Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Try that with a banana, gordy




11:59 am

PS: Here’s my FSCI test. Generate true and flat random binary digits, feeding them into an ASCII text reader. Compare against say the Gutenberg library for code strings. Find out how long of a valid string you are going to get. So far, the results are up to 20 – 24 characters, picking from a space of 10^50 or so. We are looking at spaces of 10^150 and more.


When someone uses or suggests using a computer and a computer program to model or test evolution, or any particular aspect of evolution, gordy, at last resort, will claim that computers and their programs are not biological and cannot rightfully be used to model, simulate, or test biological evolution. But, when he argues his insane claims, he uses nothing but non-biological things, like computers and their programs and code, readers, mathematical equations, alleged probabilities based on guesswork and made-up math, etc., to do so.

He has NEVER personally examined, studied, or tested any organism in nature. He has NEVER spent any time in nature, learning about nature. He has NEVER worked in a biology lab. He has NEVER published a scientific paper or a book on biology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, history, or anything else, but he thinks he's the ultimate expert on all those things and everything else.

He has NEVER observed, studied, tested, calculated, or determined the alleged CSI, FSCI, or FSCO/I in any living thing or anything else in nature. EVERYTHING he claims comes strictly from his delusional imagination, which is entirely based on his creationist christian religious beliefs, and on his hatred, fear, and ignorance of science and reality.

Hey gordo, how many "true and flat random binary digits" are there in a banana, a frog, a galaxy, a rock, a bird, a river, a volcano, a fish, a tree, a black hole, your drool, and a butterfly? And how much alleged CSI, FSCI, or FSCO/I is there in those things?

Here's a comment from Indium on UD:



12:10 pm

Why do you always talk about letters and not about real biological objects. Go ahead and demonstrate how gpuccios dfcsi definition can be put to work.

And here is gordy's response:




12:28 pm


Why is it you “never” follow the links or pointers to the places where I do deal with biosystems, e.g. the citations on Durston et al and related calcs in the OP above?

Why do you erect and knock over strawmen arguments, in other words?

I give cases from text to illustrate patterns that coded text faces whether it is biological or technological or human in origin. The relative rarity of meaningful or functional complex coded strings is a capital case in point; as compared to the space of all possible configs.

Remember, for a conceptual 100 k base genome, we are looking at 4^100,000 = 9.98*10^60,205 possibilities. the Planck time resources of the observed cosmos — 10^150 states — could not sample more than 1 in 10^60,000+ of that.

So, unless functional states are absolutely overwhelmingly abundant to the point where they are practically falling off the tree into our hands, we have a zero scope search for a needle in a haystack problem. And, we know from the decades of observation of coded digital strings that meaningful strings are credibly going to be quite rare.

I think you will see that if you start with say 3-letter clusters you can easily go like:

rat — cat — bat — mat — eat — ear — car, etc.

(I have given this or similar examples many times. The fatal errors in Zachriel’s example are that he is plainly intelligently directing the process and is relying on short words where the function is easy to bridge; so the analogy breaks down very rapidly. When you have to do a real world system control, you are not going to get it to fit into 70 or 130 bytes or so, not to control a serious system, never mind one that is going to be self-replicating. I am sick of strawman arguments.)

But just you try the same with 73 ASCII letter strings that need to be meaningful every time.

Try changing the first 73 letters of this post into say the last 73, preserving meaningfulness every step of the way.

In short as string length — a measure of complexity — is increased, and functional specificity is required, the functional strings become naturally far more isolated.



Notice that gordy refers to work done by others and that he doesn't reference any work done by himself on any organisms. Also notice that he just adds more made-up math and other gobbledegook.

And isn't it funny that when he's asked to actually apply his claims to "real biological objects", he instantly accuses Indium of erecting and knocking over strawmen arguments, and also says "I am sick of strawman arguments". That right there should tell everyone everything they need to know about gordy's evasive, dishonest, childish games and the fallacy of CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, the EF, and any other ID claims. It's ALL bullshit.

Asking IDiots to apply their claims to "real biological objects" is NOT a "strawman".