Cap'n Refsmmat

No. (a) They do not demonstrate that "designers" are required or that natural fitness functions (as provided by natural selection) are inadequate. (b ) They do not contest that mutation and selection can produce more information than is imported; that is, a fitness function can be simple, but the generated information can be comparatively complex. So no, I don't see how the paper demonstrates that designers import active information that causes success. I see that the paper demonstrates that a fitness function is required for mutation with selection to succeed. Surprise! This has no bearing on whether evolution can succeed. Also, when people clearly disagree with you, the better strategy is to attempt to understand their points, rather than to arrogantly reinterpret their posts to agree with you. Pissing others off makes them less likely to concede your points.

Well, I see there's one called "LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information," which would address the topic quite well, except it's published in a non-peer-reviewed book published by one of the coauthors. Three others are conference proceedings, so I'll wait to judge them until the papers are properly peer-reviewed and published in a journal. There's a paper published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, called "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success", and I'll address that. It's directly related to the topic at hand, so it's useful. The paper is interesting. The paper uses the premise that a genetic algorithm cannot proceed any faster than a random search without "active information," such as the fitness function. Makes sense. Descent with natural selection would be totally random if it weren't for the "natural selection" portion. Dembski also gives number of offspring as a factor; more mutated offspring = more information. Sure. So... Very well. With a fitness function, you can almost certainly get improvement as long as enough children are made. Now, this case only selects the fittest child, and ignores that it's possible for several generations to occur with no significant increase in fitness. But we can see that fitness improvement is possible. Dembski then presents several other examples, varying the parent/child scheme to make different scenarios. Each results in improved fitness. Each, however, depends on the information inherent in the fitness function. Dembski then concludes as follows: Thus, Dembski concludes that evolutionary algorithms do not generate information by themselves: they are dependent upon the information given by the fitness function. So how much does the fitness function contribute? Well, it depends on the case. Take the case of a random string of bits which we hope to turn into a desired sequence by mutation and selection. With a random string of starting bits, the initial sequence can be close to or very different from the desired sequence; it will average to having half the bits being correct. Now, the information contained in the fitness function is fixed: the fitness function does not change depending on the initial random bit string. In this scenario, the information generated by the random mutation varies. In some cases, little mutation is required, as the initial string is close to what is desired. In other cases, much is required, as the initial string is far from what is desired. The contribution by the fitness function is the same. So the contribution by mutation and selection is not limited by the fitness function, but merely dependent on the existence of such a function. With enough generations and children, optimization is nearly guaranteed. Now, the algorithms Dembski evaluates differ from true natural selection in several ways. First, there isn't always one specific fitness function: in nature, there are many different factors that contribute to fitness, and not all are important in the same places at the same time. Second, nature has numerous trials continuing in parallel: Dembski considers a single chain of parents->children, but in nature there are numerous independent parents and children. Furthermore, improvements from one parent->child chain in the wild can be transferred to another through breeding. And finally, Dembski's calculations do not include the effect of gene duplication or transposition, merely random mutations. On the other hand, fitness functions (and their active information) are provided by nature, simply by natural competition and events. They are subject to the condition in the above paragraph -- they aren't as well-defined and single-minded as an artificial one -- but they exist. So, moral of the story: In a naive simulation, a fitness function is required for information to be generated at a rate better than random search. With a fitness function, optimization is likely after enough generations. Fortunately, reality provides fitness functions, or else "natural selection" wouldn't be called "selection." So, cypress: do you have any evidence that natural selection functions differently, and cannot generate new information where a genetic algorithm can? Or that natural selection's fitness functions are somehow invalid, or incorrect, or unusable? Or that the maximum rate of evolutionary change, as calculated using information theory, fitness functions, and accommodations for millions of simultaneous reproducing and breeding organisms, cannot match the rate expected?

Which papers are these? There are many on that page; I'm not sure which you refer to specifically.

It's a "metabolic process that in your words, 'took place outside the confines of the cell'".

How about life in any of the universe by chance alone? Might as well discuss it, if the other topics are concluded. It was sort of Mr Skeptic's point.

You know, now that you mention it, I'm going to install a new search system that promises to make search results actually sorted by relevancy, instead of the usual sorted-by-date crapshoot where you get every topic where your search words were posted in completely different posts on four different pages. Hope it works.

I dunno. Perhaps cypress is admitting he's in an "impasse: a position or situation from which there is no escape."

Douglas Axe only covered one of Hoyle's assumptions. There were many. I'll agree if we ever get a massive abiogenesis spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Admitting ignorance is a perfectly valid solution in science. That's why we continue to do research. I said "insufficient information." I will consider consulting the Oracle of Delphi, however. Being the best we have does not prevent it from being wrong. Likewise, the best estimate I have for 32,104,893,252 factorial is 64,133,321,314, but I'm fairly certain that is wrong. It's not big enough. However, it will take my computer a significant amount of time to compute the true value, and I'd have to spend time learning to use arbitrary precision integers. That does not mean I should use 64,133,321,314 as the answer until I can perform the correct computation. That means I should do the necessary research and wait on the correct answer.

How do you know if you get the correct conclusion when you have one estimate and no historical data to verify it against? Why are estimates with known flaws "reasonable"? Why are estimates based on laughably incomplete data considered "reasonable"? Who says anyone's giving up? All we're doing is stating that Hoyle's estimate is flawed and there is insufficient information to complete a new estimate. When further information is discovered, a new estimate can be created. Why is giving up a problem? Whether or not we "give up" has no impact on the fallacies in Hoyle's Fallacy. It's still wrong, regardless of attempts to correct it.

Likewise, we have an idea of what it means to calculate the probability of life occurring by chance. We know many of the factors involved. We just do not know all, nor do we know the exact values associated with each -- numbers of proteins, numbers of required chemicals, abundance of required chemicals, and so on. Hoyle violates much of what we do know. Or, in short: Part of Hoyle's work is demonstrably wrong. The other parts are demonstrably unknown. No. If we do not, in fact, know the exact composition of the first self-replicating organism, we cannot calculate the odds of its existence. Likewise if we do not know the environment in which it existed, the means by which it reproduced, or the energy source it required. We also do not know of the other numerous possibilities for life-forms -- whether there are other simple self-replicators that could exist under different conditions. It's quite possible for errors to be known without a correction being possible, and you should stop pretending otherwise. For example, there have been numerous occasions when I attempted a difficult math problem, arrived at an answer, and checked my answer in the original equation to find it was totally wrong. I did not have the knowledge to solve the problem, but I was absolutely certain that a given solution was incorrect. Is this so difficult to understand? Ah, the old "I'm going to drop an insult but pretend it doesn't really matter" trick. Seeing as Hoyle's computation is the basis for this entire conversation, I think it's worthwhile to determine its veracity. Also, attempting to direct a conversation merely makes your adversaries more determined to discuss what you wish to avoid. Also, post #128 is waiting if you want something else to discuss.

I believe the entire point of the TalkOrigins article is that the mathematics is wrong, because of the numbers and methods of the calculation. e.g. "They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials." "They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life." And so on. I know that the number 32,104,893,252 factorial is not 7. Why do I need to know the correct answer to know that 7 is wrong?

The conclusion D H refers to is the number Hoyle got as a result.

That's interesting. For some page numbers, it works. For others, it doesn't. I may have to submit a support request about that. You can use "Use advanced filters" to search by name and so on in the mean time.

Exodus 20:13, New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV): Explanatory footnote:

They have a list on their front page: http://wikileaks.org/ There's loads more, though; here's everything they have on Scientology, for instance: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology

That's an... odd user-agent. I'll bring out the Windows laptop and see if I can fix this.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/12/afghanistan.wikileaks/

Ok. Could you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ and copy/paste the user-agent it gives you here. It's the part that looks like this: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100722 Firefox/3.6.8 Once I have it, I'll be able to test on whatever computer I have that's closest to yours, and nail down the problem.

Does everything look like the screenshot Severian gave in the first post? If so, could you follow the instructions I gave in post #6 so I know what browsers are having the problem? (Also, in the lower left, are you using the "SFN" theme or the "SFN Blue" theme?)

That's what I see. If you see anything else, describe it (or take a screenshot) and I'll try to fix it.

It's hard to track last-visited times. If I could make it default to properly tracking your unread posts -- as vBulletin did -- I would. I'll check over on the IPB support forums, actually. And I'll see about moving Today's Active Content to a more reasonable location... That's because the Advanced Search is hidden behind an obtuse little icon. See the little gear next to the search box? Yeah, that's it. I like our new look, but some things are rather hidden. I'm going to register some complaints on the company's website; they actually listen to complaints, surprisingly. There's no button to jump back and forth, but you can go to My Settings and uncheck "Enable visual (RTE) editor?"

I'd suggest asking over at http://www.ubuntuforums.org.

Point-by-point: View New Content gives you whatever has been posted since you last visited the site. If you want the last day's worth of posts, you want "Today's Active Content," in the blue bar near the bottom of the forum index. (Yeah, that location sucks.) Or, you can hit My Settings in the top right, and scroll to Search Settings. You can opt to have it track everything you've read, and show you all unread posts regardless of when you last visited. "Find My Content" on the left-hand side of their profile. Well... the search works exactly the same way as vBulletin's old search, so I'm not sure what I can do. What's particularly randomly nonsensical about it? Also, unfortunately I have no option for a merged posts separator or an edit time limit. I'm stuck with the default behavior there.

Hmm. What browser are you using at work? Ideally, go here: http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ and copy the user-agent it gives you here. What you see at home is what is intended. I know what causes the issue, but I'm not sure why it's fixed for some people and broken for others.

I suggest the book The Logic of Scientific Discovery for the philosophy of how science works.