OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:02) | | Quote | Interesting. Because if you had the correct algorithm you would find these number to be very, very specific.
In other words, you can't use CSI to tell the difference between a random series of numbers and a series of non-random numbers.
So, what's the point in CSI? It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't tell us anything unique or useful about the real world.
You do realize that any amino acid chain longer than 250 AAs is, by your definition "CSI" and therefore requiring intelligence. Do you realize that AA chains of nearly that length have been developed in the lab using the random attachments that you deplore as not being capable of forming CSI.
While we're at it, can you explain the 500 bit limit? |
Let's start over with some VERY basic premises........
Here is a number: 53739901284746603....is it CSI?
NO!
It's just a number that doesn't represent anything at all...I just made it up so how is it even information? Information communicates something to the observer.
|
You are confusing the "meaning" of the information with the "information" itself. This is a fundamental mistake.
If you are only interested in the meaning of the information, then none of the mathematical treatments used for information can apply. Why?
Let's look at a common phrase.
"The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
This is a highly complex sequence and, informationally speaking, it is difficult to compress because there are few repeated letters. But in French...
"Le rapide goupil brun sauta par dessus le chien paresseux."
You see that the phrase is much longer and also contains many more repeated letters. This is easier to compress than the English version.
Do these two versions have the same AMOUNT of CSI? Yes/No... why?
| Quote |
Numbers in themselves aren't information.....one would have to know what the numbers are calculating....what do they represent? Then one can begin to make sense of it all.
|
Wrong. This is the basic premise of cryptology. You can perform informational functions on random numbers, pseudo-random numbers, and non-random numbers.
However, you can't extract meaning from random numbers. You cannot extract meaning from pseudo-random numbers without additional information.
This continues to show that you don't even know what information you're talking about.
| Quote |
the number 10 doesn't really mean anything...10 what? 10 pebbles, 10 planets, 10 good looking ladies, 10 drinks I had of my favorite whiskey last night? I have to know for 10 to mean anything to me as these "number 10s" have quite different meanings as I process information about them.
So let's start with numbers representing things. I have a pile of 2 pebbles, another pile of 10 pebbles and another pile of 100 pebbles....so how big a pile of pebbles would I have to have before I can calculate CSI?
|
Let's say you have 1 pebble of feldspar. Can you calculate the CSI of that highly ordered, very complex, and very, very specific mineral?
I bet you can't.
| Quote |
Well, it might be argued that the bigger piles are more complex because, if we are viewing a pebble as information, 100 bits of information is certainly larger than one one bit and the whole of the parts seem more complex than the sum of one unit that comprise them.
But the truth is, it doesn't matter if I accumulate a billion pebbles in a pile, even if that pile might, by sheer volume be more complex, there is no specificity involved with the pile, therefore a pile of pebbles can never be CSI.
So is a simple pebble information?
Yes. I can be walking down a path, see some pebble laying in it and record in my mind that there are pebbles present. In fact, all matter is information, energy is information because it is also matter.....Einstein taught us that E=MC^2, therefore E=M=I.
But it is specificity and the intelligence it involves that CSI hinges on.......So, let's look at specificity, how it calculates out and how intelligence comes into play with that concept.
|
Man, this is just babbling.
CSI is evidence of intelligence because CSI requires intelligence.
Do the words "circular reasoning" have any meaning for you or is just information?
| Quote |
I have an archer. I blindfold him and place him in the middle of a huge stadium and tell him to shoot an arrow into the wall. He draws an arrow and plugs it into the wall quite handily.
Am I surprised? Of course not. The wall is so large, it surrounds him, I would be surprised if he DIDN'T hit the wall.
Now I paint the wall into a checkerboard with black and white squares and tell him to hit a black square. Now his odds go down in accomplishing this.
In fact, there is a 50% chance he will and a 50% chance he won't. But he does. I'm still not surprised any more than I would be if I flipped a coin and it comes up heads.
Then I paint the checkboard into 4 colors, then 8, then 16....but wait a minute, the archer is STILL hitting the color I tell him to? The odds of him doing so are becoming so high against him doing it that I'm beginning to suspect something here.
So, on the enormous wall of that giant stadium, I draw a little one inch circle, spin the archer around a few times and tell him to try to hit the tiny circle. He nails it dead center.
OK, only an idiot whould not begin to suspect that intelligence is involved here.
|
Nice analogy, utterly meaningless. I bet I could come up with a similar analogy that doesn't use any intelligence to pick out a single 1 cm^2 area inside the area of a football field... even an area within a football field filled with noise (in the information sense of the word, not the sound sense of the word). And no intelligence required.
Want to bet that I can?
| Quote |
Maybe he can see through the blindfold, maybe someone has a walkie talkie and he has a tiny receiver in his ear......Maybe he has ESP..SOMETHING..I don't know....but the odds are so low of him hitting that circle that, if he does, intelligence HAS to be involved somewhere in there.
|
Saying it again and again doesn't make it true.
There is no evidence here. None. Just claims of the incredulous.
| Quote |
In fact, once those odds get to be more than 1:10^150 against him (the UPB is reached) it becomes mathematically impossible that he will accomplish the task without intelligence somewhere in there.
|
Again, you are mistaken. Because, again, within the entire universe the odds of a oxygen atom reacted with two specific hydrogens is way higher than your UPB. However, the odds of an oxygen atom reacting with any two hydrogens approaches unity.
You are making a logical fallacy here.
| Quote |
So, can you also see how specificity is calculated? With one color he had a 1:1 chance, with 2 a 1:2 chance, with 16 colors a 1:16 chance etc. all the way up to 1:10^150 where he would have no chance at all.
Another post will follow to clarify more.....thanks for your interest |
Here's the problem.
The protein for human hemoglobin, alpha 1 is about 30 kilobytes long. Way beyond the UPB.
However, no biologist, no scientist thinks that human hemoglobin, alpha 1 just appeared, by chance.
If there were only two options (chance and intelligent design), then I think we could concede that something else was involved.
But there's not two options is there? There's a third option, which you dismiss out of hand with no evidence. That is evolution: common descent, selection, mutation.
Actually, there are only two options, but not the ones you think. The only two options are chance and evolution. Because there is no evidence that an intelligent designer even exists, much less is actually capable of performing actions claimed for him.
So, again, you have several logical fallacies in your statement here. You have several fundamental errors in both fact and reasoning. And you can't actually do the things you claim to do (and claim to have done).
edit to fix quotes
Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 20 2012,10:36
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
