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

[Faizal_Ali]

@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.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@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.

[Gisteron]

@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.

[John_Harshman]

@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.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@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.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@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.

[Gisteron]

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 made? 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.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@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

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@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.

[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?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference

That’s the password for my Swiss accounts.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@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.

[AnEvolvedPrimate]

@colewd

• thbogisnestabrf----- Weak design inference
• the boat is blue----- Strong design inference

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

[Gisteron]

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

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@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

[Tim]

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 biases – 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.