I am working on a series of tutorials to cover the basics of Intelligent Design, especially the mathematics of it. This is my tutorial on Specified Complexity, and I would appreciate any thoughtful criticism of it.
Note that I am specifically requesting criticisms on the content of the video itself, not on applications of the concept that are outside the bounds of the video. This is both to help me (I’m trying to improve my presentation of ID) and to help clarify the conversation (is the criticism of *this* information or of some *other* information).
A person can infer to her heart’s content. (My wife does it all the time.) But the rubber hits the road when she’s asked to back up that inference.
Real husbands (and real scientists) ask for tests of those pesky inferences.
How do you test your precious inference empirically?
What standard of observation and evaluation? Your ignorance based personal incredulity isn’t any recognized standard I know of.
They’re called thinkers.
It’s a question-begging presupposition that something vaguely like what humans make (basically, that it is functional) must have been designed by something much greater than humans that has never been definitely perceived. It is no better than a pre-scientific person being certain that river gods must be making the rivers flow, since in their experience it is the living and quick that cause motion. The difference, though, is that the latter person has an excuse for not knowing better.
Why, is it due to dogma instead?
Glen Davidson
Pedant,
How do you test universal common descent empirically? The inference standard was Darwin’s original argument.
How much CSI is in a hurricane? According to christian media those are often designed to punish our wickedness.
“How do you test universal common descent empirically?”
Dude even Behe said the evidence for common descent was persuasive.
Legitimate inference is commonly used in science. See Bayes.
The anything-goes “ancient aliens” type of “inference” that is typical in ID is quite a different thing indeed.
Glen Davidson
As a rule of thumb, what you’ve presented is a good basis for a testable hypothesis. If it can’t be tested, it’s useless. If it has been tested and failed, then it’s wrong. Most hypotheses fail the tests (can’t overcome the null hypothesis). Those that can’t fail aren’t hypotheses, they are policy positions.
” For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. ”
-michael Behe, DBB
I suppose you could have read what Harshman referred you to, for more than just whatever you could find to criticize about it.
It’s not like your “question” hasn’t been thoroughly and properly answered, it’s just that you won’t accept the mathematic probabilities that point so strongly to common descent without a speck of evidence for intelligence intervening.
Glen Davidson
Here’s one way to do it, from 2014.
Testing for Universal Common Ancestry
Abstract: A phylogenetic model selection test to quantify the evidence for the Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) of life forms was proposed recently (Theobald 2010a), based on the comparison of the statistical support, using likelihoods, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), or Bayes factors, for two different phylogenetic models representing the UCA and the independent origins (IOs) hypotheses (Sober and Steel 2002). In this test, the former is represented by a single phylogeny connecting all sequences, whereas the latter is depicted by several, independent phylogenetic trees (Fig. 1). Importantly, in the original UCA test, the same alignment was used to represent both hypotheses. When applied to a particular data set of 23 universally conserved proteins, the test strongly favored a UCA scenario.
Why don’t you calculate the CSI of any real world object for us?
colewd,
I observation the operation of the bacterial flagellum motor. I notice it has the ability to convert chemical energy to work. I also have measured its ability rotate the flagellum greater then 10000 RPM and change direction with less than one rotation. The molecular evaluation shows parts similar to a rotor a stator a u joint and a propellor. I have seen all these parts in a similar design. An outboard motor. Is that a chance assemblage of parts or is it more likely designed. My conclusion based on knowledge of a similar large designed outboard motor that converts gas to rotational energy is the purposeful arrange of parts of the flagellum motor that can turn chemical energy to rotational energy is also designed. Since this motor can be built every 20 minutes as a bacteria self replicates and is built with individual molecules I conclude this design an order of magnitude more sophisticated then a human outboard motor.
Gobs and gobs of ignorance based personal incredulity, same as you offered before.
I notice you made the same dumb mistake every IDiot in the last two decades has made. Ignore the fact evolution is a long term iterative process with feedback from selection and claim the flagellum must have fallen together all at once like a human-built motor.
Adapa,
So you think this tests for the hypothesis that all life came from a single common ancestor.
Strongly favored? That means inference to the best explanation not a test that directly validates the hypothesis. This does not even begin to test the untestable hypothesis of universal common descent.
Hey Johnnyb,
What is the best way to contact you?
I know of a bright undergrad who is double majoring in theoretical math and computer science that would be very interested in an internship.
peace
You don’t have the faintest clue how science tests hypotheses, do you?
Adapa,
I see you have fallen the trap of every evolutionist moron that thinks they can describe how bacterial DNA can become organized to build this motor every 20 minutes. Since working through 4^100k of DNA sequential space by a stochastic process with interim undefined selection is exceeding unlikely, the design inference is a superior hypothesis for the origin of this motor. The best papers you can find to defend the evolutionary position are a group of “just so stories” with silly buzz words like co-option. These papers are part of the greater collection of the fairytale of evolution.
fifthmonarchyman,
jonathan.l.bartlett@gmail.com
LOL! Poor IDiots makes the same stupid mistake over and over and over. Liars for Jesus must be afraid if they ever consider the feedback from selection in their “but but but IT’S JUST TOO DARN IMPROBABLE!!” God will smote their asses with a lightning bolt.
I bet you think clouds that look like fluffy bunnies and the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich are evidence for Intelligent Design too, right? 😀
Possibly off topic, but the Mitchell 300 was the first reel I ever bought, back iaround 1960.
The obvious answer is that you assume that there’s an omniscient and omnipotent intelligent being operating in the universe, then in matters such as evolution where billions of years of change has happened and lack of knowledge of many specifics is a given, deny any kind of cause that is less capable than an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence (because it’s less capable than that fiction is in dreamland). Meanwhile, ignore the evidence that evolutionary limits have strongly affected living and extinct organisms.
No wait, that’s ID, not science.
Glen Davidson
Did you buy it for its CSI?
Glen Davidson
By comparing predictions to observations. Basically: If A, then B. B, therefore A.
If [life shares universal common descent]=A, there should be [highly congruent nesting hierarchical patterns of shared derived similarities in morphology, embryological development, biochemistry and genetic/protein sequences]=B. We observe B, therefore A.
This is the same answer you’ve been given before fifty fucking times. Is it within the capacity of your brainmatter to permanently get it, or will you hit the reset switch again?
I have three answers to this:
1) I don’t know what you mean by “loses its justification”.
2) I’m not talking about all acts. “Creating” the Eiffel Tower could be based on predefined law. Deciding to poop could be based on will. (Notice I didn’t use the phrase “designing the Eiffel Tower” because of your definition of design.)
3) Either an action is dictated by predefined law or by will. Both of them generate output by evaluating input-parameters. You couldn’t do anything but write what you’re writing, regardless whether your actions are based on will or predefined law.
I’m still curious: How would you know which human actions are based on predefined law and which actions are based on will?
Most definitely off-topic. Please stick to discussing CSI…
So which is better? CSI Las Vegas or CSI New York?
“Adapa December 4, 2016 at 2:47 am
Johnnyb, here’s a simple way you can demonstrate the usefulness of CSI.
1. Calculate the CSI of Mt. Rushmore, S. Dakota.
2. Calculate the CSI of Devil’s Tower, Wyoming
3. Use the values to demonstrate one is designed and the other isn’t.
Show us what ID can do. 🙂”
Very similar to something Jeff Shallit asked for recently:
“They are prone to making public claims that they are not willing to justify.
The illustrious Robert J. Marks II, professor at Baylor University, is an example of this last characteristic. Back in 2014, he made the following claim: “we all agree that a picture of Mount Rushmore with the busts of four US Presidents contains more information than a picture of Mount Fuji”. I wanted to see the details of the calculation justifying this claim, so I asked Professor Marks to supply it. He did not reply.
Nor did he reply when I asked three months later.
Nor did he reply when I asked six months later.
Nor did he reply when I asked a year later.
It’s now been two years. Academics are busy people, but this is pretty silly. Who thinks the illustrious Professor Marks will ever show me a calculation justifying his claim?”
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2016/09/robert-marks-two-years-later-still-no.html
I see Wesley Elsberry has picked up on a comment of johnnyb’s that Acartia posted at ATBC:
Jeff Shallit has commented here on occasion. I wonder if he still lurks.
colewd,
Your tone seems to have hardened, Bill. You used to ‘just ask questions’.
Are you saying that the flagellum, whose most immediate consequence for us is the enhancement of the virulence of flagellated pathogens, was for-sure designed, in one go? For what purpose – infection? How do you think the necessary function was located in sequence space? Intelligence does not really help one know where to look.
The whole enterprise of attempting to treat biological polymers as informational strings is fundamentally flawed. There is neither more nor less ‘CSI’ in a string of all A’s vs one of AGTAGGCAATT … the economy of description seems utterly irrelevant, other than for compression purposes when transmitting, analysing or storing digital repesentations of the ‘real’ polymer. Informatic strings do not have the property of physically binding, or distorting charge distribution to the extent of generating or forming a chemical bond. It’s like regarding the distribution of burrs wrt bears’ backsides as somewhat surprising, against a null of equal distribution throughout space, and in need of a special, intention-related explanation – those burrs don’t stick all by ’emselves, y’know!
Adapa,
I get it. You want to bash religion. Then just directly bash religion versus trying to defend a fairytale masquerading as science.
Rumraket,
This is the method to form a hypothesis to test. if you make your conclusion at this point it is an inference. If this is your standard for a test then the design hypothesis is testable.
Bill, you don’t seem to understand how science works at all. But I’m willing to be educated. What is the difference between “inference to the best explanation” and “a test that directly validates the hypothesis”? Why is the former invalid science?
Don’t lose your shit Bill, Jesus wants you to also turn to us your other three cheeks
Not religion, just the few religious fanatics who think they can use the scientific ignorance of folks like you to get their religion pushed into public school science classes.
Allan Miller,
I am saying that if you look at the detail make up of the flagellum. A rotor, stator, u joint and a propeller. You see that it can be built with a coded sequence of nucleic acids and can be built with manufacturing proteins every 20 minutes, it is a reasonable inference to say it is designed. I am saying there is not other reasonable explanation for the origin of the complex micro machine.
And yes I am very frustrated that no one appears to want to engage in a reasonable discussion. Circular reasoning, ad hominem arguments, and arguments from personal incredulity are all I get. Maybe the design inference is just too perfect 🙂
You look at a few superficial similarities with a human designed motor and ignore the other 99% of the vast differences. Just like fluffy bunnies in clouds and the face on the grilled cheese. That’s why claims like yours get laughed at, then ignored.
They’re all you offer you mean. Where is your calculation of CSI for any real world object?
Adapa,
Or is it about the anti religions fanatics (atheists) who want to indoctrinate kids with an ideology backed up by a fairytale masquerading as science. Yes, this is a violation of the establishment clause.
Adapt, you seem to think I don’t know how to create a testable scientific hypothesis. Why don’t you educate me how you would test how the transition from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell occurred. Certainly this should be a chip shot given that it is certainly the first transition of the massive tree of life called universal common descent.
If you struggle maybe Rumraket can help you because he has described testing to me at least 50 times.
Adapa,
What 99% differences? Another bullshit claim and then another ad hominem. Goodby Adapa.
colewd,
It is odd that you say that immediately after offering a personal incredulity argument on the flagellum. Why is the flagellum harder to build ‘every 20 minutes’ than anything else about a bacterium?
A reasonable possibility is that a much simpler apparatus offered an advantage to its possessors, which has since been incrementally refined to give the modern structure. On what grounds do you reject that possibility? Your objection seems to be that you can’t envisage how a fully functioning modern flagellum can have been arrived at by evolution in 1 step. No-one says it did.
It still remains an open question as to how a designer might find the component proteins in protein space, which by your own account is very poor in function.
LOL! Poor little Fundies, everyone is so mean to them! Here’s a clue – science isn’t a democracy. All crackpot idea don’t get equal time in public school science classes. Creationist clowns have had over 150 years to disprove evolutionary theory and offer a better alternative. So far they’re still batting a big fat zero.
You demonstrate it every time you post. Science tests hypotheses for historical events by gathering data on the events and the evidence the events left behind. Science don’t look to “prove” hypotheses, only support them well enough so the conclusions draw are deemed reasonable by those who are knowledgeable on the subject matter. Your “it looks designed to ME!” fails because your standards for what constitutes evidence are so low as to be non-existent. Basically you swallow any hooey that agrees with your religious beliefs and reject everything else out of ignorance.
colewd,
The first transition? Eukaryotes are actually a tiny branch on the tree of life. They think they’re all that. Especially certain primates.
Goodby colewd. We’ll replace your vast ID-Creationism scientific “knowledge” with a piece of string and a wad of bubble gum, already chewed. 🙂
Allan Miller,
There is no evidence that small incremental steps were available to build this motor especially the proteins that assemble it. If you look at the research 15 of the proteins have no known similar proteins. I really don’t want to argue about wild speculation.
Allan Miller,
This transition is required for universal common descent.
We all already agree on common descent in general just not which branches are real or not.
Evolution is the default mechanism because of the huge amount of positive evidence it has amassed over the years. Your demand to replace a lack of specific details in some cases with your “Intelligent Designer of the gaps” approach was rejected by science centuries ago.
Really? So that part’s not a “fairy tale”?
colewd,
The criteria by which you accept certain branches as ‘real’ are exactly the same as those linking branches you reject, so your decisions appear entirely arbitrary.
An enormous amount of data has accumulated which is supportive of the hypothesis that this was an endosymbiosis between an alpha-proteobacterium and an archaeon. Endosymbiosis is still observed today, so it is a fairly mundane process.
That the specific prokaryotes involved can be distinguished from the dozen or so possible candidates is curious, in light of your apparent supposition that it never happened. And, if it never happened, the Theobald paper comes to a remarkably difficult-to-explain conclusion, by comparing alternatives to common descent and finding common descent to be massively the better-supported model.
I’m not sure on what grounds you dismiss it, other than the fact that it does not suit your preferred narrative.
Yeah, if there is a designer responsible for inventing bacteria, I have a bone to pick with him (literally) about my recent abscessed tooth.
And somewhere there is a scientist to thank for the antibiotic that got me through it.
Well, I’d like to justify Dr. Robert J. Marks II’s remark, “We all agree that a picture of Mount Rushmore with the busts of four US Presidents contains more information than a picture of Mount Fuji.”
As we’re talking about pictures here, rather than the real thing, I’m going to disregard size.
We can define the amount of information in a picture in terms of the likelihood that another picture of something in the same category (e.g. mountains or faces) will be indistinguishable from the first picture.
There are supposed to be 30 million mountains in the world. As far as I’m aware, only one of these looks like Mt. Fuji, and that’s Mt. Yotei, in Hokkaido – and it’s a lot smaller than Mt. Fuji. So we can estimate the probability that a randomly chosen picture of a mountain will be indistinguishable from Mt. Fuji at 1 in 30 million, or 1 in 2^25.
By contrast, even if you happen to be a member of the Han or Hindustani ethnic groups, the chances of your finding a dead ringer for yourself are one in a billion. So the chances of four guys finding dead ringers for themselves in a random selection of four faces from among their ethnic group is 1 in 10^36, or 1 in 2^120.
The foregoing is a very rough calculation, but it bears out Dr. Marks’s claim.
walto,
You descended from you parents. That is a fact.(I think 🙂 ) My dog descended from other black labs. We know this from the history of breeding. If you want real science we can build from here as we get more DNA data.
The problem is the historical claims are generally untestable.
Lenski did 30 years of experiments with bacteria for the equivalent of 1.5 million human years of evolution. In the end the bacteria remained bacteria.