Comments on Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology

What are the evidences for this?

The last time I checked “makes sense to Bill” wasn’t very persuasive scientific evidence.

I respectfully disagree.

If computer code which produces the performance observed in the visual graphics isn’t a sequence then what is it? ID-Creationists have generated twenty years’ worth of rhetoric comparing DNA to computer code.


Watch the video I posted on evolving soft robots. Evolutionary processes create new functional information.


It’s not clear what your it refers to. But if it is the random number generator, then the probability would 2^{-2048}.

Please do not.

If it produces a second sequence what is the chance it will be the same as the first?

A Moderator adds: The comment should come before the previous 3 or 4. I missed it on the first pass. Sorry for any confusion. /fnord

A further comment on this.

A 1024 bit RSA key has usually been assumed to provide about the same security as a 128 bit symmetric encryption key. So a 2048 bit RSA key would provide about the same as a 256 bit symmetric key. Perhaps the appropriate probability is then around 2^{-256}

To get 512 bit equivalent would require a 4096 bit RSA key. And 4096 bit RSA keys are within range of what people can and do use.

Let’s not play tit-for-tat in the main topic. Short comments in the main topic that distract from the discussion rather than add to it are going to be moved here. If you have something thoughtful to add, then write a nice paragraph.


“Theory” does not refer to a mere retrospective explanation, which is what you are trying to do.

In science, the term “theory” refers to a scientific hypothesis whose empirical predictions have a long track record of being correct. Nothing of the sort exists for ID. You might have a hypothesis, but only if it makes clear empirical predictions.

Would you please make an effort to use more accurate terminology?


You have not offered this in the form of a scientific hypothesis, which is mechanistic and makes clear, testable, empirical predictions. It’s just assertions, and as such is not a good foundation for a scientific discussion.


This is important because it is a discussion of what FI really is.

How would you state in the form of a scientific hypothesis a cause of large amounts of new FI appearing at key points in evolutionary history?

Easily, starting with a specific “when.”

What is the cause of 1.7 million bits of new functional information that we are observing in vertebrates?

When are you hypothesizing it was added, Bill?

How do you arrive at a figure for “functional information”? How is the calculation done and what with?

about 400 million years ago.

The method is described here in the scholars discussion with gpuccio.

I think your little robots are simply developing motor skills like infants and toddlers. Neurological pathways always involve electrical impulses. Why are you equating this to evolution?

“About” appears to be weaseling with the purpose of avoiding advancing a testable hypothesis.

When, Bill? It doesn’t have to be in years. It can be a branch point in the phylogeny.