Comments on Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

There technically isn’t any event with a non-zero probability that couldn’t happen. That’s what it means to say it has a non-zero probability: It may be very unlikely, but it can still happen.

Yes, I guess that "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 » is not null. But we would rather not consider this type hypothesis if we are to remain in the domain of science!

@Rumraket

Another issue is that no attempt is made at evaluating the probability of the design event. When somebody comes to you and asserts that A is unlikely, so B must be the case, you need them to state the probability of B and ask them to show their work. If I am supposed to pick the more likely option, I need an actual probability.

It may be the case that the probability of A happening “by chance” is extremely low, but it may be the case that B happening by design is just as low, or even lower. How do you determine the probability of design? You seem to be assuming it’s high, I want to know how you know that.

There are only 3 causes that can explain an object, i.e., chance, necessity or design. If you can rule out chance or necessity or a combination of both, then design is the explanation and you don’t need to compute the probability of design to draw a design inference. According to ID theory, objects exhibiting high level of FI can’t be produced by chance or by necessity or a combination of both. Therefore, they are designed. This is ID in a nutshell.

@Rumraket

A third issue is with the idea of targets that need to be found, as if this particular outcome is the only one possible and it has to be either this one or none at all. As opposed to a situation where a very large ensemble of equally complex but functional outcomes exist, and the one we got is just one among many possibilities.

As far as biological objects are concerned, I think this is indeed the only real issue here. ID theorists think that as a rule of thumb, most fonctional protein are very rare in the sequence space. If true, ID wins. If wrong, ID may be in trouble. My take is that most functional proteins are very rare in the sequence space. But I will let @gpuccio elaborate on this point if he want.

@Rumraket

I raise the empirical counterxample of the complete genome sequence of me, and you, and anyone currently alive, compared to the genome sequence of our ancestor ten generations ago.
It is estimated that every human being is born with approximately 100 novel mutations. What is the probability that any of us gets the particular 100 mutations we do? Assuming only substitutions to keep it simple, it’s roughly one in (3.2x10^9 * 3)^100 = ~1.7x10^998.

Now compound the probabilities ten consecutive generations. (1.7x10^998)^10 = ~1.9x10^-9982
Roughly one in two times ten to the ninethousand ninehundred and eightysecond power.

You are committing here the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy