Joined: June 2006
|Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:21)|
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2010,06:30)|
|[RB] doesn't understand that ALL of those base pairs are required by the organism and therefor are part of the specified complexity, ie the complex specified information.|
So, Joe, with respect to just THOSE base pairs, those bearing the specified complexity, ie. the complex specified information,
Does counting the pairs and multiplying by two yield a measure of specified information contained therein? Or does it yield a measure of the "carrying capacity" of a sequence of that length?
Or both? Or neither? Or something else you're about to make up?
Because, remove the specification - the "meaning" you claim to be interested in - and the number doesn't change. Add specification, and the number doesn't change. Given that, in what sense does YOUR calculation reflect the specification of your specified information, ie. your complex specified information?
The answer, of course, is that it reflects that specification in no sense whatsoever, and your figure is a useless triviality.
The number doesn't reflect specification. The specification is part of the observation.
We make observations and then try to figure out what we are observing- science.
What's there- how does it work- how did it come to be this way- science.
So we have this number- X and since there is a specification it is SI. hen we try to determine HOW that SI came to be.
Are you with me?
Dembski has written that CSI = 500 bits of SI and that is a threshold no purely physical process can reach. That is basedon probability along with observations and experiences.
So we find a biologically functioning system, do my informal measurement to ge a number. All the while trying to determine ho it came to be.
Some day we may observe purely physical, stochastic processes spontaneously producing SI. Then your position will have something to start with.
Right now it seems you are stuck with mere complexity.
How do we figure out that SI is present again? I mean, besides JoeTard just declaring that it there. What are the criteria?
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin