OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,18:30) | | Quote (blipey @ Feb. 29 2012,18:02) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,17:50) | | Quote (blipey @ Feb. 29 2012,11:26) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,19:30) | | Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 27 2012,19:28) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,20:26) | | ...i have measured the CSI of a few things. |
Liar. |
Lou pinhead exposes his ignorance- geez Lou all you had to do is follow the link and you would see one CSI measurement. But obvioulsy you are a fucking moron and proud of it. |
Um...there was no measurement in the comment you linked to. Perhaps you could do it again so we can see it? |
Yes there is and there is even a link to a paper that tells you how to do it.
You are still a pathetic little tardturd... |
Um, no, Joe. There is no calculation of CSI in your link. Here's the whole thing just so people can see what a liar you are. Joe's link:
| Quote | Once again, I don't know why this is so difficult, but here it is:
Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.
Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.
Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.
Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference.
The variational tolerance has to be figured in with the number of bits.
from Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” <i>Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling</i>, Vol. 4:47 (2007):
Quote
[N]either RSC [Random Sequence Complexity] nor OSC [Ordered Sequence Complexity], or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life. FSC [Functional Sequence Complexity] includes the dimension of functionality. Szostak argued that neither Shannon’s original measure of uncertainty nor the measure of algorithmic complexity are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that “different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent.” For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information—functional information—is required.
Here is a formal way of <a href=http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8574.full><b>measuring functional information</b></a>:
Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity," <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i>, USA, Vol. 104:8574–8581 (May 15, 2007).
See also:
Jack W. Szostak, “Molecular messages,” <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 423:689 (June 12, 2003). |
I bolded the paragraph you probably think is a calculation of CSI. However, looking at it we see that there is no calculation. There is no statement of the "X(CSI) = 600". In fact, you even admit that you didn't calculate the CSI by making the statement "606 bits of information--minimum..."
What? is there more than 606 bits? How much more could there be? Why couldn't you calculate this extra CSI?
You could clear this shit up by taking the 1 minute or so it would take to calculate the CSI of something. Anything.... |
As expected- an evotardgasm-
Read the pnas paper you fucking dumbass- then get to work.
BTW it does NOT matter if there are more than 606 bits you stupid fuck- 500 bits = CSI
Stop fucking little boys, it's fucking up what little brain you have left. |
So what you're saying here is that you can describe a 100 amino acid protein in 606 bits of information right?
Tell does that include primary, secondary, and tertiary folding? Does that include active sites? Does that include hydrophobic and hydrophilic points?
No, of course not because those are described by the amino acids that make up the protein. But those amino acids have more than 606 bits don't they Joe?
Here's a common one Joe: Lysine: HO2CCH(NH2)(CH2)4NH2
Holy Crap, that's 20 characters. That's way the hell more than needed for CSI. Lysine must have been designed.
So what exactly are you measuring with your CSI Joe? Are measuring the gene? Are you measuring the protein? Are you measuring what it would take to actually create the effect of the protein.
Joe, I'll explain this very carefully. You don't have a clue what CSI measures. It's undefined.
Remember when you measured the CSI of aadvark by counting the letters in the common English name? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What is the point? Really, I'm curious, what is the point of all this? What insights will measuring CSI tells us about curing cancer? or feeding millions of hungry people? or anything else in relation to Biology?
Nothing... not a damn thing. We argue with you because it's freaking funny... not because you are a dangerous anti-Darwinian agent, sneaking through enemy lines to deliver the critical information that will destroy evolution as a concept. You, and all of ID, is a JOKE.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
