Specified complexity

[shunyadragon]

Lots of things do not pass the filter, if a law or chance explains an event, it is not designed.

Blessings,
Lee

Lots of things?!?!?! We need references and explanations. The Laws of Nature explain the outcome of cause and effect events, and chance cannot explain anything. What example can you provide where 'chance' cannot cause nor prevent an event from taking place caused by the Laws of Nature.

This does not make sense.

[Roy]

The gene sequences are statistically independent of the existence of DNA, we're not talking about independent existence.

Where are the gene sequences that are statistically independent of the existence of DNA? What exactly do you mean by "statistically independent"? Why aren't red/blue shift patterns also statistically independent of the existence of planets?

[Roy]

Lots of things do not pass the filter, if a law or chance explains an event, it is not designed.

Name three.

You won't of course, since as usual you're making up garbage, but sometimes your squirming is laughable.

[TheLurch]

For starters, i'm going to point out that in one of these threads, Lee was recently stating that determining design was, at best, going to be a matter of subjective expert opinion. Now here, in the post quoted below, he's claiming it's not arbitrary. It can't be both, so Lee seems to have issues with his own argument. Is that because Lee will say anything he needs to to support his argument, whether he believes it or not? Is that because he doesn't think his arguments through before making them? Or is he trolling?

I'd lean towards the second, but I'd like Lee to explain the issue himself.

In any case...

But Dembski's explanatory filter is an encapsulation of our intuitive notions about design, it is not arbitrary.

That is the very definition of arbitrary. Intuitions are necessarily both personal and subjective. Wrapping that arbitrariness in fancy numbers doesn't get rid of its nature.

There are two ways to show that Demski's ideas aren't scientific. The first is that they're not actually used by scientists. Archeologists have regular arguments over whether a given set of markings are human made, intentional, symbolic, etc. If they felt that Demski's ideas could give any weight to their favored position, they'd use them. The fact that they don't makes it clear that people don't feel there's any value in them.

The second is that "no, it's not" is an effective argument against Demski. There's nothing about the logic or factual backing that would compel anyone to accept the explanatory filter as valid. Even the first step - is something chance or necessity - often can't be determined, and therefore doesn't provide a useful criterium for anything much. You can contrast that with an actual scientific test for evolution - take the Ka/Ks ratio, for example - and see how the logic and evidence is completely different, and thoroughly compelling.

[lee_merrill]

What example can you provide where 'chance' cannot cause nor prevent an event from taking place caused by the Laws of Nature.

When shunyadragon posts, chance did not cause or prevent that event.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Where are the gene sequences that are statistically independent of the existence of DNA? What exactly do you mean by "statistically independent"? Why aren't red/blue shift patterns also statistically independent of the existence of planets?

Statistical independence means P(A and B) = P(A) P(B). Gene sequences in general are independent of the existence of DNA, P(SequenceExists and DnaExists) = P(SequenceExists) P(DnaExists). This is not true of red/blue shifts, which are caused by the existence of planets.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Name three.

Sure, a die roll (caused by chance), an apple falling (caused by a law), and a poker hand (caused, if no one is cheating, by chance).

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

That is the very definition of arbitrary. Intuitions are necessarily both personal and subjective.

Then I claim that your points made here in this thread are arbitrary!

There are two ways to show that Demski's ideas aren't scientific. The first is that they're not actually used by scientists. Archeologists have regular arguments over whether a given set of markings are human made, intentional, symbolic, etc. If they felt that Demski's ideas could give any weight to their favored position, they'd use them. The fact that they don't makes it clear that people don't feel there's any value in them.

Though the filter embodies our intuitions about design: Is it chance? Is it due to a law? Is it designed? These are the same questions that archeologists will raise, though sometimes implicitly, when they examine artifacts.

Even the first step - is something chance or necessity - often can't be determined, and therefore doesn't provide a useful criterium for anything much.

Pity the archeologists, then?

You can contrast that with an actual scientific test for evolution - take the Ka/Ks ratio, for example - and see how the logic and evidence is completely different, and thoroughly compelling.

I'm not sure how this tests for evolution, though?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Statistical independence means P(A and B) = P(A) P(B). Gene sequences in general are independent of the existence of DNA, P(SequenceExists and DnaExists) = P(SequenceExists) P(DnaExists). This is not true of red/blue shifts, which are caused by the existence of planets.

Blessings,
Lee

Nothing here reflects the science of the nature of DNA or Gene sequences in DNA. It is ENRON bookkeeping by Creationist pseudoscience.

[Roy]

Statistical independence means P(A and B) = P(A) P(B). Gene sequences in general are independent of the existence of DNA,...

Yes, you already said that here:

But gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.

I've asked you three times where one can find a gene sequence that is independent of the existence of DNA, and each time you've dodged.

Conclusion: You haven't got any gene sequences that are independent of the existence of DNA, and you know you haven't got any gene sequences that are independent of the existence of DNA, and you're going round in circles because you can't back up your lies.

[shunyadragon]

Sure, a die roll (caused by chance), an apple falling (caused by a law), and a poker hand (caused, if no one is cheating, by chance).

Blessings,
Lee

Actual in all the cases the Laws of Nature are the ultimate cause. Chance cannot cause anything. It is a poor concept of the observed variation of the outcome of cause and effect outcomes.

In reality no, a die role result is determined by the Laws of Nature, law of gravity, and the physical nature (design) of the dice. The variation of the result of the roles of dice have a fractal pattern and not chance.

Yes, the apple falling is cause by gravity.

For poker the The Laws of Nature determine the limits of the design of the cards. The rules of the different poker games are designed by humans and number of players, which determines the odds of the various possible outcomes of poker hands. The outcome of the possible permutations of the poker hands is fractal.

[Seeker]

I would never imagine the course of this thread would diverge so much from the original post.

[shunyadragon]

I would never imagine the course of this thread would diverge so much from the original post.

Normal to the Tweb wandering endless threads. I responded specifically and answered the problems of the misuse of statistics and probability in the first several posts. Without counter responses the only option is hundreds of migrating goal posts and blue smoke and mirrors.

[lee_merrill]

Conclusion: You haven't got any gene sequences that are independent of the existence of DNA...

All gene sequences are independent of DNA, has been my reply, and is still my reply.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

In reality no, a die role result is determined by the Laws of Nature, law of gravity, and the physical nature (design) of the dice. The variation of the result of the roles of dice have a fractal pattern and not chance.

No, each face on a fair die has an equal probability of coming up, the pattern is not fractal.

Blessings,
Lee