Cell Reports special Darwin Day issue

And the American Museum of Natural History just unveiled the Darwin Manuscripts Project

And still Darwin does it better. Who, upon reading that clear, concise, economic description of the variety in life, would dare put up a weak, castrated god, in opposition?

"dependent on each other in so complex a manner,..." The origins of modern Environmental Science?

It is impossible to distinguish what came first the chicken or the egg, and all evolution stands by is adaptation. Every organism fight for survival every day. That why the the term survival of the fittest comes into play. Look at Sociologist Herbert Spencer he believed that one shouldn't help the poor. It was Social Darwinism. I cant sit here and say that I agree with it but it happens in life. Not every creature is suppose to live for ever.

Uh... what?

jhender8 said: It is impossible to distinguish what came first the chicken or the egg, and all evolution stands by is adaptation. Every organism fight for survival every day. That why the the term survival of the fittest comes into play. Look at Sociologist Herbert Spencer he believed that one shouldn't help the poor. It was Social Darwinism. I cant sit here and say that I agree with it but it happens in life. Not every creature is suppose to live for ever.

robert van bakel said: And still Darwin does it better. Who, upon reading that clear, concise, economic description of the variety in life, would dare put up a weak, castrated god, in opposition? "dependent on each other in so complex a manner,..." The origins of modern Environmental Science?

Prometheist said: It has been shown that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for systems such as the flagella.

Prometheist said: God is not needed to oppose Neo-Darwinism. Darwin did not know of the complexity contained within cells. This is why he postulated an idea that cannot explain the realities of biological systems. DNA is an example of specified complexity that Darwin cannot explain. Neither can it explain the irreducible complexity of such systems as the bacterial flagella. It has been shown that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for systems such as the flagella. Indirect means such as coevolution are extremely improbable and near the range of impossible. So why are we celebrating Darwin Day? Darwin published a book about an idea that for over 150 years has unsuccessfully been able to explain the origin of life on earth. It seems like it is time to start exploring other explanations. Intelligence is the only known cause of specific complexity and irreducible complexity. Perhaps research in biology should be redirected towards understanding the origin of life in this manner. Maybe we will celebrate Panspermia Day in the near future. It would be more fun...the costumes would be better anyway.

Just Bob said: Do you think it's fair to expect Darwin to explain the "specified complexity" of DNA, which wasn't discovered until about a CENTURY after Darwin?

Prometheist is Joe. The thesis is his, (it's too complex to have evolved, and I know this because) and the tone and vocabulary is unmistakeable. His "it has been shown" means "I have written an error-strewn review paper that hasn't been published about it", or possibly just "I think".

Scott F said:

Prometheist said: It has been shown that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for systems such as the flagella.

Ah yes. Now I remember. You must be referring to the Dover Trial where Michael Behe showed conclusively in court that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for the flagella. Or maybe it was Ken Miller who showed that? All this "irreducible complexity" stuff is so confusing, it's hard to keep track sometimes. [/sarcasm] Or perhaps you were thinking of something or someone else that has "shown" this. Perhaps you would be willing to share this evidence with others, so that we may all learn. I'm betting that you know of know such evidence. Unlike others here, I won't even ask for "scientific" evidence. "Legal" evidence is fine. Even "wiki" evidence is fine. Got any? Thought not.

Prometheist said: I have read that the type III secretory system is possibly something from which the flagella evolved. However, the fact that they share about ten proteins and are structurally similar does not seem to me to be convincing.

Prometheist said: DNA is an example of specified complexity that Darwin cannot explain.

Just Bob said: Do you think it's fair to expect Darwin to explain the "specified complexity" of DNA, which wasn't discovered until about a CENTURY after Darwin?

Prometheist said: Scott yes, I was referring to what I read in Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. He explained that biochemical systems are composed of numerous parts that all needed to evolve at once in order for the entire system to work. So for example, the flagella is composed of: a filament, hook, L ring, P ring, MS ring, C ring, rod, stator, etc. For natural selection to explain this system, it would need to show that each part evolved in a step-wise fashion and that each step in the process provided the entire system with an advantage. Natural selection does not have the completed flagella in mind, but only variations that provide an advantage. I haven't searched for it, but I wonder if research has been done to determine the evolutionary advantage that an L ring or a P ring, or whatever is postulated to have arrived first, bestow onto early bacteria. Or the system can be explained to have evolved indirectly. In this way it is explained that the parts were already in place, but performing other functions, and then through another variation they converged to create the new system. This presupposes that all of the parts just so happened to be just right for each other when they converged although they were performing different functions. So the argument, as I understand it, basically goes: 1. Natural selection only selects variations that give a system an advantage. 2. The bacterial flagella is composed of parts that only perform functions which are specific to the flagella (i.e. the individual parts would not provide an advantage for the system by themselves). 3. It is extremely close to impossible that all of the parts for the bacterial flagella evolved in one step. Therefore, the bacterial flagella did not evolve directly. That argument alone seems to explain the process in a logical manner. I did not actually look at an article in a journal that empirically proved it. I am serious when I ask: are there any articles that show how flagella evolved? I have read that the type III secretory system is possibly something from which the flagella evolved. However, the fact that they share about ten proteins and are structurally similar does not seem to me to be convincing. I would like to see all of the functional and advantageous systems that fill the gap between the two before I am compelled.

And you might want to check out the "Update" section of the paper, describes lists several more recent publications that dramatically confirm some of the predictions Nick made based on his model.

We would love to hear your alternative explanation for the origin of flagella, and what predictions it makes that have been confirmed.

Yo, Promo, someone so knowledgeable about the motile appendages of bacteria -- and who has read a WHOLE BOOK about them! -- should know that the singular is flagellum.

Once again we see evidence of what I call the Paradox of Creationism: the creationist brain is such a malfunctioning organ that it should have been filtered out of the gene pool eons ago, yet it persists. This cannot be the result of natural processes.

It is self-evident that an unnatural agency must be responsible. Therefore, I have proposed the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement (AB), which holds that certain features of the creationist brain are best explained as the product of an Abominable Befuddler, and not by evolution. A befuddlement theorist studies the output of creationists for evidence of specified befuddlement, and is thus able to determine whether it is the rational product of an evolved brain, or an example of AB.

You know I always wondered why this supposed designer likes flagella so much. It's not even best designed mode of motility around. Couldn't the designer put impellers in the bacteria instead. How awesomely fast would bacteria be if they had a micro-motor that used principles similar to jet-ski's and submarines. And for motility on dry-surfaces they could have wheels powered by a chemically powered rotary micro-engine. Flagella in comparison can't produce high velocities and controlling the direction of the motion is a crap-shoot at best. Seems like the designer prefers sub-optimal design Prometheus. Could you give us your reasoning as to why the designer(s) seems to co-opt pieces previously used for other purposes to create novel but sub-optimal design, much like how evolution is envisioned to work? That is, why does the designer do this instead of designing optimal systems with precision parts designed for a specific purpose?

How awesomely fast would bacteria be if they had a micro-motor that used principles similar to jet-ski’s and submarines.

It seems like it is time to start exploring other explanations. Intelligence is the only known cause of specific complexity and irreducible complexity.

Henry J said:

How awesomely fast would bacteria be if they had a micro-motor that used principles similar to jet-ski’s and submarines.

But then we'd need better immune systems to fight them off!

Just Bob said: 1. Please define "specified complexity" and show me how to compute how much of it something has -- or even to tell whether something has it or not. 2. Do you think it's fair to expect Darwin to explain the "specified complexity" of DNA, which wasn't discovered until about a CENTURY after Darwin? 3. "It has been shown that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for systems such as the flagella. Indirect means such as coevolution are extremely improbable and near the range of impossible." Gee, why don't biologists know these "facts"? You must be smarter than they are! 4. Umm... I've read it. He never tried to explain the origin of life in Origin. That's like saying the Bible has "unsuccessfully been able to explain the origin of" the iPod in over 2,000 years. And your sentence is very odd. If it couldn't explain something when it was written, how could it be expected to in the subsequent 150 years? 5. "Perhaps research in biology should be redirected towards understanding the origin of life [by an intelligent being]." Excellent idea. Please outline a research program that could establish the "intelligent design" of the origin of life. Just claiming it's too complex or improbable to have arisen naturally is not a scientific result. The mathematics behind such claims are bogus, and have failed to impress biologists or biochemists. That's just the argument from incredulity: It's too hard for me to understand, so God must have done it.

As far as I can see, you're just parroting ID propaganda.

Answer me this: is a snowflake designed? Is a tornado
designed?

Please show how to calculate your purported measures for Paley's watch.

Prometheist said: First you determine the probabilistic complexity. This is how probable the event or sequence that you are observing is. So take a functional protein that is 50 amino acids in length for instance. Lets be conservative and say our amino acid alphabet will consist of only five amino acids (as opposed to the present alphabet of twenty amino acids) that are available to place in any of the 50 positions on the chain. I have read that there are a few thousand folds discrete folds that can produce all functional proteins. So the probability of any given sequence comes out to ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th power.

One I have heard is the idea that, due to the law of conservation of information, perhaps the first cell was a sort of “supercell” that contained all of the information needed for the diversity of life on earth. This

Prometheist said: Hi Just Bob, I am seriously interested in discussing arguments for and against Darwinism and intelligent design.

I am going to reply to you point for point, but know that I am not just trying to prove that I am right or claim than I am smarter than you or anyone else either here or in academia.

1. Specified complexity is a "statistical criterion for identifying the effects of intelligence." In order to determine if something possesses specified complexity, there are a few things to consider: probabilistic complexity, descriptive complexity, and probabilistic resources. First you determine the probabilistic complexity. This is how probable the event or sequence that you are observing is. So take a functional protein that is 50 amino acids in length for instance. Lets be conservative and say our amino acid alphabet will consist of only five amino acids (as opposed to the present alphabet of twenty amino acids) that are available to place in any of the 50 positions on the chain. I have read that there are a few thousand folds discrete folds that can produce all functional proteins. So the probability of any given sequence comes out to ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th power.

Then consider descriptive complexity or Kolmogorov complexity. This refers to how easy it is to describe any given pattern or sequence. When testing for specified complexity, the sequence must have a low descriptive complexity. An oft-quoted example is a series of coin tosses: HHHHHHHHH and HHTHTTTHTH. The first series has lower descriptive complexity because it can be described as "ten heads in a row." The second series would be described as "two heads, then one tail, then one head, etc..." In the case of the protein the search is for a functional protein. So the description of any given sequence will be either "functional protein" or something longer such as "85% of a functional protein," etc...

Next probabilistic resources are taken into consideration. Probabilistic resources are basically how many tries are allowed to reach a certain random event (probabilistic complexity is the probability of getting a jackpot on a slot machine and its probabilistic resource is how many times the lever is pulled). In the case of the protein, this refers to how many times a random sequence will be produced in the search for one certain sequence. If the probabilistic resources of a random search are very high, for instance 10 to the 50,000th power number of searches, then a certain sequence probability of ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th power turns out to not be so improbable. If only, say 10 searches are allowed, then ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th is almost impossible, but still probable nonetheless. There are not certain amounts of specified complexity, something is either inferred to be specifically complex or not. So in the above case of a functional protein, 50 amino acids in length with an alphabet of five amino acids, functional proteins seem to be specifically complex because they meet the criteria. Given a random search, ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th power is a low probability and therefore an example of high probabilistic complexity. Next since it is easier to explain functional versus non-functional sequences, they meet the low descriptive complexity requirement.

Lastly is the question of the probabilistic resources. I have read that the conditions on early earth were extremely hostile for the development of life. The atmosphere was not reducing; organic compounds had little chance of being preserved if formed; etc… If what I read is correct then it seems that the probabilistic resources for this search are small and this would lead to an overall conclusion that these functional proteins possess specific complexity.

2. It would not be fair to say that Darwin could not explain the origin of life. But this is not what I was doing. I was saying that his idea (having been researched and improved upon since) has not been able to solve the origin of life in the 150 years since it originated. This is why I suggested that possible alternatives should be explored.

3. I’m sure that biologists are aware of Michael Behe’s arguments, however I do not think that they all disagree with him as you suggest.

4. As stated above, I was not requiring the book to solve the problems I am discussing. So my sentence should have been interpreted to mean that his idea has not been able to solve the problem of the origin of life in over 150 years. So I am saying that Neo-Darwinism cannot explain it.

5. I like your reply on this one. So if everyone* somehow agreed that we cannot ignore the design in biological systems, what now? I feel like throwing up your arms and saying, “Well now that I admit design, scientific inquiry is over and we are all intellectually fulfilled creationists.” Remember that intelligent design does not answer any metaphysical questions such as “who or what created life on earth?” The explanation for that could be: aliens, biomolecules from space, Yahweh, Allah, Mormon Gods, Platonic heaven, etc. It just says that there is intelligence behind the design observed in nature and that natural processes are not the cause.

So to perform scientific research with intelligent design as the guiding principle, several things can be done. One I have heard is the idea that, due to the law of conservation of information, perhaps the first cell was a sort of “supercell” that contained all of the information needed for the diversity of life on earth. This first cell, however it arrived on earth, would have formed life leading to LUCA. Efforts could be made to research this supposed supercell.

Another idea is that if all life was designed, perhaps there are “user-manuals” encoded within DNA. Steganographical information within organisms, that which would not be useful to the organism but useful for designers, could provide profound incite into biological systems. Research into this idea would be very interesting and fruitful if successful.

Also, if intelligent design were used as a guiding principle, or at least alongside Darwinism, future research will avoid “junk DNA” scenarios.

If scientists at least entertain the possibility of design, they will find things that they may have overlooked with a Darwinian mindset. It does not make sense to me that admitting design should mean that all scientific research and learning about biological systems should come to a halt. Of course we would still try to learn as much about our world as possible. Refuting Darwinism aside, using intelligent design as a supplementary science would be nice and is guaranteed to help in the long run.

Mike Elzinga said: ... There is no such thing as “the law of conservation of information.” This is a made up idea by William Dembski; and he has never demonstrated that such a law exists. He simply asserted it. In fact, it has been easily shown to be false.

Then consider descriptive complexity or Kolmogorov complexity. This refers to how easy it is to describe any given pattern or sequence. When testing for specified complexity, the sequence must have a low descriptive complexity. An oft-quoted example is a series of coin tosses: HHHHHHHHH and HHTHTTTHTH. The first series has lower descriptive complexity because it can be described as “ten heads in a row.” The second series would be described as “two heads, then one tail, then one head, etc…” In the case of the protein the search is for a functional protein. So the description of any given sequence will be either “functional protein” or something longer such as “85% of a functional protein,” etc…

phhht said: printf("HHHHHHHHH"); ... For this program, ... nineteen [is] the number of characters necessary to write the C program...

Prometheist -

I'm willing to listen.

I don't agree with your arguments against evolution, so far, but maybe at least you can provide some positive evidence for ID.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Harold, I'd amend your#4 to read "What kind of entity(ies) is(are) the designer(s), and what independent evidence is there if its(their) existence?"

Thanks to those who answered Promo's gobbledygook better than I could have.

Promo, could you state for me this "law of the conservation of information"?

P.S. incite means to instigate or provoke, as in incite a riot. Now I wonder, is that your own spelling error, or was it contained in some copied sentences from a scholarly ID website?

phhht, posted 2/14/13 5:36 PM printf(“HHHHHHHHH”); … For this program, … nineteen [is] the number of characters necessary to write the C program…

Joe Felsenstein said: Dembski did have a Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information (LCCSI). ...

Not to mention that the "laws" in science are descriptions of what's been observed so far, not mandates for how people are to behave.

If and when exceptions to one of the "laws" are found, it doesn't lead to an arrest and trial, it leads to research and revision or replacement of the "law".

Henry J said:

phhht, posted 2/14/13 5:36 PM printf(“HHHHHHHHH”); … For this program, … nineteen [is] the number of characters necessary to write the C program…

That should be twenty (right?). Sorry. Oh, more than that, unless you're talking about just the segment of the program that does this one thing. At a minimum main(){printf(“HHHHHHHHH”);} and depending on the particular compiler, it probably also needs #include<stdio.h> on a separate line in front of that. 28+17=45, not counting line separators, not to mention spaces and tabs to make it more readable, and comments to document its purpose and usage. Henry

phhht said:

Henry J said:

phhht, posted 2/14/13 5:36 PM printf(“HHHHHHHHH”); … For this program, … nineteen [is] the number of characters necessary to write the C program…

That should be twenty (right?). Sorry. Oh, more than that, unless you're talking about just the segment of the program that does this one thing. At a minimum main(){printf(“HHHHHHHHH”);} and depending on the particular compiler, it probably also needs #include<stdio.h> on a separate line in front of that. 28+17=45, not counting line separators, not to mention spaces and tabs to make it more readable, and comments to document its purpose and usage. Henry

No speak'um good C.

phhht said: I have no idea at all what Prometheist means when he says "description of any given sequence will be either “functional protein” or something longer such as “85% of a functional protein". As far as I can tell, neither does he.

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Dembski did have a Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information (LCCSI). ...

Yeah; I don’t know where the “law of conservation of information” comes from other than the fact that some of the people over at UD use it as do some of the ID/creationists who show up here. I may also be remembering something from over at The Skeptical Zone. What I remember is something that was a computation that was comparable to the computation for entropy; which, of course, is not conserved. These ID/creationists can’t even keep their pseudoscience consistent. It’s all just free-for-all blather that is apparently meant to look erudite. And it is really funny to watch the huffery-puffery proliferation of “laws” and “principles” and acronyms by the denizens of UD. I don’t even try to keep track any longer.

More recently in his papers with Robert Marks on the Search For a Search they have invoked the LCI further, trying to argue that any information that ends up in life forms was already out there lying around in the shape of the fitness surface, for which they define an information calculation. It is supposed to measure how much choosing among alternatives the Designer did when choosing that fitness surface.

Since it is fairly clear that the smoothness of the fitness surface comes in large measure from the weakness of long-range interactions in physics, it is not clear that such choosing is a reasonable model of what happens in nature. It is also clear that their views are intended to tie in with theology and the Biblical doctrine "In the beginning was the Word".

I also would like to hear a description of "intelligent design" detailed enough to answer some of harold's questions.

But since the probability question was brought up, I'd like to see a calculation of the probability for "intelligent design".

Here is my preliminary calculation.

The creator/designer(s) are capable of doing more things than natural processes.

So the probability that the creator/designer(s) would do such-and-such, out of all of the things that they are capable of doing, is less than the probability that natural processes would do it. After all, a probability is a ratio, the number of successful cases divided by the number of possible cases; so if the number of possible cases for "intelligent design" is greater than the number of possible cases for natural processes, the probability that a particular case would happen is smaller.

If my calculation is wrong, I'd like to see a better calculation in support of "intelligent design".

TomS said: If my calculation is wrong, I'd like to see a better calculation in support of "intelligent design".

Richard B. Hoppe said: Harold, I'd amend your#4 to read "What kind of entity(ies) is(are) the designer(s), and what independent evidence is there if its(their) existence?"

Harold, I’d amend your#4 to read “What kind of entity(ies) is(are) the designer(s), and what independent evidence is there if its(their) existence?”

I have no idea at all what Prometheist means when he says “description of any given sequence will be either “functional protein” or something longer such as “85% of a functional protein”. As far as I can tell, neither does he.

Karen S. said:

Harold, I’d amend your#4 to read “What kind of entity(ies) is(are) the designer(s), and what independent evidence is there if its(their) existence?”

You mean, "What independent evidence is there of his/her/its/their existence?" And then you can ask about the designer's gender. Or the designers' genders. Or whatever.

harold said: If we assume that completely honest, unbiased individuals spontaneously came up with ID - it still fails, and its inability to make positive claims is part of why it fails (as well as its internal incoherence).

It's obvious that ID isn't the product of sincere, spontaneous thought, and is rather, an effort to present creation science in a disguised, coded form.

Good morning! I hope everyone had a wonderful Valentine's Day evening.

Hi phhht,

Great examples! Remember that intelligent design does not claim that everything in nature is designed. It is the study of signs of intelligence. Specified complexity is only a part of the process when inferring design. An explanatory filter is used for this purpose. It asks three questions about what is being observed: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then design is inferred.

Leslie Orgel, the late Oxford trained chemist, first used the term specified complexity in 1973 in his book, The Origins of Life. His quote is helpful when thinking about specified complexity and its application to things in nature: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

Snowflakes and tornadoes seem to lack contingency because the laws of nature can easily explain them. Snowflakes are formed when droplets of moisture from clouds freeze. Tornadoes form when several weather conditions converge to produce a violent column of air. If you know the rules for how they form, you can go outside and travel to where you think the conditions are right and observe these phenomena happen directly.

Also, snowflakes seem to form in random and unique patterns. There is no question as to whether snowflakes are complex with the vast probabilities for any given snowflake pattern. But are they specific? Do any of the patterns mean anything? Pretending that snowflakes are contingent, each pattern that you find would have the same high descriptive complexity and thus snowflakes would not warrant inferring design.

Paley’s watch will warrant a design inference. Let’s run it through the explanatory filter.

Is Paley’s watch contingent?
It would seem so. There are no laws of nature that explain the necessary formations of watches (unless of course materialism is true; then “a theory of everything” might possibly be discovered one day that will explain the chance origin of life on earth and then the subsequent firing of neurons in the man’s brain who made the watch).

Is Paley’s watch complex?
Yes it is! There are several parts that compose a watch. Take one of the parts from the watch and you will notice that it does not work anymore. This means that a watch needs a certain configuration of mechanical components in order for it to function as such. So I would say the vast amount of configurations of mechanical components would make for a very large number; and the number of configurations that form a functioning watch would be relatively small.

Is Paley’s watch specific?
Just like proteins there are right ways and wrong ways to make Paley’s watch. Considering explanatory complexity, a functioning watch configuration will be easily explained while it will take much more to explain the configurations that do not make a functioning watch. So this is how design would be inferred on Paley’s watch if common sense fails or if we are skeptical of everyday experience.

phhht said:

As far as I can see, you’re just parroting ID propaganda.

Answer me this: is a snowflake designed? Is a tornado designed?

Please show how to calculate your purported measures for Paley’s watch.

Prometheist said: Please show how to calculate your purported measures for Paley’s watch.

Prometheist said: Great examples!

phhht said:

Then consider descriptive complexity or Kolmogorov complexity. This refers to how easy it is to describe any given pattern or sequence. When testing for specified complexity, the sequence must have a low descriptive complexity. An oft-quoted example is a series of coin tosses: HHHHHHHHH and HHTHTTTHTH. The first series has lower descriptive complexity because it can be described as “ten heads in a row.” The second series would be described as “two heads, then one tail, then one head, etc…” In the case of the protein the search is for a functional protein. So the description of any given sequence will be either “functional protein” or something longer such as “85% of a functional protein,” etc…

This is such a mishmash of misapprehension, befuddlement, and outright wrongness that despite my relative naivete wrt Kolmogorov complexity, I feel compelled to comment. First, Kolmogorov complexity has no connection whatsoever to coin tosses. That's an utterly irrelevant red herring, present, presumably, for its undeniable contribution to the overall confusion of the reader. Similarly, Kolmogorov complexity has no connection with search, in the computing sense. Kolmogorov complexity applies to a sequence of characters in an alphabet, or a string, for short. For example, this sequence of nine characters is a string: HHHHHHHHH The mechanism of string description is NOT a natural language such as English. Such a description of string s must be a formal computer program (in an executable computer programming language) which produces string s. I'll use pidgin C here for my examples, so a program which produces the string HHHHHHHHH is printf("HHHHHHHHH"); Note that in pidgin C, the string HHHHHHHHH contains nine characters from the ASCII alphabet. For this program, a measure of the Kolmogorov complexity of s is nineteen, or the number of characters necessary to write the C program. If a program d (for description) which prints s (we say (d(s)) is of minimal length (i.e. it requires the fewest characters of all programs which print s), it is called a minimal description of s. Thus, the length of d(s) (i.e. the number of characters in the description) is the Kolmogorov complexity of s. Note that there are other, different C programs which produce string s. For example, the program for(i=0; i<9; i++) printf('H'); also produces string s. And it has a character count different from the first example. I have no idea at all what Prometheist means when he says "description of any given sequence will be either “functional protein” or something longer such as “85% of a functional protein". As far as I can tell, neither does he. But won't Prometheist just write his own computer program which, given some string s, just computes its minimum Kolmogorov complexity? Nope. He won't. That's impossible.

The way to judge if something is designed* is to compare it to things that are known to be designed, by people having watched the manufacturing process for those things.

*"engineered" would be a more accurate term here, but then ID pushers don't want accuracy, since that undermines their claims.

Prometheist said: An explanatory filter is used for this purpose. It asks three questions about what is being observed: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then design is inferred.

Snowflakes and tornadoes seem to lack contingency because the laws of nature can easily explain them.

So I would say the vast amount of configurations of mechanical components would make for a very large number; and the number of configurations that form a functioning watch would be relatively small.

Is Paley’s watch specific? Just like proteins there are right ways and wrong ways to make Paley’s watch.

Great examples! Remember that intelligent design does not claim that everything in nature is designed.

It is the study of signs of intelligence. Specified complexity is only a part of the process when inferring design. An explanatory filter is used for this purpose. It asks three questions about what is being observed: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then design is inferred.

Leslie Orgel, the late Oxford trained chemist, first used the term specified complexity in 1973 in his book, The Origins of Life. His quote is helpful when thinking about specified complexity and its application to things in nature: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”

Snowflakes and tornadoes seem to lack contingency because the laws of nature can easily explain them. Snowflakes are formed when droplets of moisture from clouds freeze. Tornadoes form when several weather conditions converge to produce a violent column of air. If you know the rules for how they form, you can go outside and travel to where you think the conditions are right and observe these phenomena happen directly

Also, snowflakes seem to form in random and unique patterns. There is no question as to whether snowflakes are complex with the vast probabilities for any given snowflake pattern. But are they specific? Do any of the patterns mean anything? Pretending that snowflakes are contingent, each pattern that you find would have the same high descriptive complexity and thus snowflakes would not warrant inferring design.

Paley’s watch will warrant a design inference. Let’s run it through the explanatory filter. Is Paley’s watch contingent? It would seem so. There are no laws of nature that explain the necessary formations of watches (unless of course materialism is true; then “a theory of everything” might possibly be discovered one day that will explain the chance origin of life on earth and then the subsequent firing of neurons in the man’s brain who made the watch).

Is Paley’s watch complex? Yes it is! There are several parts that compose a watch. Take one of the parts from the watch and you will notice that it does not work anymore. This means that a watch needs a certain configuration of mechanical components in order for it to function as such. So I would say the vast amount of configurations of mechanical components would make for a very large number; and the number of configurations that form a functioning watch would be relatively small.

Is Paley’s watch specific? Just like proteins there are right ways and wrong ways to make Paley’s watch. Considering explanatory complexity, a functioning watch configuration will be easily explained while it will take much more to explain the configurations that do not make a functioning watch. So this is how design would be inferred on Paley’s watch if common sense fails or if we are skeptical of everyday experience.

1. Specified complexity is a “statistical criterion for identifying the effects of intelligence.” In order to determine if something possesses specified complexity, there are a few things to consider: probabilistic complexity, descriptive complexity, and probabilistic resources. First you determine the probabilistic complexity. This is how probable the event or sequence that you are observing is. So take a functional protein that is 50 amino acids in length for instance. Lets be conservative and say our amino acid alphabet will consist of only five amino acids (as opposed to the present alphabet of twenty amino acids) that are available to place in any of the 50 positions on the chain. I have read that there are a few thousand folds discrete folds that can produce all functional proteins. So the probability of any given sequence comes out to ~3,000 in 5 to the 50th power.

Or the system can be explained to have evolved indirectly. In this way it is explained that the parts were already in place, but performing other functions, and then through another variation they converged to create the new system. This presupposes that all of the parts just so happened to be just right for each other when they converged although they were performing different functions.

Prometheist said: "Remember that intelligent design does not claim that everything in nature is designed. It is the study of signs of intelligence. Specified complexity is only a part of the process when inferring design. An explanatory filter is used for this purpose. It asks three questions about what is being observed: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then design is inferred." ... "Snowflakes and tornadoes seem to lack contingency because the laws of nature can easily explain them. Snowflakes are formed when droplets of moisture from clouds freeze. Tornadoes form when several weather conditions converge to produce a violent column of air. If you know the rules for how they form, you can go outside and travel to where you think the conditions are right and observe these phenomena happen directly." "Also, snowflakes seem to form in random and unique patterns. There is no question as to whether snowflakes are complex with the vast probabilities for any given snowflake pattern. But are they specific? Do any of the patterns mean anything? Pretending that snowflakes are contingent, each pattern that you find would have the same high descriptive complexity and thus snowflakes would not warrant inferring design."

Since you brought up that famous watch...

We know it was made by an intelligence, in this case human.

We also know that however "complex" and finely made it may appear, it is far from perfect. A watch from Paley's day probably will be off by at least several seconds per day. There is an unavoidable amount of "slop" in the gearing. The bearing surfaces are not perfectly smooth, resulting in varying friction. Its accuracy is sensitive to physical shock and varying temperatures.

A modern cheap quartz watch is superior in almost any measure (except maybe expense) to Paley's watch. But it is still obviously not "perfect". It has flaws. As does even the NIST's atomic clock.

So let's draw the conclusions from the analogy: "Complex" things that we know about are made by intelligences. But those intelligences are LIMITED, and we know that because even their best productions are never perfect, but flawed in various ways. Therefore when we see flawed productions, like imperfect watches, we can deduce some things about the limited intelligence and technical abilities of the makers.

Therefore all the obvious flaws in the human (and all living things) body design and operating mechanisms must be attributable to a designer(s) with limited intelligence, technical knowledge, and manufacturing capability.

Oh, and watches don't have generations of baby watches that vary from their parents.

I don't get how anybody can infer that something is "specified" unless one can identify what sort of thing did the specifying, and then the construction of the specified thing.

In general, organisms aren't specified; they're descendants of earlier organisms. (Exceptions would be those genetically engineered by humans.)

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

— harold

Frank J said:

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

— harold

In the years that you have been asking those questions, has anyone offered clear, detailed answers? I vaguely recall asking before and getting a "no," but it's worth repeating in case any new fence-sitting lurkers are here. As you know, my purpose, if not yours, is not so much to see the answers as to show lurkers the evasive games these people play. While ~3/4 of the public has some vague doubts about evolution or at least thinks it's fair to "teach the controversy" in science class, only a tiny minority (the most hopeless and the scam artists who exploit them) approve of the "Dembski double standard" - the endless repeating of long-refuted incredulity arguments about evolution, in stark contrast to refusal to give any details of their mutually-contradictory "theories." AKA "we don't need to connect no stinkin' dots!". The more that sleazy game is exposed, the better off we are in the long run. If anything I would make your questions easier to answer. AIUI, Young and Old Earth versions of Biblical creationism were ruled unconstitutional, so omitting OEC in your question gives them another potential loophole. Also, I would give them the option of teaching the phony "critical analysis" of evolution in lieu of Biblical creationism and ID, which is what the DI advocates in recent years. The DI knows that Biblical creationism is long-falsified and that ID is a flat-out scam, so why risk the possibility of students critically analyzing them. As for the "what did the designer do, where when and how?" what better place to start than with one of the most cited evolution-deniers of the last 20 years, Michael Behe? He clearly and repeatedly conceded ~4 billion years of common descent. If they disagree, they should be more than willing to challenge him directly.

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity

JimNorth said: Also, why did you switch from specified complexity to a word salad of probabilistic pseudoscience?

Prometheist said:

Prometheist said: It has been shown that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for systems such as the flagella.

Scott F said: Ah yes. Now I remember. You must be referring to the Dover Trial where Michael Behe showed conclusively in court that genetic variations and natural selection cannot directly account for the flagella. Or maybe it was Ken Miller who showed that? All this "irreducible complexity" stuff is so confusing, it's hard to keep track sometimes. [/sarcasm]

Scott yes, I was referring to what I read in Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. He explained that biochemical systems are composed of numerous parts that all needed to evolve at once in order for the entire system to work. So for example, the flagella is composed of: a filament, hook, L ring, P ring, MS ring, C ring, rod, stator, etc. For natural selection to explain this system, it would need to show that each part evolved in a step-wise fashion and that each step in the process provided the entire system with an advantage. Natural selection does not have the completed flagella in mind, but only variations that provide an advantage. I haven't searched for it, but I wonder if research has been done to determine the evolutionary advantage that an L ring or a P ring, or whatever is postulated to have arrived first, bestow onto early bacteria. Or the system can be explained to have evolved indirectly. In this way it is explained that the parts were already in place, but performing other functions, and then through another variation they converged to create the new system. This presupposes that all of the parts just so happened to be just right for each other when they converged although they were performing different functions. So the argument, as I understand it, basically goes: 1. Natural selection only selects variations that give a system an advantage. 2. The bacterial flagella is composed of parts that only perform functions which are specific to the flagella (i.e. the individual parts would not provide an advantage for the system by themselves). 3. It is extremely close to impossible that all of the parts for the bacterial flagella evolved in one step. Therefore, the bacterial flagella did not evolve directly. That argument alone seems to explain the process in a logical manner. I did not actually look at an article in a journal that empirically proved it. I am serious when I ask: are there any articles that show how flagella evolved? I have read that the type III secretory system is possibly something from which the flagella evolved. However, the fact that they share about ten proteins and are structurally similar does not seem to me to be convincing. I would like to see all of the functional and advantageous systems that fill the gap between the two before I am compelled.

For natural selection to explain this system, it would need to show that each part evolved in a step-wise fashion and that each step in the process provided the entire system with an advantage.

I would like to see all of the functional and advantageous systems that fill the gap between the two before I am compelled.

Not really. A certain Anglo-Persian individual, whose infamous and universally banned username I won’t mention, once stated that the designer was “the Elohim”. Someone else, while evading all the other questions, claimed that “a rock” isn’t designed. To be fair, Prometheist has stated that snowflakes and tornadoes aren’t designed. So he’s answered one indirectly. That’s been it.

— harold

However, of course, it has a further weakness. It’s obvious that ID isn’t the product of sincere, spontaneous thought, and is rather, an effort to present creation science in a disguised, coded form.

prongs said:

Just Bob said: Do you think it's fair to expect Darwin to explain the "specified complexity" of DNA, which wasn't discovered until about a CENTURY after Darwin?

Clarification for Creationists: Just Bob meant that DNA "wasn't discovered until about a CENTURY {later}". "specified complexity" has NEVER been discovered because it cannot be DEFINED. I don't want FL to quote-mine Just Bob and say that Pandas admit that "specified complexity" has been DISCOVERED.

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Dembski did have a Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information (LCCSI). ...

Yeah; I don’t know where the “law of conservation of information” comes from other than the fact that some of the people over at UD use it as do some of the ID/creationists who show up here. I may also be remembering something from over at The Skeptical Zone. What I remember is something that was a computation that was comparable to the computation for entropy; which, of course, is not conserved. These ID/creationists can’t even keep their pseudoscience consistent. It’s all just free-for-all blather that is apparently meant to look erudite. And it is really funny to watch the huffery-puffery proliferation of “laws” and “principles” and acronyms by the denizens of UD. I don’t even try to keep track any longer.

1. You said, “Natural selection only selects variations that give a system an advantage.” [emphasis added] I am not a biologist, but AFAIK “Natural Selection” can “select” any expressed variation, be it a) advantageous, or b) deleterious. When a deleterious trait is “selected”, it tends to be selected against and such selection is, shall we say, self limiting. It’s being “selected” for removal from the gene pool. It’s a picky point (and my understanding could be wrong), so I won’t hold it against you.

If it were irreducibly complex, then it would be impossible to identify any possible sequence of mutations that could have led to the flagellum. It is not necessary to identify the exact sequence that actually was used. Any possible sequence of changes is sufficient to disprove “irreducible complexity”.

I thought information was continually being destroyed since the fall. Dembski is a heretic.

— bigdakine

robert van bakel said: And still Darwin does it better. Who, upon reading that clear, concise, economic description of the variety in life, would dare put up a weak, castrated god, in opposition? "dependent on each other in so complex a manner,..." The origins of modern Environmental Science?

bigdakine said: I thought information was continually being destroyed since the fall. Dembski is a heretic.

Scott F said: ... So, no, your scary big probability numbers tend to look not so big compared to the vastness of life on Earth.

For natural selection to explain this system, it would need to show that each part evolved in a step-wise fashion and that each step in the process provided the entire system with an advantage.

That statement is incorrect. It is not necessary to show that each mutation along the sequence of changes is advantageous. Neutral mutations are sufficient. By definition, neutral mutations that neither improve nor detract from function may survive to breed. In fact, if the environment were to change in some way, it is entirely possible that even deleterious mutations could survive through enough generations to provide a "bridge" from one advantageous function to another.

I would like to see all of the functional and advantageous systems that fill the gap between the two before I am compelled.

First, you are lying. You would not be so compelled. If the entire sequence was laid bare for you, you would still conclude "Design", because you have a structural, pre-conceived belief system that compels you to see "Design" in everything. Second, evolution doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. Science can demonstrate a possible evolutionary pathway, which it plausibly has. You so far refuse to see any of that. If you were presented with a complete sequence of changes, you would ask to see proof that this was thee sequence that was actually used.

I would like to understand. When answering me, citations would be appreciated, but please also give the answers in your own words. Note: I am familiar with the works of Behe, Dembski, etc, what I am asking for here is YOUR explanation. Among other things, I would like to confirm that you understand even the works of ID that you borrow words from.

A) You haven't explained how to determine these things. I have a particular problem with the use of the term "complex" here. Your use implies a binary condition.

B) You also haven't explained why on earth these things should be taken as proof of "design", but first things first - please show me precisely how to at least replicate your claims that certain things have these traits.

PA Poland said: By your ‘math’, you are essentially stating there are 3000 ways to get ONE SPECIFIC SEQUENCE. If there are only, say, 2000 discrete folds that can produce all functional proteins, then the odds of a functional protein is then 1/2000. You have fallen for the One True Sequence fallacy common amongst IDiots - the ridiculous notion that one (and ONLY one) sequence can work, and that it MUST be formed by having amino acids fall together all at once. Real world experiments have shown that the odds of a peptide 70 random amino acids long having a selectable function is 1 in 10^9 to 1 in 10^12 - about 40 orders of magnitude MORE likely than your ‘math’ suggests !

Why does this mean that they "lack contingency"?

Although I agree that colloquially, snowflakes can be perceived as "complex", please explain how you define and measure complexity. Also, what do you mean by "specified"? How do I measure whether or not something is "specified"?

I do not understand. Watches are constructed by animals, namely, human beings. The construction of watches does require the firing of neurons in human brains. The construction of watches does not require any miracles. The fact that humans can construct watches now does not tell us anything about whether or not miracles are required for the origin of cellular life, let alone the subsequent evolution of life. I would have thought that anyone, regardless of religious sect, would agree with these obvious points.

This is merely an assertion that a watch subjectively seems "complex" to you. I don't disagree that a watch can subjectively seem "complex". On the other hand, it might subjectively seem "simple" to someone else. Do you have an objective, reproducible method that others can use to determine if something meets your definition of "complex"? If not, your use of the term is irrelevant.

Again, I see no rigorous definition of your key terms. You say it is "specific" and offer some word salad. Do you have a methodology that I can use to determine whether or not something is "specified", by your own standards, yes or no?

While that is a very specific contradiction of the beliefs of many Christians, it is totally irrelevant to biomedical science.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

harold said: Prometheist said -

Great examples! Remember that intelligent design does not claim that everything in nature is designed.

I would like to understand. When answering me, citations would be appreciated, but please also give the answers in your own words. Note: I am familiar with the works of Behe, Dembski, etc, what I am asking for here is YOUR explanation. Among other things, I would like to confirm that you understand even the works of ID that you borrow words from. Please be very precise and specific and don't waste both of our time with dissembling.

It is the study of signs of intelligence. Specified complexity is only a part of the process when inferring design. An explanatory filter is used for this purpose. It asks three questions about what is being observed: Is it contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then design is inferred.

A) You haven't explained how to determine these things. I have a particular problem with the use of the term "complex" here. Your use implies a binary condition. Something is either "complex" or it isn't, to you, it would seem. By most treatments, certainly including Kolmogorov, complexity is not an either/or binary state, unless an arbitrary cutoff is deliberately employed for some reason, rather, all entities to which the analysis can be applied have some degree of complexity, but it can be low or high. Please explain very carefully to me how you determine the precise boundary between "complex" and "not complex". B) You also haven't explained why on earth these things should be taken as proof of "design", but first things first - please show me precisely how to at least replicate your claims that certain things have these traits.

Leslie Orgel, the late Oxford trained chemist, first used the term specified complexity in 1973 in his book, The Origins of Life. His quote is helpful when thinking about specified complexity and its application to things in nature: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”

This represents a serious misrepresentation of the views of Leslie Orgel, since he had a particular interest in the natural origin of life. It is uncivil to misrepresent the views of others, even if this is done by mistake. To have a civil discourse, one must sometimes apologize for uncivil behavior. Do you apologize for this misrepresentation of Leslie Orgel, who, I might note, died in 2007 and cannot correct such misrepresentations himself?

Snowflakes and tornadoes seem to lack contingency because the laws of nature can easily explain them. Snowflakes are formed when droplets of moisture from clouds freeze. Tornadoes form when several weather conditions converge to produce a violent column of air. If you know the rules for how they form, you can go outside and travel to where you think the conditions are right and observe these phenomena happen directly

Why does this mean that they "lack contingency"?

Also, snowflakes seem to form in random and unique patterns. There is no question as to whether snowflakes are complex with the vast probabilities for any given snowflake pattern. But are they specific? Do any of the patterns mean anything? Pretending that snowflakes are contingent, each pattern that you find would have the same high descriptive complexity and thus snowflakes would not warrant inferring design.

Although I agree that colloquially, snowflakes can be perceived as "complex", please explain how you define and measure complexity. Also, what do you mean by "specified"? How do I measure whether or not something is "specified"?

Paley’s watch will warrant a design inference. Let’s run it through the explanatory filter. Is Paley’s watch contingent? It would seem so. There are no laws of nature that explain the necessary formations of watches (unless of course materialism is true; then “a theory of everything” might possibly be discovered one day that will explain the chance origin of life on earth and then the subsequent firing of neurons in the man’s brain who made the watch).

I do not understand. Watches are constructed by animals, namely, human beings. The construction of watches does require the firing of neurons in human brains. The construction of watches does not require any miracles. The fact that humans can construct watches now does not tell us anything about whether or not miracles are required for the origin of cellular life, let alone the subsequent evolution of life. I would have thought that anyone, regardless of religious sect, would agree with these obvious points.

Is Paley’s watch complex? Yes it is! There are several parts that compose a watch. Take one of the parts from the watch and you will notice that it does not work anymore. This means that a watch needs a certain configuration of mechanical components in order for it to function as such. So I would say the vast amount of configurations of mechanical components would make for a very large number; and the number of configurations that form a functioning watch would be relatively small.

This is merely an assertion that a watch subjectively seems "complex" to you. I don't disagree that a watch can subjectively seem "complex". On the other hand, it might subjectively seem "simple" to someone else. Do you have an objective, reproducible method that others can use to determine if something meets your definition of "complex"? If not, your use of the term is irrelevant.

Is Paley’s watch specific? Just like proteins there are right ways and wrong ways to make Paley’s watch. Considering explanatory complexity, a functioning watch configuration will be easily explained while it will take much more to explain the configurations that do not make a functioning watch. So this is how design would be inferred on Paley’s watch if common sense fails or if we are skeptical of everyday experience.

Again, I see no rigorous definition of your key terms. You say it is "specific" and offer some word salad. Do you have a methodology that I can use to determine whether or not something is "specified", by your own standards, yes or no? Right now, all you seem to be doing is claiming that watches are designed and snowflakes and tornadoes aren't designed. While that is a very specific contradiction of the beliefs of many Christians, it is totally irrelevant to biomedical science. And worse, you won't even explain your methodology such that others can even try to reproduce your own measurements, whatever those measurements may mean. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

I didn't emphasize anything, but I will this time.

YOUR INVOCATIONS OF KOLMOGOROV COMPLEXITY ARE NONSENSE.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If Paley's watch displays Kolmogorov complexity, then show the string of characters at issue, and show the descriptive computer program which produces them.

Otherwise, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Is that emphatic enough for you, poseur?

It appears to be standing in the middle of a crowded room with its eyes closed and believing it is invisible.

Weird.

1. Yes. Michael Behe’s argument from irreducible complexity and also the existence of information in DNA are two of the main reasons why I am skeptical. I think these show that events such as the random formation of functional proteins on early earth and indirect Darwinian pathways producing something such as a bacterial flagellum are contingent. So in this regard I need to be convinced that scientists have determined the exact pathways and have proof that they are explained naturally. Lining up a few skeletons that look similar in structure, but are divided by vast step-wise gaps, would not be good enough to destroy my skepticism of universal ancestry. Accordingly, emphasizing that a bacterial flagellum shares a handful of proteins with a type III secretory system would be compelling, but I am being honest when I say that I would still doubt. DC showed me a link to Nicholas Matzke’s 2003 paper on the flagellum. I was discouraged with language like: “Obviously “detailed” cannot mean that every mutation and substitution event be recorded – for events that occurred billions of years ago this is impossible. A detailed evolutionary model should reduce a puzzling event like the origin of the flagellum into a series of events that occur by well-understood processes.” Am I asking too much of Evolutionary Biology? I was further discouraged when I read a 2011 article by Jonathan M. from the Design Institute. Among other things he said, “Why exactly is flagellum biosynthesis so tightly regulated and orchestrated? Not only do the energy demands render the flagellum an extremely expensive system to run, but untimely expression of flagellum proteins may induce a strong immune response in the host system, something no bacterium wants to do.” But it wouldn’t stop at the flagellum. I’m hoping for the same explanation for all supposedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting and eyes. Also, the information content in DNA is huge. I know that Darwinistic materialism can explain all of the letters on a page in a book. But I do not believe it can claim that the configuration and meaning of the letters are not contingent. So I would need a Darwinistic explanation for the presence of information in biological systems. Or an extremely compelling argument that says there is no information in biological systems. The above mentioned included, I would need to see the positive claims of intelligent design refuted, as well as its negative claims against evolution refuted.

2. My skepticism does not call for abolishing the teaching of evolution in schools. I’ll be happy with the teach the controversy stance until I am 100% convinced one way or the other. I would be against including YEC in any science curriculum because it makes metaphysical claims that I do not believe are to be decided by science. If parents want YEC for their children there is home schooling or private schools.

3. Yes! Honestly if intelligent design theorists were all uneducated I would not have listened to their arguments in the first place. However, I can only assume that the number of design theorists holding PhDs in biology fully understand evolution. For instance, if I assumed Michael Behe did not understand evolution because I don’t like his conclusions, I would need to start doubting the comprehension of all biology professors that hold to conclusions I do not like.

I know that design proponents and Darwinists hold to varying worldviews so I am not interested in whether someone is a Christian, atheist, Buddhist, etc. I am only interested in their arguments.

4. If Darwinism is false, then the origin of life is contingent and due to intelligence. As you might have guessed from my name I am a theist, but that does not mean that I think God is the direct cause of the origin of life. Panspermia would still need to be proven false. As it stands, I think the signs of intelligence in biological systems is the best explanation.

5-7. As you know intelligent design has not gained widespread acceptance and is still in its infancy.

Since you are familiar with Dembski’s writings you should know that he says at this stage, intelligent design is mainly concerned with emphasizing the existence of the effects of intelligence. If intelligent design theorists don’t know then I don’t see how I can be required to answer these questions due to my armchair status. Darwinism hasn’t answered the when and how questions for the origin of life. Correct?

8. Snowflakes

Prometheist answered harold: {A long discourse about ID, a very long discourse}

prongs said:

Prometheist answered harold: {A long discourse about ID, a very long discourse}

Well, I suppose examples and long descriptions and much verbiage are helpful in describing a new notion that is difficult to communicate. But at some point mere words fail - they can so easily be misinterpreted. Thus it is with Prometheist's response. Unless he can speak the language of science and describe what he's talking about with equations, which can be evaluated by any third party who will arrive at the same numerical result, then his words are just so much herbage, as harold has suggested. He has admitted he is an armchair IDist, so I don't expect to see any mathematics (much use of the word 'probabilistic' but in such a way as the common definition of 'probably'). And this is exactly why armchair opinions are not accorded scientific validity. Science is a meritocracy. Until ID can speak in the language of science, and prove its worth, terms like 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' remain Trojan Horses to bypass the Court of Merit and Court of Justice to introduce narrow religious concepts into the public schools.

prongs said:

Prometheist answered harold: {A long discourse about ID, a very long discourse}

Well, I suppose examples and long descriptions and much verbiage are helpful in describing a new notion that is difficult to communicate. But at some point mere words fail - they can so easily be misinterpreted. Thus it is with Prometheist's response. Unless he can speak the language of science and describe what he's talking about with equations, which can be evaluated by any third party who will arrive at the same numerical result, then his words are just so much herbage, as harold has suggested. He has admitted he is an armchair IDist, so I don't expect to see any mathematics (much use of the word 'probabilistic' but in such a way as the common definition of 'probably'). And this is exactly why armchair opinions are not accorded scientific validity. Science is a meritocracy. Until ID can speak in the language of science, and prove its worth, terms like 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' remain Trojan Horses to bypass the Court of Merit and Court of Justice to introduce narrow religious concepts into the public schools.

I presented Prometheist with a detailed model of how the flagellum could have evolved, exactly what he demanded. His response - essentially, not good enough. TFB. He has no real objection to the model, except he doesn't want to believe it. And this after claiming that no such model existed and demanding references. Likewise with the other examples he cites. Each has been shown NOT to be irreducibly complex and good models exist for all, he just needs to be shown every mutation in every organism or else he refuses to believe it. Just like a real Behe acolyte, hE is willing to ignore all of the evidence and provides no explanation and no alternative. It's worthless trying to discuss science with him. As if the fake "probability" calculations weren't enough to convince everyone of that long ago.

Prometheist more recently said: So your question actually involves the “Is it specific?” step of the filter. This is the node at which you consider descriptive complexity. I said in the earlier post describing my understanding of descriptive complexity that a low descriptive complexity is needed if design is going to be inferred.

Prometheist earlier said: Then consider descriptive complexity or Kolmogorov complexity. This refers to how easy it is to describe any given pattern or sequence. When testing for specified complexity, the sequence must have a low descriptive complexity. An oft-quoted example is a series of coin tosses: HHHHHHHHH and HHTHTTTHTH. The first series has lower descriptive complexity because it can be described as "ten heads in a row." The second series would be described as "two heads, then one tail, then one head, etc..." In the case of the protein the search is for a functional protein. So the description of any given sequence will be either "functional protein" or something longer such as "85% of a functional protein," etc...

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said: Second, evolution doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. Science can demonstrate a possible evolutionary pathway, which it plausibly has. You so far refuse to see any of that. If you were presented with a complete sequence of changes, you would ask to see proof that this was thee sequence that was actually used.

What about Lenski's Escherichia coli experiment, and how he went back to document the step-by-step of mutations that lead to his bacteria developing genes for enzymatically digesting citrate by looking at the various samples of 50,000+ bacteria generations?

Scott F said: Conversely, you have declared that "snow flake" is *not* designed. Yet by your definition "snow flake" has less "descriptive complexity" than "Prometheist", which we know that you assume to be "designed". Correct?

harold said: 4) To some degree this is a finished battle. The claims that Rip Van Prometheist is still repeating were dealt with at Dover, and even the more up to date creationists have moved away with them. But it's always worthwhile to rebut them.

JimNorth said: Promotheist quoted Orgel's work:

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity

Orgel was using this term in a qualitative manner, Dembski attempts to use it in a quantitative way. Specified as in sequential or non-random and complex as in not simple or made of many parts. He then uses two non-living examples to hammer home his point (crystals of granite clearly contain some sort of order, but are made of very few parts, whereas polymers can be composed of many interconnected parts that lack an orderly structure). Living organisms, on the other hand, display a method to their madness. This is a great example of cdesign proponentsist repurposing words. The great Inigo Montoya phrase comes to mind... Also, why did you switch from specified complexity to a word salad of probabilistic pseudoscience?

Prometheist said:

PA Poland said: By your ‘math’, you are essentially stating there are 3000 ways to get ONE SPECIFIC SEQUENCE. If there are only, say, 2000 discrete folds that can produce all functional proteins, then the odds of a functional protein is then 1/2000. You have fallen for the One True Sequence fallacy common amongst IDiots - the ridiculous notion that one (and ONLY one) sequence can work, and that it MUST be formed by having amino acids fall together all at once. Real world experiments have shown that the odds of a peptide 70 random amino acids long having a selectable function is 1 in 10^9 to 1 in 10^12 - about 40 orders of magnitude MORE likely than your ‘math’ suggests !

I know there are only twenty amino acids that code for proteins, but research suggests that as low as four or five were needed to form functional proteins. I took my numbers from here. I used the numbers between their highest and lowest. Are these outdated?

So to my understanding, the probability of any given sequence of a protein as described by my source will be 1 in 5 to the 50th power. However, the paper suggested that about three thousand of those sequences were functional. So this means to me that the random probability for any given functional sequence would be 3000 in 5 to the 50th power.

I am saying that there are 3,000 "true" or functional sequences out of the 5 to the 50th power sequences that are possible. I do not see how the probability of a functional protein sequence would be one in 3,000 given a five amino acid alphabet and 50 positions on the sequence chain. Knowing that the source I used is from 2008 and could very well be outdated, perhaps PA Poland's new number of 1 in 10 to the 9-15th power is correct. However, probabilistic resources still need to be taken into account. If the number of chances to randomly combine the amino acids are low, then this new number would seem high.

One has to wonder at the paucity of intellectual stimulation these ID/creationists received as children.

If they had even experienced things like Zen Magnets or magnetic marbles, or simply played with magnets, or picked up bits of paper with static electricity, they might realize that there is something wrong with ID/creationist calculations of molecular assemblies.

And some high school chemistry and physics wouldn’t hurt either.

But instead, we get arm chair philosophers, who have never interacted with a real world, pontificating about what is or is not possible; and then they demand proof from people who are in touch with reality while claiming that they will believe it only if one can track the motion of every atom and molecule from a stochastic soup to a specified assembly.

It’s just not possible to communicate with someone like that.

Ken Ham has built an entire home-school curriculum for children and adolescents that is guaranteed to keep them in a complete state of intellectual deprivation so that they will be impervious to learning when they get to be (physical) adults.

That's funny. Prometheist never answered my question: how does Prometheist show that CSI cannot arise by natural selection? (Because if we can't show that, we can't use CSI as evidence for Design).

Anybody but a silly troll would have some answer to that.

Scott F said: But of course we always circle back to the creationist "gotcha" that any lab experiment is "designed", therefore any results observed in a lab experiment are also "designed". Creationists propose a dichotomy within a dichotomy. If you weren't there to observe the event, you must conclude "design" because you cannot prove "not design". Yet, if you set up a situation so that you were there to observe the event, you must also conclude "design" because the very act of setting up for the observation imparts "design". Heads I win, tails you lose.

This is not "natural selection and evolution." It is artificial selection -- a form of intelligent design. Artificial selection implies intelligent minds selecting roses, cattle, dogs or any other living organisms for a "desired function." It doesn't matter if the intelligent agent works by creating a random pool to select from, or outlines a carefully planned sequence of rational steps: selection by a mind for a purpose is intelligent design.

Should it really be necessary to point out that there isn't any reason to assume that currently used biochemistry is the only biochemistry that would work?