IAP Political Forum

In this other thread (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=922.msg27937#msg27937) illy and barney attempted to argue that one cannot properly estimate a universal probability bound.  Having dropped that argument, barney is repeating his argument that rare occurrences with probability density far less than the UPB disprove the the concept of a UPB.  I have responded that his problem is that he misuses probability theory in making his claim.  Let's have a closer look: 


I can't make heads or tails out of what you are saying here.


No, wrong.  Probability and statistical analysis are the tools used to dermine what has or might happen when you don't know.  if you know, then your don't need these tools.


Probability can tell us a great deal about the drop of coins and rolls of dice and all chance events including genetic mutation of DNA sequences.  It is also quite predictive.

The drop of 500 fair coins is a good illustration of an event with what barney calls rare outcomes.  The odds of obtaining all heads or all tails in a single drop is about 2.44*10^-150 which is below the universal probability limit.  i claim this event cannot be realistically expected to have ever occurred by chance.  Barney seems to argue otherwise,  he argues not only can this occur but that it commonly occurs.  I would like to hear his explanation without employing any just so narratives or making any special pleadings.

ok, i've rolled two 3's, what is next?

go and predict.

Off on another tangent so soon barney?  Is your argument so weak that you want to switch it up already?

So, again, you make claims you can't back up. Typical.

YOu said it is quite predictive and yet you can't tell me what roll is next, but you feel comfortable telling me the odds of everything in the universe?

Are you smoking crack?


edit:
You said we use probability in the absence of knowing everything. True. But at least we know some things.

You are using Probability to make shit up. YOu don't know the concentration of particles, or how dark matter interacted, in the beginning of the universe, or now.  you don't know how life started.

It so simple it astounds me that you think you have something!

You are trying to tell us that you can predict outcomes based on probability. I said I rolled two 3's. YOu could do all the math you want to tell me the chances of a 1 or a 99 would come up.  But I didn't tell you the number of the sides on the die, or if it was weighted.

Is it a die with 4 sides, all with 3 one it, or is it a die with 10^150 sides with 10^50 3's?

This vaccuum of knowledge makes you unable to predict, or even come close to the probability  - and this is what you are doing with the UPB and all your other Dumbski numbers. 

You are pulling numbers out of each others asses and congratulating yourself for it.

The UPB is meaningless, and therefore falsified: it has no relation to anything rational, reasonable or real.  Like the rest of your hypotheses.





OH, and I'm suprised you didn't recognize my clever allusion to Dawkins "METHINKS ITS LIKE A WEASEL", after all, Dembski found it important enough to partially address.




edit2: Also, RF you claim proability is predictive. I wonder, is it like Darwin predicting the Xanthopan morganii praedicta?

What predictions is ID making based on probability?  YOu said it makes prediction on rolls of the dice and coins (which you failed to show) and also about dNA.  This is a bold claim since we don't know everything about dna and here you are predicting on unknown aspects of what would be crucial to probability. (is this that Faith thing you keep harping on?)

Probability analysis alows us to predict the frequency that a particular role should appear, for example.



Right and so we use probability to predict outcomes and cause based on what we do know.


It's so unfortunate that you don't understand and your prejudice doesn't allow you to learn.


Nonsense.  We do know how chemicals interact.  we know what is required for life and we know how conditions affect chemical reaction kinetics.  Once again it is you who is making an apeal to ignorance.


How do you demostrate that it is meaningless?  There is no possible way that there could be more than 10^150 macro events occur in this observable universe up til now.  It is quite valid.  Can you show that more interactions are have occured?  No, you cannot.

Now, you claimed that you have shown how rare events falsify the concept of an UPB and probability theory. I am asking you to be clear and specific and walk me through your falsification.  I would like you point to a case of a rare and specific event that is detatchable from the normally huge number of otherwise indistinquishable permutations and therefore in real terms had a independent composite probability of less than 10^-150.

I gave you the link to the ev program that beat your UPB in an afternoon.

BTW, as far as I know, you don't know everything about Dark Matter, and so it seems premature to claim that you know everything about all the interactions from the beginning of time. (Though I note you are saying chemical reactions - which probably means you are retreating to a different position.)

And, as far as I know, you don't know how life began, and so what numbers are you using for that?

Face it, you're pulling them out of Dembski's ass.

Design is easily capable of beating all odds.  Are you prepared to claim that ev is not designed with any back-loaded information that effectively creates boundary conditions that without that information would render ev ineffective?

Face it, barney "ev" is an example of design.  We can walk through the code and I can show you where design and information is smuggled into the ev algorithm


Dark matter is a quantum postulate and it direct effect is at the quantum level.  I can show that chemical interactions are macro-interactions that are not directly influenced by quantum material and effects.


You are diverting again from your claim that you can show that rare occurrences falsify the concept of a probability limit and that materialistic mechanisms can defeat the long odds assigned to generation of meaningful encoded deterministic information, artificial languages, Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and operational complexity.  You claim that materialistic mechanism can generate coherent complex multicomponent systems from scratch. 

You have said that the presence of amino acids and nucleotides in natural settings provides the basis to show that life from non-life by materialistic chemic processes only is possible.  I can show that by chemical reaction kinetics, association constants, equilibrium constants and by the underlying nature of the biologically important replicating and developmental control systems (that require no deterministic chemic bias in the coding subsystems in order to reliably replicate and allow for code driven behavior as opposed to chemic driven behavior) that these pathways are either chemically impossible without intervention and that the probabilities based on potential materialistic pathways are so small that they are out of reach.  You are unable to counter or falsify these demonstrations either.

So quit diverting, barney, you made a claim, now prove it.

Then how do you know if you have rebutted my argument?

BTW, I notice you said we dropped the argument. I have not, you have simply not understood the issue.

Your UPB is often exceeded by many things. You claim that this is the upper probability of chance events that can occur. You and Dembski are wrong.

PLUS, your numbers are wrong.

Basically, you are making things up to support your religious convictions that Jesus is a King.

You claimed that you have shown how rare events disprove the portion of probability theory that considers opportunity and dependency or attachability and demonstrates that it incorrect to discount chance events that have miniscule probabilities even after considering all opportunities and grouping probabilistically indistinguishable events when an outcome is a given.  You have not addressed this here at all.


The claim is not simply that rare events don't happen.  You are being deceptive again.  You know that additional conditions are considered.  See above.


If so, perhaps you can show us the correct numbers?  No , that's asking too much.

Gee, perhaps I can just do what you do. Claim something and not back it up?

Do you have something to read? Maybe you can post it and I can refuse to read it?

Maybe I will just stop posting when things get too difficult?

This is what you do. Perhaps you should expect the same treatment.


Your numbers are wrong. Admit that you know they are estimates based on insufficient evidence. Admit that there is a fudge factor of 1 billion times the age of the universe - "just because".

Admit that random events happen that are over your probability limit.

Admit that if a few rare events happen in a causal chain that they change the make up of what is possible.

Your failure to support your claim is alreasy quite clear and it confirms your lack of credibility.


A primer on probability theory might help you.


Are you running  low on staw men weak analogies and red herrings?


I think I have done a reasonable job of explaining probability theory to you.



The rationale behind them are solid, the estimates are all set maximal and the assumptions are all carefully selected to ensure a maximal limit.  They are very good numbers that give every posible advantage to materialistic explanations.


There is plenty of evidence to support the estimates obtained.


With maximal limits every advantage is given to chance.  The result is that the number is overstated to avoid needless critique.


I have explained this is in context.  Random chance events that are not distinguishable from and therefore not probablistically detatchable from a sufficient number of permutations to result in final probability well above the minimum limit happen continuously.  Random events that are unique and distinguishable from the broad number of permutations possible are not known to occur once all the probablistic resources are exhusted.  When we see events like this it is far more reasonable to conclude these events were designed because we often see events that fit this category that are known to be designed.


I don't understand the context of this statement.  It may or may not be true but I don't know what your point is.
[/quote]

Dude, whatever.  Just accept that we're humans, and humans may not know everything or comprehend it.   

What RF is avoiding is the problem of the actual reality of the world and wishes to remain entrenched in other worldy pursuits. He prefers the abstraction of probabilities that COULD mean something, or God's that COULD exist, etc.

The problem is, he avoids actual probable events that have real ramifications.

Lets  use the famous "Methinks its like a Weasel".  In order for this phrase to randomly generate, we all admit that it would be rare. Very rare, nigh impossible.

However, there are two distinct and seperate mehods for it to occur.'

1. Is that once the "M" is 'selected' (I put it in quotes lest RF thinks God is selecting them), the natural properties of the letters could prefer an "e".  If it rejects anything other than an "e" the phrase is created after a few generations.  RF knows this but refuses to accept it.

2. If the random events cause an "M" and an "e" to combine, and some other condition cause a "Wea" to combine, or a "li" and "ke" combine and come close to each other. We have a different number of pieces that are combining. The reason this is important is because the basic elements of our universe have distinctly different masses and properties, as do many of the physical aspects.

That is, the "backloaded info" that RF says must be there, IS there. He can attribute this to God all he wants, and some scientists do, but that is beside the point.

The point is, the real world chances that something is selected is against a backdrop of pre-loaded die and random events.

I imagine RF will have to admit that the universe has the characteristics I explain here.



So, to move on.  A rare event, such as a self replicating chemical that is produced within a pocket of mica is a rare event, but because it exists, the chance for life as we know it changes entirely.

RF continually tries to make the process of life into a long stream of random coin flips and they all must be heads up in oder to get what he wants.

Life doesn't care what RF wants. RF shouldn't be critisizing the pot maker because he, the pot, can't figure it out.

If at any time in a causal chain, a rare event happens, it can affect the subsequent probability in the specific case we are discussing. Not coin flips. Physical and chemical laws.  (Even though, if I flip a coin H, then H again, the odds for 3 H's is rare, but because of the events that preceded I have a 50% chance of getting it. If I get an H, 4 H's is extremely rare, but because of the rare event of 3 H's, I have a 50% chance of getting 4 H's.  RF simply looks at the end result and calculates the chance - but this is not how life works - as we observe.)

RF will admit this.

Let's see who is avoiding what.  I answer your example below, so provide an actual probable event with real ramifications that has a known causal history and we'll step through the analysis to see what final result we obtain.

[qupte]Lets  use the famous "Methinks its like a Weasel".  In order for this phrase to randomly generate, we all admit that it would be rare. Very rare, nigh impossible.

However, there are two distinct and seperate mehods for it to occur.'

1. Is that once the "M" is 'selected' (I put it in quotes lest RF thinks God is selecting them), the natural properties of the letters could prefer an "e".  If it rejects anything other than an "e" the phrase is created after a few generations.  RF knows this but refuses to accept it.[/quote]

This example has something selecting M and then M preferring e.  First off, it is a just so narrative with no real world actuality short of a designed computer program that performs this example.  Ignoring for the moment that it is not an actual case, one then wonders what this something could be other than design, but let's leave that additional problem also for now. These are both artificial boundary conditions that dramatically reduce the number of permutations available for chance to obtain.  When these boundary conditions are included in the calculation, this event has a combined probability very, very, very close to one.  This example as described is not rare at all.


More of the same three problems described above.


In summary you are presupposing an artificial just so scenario (despite claiming you would offer an actual one) whereby the landscape of the set of possible permutations for a presumed "rare event" contains a fitness function with continual pathways containing gentle slopes from any arbitrary point in the landscape to the presumed "rare event".  If this is the case, then after the probability analysis is complete, once again the probability of obtaining this event is near 1.0.  This is not a an example of rare event at all.

Your examples do not deliver on your promise to demonstrate how rare events invalidate probability theory as it relates to limits on probabilistic opportunities.  Blind searches and fitness searches are included as components in probability analysis and do not violate the concept of probabilistic resources.


No, I don't see that we can demonstrate that the universe contains any of these claimed fitness functions


You imply that some mineral has created a fitness function that selects for self replicating molecules , but this also is a just so narrative with no actual example and even if there was an actual example, this event would not be considered probabilistically rare.


The configuration of biologically active chemicals and in particular the portions that store information to build, direct, and manage metabolic and developmental processes are such that there is no chemical affinity to the combinations obtained.  There is nothing to predispose the combinations to any particular workable pattern over unworkable patterns.  Real observations of biological systems directly and clearly contradicts barney's just so narratives.  There is absolutely no chemical basis to suggest that some pathways and some combinations of chemical configurations are preferred over others and therefore no basis to suggest that the kind of fitness function barney presupposes exists.


It is the Evolutionary biologists that can't figure out how materialistic processes could construct the fitness searches barney so desperately wishes to believe exists and have not progressed on this point for 15 years.  For my part, we have identified concrete markers for design in biological systems that are only found in systems that are designed.   As we continue to understand biological systems better, Genetic Engineers are increasingly successful designing new form and function thus confirming the capability of design to account for observed diversity.   Medical researchers continue to progress in reverse engineering the intended designs and this reality is strong confirmation that biological systems are designed.



No, this is how one constructs a just so straw man.  Your description of probability analysis and chemical affinity is quite poor.

Again, you are trying to force the idea that all events are random, or they are guided by intelligence. YOUR PRESUPPOSITION.

The real world has preferrence, there is the proprties of chemicals that react to other chemicals, there is gravity that attracts, or the strong or weak nuclear force, or magnetism, etc.

The dice ARE loaded by the very nature of the universe.


Only you consider the observable universe an artificial scenario.


Why not?

Scientists are working on this and other problems. I wouldn't expect you to understand.


Then I suggest you study some Chemistry. Spelled C.h.e.m...  NOT C.h.r.i.s.t....

Btw, what makes something inert or not? Have you heard of the term?

Still nothing from you on an "actual" case from the real world to support the claim you made.  The universe is not artificial.  Your just so descriptions of hypothetical cases are artificial.



Because we cannot deductvely point to any actual example where such a fitness function exists. We can speculate as you have done, but these speculations are nothing more than articles of faith.  Probability theory provides the basis to be skeptical of the existence of any fitness funtions derived solely by materialistic processes because of the exponential inflation of the degrees of freedom and therefore the large number of possible unworkable fitness functions as compared to the relatively few workable ones. 

While design is very proficient at carefully selecting boundary conditions and deriving fitness functions that are quite cabable of searching solution space for optimums, it is this observation that humans are able to select workable fitness functions that enspire evolutionary biologists to think that natural selection, genetic processes and chemic relationships together acts as a fitness function to generate observed diversity but there is no good evidence to support this imagination.


I understand that you cling to these imaginative stories and hold them as an article of faith that perhaps one of these ideas will somehow overcome the theorems that strongly suggest otherwise.


Strange that an architect thinks he knows more about chemistry than a Chemical Engineer.  Still no example of an actual rare event that overcomes the theoretical limits obtained by accounting for the probablistic resources.


Inert is not a term generally used to describe the chemic properties of biological coding systems. Affinity is the term generally used.  The relative differences in affinity between coding bases is very very small.

Now how about that actual rare event that overturns the concept of a universal probability limit?

Yes, very strange and I would imagine quite rare.

But there it is.

Yes, very good, but I asked about inert. It's a Chemistry term.  You are jumping ahead to biology when the UPB is clearly about basic interactions of particles.  I am educating you in some basic Chemistry that you seem to ignore in the creation of your God.

If the basic chemicals are prone to specific combinations or not, it is not random as Dembski's UPB suggests.  You both constantly return to this Straw Man. The natural properties of the universe load the dice.

In your case not too rare, you often think you know a lot more than your words reveal.


Elements and molecules that are chemically inert have no reactive affinity at all. 

The basic elements that could potentially make up self-replicating polymers are not prone to the combinations that would allow for construction of the appropriate polymers.  Instead they combine in unfavorable configurations by competing cross reactions that destroy any potential to form constructive biologically important configurations.  You are creating unrealistic "just so" narratives with your wishful thinking.

RF, you keep howling about "just so narratives", can't you see this is what you do?

RF (I'm paraphrasing) "It's just so that evolution can't work! It's just so that God exists! It's just so that life can't form! It's just so because its too much to imagine! Its impossible because look at my numbers! it doesn't compute!"

A just so narrative is one that is offered with no direct support for the central claim being made.


I distinguish between supported claims and just so narratives.  You have made a claim that rare events disprove the notion of a limit on probability based on limited resources for chance to act.  I ask for support and all I get are "just so" and "what if" narratives.  Let me show you the difference between the two of us.


I provide the observed evidence and a scientific basis for why observed evolutionary processes can't on their own, derive the diversity we observe.  This evidence and basis supports the narrative.  It is not "just because" as your claims are.


There is a great deal of direct and indirect evidence supporting the existence of God.  You turn a blind eye to and go out of your way to deny the evidence, primarily through a prior commitment to materialism, whereby you hijack much the evidence and claim it for your own and then out and out dismiss the historical evidence.


Probability and chemical reaction kinetics, chemical affinity and association characteristics provide the basis to demonstrate that self replicating polymers with the unique characteristic of being able to increase complexity and associated function cannot be derived by chemical means alone.  If chemistry alone can account for life, we would be able to observe the low level chemical characteristics that enable this.  Instead we observe that while chemicals can be purposefully guided to form these kinds of polymers, they do not form of their own accord.  Once again, science and mathematics supports my claim.

Still anxious to see support for your claim.

They are all arguments from ignorance. Do you have any POSITIVE evidence?

No.

Yes.  Genetic engineers use design to generate and place large increases of new information into systems that lack them.  Medical researchers have great success designing chemical corrections to biological disfunction indicating that design is quite capable of improving biological function. Design is demonstrating that it can evolve biological systems.

Still waiting for your positive and actual case where a rare event overturns probability theory.

Why do you continue to move the goal posts?  I never said rare events overturn probability theory.

What kind of inane game are you playing?

English language allows for paraphrasing.  Still waiting. 

When you say paraphrase do you mean changing the context?

RF, I have shown you at least 5 different ways the UPB is useless. You choose not to agree because you are wedded to it.

And each one you dropped when you were alerted to the logical and technical problems your examples contained.  None were valid.  I realize you are at a disadvantage because of your weaknesses in probability analysis, but you should not make claims that you are unable to support with sound principles from the subject area.

Still waiting.  Why not revive what you think is the best of the five and this time support it vigorously?

I will when ID is considered a science by the scientific community.  Until then, I realize I am trying to reason mythology with a believer.

Then you have failed to support your claim. I'm not sure why I should be surprised, though.  Your problem is not that you try to reason, your problem is that your reasoning is flawed and your technical support is abysmal.

RF, you are welcome to believe what you want, but I have given you the info to show how the UPB is useless.

Thanks for helping me understand ID better.

Its a shame you won't continue this thread. I have more thoughts on the matter.

For example, can you tell me the difference between how we recognize something designed against a field of random events?

Because it occurs to me that you do accept that there are material explanations for some things, that it, there are events that your designer didn't do.  For example, Hurricanes and the results of FW.

Can we say that you accept these as true? Can we say that it is a necessary condition of the UPB, probability theory and ID that there are random events that aren't affected by a designer or god?

Because if ALL events are affected by God, then how do you seperate them?

So, I assume that the UPB hinges on the idea that random events do indeed happen. That they are free of a Designers Will.  That is, a necessary condition of the Universe, as ID postulates, is that there are random events.

Can we say that you are human? And that you understand this?

Again, you seem to hinge your world view on the Necessity that there are random events that have no contingency (not that each event is not contingent, but that Randomness itself exists as a Necessary Condition).

Or, does your designer control all those events, but make them appear contingent... which means they are all Determined (and yet Randomness (or FW) is a Necessary part of the Universe?!?!!?!)?


Please clarify your view so we can continue this discussion.

RF have you dropped out of these conversations for a reason or because they have shaken your Faith?

We can continue once we complete the original discussion.  You claimed that actual (not hypothetical) rare events have occurred and continue to occur often who's probability of occurring considering both opportunity and detatchability from the multitude of equallily probible nonunique permutations is less than the UPB and therefore the UPB is meaningless.

You have not made good on your claim and you have not agreed that you are unable to provide an example of this.  Probability theory provides solid clues about why you are unable to offer an actual case and it is because these cases indeed don't occur in a universe with limited resources.

Probability theory is the basis for much of scientific investigation, and the theories hold firmly.  I am astonished that you think you can overturn this one.  As we continue to communicate I am finding your claim empty.  So why not admit that you are unable to overturn this aspect of probability theory.  Why not admit that the theory is well founded so we can move on?

Probability theory is useful, but the UPB and ID is not.

ID (and the UPB) is not predictive, useful, accurate, applicable or meaningful.

Have you been able to come up with a number for the amount of specified complexity in something?  Perhaps if you could, and if you could nail down a reasonable UPB, you might have yourself a hypothesis.


BTW, can you link the last time the UPB was used in a published scientific experiment? I'll even take a published journal of probability.

The UPB is very commonly used in cryptographic analysis in assessing the capability to break encoded messages.  In this field you find the number limited to resources available to humans so it is generally set at about 10^-90.

I think Dembski claims something of the sort.

Link please.


(BTW, I notice you aren't addressing my other questions anywhere else. Can I assume you don't know the amount of Specified Complexity in anything?  Even Dembski only claimed to roughly work out Jesus Jr., except then in another chapter he claimed to have an objective formula to work it out.  If you have the book, I'll give you the chapter and page number.  Maybe you can work it out?)

In cryptography the National Research Council has set 10^94 as the Universal Probability Bound to secure encryption schemes against random search attacks. For more information see, Kenneth Dam and Herbert Lin in "Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society", Washington National Press, 1996.

I generally don't respond to your arguments when I find them weak.  You and I both know that I provided very specific examples of how to calculate information content in the past.  Are you still trying to deceive even yourself?

Fine, ignore crucial aspects of your belief.

Does cryptography have a direct relationship to anything else?  Say, genetics or the origins of the Universe?

No.

So, where are you going with this?

Cryptography is all about probability, random chance, encoded deterministic information, artificial languages, communication channels  and methods to develop, use, and decipher them.  It is spot on topic and all of these same concepts apply in evaluating genetic change. 

You first claimed that you can provide actual rare events that have occurred that contradict the concept of a universal probability bound.  You have failed to make good on your claim.  Next you claimed that the concept of a UPB is not a legitimate concept in probability.  I have shown you that you are wrong about that also.

If you have no further false charges this thread seems complete.   

I can't find anything on this except an excerpt from an ID paper entitled "The Problem with Evolution":


Part of it is word for word of what you said. (Did you plagerize?)

I also note the Lin and Dam part is straight out of Dembski's Book "No Free Lunch", found in the footnotes.


So, perhaps you can find the part in the Lin/Dam report, since you must admit, Dembski has lost all credibility in this area, according to people who know.


I did find this:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EIlwh2x8MGIJ:arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0011046+Dam+Line+Universal+probability+bound&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us#19

which is more about the Universal Probability of QUANTUM ALGORITHMIC ENTROPY. It concludes that there is much more work to be done on shoring up any meaningful numbers.

I would suggest that quantum theory has a direct relationshpi to Dembski's Universal Bound (which I realize only deals with macro events).


Either way, I don't discount that idea that a concept of some sort of UPB exists for things.  It is a nice guideline, but hardly an operative number that applies to biology or origin of the universe.  First, you don't even have a proper definition of Information, Complexity, etc. when it comes to the things we are talking about (whereas Cryptographers know exactly the number of characters they have to deal with, and that the combinations must be made in a specific manner).

Again, don't move the goal posts just because you have lost your case. I questioning Dembski's UPB and that it is a meaningless number when applied to Natural events (Origin of life, Origin of Universe, Evolutions, etc), since the unknowns are too vast.

Plus, I point out that any UPB, even one in cryptography, can be undermined by a rare, random event.  We are, after all, talking about probability - and rare events are probable.

I think you take on the assumptions of Dembski and when you say "improbable" you mean to say "impossible" in order to make your ID-quackery stand against a strong scientific Theory.

We started this thread with you claiming that you have actual cases of rare events that falsify a UPB.  Now we have you admitting a UPB does apply in some cases where macro events operate to produce chance outcomes that are then selected by humans to break codes but you claim it does not apply to biology (macro events with chance mutation producing random outcomes then presumably selected to drive evolutionary change).

You cannot show how it applies in some cases but not others. 

Nowhere have I used the word impossible in place of improbable.  My reference to The National Research Council and ". . . Securing the Information Society" is from a conference and training course on Information Security I attended in 2004.  I paraphrased from it.  Perhaps Dembski attended also, unless I am mistaken, his discussion on his website on UPB does not include that reference.  I'm sorry you are unable to find the material. 

You continue to claim even now that rare events do occur that overcome these probability bounds but you have yet to produce even one actual case, in contradiction to your original claim.  You are a fraud and you are unable to admit your failings. 

You started this thread by paraphrasing something I said.  Your inability to paraphrase very well is duly noted.

I submitted the ev program, which shows that random macro events fall below D's UPB.

You declared it didn't fit into your world view and rejected it.

I submitted that in a causal chain, a rare event could result in something considered highly improabable. You reject this.

I submit that Demski's UPB is not based on any known figures and therefore meaningless, you reject it.

I submit that something outside of the UPB is possible, you agree.

I submit that we must remain agnostic about the possibilities in the universe until all the elements are known.  This seems to be you biggest disagreement and you bring up cases that are irrelevent (coins and cryptography - all of which are known).

I don't claim that the concept of a UP doesn't exist, but that Dembski's is irrelevent because he can't account for all he claims.

BTW, even after all this, the UP limits are simply suggestions that people sugget would indicate a hghly improbable event. Not impossible as you suggest.

You and I both know that the ev program does not produce random events.  It is artificial and is designed and this is the reason it is not a valid illustration of your claim.


I did not reject it, I asked for an actual case not a could be just so narrative.  You claimed you could provide an actual case and I asked you to make good on your claim.


You are a big mouthed architect and can submit any claim you wish but your claims are empty since you can't substantiate them.


You claimed that you can provide an actual case of something outside of the UPB, I disagreed and you failed to provide the actual case as I predicted you . Then, instead you claimed it is possible but I say it is a just so narrative, an article of your faith in undemonstrated material mechanisms.  I don't know if it is possible or not.  I do know that if we encounter something who's probability of occurring by chance falls outside the UPB we would reasonably conclude that it did not occur by chance.


If you were consistent on your appeal to remain agnostic it might be more persuasive.  Trouble is that probability theory is a tool that is used to allow us to reach tentative conclusions even when we don't have perfect information.  If you truly claim we should remain agnostic about a probability of less that 10^-150.  then you would also argue that DNA evidence should be disregarded in court of law because the odds of a suspect matching DNA patterns and still not the source of the subject DNA is one in 300,000,000,000 which is a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, . . . times more likely than the events you want to remain agnostic about.

Your special pleadings are tiresome.

This is the ridiculous argument you make. Matching DNA is not what we are talking about.

When will you use an example of what we are talking about?

The problem is, I have many examples of things not designed that fall under Dembski's UPB.  Would you like a list of them?

The Bacteria Flagellum
Human Being
Monkey
Snowflakes
Whale
Banana
Pine Tree
Sickle Cell Anemia
etc...

Would you care to explain those?

We are talking about rare chance events.  My example fits wonderfully.


You cannot demonstrate that any of these above items were derived by unintended contingent mechanisms.  It is uncertain how these items were derived since we lack the causal history.  None of these examples can be used without making a leap of faith.


Snowflakes do not falsify the UPB, please show me otherwise with objective verifiable numbers.


The disease is not rare neither is derivation of the mutation from normal Hb genes.  It occurs by random mutation more than once in fewer than a billion births.

It is not my intention to show a proof of anything. You must support your claim  (Remember that from the thread you posted?)

BTW, the snowflake does meet the requirements and is a false positive.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm

I'd encourage you to read the articles available on the TalkReason website, and Panda's Thumb. Maybe even sign up and ask questions of some people in the actual field, rather than return again and again to your copy of Dembski and the DI site.



BTW, can you settle a bet:

Which sentence has more specified information, according to Dembski?

A. The Capital of WA is Seattle.
or
B. The Capital of MS is Seattle.
or
C. The Capital of MS is Jackson.

We have your words two posts back claiming these were examples that rare materialistic events falsify the concept of a UPB.  Now since you cannot show the causal history you retreat.


The narrative is interesting, but objective proof requires numbers.  Walk me through the numbers because I suspect these events are not nearly as rare as you would have us believe.



Start a new topic for a discussion on Specified Information.

Gee, I don't know, RF, what are the numbers you apply to something that "seems" designed?  It include SC yet you are seperating it out. How odd - and yet predictable.

Game over, checkmate. You lose.

One easy number to apply to design is the UPB.  If we were to investigate all chance hypotheses that we can identify for an event or thing of unknown causal history and we were to find the combined probability of it and all non-detachable permutations of the event were less than the probability associated with the UPB then we would reasonably conclude the event or thing was designed.

Too bad the UPB is meaningless.

Game over. You lose.

Too bad you were unable to make good on your claim to demonstrate with an actual case of a rare event that you can falsify a UPB.  Too bad also that a few posts back you even very reluctantly admitted they are valid in probabilistic analysis in cryptography.  There is very definitely a losing side of this debate and it is very clearly not me.

I gave many, I even gave an example that a fellow ID'ist gave.  You prefer not to see what is true, only what you believe.

A recent review of the ev program (one of the examples you seem to consider valid) by Baylor Professor of Electrical Engineering Dr. Robert Marks (currently researching the capabilities of computing including EA systems) along with Dr. William Dembski  demonstrated that the ev evolutionary algorithm imports so much information that the actual search need only to find 8 bits of information. In other words, pure blind search of the sample space, once confined by all the smuggled in information, could potentially find the solution in fewer than 256 iterations, hardly a "rare" occurrence.

The only thing Marks and Dembski demonstrated was their own abject incompetence (http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/10/09/unacknowledged-errors-in-unacknowledged-costs-essay/) (not to mention colossal arrogance).

As far as the UPB, Lloyd pointed out that the universe has had time to do ~10¹²⁰ logical ops on ~10⁹⁰ bits (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0110141).
But the foundations of the concept of probability say the probability of any unique event remains subject to the ideas of good ol' Reverend Bayes, which merely sinks the alleged probability distributions that one is claiming determine the probability, rather than demonstrating the UPB has actually been exceeded. Which is a different way of saying what daedelus2.0 seems to have been saying.

Meanwhile, is R. Faith claiming that the actual probability of a purposeful design is undeterminable? Or not? if not, he is welcome to take any known purposeful design and calculate for us it's probability -- its "absolute, ultimate, from-the-perspective-of-the-universe" probability. And do it while ignoring Rev. Bayes.

Anyone is capable of making slight errors from time to time.  I certainly make my share and I suspect you do too.  The article is several months old now and revisions have been made to the original results.  Have you reviewed the revised results?  If so do you still find errors?

Here is the revised report: A Case Study with ev (http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/REPRINTS/short/ev_schneider_071207.pdf)

More on the theory of the computations.

Measuring the Cost of Success (http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/REPRINTS/short/ActiveInfo.pdf)


Probability applies to chance events.  Purposeful design is not chance so it is not that one can't determine the probability of purposeful design, it just makes no sense to speak of it that way. There is uncertainty in the results or performance of a design against the intended function but it makes no sense to speak of the probability of design.  This is why the method is "Chance Elimination".  One looks at the probability that the event could have been generated by the set of chance hypotheses but not the design hypotheses.

The concept of a UPB acknowledges that there are limits on the amount of resources available to act on chance and generate chance outcomes.  The idea or claim that there is no UPB is equivalent to claiming there is no limit on resources and this is simply false.

Why not? You could set up an experiment giving a disparate set of individuals the same task, say, designing a paper airplane that will fly 20'. You could separate them by age, or occupation, or species or whatever and use the information gained to calculate the probabilities of a certain individual performing the design function.


You have to know something of capabilities and process to determine if there were intended function. Even the definitions are inadequate: I suppose Design is an intentional arrangement of parts and I guess you would define Intelligence as an capable of thinking like a human. It's not helpful. Even a  functional design can happen by accident - unintended design. Or by a combination of design and chance. Without knowlege of intent and process the whole concept of Intelligent Design is useless.


No fair. In assessing which hypothesis is more probable you have to weigh the design hypothesis against the current evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution has the observed phenomenon of selection and genetic drift operating through a process of genetic recombination. Every fossil found, every genetic history teased out (http://zmbe.uni-muenster.de/expath/alltables.htm#table3), every regulatory gene/phenotype interaction changes the probabilities of the evolutionary hypothesis. Without a proposed process or even an identified timeline for a designed feature you can't begin to make a comparison as to whether evolution or design is more likely. Until you come up with some empirical design evidence the most likely explanation for biological diversity is the evolutionary hypothesis. If you feel that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the current evolutionary synthesis is statistically inadequate to explain the present diversity of life then the default is don't know.  And to be considered science "don't know" will always default to some testable naturalistic hypothesis.