Swamidass et al. :
So, here is your question #1:
I have explained that the connection is empirical, even if with a good rationale. I quote myself:
This is the empirical connection. Based on observed facts.
Of course, you are not convinced. You ask for more, and you raise objections and promises of counter-examples. That’s very good.
So, let’s go to my two statements. I will try to support them both. But in reverse order.
My second statement is:
“FI higher than 500 bits (often much higher than that) abunds in designed objects. I mean human artifacts here.”
Your objection:
But I have given a very precise definition of FI. What is the problem here?
To be more clear, I will describe here the three main classes of human artifacts, designed objects, where “FI higher than 500 bits (often much higher than that) abunds”. They are:
a) Language
b) Software
c) Machines
The first two are in digital form, so I will use one of them as an example, in particular language.
I have shown in detail how FI can be indirectly computed, as a lower threshold, for a piece of language. I link here my OP about that:
An Attempt At Computing DFSCI For English Language
A clarification: dFSCI is the acronym I used for some time in the past to point to the specific type of information I was discussing. It means digital Functionally Specified Complex Information. It was probably too complicated, so later I started to use just Funtional Information, specifying when it is in digital form.
The piece of language I analyze in the OP is a Shakespeare Sonnet (one of my favourite, I must say).
My simple conclusion is that a reliable lower threshold of FI for such a sonnet is more than 800 bits. The true FI is certainly much more than that.
There has been a lot of discussion about that OP, but nobody, even on the other side, has really questioned my procedure.
So, this is a good example of how to compute FI in language, and of one object that has much more than 500 bits of FI. And is designed.
Of course, Hamlet or any other Shakespeare drama have certainly a much higher FI than that.
The same point can be easily made for software, and for machines (which are usually analogic, so in that case the procedure is less simple).
So, I think that I have explained and supported my second point.
If you still do not have a clear understanding of my definition of FI, and how to apply it to that kind of artifacts, please explain why.
So, let’s go to my first statement.
“Leaving aside biological objects (for the moment), there is not one single example in the whole known universe where FI higher than 500 bits arises without any intervention of design.”
I maintain that. Absolutely. Your objection:
OK, I invite you and anybody else to present and defend one single counter-example. Please do it.
You mention two things that you have offered before.
a) Cancer
b) Viruses.
I have already declared that cancer is not an example of a design system, and I maintain it. Technically, it is a biological example, but as I have agreed that it is not a design system, I am ready to discuss it to show that you are wrong in this case. I want, however, to clarify that I stick to my declared principle to avoid any theological reference in my discussions. I absolutely agree that cancer is not designed, but the reason has nothing to do with the idea that “God would not do it”. It is not designed because facts show no indication of design there. I am ready to discuss that, referring to your posts here about the issue.
For viruses, I was, if you remember, more cautious. And I still am. The reason is that I do not understand well your point. Are you referring to the existence of viruses, or to their ability to quickly adapt?
For the second point, I would think that it is usually a non design scenario, fully in the range of what RV + NS can do. I must state again, however, that I am not very confident in that field, so I could be wrong in what I say.
For the first point, I am rather confident that viruses have high levels of FI in their small genomes, and proteins. They are not extremely complex, but still the genes and proteins, IMO, are certainly designed.
So, are viruses designed? Probably. My only doubt is that I don’t understand well what are the current theories about the origin of viruses. My impression is that there is still great uncertainty about that issue. I would be happy to hear what you think. In a sense, viruses could be derived from bacteria or other organisms. Their FI could originate elsewhere. But again, I have not dealt in depth with those issues, and I am ready to accept any ideas or suggestions.
Again, I have no problem with the idea that viruses may be designed. If they are, they are.
So, my support of my first statement is very simple. I maintain that empirically there is no known example of non biological objects exhibiting more than 500 bits of FI that are not designed human artifacts, I invite everyone, including you, to present one counter-example and defend it.
I am also ready to discuss your biological example of cancer. That requires, of course, a separate discussion in a later comment.
For viruses, please explain better what is your point. The information in their genes and proteins is of course complex, and designed. Their adaptations, instead, as far as I can understand, do not generate any complex FI.