You said:

where did I ever claim to have a "method for inferring front-loading?" I have consistently claimed that FLE amounts to a perspective.

You are consistently claiming that certain recent scientific discoveries make FLE "more plausible". To me that sounds a lot like you are using some systematic method to decide that those scientific findings have increased - rather than decreased, or left unaffected - FLE's plausibility. Indeed, your approach has a somewhat Bayesian methodological ring to it - weighing new evidence to update previously assigned degrees of plausibility to competing hypotheses. But for some reason, you prefer to call it a "perspective" rather than a method. My guess is - but I might be wrong - that you prefer this less "scientific" sounding terminology in order to preemptively silence any critique based on scientific methodological grounds.

Either you see it or you don't. You clearly don't because in order to see it, you need either a taped interview made possible by time travel, a copy of a 3 billion year old lab journal, or a secret message in the DNA. Nothing else counts.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that nothing else counts, yet you keep repeating this lie. I'd much rather see you honestly substantiate your claim that "animal genes" (a slightly misleading choice of words) with unknown (if any) function in choanoflagellates makes FLE "more plausible".

CJYman: Call them what you will, it is a negative prediction based on an understanding of information theory and it thus fits in the same category as a prediction that perpetual motion free energy machines will not form based on an understanding of thermodynamics.

Please quit ignoring the argument. The valid scientific predictions from Thermodynamics are specific and distinguishing. That's what is required to be entailed in a scientific hypothesis.

CJYman: That's like positively predicting that entropy tends to increase in a closed system, yet even in an open system, information is necessary to cause organization (not mere complexity "” in terms of information, there is a significant difference). But, according to Zachriel, this is really a negative prediction and isn't scientific since we'd have to check out every corner of space to see if it is really true.

You say, Information is necessary to cause organization. Yet, we know that systems can self-organize with just the addition of free energy. Weather is such a system. Complete with snowflakes. And giant water pumps called the Monsoon. And mighty rivers carving out the land. The flooding of the Nile. Hence, the statement is false.

Instead of answering questions about your method of inferring front-loading, sadly you seem to prefer avoiding them and putting words in my mouth instead.

I'm not sure what questions you are talking about, but where did I ever claim to have a "method for inferring front-loading?" I have consistently claimed that FLE amounts to a perspective. This perspective arises when one, who accepts evolution, begins to seriously contemplate that life was designed (as explained in the book). And this perspective has been increasingly supported by recent findings in science. Either you see it or you don't. You clearly don't because in order to see it, you need either a taped interview made possible by time travel, a copy of a 3 billion year old lab journal, or a secret message in the DNA. Nothing else counts.

Painful to see you reduced to using such desperate tactics.

More evidence of game-playing on your part.

Call them what you will, it is a negative prediction based on an understanding of information theory and it thus fits in the same category as a prediction that perpetual motion free energy machines will not form based on an understanding of thermodynamics. Even the negative prediction is a result of scientific understanding and it aids in helping us further understand what nature will and will not do under certain conditions. So, call it what you will, it gives an explanation of cause and effect in nature.

Second, the hypothesis is that intelligence is necessary.

Third, it is falsifiable by showing, by experimenting with info. processing systems and EAs, that intelligence is not necessary.

Fourth, it is grounded in information theorems (NFL and COI).

Last, it is based on observation and an interrelation between the two systems in question and it is the best explanation as I have explained before.

Call it what you will, It tells us, from an observational, experimental, theoretical, and falsifiable foundation, what nature will and will not do under certain circumstances. Maybe it only fits in the same category as the scientifically founded claim that perpetual motion free energy machines are a physical impossibility. Thus, every claim to the contrary is to be greeted with the highest of skepticism.

*BUT*, if you actually think about it, ID is really only a filter to detect intelligence, so its positive prediction is that every time certain patterns are detected, a previous intelligence will be the cause. This is obviously falsifiable and to date the filter is still up and running with no other un-intelligent contenders capable of creating said patterns.

And no, that is not begging the question or arguing in a circle or providing a merely negative prediction, since the patterns which qualify as the result of intelligence are arrived at by observation, experimentation, theoretical work, and the ruling out of alternatives. That's like positively predicting that entropy tends to increase in a closed system, yet even in an open system, information is necessary to cause organization (not mere complexity — in terms of information, there is a significant difference). But, according to Zachriel, this is really a negative prediction and isn't scientific since we'd have to check out every corner of space to see if it is really true.

However, there definitely is a negative prediction which results from the above positive prediction. The negative prediction which results is the one about the impossibility of perpetual motion and the self generation of information processing systems.

Now again, what predictions does the non-teleological model make? Oh, wait, you haven't even shown that a non-teleological model is even possible or founded upon anything — observation, theorems or experiment.

As to your last comment re: "William's Design Inference and the slamming door," are you blind? It seems that you're blowing so much smoke in the air that *you* can't even see anything.

I've already explained why the pattern you give can't be put into the equation. There's a difference between calculating the probability of a pattern and a representation of the pattern. If you can not calculate the probability of the pattern then you can't use the equation, simple as that. The equation needs the probability to work.

Case in point: tell me the information content of "GATTACA"

You're blowing smoke Zachriel … blowing smoke …

Dembski wrote a paper, Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. In this paper, he claims that we can detect design from a pattern that meets his definition of specified complexity.

Dembski provides his mathematical definition of specificity.

σ = "“log2 [Ï•S(T)·P(T|H)]

If the specificity exceeds a certain level (the Universal Probability Bound), he considers it specified complexity, and therefore, intelligent beyond doubt. I would like to follow through on Dembski's calculation of specificity with a few examples.

This was originally published on CJYman's blog, Reality Cheque.

Today, William got an incredible deal on an old Victorian house. Highly satisfied with his business acumen, William settled in for a blissful night of sleep in his new home.

SLAM!

William woke with a start. He listened intently. But he didn't hear anything, so he settled back to sleep.

Cree..eak

William listened even more closely this time until, after a bit, the creaking noise died away. For some reason, he recalled the seller's maniacal laughter just after William signed the papers to buy the house.

SLAM!

William was trembling and his teeth were rattling. He thought about getting out of bed to investigate. Instead, he pulled the covers over his head.

Cree..eak

Hmm, William thought. Being a famous design theoretician, I can use the patented (not really) Dembski Inference to determine if the pattern is being caused by a ghost, er some unspecified intelligent cause.

SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
…

For our first calculation. Let's assume the pattern is 01010101010101 …

Using Dembski's Inference, what can we infer about the pattern without risking a venture about the house? Assume the pattern is regular for now. Be sure to show your math (e.g. Chance Hypothesis). And remember! No peeking from underneath the covers!

"”
Specified Complexity
χ = "“log2 [10^120·ϕS(T)·P(T|H)]

Then please delete this and that comment. You may have to fix some of the formatting for the equation.

CJYman: CSI will not form absent intelligence.

That's your claim.

CJYman: Will even the haphazard effect of nylonase form absent an evolutionary process?

Nylonase doesn't just *poof* into existence. It evolved by known evolutionary mechanisms.

CJYman: Will an evolutionary process occur absent an information processing system programmed to reach targets at better than chance performance?

Evolution is a natural consequent of imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, but most scientists in the field believe that life arose through natural processes. Let's watch you working your way around to assuming your claim.

CJYman: In accordance with the NFLT and COI, the best explanation is that, if nylonase is a random effect, then it is near an actual target.

That's nonsense math. Just provide the specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in your hypothesis.

CJYman: Odd how once Dembski filled out his work mathematically no one wants to respond anymore.

Yes, we know. The mathematicians are in league with the biologists, geologists, paleontologists, microbiologists and geneticists. It's truly is a vast conspiracy.

CJYman: And what empirical prediction does "non-intelligently caused evolution" provide us with.

I'm not sure what this "Theory of Non-Intelligent Caused Evolution" consists of. However, there is a Theory of Evolution that makes a number of important and verifiable claims.

CJYman: The prediction is a negative one.

Yes. All your predictions are negative ones. We have to search the universe to observe the phenomean from all directions for all time. Those are not valid scientific predictions.

In addition, a frame-shift is definitely not the sort of expectation of a front-loaded mechanism. It actually scrambles the reading of the genetic code. Nothing lines up and the result is complete happenstance."

It seems that you are still missing the point.

That is definitely relevant to the attempt to discover which solutions are targets and which are not.

However, CSI will not form absent intelligence. Will even the haphazard effect of nylonase form absent an evolutionary process? Will an evolutionary process occur absent an information processing system programmed to reach targets at better than chance performance? Will any of the above occur absent intelligence?

In accordance with the NFLT and COI, the best explanation is that, if nylonase is a random effect, then it is near an actual target. IOW, once the target is discovered, other slight variations and cyclical changes can be discovered in any randomly discovered sequence space immediately surrounding the target.

Zachriel:
"Odd how the vast majority of scientists think otherwise."

Odd how the vast majority of scientists won't even allow themselves to consider the arguments that have been presented.

Odd how once Dembski filled out his work mathematically no one wants to respond anymore.

Odd how the vast majority of biologists *probably* don't know the first thing about information theory even though the system that they study is founded upon it.

Zachriel:
"I would love to see a couple of examples worked out with something besides playing cards. But you have to be willing to try different examples so that we can see exactly how it works. I mean we want to apply this to real world examples, right?"

Excellent!

First, you will notice that given a system of x number of bits that you will never be able to generate CSI if you randomly flip the bits, no matter how long you do so. This is the best example as we can break everything down fundamentally into bits and then attempt to achieve specified patterns by evolutionary algorithms or random means, so this example provides a good encompassing simulation and is used in evolutionary simulations.

Secondly, we can look at a book and calculate exceedingly vast amount of CSI. I'm sure you at least understand CSI enough by now to know this.

Third, we can look at biological systems and begin to calculate the sequence constraints upon the system. Then begin to test a specific pattern for functional specificity and then calculate probabilities and measure against all probabilistic resources that the observable universe has to offer.

Sequence constraints have begun to be calculated.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

Hubert Yockey has provided measurements of information of biological systems.

Now, we only need for the research to continue.

Zachriel:
"I've read Dembski's Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Reading that paper, it seems we can infer design from the pattern alone. Indeed, that's the very title of the paper. Is that correct?

Yes, from the pattern, not a representation of the pattern (unless it is both algorithmically complex and specified). But I've already explained this to you before.
ie: can you tell me the information content of "GATTACA"

Zachriel:
"Yes, similar solutions to similar problems, something we would expect of natural selection."

Natural selection unfolding a randomly generated template or an intelligently generates template? Please provide evidence from experiments with evolutionary algorithms.

Zachrirel:
"You are having troubles with the concept of an empirical prediction. The observed phenomena is convergence. Natural selection predicts convergence. We might find further confirmation of this by looking for a fit between the adaptation and constraint, especially in a changing environment. If by 'intelligent programming', you are simply restating your conclusion, then your conjecture doesn't make any positive predictions. It's just tacked on. I have no way to know what observation to make to distinguish your claim.

Natural selection only unfolds whatever is available. It is not synonymous with either evolution or any un-intelligent version of evolution.

Now it is time for you to abide by your own rules.

And what empirical prediction does "non-intelligently caused evolution" provide us with. How does this prediction empirically differ from the already observed intelligently designed evolution in simulation. In fact, is non-intelligently caused evolution even possible? Please back up your assertions.

Explain how natural selection from an un-intelligently generated set of laws will produce convergent evolution (separate instances of better than chance performance of arriving at the same targets).

Now, I will re-state. Convergent evolution itself is evidence that the evolutionary process is programmed by intelligence, since this is an example of consistently better than chance performance which the COI precludes, unless, according to the NFLT, previously applied problem specific information guides the search procedure to these multiple solutions and the information is thus conserved.

The prediction is a negative one. We will never observe an instance of convergent evolution apart from an intelligently programmed EA. This is based on our knowledge of NFL and COI. Just like how we will never observe an instance of a perpetual motion free energy machine because of our understanding of thermodynamics.

Zachriel:
"The scientific method requires that we eliminate extraneous entities or assumptions."

The key word is extraneous. We don't eliminate what is necessary. We are at a time like no other in history in which we are dealing with a system founded upon functional information which is not defined by any laws of physics or chemistry. Furthermore, this information is coaxing out the hidden potential of forms and functions hidden with the laws of our universe which would never have shown themselves were it not for the non-lawful foundation of information. Is this all a fortuitous accident? What other options do we have? Furthermore, there is a definite correlation between intelligence and information as intelligence is founded upon information and one major defining aspect of intelligence is the production of information.

Please feel free to contribute to our understanding of the cause of these systems without waiving your hands in the air and resorting to "chance of the gaps" arguments.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are blowing smoke in an attempt to guard yourself from having to validate your assertions.

CJYman: Furthermore, because of observation of the cause of these types of system, ID theory is, as already stated, strongly supported.

Odd how the vast majority of scientists think otherwise.

Zachriel: CSI is an ill-formed mathematical concept, the calculation of which seems to change whenever we try to pin it down.

CJYman: Care to back up your assertion? How about showing where and why the calculation would ever change?

I would love to see a couple of examples worked out with something besides playing cards. But you have to be willing to try different examples so that we can see exactly how it works. I mean we want to apply this to real world examples, right?

I've read Dembski's Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Reading that paper, it seems we can infer design from the pattern alone. Indeed, that's the very title of the paper. Is that correct?

Zachriel: It can't be distinguishing if convergence has been a component of the Theory of Evolution since, well, since Darwin.

CJYman: Actually, since Darwin "convergence" has only been a proof of separate evolution of the same forms and functions happening more than once.

Yes, similar solutions to similar problems, something we would expect of natural selection.

CJYman: You missed what I actually said:
"As for distinguishing predictions "¦ convergent evolution "¦ will not generate from a program devoid of intelligent programming."

Did Darwin ever predict that?

You are having troubles with the concept of an empirical prediction. The observed phenomena is convergence. Natural selection predicts convergence. We might find further confirmation of this by looking for a fit between the adaptation and constraint, especially in a changing environment. If by 'intelligent programming', you are simply restating your conclusion, then your conjecture doesn't make any positive predictions. It's just tacked on. I have no way to know what observation to make to distinguish your claim.

CJYman: Now, what distinguishing predictions does the non-teleological account of evolution provide against the simulated and observed teleological version?

There is no evidence of teleology in disease and substantial evidence that diseases are caused by parasitic microorganisms. That doesn't mean that some diseases with unknown causes aren't caused by evil spirits. But there is no evidence of this.

There is no evidence of teleology in planetary formation and substantial evidence that the planets were formed by gravitational collapse of a nebula. That doesn't mean that some deity didn't intervene in some unknown way at some unknown time for some unknown reason. But there is no evidence of this.

The scientific method requires that we eliminate extraneous entities or assumptions. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. That doesn't mean these entities don't exist. They just have no scientific justification. As far as biology goes, we have robust mechanisms that seem ample to explain the evidence.