# Side Comments: Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [February 6, 2025, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036 "2025-02-06T17:22:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/141 "2025-03-12T21:05:49Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> In the case Ron made, a floating object is harder to infer design than a bird that demonstrates purposeful flight.

Huh. So you think an inflatable pool toy that floats is _less_ likely than a pigeon to be designed?

How ludicrous.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Let’s take your example.
> 
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > 1. Pigeons fly in the sky.
> > 2. Pigeons are birds.
> > 3. Ducks fly in the sky.
> > 
> > Therefore, ducks are birds.
> 
> If item number 4 was most flying animal are birds and your conclusion is ducks are most likely birds this would be a reasonable inference.

Goodness knows what that is supposed to illustrate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/142 "2025-03-12T21:07:51Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> The ID argument seems to me to be this:
> 
> - Item X is far more complex than anything we have seen designed or know how to design.
> - Therefore item X must be designed.
> 
> To me this makes no sense at all.

I’ve long felt that complexity is a red herring in the search for intelligent design.

For example, I measured complexity between naturally occurring sounds from outer space (via NASA recordings) with generative sounds from manufactured synthesizers. Using lossless compression and numbers of bits to store information about the sounds (more bits = more complex), I found that on average the naturally occurring sounds from NASA recordings required about double the number of bits than synthesized sounds.

An ID proponent trying to use complexity as a means of determining which was the result of an artificial source would arrive at the incorrect conclusion in this instance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/143 "2025-03-12T21:10:16Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The logic changes when you do not make the design argument black and white.

It really doesn’t. It’s a non-sequitur before, it is a non-sequitur afterwards.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If item number 4 was most flying animal are birds and your conclusion is ducks are most likely birds this would be a reasonable inference.

Oh, sure. And to get back to the design thing, the equivalent premise you’d need is something like “Most things that occur in nature and have bird-like flight are designed”, so you can ultimately conclude that birds are designed. But who on earth would grant a premise like that, especially in lieu of any evidence of any naturally bird-like-flying thing actually ever having been designed by anybody? For that matter, why even bother begging for a premise like that? Might as well at that point ask your interlocutors to grant “Birds are designed” outright.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/144 "2025-03-12T21:28:44Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@colewd](#):
> >
> > Let’s take your example.
> > 
> > > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> > >
> > > 1. Pigeons fly in the sky.
> > > 2. Pigeons are birds.
> > > 3. Ducks fly in the sky.
> > > 
> > > Therefore, ducks are birds.
> > 
> > If item number 4 was most flying animal are birds and your conclusion is ducks are most likely birds this would be a reasonable inference.
> 
> Goodness knows what that is supposed to illustrate.

I will also point out that, in that absurd argument, “Item 4” eliminates the functions of items 1 and 2, assuming that they had any to start with. Bill has little control over what he says.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/145 "2025-03-12T21:47:09Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Huh. So you think an inflatable pool toy that floats is _less_ likely than a pigeon to be designed?

It’s about the strength of the inference. Instead of the inflatable pool toy substitute as Ron did a piece of wood.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 9:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/146 "2025-03-12T21:51:22Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> An ID proponent trying to use complexity as a means of determining which was the result of an artificial source would arrive at the incorrect conclusion in this instance.

HI E  
If the ID guy was looking at complexity as you defined it I agree.

Instead of complexity look at functional complexity. Functional complexity in your case would be bits where you can assign meaning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/147 "2025-03-12T22:01:25Z")

</div>

It would be a lot easier if anybody in the room knew what on earth you mean by “strength of the inference”.

Apparently, flying is more plausibly an indicator of design than floating. Also, apparently, it isn’t always, and it depends on something else. That something else has a name, “strength of the design inference/detection”, but its nature is completely opaque.

Birds are designed to fly, you say, much like Boeing planes are. Wooden logs, however, are **not** designed to float, you say, much like inflatable pool toys are. On the contrary. Pool toys are designed to float, eventhough logs are not.

So what are the rules? **Are** there even any rules? Do you not see how much of a mess you are making? You are going miles out of your way to make it look like there is no structure to your thought at all here, like it’s entirely ad-hoc, without either memory or foresight.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/148 "2025-03-12T22:17:15Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> It would be a lot easier if anybody in the room knew what on earth you mean by “strength of the inference”.

1. thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference
2. the boat is blue----- Strong design inference

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/149 "2025-03-12T22:23:24Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Functional complexity in your case would be bits where you can assign meaning.

By what criteria does one “assign meaning” in this instance? Keeping in mind my example of comparing NASA space sounds to synthesized sounds.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/150 "2025-03-12T22:23:57Z")

</div>

I still don’t understand what the rules are. What am I supposed to gather in this example, and how would I go about transferring this new understanding to floating, flying, logs, pool toys, birds, and airplanes?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/151 "2025-03-12T22:24:39Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference

That’s the password for my Swiss accounts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/152 "2025-03-12T22:31:26Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> I still don’t understand what the rules are. What am I supposed to gather in this example, and how would I go about transferring this new understanding to floating, flying, logs, pool toys, birds, and airplanes?

Partially by the function they perform. In Ron’s funny comment he assigned function to thbogisnestabrf. That’s a sequence of letters with unique meaning to him which is a lower level of function than the letters arranged in a way that all English speaking people can understand.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/153 "2025-03-12T22:32:46Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> - thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference
> - the boat is blue----- Strong design inference

So the less complex string has the strong design inference? Interesting…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/154 "2025-03-12T22:33:37Z")

</div>

So, in other words… There are no rules. It’s completely subjective. Alright. Carry on then.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2025, 10:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/155 "2025-03-12T22:38:03Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> > [@colewd](#):
> >
> > thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference
> 
> That’s the password for my Swiss accounts.

You’re crazy. Mine is thbogisnestabrf\*666 which is way more secure

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 1:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/156 "2025-03-13T01:10:22Z")

</div>

Certain phrases have appeared on this thread that, I think, deserve further scrutiny:

- **“unbiased human intuition”**

Is human intuition _ever_ unbiased? We’re subject to a whole constellation of [bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias)es – many of them unconscious. It can be argued that one of the reasons for the existence of the Scientific Method is to correct for these biases. Relying on “unbiased human intuition” is therefore _grossly unscientific_.

- **“Behe’s detection method”**

It is unclear why Behe looking at something and saying ‘it looks like it has a purposeful arrangement of parts’ is any more rigorous than some other ID advocate claiming ‘it looks designed’.

In both cases, it is _simply intuition_, and subject to all the biases linked to above.

- **“design inference”**

This would likewise appear to be nothing more than intuition – In Dembski’s case rationalised _ex post_ by some unsubstantiated assumptions of low probabilities.

There appears to be nothing here but intuition, _all the way down_.

As @Gisteron says, this is “just _saying_ stuff” – intuition is subjective feelings not evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 9:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/157 "2025-03-13T09:46:19Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> - thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference
> - the boat is blue----- Strong design inference

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/8/7/87003f9d67edcee88ea98130e814413a7bf8b4a3.jpeg)

Strong design inference.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/7/d/7d0c5dd11732d134a53d66017b7b8741bf94bf5e.jpeg)

Weak design inference.

Correct?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 9:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/158 "2025-03-13T09:55:52Z")

</div>

OTOH, if you dropped a Boeing 747 and a rubber duck on a lake, only the rubber duck would float. So, in that instance, the 747 would have a “weak design inference.”

Am I getting it, Bill?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 9:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/159 "2025-03-13T09:57:06Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> That goes back to Paley. He did not realize that the very fact that he could distinguish the watch from the heath that surrounded it refuted his argument before he even started making it.

On top of that, people like Bill claim that the heath is also designed! Paley successfully distinguished a designed object from another designed object 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2025, 10:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036/160 "2025-03-13T10:02:46Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Instead of complexity look at functional complexity. Functional complexity in your case would be bits where you can assign meaning.

This right here is where you conflate ‘function’ with ‘meaning’ and therefore smuggle in your conclusion of the design inference. Lots of undesigned things can have unintended function.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036.md?page=7)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/17036.md?page=9)