and then you are left with .......

  Population - object has CSI
▓ = origin is ID
sample = a couple objects                 induction = inference that the 'unknown origin' space 
premise    with [color=SkyBlue]origin ID[/color]              (objects) between the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color] space (objects)
                                          are the same as the [color=SkyBlue]Origin ID[/color]  

              CSI                                     CSI
┌───────────────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────────────────────┐
│▓                      ▓       │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│     ▓           ▓             │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│         ▓                     │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                      ▓     ▓  │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│              ▓                │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│▲    ▓                 ▓       │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
││    ▲         ▓             ▓ │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▲▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
││ ▓  │                         │       │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└┼────┼─────────────────────────┘       └───────────────┼───────────────┘
 │    │                                                 │
 │    objects that have origin ID ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has CSI)   │
 objects with unknown origin ([color=SkyBlue]and[/color] has CSI) │
                                                        │
            the inference tells us that every object probably has origin=ID

No Independent effect for origin of life vs ¬life
No Association of any distinction for life and Origin vs ¬life and Origin.

So if you take the I and A out of the BIAS, the BIAS ends up being just BS.

 

[WookieeB]

(3)
You also have the same problem with the apple analogy.

With a little cleanup edit....

apple = object with CSI
sweet = intelligently designed
red = non-life
green = life
something like... lemon = object without CSI (assume its green)

▓ = sweet
           apple                              apple 
┌─────────────────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│▓       ▓          ▓         │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│  ▓    ▓                     │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│          ▓             ▓    │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│        ▓   ▓                │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│        ▓            ▓       │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│     ▓   ▓        ▓          │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│           ▓                 │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│  ▓                       ▓  │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─────────────────────────────┘  └─────────────────────────────┘

ID does make an inference about the green apples, [color=PaleGreen]simply because they're apples[/color] and not [color=PaleGreen]lemons[/color].

AND

but once we have detected that the sample is fully biased towards the color red - theres no turning back:

▓ = sweet
 red + apple      green + apple     red + apple     green + apple
┌───────────────┬───────────────┐  ┌───────────────┬───────────────┐
│▓       ▓      │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓    ▓       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│          ▓    │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│        ▓   ▓  │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│   unknown     │
│        ▓     ▓│               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│     ▓   ▓     │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│           ▓   │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓            │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
└───────────────┴───────────────┘  └───────────────┴───────────────┘

Your choice of bias suffers from the same problem. We have red apples and green apples and we are trying to determine which is sweet. But unless you can demonstrate that there is a difference in sweetness due to an apple being red or green, it doesnt matter what color the apple is. We know that all of the red apples we have tasted are sweet, and we can infer (per your example) that the rest of the red apples are sweet. Now do we have any information to suggest that green apples are not sweet like a red apple....nope. So we can infer that the green are sweet too...because it is an apple.

Like the 'supposed' ID bias, we can come up with any distinct trait(s) of apples we havent sampled yet.

sanity:
▓ = sweet
 apple with stem  apple no stem     apple with stem  apple no stem
┌───────────────┬───────────────┐  ┌───────────────┬───────────────┐
│▓       ▓      │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓    ▓       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│          ▓    │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│        ▓   ▓  │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│   unknown     │
│        ▓     ▓│               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│     ▓   ▓     │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│           ▓   │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓            │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
└───────────────┴───────────────┘  └───────────────┴───────────────┘

Doesnt work, does it?

We have tasted some apples with stems, all tasted apples were sweet. We can infer that the untasted apples with stems are sweet as well. Apples without stems? We have not tested any, but there is no reason to think that the stem will affect sweetness, so it is a wash trait and we can infer that all apples are sweet.

sanity:
▓ = sweet
 small apple     big apple          small apple      big apple
┌───────────────┬───────────────┐  ┌───────────────┬───────────────┐
│▓       ▓      │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓    ▓       │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│          ▓    │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│        ▓   ▓  │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│   unknown     │
│        ▓     ▓│               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│     ▓   ▓     │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│           ▓   │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
│  ▓            │               │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│               │
└───────────────┴───────────────┘  └───────────────┴───────────────┘

Doesnt work, does it?

Another difference. Small apples we tasted are sweet. we have no reason to think that big apples are different to small apples due to sweetness. so there is no need to consider a difference to a big apple to a smnall apple with regards to sweetness, and we can infer just generally for apples.

We could go on and on, looking for trait to setup as some bias - apples with a worm in it, apples made into applesauce, yellow apples, striped apples, apples from washington, apples with a small bad spot, apples selected for pie, apples used for bobbing during Halloween, etc...... unless you can demonstrate why any of these traits would make a difference over sweetness, it means nothing as a bias.

Ya, so to analogize ID is to make an inference that apples are sweet. Red apples are apples, green apples are apples, and red vs green makes no differenct to sweetness.

 

[WookieeB]

Regarding the intelligent design vs non-intelligent. I'd argue that it's a false duality that separates simple actions from complex actions, calling comlexity as intelligent and the rest as generally inanimate and random.

Almost. Intelligent design is often restated that it is all about just the complexity (low probability of random possibilities). But it also includes the specificity to consider, which in the end does change the probability, but it is not a random factor.

If anything, it would be a single measure of complexity that increases from the most basic to the more and more complex processes, that at some artificially chosen point begin to be called intelligent.

Yes, this is true. If it needs to be calculated out, the artificial point is 1 in 10^150. Anything below that probability and we chalk it up to natural processes. Anything beyond that and it is intelligent design.

But 10^150 is way beyond the point that most scientists will rule that an event will occur or not.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

No, there is no specificity, as I said it's false to assume this.

1 in 10^150.

With the way you are claiming some random data, I cannot treat your responses seriously.

My post wasn't specifically directed to you, but with the way you respond it seems as if you were changing my response to fit your image of the world.

 

[WookieeB]

No, there is no specificity, as I said it's false to assume this.
With the way you are claiming some random data, I cannot treat your responses seriously.

My post wasn't specifically directed to you, but with the way you respond it seems as if you were changing my response to fit your image of the world.

The specificity is not assumed, it is shown. If any mutation (or de novo trait/function/part) can be broken down to the molecular level, the specificity can be shown by the changes/creation of information at the protein or DNA level. Even if you want to leave some wiggle room for possible variations on what can change at the level of the protein (which is where any assumptions may come in), within reason that can be factored into any probability.

Changing your response was not my intention. I was just pointing out that I agreed with you that an artificial point has to be determined for a complexity threshold. Below that point it can be considered a natural (no intelligence) cause, and above the threshold it should be considered an intelligent cause. 1 in 10^150 is very generous for a possible non-intelligent cause.

 

[Teax]

I tried to remove the word "independent" from this post as much as possible. I suspect you don't understand the concept, I'm simply going to mark the concept of independance by this color in this post, but use other, less true words for it.

The ID inference you gave in post #58 is not technically wrong. It's a valid induction assuming limited information. = assuming we haven't discovered the bias yet. Just like you can infer Newton's laws to apply universally! if you had no idea what a relativistic effect is. Simply map
Y = all experiments
X = experiments that are predictable by Newton's laws

I think you still haven't realized that induction is not a final statement. It's valid only untill new evidence is presented.
you claimed ID's induction to be a unchallengeable final statement. here you admitted it yourself:

ID theory is saying there is no bias. A CSI object is a CSI object, regardless of whether it is a lifeform

that's what ID sais. but by definition of "bias" there is a bias.
if ID sais otherwise it's pleading special case.

So, again, ID theory is not making any disctinction between Life and nonLife in the inference. It is treating them the same as to the X-factor, origins.

it's not just an inference, it's an induction. bias is not allowed to be overlooked in inductive reasoning. or why do you think this wiki article even exists?

ID is saying that these other factors (a,b,c,d...) have no direct association with the origin (x factor) of an object

yes ID is saying so, I never denied that. In fact, it's the cornerstone of my argument. ID is conjecture. It's written right there!
"ID is saying that these other factors (a,b,c,d...) have no direct association with the origin (x factor) of an object"

how could ID possibly know that? the premise of ID is not sufficient to infer this.

you seem to be arguing from a false dichotomy here, stating that either something must be true or false. but from our perstective something also could be unknown. and hence no conclusions about it can be made.

So, among our sample premise are CSI objects that are NOT mountains with faces of presidents. Since MT Rushmore is an object that has mfoP, and it is opposite the biased category, I guess we cannot make any origin inference for a Mountain with presidents faces on it.

indeed here's a glimour of hope. it shows that you are capable of understanding induction, but you find it so limiting that you choose not to believe. don't believe me, take a course on statistics!

So we could just forget about the supposed bias, because there is none. And we do make an inference about Mt Rushmore, so again this bias is bunk.

instead of inspecting the discrepancy, figuring out what's the matter... lets just forget about it!! haha

the most baffling thing is that you are saying "there is none". it's like: have you even read the definition of bias?

There is nothing about a mfoP, or ¬mfoP, that has any bearing on origins.

how do you know? your induction alone cannot tell you whether [mfoP] has any bearing on [ID].

it has to be stated additionally. afterwards you have to deduce mfoP. that's why you intuitively said inference, not induction. Yes we do make an inference about Mt Rushmore. it's based on more than just induction, if you dig deep enough.

here's how the Mt. Rushmore bias defence could work (I assume there are many ways):

• 
  mfoP = mountain + carved + depicting_president_heads
  depicting_president_heads = DPH
  
  we know some objects that have been carved and DPH, require an intelligent carver. we induce that all objects that are carved with DPH have ID.
  
  
  
  
  We analyze the underlying carving system and find that carving can be done on any solid objects. mountains are a solid object.
  => talking about carved objects, [mountain] has no bearing on [ID]
  
  diagram would look like this:
  
  
                                           physics tells us that carving can
                                           be done on any solid object
                                                        │
  ▓ = object with ID                                    │    mountain is a solid object
                                                        │      │
                            ╔═════════╗                 ▼      ▼
                       ┌────╢induction╟────┐           ╔╧══════╧═══╗
                       ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           ║ deduction ║
     sample:           │      conclusion:  │           ╚╤══════════╝
          carved+DPH   │      carved+DPH   │            ▼
           ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌────────────┼──┐     ╔═══╧═══════════════╗  
           │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌───────────┴─┐│     ║ [mountain] has [color=SkyBlue]no[/color] ║  
           ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││     ║ [color=SkyBlue]bearing[/color] on [ID]   ║  
           ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││     ║ in carved objects ║
  ¬mountain││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓├┼──┐  ╚═══╤═══════════════╝  
           ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││  │      │
           ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││  ▼      ▼
           │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ ╔╧══════╧═══╗
           ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤ ║ deduction ║
           │               │  │┌─────────────┐│ ╚╤══════════╝
           │               │  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││  │
           │               │  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││  ▼
   mountain│               │  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓├┼──┘
           │               │  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
           │               │  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
           │               │  │└─────────────┘│
           └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
  
  now: because we have shown that that [mountain] have no bearing on [ID](statistical independence) when talking about carved heads, we can shorten the whole thing back into
  
  ▓ = object with ID
                            ╔═════════╗           
                       ┌────╢induction╟────┐      
                       ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼      
     samples:          │      conclusions: │      
          carved+head  │      carved+head  │      
           ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌────────────┼──┐   
           │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌───────────┴─┐│   
           ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││   
           ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││   
           ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
           ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
           ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
           │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│
           └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
  and nobody would object. show more independencies, and you can simplify it even further!
  the bias technically still exists, but is now covered by a reason/evidence, for why the bias has no bearing on the conclusion.

ofcourse this is not final, if you come here and put forth a new bias, we can - again - try to refine this to show that the new bias also has no bearing on our conclusion. ID however does not want to be refined even once. because the most obvious bias that comes to mind blows the argument apart!! It's like a kid who thinks he's right and cries everytime someone insinuates otherwise, because he has no evidence to back up his claims. Instead you tried to "adjust the rules" in such a way that we would not be allowed to dig deeper. Let's be hardcore on special case pleading just for a change shall we?

So you cannot keep any claim that there is a bias. Life and ¬life are both part of CSI. There is nothing about life(CSI) or ¬life(CSI) that demonstrates a different effect on what the origin property would be.

how can you possibly know this! this statement is a classical argument from ignorance fallacy = assuming that something is true, just because we haven't seen anything to contradict nor support it.

What if an ID process creates Artificial Intelligence? Is AI considered life? If it is, then any bias based on the property of has-life would be destroyed. Better hope Skynet never comes about.

Say "Goodbye" to the bias......

(thanks for the picture i'm glad you're getting in the spirit!)

I agree! untill then, the bias stands. but once artificial intelligence will be deemed "life", dr. killjoy will come along and point out a new bias: [biological_life].

Your choice of bias suffers from the same problem. We have red apples and green apples and we are trying to determine which is sweet. But unless you can demonstrate that there is a difference in sweetness due to an apple being red or green, it doesnt matter what color the apple is. We know that all of the red apples we have tasted are sweet, and we can infer (per your example) that the rest of the red apples are sweet. Now do we have any information to suggest that green apples are not sweet like a red apple....nope. So we can infer that the green are sweet too...because it is an apple

I thought I made the example ridiculous enough for you to see the problem, but apparently not.

you just said: unless you can demonstrate dependence of [color] and [sweet], we assume independence. argument from ignorance <-- read it.

the reasonable answer is: we don't know.

let me quote wikipedia:

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

that's exactly what ID is doing. ID has the burden of proof that [life] has no bearing on [ID], not the rest of the world. being comfortable with saying "I don't know" is not fallacious!

by your logic of ignoring biases, you can induce that cats inhabit other planets inside the goldie-locks-zone.

Spoiler

take the diagram from #58

▓ = X
             Y                                   Y
┌─────────────────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│                     ▓       │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│      ▓                      │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│          ▓                  │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│             ▓        ▓      │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│  ▓                          │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─────────────────────────────┘  └─────────────────────────────┘

and map:

in the goldie-locks-zone = in_GL_zone

Y = planet + in_GL_zone
X = inhabited_by_cat_resembling_creatures

we ignore the bias: sample does not contain any other planets with cats besides ours.

▓ = inhabited_by_cat_resembling_creatures

     planet + in_GL_zone                planet + in_GL_zone
┌─────────────────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│          ▓                  │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
│                             │  │▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓│
└─────────────────────────────┘  └─────────────────────────────┘

just because you cannot demonstrate that there is nothing resembling a cat on all those other planets, there must be... right? false dichotomy. there's a third option: we cannot induce anything. we will have to add deduction and additional statements to this argument to infer something.

In a wintery desert, I come upon a life-sized jello cake in the shape of Megan Fox. Supressing an urge to lick it, I guess I cannot infer anything on its origin since we have no experience with Megan Fox jello cakes.

ok.. so why didn't you induce that this jello cake tastes like Megan Fox?

It has the same property (shape) and ID sais that the fact it's made of jello has no further bearing on taste.

We have tasted some apples with stems, all tasted apples were sweet. We can infer that the untasted apples with stems are sweet as well. Apples without stems? We have not tested any, but there is no reason to think that the stem will affect sweetness, so it is a wash trait and we can infer that all apples are sweet.

Another difference. Small apples we tasted are sweet. we have no reason to think that big apples are different to small apples due to sweetness. so there is no need to consider a difference to a big apple to a smnall apple with regards to sweetness, and we can infer just generally for apples.

We could go on and on, looking for trait to setup as some bias - apples with a worm in it, apples made into applesauce, yellow apples, striped apples, apples from washington, apples with a small bad spot, apples selected for pie, apples used for bobbing during Halloween, etc...... unless you can demonstrate why any of these traits would make a difference over sweetness, it means nothing as a bias.

you haven't realized why random sampling is important yet.......
and this sentence tells me you don't know/feel the difference between deduction and induction...

fact is, if you never tasted apples with stems, you cannot infer whether stems make a difference in apples or not based on the evidence of the sample.

you need to additionally understand the underlying principles of physics, or that you are tasting/biting the apple - not the stem, or that all apples had a stem at some point. then deduce that [with_stem] has no bearing on [sweet]. unless you assume something like that, no inference is possible.

if a variable has no bearing on [sweet], then you can literally divide your object space into arbitrary properties and it will never change the result of your induction. You can split your induction into millions tiny pieces and it will always lead to the same conclusions at the end. this is an inherit property of induction and deduction.
lets split the sample of the apples among 3 new variables: [worm], [bruised], [size], and consider all the combinations. here's how it looks with a random sample:

object space: apples
▓ = sweet
sample:                                          conclusion:
       │     red     │    green    │                    │     red     │     green   │  
   ────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼────            ────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼────      
  no   │    ▓ │    ▓ │      │      │                no  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
 worm  │▓     │      │      │      │               worm │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤ bruised        ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤ bruised
       │ ▓    │ ▓    │      │      │                    │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
 worm  │▓     │  ▓   │      │      │                    │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
       ├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────           worm ├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼────
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │      │                    │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
 worm  │     ▓│      │      │      │  not               │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │ not
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤ bruised        ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤ bruised
  no   │      │   ▓  │      │      │                no  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
 worm  │    ▓ │  ▓   │      │      │               worm │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼──────┼────            ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼──────┼────
       │ big  │    small    │ big  │                    │ big  │    small    │ big  │

every combination is considered.

the sample in that graphic is unbiased towards all 3 new variables, which suggests that those variables have no bearing on [sweet].
the sample in that graphic is biased against green. hence we cannot infer anything about the relation of [color] and [sweet]. = does color have bearing on the taste of an apple? I have no idea. I never tasted the green ones.

• if the sample contained some green apples, induction would suggest that [color] has no bearing on [sweet]. (or the opposite, if those apples turned out to be sour)
• if the sample is biased, a relation between [color] and [sweet] cannot be infered from the induction. you have to look for evidence for that elsewhere.

ID claims that induction alone suggests that [life] has no bearing on [ID], despite there existing an obvious bias. <-- BAM! bullshit!

let's see your analogizing:

Ya, so to analogize ID is to make an inference that apples are sweet. Red apples are apples, green apples are apples, and red vs green makes no difference to sweetness.

indeed this is a perfect analogy for ID.

how do you know this statement to be true: red vs green makes no difference to sweetness.
definetly not from the sample! you just demonstrated that you yourself have an intuitive understanding that an additional piece of evidence(the bold part in the quote) is required to infer sweetness of green apples.
all you have to do is stop giving ID special treatment and demand the evidence of "red vs green makes no difference to sweetness.", and rejoice at how the argument falls apart.

-----------------------------------------------------------

here's another approach to explain:

induction is the inverse of deduction.

deduction:

• 
  all red apples are sweet
  subset contains only red apples
  => subset is sweet

notice how green apples are irrelevant for deduction.

induction: (strong form)

• 
  every sample(subset) is sweet
  every sample is randomly picked from red apples
  =>all red apples are sweet

as per rule of inverse functions, anything that is irrelevant for deduction, is uninferrable for induction. deduction doesn't care about green apples sweetness => induction does not say anything about green apples' sweetness. you have to find your evidence elsewhere. ID does not do that. It relies solely on induction. ergo ID=BS.

 

[WookieeB]

(sorry, it was a busy November. Here is a portion of my reply regarding the diagrams)

Ok, then we've been looking at this from a wrong angle. The induction statements and pictures (that you came up with btw), are not correct. I realize that the actual ID inference is not represented in these statements. I was assumming that certain statements were prior established before we got to your diagrams, but I guess they were not accepted by you. So I will have to backup and represent those statements, which ends up being a better representation of the ID inference to begin with.

object space: Information
▓ = known origin
sample:  
                                conclusion:
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │           │   C  │   S  │  SC  │  
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼      
       │    ▓ │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
    R  │▓     │      │      │        R  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
       │      │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │      │ ▓    │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    N  │      │  ▓   │      │        N  │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
       │      │      │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    RN │     ▓│      │      │        RN │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    o* │     ▓│      │      │        o* │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │    
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼ 
       │▓     │   ▓  │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
    ID │    ▓ │  ▓   │     ▓│        ID │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │  ▓   │      │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼
                         ^                               ^
                         │                               │
C =  complexity          └───────────────────────────────┴──────── artifacts of LIFE would fall in these columns
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

This is about as simple as I could come up with and include all known and proposed processes for generating artifacts with a measureable information calculation that could be represented as a probability.

We could add another column to separately show another variable (CS) to show specified complexity below the threshold used by variable: SC, but I figured that the C and S columns combined could demonstrate that.

For ID, the essential inference from the above diagram would be that any SC (CSI) artifact would be produced by an ID cause, thus CSI ⇔ ID. Life, or specific aspects of life, though we do not have any direct evidence of its origin, falls into a category of having CSI and thus we infer that the best candidate for origins is ID.

This doesnt work on the old diagram. When we plug that in, it makes no sense....

▓ = object with ID = object with [origin=ID]

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬life ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │               │ 
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │      ???      │   Cannot make any inference
  life │               │  │      ???      ├─── but ID tries to infer this.
       │               │  │      ???      │
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │               │
       └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘
       this whole side is  "after induction"
       "before induction"

.... cause if life has CSI and CSI ⇔ ID then the diagram is self-contracdictory.

But if we go a little off-topic, the diagram can still almost work if we change the object definition.....

▓ = object with identified originator

                        ╔═════════╗
                   ┌────╢induction╟────┐         
                   ▲    ╚═════════╝    ▼           
   samples:        │      conclusions: │
            CSI    │            CSI    │           
       ┌───────────┼───┐  ┌──────┼─────┼──┐      
       │┌──────────┴──┐│  │┌─────┴─────┴─┐│
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││  ▓   ▓      ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
 ¬life ││             ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││
       ││    ▓     ▓  ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       ││▓      ▓     ││  ││▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓││ 
       │└─────────────┘│  │└─────────────┘│ 
       ├───────────────┤  ├───────────────┤
       │               │  │               │ 
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │      ???      │   Cannot make any inference
  life │               │  │      ???      ├─── and ID doesnt make any.
       │               │  │      ???      │
       │               │  │               │
       │               │  │               │
       └───────────────┘  └───────────────┘

ID doesnt propose to define the identity of the intelligence. But there are still problems with the diagram.

--------

yes ID is saying so, I never denied that. In fact, it's the cornerstone of my argument. ID is conjecture. It's written right there!
"ID is saying that these other factors (a,b,c,d...) have no direct association with the origin (x factor) of an object"

how could ID possibly know that? the premise of ID is not sufficient to infer this.

To a degree I agree with you. But it really depends on what we specifically are referring to by factors a,b,c,d. In your breakdown of my mfop example, you expanded the definition of the object into specific factors (mfoP = mountain + carved + depicting_president_heads) and then made an inference based on the independent nature of one of the factors (mountain). That is ultimately how you are making an inference to the origin of something like Mt Rushmore. You have sub-consciously already broken down the properties of such an artifact and made the inference that it was from an ID origin.

So for your apples example, I suppose if we have no idea why an apple is Red vs Green, then we cannot make any inference as to sweetness. But if we start to break down the bias to more detailed components, we might be able to make an inference based on those factors. For instance, is a red vs green distinction because of ripeness of the apple? those factors could be expressed differently in an induction diagram. If not a ripeness issue, is it because of the presence of chemicals like chlorophyll, caroten, anthocyanin. First you have to define sweetness (precense of certain amount of fructose) and then if we can show that such chemicals to not have any effect on sweetness, the diagram can be worked out to show some induction.

For the life and origins question, you again have to break down your terms. You somewhat already did it with my AI example. You brought up artificial-life vs biological-life as a breakdown of the term to continue the bias you say exists. Fine. Keep breaking down your definition of LIFE and we can look at those factors? ID is talking about specific sub-factors of life in general and making the inference based on data of those factors. Irreducibly complex artifacts are just one aspect that is considered.

 

[Teax]

The induction statements and pictures (that you came up with btw), are not correct. I realize that the actual ID inference is not represented in these statements.

"Not correct" is not the same as "not representative of ID" I haven't actually seen any problems. they are correct diagrams, but they can never represent ID because ID is not a logically sound inference.

This doesnt work on the old diagram. When we plug that in, it makes no sense cause if life has CSI and CSI ⇔ ID then the diagram is self-contracdictory.

where is the contradiction?

Contradiction occurs when the propositions yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

please point out the 2 concrete statements that contradict - everytime you state that something is contradictory. atm I have no idea what you mean...

I was assumming that certain statements were prior established before we got to your diagrams, but I guess they were not accepted by you.

if you assume that CSI ⇔ ID then you don't need my diagram at all you already have proven ID. my diagram was trying to show you that you cannot infer CSI ⇔ ID from the evidence you provided.

I assume your diagram somehow tries to show the opposite, so let's concentrate on your diagram: I don't understand how your diagram could make sence to you:

object space: Information
▓ = known origin
sample:  
                                conclusion:
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │           │   C  │   S  │  SC  │  
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼      
       │    ▓ │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
    R  │▓     │      │      │        R  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
       │      │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │      │ ▓    │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    N  │      │  ▓   │      │        N  │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
       │      │      │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    RN │     ▓│      │      │        RN │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    o* │     ▓│      │      │        o* │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │    
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼ 
       │▓     │   ▓  │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
    ID │    ▓ │  ▓   │     ▓│        ID │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │  ▓   │      │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼
                         ^                               ^
                         │                               │
C =  complexity          └───────────────────────────────┴──────── artifacts of LIFE would fall in these columns
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

• what does empty space mean in your diagram? it's obviously not defined the same way as in my diagrams
• you infered that all objects with ID and SC have known origin. O_o if not, why did you fill the boxes on the right side?
  
  ▓ = known origin
     conclusion:
         │  SC  │
     ────┼──────┤  Here you infered that all objects with SC+ID have known origin.
         │▓▓▓▓▓▓│  that is obviously not true, we already know that all the
      ID │▓▓▓▓▓◄┼──other objects in there had unknown origin, theres no point
         │▓▓▓▓▓▓│  in making this obviously false inference.
     ────┴──────┘
  SC = specified complexity
  ID = Intelligent Design
• why is your object space = information? I thought we were talking about objects?
• your diagram does not state anything about the origin of CSI objects, only about whether the origin is known. so please elaborate how your diagram illustrates this:
  

  For ID, the essential inference from the above diagram would be that any SC (CSI) artifact would be produced by an ID cause, thus CSI ⇔ ID.

For the life and origins question, you again have to break down your terms. You somewhat already did it with my AI example. You brought up artificial-life vs biological-life as a breakdown of the term to continue the bias you say exists. Fine. Keep breaking down your definition of LIFE and we can look at those factors?

feel free to break it down as you wish (as long as it makes sence). I'm not the one trying to prove ID.

ID is talking about specific sub-factors of life in general and making the inference based on data of those factors. Irreducibly complex artifacts are just one aspect that is considered.

this sounds great. but I haven't seen ID actually do that. ID talks about CSI, everything else is ignored by ID. here, i'll quote you:

So, again, ID theory is not making any disctinction between Life and nonLife in the inference. It is treating them the same as to the X-factor, origins.

since life = CSI + ♫, you just admitted that ID ignores ♫ as a variable (whatever ♫ is).

 

[WookieeB]

"Not correct" is not the same as "not representative of ID" I haven't actually seen any problems. they are correct diagrams, but they can never represent ID because ID is not a logically sound inference.

No, it is "not representative of ID". ID is inferring that objects that have specified complexity (CSI) have an intelligent cause behind them. The inference is made based on 1) all objects with CSI that we know the origin of, always the origin has been due to an intelligent cause, and 2) There has never been a demonstration of a non-intelligent cause producing objects with CSI.

The problem with the old diagram is that it was holding that CSI holds no meaning to determining origin. In fact, you could not determine any origin from an item in it's general form regardless of information in it. That includes inferring evolution for what you were listing as "life". Only when you could break down the item into sub parts (like the mfop or apple, or the artificial life specific) and then note either the origin or independence of that sub part could you then begin to make an inference. The problem with that route was though that you could conceivably keep looking for some component with an unknown origin to seemingly throw a wrench into the inference. That is not representative of ID's position.

So I rewrote the diagram to better address the information position, which is really what ID is resting on. It is about the specified complexity noted in the information representation of an object (or lack of SC) that an origins inference can be made.

where is the contradiction?

The contradiction was that if the assertion of ID is CSI ⇔ ID, that was not represented in the diagram, cause we were left with an inability to infer anything about origin from an item whose origin we didnt know, despite the CSI property. Essentially saying the CSI property didnt matter, which is not what the ID inference really is.

the contradiction is 1) ID infers an intelligent cause based on the level of specified complexity in an object. vs 2) your diagram says you cannot infer anything regardless of CSI.

The ID inference is: CSI ⇔ ID
That was not represented in the diagram. Yes, it was being assumed (as I took it) in your diagram, but that is wrong to do and it doesnt make sense to assume that unless there is some reason (an inference) to do so. But that inference was not suggested in the old diagram, and that is why it is wrong. So I realized that to accurately reflect the ID inference we need to change the diagram to not make that assumption, but rather to show that inference based on the data.

if you assume that CSI ⇔ ID then you don't need my diagram at all you already have proven ID. my diagram was trying to show you that you cannot infer CSI ⇔ ID from the evidence you provided.

No, it is not assumed, or rather is should not be assumed. CSI ⇔ ID is basically what the ID inference is. That was not being represented in the old diagram. It was arguing the wrong thing.

your diagram does not state anything about the origin of CSI objects, only about whether the origin is known. so please elaborate how your diagram illustrates this

what does empty space mean in your diagram?

I think we have a different understanding of what "origin" means in the diagrams. I am referring to a known process of producing some object/artifact, but am not referring to any specific documented instance of production. I am referring generally to the how, and not to the specific where and when.

So perhaps to clarify, I would change the filled in item to be: an object with a process demonstrable of producing it.

And that is question that the ID inference is trying to answer - What process is reasonably capable of producing a particular object?

Empty spaces would be objects with measurable information values whose process of production are currently unknown.

why is your object space = information? I thought we were talking about objects?

They are objects, but the search space is looking at objects based on a measureable quality of information. So all the objects can have a name and an identifiable information probability. As regards the information, there are different measurable factors such as complexity, specificity, and various combinations of the two.

this sounds great. but I haven't seen ID actually do that. ID talks about CSI, everything else is ignored by ID. here, i'll quote you:

since life = CSI + ♫, you just admitted that ID ignores ♫ as a variable (whatever ♫ is).

Perhaps, but since ID is not making any statement regarding ♫, why is that even a factor? Since every artifact that has a measureable information component is either < or > a CSI threshold, that is all that the ID inference is dealing with. Why deal with a ♫ factor that is not by definition not under consideration?

The formula is life = (artifact < or > CSI) + (artifact < or > CSI) + (artifact < or > CSI)+ .... + (artifact < or > CSI) + ♫. ID is not making any statement regarding ♫. It is making statements regarding any (artifact < or > CSI).

 

[Teax]

ID is inferring that objects that have specified complexity (CSI) have an intelligent cause behind them. The inference is made based on 1) all objects with CSI that we know the origin of, always the origin has been due to an intelligent cause, and 2) There has never been a demonstration of a non-intelligent cause producing objects with CSI.

this is very nice and concise, I will quote this later on if I need to try a different approach on you

Let me quote you from before:

This doesnt work on the old diagram. When we plug that in, it makes no sense cause if life has CSI and CSI ⇔ ID then the diagram is self-contracdictory.

now let's see what you said now:

The contradiction was that if the assertion of ID is CSI ⇔ ID, that was not represented in the diagram, cause we were left with an inability to infer anything about origin from an item whose origin we didnt know, despite the CSI property. Essentially saying the CSI property didnt matter, which is not what the ID inference really is.

the contradiction is 1) ID infers an intelligent cause based on the level of specified complexity in an object. vs 2) your diagram says you cannot infer anything regardless of CSI.
(...)
CSI ⇔ ID is basically what the ID inference is. That was not being represented in the old diagram. It was arguing the wrong thing.

That is not a self-contradiction in my diagrams. the Red text is incomplete. My diagram shows you "you cannot infer anything regardless of CSI" - based on the premises you have given. If ID operated based on the same premises, then my diagram contradicts ID, not itself.

My diagram reflects logic. So if it indeed contradicts ID, then either ID has more premises which my diagram didn't take into consideration... but since there are none - ID must be plain wrong.

here's an old-school socrates-parody analogy if you feel like it:

Spoiler

Socrates sais: Birds have wings, hence, they can fly.
Plato sais: Birds can dream. but you coudn't infer that. Thus your argument is self-contradictory. Thus your argument is false.
Socrates sais: It's true that my argument can't infer that birds can dream, but that has no influence on the inner coherence of my argument. My argument was not self-contradictory to begin with, and it was logically sound. and thus your additional statement doesn't prove that my argument is false. I simply cannot infer anything about whether birds can dream, based on on the premise that they have wings.
Plato sais: But I infered that birds can dream from the premise that birds have wings.
Socrates sais: Then you are wrong. You did not use reason to come to that conclusion.

Socrates = logic
Plato = ID

I think we have a different understanding of what "origin" means in the diagrams. I am referring to a known process of producing some object/artifact, but am not referring to any specific documented instance of production. I am referring generally to the how, and not to the specific where and when.

that's the way I understand [origin] aswell, no difference.

Empty spaces would be objects with measurable information values whose process of production are currently unknown.

so in other words, "unknown origin".
that's not how my diagrams defined empty spaces.

Spoiler

in my diagrams, a space is defined as unknown X. you defined X as "known origin" which means that a space would mean:

unknown whether the origin is known or not. <-- contradiction, for every possible object we know whether we know the origin.

this means that if you define ▓ = known origin, thus X = known origin, and then you are not allowed to have spaces anywhere in your diagram

by your definition, you would have to visualise inference differently. you have ignored my challenge, so I will repost it:

object space: Information
▓ = known origin
sample:  
                                conclusion:
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │           │   C  │   S  │  SC  │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼      
       │    ▓ │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
    R  │▓     │      │      │        R  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
       │      │      │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │      │ ▓    │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    N  │      │  ▓   │      │        N  │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
       │      │      │      │           │      │▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    RN │     ▓│      │      │        RN │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │   ▓  │     ▓│      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │
    o* │     ▓│      │      │        o* │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │ 
       │      │  ▓   │      │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│      │    
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼ 
       │▓     │   ▓  │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│[color=Red]▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
    ID │    ▓ │  ▓   │     ▓│        ID │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│[color=Red]▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
       │  ▓   │      │ ▓    │           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│[color=Red]▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼
                         ^                               ^
                         │                               │
C =  complexity          └───────────────────────────────┴──────── artifacts of LIFE would fall in these columns
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

the red part of your diagram:

▓ = known origin
   conclusion:
       │  SC  │
   ────┼──────┤  Here you infered that all objects with SC+ID have known origin.
       │▓▓▓▓▓▓│  that is obviously not true, we already know that all the
    ID │▓▓▓▓▓◄┼──other objects in there had unknown origin, theres no point
       │▓▓▓▓▓▓│  in making this obviously false inference.
   ────┴──────┘
SC = specified complexity
ID = Intelligent Design

why do think your diagram infered an obviously wrong conclusion? I'll explain: if I simply redraw your diagram, without changing its structure, I simply replace all spaces with this symbol: ☼

▓ = known origin
☼ = unknown origin
sample:  
                                conclusion:
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │           │   C  │   S  │  SC  │  
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼      
       │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    R  │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        R  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    N  │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        N  │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    RN │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        RN │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    o* │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        o* │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│    
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼ 
       │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
    ID │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│        ID │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼
                         ^                               ^
                         │                               │
C =  complexity          └───────────────────────────────┴───── artifacts of LIFE would fall in these columns
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

you replaced knowledge ☼ with knowledge ▓. what you did here is not an inference... I don;t even know what it is... misinformation? but it's not even helping your case. and I cannot imagine what you were trying to represent. you are basically forcefully forgetting that those objects have an unknown origin, and inferring that we know the origin of those objects.

this below would be a diagram more representative of the state of our knowledge, but I don't see how it could possibly support ID, you'll have to explain that in detail, please?
all that diagram shows you, is that LIFE can be in any of the 5 right boxes. which one? the diagram doesn't say.

▓ = known origin
☼ = unknown origin
                     │nolife│ life │
       │   C  │   S  │ +SC  │ +SC  │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    R  │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    N  │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    RN │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    o* │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    ID │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
                               ^
                               │
C =  complexity                └─ artifacts of LIFE would fall in this column somewhere
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

They are objects, but the search space is looking at objects based on a measureable quality of information. So all the objects can have a name and an identifiable information probability. As regards the information, there are different measurable factors such as complexity, specificity, and various combinations of the two.

they're called attributes of objects. an object for example can have [origin=ID]. the object space is not information. you said yourself:

ID is inferring that objects that have specified complexity (CSI) have an intelligent cause behind them. The inference is made based on

1) all objects with CSI that we know the origin of, always the origin has been due to an intelligent cause

see? we're talking about objects with attributes

2) There has never been a demonstration of a non-intelligent cause producing objects with CSI.

still talking about objects. Without objects, it's impossible to demonstrate that a cause produced CSI. a cause is just an attribute of objects, CSI is an attribute of objects, thus only real life objects are capable of binding these attributes together to demonstrate something.

The formula is life = (artifact < or > CSI) + (artifact < or > CSI) + (artifact < or > CSI)+ .... + (artifact < or > CSI) + ♫. ID is not making any statement regarding ♫. It is making statements regarding any (artifact < or > CSI).

for attributes, + means "and". apple + red means the object is an apple and it is red. so why are you repeating yourself?

you just said life has CSI and life has CSI and ... oh yeah life has CSI and by the way: life has CSI and did I mention that life has CSI? And life also has ♫. but let's ignore ♫, because life has CSI. we haven't proven that ♫ has no influence on [origin] but I hope nobody notices! because life has CSI.

why not shorten it to:

life = (object has CSI) + ♫

or just

life = CSI + ♫

Perhaps, but since ID is not making any statement regarding ♫, why is that even a factor? Since every artifact that has a measureable information component is either < or > a CSI threshold, that is all that the ID inference is dealing with. Why deal with a ♫ factor that is not by definition not under consideration?

by who's definition? ID's? I'm talking about the definitions in logic. If ID redefines logic to make its case, then ID is not reasonable by definition.

so "why is it a factor"? because it's a bias. a bias by definition of induction(and thus logic) cannot be ignored. If ID ignores ♫ then ID is not a resonable argument.

 

[WookieeB]

I'm going to address the diagram part first. I think we are still debating over definitions, and I will admit that my labelling in the diagram is not the best. As you re-quoted, I had tried to clarify what about "origins" was under consideration, that it was more the how cause rather than the where and who specifics. Even in my diagram I had listed types of how-origins on the left column, but it apparently was not enough to clarify what "origin" was in the diagram. I also think it is hard to get away from thinking about a specific instance when using the word "origin" in the diagram.

So to that end, I have used your updated diagram with the more visible icons and rewritten the icon definitions. "Cause" is more appropriate for what I am referring to, and it happens to be the language most often used in the ID argument anyways.

object space: objects with information value
▓ = demonstrated cause able to produce effect
☼ = not-demonstrated cause able to produce effect
sample:                             conclusion:

    ┌──────────known causes──────────┐
    │                                │
    V                                V                           
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │           │   C  │   S  │  SC  │ <── information 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼      value types     
       │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    R  │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        R  │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    N  │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        N  │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │☼☼☼☼☼☼│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    RN │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        RN │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    o* │☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│        o* │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│ 
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│    
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼ 
       │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
    ID │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│        ID │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│
       │☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│           │▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│▓▓▓▓▓▓│ 
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼       ────┼──────┼──────┴──────┼
                         ^                               ^
                         │                               │
C =  complexity          └───────────────────────────────┴─── some particular artifacts of LIFE
                                                               do fall in these columns
S = specification
SC = specified complexity (that exceeds a certain threshold)

R = random process
N = necessity (law-like process)
RN = random + necessity (RM + NS falls in here)
O* = other idendified non-intelligent processes (which usually break down to form of RN anyways)
ID = Intelligent Design

For the instances represented by the circle icon, it is not that a cause is unknown, as you demonstrated was represented in my diagram in the prior post. We have a cause, but we just have not demonstrated that cause can produce the particular information value in question.

So the induction is that for CSI objects (SC that exceeds a certain threshold), the only cause demonstrated able to produce it is ID, and no other known cause has been demonstrated able to produce CSI. So for any artifact that has CSI, like perhaps something found in life, we infer ID as the cause.

----

That is not a self-contradiction in my diagrams. the Red text is incomplete. My diagram shows you "you cannot infer anything regardless of CSI" - based on the premises you have given. If ID operated based on the same premises, then my diagram contradicts ID, not itself.

My diagram reflects logic. So if it indeed contradicts ID, then either ID has more premises which my diagram didn't take into consideration... but since there are none - ID must be plain wrong.

No. The premises are wrong that you are considering. You are not understanding the factors that ID is considering. You are treating CSI as an unique property depending on the 'bias' of an object, but it is not. You still are not getting what CSI is.

The basic unit of consideration for ID is information. All objects in relation to existence can be expressed as a measure of information. CSI is a particular measurement of information that is beyond a pre-determined threshold. As already stated numerous times, complexity is a measure of the rarity of information within the possible search space, and specificity is a identifying a particular expression or range of expression for information and is related to function. But at it's base, the thing being measured is information.

As a comparison, information is like the mass of an object. At it's most basic, mass is based off of the atomic weight of a particle. But beyond that, when measuring groupings of particles that make up an object, there is nothing about mass that is determined by the physical property of that object as a whole. So 15 grams of red apple is the same as 15 grams of green apple which is the same as 15 grams of rock,...etc. There is nothing about an apple, rock or other object that demands it be a particular mass.

The same goes for information. There is nothing about the information that is dependent on the physical properties of matter upon which it is represented. How matter is arranged and combined for function plays a bearing what is measured as information but there is nothing about the base physical properties of matter itself that has a bearing. There is nothing about life information that is inherently unique compared to non-life information.

CSI is just a measurement of information that goes beyond a particular threshold. Usually it is the specification portion that will push the value above a threshold. But the specification is independent of the physical properties of the object under consideration. For example, the specific information found in the code of a gene found in DNA could be exactly the same as that of digital code in a computer program. Whether the code is written on nucleotides in biology or on silicon makes no difference. The message is not dependent on the canvas. Information is not determined base on the canvas of life or non-life; they are independent. And as an extension there is nothing affecting the value of CSI as found in life vs CSI as found in non-life.

they're called attributes of objects. an object for example can have [origin=ID]. the object space is not information.

see? we're talking about objects with attributes

still talking about objects. Without objects, it's impossible to demonstrate that a cause produced CSI. a cause is just an attribute of objects, CSI is an attribute of objects, thus only real life objects are capable of binding these attributes together to demonstrate something.

This is a lame semantic point you are making. Of course we are talking about objects. But we are dealing with objects that have a particular property: information. Just like you had your "apples" diagram listed with "object space: apples", i figured in my diagram listing "object space: information" would be somewhat self evident that we are talking about objects with an information value.

But since information to some extent is pretty much woven throughout just about any object, it still leaves a very broad seach space.

for attributes, + means "and". apple + red means the object is an apple and it is red. so why are you repeating yourself?

Because "life" is too broad a term for the discussion and I do not think you are understanding the concept of information as an object property.

you just said life has CSI and life has CSI and ... oh yeah life has CSI and by the way: life has CSI and did I mention that life has CSI? And life also has ♫. but let's ignore ♫, because life has CSI. we haven't proven that ♫ has no influence on [origin] but I hope nobody notices! because life has CSI.

It is not "life" as an object that in general has property: CSI=true. Life is too broad, it encompasses too many instances, each of which has many components, is itself made of many objects. What I am saying is that if you break down any lifeform into its sub-objects, it is: Object1(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object2(property_CSI = False) + Object2(property_CSI = FALSE) + .... + Objectx(property_CSI = TRUE) + ♫. Life is made of of multiple objects that for the most part each have their own information value property.

But if any of those objects has a property value of CSI = true, then by the inference that object has cause = ID. Though ID doesn't usually speak on terms of "life" in general (it almost always refers to some aspect (component/object) of life), if an object with CSI is necessary for a lifeforms existence, then by the inference the cause of "lifeform" is ID.

If you want to concentrate on some life property ♫, you may. But it really wont matter much for hte ID inference, because if ♫ doesnt have any information value, ID has nothing to say about it and ♫ would then be independent of information. Can you give me an example of what a ♫ might be?

by who's definition? ID's? I'm talking about the definitions in logic. If ID redefines logic to make its case, then ID is not reasonable by definition.

so "why is it a factor"? because it's a bias. a bias by definition of induction(and thus logic) cannot be ignored. If ID ignores ♫ then ID is not a resonable argument.

It is by the definition of what is under consideration. You haven't demonstrated that there is a bias. Unless you can show there is a difference within the basic unit of information, whether it is information found in x or information found in y, it is still information and the canvas doesnt really matter.

 

[Teax]

For the instances represented by the circle icon, it is not that a cause is unknown, as you demonstrated was represented in my diagram in the prior post. We have a cause, but we just have not demonstrated that cause can produce the particular information value in question.

what do you mean by "we have a cause"?

• we are aware which of the listed causes is responsible for this particular object?
• the object has some cause (well obviously by definition), we are not necessarily aware which cause it is?

what do you mean by "but we just have not demonstrated that cause can produce the particular information value in question"?

• it is unknown which of the causes is resposible for this particular object, represented by ☼?
• have not demonstrated that cause can produce(in some other object) the same complexity_level as the object that is marked by ☼ has?

So the induction is that for CSI objects (SC that exceeds a certain threshold), the only cause demonstrated able to produce it is ID, and no other known cause has been demonstrated able to produce CSI. So for any artifact that has CSI, like perhaps something found in life, we infer ID as the cause.

this was directed at your diagram. But you are not explaining the diagram. You are just restating what you already have said over and over again during our debate, you are restating ID.

I assume that while typing, you were mentally pointing to certain parts of the diagram? would you be so kind as to actually explain what part of ID is represented by what and how in the diagram?

This is a lame semantic point you are making. Of course we are talking about objects. But we are dealing with objects that have a particular property: information. Just like you had your "apples" diagram listed with "object space: apples", i figured in my diagram listing "object space: information" would be somewhat self evident that we are talking about objects with an information value.

I see I misunderstood what you meant by "information". I understood the word "information" as "knowledge", something we can communicate to each other, but what you meant is "complexity_level" of an object.

But since every object has an associated "complexity_level", this really doesn't matter....

The basic unit of consideration for ID is information. All objects in relation to existence can be expressed as a measure of information. CSI is a particular measurement of information that is beyond a pre-determined threshold. As already stated numerous times, complexity is a measure of the rarity of information within the possible search space, and specificity is a identifying a particular expression or range of expression for information and is related to function. But at it's base, the thing being measured is information.

As a comparison, information is like the mass of an object. At it's most basic, mass is based off of the atomic weight of a particle. But beyond that, when measuring groupings of particles that make up an object, there is nothing about mass that is determined by the physical property of that object as a whole. So 15 grams of red apple is the same as 15 grams of green apple which is the same as 15 grams of rock,...etc. There is nothing about an apple, rock or other object that demands it be a particular mass.

It doesn't matter what property or how we are measuring. literally. I'm not exaggerating or anything:
math/logic and reason are abstractions. all you need to know is [CSI=yes] or [CSI=no]. CSI is the "property" of an "object" and by measuring CSI you get [CSI=yes/no]. Everything you have said in this quote (I agree with btw) does not change this fact.

The same goes for information. There is nothing about the information that is dependent on the physical properties of matter upon which it is represented. How matter is arranged and combined for function plays a bearing what is measured as information but there is nothing about the base physical properties of matter itself that has a bearing. There is nothing about life information that is inherently unique compared to non-life information.

CSI is just a measurement of information that goes beyond a particular threshold. Usually it is the specification portion that will push the value above a threshold. But the specification is independent of the physical properties of the object under consideration. For example, the specific information found in the code of a gene found in DNA could be exactly the same as that of digital code in a computer program. Whether the code is written on nucleotides in biology or on silicon makes no difference. The message is not dependent on the canvas. Information is not determined base on the canvas of life or non-life; they are independent. And as an extension there is nothing affecting the value of CSI as found in life vs CSI as found in non-life.

yes I agree completely with all of this quote aswell

your central point is: "there is nothing affecting the value of CSI as found in life vs CSI as found in non-life"
ofcourse you are right, there was never any doubt about this. It's completely besides the point.

You have never shown that complexity_level is the only determining factor for Cause. There might be something about Life, call it ♫, that is inherently unique compared to non-life that is not reflected in the complexity_level, and that also influences Cause.

The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is required to prove your point. All you did instead is insist that CSI is an abstract property that exists and is measurable in the same way in both living and nonliving objects. I never challenged that.

in the apple analogy, you need to show independence of [taste] and [color]. Show that apples still taste sweet, even if they're green. By doing so, you would show that "being an apple" is the only thing that influences "taste". But here you only have shown that apples are still apples, even if they're green <-- It's irrelevant. Because you have not yet shown that "being an apple" is the only determining factor of taste.

remember:
taste = Cause
color = life
apple = CSI

What I am saying is that if you break down any lifeform into its sub-objects, it is: Object1(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object2(property_CSI = False) + Object2(property_CSI = FALSE) + .... + Objectx(property_CSI = TRUE) + ♫. Life is made of of multiple objects that for the most part each have their own information value property.

ah, that makes sence now ^_^ I didn't realize that you were talking about different objects that a lifeform is made of because you used the same variable for different objects, but now your equation makes sence.

but since ♫ is part of every subpart with CSI it would look more like this:
Object1(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object1(♫) + Object2(property_CSI = False) + Object3(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object3(♫) + Object4(......

But if any of those objects has a property value of CSI = true, then by the inference that object has cause = ID. Though ID doesn't usually speak on terms of "life" in general (it almost always refers to some aspect (component/object) of life), if an object with CSI is necessary for a lifeforms existence, then by the inference the cause of "lifeform" is ID. If you want to concentrate on some life property ♫, you may. But it really wont matter much for hte ID inference, because if ♫ doesnt have any information value, ID has nothing to say about it and ♫ would then be independent of information.

every part of a lifeform that has [CSI=yes] also has ♫, because it's also living matter.
♫ distinguishes living object with CSI from nonliving objects with CSI.
If ♫ is a factor that influences Cause, then by extension [life] is a factor that influences Cause, and life would have [Cause=natural]. Without evolution, there's no evidence for-or-against ♫ being a factor that influences [Cause].

ID has never shown that [CSI=yes] automatically implies [Cause=ID] without consideration for other variables. It's what ID claims, but I have never heared any reason(reasonable logical reason) why CSI should be the only property that can influence the property [Cause]. [Life]/♫ could influence [Cause] without changing [CSI], there is no evidence whatsoever why [Life]/♫ couldn't.

The reasonable conclusion: Life could be a factor, we don't know. The empirical evidence provided is not sufficient to establish that Life is/isn't a factor.
ID's attitude: Life is not a factor. Because ID said so.
=> ID is not reasonable.

Can you give me an example of what a ♫ might be?

Depending on who you ask, biologists.. chemists... maybe:
♫ = capable of self reproduction
♫ = made of bio-chemical molecules
♫ = reproduction is based on DNA/RNA or whatever
or a combination of these?

something like that. something that everything that is Life has, but not non-life. Life is the group we are trying to make the inference about. Nobody would bother making the ID argument about watches, we're trying to determine the Cause of Life here.

It is by the definition of what is under consideration.

ID is not the ultimate authority on "what is a reasonable argument". saying
"ID by definition does not consider that" is the same as saying "ID is by definition not reasonable". Use logic to check whether ID is reasonable, not the other way around.

let me explain the fallacy of cherry picking, which is exactly what ID is doing by omitting the life attribute

Let's try proving something just like ID does, analogy: ignore colors (look at the left image) and taste the top and bottom apple - both turned out to be sweet.
>> conclusion all apples are sweet.
>> in other words, evidence supports this:
>> if [apple=yes] then [taste=sweet]

That is a correct inference given the limited amount of information at our disposal. Congratulation ID is a valid argument. oh wait:

If you install a color camera and look at the same scenery, you see the picture on the right. Now you realize that the apples are not all equal. But you only tasted the top and the bottom apple.
>> rational conclusion, all the red apples are sweet. We cannot say anything about the green apples.
>> in other words, now evidence supports
>> if [apple=yes] and then [taste=sweet]

given the new evidence, we realize that our previous statement that the taste is the same in all apples is not necessarily true. It might be. Might not be. given the new evidence, both cases (that green apples are sweet, and that green apples are not sweet) are now possible, our conclusion contains less information about the apples. Sure, if we only consider the black&white photograph, we could infer MORE data about the apples. But that doesn't make the argument more correct! Being able to infer more information is not a measure of how reasonable your argument is. agree?

Being reasonable people, we adapt our world-view to this new information, and agree that the taste of green apples is unknown.

remember:
taste = Cause (sweet=ID)
color = life (green=yes)
apple = CSI (yes=yes)


Unfortunatelly, you took another route, you said: "ID does not consider color, turn the old black&white camera back on" - do you see the parallel to the cherry picking fallacy?
ID uses rhetoric(=elegance of language) to mislead and make the listener overlook that there is a further piece of information. if you include it, would give us a more complete picture of the world. But if you omit it, then ID becomes a reasonable argument.

Once upon a time people thought the earth was flat. "The earth is flat" is a reasonable inference, based on limited information: everywhere you go, from your perspective, the earth looks flat. if you ignore any more recent evidence about the movement of the starts, planets, sun etc... photographs of the planet earth from orbit...

The more evidence we have, the better(=more reflecting the truth) our inductions will be. as the flat-earth demonstrates.

I know you are already aware, because you said it yourself in this post #36, and I quote:

The whole point of the inference is to fill in something (provisionally) for the [origin] property.

exactly! And you did. Now there's new evidence. Hence your "provisional" property is no longer provisional, it's outdated. get with the program!

You haven't demonstrated that there is a bias.

I tried in #45, I guess I failed, let me re-quote you from back then:

Got it. OK so far.
What I was doing was confusing and conflating the population size with the sample. I can correct that.
Population = every element in the universe of interest
For the sample to not be biased, it has to be completely random from among the population.
Sample - a random selection of elements from the population
sampling bias - a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others.

1. For the sample to not be biased, it has to be completely random from among the population.
   .
2. If a sample was randomly collected, then all properties in the population would be represented in the sample. (ideally all possible property combinations are part of the sample)
   .
3. Life is a property that is present in the population. (It's actually a significant portion of the population).
   .
4. from 3 + 2 we deduce:
   If a sample was randomly collected, then life would be represented in the sample.
   .
5. from 1 + 4 we deduce:
   If a sample is not biased, then life would be represented in the sample.
   .
6. Fact: life is not represented in the sample.
   .
7. from 5 + 6 we deduce: the sample is biased against life.
   .
8. from 7 (and math) we deduce that inference based on this sample cannot tell us anything about the Cause of life.

q.e.d.

 

[The Grey Man]

I have a lot of time on my hands, and am strongly considering catching up on and entering this debate. Teax, I'm curious as to why you chose to present your arguments in such a manner. As Blarraun has said, brevity can be achieved while sill conveying your idea in its totality, and is generally your friend when you're trying to convince anyone but yourself of anything.

 

[redbaron]

I'm still waiting for WookieB to provide some sort of mathematical workings for all of the statistics he comes up with.

 

[Teax]

I have a lot of time on my hands, and am strongly considering catching up on and entering this debate.

A lot of points are being repeated by both of us, so this debate as-a-giant-messy-whole is more interesting from the aspect of "studying miscommunication". If you want to get back into the debate you probably only need the last 10 posts or so (no guarantee)

Teax, I'm curious as to why you chose to present your arguments in such a manner. As Blarraun has said, brevity can be achieved while sill conveying your idea in its totality, and is generally your friend when you're trying to convince anyone but yourself of anything.

I lack that skill. I tried to be brief(er) back at the bery begining. I don't even realize what you mean by "such a manner". This debate my "training ground". or is it "failing ground"? on the other hand I'm adjusting the level of detail to WookieeB's reactions.. so maybe this much detail is ok?

In any case I would love if you point out what specific parts can be "reduced" or what you mean.

I'm still waiting for WookieB to provide some sort of mathematical workings for all of the statistics he comes up with.

WookieeB wanted to finish one aspect of the debate at a time... you'll get your turn don't worry

 

[The Grey Man]

A lot of points are being repeated by both of us, so this debate as-a-giant-messy-whole is more interesting from the aspect of "studying miscommunication". If you want to get back into the debate you probably only need the last 10 posts or so (no guarantee)

I lack that skill. I tried to be brief(er) back at the bery begining. I don't even realize what you mean by "such a manner". This debate my "training ground". or is it "failing ground"? on the other hand I'm adjusting the level of detail to WookieeB's reactions.. so maybe this much detail is ok?

Maybe the detail is necessary for the sort of airtight precision you're going for. You guys are freaking me out though

 

[WookieeB]

Haha. Just as I was composing a response, you had to go and edit your original one. So after re-adjusting....

what do you mean by "we have a cause"?

The ID inference, as far as causes are concerned, is only dealing with what we know. It is not considering some "unknown" cause that would be either 1) some cause not yet described, or 2) some described cause that has not yet ever demonstrated an ability to produce anything, though it may be hypothesized. (ie: Harry Potter's power, or 'Spontaneous Creation of the Universe From Nothing' that is in a separate thread on this board). So, I am dealing with known processes (causes) that have been demonstrated in some fashion the ability to either create or modify information.

• we are aware which of the listed causes is responsible for this particular object?
• the object has some cause (well obviously by definition), we are not necessarily aware which cause it is?

First question - Yes for the block icon. No for the ☼ icon.
second question - Yes for the ☼ icon.

Think of it this way. We are presented with a multiple choice question for the cause for some object. For the block icons we can pencil in a choice. For the circle icons we cannot pencil in a choice, but we assume the answer has to be one of the choices listed.

In my diagram I listed only 5 choices (R, N, RN, O*, ID), but please be aware that each of those is intended to be just a representation of a category of multiple causes that could be defined and demonstrated. O* especially is just representing everything other than the main 4 that are typically brought up as the usual cause or combination of causes to apply to artifacts of life.

what do you mean by "but we just have not demonstrated that cause can produce the particular information value in question"?

That we have not been able to observe or demonstrate which of the causes in our list produced the particular ojbect with that information value.

We have an object, and we can identify an information value for that object. We have a list of candidates for cause for the object, but we do not know which one produced the object. The inference is to choose which of the causes best fits based upon the information value of the object and what we know about producing information.

• it is unknown which of the causes is resposible for this particular object, represented by ☼?
• have not demonstrated that cause can produce(in some other object) the same complexity_level as the object that is marked by ☼ has?

First question - yes
Second question - no

this was directed at your diagram. But you are not explaining the diagram. You are just restating what you already have said over and over again during our debate, you are restating ID.

I assume that while typing, you were mentally pointing to certain parts of the diagram? would you be so kind as to actually explain what part of ID is represented by what and how in the diagram?

Really? You're the diagram guy. You made a similarly complext diagram at the end of post #64. I figured you would get it.

All measurements refer to the informational value for an object or function.
For the sample (left) side: (R)andom process has been demonstrated able to produce (C)omplex objects/events, but not demonstrated able to produce (S)pecified or (SC) objects, though it is theoretically possible.
...
(RN) Random + Necessity, which is where evolution's Random Mutation + Natural Selection would fall, has been demonstratred able to produce some complex objects/functions, some specific objects/functions, and some objects that combine the two but are below the CSI threshold. But it has not been demonstrated able to produce (SC) objects that are beyond an information threshold, essentially CSI.
....
ID has been demonstrated able to produce all types of objects represented in the diagram, (C)omplex, (S)pecified, specified and complex objects below a particular information threshold (not shown in diagram). It is also the ONLY demonstrated cause able to produce (SC) (which in the diagram = CSI) objects.

The conclusion side is essentially stating that since ID is the only known cause able to produce the CSI property, and no other known cause has been demonstrated able to produce the CSI property, then ID is the best choice when presented with an object with the CSI property and we do not have an observation of which of the known causes produced that object.

I see I misunderstood what you meant by "information". I understood the word "information" as "knowledge", something we can communicate to each other, but what you meant is "complexity_level" of an object.

No, I think you are still off here, but you would have to explain what you mean by "complexity_level". In all honesty, I think you were closer by thinking it as "knowledge", but even that term is a bit vague. It does relate to something that can be communicated, but it doesnt necessarily have to be between each other (human minds).

Information in Information theory as described in entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)) is a good starting point, and this would equate to "complexity". But for ID we are including a specificity among the available complexity.

Spoiler

Example: flipping two normal coins. There are 4 possibilities - HH, HT, TH, TT. These 4 possibilities would relate to the complexity level. Assuming a flip will be done with both coins, each possibility is as likely as the other, and any result is valid. So HH is just as valid as TH, and the probability that any result will occur is 4/4 = 1. This alone is describing the complexity of flipping 2 coins.

But now lets bring in specificity. Say you specifically need to hit HH. Now with one flip of the coins your probability is 1/4. Or say your specificity is HH or TT, which would be probability of 2/4 = 1/2.

But say you have specificity of HH being seen once, but you will do 2 flips of the coins. The odds improve to 7/16. Then with 3 flips it increases to 37/64. With more and more flips (increasing the complexity level) but retaining the required specificity, you start approaching a probability closer to 1 with each iteration. (I point this last part out to acknowledge that with unlimitted time, or given "enough" time for trials, having a specified combination come up is nearly certain)

So again, it may depend on what you mean by "complexity_level", but I am reading the 'complexity' part as just the available possibilities (the denominator part of a probability fraction). Whether or not you have a specification (the numerator part of a probability fraction) makes a big difference on the information value. For what I am referring to "information" involves both the "complexity" and the what-could-be-wildly-variable specificity.

"But since every object has an associated "complexity_level" is true, that is only part of the information property. And all aspects of it matter.

your central point is: "there is nothing affecting the value of CSI as found in life vs CSI as found in non-life"
ofcourse you are right, there was never any doubt about this. It's completely besides the point.

You have never shown that complexity_level is the only determining factor for Cause. There might be something about Life, call it ♫, that is inherently unique compared to non-life that is not reflected in the complexity_level, and that also influences Cause.

Ummm, ok...? So are you acknowledging that the information value is independent of life or non-life, or just the CSI part of it? I am saying that an information value is not dependent on life or non-life, so it is independent.

I will replace "complexity-level" with "information". ID is only talking about the information value of something and relating it to known causes. There may be some ♫-factor about life vs non-life, but it has nothing to do with the information value. So, ID is not talking about ♫. There may be something about ♫ that does affect a Cause, but ID is not concerning itself with that either. (I get the impression you think ID is claiming to be a theory of everything. It's not) By making this objection, you are also implying that there is nothing about ♫ that is related to information. Frankly, if we are talking about some object that has mass (and/or even some property of energy), then it should have an information value attached to it. And if ♫ is not linked to information, that leaves ♫ to be something of a subjective experience.

The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is required to prove your point.

No, it isnt. The ID inference is not between [Cause] and [Life], but instead between [Cause] and [Information]. There is nothing in the ID inference that specifically involves life. Life may be pulled into the inference based upon the [Information] content of an object of life. But the inference is based upon observations of cause and the [Information] measure of an object. Again, there is no bias based upon the [Information] value of something and the canvas. As an example, it doesnt matter if the information is from a Shakespeare play, the HMTL code in a website, the molecular structure of a crystal, or the ATGC arrangment of nucleotides in DNA. The information value doesnt depend on the canvas, and therefore the [Cause] determination based on the [Information] level doesnt either.

in the apple analogy, you need to show independence of [taste] and [color]. Show that apples still taste sweet, even if they're green. By doing so, you would show that "being an apple" is the only thing that influences "taste". But here you only have shown that apples are still apples, even if they're green <-- It's irrelevant. Because you have not yet shown that "being an apple" is the only determining factor of taste.

remember:
taste: sweet=ID, not_sweet = not_ID cause
color: green=life, red=non-life
fruit: apple= CSI, plum=non-CSI

I expanded the property labels for further explanation.

Based upon what we know, the ID inference would have the following observations:

red apples are always sweet when we have tasted them, We have never tasted a green apple.
red plums have been sweet or not_sweet when we have tasted them
green plums have also been sweet (on rare occasions) and (usually) not_sweet when tasted.

So based upon taste tests, there is nothing about being Green that factors to it be either sweet or not. So, with that information, and with the observation that apples so far have always been sweet when tasted, we infer that green apples will also be sweet. The problem is, nobody has the ability to taste a green apple at present. Once somebody does, a deduction can be made for sure. ID theory being valid is dependent on all apples being sweet, once a non-sweet apple (red or green) is found, the ID inference goes away.

but since ♫ is part of every subpart with CSI it would look more like this:
Object1(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object1(♫) + Object2(property_CSI = False) + Object3(property_CSI = TRUE) + Object3(♫) + Object4(......

every part of a lifeform that has [CSI=yes] also has ♫, because it's also living matter.
♫ distinguishes living object with CSI from nonliving objects with CSI.
If ♫ is a factor that influences Cause, then by extension [life] is a factor that influences Cause, and life would have [Cause=natural].

I'm not sure what your fascination with the ♫ factor is. You need to specify what this is. ID is not dealing with some hypothetical unknown factor. If the object under particular consideration has already had an information value determined, then ♫ is not reducable to any information value. You need to define ♫. Is it just the subjective label: LIFE ? It's not my responsibility to defend against some unknown that may have an effect on a cause, especially when we are looking at the information value linked to a cause. If there is some ♫ factor affecting cause, you need to spell it out, not me.

Without evolution, there's no evidence for-or-against ♫ being a factor that influences [Cause].

And how exactly with evolution, does it make ♫ a factor?

ID has never shown that [CSI=yes] automatically implies [Cause=ID] without consideration for other variables.

Never said it did. There is no "automatically" in the ID inference. It allows for some unknown cause to come around and explain CSI and it leaves open an opportunity for known non-ID causes to produce CSI. Instances of either of those would sweep ID away. Until then, ID is the best explanation among competing hypotheses.

It's what ID claims, but I have never heared any reason(reasonable logical reason) why CSI should be the only property that can influence the property [Cause]. [Life]/♫ could influence [Cause] without changing [CSI], there is no evidence whatsoever why [Life]/♫ couldn't.

The "reasonable logical reason" for ID is that it is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce CSI. But it is not the ONLY cause investigated. We've looked into the other causes - they are not up to snuff based upon observable and tested methods. So, though we haven't observed some LIFE artifact actually "caused" yet, we have seen a "cause" that produces artifacts with similar but also a relatively unique property (CSI), and that cause is ID. Trying to apply some special label: LIFE and claim an exception is the special pleading.

Really, what is it about "LIFE" that is so special? so far it is just a label you are throwing around. Information doesn't care about the label(s) you have put forward yet, and you give no reason why "LIFE" should be the exception.

The reasonable conclusion: Life could be a factor, we don't know. The empirical evidence provided is not sufficient to establish that Life is/isn't a factor.
ID's attitude: Life is not a factor. Because ID said so.
=> ID is not reasonable.

Life could be a factor, we don't know. We don't know......WE DON'T KNOW!

Exactly!

What we do know, the empirical evidence, is that CSI is a known artifact of intelligent causes. What we do know, is that non-intelligent causes have not yet demonstrated an ability to produce CSI, cause we have sure as well tried.

ID is not concerned with the unknown, what we don't know. It is based on what WE KNOW. And what we know is that some causes are better than others at explaining particular artifacts. If what WE KNOW changes to include non-intelligent causes shown able to produce CSI, we'll change our position. But until then, the best bet is ID.

And again, what is it about "LIFE" that you think plays some factor over cause? You using a very generic term to describe something with a possibly big effect.

Depending on who you ask, biologists.. chemists... maybe:
♫ = capable of self reproduction
♫ = made of bio-chemical molecules
♫ = reproduction is based on DNA/RNA or whatever
or a combination of these?

I'm not seeing how any of these has any effect on the ID inference.
1) capable of self reproduction - ID doesnt concern itself on whether the object is capable of self reproduction or not, unless you can demonstrate an information value for it (which if you broke it down to functional steps or other objects, you could have an information value). Besides, when it comes to reproducing life, in our experience life has come from life. so unless you are talking about the FIRST life, it's really a non-starter. And if you want to go down to the molecular level and discuss the reproduction of stuff like DNA (which all known life depends on anyways), you run into big problems when trying to explain where the information came from without an ID cause.
2) bio-chemical molecules - again, whats the big difference between bio-chemical and non-bio-chemical other than a label. It's all basically chemistry. But when looking at something with CSI, you have to have an explanatory cause that can account for the information.
3) reproduction based on DNA/RNA - even better for ID. You need to explain the creation of a digital code, that requires a particular molecular machine (that ultimately is built via instructions in the code it is working on) that is translated into a completely different code (needing explanation too), that then corresponds to particular molecules that must be joined in a very specific order. All of this while realizing there is nothing about the physical properties of the molecules that have any bearing on the code itself.

ID is just asking you to account for the information. Where did the information come from? All the other factors, unless they bear on the information, are irrelevant.

something like that. something that everything that is Life has, but not non-life. Life is the group we are trying to make the inference about. Nobody would bother making the ID argument about watches, we're trying to determine the Cause of Life here.

The ID inference itself applies to objects of life as equally as it does to objects of non-life. The inference itself is not making any distinction, because information in life vs non-life does not have any distinction. Whether we are talking about the information in a gene that codes for a particular protein or the faces carved into a rock mountain, its just information to the ID inference.

But if you are trying to focus on life, fine, the ID inference can comment on that as long as we can determine the information value of some life object. But though we may focus on a life object to answer the question of cause, that doesnt mean that the information of non-life objects are of no consequence. If information is independent of the canvas it is found on, the pattern of information and the known causes of it in one context relates to information found in another context, such as life.

ID is not the ultimate authority on "what is a reasonable argument". saying "ID by definition does not consider that" is the same as saying "ID is by definition not reasonable". Use logic to check whether ID is reasonable, not the other way around.

This was prefaced by your statement: "If ID ignores ♫ then ID is not a resonable argument."

ID is talking about information, that's it. It is not talking about car transmissions, moon landings, the latest in Phoenician swimwear or ♫. unless any of those items relates to an information value, the ID inference doesnt care. If you think it is unreasonable for ID to not talk about something it is not trying to talk about, then that is uniquely your issue.

let me explain the fallacy of cherry picking, which is exactly what ID is doing by omitting the life attribute
....
given the new evidence, we realize that our previous statement that the taste is the same in all apples is not necessarily true. It might be. Might not be. given the new evidence, both cases (that green apples are sweet, and that green apples are not sweet) are now possible, our conclusion contains less information about the apples. Sure, if we only consider the black&white photograph, we could infer MORE data about the apples. But that doesn't make the argument more correct! Being able to infer more information is not a measure of how reasonable your argument is. agree?

Being reasonable people, we adapt our world-view to this new information, and agree that the taste of green apples is unknown.

If all our experience was limited to the items in your picture, I would agree with you 100%. But our experience is not limited, in your analogy, to a bowl of apples.
We have knowledge of other fruit, and noted that for other fruits sweetness or non-sweetness is not dependent on the color. And even if you want to argue that anything Green has never been tasted, we have enough information from other factors to make a guess. Red doesn't determine sweetness, but all apples we have ever tasted are sweet. So we can make an educated guess that any apple is sweet. It is may be true that we have no experience with Green...yet, but that is not enough reason to be unable to make a good guess, because we have other factors that can be considered. It may turn out that we are wrong, but we wont know till we actually taste green.

Unfortunatelly, you took another route, you said: "ID does not consider color, turn the old black&white camera back on" - do you see the parallel to the cherry picking fallacy?

NO, it is not a parallel. We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness. We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness. Thus, we have no evidence to consider color to begin with. It would only be cherry picking if we put weight on one or the other view without any evidence to say so(or if we included evidence of one side and supressed it for the other). Color might end up being a factor sweetness, but we have no reason at this time to think so. But we do have other factors as evidence, and we are going with what we do have evidence for.

ID uses rhetoric(=elegance of language) to mislead and make the listener overlook that there is a further piece of information. if you include it, would give us a more complete picture of the world. But if you omit it, then ID becomes a reasonable argument.

Oh please! This is pathetic. Any rherotic is a non-sequitur. The same charge could be leveled your way. You claim ID is overlooking something, yet you cannot define in any clear state what that thing is, yet alone how it relates to information or [cause]. You are arguing for an unknown, and expecting that the weight of its mystery is enough to topple the strawman of ID you are reciting.

Once upon a time people thought the earth was flat. "The earth is flat" is a reasonable inference, based on limited information: everywhere you go, from your perspective, the earth looks flat. if you ignore any more recent evidence about the movement of the starts, planets, sun etc... photographs of the planet earth from orbit...

The absurdity of this illustration has me in stitches. You should really look in the mirror as you say this.

The more evidence we have, the better(=more reflecting the truth) our inductions will be. as the flat-earth demonstrates.

How quaint. The truth is that ID adherents are the ones constantly looking at the evidence, looking at the latest scientific studies. It is week after week that new information supports a design inference much more than it does for evolution. It is the ever deeper peering into what makes up life, from the exquisite coding and form of DNA, the irreducibly complex molecular machines that run everything, to the macro-level behaviour and functions found among multi-cellular lifeforms, that solidifies my belief that they were all designed.

It is rather the Neo-Darwinists that have to make up fanciful just-so stories, invoke exaptation and convergent evolution to explain observations that do not fit with the expected signs of RM+NS.

I know you are already aware, because you said it yourself in this post #36, and I quote:

exactly! And you did. Now there's new evidence. Hence your "provisional" property is no longer provisional, it's outdated. get with the program!

And what again is that "new evidence" supposed to be? The label: LIFE*? *cue angelic choir* Besides a designation and a sense of mystery to that term, I don't think you've actually provided any evidence to suggest it has any effect on the information that ID is looking at.

I tried in #45, I guess I failed, let me re-quote you from back then:

[6]Fact: life is not represented in the sample.

#6 is the only one worth commenting on. I think I've already demonstrated in the prior post why information is independent of life or non-life. Assuming that is so, then life if represented quite well in the sample.

 

[Teax]

let me try another approach of restructuring the whole post around the main issue.

Haha. Just as I was composing a response, you had to go and edit your original one. So after re-adjusting....

Sorry.... my previous response missed your point, had to completely remove it while I still could. '

The absurdity of this illustration has me in stitches. You should really look in the mirror as you say this.

Hey this is about fun right? I'm glad you're enjoying this as much as I do.

Life could be a factor, we don't know. We don't know......WE DON'T KNOW!

Exactly!

thank you for finally explicitely agreeing with this it helps

We have this consensus: [cause] could be influenced by [life]. (you just admitted it)
We also have this consensus: the cause of non-living objects with CSI is probably ID.
The ID argument tries to infer: the cause of living objects with CSI is probably ID.

I marked the difference in bold.

Thus, to infer the cause of life, the only question remaining to resolve is:
how likely is it that [life] does/doesn't influence [cause]?
or equivalently,
how likely is it that complexity_level is the only/not only factor that influences [cause]?
or equivalently,
how likely is it that being alive provides an/no alternative explanation for complexity of an object?

if the blue question has definite evidence, then we have a definite cause of life.
if the blue question has probable evidence, then we have a probable cause of life.
if the blue question has likely evidence, then we have a likely cause of life.
if the blue question has no evidence, then the cause of life is unknown.

Notice that throughout our debate I've been stating this blue question in every post in many different forms and ways.... and repeatedly failed to convey.

We have no data relevant to even suggest any outcome for the blue question. We have: "no evidence"

While it certainly has been fun to debate, the amount of arguments-per-post is growing out of proportion most of your last post consists of arguments that were already stated somewhere during this debate (many times) and still completely failed to address the central blue question. The reason is: because it's obviously impossible to resolve the blue question by somehow reducing life to its complexity_level. The relation between life and complexity_level is irrelvant for the blue question. That's why most of your responses missed the point entirely.

So I certainly won't mind if you don't respond to my answers inside this spoiler, because all I do is weed out those debate branches that miss the point, with the intention to close them. Unless you have a rebuttal why some particular point does address the blue question, ofcourse.

Spoiler

What we do know, the empirical evidence, is that CSI is a known artifact of intelligent causes.

That is a misrepresentation of the evidence.

talking about our knowledge of the world:

• CSI+nonlife is a known artifact of intelligent causes.
• CSI+life is not a known artifact of intelligent causes.

Those are the facts/what your empirical evidence tells us. It does not help us with the blue question.

The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is required to prove your point.

No, it isnt. The ID inference is not between [Cause] and [Life], but instead between [Cause] and [Information].

Fact: The ID inference tries to infer the cause of life.
Fact: the blue question has to be resolved to infer the cause of life. (as have shown in the beginning of this post)
Fact: The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is just another way of expressing the blue question.
Conclusion: The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is required to infer the cause of life.

Thus your "No, it isn't" point is refuted.

The information value doesnt depend on the canvas, and therefore the [Cause] determination based on the [Information] level doesnt either.

Ummm, ok...? So are you acknowledging that the information value is independent of life or non-life, or just the CSI part of it? I am saying that an information value is not dependent on life or non-life, so it is independent.

the complexity_level is measurable in life and non-life alike. There's no inherent difference in the quality of the complexity_level in life and non-life objects. I never challenged this point. This is an automatic consequence of [complexity_level] being just a property of an object, it's not my opinion, it's math. I'd have to be crazy to challenge this.

However.
This statement has bearing on our discussion only if the complexity_level was somehow the sole influence of [cause].

in other words:
This statement has bearing on our discussion only if the blue question were already resolved.

But the blue question is still unresolved, so this statement is useless.

note that I'm not using the word "independent" here because it has a different meaning in math, and the complexity_level is obviously not independent of life or non-life based on that definition.

ID has never shown that [CSI=yes] automatically implies [Cause=ID] without consideration for other variables. It's what ID claims, but I have never heared any reason(reasonable logical reason) why CSI should be the only property that can influence the property [Cause]. [Life]/♫ could influence [Cause] without changing [CSI], there is no evidence whatsoever why [Life]/♫ couldn't.

The "reasonable logical reason" for ID is that it is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce CSI. But it is not the ONLY cause investigated. We've looked into the other causes - they are not up to snuff based upon observable and tested methods. So, though we haven't observed some LIFE artifact actually "caused" yet, we have seen a "cause" that produces artifacts with similar but also a relatively unique property (CSI), and that cause is ID.

Here you are replying to the blue question directly.

there's a real difference between

misrepresentation of evidence:
ID is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce CSI

what we actually know:
ID is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce non-living CSI

stating "similar but also a relatively unique property (CSI)" is not a logical argument, it's a rhetorical one made of meaningless words in this context. [complexity_level] and [CSI] is a property that is not just similar, it's actually defined the same way in objects with life and non-life. And it's irrelevant.

You are ignoring that [life] is a separate property from [complexity_level]. [life] could influence [cause] to such a degree that would completely change the cause from ID to any other cause, and you already admitted that - you said:
"Life could be a factor, we don't know. We don't know......WE DON'T KNOW!"

Your "reason" does not address the blue question.

in other words

Your "reason" does not demonstrate anything that would indicate how likely/unlikely it is that life provides an alternative explanation for cause. Thus your reason is nullified. What you throught of as "reason" is actually completely beside the point.

Trying to apply some special label: LIFE and claim an exception is the special pleading.

And again, what is it about "LIFE" that you think plays some factor over cause? You using a very generic term to describe something with a possibly big effect.

Really, what is it about "LIFE" that is so special? so far it is just a label you are throwing around. Information doesn't care about the label(s) you have put forward yet, and you give no reason why "LIFE" should be the exception.

I'm not sure what your fascination with the ♫ factor is. You need to specify what this is. ID is not dealing with some hypothetical unknown factor.

Life is not just a label, it is a property that is excluded(bias) in the empirical evidence, as you already have admitted yourself, here's what you said:
"So, though we haven't observed some LIFE artifact actually "caused" yet......"

Nothing about [life] is so special. That's why evidence for the blue question is required.

I'm not seeing how any of these has any effect on the ID inference.
1) capable of self reproduction ...
2) made of bio-chemical molecules ...
3) reproduction is based on DNA/RNA ...

ID is just asking you to account for the information. Where did the information come from? All the other factors, unless they bear on the information, are irrelevant.

By information here you mean complexity? The complexity of an object could come from ♫. These or similar points could provide an alternative cause without influencing the complexity of the object, thus providing an answer for "where did the complexity come from".

You however tried to reduce these points to their complexity_level. Thus all your comments missed the point and even went on a tangent.

How likely is it that some ♫ provides an alternative explanation for your complexity? That's what the blue question is asking. ID's premise doesn't provide any evidence to suggest one way or the other.

ID is not the ultimate authority on "what is a reasonable argument". saying "ID by definition does not consider that" is the same as saying "ID is by definition not reasonable". Use logic to check whether ID is reasonable, not the other way around.

This was prefaced by your statement: "If ID ignores ♫ then ID is not a resonable argument."

ID is talking about information, that's it. It is not talking about car transmissions, moon landings, the latest in Phoenician swimwear or ♫. unless any of those items relates to an information value, the ID inference doesnt care. If you think it is unreasonable for ID to not talk about something it is not trying to talk about, then that is uniquely your issue.

I expected that you will provide an argument why it's reasonable to only be talking about the [complexity_level] of an object and ignore any ♫. The best you could come up with is "the ID inference doesn't care"? nicely done.

A kid is jaywalking across a road full of traffic, he thinks that neither the red traffic light, nor the speeding cars are relevant when considering "will I get to the other side?".

Is it resonable for the kid to not think about the traffic, since he's not trying to think about it? Afterall, the only thing the kid is trying to do is get to the other side of the road. Obviously this attitude is irrational.

Likewise "ID is not trying to talk about it" is not a defence against my argument, it's an irrational statement. What were you even trying to prove by saying it....

If ID tries to infer the cause of life, then ID must resolve the blue question. Since ID ignores the blue question and still tries to infer the cause of life, the ID argument is irrational.

It's not my responsibility to defend against some unknown that may have an effect on a cause, especially when we are looking at the information value linked to a cause. If there is some ♫ factor affecting cause, you need to spell it out, not me.

The so called burden of proof is your responsibility because you are the one making the claim about life. I merely assume the default position and analyse your claim and point out that your inference is lacking evidence. Your inference must address the blue question, otherwise it's irrational.

No, I think you are still off here, but you would have to explain what you mean by "complexity_level". In all honesty, I think you were closer by thinking it as "knowledge", but even that term is a bit vague. It does relate to something that can be communicated, but it doesnt necessarily have to be between each other (human minds).

Information in Information theory as described ........................

"Information" is an inconvenient word for it because it is overloaded with so many meanings, that the misunderstanding we had was inevidable. Ofcourse information is everywhere and everything, but what you're measuring is not information as a whole, but the complexity_level of that information. To prove ID, you need to show that probably everything that is necessary for determining the cause of an object is reflected by the object's complexity_level. This means that you still need to address the blue question.

What you described, the so-called specificity, is not relevant because this is not yet the evolution debate(although redbaron is probably eager for it to begin ). specificity is just part of the complexity_level... let's just define it that way! but using an ambiguous word like "information" is counterproductive because we both use it in many other contexts.

complexity_level is a property of an object. Whatever whacky definition you come up with, you have not shown that it is likely the only thing influencing [Cause]. The blue question is not adressed by renaming "complexity_level".

And how exactly with evolution, does it make ♫ a factor?

Evolution shows us that ♫="the ability to mutate and reproduce from one generation to another", is a factor that has the capacity to alter the cause of an object with CSI from ID to something else. Evolution is an explanation that provides a reason for the blue question.

You claim ID is overlooking something, yet you cannot define in any clear state what that thing is, yet alone how it relates to information or [cause].

And what again is that "new evidence" supposed to be? The label: LIFE*? *cue angelic choir* Besides a designation and a sense of mystery to that term, I don't think you've actually provided any evidence to suggest it has any effect on the information that ID is looking at.

The bias. ID simply doesn't mention it. (thus my statement that ID is a rhetoric construct that masks this inconvenient evidence)

You tried to justify it (which is great) but you did not find a valid reason, only wishy washy statements that sound like they support ID.

The red part misses the point again. As I stated above, to infer the cause of life the blue question needs to be resolved. I do not need to provide any evidence that [life] influences [complexity_level] to disprove ID. In fact, I already conceded several times that [life] doesn't influence [complexity_level], and I never claimed that it did.
The green part is the whole point of the blue question. I have stated very clearly how [life] relates to [cause] - the relation is unknown to us, based on the evidence provided.

You are arguing for an unknown, and expecting that the weight of its mystery is enough to topple the strawman of ID you are reciting.

This is interesting, I took care not to construct any straw men. I challenge you to specify what the strawman is that I supposedly am attacking, and how it differs from what I should be arguing against.

I added a Quiz Show analogy at the bottom to show that arguing an unknown is ok. Thus "You are arguing for an unknown" is not a counterargument.

Really? You're the diagram guy. You made a similarly complext diagram at the end of post #64. I figured you would get it.

My diagram at the end of #64 was not just complex, it was actually coherent. In your diagram, the left half is coherent, that's why I used it to further the debate. Well I changed it a little to add the additional information you omitted, but otherwise it's fine. The right half is self contradictory, and I already explained the contradiction several times, last time in #68, and your latest post only confirmed the problem.

I came up with another approach to explaining how to draw inferences, if you're interested (if you're tired of these diagrams, I won't mind skipping this ):

Spoiler

Imagine you have 2 pieces of paper stacked on top of each other. The bottom paper has a color... or maybe a picture... or just several colors.... but we cannot see it, because the top paper covers it perfectly.

now imagine you take your pen, and punch holes through the top sheet of paper, so you can see the picture that lies below.

Through these holes, you can now see the color of the underlying picture at that position. The property you want to know is [Color]. imagine the color you see underneath all those holes is "green". Induction is the inference that the color between the holes is probably the same as the color that you see in the holes.

ideally you want to completely remove the top paper. But you don't have the means to do so. You can only punch a limited amount of holes. Now ofcourse, you don't want to punch your holes all in 1 corner of the paper, you want them to be more randomly distributed among the available space. In a grid or something... but you definetly want to cover every area. That's what a "random sample" means.

Object space = points on a paper
"[color=green]▓[/color]" = color is green
" " = unknown color

sample = premise                         induction = inference that the unknown space
premise = a couple randomly picked       between the sample elements are same as the
    points with known color              sample elements

┌───────────────────────────────┐       ┌───────────────────────────────┐
│[color=green]▓                      ▓       [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
│[color=green]     ▓           ▓             [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
│[color=green]         ▓                     [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
│[color=green]                      ▓     ▓  [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
│[color=green]              ▓                [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
│▲[color=green]    ▓                 ▓       [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
││    ▲[color=green]         ▓             ▓ [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
││    │[color=green]   ▓                     [/color]│       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│
└┼────┼─────────────────────────┘       └───────────────▲───────────────┘
 │    │                                                 │
 │    that's a point that we know is green              │
 the empty space are points with unknown color          │
                                                        │
            the inference tells us that every point probably is green

the randomness of the ▓ in that box is intended to visuallize the "random picking". A biased sample could be visualized e.g. like this:

┌───────────────────────────────┐
│[color=green]  ▓ ▓  [/color]                        │
│[color=green]▓    ▓ [/color]                        │
│[color=green]  ▓   ▓[/color]                        │
│[color=green]▓   ▓  [/color]                        │
│[color=green] ▓  ▓  [/color]                        │
└───────────────────────────────┘

if there were 2 sheets of paper with 2 pictures underneath, then the same bias can be represented as following:

    picture 1        picture 2
  ┌──────────────┬───────────────┐       ┌───────────────┬───────────────┐
  │[color=green]▓             [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  │[color=green]     ▓        [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  │[color=green]         ▓    [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  │[color=green]     ▓        [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  │[color=green]           ▓  [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  │[color=green]  ▓           [/color]│               │       │[color=green]▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓[/color]│               │
  └──────────────┴───────────────┘       └───────────────┴───────────────┘

obviously we could not infer anything about the second picture, because we don't have any holes in that area. That's what my blue question is representing. Pictures 1 tells us nothing about picture 2, without a further reason why picture 1 should be similar to picture 2.

My diagrams are exactly like this aswell.

Notice how color is not on the left side of the diagram, and not on the top side of the diagram. This is because [Color] is the property that we are trying to infer. In your diagram however, you placed the property that we are trying to infer (the cause) on the left side of your diagram, check it out, I marked the problem in red:

▓ = known [color=red]cause[/color] <-- that's what we're trying to infer
☼ = unknown cause
sample:  
       │   C  │   S  │  SC  │
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    [color=red]R  [/color]│▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    [color=red]N  [/color]│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    [color=red]RN [/color]│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
    [color=red]o* [/color]│☼☼☼☼☼▓│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
       │☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼
       │▓☼☼☼☼☼│☼☼☼▓☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│
    [color=red]ID [/color]│☼☼☼☼▓☼│☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼▓│
       │☼☼▓☼☼☼│☼☼☼☼☼☼│☼▓☼☼☼☼│
   ────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼

Your diagram is unfitting to infer anything, because the primary information is already known throughout the diagram. It is only fitting to represent the state of our knowledge <-- I prefer it actually for that, it's very nice for this purpose, giving you a gist of what we know in one glance. But it's not possible to draw the inference into this diagram without contradicting yourself.

#6 is the only one worth commenting on. I think I've already demonstrated in the prior post why information is independent of life or non-life. Assuming that is so, then life if represented quite well in the sample.

That is a non-sequitor.

let's look at the point #6 that you replied to:
[6]Fact: life is not represented in the sample = The sample does not contain a single object with: [Life=yes]

Do you agree that the sample/premise does not contain a single object with: [Life=yes]??
if yes, then life is not represented in the sample, because the very definition of "X is represented in your sample" means there is an object that has X.

The more evidence we have, the better(=more reflecting the truth) our inductions will be. as the flat-earth demonstrates.

How quaint. The truth is that ID adherents are the ones constantly looking at the evidence, looking at the latest scientific studies..........

Irrelevant for the current argument. I am debating the ID argument, not what the followers are doing. By invoking this you seem to agree that more information is better for an inference, but you deflected my question to not actually having to admit that.

Apple analogy:

There's a problem with your apple analogy explanation. Here's the challenge again:

in the apple analogy, you need to show independence of [taste] and [color]. Show that apples still taste sweet, even if they're green. By doing so, you would show that "being an apple" is the only thing that influences "taste". But here you only have shown that apples are still apples, even if they're green <-- It's irrelevant. Because you have not yet shown that "being an apple" is the only determining factor of taste.

remember:
taste: sweet=ID, not_sweet = not_ID cause
color: green=life, red=non-life
fruit: apple= CSI, plum=non-CSI

I marked the relevant parts this color to make it easier to look them up.
here's your response:

red apples are always sweet when we have tasted them, We have never tasted a green apple.
red plums have been sweet or not_sweet when we have tasted them
green plums have also been sweet (on rare occasions) and (usually) not_sweet when tasted.

So based upon taste tests, there is nothing about being Green that factors to it be either sweet or not. So, with that information, and with the observation that apples so far have always been sweet when tasted, we infer that green apples will also be sweet. The problem is, nobody has the ability to taste a green apple at present. Once somebody does, a deduction can be made for sure. ID theory being valid is dependent on all apples being sweet, once a non-sweet apple (red or green) is found, the ID inference goes away.

You have never tasted Green plums, because they are not part of the empirical evidence put forth by ID. Therefore you have no evidence that could indicate how "greenness" affects taste in any fruit. You have no "information", the orange part. Thus your conclusion is not supported by any evidence.

Green is a never-before seen property in any apples or plums ever tasted. Saying that apples still taste sweet even if they're green is irrational, because the property [fruit=apple] was never established as the likely sole/bigger influence factor on taste, which you even admitted yourself.

Do alien apples taste sweet?
Do extradimensional apples taste sweet?
Do magic apples taste sweet?
Do green apples taste sweet?
Notice how the strength of influence of "green" on the apple's taste is not "likely small" or "likely big" or "likely anything" but "completely unknown". There is no relevant information in the premise of ID about how the property "green" relates to "sweet" to even suggest a shred of probability.

care to try again, the apple challenge stated above?

And even if you want to argue that anything Green has never been tasted, we have enough information from other factors to make a guess. Red doesn't determine sweetness, but all apples we have ever tasted are sweet. So we can make an educated guess that any apple is sweet. It is may be true that we have no experience with Green...yet, but that is not enough reason to be unable to make a good guess, because we have other factors that can be considered. It may turn out that we are wrong, but we wont know till we actually taste green.

This part is irrelevant. this part is true but you use it as a conclusion of a non-sequitor with this part being the false premise; that's why your whole argument sounds convincing. And the yellow part:
If by "guess" you mean "personal belief" then it's ok, you can believe what you want.
If by "guess" you mean "more likely", then it's a non-sequitor, and a hasty-generalisation. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of being rational.

Unfortunatelly, you took another route, you said: "ID does not consider color, turn the old black&white camera back on" - do you see the parallel to the cherry picking fallacy?

NO, it is not a parallel. We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness. We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness. Thus, we have no evidence to consider color to begin with. It would only be cherry picking if we put weight on one or the other view without any evidence to say so(or if we included evidence of one side and supressed it for the other). Color might end up being a factor sweetness, but we have no reason at this time to think so. But we do have other factors as evidence, and we are going with what we do have evidence for.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, You have just demonstrated beautifly the popular "argument from ignorance" can you at least see the parallel to this fallacy?

Argument from ignorance: "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false" - wikipedia

Let's see what you wrote, I marked it same color in the quote:
"We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness.
Thus, we have no evidence to consider color to begin with."

There are 2 problems:

• The text "We have no evidence to consider color as..." is actually referring to the complete absence of information about color whatsoever. Thus you have forgotten one more thing that we have no evidence for, namely:
  We have no evidence to consider color as a factor that has no influence on sweetness.
  -
• Another problem is that the statement "we do not consider color to begin with" is logically equivalent to "we consider color a non-influence"
  
  let me rephrase that:
  Saying "it doesnt matter what color the apple is" is logically equivalent to saying "color has no influence on sweetness".

understand? this is important.

Thus what you actually implicitelly wrote is:

"We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor that has no influence on sweetness.
Thus, we consider color to be a factor that has no influence on sweetness."

do you see the problem? classic argument from ignorance. As per Aristotle, I just demonstrated that you are not allowed to infer the cause of life this way by exposing self-contradiction within your own statement. I hope this changes your mind about my argument being some sort of parlor trick - it's in fact a solid logical argument.

-------------------------------------------------

To sumarize the above geekyness:
Color is a relevant (because potentially influential) variable, that ID ignores. By doing so, ID is implicitelly creating an assumption about this variable. This implicit assumption is not supported by evidence, thus it has no right to exist in a rational inference. Thus proving that ignoring the variable was irrational to begin with.

Thus your statement reads as follows:
"untill we have any information about color, I assume that color ...........".
why assume anything? I hope we both agree that baseless assumptions about a variable are not a good idea, implicit or otherwise. If you are confused here, I made a "Quiz show analogy" below, that demonstrates an "implicitely created assumption".

By the way, this is the blue question hidden inside this apple analogy. There's a similar argument of your in post #60 and I responded in post #64.

Spoiler

Your choice of bias suffers from the same problem. We have red apples and green apples and we are trying to determine which is sweet. But unless you can demonstrate that there is a difference in sweetness due to an apple being red or green, it doesnt matter what color the apple is. We know that all of the red apples we have tasted are sweet, and we can infer (per your example) that the rest of the red apples are sweet. Now do we have any information to suggest that green apples are not sweet like a red apple....nope. So we can infer that the green are sweet too...because it is an apple

I marked the "argument from ignorance" (kinda unfitting name for this fallacy IMHO) in red. Analogous to your recent response.

Quiz show analogy:
Arguing an unknown is not a problem, it's a valid position. Let me demonstrate:

Quiz show, there are 2 boxes, one contains a prize, the other contains coal.

Person A: It's more probable the prize is in the left box, I pick the left.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Well, the quizmaster opened the box and the price was there.
Person B: But afterwards, the quizmaster shuffled the boxes, and it was impossible to see which box is now where.
Person A: Exactly it's impossible to see. We have no evidence that the boxes were swapped. Untill you can demonstrate that the quizmaster altered the box positions, it's more probable/an educated guess that the left box contains the prize.
Person B: That's an argument from ignorance. By stating this, you are implicitely assuming that it's more probable that the boxes weren't swapped. The reasonable answer is: we don't know.
Person A: If it turns out that I was wrong, I can adjust. But for now I pick the left.
Person B: Ok. But don't claim your choice had anything to do with being rational.

This is not an analogy for ID, but it is similar to our debate....
This shows there are things we can argue to be unknown, not more likely, not less likely. Just plain unknown.

 

[WookieeB]

Responding in two parts

So I certainly won't mind if you don't respond to my answers inside this spoiler, because all I do is weed out those debate branches that miss the point, with the intention to close them. Unless you have a rebuttal why some particular point does address the blue question, ofcourse.

I'm going to address points in the spoiler first, because I think you are still missing the point of the ID inference. It relates to your blue question because I think we have a different understanding on the properties involved. I will come to the blue question later, but in the mean-time please think about what you mean by your frequently used term: life

What we do know, the empirical evidence, is that CSI is a known artifact of intelligent causes.

That is a misrepresentation of the evidence.

talking about our knowledge of the world:

• CSI+nonlife is a known artifact of intelligent causes.
• CSI+life is not a known artifact of intelligent causes.

In the context of what I was talking about, I was saying that when we know the cause of CSI, when we have empirical evidence for the cause of the CSI, it is ALWAYS an artifact of intelligent causes. So there is no misrepresentation of the evidence.

In the list of knowledge, you are trying to make a distinction of the CSI in life vs the CSI in non-life. But there is no distinction in the information (or the CSI property) itself. The CSI property in life has no distinct difference in form than the CSI property in non-life. So your statement is misleading. You should instead say:

• nonlife is sometimes a known artifact of intelligent causes.
• life is not a known artifact of intelligent causes.

My point is the CSI property is a meaningless part of the distinction between life and non-life.

Fact: The ID inference tries to infer the cause of life.

NO!!! That is not a fact. The ID inference tries to infer the cause of information.

Information is not life, and life is not information. [Life] has information as a property of it, but that information value is independent of any other property of [life], or [life] as a whole. So, there is nothing about [life] information that is distinctly different in form than [non-life] information; information is 'made of the same stuff' for [life] and [non-life]. This is a very important factor to remember for later as the blue question is considered.

If it helps, think of [Information] as the object, and Life:true/false is a property of [Information]. The ID inference isnt concerned about the Life property, or at least that property has no affect on what ID is basing its inference on.

ID is trying to infer the cause of information whether or not it is found in [life] or [non-life]. If it is information in life that happens to be under consideration, then answering the information cause question may have a direct implication on the cause of [life], but the inference itself is not targetting [life].

Fact: The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is just another way of expressing the blue question.
Conclusion: The independence of [Cause] and [Life] is required to infer the cause of life.

No problem there. But the ID inference is looking for the cause of information, not [Life]. Information is not modified based on whether it is found in [Life] or [non-Life]. So, your Conclusion may be true, but it is a non-sequitor for the ID inference.

note that I'm not using the word "independent" here because it has a different meaning in math, and the complexity_level is obviously not independent of life or non-life based on that definition.

I moved this quote up a bit to cover it first. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I have no problem with the wiki definition, but in a way the statistical independence does not apply here since we don't have a statistical value for [Life] and [non-Life] (do we?). We have one stat for information, but it's not clear what is the other stat. What would be an event with a probability that is outside of one represented by the information?

Plus, I think we have a different view of the subject here, so we need to clear this up before I proceed.

[Life] and [non-Life] objects, if you look at their properties, will all have a value for information. So in that aspect, [Life] and [non-Life] are dependent on (or has to have) information. (I have been wanting more specific language, so I would break down [Life] and [non-Life] into sub-objects that themselves have properties which would always include information. An example of a sub-objects of [Life] would be DNA, Proteins, or some other parts of a cell. There are many more.)

But the reverse is not true. Information represented as an object, or even just as a property, is not dependent on it being individually part of [Life] or [non-Life]. Obviously, [Life] and [non-Life] covers all possible objects, so you're going to find Information in all possible objects in some fashion. But though information will be found in [Life] or [non-Life], there is nothing about any value of information that requires it to be [Life]=true. And nothing that requires it to be [non-Life]=true. So any [information] value is independent of the property [Life] or [non-Life].

The dependence is one way. Life depends on information. Information does not depend on life.

This can be shown by looking at some aspects of life and non-life and representing their information values in completely different physical forms. For instance, DNA has been sequenced and those values represented in a printed character format and in computer data. Same thing for sculptures, paintings, written works, etc. A variety of formats for information are possible. Information values is independent of the canvas, whether that is from a life or non-life source.

On the flip-side, Life and non-life objects require information, and usually very specific information, to be expressed in a particular manner in order for it to exist. Life, as we know it, requires DNA, and DNA has to be in the format of using specific molecular nucleotides that we represent by letter ATGC, and those molecules have to be expressed in a particular order (specification). There is nothing about the physical structure of the molecules A, T, G, C or the molecular backbone they adhere to that requires the specific ordering as found in DNA. So here we have another example of [Life] dependent on information, but the information itself is not dependent upon the [Life] it resides in.

When it comes to the ID inference, it is attempting to look at a specific subset of information values, which is expressed as CSI. Some instances of CSI have a known cause, and that cause has ALWAYS been ID. CSI, being a subset of information, is also independent of the canvas, whether that is [Life] or [non-Life]. So when making the inference based upon information, it doesn't matter if it is information in [Life] or [non-Life], but the inference is based upon observations of an 'independent' property.

the complexity_level is measurable in life and non-life alike. There's no inherent difference in the quality of the complexity_level in life and non-life objects. I never challenged this point. This is an automatic consequence of [complexity_level] being just a property of an object, it's not my opinion, it's math. I'd have to be crazy to challenge this.

However.
This statement has bearing on our discussion only if the complexity_level was somehow the sole influence of [cause].

But the blue question is still unresolved, so this statement is useless.

I agree. I'm not saying, nor is the ID inference saying, that complexity_level was somehow the sole influence of [cause]. And that stance remains if you replace "complexity_level" with "information". But again, the ID inference is looking only at information.

Information is a property that we can see, at least evidenced in some cases, is relatable to [Cause]. Now if there is something outside of the information of an object, whether that is from [Life] or [non-Life], that bears on its [Cause], we are waiting to hear what that is. What is the evidence? If there is no evidence, for or against, then it is not going to be considered. As I said many times before, the ID inference is based on what we know. It is based on what evidence we have. It is not based upon some unknown. So information may not be the sole influence of [cause], but until there is some evidence of another factor to consider, ID is going with an inference based on what we know.

there's a real difference between

misrepresentation of evidence:
ID is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce CSI

what we actually know:
ID is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED to produce non-living CSI

No there is not a real difference between them. CSI, or a particular subset of information, is not dependent on the non-living or living canvas we may find it. ID is the ONLY KNOWN CAUSE DEMONSTRATED (at present only in non-living objects) to produce CSI. The inference is making an educated guess on the other living and non-living objects we dont have a demonstration of cause based upon the known pattern for CSI.

[complexity_level] and [CSI] is a property that is not just similar, it's actually defined the same way in objects with life and non-life. And it's irrelevant.

You are ignoring that [life] is a separate property from [complexity_level]. [life] could influence [cause] to such a degree that would completely change the cause from ID to any other cause, and you already admitted that - you said:
"Life could be a factor, we don't know. We don't know......WE DON'T KNOW!"

Your "reason" does not address the blue question.

Ok, so you here are again admitting a distinction between any information value (your 'complexity_level' or my 'CSI') and [life]. But since information is a property necessarily part of [life] and we are not talking about it, you have to have some other definable property of [life] in mind you are referring to. But you have not defined anything yet that cannot be described with an information value. And we both agree that there is no evidence for or against this non-information [life] property ("Life could be a factor, we don't know") having any effect on [cause]. So if you have something specific you can point to, please do so. Otherwise, and this is what I think you are actually arguing, all you are stating is that there could be some unknown factor affecting [Cause]. I agree there could be some unknown factor. But as it is still unknown, and we have no data (evidence) to affect any understanding of [cause], then why are we even considering it? Again, ID is basing its inference on what is KNOWN, not on some hypothetical maybe-affects-cause.

That is why you say I haven't addressed your blue question. I have addressed the information side of it, but all you are left with is some ethereal unknown, some agent X that you happened to be calling [Life], that you claim has may have some effect on [cause] but cannot specify what.

Your undefined [Life] could have an effect on [Cause]. Equally, [Life] could have no effect on [Cause]. We don't know = we have no evidence either way. At present there is nothing you can point to, either for or against, that has an effect on [Cause]. As I stated before, the ID inference is not a theory of everything, it is only dealing with something (evidence) that we do have: information. If at some point, you can actually point to a piece of evidence around [Life] that affects [Cause], then we can adjust or throw out the ID inference as needed. But until then, the ID inference, based upon actual evidence, stands to infer something.

Your "reason" does not demonstrate anything that would indicate how likely/unlikely it is that life provides an alternative explanation for cause. Thus your reason is nullified. What you thought of as "reason" is actually completely beside the point.

My "reason" demonstrates something based upon evidence. It does not address non-evidence of any other thing, no matter the label you want to assign it. My "reason" is not nullified by nothing.

Life is not just a label, it is a property that is excluded(bias) in the empirical evidence, as you already have admitted yourself, here's what you said:
"So, though we haven't observed some LIFE artifact actually "caused" yet......"

So if [Life] is more than just a property label, what exactly is it? Again, the ID inference is only based upon evidence/observations of information. If there is something to [Life] that has a bearing on [Cause] that would refute the inference based upon observations of information, please provide it! Otherwise the ID inference isnt going anywhere. If there is an observation of something outside of information that involves [Life] and is related to [Cause], that can come into the conversation. But we haven't witnessed such a thing yet and your insistence that it may exist has holds no weight.

Nothing about [life] is so special. That's why evidence for the blue question is required.

I agree. It is nothing special. Yes, evidence for the blue questions is required, in order to even consider the blue question. But in the absence of any evidence, for or against, the blue question is also remains absent.

By information here you mean complexity? The complexity of an object could come from ♫. These or similar points could provide an alternative cause without influencing the complexity of the object, thus providing an answer for "where did the complexity come from".

Great! What evidence is there for "complexity" coming from "♫"? Oh, there is none?.....
What evidence is there for an alternate cause (from ID) that doesn't affect the "complexity". Well, from known causes, we have checked and not found any. So we are left with.....unknown evidence from an unknown cause. Since ID is dealing with knowns, and not unknowns, until some unknown becomes known and affects the evidence, we'll just stick with the known.

How likely is it that some ♫ provides an alternative explanation for your complexity? That's what the blue question is asking. ID's premise doesn't provide any evidence to suggest one way or the other.

Yes, how likely indeed! You have no data. You are proposing a hypothetical unknown. Id is not dealing with the unknown, but it is open to some new known data coming along. Until then, ID will continue to not comment on nor provide any evidence against an unknown.

I expected that you will provide an argument why it's reasonable to only be talking about the [complexity_level] of an object and ignore any ♫. The best you could come up with is "the ID inference doesn't care"? nicely done.

It is reasonable to only talk about something we have evidence for. It is not reasonable to talk about something we have no evidence for. ID doesnt care about the unknown, but by not caring about the unknown, it leaves itself open for some new 'known' to come along and topple it. But until then...

A kid is jaywalking across a road full of traffic, he thinks that neither the red traffic light, nor the speeding cars are relevant when considering "will I get to the other side?"....
Is it reasonable for the kid to not think about the traffic, since he's not trying to think about it? After all, the only thing the kid is trying to do is get to the other side of the road. Obviously this attitude is irrational.

The difference is that there is EVIDENCE for the traffic light and speeding cars. Of course it would be stupid for the kid to ignore the EVIDENCE that exists. But what if the kid is on the side of an open road and someone came along and told the kid: "There maybe could be a traffic light there, and speeding cars. You just cannot see it yet". If there is no evidence of light or cars, sure he would be taking a risk in crossing the street, maybe an unseen car could come by (and suddenly be seen) and hit him. But the kid would be stupid to sit there and never cross the street, especially if he was looking around.

Likewise "ID is not trying to talk about it" is not a defense against my argument, it's an irrational statement. What were you even trying to prove by saying it....

ID is looking around. It doesn't see any "cars" or "light". There is no evidence that there is a "car" or "light" around. It is not a defense against the "car" or "light" issue, because there is no need for a defense at this time. what is irrational is for ID to defend against something for which there is no evidence of.

"Information" is an inconvenient word for it because it is overloaded with so many meanings, that the misunderstanding we had was inevidable. Ofcourse information is everywhere and everything, but what you're measuring is not information as a whole, but the complexity_level of that information.
...
but using an ambiguous word like "information" is counterproductive because we both use it in many other contexts.

I think you still misunderstand "information". Please look up Shannon Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory) and Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)) to get a better idea. But the information that ID is talking about has always been what you are calling "complexity_level". It is a representation of information as a probability function.

To prove ID, you need to show that probably everything that is necessary for determining the cause of an object is reflected by the object's complexity_level. This means that you still need to address the blue question.

Again, ID is not "proving" anything. It is simply the best explanation given the evidence we have. If new evidence comes by to overturn ID, that is fine. ID doesn't need to address the blue question because so far there is nothing in the blue question that requires explanation.

Evolution shows us that ♫="the ability to mutate and reproduce from one generation to another", is a factor that has the capacity to alter the cause of an object with CSI from ID to something else. Evolution is an explanation that provides a reason for the blue question.

Finally, some progress. A definition of ♫ we can work with. Though I would point out that your ♫ is not [Life], so all my prior complaints still remain.

But regarding your ♫, evolution, I should point out that ID has already looked into this and found that it is not capable of producing CSI. ♫ has been OBSERVED to produce a measure of specified complexity, but it has never been demonstrated that it can produce specified complexity to a level such as CSI.

So though you say evolution provides reason for the blue question, within the ID inference it has already addressed evolution. Evolution is a KNOWN cause, it has been and is still being investigated. But so far the actual evidence of evolution has not been able to provide a reasonable cause for CSI.

I would also point out the evolution vs ID is where the real debate is held today by those involved with delving into the evidence. Arguing about whether ID is a valid inference as we are doing is not really taken up.

The red part misses the point again. As I stated above, to infer the cause of life the blue question needs to be resolved. I do not need to provide any evidence that [life] influences [complexity_level] to disprove ID. In fact, I already conceded several times that [life] doesn't influence [complexity_level], and I never claimed that it did.
The green part is the whole point of the blue question. I have stated very clearly how [life] relates to [cause] - the relation is unknown to us, based on the evidence provided.

The RED part is where any actual evidence resides. The blue part doesnt have anything - no evidence for, no evidence against....NO EVIDENCE. Again, ID is not cocerning itself with unknowns, undefinables. It doesn't care because there is nothing there to care about. All you have is some concept that doesn't have a lick of 'mass' one way or another to affect anything. Your "evidence" of how [Life] relates to [cause] is NO EVIDENCE.

 

[WookieeB]

Now the blue question.

Thus, to infer the cause of life, the only question remaining to resolve is:
how likely is it that [life] does/doesn't influence [cause]?

There is no evidence [life] does influence [cause].
There is no evidence [life] doesn't influence [cause].
Not just no positive evidence, and not just no negative evidence. There is no evidence, none.
Why do we have to answer a question regarding something for which there is absolutely no existing evidence?
You could replace the term [Life] with a myriad of other factors (blue/not blue, breathes air/water, is named Hank/not Hank,... etc ad nauseum) and it would not matter one iota if there was NO EVIDENCE for how [agent-x] affects [cause]. ID is not concerned with the hypothetical, the unknown. When you actually take some unknown and make it known, and then have actual evidence to consider, then we can plug that into your blue question and go from there.

or equivalently,
how likely is it that complexity_level is the only/not only factor that influences [cause]?
or equivalently,
how likely is it that being alive provides an/no alternative explanation for complexity of an object?

see above.

if the blue question has definite evidence, then we have a definite cause of life.
if the blue question has probable evidence, then we have a probable cause of life.
if the blue question has likely evidence, then we have a likely cause of life.
if the blue question has no evidence, then the cause of life is unknown.

You do realize that in these statements you are arguing a tautology. Essentially 'if the blue question has evidence' is the same as 'if we have evidence for a cause'.

So, "if the blue question has no evidence, then the cause of life is unknown" is the same thing as saying 'if we have no evidence of a cause, then the cause is unknown.' And I agree with that.

But with ID, we have evidence. Evidence of how information relates to cause. And based upon that evidence, we can infer something on the cause for objects whose cause has yet been unobserved yet has the common property of the evidence.

This is interesting, I took care not to construct any straw men. I challenge you to specify what the strawman is that I supposedly am attacking, and how it differs from what I should be arguing against.

I added a Quiz Show analogy at the bottom to show that arguing an unknown is ok. Thus "You are arguing for an unknown" is not a counterargument.

The strawman is that you have setup the ID inference in a way that it has to explain something that in reality it is in no way is claiming to explain. That it has to explain the [cause] of [Life] or any other hypothetical thing may relate to [cause], when in reality all the ID inference is trying to explain is the [cause] of [informtion].

The quiz show analogy is not akin to the ID inference.

I'm skipping your remaining spoiler diagrams because they have already been addressed and I would say the same thing.

That is a non-sequitor.

let's look at the point #6 that you replied to:
[6]Fact: life is not represented in the sample = The sample does not contain a single object with: [Life=yes]

Do you agree that the sample/premise does not contain a single object with: [Life=yes]??
if yes, then life is not represented in the sample, because the very definition of "X is represented in your sample" means there is an object that has X.

OK, fair point about what the "X" represent in my diagram. But it turns out to be irrelevant, as there is no bias regarding information between life and non-life, just as much as there is no bias between information in a mountain scuplture vs a non-mountain scuplture, or any canvas where the information is found.

Irrelevant for the current argument. I am debating the ID argument, not what the followers are doing. By invoking this you seem to agree that more information is better for an inference, but you deflected my question to not actually having to admit that.

You missed the point. You were arguing that obtaining more evidence would overturn the flat-earth inference. I agree. But for the ID inferenced, more evidence has not overturned it, but instead it is strenghthening it. ID loves new evidence. It wants all those unknown hypotheticals you fall back on to become known. As each new piece of information is found, ID gets stronger. Quite a few scientists are starting to realize that.

Apple Analogy:

Green is a never-before seen property in any apples or plums ever tasted. Saying that apples still taste sweet even if they're green is irrational, because the property [fruit=apple] was never established as the likely sole/bigger influence factor on taste, which you even admitted yourself.

Ok, lets say color:green is totally un-tasted. so there is NO evidence that color:green is sweet, and there is NO evidence that color:green is not-sweet. We have no evidence that color:green affects anything except how a fruit looks. So since color:green has nothing to say about sweet or not-sweet, and we cannot taste color:green, then there is no point in making a determination, and equally a non-determination of taste based on color:green. It is a non-issue property at least until we can produce some evidence, any evidence of how color:green affects taste.

But we do have evidence of how color:red affects taste. The evidence is that color:red has no effect on taste, as some red fruit is sweet and some red fruit is not sweet. So we do have EVIDENCE, but that evidence suggests that color doesn't determine taste - we have actual observations that this is the case for color:red. Does color: green have any effect on taste? Again, we have no clue, no evidence. But we do have a hinting that color doesn't affect taste, so until we can actually taste color:green, based on what we DO know, and pending any new evidence, we can write off color as a taste factor.

We also have different fruit we have tasted. All the tastes have been color:red fruit, but as some fruit has been sweet or not-sweet, there doesnt appear to be any relation of taste to color. But, based on what we KNOW, there is a relation of type of fruit to taste. All apples are sweet so far, being we have only tated color:red. For plums, some are sweet, and some are not, though the tasted ones again have all been red. So far, based upon ALL evidence we have, fruit:apple is sweet. We have not tasted all fruit:apple out there, but until we can, it is reasonable, again based on what actual evidence we do have, to infer that any apples we taste are sweet. That is the default position until other data, such as the actual taste of color:green and fruit:apple, can be revealed.

Notice how the strength of influence of "green" on the apple's taste is not "likely small" or "likely big" or "likely anything" but "completely unknown". There is no relevant information in the premise of ID about how the property "green" relates to "sweet" to even suggest a shred of probability.

I agree. But the inference is not being made as to whether the property "green" relates to "sweet". the inference is on whether the property "apple" relates to "sweet". "Green" so far has nothing to say about anything, so until it does have something....anything to say, we will ignore it.

care to try again, the apple challenge stated above?

Just did!

This part is irrelevant. this part is true but you use it as a conclusion of a non-sequitor with this part being the false premise; that's why your whole argument sounds convincing. And the yellow part:
If by "guess" you mean "personal belief" then it's ok, you can believe what you want.
If by "guess" you mean "more likely", then it's a non-sequitor, and a hasty-generalisation. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of being rational.

C'mon. Havent we been at this long enough for you to figure out what "guess" means. It relates directly to "infer". And I said "educated guess", which means we have evidence to support our guess. That is rational, and Spock would understand me.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, You have just demonstrated beautifly the popular "argument from ignorance" can you at least see the parallel to this fallacy?

But I have never said there is evidence of absence. I have always stood by it being an absence of evidence. I have also always stated that it is possible that there is some evidence out there that could overturn the ID inference. but that is normal, that is how science works. Go where the evidence leads you. And for the time being, the evidence leads to ID. The argument is not based on ignorance., but your objection is.

I find your statement here to be a bit disingenous. Frankly, the evidence we do have will at any time always be finite. We will never have ALL the evidence for something, and theoretically there will always be more that is unknown than is known. By your argument, you would have us paralyzed from ever making an inference because there would always be some unknown factor that we havent considered.

Let's see what you wrote, I marked it same color in the quote:
"We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness.
Thus, we have no evidence to consider color to begin with."

There are 2 problems:
The text "We have no evidence to consider color as..." is actually referring to the complete absence of information about color whatsoever. Thus you have forgotten one more thing that we have no evidence for, namely:
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor that has no influence on sweetness.
-
Another problem is that the statement "we do not consider color to begin with" is logically equivalent to "we consider color a non-influence"

let me rephrase that:
Saying "it doesnt matter what color the apple is" is logically equivalent to saying "color has no influence on sweetness".
understand? this is important.

Thus what you actually implicitelly wrote is:

"We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness.
We have no evidence to consider color as a factor that has no influence on sweetness.
Thus, we consider color to be a factor that has no influence on sweetness."

do you see the problem? classic argument from ignorance. As per Aristotle, I just demonstrated that you are not allowed to infer the cause of life this way by exposing self-contradiction within your own statement. I hope this changes your mind about my argument being some sort of parlor trick - it's in fact a solid logical argument.

*sigh*... I just answered that above in the Apple analogy response, but if you had put my response in context it would make sense. In your text quoted above, replace "color" with "color:green" and it should work to you.

To sumarize the above geekyness:
Color is a relevant (because potentially influential) variable, that ID ignores. By doing so, ID is implicitelly creating an assumption about this variable. This implicit assumption is not supported by evidence, thus it has no right to exist in a rational inference. Thus proving that ignoring the variable was irrational to begin with.

To summarize my responses:
From what we know, color is not a relevant variable. Color:green has no data at all, and color:red has data that demonstrates it doesnt have any effect on taste. So, per the existing data, color has no relevance. ID is not ignoring color altogether, but it instead acknowledges that the evidence indicates it has no effect. It does ignore color:green, since there is nothing of substance there. It does not color:red, but that does nothing to change the ID inference.

But unless you can demonstrate that there is a difference in sweetness due to an apple being red or green, it doesnt matter what color the apple is.

requoting myself from your quote. I still stand by this. There is nothing demonstrating a difference in sweetness due to color:red, and we have evidence to support that. There is nothing demonstrating a difference in sweetness due to color:green; there is an absence of evidence to change that position.


The Quiz show analogy -
This is not analagous to the ID inference and serves to make no point.
We know there is a prize in a box and a coal in a box. Other than that, we have been given no information, no evidence of a position. Seeing the prize in the left box prior to the quizmaster coming by is a red herring. It only confirms there is a prize (which we already know) but does nothing to provide evidence for location, cause it could have been moved (or not moved) without our knowledge. ID would not make any inference based on this data, just like ID makes no inference of [cause] based upon non-CSI objects.

 

[QuickTwist]

woosh... No I didn't hear a thing

 

[Domyork]

I think we might be over-thinking the concept here. Humans have been intellectually the exact same for thousands of years, yet in all of those years, trying to explain existence, nobody has ever been able to get past the question "Why?".

A theory has arose that our minds simply do not have the capability to comprehend such a question. For asking "Why?" Always is answered with... "Why?"

For example. A little boy and his mom are walking. The little boy says "Mom, why do we drink water?" Mom says "Because we need it to live."
"But Mom, why do we need it to live?"
"Because we are made of water."
"But Mom, why are we made of water?"
"Because life is made of water."
"But Mom, why is life made of water"
"Because that's how it works."
"But Mom, why is that how it works?"
"Because, uhm, maybe, uhm, STFU?"
"But Mom, why should I STFU?"

Anyways my point is that asking "Why?" always leads us back to... well.. "Why?"
There are things that we simply cannot logically explain. When I try conquering the concept of Infinity I tend to get beat up every single time; I'm guessing you do as well.

Maybe we should focus on how to do more cool stuff in our existence, rather than ponder about why we're here?

 

[Teax]

Ok I cleared it up for you but I didn't really see how it was relevant:

Spoiler

we need to clear this up before I proceed.

[Life] and [non-Life] objects, if you look at their properties, will all have a value for information. So in that aspect, [Life] and [non-Life] are dependent on (or has to have) information. (I have been wanting more specific language, so I would break down [Life] and [non-Life] into sub-objects that themselves have properties which would always include information. An example of a sub-objects of [Life] would be DNA, Proteins, or some other parts of a cell. There are many more.)
But the reverse is not true. Information represented as an object, or even just as a property, is not dependent on it being individually part of [Life] or [non-Life]. Obviously, [Life] and [non-Life] covers all possible objects, so you're going to find Information in all possible objects in some fashion. But though information will be found in [Life] or [non-Life], there is nothing about any value of information that requires it to be [Life]=true. And nothing that requires it to be [non-Life]=true. So any [information] value is independent of the property [Life] or [non-Life].

The dependence is one way. Life depends on information. Information does not depend on life.

in the green sentence:
true: objects with [life=yes] and [life=no] have a [information_value]
true: [life] is dependent on [information_value].
but the 2 above statements are not equivalent in meaning. dependence means correlation, while "has to have" is a meaningless buzzword that is a given. You are using "dependent" as a colloqual substitution for "has to have" but it all makes no logical sence why, because you are not correctly inferring anything from the 2 statements. I wish you would write your arguments in a more strutured way.

Independence and dependence are symmetrical.

Life depends on information_value and therefore information_value depends on life.

Here's how you can prove it to yourself:

Objects with [life=no] have sometimes [CSI=no] and sometimes [CSI=yes].
Objects with [life=yes] have always [CSI=yes].
Objects with [CSI=no] have always [life=no].
Objects with [CSI=yes] have sometimes [life=no] and sometimes [life=yes].

I would also point out the evolution vs ID is where the real debate is held today by those involved with delving into the evidence. Arguing about whether ID is a valid inference as we are doing is not really taken up.

What fun would that be. Most people care only to defend evolution. Few people dig deep enough to recognise the error in ID's logic. Since I do not really care for evolution or the outcome of this debate one way or another, my argument is perfect to just sit back and have some fun debating. I must apologise thought, in case you have some higher stake in this debate... please don't be angry with me for taking it so nonchallantly...

The strawman is that you have setup the ID inference in a way that it has to explain something that in reality it is in no way is claiming to explain. That it has to explain the [cause] of [Life] or any other hypothetical thing may relate to [cause], when in reality all the ID inference is trying to explain is the [cause] of [information_value].

This was an eye opener! This quote made me realize that you are misunderstanding the very structure of my argument. What you just said is exactly my argument and it's not a strawman:

A strawman would be an different irrelevant inference that I were claiming to be ID. I then would disprove the irrelevant inference and say "since I could disprove it, therefore ID is wrong".

In reality I am showing that ID is an irrational inference. The only way I can do that is by showing a contradiction of ID with what's rational. I have never modified ID itself to do that, so it's not a strawman. You also cannot claim that the rational thing is a strawman, because I never claimed it to be ID!! haha

I have proven that ID needs to explain a certain thing. At this point it became completely irrelevant whether ID claimed/wanted/aspired to explain it. It must. And your response is "ID is not claiming to explain, ID is an inference based on something else". That is not a rebuttal to my argument.

In fact your "rebuttal" supports my claim that ID is irrational. Since you basically admit yourself that ID is not claiming to explain something that I have proven that it needs to be explained. Thus in context your rebuttal translates into "ID is not claiming to be rational, because ID is an inference based on something that is irrelevant".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I seem to have identified the core statement you are basing your ID worldview on, it's marked in yellow below.

I am quoting that statement from the apple analogy, because I find it much more fun to debate with apples....

Apple analogy
remember:
taste: sweet=ID, not_sweet = not_ID cause
color: green=life, red=non-life
fruit: apple= CSI, plum=non-CSI

your central justification for ID. Quoted from #75:

And even if you want to argue that anything Green has never been tasted, we have enough information from other factors to make a guess. Red doesn't determine sweetness, but all apples we have ever tasted are sweet. So we can make an educated guess that any apple is sweet. It is may be true that we have no experience with Green...yet, but that is not enough reason to be unable to make a good guess, because we have other factors that can be considered. It may turn out that we are wrong, but we wont know till we actually taste green

The yellow statement is not a logical inference. It's a non-sequitor. From what I've seen during this whole debate, you base your whole justification that ID is reasonable on that alone, you actually have no other unrelated arguments. So once you realize that it's a non-sequitor you will have no basis anymore to believe that ID is rational.

Thus my next step was to show you that the yellow statement is false. All I needed is to show that the implications of the yellow statement are contradictory.

You have elaborated on the yellow statement:

We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of sweetness. We have no evidence to consider color as a factor of non-sweetness. Thus, we have no evidence to consider color to begin with.

This pink statement, as I have shown in my last post, is self-contradictory and therefore always false. Therefore the yellow statement is false aswell, since the pink statement is an implication of the yellow statement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now you tried to weazle out of this predicament by commiting a new fallacy I have never seen before. Really, it never gets boring in this thread:

From what we know, color is not a relevant variable. Color:green has no data at all, and color:red has data that demonstrates it doesnt have any effect on taste. So, per the existing data, color has no relevance.

this is impossible:
"color:red has data that demonstrates it doesnt have any effect on taste"

just-red can not demonstrate anything about [color], not even anything about color:red.

I'll explain below, but for now fetch some popcorn and let's see what you wrote:

But we do have evidence of how color:red affects taste. The evidence is that color:red has no effect on taste, as some red fruit is sweet and some red fruit is not sweet. So we do have EVIDENCE, but that evidence suggests that color doesn't determine taste - we have actual observations that this is the case for color:red. Does color: green have any effect on taste? Again, we have no clue, no evidence. But we do have a hinting that color doesn't affect taste, so until we can actually taste color:green, based on what we DO know, and pending any new evidence, we can write off color as a taste factor.

We also have different fruit we have tasted. All the tastes have been color:red fruit, but as some fruit has been sweet or not-sweet, there doesnt appear to be any relation of taste to color. But, based on what we KNOW, there is a relation of type of fruit to taste. All apples are sweet so far, being we have only tated color:red. For plums, some are sweet, and some are not, though the tasted ones again have all been red. So far, based upon ALL evidence we have, fruit:apple is sweet. We have not tasted all fruit:apple out there, but until we can, it is reasonable, again based on what actual evidence we do have, to infer that any apples we taste are sweet. That is the default position until other data, such as the actual taste of color:green and fruit:apple, can be revealed.

this part is true but it is not sufficient evidence to infer anything about green apples. It's just evidence about how [fruit] affects [taste], it doesn't tell us anything about how color affects taste, because it's a completely unrelated correlation

This baseless statement - Why is it reasonable? Just saying that "it is reasonable" does not change the fact that your evidence does not support your conclusion.


Here's an analogy to this and the orange statements:
"some brick-buildings are high, and some brick-buildings are low, therefore constructing the building from steel rather than bricks will probably have the same height limitations as with bricks"

do you see how ridiculous it even sounds? the first half has nothing to do with the second half. Brick buildings have nothing to say about steel buildings. It's an obvious non-sequitor.

I'm not questioning your evidence, but the logic behind how you infered this and this.

You need to taste both colors to establish a relationship between color and taste, otherwise any relation between them is a baseless assumption. It's like a graph, if you only have point on the left side of the graph, you have demonstrated nothing.

▓ = datapoints for apples, added color for visual effect
    [taste]
       ▲
 sweet │
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
  sour │
       ┼────────────────────────────► [color]
       red                      green

only when you have points at both ends of the graph, does the evidence indicate a correlation between the axis.

▓ = datapoints for apples, added color for visual effect
    [taste]
       ▲
 sweet │
       │                         [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │                         [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │                     ___/
       │                 ___/    [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │             ___/
       │         ___/
       │[color=red]▓[/color]    ___/
       │[color=red]▓[/color]___/
       │/
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
  sour │
       ┼────────────────────────────► [color]
      red                      green

your statement
"some red fruit were sweet and some red fruit were not-sweet, therefore there's no relation of [taste] to [color]"
can be drawn as following:

▓ = datapoints, added color for visual effect
    [taste]
       ▲
 sweet │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │
       │
       │
       │──────────────────────────
       │
       │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
  sour │
       ┼────────────────────────────► [color]
      red                      green

there are no green datapoints but you are inferring through other evidence that it's more probable that [color] doesn't influence sweetness. This is equivalent to saying that its likely that data points exist at this position:

▓ = datapoints, added color for visual effect
    [taste]
       ▲
 sweet │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]                        [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]                        [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │
       │
       │
       │──────────────────────────
       │
       │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]                        [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]                        [color=YellowGreen]▓[/color]
  sour │
       ┼────────────────────────────► [color]
      red                      green

But there's no evidence that might suggest that those datapoints might exist in exactly that position. The taste of green apples is not "likely" anything, it's unknown.

▓ = datapoints, added color for visual effect
    [taste]
       ▲
 sweet │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
       │[color=red]▓[/color]
  sour │
       ┼────────────────────────────► [color]
       red                      green

the inference about green apples was fallacious. Whatever other evidence you used, you were not allowed to infer the relation between [color] and [taste].

I'll try to simplify further:

Imagine you were wearing pink contact-lenses all your life. Would you be able to tell what influence the pink lenses have on you perceiption of the color "white"? The only way to find out, is to change the lenses/take them off. Only then you can, based on "what's changed" establish that the influence of pink lenses was.

In the same way you cannot establish what the effects of color on taste are, without ever tasting a green apple.

But I have never said there is evidence of absence. I have always stood by it being an absence of evidence.

Yes you have, implicitelly. It doesn't matter whether you explicitelly stated it. By saying that "we have no evidence to consider color to begin with" like in the above pink statement, you are implicitelly stating that color is more likely not an influence. There's no way around it.

the complexity_level is measurable in life and non-life alike. There's no inherent difference in the quality of the complexity_level in life and non-life objects. I never challenged this point. This is an automatic consequence of [complexity_level] being just a property of an object, it's not my opinion, it's math. I'd have to be crazy to challenge this.

However.
This statement has bearing on our discussion only if the complexity_level was somehow the sole influence of [cause].

But the blue question is still unresolved, so this statement is useless.

I agree. I'm not saying, nor is the ID inference saying, that complexity_level was somehow the sole influence of [cause]. And that stance remains if you replace "complexity_level" with "information". But again, the ID inference is looking only at information.

You are saying it, implicitelly, when you say that ID is more probable.

Example of logical implication: Imagine the cookie resides in the cookie-jar because mom put it there.
kid sais: I just ate the cookie.
mom sais: But I told you not to open the cookie jar.
kid sais: No, I only ate the cookie that was inside, I didn't open the cookie jar.
mom sais: I closed the lid, and dad didn't touch the cookie jar, so you must have opened it.

But admitting that the kid ate the cookie he implicitelly admitted that he opened the jar.


By saying that you found a reason for cause of life being ID, you impicitelly found a reason for complexity_level being the sole influence of [cause]. You implicitelly found a reason for the blue question. Because all those statements are equivalent. Therefore arguing that one of them is more likely implicitelly argues that all the others are more likely aswell.

The quiz show analogy is not akin to the ID inference.

yes I'm sorry that I said in my previous post that it's not an analogy to ID, since then I discovered that the quiz analogy actually is a valid analogy to ID.

The Quiz show analogy -
This is not analagous to the ID inference and serves to make no point.
We know there is a prize in a box and a coal in a box. Other than that, we have been given no information, no evidence of a position. Seeing the prize in the left box prior to the quizmaster coming by is a red herring. It only confirms there is a prize (which we already know) but does nothing to provide evidence for location, cause it could have been moved (or not moved) without our knowledge. ID would not make any inference based on this data, just like ID makes no inference of [cause] based upon non-CSI objects.

Yes it seems you mostly understand the situation. The only thing you don't see yet is that the mathematical model behind the apples and this analogy is the same.

Seeing the prize in the left box prior to the quizmaster coming by is related to the position of the prize after the shuffling. So what you said here is not true. It's not a "red herring" because it proves to us that the price was n the left box to begin with, and therefore provides evidence for location. Now the only thing we need to know is what happened during the shuffle. Using these 2 pieces of information you can infer where the prize is afterwards.

Analogous, evidence that all red apples are probably sweet is needed, aswell as what happens with taste of green apples. Only using these 2 pieces of information you can infer the taste in green apples.

However we have no evidence on how the boxes were shuffled, and thus this second piece of information is missing to infer where the prize will be after shuffling. This missing piece is analogous to the missing answer to the blue question, and is analogous to the missing line(correlation) in the above graphics, and is analogous to the missing evidence about how [color] affects [taste].

ID is trying to infer the final position of the price based on its initial position.
When defending ID, you confused 2 different concepts:

• you thought we have no evidence that a shuffling took place. In that case it would be reasonable to infer the final position based on the initial position, because there's no evidence that the boxes were swapped.
• But in reality, the shuffling of boxes is a logical necessity, it definetly did take place, and the only evidence we are missing is what happened during the shuffling.

We know from logical necessity that shuffling is an influence on the position of the prize, and thus ignoring the shuffling is irrational. Lack of evidence about shuffling hinders us from making any conclusions about the final position of the prize

I think we might be over-thinking the concept here. Humans have been intellectually the exact same for thousands of years. (...) Anyways my point is that asking "Why?" always leads us back to... well.. "Why?"
There are things that we simply cannot logically explain.

Over-thinking? always but this particular argument is not about "why" but rather about the ID-argument being not logical. I merely picked it because I saw a chance to debate for debate's sake

When I try conquering the concept of Infinity I tend to get beat up every single time; I'm guessing you do as well.

' infinity is a simple concept that gets attributed too many things by different people who misunderstand it - that's where it gets its nearly "magical" infamous reputation. Maybe you should open a thread?

Maybe we should focus on how to do more cool stuff in our existence, rather than ponder about why we're here?

I agree with you completely! I do not care for the ID argument one way or the other, never did. Just doing this to improve my explanation skill. I mean, look at the OP post? It's amazing that post was made by ME. It seems so incomprehensive I don't know what I was smoking back then.... and I don't even smoke!! waah ~~~

 

[WookieeB]

So now I am finally getting around to reply to Redbaron.

Well hey, this wasn't the experiment I was after but it seems that speciation is observed frequently enough that 10 minutes of google search revealed another one.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/lenskis-long-term-evolution-experiment.html?m=1

This is a good example, and I'm glad you finally found one worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, I do not think it does not state what you think it does.

What is going on here? A culture of E. coli was able to develop a method of intaking Citrate to use as food, where it previously was not able to do so. Mutation and natural selection? You betcha!

But if we look deeper, what really is going on here is no big deal.

First some background facts -
Normally natural/wild E. coli already can internally process citrate as a food source. The machinery is already there.
Natural/wild E. coli can also intake citrate in low oxic conditions. The machinery is already there.

what was different about Lenski's E. coli was that he had them in a rich oxygen environment, where-in they could not normally intake citrate. If somehow they could get the citrate in, it could be metabolized as normal.

So the whole hullaboo was that the E. coli figured out a way to intake citrate in a high oxygen condition.

And what was the mutation that enabled them to do that? The gene for the citrate transporter, citT, that prior existed and works in low oxic conditions was copied closer to a promotor (a regulatory property) that works in oxic conditions. There does appear to be a prior mutation that may have occurred to allow the gene duplication to work, it has not been identified yet, but the scientists working with the E. coli experiments seem to thing it may involve a disabling (ie loss-of-function) of an unrelated regulatory gene.

So basically a gene duplicaton, a copy of a prior existing gene that allowed it to work under conditions that it normally would not have.

First off, that is nothing special. Gene duplication occurs often and it is nothing suprising. Secondly, there is no new information here. It is just copy of already existing genes that were now allowed to run a process in conditions that it normally would not. Third, this is not a speciation event, there is no new species being created.

"But does this adaptation constitute a genuine innovation? That depends on the definition of innovation you use. It certainly is an example of reusing existing information in a new context, thus producing a new niche for E coli in lab cultures. But if the definition of innovation is something genuinely new, such as a new transport molecule or a new enzyme, then no, this adaptation falls short as an innovation. And no one should be surprised."

The prior paragraph was a quote from a biologist that looked at the issue, and I have to agree. It is not really a big deal, it falls within the normal range of changes that natural selection could perform. No ID proponent is really impressed with this. This in no way demonstrates the ability of RM+NS (or some other evolution process) to produce new information that would be REQUIRED by new body plans and functions.

I should point out too that Michael Behe (a prominent name in the ID world) accurately predicted (before the actual mutations were elucidated) what would likely be found out. Essentially a modification of functional elements (but little to no new information) along with a probable loss-of-function to some contributing genetic factor.

So though this is a good example of natural selection in action, it really is not a strong indicator of what evolution is supposedly supposed to be able to do. If this is the "best" example you can come up with, then I have nothing to worry about.

This must be one of the most hilariously stupid things I've ever read. But I'm going to let you prove your case. If you can do it, I'll even concede that you're right.

The chances of winning a lottery are 1/175,000,000

Now all you have to do is show everyone how you came to the conclusion that the evolution of the eyeball is less likely than winning the lottery not just once, but 18 times in a row. Must have taken a lot of time to calculate that sort of equation, with all of the variables involved. I'm sure it's something impressive and I'd love to see it.

I'd also be quite disappointed if you were so disingenuous that you made up these figures without actually having formulated any equations. That's quite intellectually dishonest and rather insulting to the intelligence of your audience that you'd assume they'd actually fall for that bullshit. You wouldn't do that though, right?

Yup. The chances of winning a lottery are 1/175,000,000 = 1 in 1.75 x 10^8. 18 times those odds are approximately 1 in 2.37 x 10^148, just under what is usually set for the CSI threshold.

Vision requires, has to have, cannot work without.... dozens of components that are very specified in their functions. I will just point to just 3 proteins that are part of the elegant process.

Rhodopsin - contains about 348 Amino Acids. Even considering if you have the amino acids (AA) available and the right type of AA needed for biological forms (which have their own separate set of probabilities - so I'm being generous in your favor), the odds of forming this protein by chance is 20^348 = 1 in 5.7 x 10^452

which is a protein that has to work specifically with

Transducin - I could not get the AA count for the entire protein, but rather just one sub-unit that is 350 AAs. Odds = 20^350 (for just a particular part of transducin) = 2.29 x 10^455

which is a protein that has to work specifically with

phosphodiesterase - around 250 AA. Odds = 20^250 = 1.8 x 10^325.

And you have to consider that these proteins need to work with each other in their specific forms. So you can multiply all those odds together to just get a base probability of mind-boggling size. Proteins do not take to changes (mutation) well, as it not only affects what an AA might be, but the AA chain has to fold into a very specific 3 dimensional structure. Mutations tend to break the folding process, which destroys the function of the protein. So even if you want to throw in a little wiggle room for mutation of the proteins, let's say a very unrealistic 1 million variations per protein, you still are way beyond the bounds of realistic probabilities of producing it.

Even one protein coming about by chance is way beyond winning the lottery 18 times in a row, let alone one win. Having three proteins come about and able to work together?... beyond believable speculation. Throw in all the other components needed for vision and you are talking insanity if you think they could come about without a guiding hand.

-----

How about another feature of the eye - the lens.

Dawkins video tries to explain it. But it is telling in that it shows how evolutionists use just-so stories to fit their belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nwew5gHoh3E

The relevant part starts at 6:12 where he is trying to explain the evolution of the lens.

"How might the lens have evolved? Well lets imagine that it started with just a single transparent sheet of some transparent material. And all that this was doing... is protecting the eye."

And he proceeds to put a piece of glass in front of his prop.

What I would ask is: Where did the transparent material, represented by the lens, come from?
So of all the materials that an organism produces, what percentage are transparent? Assuming there even is one, it would be a very low probability. Besides, we are probably talking about at least a few new proteins making up the 'material', which we have seen have their own high information cost.
What are the chances that some new material would end up covering over the eye? why not somewhere else on the organism body? (again, very low probability).
What about the size and shape of the 'covering'? Any semi-transparent material, unless specifically arranged and not layered to thick, would tend to disperse rather than focus light.
And if prior to the organism getting some crude covering over the eye it was reacting to shadows, wouldn't any material, even a partially transparent one, provide more of a hinderance to 'sight' rather than an advantage to it?
So it would have to be an extremely specific type of covering (like something designed) otherwise it would more likely be selected out.

I dont have any exact figures for these items because they are hypothetical after all. But I bet if you started to calculate them based on numbers from real biological studies, you would again come up with a probability way beyond the CSI threshold.
I find it amusing that for his demonstration, he has to use opticians lenses. A very carefully designed piece of equipment. No wonder he has to say: "... let's imagine..."

 

[Teax]

I wish you made a new thread named "refutation of Evolution" or something like that. The OP post in this thread sucks... and all these nice posts you will have with redbaron will go under

And you have to consider that these proteins need to work with each other in their specific forms.

We know they do, but that doesn't mean they had to work together in the past. And why are you forming all proteins from scratch?

 

[redbaron]

Except all you've done is throw around more bullshit numbers.

Transducin - I could not get the AA count for the entire protein, but rather just one sub-unit that is 350 AAs. Odds = 20^350 (for just a particular part of transducin) = 2.29 x 10^455

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. You take the number of amino acids, put 20 to the power of that number (350) - and somehow you come to the conclusion that this elementary school level of mathematics has reliably determined the possibility of the protein's evolution.

 

[WookieeB]

Except all you've done is throw around more bullshit numbers.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. You take the number of amino acids, put 20 to the power of that number (350) - and somehow you come to the conclusion that this elementary school level of mathematics has reliably determined the possibility of the protein's evolution.

All I did was identify just one needed part that is involved in vision for known lifeforms, and figured out the odds of it occurring given you have the molecular building blocks.

If you have a better accounting for just one piece of a much larger picture, please present it.

 

[Teax]

Just like I said in my recent response to ID, you have the facts right but your inference is not valid.

This was redbaron's challenge:

Now all you have to do is show everyone how you came to the conclusion that the evolution of the eyeball is less likely than winning the lottery not just once, but 18 times in a row.

notice how he asked you to calculate the probability of it happening by evolution?
your response

All I did was identify just one needed part that is involved in vision for known lifeforms, and figured out the odds of it occurring given you have the molecular building blocks.

your formula: 20^348 is the combinatorical approximate chance of this molecule happening all at once by throwing a dice, by absolute accident. Your calculations have nothing to do with evolution.

therefore I must refer back to redbarons elegant response:

somehow you come to the conclusion that this elementary school level of mathematics has reliably determined the possibility of the protein's evolution.

 

[Teax]

I just noticed in my last reply I overlooked a very funky quote of yours. Strap yourself in, we're in for a wild ride

Spoiler

Fact: The ID inference tries to infer the cause of life.

NO!!! That is not a fact. The ID inference tries to infer the cause of information.

Information is not life, and life is not information. [Life] has information as a property of it, but that information value is independent of any other property of [life], or [life] as a whole. So, there is nothing about [life] information that is distinctly different in form than [non-life] information; information is 'made of the same stuff' for [life] and [non-life]. This is a very important factor to remember for later as the blue question is considered.

If it helps, think of [Information] as the object, and Life:true/false is a property of [Information]. The ID inference isnt concerned about the Life property, or at least that property has no affect on what ID is basing its inference on.

ID is trying to infer the cause of information whether or not it is found in [life] or [non-life]. If it is information in life that happens to be under consideration, then answering the information cause question may have a direct implication on the cause of [life], but the inference itself is not targetting [life].

This quote is craazy woo~~~~! Your understanding of math is most weird.

First concerning the green part, I was not challenging that. I was trying to tell you that we use ID to infer the cause of life. You correctly explained it and I agree with the green+purple part.

But I finally understood why you are so persistently insisting and repeating in every post this statement like it had some weight as a counterargument. It's because your understanding of properties is something like this:

                     ┌──────────────┐
                     │    object    │
                     └──────────────┘
                            ▲
                            │
                            │
                  ┌────────────────────┐
                  │ information_value  │
                  └────────────────────┘
                         ▲      ▲
                      ┌──┘      └──┐
                      │            │
         ┌──────────────┐        ┌──────────────┐
         │    cause     │        │     life     │
         └──────────────┘        └──────────────┘

with your funky understanding of properties it all makes sence, I can see how that would suggest that [life] is somehow an inferior property and [information_value] is all that counts for the inference. It's also obvious now why you always reduced everything to [information_value].

but it's not right.

"think of [Information] as the object" - nope. [information_value] is not an object not even close. It's a property. What do you mean by "if it helps" hahaha yeah I can see how it would help the ID inference but it's just nonsence.

"Life:true/false is a property of [Information]" - again nope. [life] can't be a property of another property. A property cannot be a property of another property. properties can only be properties of objects.

your initial objection: "The ID inference tries to infer the cause of information" - nope. [cause] cannot be a property of [information_value], it's not a physical object.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In math: [cause], [life] and [information_value] are all just properties of objects. From the perspective of math, you were attributing some sort of superpowers to [information_value]... You were basically giving [information_value] special treatment. In fact, all 3 properties are actually equally relevant, all 3 properties are just properties of some object. All knowledge extractable from empirical evidence comes in form of correlations/dependencies.

                       ┌──────────────┐
                       │    object    │
                       └──────────────┘
                         ▲    ▲    ▲
                 ┌───────┘    │    └────────┐
                 │            │             │
┌───────────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐
│ information_value │  │    cause     │  │     life     │
└───────────────────┘  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘

can you see why I always readily admitted that [life] does not change the inherit quality of [information_value]? Because they're just 2 properties, side by side. There's no hirarchy.

What I'm trying to say is: you were using a different mental model and terminology from math. If by "educated guess" you mean "more likely" = "more probable", math will contradict you. If you keep this graphic in mind, you will hopefully understand every agrument I made. Unless you have more bloopers in stock.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are sources for learning Statistics. You seem to be heavily invested on this subject anyway, it would give you a huuuge boost. I suggest something freeware like khan's academy. There's also plenty of videos on youtube with full lectures by various profs. In this debate I had to tiptoe around so many concepts, like playing a mix of taboo and minesweeper where avoid several essential-key-words, and still have to explain something. If only you had a grip on those concepts.... well then I guess there would be no debate....

Thank you for sticking around btw .

 

[WookieeB]

notice how he asked you to calculate the probability of it happening by evolution?

your formula: 20^348 is the combinatorical approximate chance of this molecule happening all at once by throwing a dice, by absolute accident. Your calculations have nothing to do with evolution.

therefore I must refer back to redbarons elegant response:
somehow you come to the conclusion that this elementary school level of mathematics has reliably determined the possibility of the protein's evolution.

This is rich. You have an origin story called “evolution” that you throw out there that is really nothing more than just-so statements that have no basis in fact. You are just begging the question that the players in the story (the proteins) are there and followed the specified script that you imagined.

Yet when I object to the logic that would have to be involved in part of the setup of your story, you balk because I am not telling the tale according to how you imagine it.

You don’t seem to understand how evolution would have to work. Via any process, the information required to build the proteins that are required for vision are very specific. Yes, the odds of those occurring completely by accident are as I posted, which corresponds to a blind search finding the specific sequence among all the possibilities. Proteins are not very tolerant to changes before they break, either being unable to fold or losing functionality even if the fold family is maintained. Changes at the protein level would correspond to a different AA at some point in the chain, which in turn corresponds to point changes at the DNA level. If I was extremely generous in allowing for mutations (which would be random, accidental) affecting any one protein, at best you could shave off a few powers of 10 from the odds. But that leaves you still way beyond a reasonable threshold of an event occurring.

You don’t seem to understand how evolution would have to work. You have to have consider that protein A has to work with protein B which has to work with protein C for vision. And that starts multiplying probabilities for the existence of any one protein. Even if you have a huge amount of wiggle room per protein (to allow for mutations that would (unrealistically) maintain function), you have probabilities way beyond even just the existence of one of these proteins.

And these are just 3 parts of many more parts that have to work in coordination in order to even begin to have vision.

You don’t seem to understand how evolution would have to work. Evolution is a blind process. You cannot just claim that some hugely unlikely set of events, one example being having a particular protein on hand, just occurred because you want it to. There are functional constraints to the proteins, their interactions, and the multiple other physical factors that would have to be met, all produced via random factors, even before natural selection could start to work.

Even if you claim a co-option factor to the evolution story (a protein (or other part) in a different form and different function in the past was taken and tweaked to provide the currently observed function), you would only be moving the goalposts back. Eventually you would have to explain the origin of the ancient ‘part’. Plus, and you may not realize this either, your odds would never get any better than a blind search anyways.

So unless you can start to provide details to the evolution story that can be evaluated, instead of using just-so statements like Dawkins does, you are never going to get better odds than producing even one of the proteins I mentioned. My calculations have everything to do with evolution, because evolution would have to meet these base probabilities and much more to even begin to produce anything resembling an eye.

 

[Teax]

Via any process, the information required to build the proteins that are required for vision are very specific.

You have to have consider that protein A has to work with protein B which has to work with protein C for vision.

And these are just 3 parts of many more parts that have to work in coordination in order to even begin to have vision.

these 3 quotes make no sence. where did you get this idea? You keep bringing up specificity... why?

There are functional constraints to the proteins, their interactions, and the multiple other physical factors that would have to be met, all produced via random factors, even before natural selection could start to work.

before natural selection could start to work? You are talking about your stange understanding of evolution, because it's not how selection plays a role in the evolution model. so let's skip to the relevant part where you start talking about evolution:

Even if you claim a co-option factor to the evolution story (a protein (or other part) in a different form and different function in the past was taken and tweaked to provide the currently observed function), you would only be moving the goalposts back. Eventually you would have to explain the origin of the ancient ‘part’.

yes, what you call co-option is kinda like the actual evolution process: a protein (or other part) in a different form or different function.

It's not a story, it's a model. Not random chance, but gradual change. "goalposts" will be moved back untill you reach abiogenesis, which is any set of conditions like pressure and mixture to produce the basic protein chains that may or may not look anything like the RNA known today. I fail to see the problem.

Plus, and you may not realize this either, your odds would never get any better than a blind search anyways.

how do you figure?

 

[WookieeB]

these 3 quotes make no sence. where did you get this idea? You keep bringing up specificity... why?

before natural selection could start to work? You are talking about your stange understanding of evolution, because it's not how selection plays a role in the evolution model. so let's skip to the relevant part where you start talking about evolution:

In order for vision to work, there are a host of parts and processes that have to work together in a very specified way. A small subset of all those parts and processes are the three proteins I mentioned. And each of those proteins themselves are a very specified part, in that if you change their makeup more than a little, the part effectively 'breaks', and then the whole vision system fails.

Natural Selection works in small steps, and each small step must provide some survival advantage. But if multiple steps are required to confer an advantage, selection gets stuck. If you need more than one mutation, the probability of getting the right ones grows exponentially worse.

Most life functions are the result of a combination of objects with their own specific functions working together, and if you take away any object (and it's unique local function) the larger function fails. This would be a loose definition of irreducible complexity. In order for evolution to be able to 'develop' vision, outside of a co-option method (more on that later), it would have to build or find these objects de novo AND coordinate the combination of their individual functions.

This basic requirement has to be met, having all the parts together and as a whole providing some function, before natural selection can even begin to work on it (or 'select' it for survival). But if you want to focus NS to looking at one of the sub-parts and it's function that contributes to the whole, you are still not going to get very far. Because of the specific coordination of sub-parts, tweaking a sub-function via NS is more-than-likely going to break the larger function. The more tightly integrated your sub-parts (and corresponding sub-functions) are, the harder it will be for NS to do anything, because changes (random mutations) to one would probably have to be coordinated with changes in all the other parts, which affects your probability of success to a exponential degree.

Natural Selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest.

yes, what you call co-option is kinda like the actual evolution process: a protein (or other part) in a different form or different function.

Co-option, also referred to as exaptation and pre-adaptation, is not the same thing as adaptation (RM + NS), and it is not what people usually refer to as the “actual evolution process”. It involves taking parts that originally serve one (or no) function, and become later co-opted for a different purpose. Typically these parts are originally in a form that is maintained through to the new function.

There are a number of problems still here. 1) You have to assume that the co-opted part exists and is available. Where the original part came from is rarely ever addressed. 2) Not all parts of an object with a higher level function have a pre-cursor part that can be co-opted. Some parts are unique in form for providing the master function. The three proteins I noted for vision would fall in this category. 3) Even if a part could conceivably be co-opted, it still does not explain where assembly instructions come from for the master object, nor the coordination requirements with the other parts comes from.

All the above needs to be accounted for before selection could then come in and work on the master function. It gets worse if you consider that many of the parts making up the master object themselves would require multiple simultaneous mutations to arise. There just is not enough time for selection to account for any of this.

It's not a story, it's a model. Not random chance, but gradual change. "goalposts" will be moved back untill you reach abiogenesis, which is any set of conditions like pressure and mixture to produce the basic protein chains that may or may not look anything like the RNA known today. I fail to see the problem.

It’s a model that does not have sufficient evidential support for it’s claims, yet is still assumed to be the process to account for features of life (like the eye). When told as such, it is a story.

Darwinian evolution is gradual change, but it has no direction and relies on random changes. You can go back to abiogenesis if you like, but you are still facing big questions of where the information comes from. “basic protein chains” are still highly complex and specified things, and you would still have to explain how any “RNA” process that helps build the proteins came about.

If you do not have any information to guide a search (which selection would not), then you are no better off than a blind search.

 

[Teax]

In order for vision to work, there are a host of parts and processes that have to work together in a very specified way. A small subset of all those parts and processes are the three proteins I mentioned. And each of those proteins themselves are a very specified part, in that if you change their makeup more than a little, the part effectively 'breaks', and then the whole vision system fails.

Do you mean by "specified" = "exatly in this way"?

Why would all of this be necessary exactly in this way in order for vision to work? Photoreactive molecules come in all shapes and sizes. Even some one-cell-organisms can sence light.

I would agree with you if you said the following. I marked the parts I changed in green, removed parts with a red dash -. I especially removed all the "specified"-words because they add nothing meaningful to your post.

The way vision currently works in most vertebrae, there are a host of parts and processes that - work together to transmit visual information. A small subset of all those parts and processes are the three proteins I mentioned. And each individual of those proteins themselves - if you change their makeup more than a little, - the whole vision system would likely fail.

^ does not contradict evolution.

Natural Selection works in small steps, and each small step must provide some survival advantage.

Just as a sidenote: What is a small step for you? Even just 2 additional steps between "here" and "zero" will reduce the probability you calculated a couple posts ago from 1/10^1200 to just about 1/10^400.

But if multiple steps are required to confer an advantage, selection gets stuck. If you need more than one mutation, the probability of getting the right ones grows exponentially worse. Most life functions are the result of a combination of objects with their own specific functions working together, and if you take away any object (and it's unique local function) the larger function fails. This would be a loose definition of irreducible complexity.

evolution would not get stuck but choose another alternative. the existing evolutionary paths are not the only possible ones. so why would more than one mutation be required before providing a slight advantage in something? - your only reason is Irreducable Complexity. So let me address that:

This sentence is true (obviously):
"if you take away any object (and it's unique local function) the larger function fails"

It does not contradict evolution.

Evolution changes the system step by step, every step the system is in a working state. If you remove one of the vital components from the final system you are not discovering anything useful about the system. Removing a component is not reversing evolution but creating a new system that obviously does not work anymore because you removed a vital component - duh - it has nothing to do with anything. Therefore the Irreducable Complexity argument is irrelevant, a red herring I think it's called.

In order for evolution to be able to 'develop' vision, outside of a co-option method (more on that later), it would have to build or find these objects de novo AND coordinate the combination of their individual functions.

This basic requirement has to be met, having all the parts together and as a whole providing some function, before natural selection can even begin to work on it (or 'select' it for survival).

why would it have to find precisely these objects? Why does this requirement have to be met? any object that is beneficial will do. if it happens to be an object that is capable of vision, fine. but it doesn't need to be this particular object. And NS takes care of the combination of their individual part-functions.

Information science tells us that as long as the signal arrives at the destination, it does not matter what medium transfers the signal, and therefore any system that is capable of signal forwarding (like e.g. this) will do the job of vision. Even the sliiiiiiightest vision benefits (especially in an otherwise blind premordial fish) will be amplified by natural selection and the new DNA will spread to the whole population after just a few generations, which provides a baseline for further development. Nothing points to the necessity of rediscovering exactly these objects that exist today.

Once the system achieved a local optimum it will not likely ever change untill the environment changes. That's why so many creatures share the same AA system as their vision apparatus.

But if you want to focus NS to looking at one of the sub-parts and it's function that contributes to the whole you are still not going to get very far. Because of the specific coordination of sub-parts, tweaking a sub-function via NS is more-than-likely going to break the larger function.

You're right I don't want to focus NS, but not for the reason you described. NS cannot pick one part from the system. It evaluates the system as a whole only. That is precisely why NS would not allow RM to break the larger function in a species as long as the larger function is still useful.

The more tightly integrated your sub-parts (and corresponding sub-functions) are, the harder it will be for NS to do anything, because changes (random mutations) to one would probably have to be coordinated with changes in all the other parts, which affects your probability of success to a exponential degree.

why exponential degree? NS does not care how tight the parts of a system are, as long as the whole system works. If the signal pathways are redundantly interconnected between the components, breaking them will not break the system. In case of minimally interconnected components - mutation will affect a local sub system without having to change many dependencies, and therefore the probability of a successful mutation is not dependent on the size of the system. worst case it affects the probability of success by merely a logarithmic degree.

Co-option, also referred to as exaptation and pre-adaptation, is not the same thing as adaptation (RM + NS), and it is not what people usually refer to as the “actual evolution process”. It involves taking parts that originally serve one (or no) function, and become later co-opted for a different purpose. Typically these parts are originally in a form that is maintained through to the new function.

OK, but I don't really care People find redundant words for everything. It's like saying "adding (+) is not the same as subtraction (-)", they don't have the same name, but the underlying mechanism is the same.

There are a number of problems still here.

1) You have to assume that the co-opted part exists and is available. Where the original part came from is rarely ever addressed.

2) Not all parts of an object with a higher level function have a pre-cursor part that can be co-opted. Some parts are unique in form for providing the master function. The three proteins I noted for vision would fall in this category.

3) Even if a part could conceivably be co-opted, it still does not explain where assembly instructions come from for the master object, nor the coordination requirements with the other parts comes from.

1) like assuming that rocks exist on a beach. Maybe not immediatelly, but if you walk long anough, you will find some. It's necessity by logic, so it's rarely ever addressed. That's why I'm not quite sure why you even consider this a problem... did I misunderstand what you mean?

2) unique in what way? You assume that the part needs to be co-opted without change, but co-option is just a mechanism for a new base for further evolution. Once co-opted a part will probably change since the part as it was before was optimised for some other job.

3) ... sorry I don't get what you mean by assembly instruction? The second part of your sentence, the "coordination requirement", it comes from NS ofcourse.

It’s a model that does not have sufficient evidential support for it’s claims, yet is still assumed to be the process to account for features of life (like the eye). When told as such, it is a story.

insufficient in what way? how much more evidence do you need?

A story is: "A visited B. B baked some cookies and shoved them down A's throat"
Evolution on the other hand is more like this: x+y=z.

Darwinian evolution is gradual change, but it has no direction and relies on random changes. You can go back to abiogenesis if you like, but you are still facing big questions of where the information comes from. “basic protein chains” are still highly complex and specified things, and you would still have to explain how any “RNA” process that helps build the proteins came about. If you do not have any information to guide a search (which selection would not), then you are no better off than a blind search.

What do you mean by "no direction" and why is reliance on random changes as a motor for change a bad thing? Your whole post makes me suspicious about how you understand NS, perhaps you could point out precisely why you think NS can not possibly answer these questions?

Let's not go into abiogenesis, the evolution topic will generate gigantic posts as it is

 

[WookieeB]

Do you mean by "specified" = "exatly in this way"?

Why would all of this be necessary exactly in this way in order for vision to work?

No, not exactly, as in you cannot change even one AA. But in a relative sense, yes. That is why I said “if you change their makeup more than a little, the whole vision system would fail.” But there are limits as to how far things could realistically change.

Photoreactive molecules come in all shapes and sizes. Even some one-cell-organisms can sence light.

Big deal! The wiki page you linked only really lists two distinct photoreceptor proteins types. All the opsins are in the same protein family, and are different only in minor ways. Similar to how there might be different models of cars, but they are all still cars.

And you are only talking about one “part” in the process. A photoreceptor protein by itself is not vision. It still has to work with the other parts of the signal cascade to do anything. That whole process has to be in place before NS can “select” it. Even the “one-cell-organisms” are using the multi-part process for sensing light.

Just as a sidenote: What is a small step for you? Even just 2 additional steps between "here" and "zero" will reduce the probability you calculated a couple posts ago from 1/10^1200 to just about 1/10^400.

A small step would be something like changing an amino acid or two in a protein chain. Depending on where it occurs, it could conceivably allow the protein to still fold and might affect the efficiency of it’s function. NS can do that job just fine. Or it might be a point mutation in DNA somewhere that changes how/when a protein is expressed. This is something along the lines of how a virus might develop resistance to a drug. Again, NS can handle this fine.

But I do not get your math in this. Lets be generous and say there are a million variations of the rhodopsin protein. Great, you have improved your odds from 1 in 5.7 x 10^452 to 1 in 5.7 x 10^446.

But changes above “small steps” are prohibitive. If you change the protein enough, it effectively breaks and the whole master functions fails.

evolution would not get stuck but choose another alternative. the existing evolutionary paths are not the only possible ones. so why would more than one mutation be required before providing a slight advantage in something?

Functions in life are built of multi-part systems. To build such high-level function means you need to bring together disparate parts. To develop each part involves a random process via mutation or a de novo creation. For each part involved in the function, you have to multiply the probabilities, so it gets exponentially worse. NS cannot work to select the high-level function until all the parts are put together. NS shaping the parts individually themselves makes no sense, cause it has no knowledge or sense of the combined function.

But you not only have to come up with the ‘parts’ separately, but you also have to account for the assembly of the parts, following the blueprint instructions for its construction.

your only reason is Irreducable Complexity. So let me address that:

Evolution changes the system step by step, every step the system is in a working state. If you remove one of the vital components from the final system you are not discovering anything useful about the system. Removing a component is not reversing evolution but creating a new system that obviously does not work anymore because you removed a vital component - duh - it has nothing to do with anything. Therefore the Irreducable Complexity argument is irrelevant, a red herring I think it's called.

We are not talking about reversing evolution. What we are pointing out is that an irreducibly complex system is that all the parts are needed for the function. You cannot take a part away and leave the function intact. So the question is “How can you build such a ‘machine’?” If you can do it with one part or mutation of some other pre-existing part (co-option), then NS can maybe do it. But as you start to increase the number of parts required, NS quickly runs out of resources. As you increase the required interactions between parts, NS runs out of resources.

The problem with an irreducibly complex system is that you cannot build them up one step at a time. The multiple parts (corresponding to required steps) have to be around at the same time and able to coordinate with each other all before NS can really do anything with them.

Take a simple eye. You can have a photoreactive molecule lying around, but that does not make for any vision system. You need the other parts (other proteins and specific molecules) around AND coordinating together to even begin to have a vision system.

why would it have to find precisely these objects? Why does this requirement have to be met? any object that is beneficial will do. if it happens to be an object that is capable of vision, fine. but it doesn't need to be this particular object

Of course it doesn’t have to be “precisely” these objects, exact down to the amino acid. But it does have to conform relatively to the same structure, otherwise it will not provide the needed part function to interact with other parts.

Like in a car, the transmission system might be able to conform to a few different models. But they all need to be transmissions, otherwise the car loses function. You could not take some other system, like the airbag system, and expect it could do the role of the transmission.

For the eye, sure any object beneficial (for vision) would work, but you again have to realize that vision is not any one object. Tweaking a part after the fact to be more beneficial is one thing. Coming up with the part in the beginning is a whole other story - NS doesnt do this well.

And NS takes care of the combination of their individual part-functions.

And how exactly does it do this? Not only does NS have to fortuitously come up with the part (a very low probability) and at minimum a second part (a separate very low probability), but it also then has to combine the parts in specific way (yet another low probability). All these probabilities are multiplicative,..... and this is for just a two-part functional machine. Add more parts and you can see how difficult this will get.

Information science tells us that as long as the signal arrives at the destination, it does not matter what medium transfers the signal, and therefore any system that is capable of signal forwarding (like e.g. this) will do the job of vision. Even the sliiiiiiightest vision benefits (especially in an otherwise blind premordial fish) will be amplified by natural selection and the new DNA will spread to the whole population after just a few generations, which provides a baseline for further development. Nothing points to the necessity of rediscovering exactly these objects that exist today.

Not even considering how a trait will spread through a population (which has it’s own hurdles (ie: genetic drift)), you are assuming that the prior existence of the signal transduction system is available for use. Explaining the existence of that system is the question. I agree that if a part can interact with an existing signalling system it doesnt really matter which signalling system is used. But you havent really helped your situation. If you account for multiple signalling systems, assuming they are independent to begin with, you better your chances in an additive way. If one signalling system is 1 x 10^350 odds, 20 signalling systems available to interact with a part improves your odds to 2 x 10^349. Whoop-dee-doo!

Once the system achieved a local optimum it will not likely ever change untill the environment changes. That's why so many creatures share the same AA system as their vision apparatus.

This is a neutral observation. Shared similarities in a system could be due to common descent, and equally available due to common design. Yet I would probably challenge you on how far a system could change. Tweaking to better suit an environment is certainly possible with NS, but developing new functions (producing new information) is not within its reach.

why exponential degree? NS does not care how tight the parts of a system are, as long as the whole system works. If the signal pathways are redundantly interconnected between the components, breaking them will not break the system.

If the system is redundantly interconnected, all you have done is build in more complexity to the front end of the system. The bigger question is: How did the redundant system develop in the first place? Redundancy is not something the NS would likely ever develop.

In case of minimally interconnected components - mutation will affect a local sub system without having to change many dependencies, and therefore the probability of a successful mutation is not dependent on the size of the system. worst case it affects the probability of success by merely a logarithmic degree.

True. But how “minimally interconnected” are these systems. I have already granted that a sub-system might have a little tolerance for variation. But realistically that will only be changes to the intensity that a particular function is expressed. Changing the function of a sub-system to something else is prohibitive, as a such a change will likely break the parent system, unless all the other parts are also adapted simultaneously.

2) unique in what way? You assume that the part needs to be co-opted without change, but co-option is just a mechanism for a new base for further evolution. Once co-opted a part will probably change since the part as it was before was optimised for some other job.

If you are trying to explain the sub-parts of a functioning system via co-option, then any of such sub-part had to have a prior homologous part in structure or function. But there are some sub-parts that do not have any apparent corresponding co-opted possibility. These parts are unique, only found within the parent ‘machine’

3) ... sorry I don't get what you mean by assembly instruction? The second part of your sentence, the "coordination requirement", it comes from NS ofcourse.

You have a bunch of parts. By themselves they are not doing anything useful. You need to bring these parts together in order to make the higher-level machine. Like with most machines, the order and manner that parts are brought together is important, with them usually following a specific order of instructions. How would NS take care of the assembly?

You have a bunch of parts, but no guarantee that they will work together. The more parts that relate to contributing to a higher function, the harder it will be for NS to do anything with. That is where the coordination has to come in.

insufficient in what way? how much more evidence do you need?

What evidence? It is merely asserted to be able to do what people claim it does. They are just-so stories. There is no evidence that it can build anything.

What do you mean by "no direction" and why is reliance on random changes as a motor for change a bad thing? Your whole post makes me suspicious about how you understand NS, perhaps you could point out precisely why you think NS can not possibly answer these questions?

NS has no foresight, no goal orientation. It cannot tell when it is close to coming to a solution to a problem or is still way off. When it comes to building a molecular machine, building it 99% of the way is just as bad as 1% of the way for NS, as it has no concept of either. If there is no selective advantage to a partially built machine, which for any IC machine would be the case, then NS would probably never get there.

It’s engine is random changes. But if you have something whose specified probability of occurring via a random process is extremely low, then it is likely not to occur. If you start stacking such low probabilities together, such as for building a molecular machine, the odds get so prohibitive that it is considered as not ever going to happen. Random processes cannot build CSI.

 

[Teax]

You didn't understand what I meant by "IC is irrelevant":

Person A: Ugh.. this book is heavy... I can barely lift it
Person B: No it's not, because it's written in english.

Person B's assertion is true, and he talks about the book, but still fails to contradict Person A.

There are 2 names for this fallacy I can find: non-sequitor and irrelevance.

What we are pointing out is that an irreducibly complex system is that all the parts are needed for the function. You cannot take a part away and leave the function intact. So the question is "How can you build such a 'machine'?". (...) The problem with an irreducibly complex system is that you cannot build them up one step at a time.

Notice how IC talks about taking parts away but then uses that as evidence that you cannot build a machine? unless you add some additional assumptions, the green part (which is true by the way) is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the brown part. Your assertion that a complex system can't be built step by step remains unfounded.

In Aristotle's words from that wiki article: IC as an argument that displays ignorance of the nature of refutation -> you need for your argument to contradict evolution in some way. If it doesn't - it's not an argument. I've been asking you "why" questions a lot in my recent posts to confront you with the lack of logical coherence in IC.... but you always seem to just jump from the true-green part(="specificity") to the unrelated false-brown part directly. You use the word "specified" a lot as a rebuttal-couterargument to pretty much everything, but It's not, it's a peacefully unrelated property of systems.

Analyzing your latest post, I maybe found why you let yourself be deceived by IC - I suspect because of this:

What we are pointing out is that an irreducibly complex system is that all the parts are needed for the function.

You seem to have interpreted IC in 2 different ways:

• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this system(the eye) to work - true, testable
• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this function to work - unfounded statement

Throughout your posts, you use the first interpretation to prove IC, but you use the second interpretation to draw conclusions. But these 2 point are not the same, you cannot substitute one for the other.

I compiled a graphic of your assertions to show you which of them are "core points" and which are just implications. The arrows (──►) in this graphic can be read as the word "because":

          true by logical necessity (or just plain obviousness)
                               ▲
┌──────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┐
│ Irreducable Complexity(IC) = removing any one part from the    │
│  system inevidably breaks the system                           │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                               [color=red]▲[/color]
                               [color=red]│ non-sequitor[/color]
                               [color=red]│[/color]
[color=orange]┌──────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=orange]│ All parts need to exist in the current form before the system  │[/color]
[color=orange]│        can be of any use                                       │[/color]
[color=orange]└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
                               ▲
    ┌──────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┐
    │ Natural Selection cannot select intermediary steps   │◄──────┐
    └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘       │
                               ▲                 ┌─────────────────┴──────────────────┐
                               │                 │ Natural Selection has no direction │
                               │                 └────────────────────────────────────┘
    ┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┐
    │ The best evolution can do is completely random mutation │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                               ▲
┌──────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┐
│ The odds to randomly produce the 3 proteins for a mammalian    │
│  vision system are in the area of 1 in 10^1200 nevahgonnahappen│
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I hope you can see now that it was not necessary for you to compute the chance of these 3 proteins like you did in great detail in post #82...

calculating that chance only holds any value if you already have proven that NS is useless.. but everybody will readily agree that if you somehow show that NS is useless, then you have already refuted evolution, and no further calculations are needed.

All your arguments hinge on just 1 - the orange one, the one that marks natural selection as useless. It's a baseless statement because you supported it with a non-sequitor based on IC.

EDIT:
You seem to have a tendency to reply with IC and "specificity" to everything I say so I decided to remove my other replies for now. Let's finish off IC for good, and then move on to "how NS did it" and stuff like that. Will probably spare us a lot of time

 

[WookieeB]

You didn't understand what I meant by "IC is irrelevant":

There are 2 names for this fallacy I can find: non-sequitor and irrelevance

The funny thing is your arguments are all based on semantics. And though you are claiming my statements are a non-sequitor, you just claim that it is so and do not demonstrate it. Be that as it may, you are misreading me.

What we are pointing out is that an irreducibly complex system is that all the parts are needed for the function. You cannot take a part away and leave the function intact. So the question is "How can you build such a 'machine'?". (...) The problem with an irreducibly complex system is that you cannot build them up one step at a time.

Notice how IC talks about taking parts away but then uses that as evidence that you cannot build a machine? unless you add some additional assumptions, the green part (which is true by the way) is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the brown part. Your assertion that a complex system can't be built step by step remains unfounded.

Funny how you state one thing here, and then change your story later in your post.

The part about how IC speaks about taking away parts is never directly stated to be the counter to how to build something via NS. In other words, the green statement is not the direct support for my brown statement.

Instead, the green statement supports the orange statement. Parts relate to sub-functions that are interacting components contributing to a greater/parent system that performs a high-level function. If the parent system is made of of different parts, and taking away any of those parts causes the parent system to fail, then logically all the parts need to be present in order for the parent system to function. That is in a nutshell an IC system.

So we have an IC system sitting in front of us. Then,....not because, then comes the question: “How can you build such a machine?” And that question is being asked in the context of NS.

NS works by making numerous, successive, slight modifications to something, and each iteration of the system has to function. Now for my brown statement. An IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system. Because a precursor to an IC system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. NS can only choose systems that are already working. So, if a system cannot be produced gradually, it would have to arise as a whole and integrated unit, de novo, for NS to have anything to select. So, if you have an IC system that is more than just a couple parts, it is too great a feat for NS to accomplish.

Not to leave out a more circuitous route, like co-option, it may be more bearable for NS, but as the complexity of the interaction in a system increase, the probable likelyhood of an indirect route drops quickly.

See, all my points tied in and nothing non-sequitur about it.

In Aristotle's words from that wiki article: IC as an argument that displays ignorance of the nature of refutation -> you need for your argument to contradict evolution in some way. If it doesn't - it's not an argument. '…..

Blah, blah, blah…. Just a lot of rhetoric. It is you that does not seem to understand the IC argument, as you apparently got mine all wrong above.

You seem to have interpreted IC in 2 different ways:

• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this system(the eye) to work - true, testable
• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this function to work - unfounded statement

Throughout your posts, you use the first interpretation to prove IC, but you use the second interpretation to draw conclusions. But these 2 point are not the same, you cannot substitute one for the other.

Hardly! From the start, in this area we have been talking about the eye (a system). It was you that long ago posted that laughable video of Richard Dawkins that referred to the eye, to which I briefly responded, and which topic was then picked up by Redbaron, to which I responded and led to this latest back and forth.

In all my references to IC, I am referring to some system that exists. I do not refer to an IC ‘function’ as you would put it. For example, I never have said that it is IC ‘vision’. It is always the eye itself that is IC, or at least the molecular parts that make up just a small but integral part of vision of the eye.

Even when you tried to pull away from specifics of vertebrate vision (which when you add the word “vertebrate’ makes it a ‘system’) and you tried to throw out single-celled organisms that sense light and other photoreactive molecules, in my response I was still referring to actual multi-part integrated “systems” that account for the more general “function” of vision.
The question still before you, or anyone that says NS did it, is “How does NS create a “system”, such as the eye, or the flagella, or blood clotting, or DNA replication and/or translation, or (pick any complex biologica)l “system”? I’ve always been pointing to some material thing and questioning that NS is capable of producing that system or anything like it.

You seem to think that falling back to the more general “function” will save you. But it really doesnt matter. Take vision for example. So if you do not want to consider how to build the visual system for vertabrates (and as it turns out is the same basic system for other eukaryotic and prokaryotic lifeforms), we can throw out all my protein probability numbers. So then, what instance of vision do you want to focus on? Invariably, you are going to end up with some multi-part, integrated system that you need to explain. I’ll wait.

Just because, conceivably, a function could be handled via multiple routes, it doesn’t really help you in explaining how it arrives. Even if you allow for millions or billions of ways to come up with a vision system, you are still facing insurmountable odds when you look at the probabilities involved in combining various parts. Each system would correspond to a different “specified” arrangement, but amidst the total search space that is enough to rule out NS.

I compiled a graphic of your assertions to show you which of them are "core points" and which are just implications….
I hope you can see now that it was not necessary for you to compute the chance of these 3 proteins like you did in great detail in post #82…

Nope, doesnt work, because the orange statement is not based on your claimed “non-sequitur” statement. So it is your argument that is irrelevant, since the argument you claimed I made is not the argument I made. And I also find it funny that just after you complain I am confusing the “system” and “function”, your reference of my statements only talks about “systems”. Where is the confusion of mine?

calculating that chance only holds any value if you already have proven that NS is useless.. but everybody will readily agree that if you somehow show that NS is useless, then you have already refuted evolution, and no further calculations are needed.

Not exactly. The calculated chance that I laid out is, in small part, the evidence used to show NS is out of its league. It is not a point beside saying NS is useless, it is a point to demonstrate NS is useless.

All your arguments hinge on just 1 - the orange one, the one that marks natural selection as useless. It's a baseless statement because you supported it with a non-sequitor based on IC.

Well, any argument for an IC system would probably hinge on the orange part, true. And yes, the line above it does provide support for the orange statement. But it is not a non-sequitor. You tried to make it a non-sequitor by comparing two different statements at the beginning of your post than you do here, so your argument makes no sense. How these two statements are linked I already explained above.

 

[Teax]

calculating that chance only holds any value if you already have proven that NS is useless.. but everybody will readily agree that if you somehow show that NS is useless, then you have already refuted evolution, and no further calculations are needed.

Not exactly. The calculated chance that I laid out is, in small part, the evidence used to show NS is out of its league. It is not a point beside saying NS is useless, it is a point to demonstrate NS is useless.

your calculated part is only valid math if you pressupose that no steps exist along the way = if NS's involvement is already refuted. You calculation only show that without NS, RM is useless. But that's obvious anyway so the calculated part was not necessary.

The question still before you, or anyone that says NS did it, is “How does NS create a “system”

As I said, we can come back to that later. It makes no sence to talk about NS if all you're doing is coming back to the irrelevant IC at every point, let's directly talk about IC first.

You seem to have interpreted IC in 2 different ways:

• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this system(the eye) to work - true, testable
• each of these or very similar parts are needed for this function to work - unfounded statement

And I also find it funny that just after you complain I am confusing the “system” and “function”, your reference of my statements only talks about “systems”. Where is the confusion of mine?

In retrospect my statement was ambiguous. What I meant is:

"Throughout your posts, you use the first interpretation to prove IC, but draw conclusions that would not be logically allowed to be drawn from the first interpretation. The second interpretation would allow for conclusions that refute evolution, but these 2 point are not the same, you cannot substitute one for the other."

All that you and I have said agrees on the fact that you only talk about the first interpretation. And you also illuminated that my speculation was wrong, your confusion lies elsewhere. So you can consider this closed, I will try to pinpoint the actual problem below:

What we are pointing out is that an irreducibly complex system is that all the parts are needed for the function. You cannot take a part away and leave the function intact. So the question is "How can you build such a 'machine'?". (...) The problem with an irreducibly complex system is that you cannot build them up one step at a time.

Notice how IC talks about taking parts away but then uses that as evidence that you cannot build a machine? unless you add some additional assumptions, the green part (which is true by the way) is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the brown part. Your assertion that a complex system can't be built step by step remains unfounded.

The part about how IC speaks about taking away parts is never directly stated to be the counter to how to build something via NS. In other words, the green statement is not the direct support for my brown statement.

Instead, the green statement supports the orange statement. Parts relate to sub-functions that are interacting components contributing to a greater/parent system that performs a high-level function. If the parent system is made of of different parts, and taking away any of those parts causes the parent system to fail, then logically all the parts need to be present in order for the parent system to function. That is in a nutshell an IC system.

So we have an IC system sitting in front of us. Then,....not because, then comes the question: “How can you build such a machine?” And that question is being asked in the context of NS.

NS works by making numerous, successive, slight modifications to something, and each iteration of the system has to function. Now for my brown statement. An IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system. Because a precursor to an IC system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. NS can only choose systems that are already working. So, if a system cannot be produced gradually, it would have to arise as a whole and integrated unit, de novo, for NS to have anything to select. So, if you have an IC system that is more than just a couple parts, it is too great a feat for NS to accomplish.

Not to leave out a more circuitous route, like co-option, it may be more bearable for NS, but as the complexity of the interaction in a system increase, the probable likelyhood of an indirect route drops quickly.

colored everything possible for easier reference, hope this helps
Here's the visual based on what you just said. Read arrows (──►) as "because":

                            obvious
                               ▲
                               │
[color=green]┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=green]│ Irreducable Complexity(IC) = removing any one part from the    │[/color]
[color=green]│  system breaks the system                                      │[/color]
[color=green]└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
                               ▲
                               │
[color=orange]┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=orange]│ All parts of the system need to exist, otherwise the system    │[/color]
[color=orange]│        can not work                                            │[/color]
[color=orange]└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
                               ▲
                               │
[color=Cyan]    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=Cyan]    │ a precursor system is nonfunctional, if it's like the  │[/color]
[color=Cyan]    │   IC system and a part is missing                      │[/color]
[color=Cyan]    └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
[color=red]                               ▲[/color]
[color=red]                  non-sequitor │[/color]
[color=red]                               │[/color]
[color=brown]  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=brown]  │ An IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous,      │[/color]
[color=brown]  │  successive, slight modifications of some precursor system,│[/color]
[color=brown]  │  where each step is a functional system                    │[/color]
[color=brown]  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
                               ▲
                               │
       ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
       │ the system must arise as a whole unit, de novo │
       └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                              ...

it looks better. there's still the disconnect, but we narrowed down where it is. The red ──► arrow:

• a precursor system is nonfunctional, if it's like the IC system and a part is missing
• an IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of some precursor system, where each step is a functional system

why do you think the cyan proves the brown point? please explain.

 

[WookieeB]

your calculated part is only valid math if you pressupose that no steps exist along the way = if NS's involvement is already refuted. You calculation only show that without NS, RM is useless. But that's obvious anyway so the calculated part was not necessary.

We were talking about what it takes to make an eye. You need the parts in place for the most basic 'eye' system to work. There are no steps along the way for the parts, as in if you have 50% of the protein there it does not mean you have 50% of the function of the protein. 50% of protein is 0% function, and if you have 0% function, then NS doesnt select it. Either the protein works for it's particular function, or it doesn't. Supposing there are steps along the way to the protein, means those steps are not selected because steps along the way is no function still. You need the whole protein function there to have any "eye" work.

I already built in variability to the numbers for the variability of slight (because that is all that nature allows) differences in protein makeup, assuming the protein function remains. But even with that variability, the numbers are still to great for NS to have a realistic chance.

The numbers are NOT saying, as you stated, that "You calculation only show that without NS, RM is useless.", but instead it is demontstrating the opposite. Given the search space producable by RM, NS is effectively useless.

• a precursor system is nonfunctional, if it's like the IC system and a part is missing
• an IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of some precursor system, where each step is a functional system

why do you think the cyan proves the brown point? please explain.

Again, we are talking about building an IC system. An IC system requires all of their parts (or a certain core minimum number) in order to function. Such IC structures cannot be built in the step-by-step manner of Darwinian evolution (Rm + NS) because they provide no advantage, of the kind evolution requires, until all their parts are present.

So again, like my comment above on proteins, even if you built the IC system 50% of the way, you do not have 50% function. It is 0% function, and evolution cannot select that.

Now for this above part I have not been talking about co-option, but instead just on building up an IC system. But I have a feeling you might be thinking of co-option while you are objecting to this, so I will address that as well.

Co-option is when biological parts might exist elsewhere in an organism and where they are used for a different function. Sometimes, when a gene is duplicated, the extra copy could then be borrowed, retooled, and "co-opted" to perform a new function in a new system. The problem with this is that you are still talking about some major complexity leaps to retool (what would have to be a homologous in structure) a part function into another part function. If the structure of the before part and after part is not similar, then you are basically no better than developing the part from scratch. And the problem multiplies as you increase the number of parts involved.

 

[Teax]

your calculated part is only valid math if you pressupose that no steps exist along the way = if NS's involvement is already refuted. You calculation only show that without NS, RM is useless. But that's obvious anyway so the calculated part was not necessary.

We were talking about what it takes to make an eye. You need the parts in place for the most basic 'eye' system to work. There are no steps along the way for the parts, as in if you have 50% of the protein there it does not mean you have 50% of the function of the protein. 50% of protein is 0% function, and if you have 0% function, then NS doesnt select it. Either the protein works for it's particular function, or it doesn't. Supposing there are steps along the way to the protein, means those steps are not selected because steps along the way is no function still. You need the whole protein function there to have any "eye" work.

You just proved my point, the yellow part. You apparently realize yourself that your IC argument is targeted at NS' usefullness. After that you calculations do not add much to the debate.

• a precursor system is nonfunctional, if it's like the IC system and a part is missing
• an IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of some precursor system, where each step is a functional system

Again, we are talking about building an IC system. An IC system requires all of their parts (or a certain core minimum number) in order to function. Such IC structures cannot be built in the step-by-step manner of Darwinian evolution (Rm + NS) because they(steps) provide no advantage, of the kind evolution requires, until all their parts are present.

great there is one small green hint you dropped which might bring us further:

[color=Cyan]    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=Cyan]    │ a precursor system is nonfunctional, if it's like the  │[/color]
[color=Cyan]    │   IC system and a part is missing                      │[/color]
[color=Cyan]    └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
[color=red]                               ▲[/color]
[color=red]                  non-sequitor │[/color]
[color=red]                               │[/color]
[color=Olive]   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=Olive]   │ evolutionary steps provide no advantage, until all of  │[/color]
[color=Olive]   │   the system parts are present                         │[/color]
[color=Olive]   └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]
                               ▲
                               │
[color=brown]  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐[/color]
[color=brown]  │ An IC system cannot be produced directly by numerous,      │[/color]
[color=brown]  │  successive, slight modifications of some precursor system,│[/color]
[color=brown]  │  where each step is a functional system                    │[/color]
[color=brown]  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[/color]

Why do you think the cyan even talks about the same thing as the green point? taking away parts of an IC system has nothing to do with stepping through functional systems. IC talks about parts, NS about steps. IC talks about breaking a system, NS about traversing various functional systems, none of which are one of the broken ones described by IC.

The premise of IC is true, but unrelated to NS.


for example:
the assertion "having a cane is useless" has nothing to do and is not supported by the true fact that "if you loose a cane, you won't be able to walk home", they're just 2 unrelated statements.

There are no steps along the way for the parts, as in if you have 50% of the protein there it does not mean you have 50% of the function of the protein. 50% of protein is 0% function, and if you have 0% function, then NS doesnt select it. Either the protein works for it's particular function, or it doesn't. Supposing there are steps along the way to the protein, means those steps are not selected because steps along the way is no function still. You need the whole protein function there to have any "eye" work.

(...)

Now for this above part I have not been talking about co-option, but instead just on building up an IC system.

no you haven't. all this time you have been talking about taking parts away from working IC systems. ^Here you even talk about removing a piece of one protein.... for some reason.

not a single mention about why any of that should relate to step-by-step building of systems.

you even admitted yourself once - taking-parts-away is not the reverse of an evolutionary-step. therefore IC has nothing to do with Evolution. from post #92: WookieeB: "We are not talking about reversing evolution (...)".

Spoiler

here's a hint:

Spoiler

no peeking!

Spoiler

are you sure?

Spoiler

ok fine

Spoiler

changed my mind

Spoiler

there are 42 more spoilers in here:

Spoiler

hint:
did you know that every logical argument,
if it's correct can be subdivided into smaller ones? <-- just like in that wiki page.

when you try to explain something,
you have a habit of talking around the subject by repetition and rephrasing.
Instead, you need to go into detail as to why something logically follows by
splitting it into so many deduction steps as necessary.

my guess is: despite what you say, you seem to believe that taking parts away is the
exact reverse of what evolution does. In other words, that all evolution can do is heap
parts ontop of each other like a pile of pancakes.

Spoiler

nothing in here. oh wait nvm

 

[WookieeB]

You just proved my point, the yellow part. You apparently realize yourself that your IC argument is targeted at NS' usefullness. After that you calculations do not add much to the debate.

I am getting the feeling you do not understand how NS works. The numbers are there to show that NS does not have anything of value to work with.

Ie, if the proteins were a 1 in 3 probability, and there were limited required proteins, then NS could probably have something of function to select. But if the protein is a 1 in 10^250 probability, NS not so much so has anything to work with.

Why do you think the cyan even talks about the same thing as the green point? taking away parts of an IC system has nothing to do with stepping through functional systems. IC talks about parts, NS about steps. IC talks about breaking a system, NS about traversing various functional systems, none of which are one of the broken ones described by IC.

We are not talking only about taking parts away from an already existing IC system. We are talking about how you build that system to begin with. It is about NS "stepping through functional systems" and telling you that there is NO "stepping through functional systems" A "step" for NS is coming up with a part. There is no "functional system" that is a precursor. In a multi-part system, which is what most of life's functions involve, even if NS is presented with the "right" part (as in RM by luck makes a part that could be useful in what would end up being an IC system) it has no reason to select that part. So, there is no "stepping through" anything. NS needs it ALL together, ALL the parts AND the proper instructions on how to assemble them. Cause if it does not have it ALL, there is nothing for it to select, because unless it is all put togetther, there is no function and if no function there is nothing to select.

for example:
the assertion "having a cane is useless" has nothing to do and is not supported by the true fact that "if you loose a cane, you won't be able to walk home", they're just 2 unrelated statements.

But that is not what I am saying. I would be saying that "having a cane alone is useless. But having a cane along with legs is not useless, it is necessary". And in that walking system you would have to have all of them to walk. And in all cases.."if you loose a cane, you won't be able to walk home".

no you haven't. all this time you have been talking about taking parts away from working IC systems. ^Here you even talk about removing a piece of one protein.... for some reason.

I've been talking about building a system, not tearing it down. In a sense a protein, at least for building it, is similar to an IC system in that you need all the build instructions to make a one functional.

not a single mention about why any of that should relate to step-by-step building of systems.

I though my last post was riddled with 'mentions'. The point is, NS cannot build an IC system, step-by-step.

you even admitted yourself once - taking-parts-away is not the reverse of an evolutionary-step. therefore IC has nothing to do with Evolution. from post #92: WookieeB: "We are not talking about reversing evolution (...)".

Agreed! I am not focusing on taking-parts-away. I have been talking about putting-parts-together.

 

[Teax]

We are not talking only about taking parts away from an already existing IC system. We are talking about how you build that system to begin with. It is about NS "stepping through functional systems" and telling you that there is NO "stepping through functional systems"

you cannot just transfer statements you make about (taking parts away) to (building stuff) unless you add some additional assumptions..... and you did:

A "step" for NS is coming up with a part.

finally you revealed the assumption that you used to connect the cyan and green points from above:

• a step is the adding of a part

That's all NS can do? Just like LEGO! No wonder you were asking me where the instruction manual came from

The motor to evolutionary change is random-mutation(RM), not coming-up-with-parts. Evolution never claimed to do the thing that IC tries to refute:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              │[color=Gray] start with         -> action        -> result                 [/color]│
┌─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b]IC[/b]:          │ working IC system  -> remove parts  -> broken system.         │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function]reverse[/url] of IC[/b]│ broken system      -> add parts     -> working IC system.     │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b]evolution[/b]:   │ working system     -> add parts     -> working non-IC system. │
│             │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> working system.        │
│             │ working system     -> modify system -> working system.        │
│             │ working system     -> combo move    -> working system.        │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

therefore

(reverse of IC) ≠ (evolution)

which is the exact same thing as

(IC) ≠ (reverse of evolution)

see? arguments about IC cannot be transferred to evolution because none of the steps derived from the evolution model correspond to the reverse steps of IC. But they need to correspond in exactly that reverse-way to make any sort of logical connection, because evolution is building a system (going forward in time) and IC is talking about removing parts (going backwards in time).

take a look, there is no conflict:

• reverse-IC is talking about inability building an irreducable sytem by adding a part.
• Evolution, even if it decides to add a part, it would build a reducable system.

Therefore independent of whether evolution actually allows for CSI to emerge naturally, IC is a peacefully unrelated property of systems.

 

[SpaceYeti]

This is still getting discussed here? *facepalm*