Sequential Specified Information

[Mugnuts]

If anyone has heard this phrase of "Sequential Specified Information" it's probably because they've heard it from the youtube poster TrueEmpiricism repeat it over and over again yet barely actually say what it is or where the term came from.

TrueEmpiricism has also claimed that the term is in the mainstream circle of DNA specialists and a simple Google search will bring up this term. However that has not been shown to be the case as the only thing you can find with a Google search is the people who have listened to his claim are the only ones looking for it, using it (in a WTF is this sense).

As far as I can tell the closest and only somewhat resemblance of a term comes from William Demski's coined term "Complex Specified information" or CSI for short. As far as I can tell from my research is that the only one using this term is not the mainstream unless you can stretch the term to include the legion of [sarcasm]think tank[/sarcasm] employees of the Discovery Institute.

Here's the link to the wiki page describing CSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

What I'm trying to figure out myself falls onto TrueEmpiricism's attempts to insert the Sequential Specified Information into conversations,( TE comes in at the 01:20 mark ) jumbled together quickly with obscure references to facts about DNA, processes within cells, and sometimes the assertion at the end that "complex things only come from a mind and since you agreed that DNA is sequential Information...".

I'm sorry TrueE, but everything you are saying and specifically how you are saying it isn't winning anyone over. Rather than trying to get someone to agree to points that no one has disagreed with in the first place and asserting that since they agree that means it's therefore Sequential Specified Information that you win is nothing more than semantics. You have no science behind your claim. You have an unsubstantiated and quite often refuted idea covered in a scientific wool sweater.

My advice for TrueE is to suggest that he lay out what the entire Sequential Specified Information argument is in full in text format with multiple citations, diagrams, and a very detailed description of what it is he is talking about. If what TrueE is talking about has merit it will be evident. It would be nice to have a well thought out proposal of the idea, method or theory compared to the current method of teaching this position. At the very least make some citations, drop some links to reading material, textbooks he has read, basically all the resources that have absorbed and where to find it so we to can look at the evidence that forms this position. It really isn't that hard.

No one wants to dismiss him outright. They've torn apart the presentation of evidence and pointed out the flaws not because of non-belief in deities, but due to the merit of the proposition. So that wouldn't be a very valid reason to not even try because according to TrueE that "all atheists must deny this.".

That's the challenge I would like to propose to TrueEmpericism because if it is such a strong and evidential position then you can back it up in writing rather than 6 minute vehicle video posts challenging the terms and thought patterns of "Atheists" or hours of continual repetitive rants in hangouts that many regret wasting their time listening to you exercise in mental masturbatory fantasies. It's put up or shut up time.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If you switch the words and Google “specified sequential information”, on the first page you will see that specified sequential information is used in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design. My guess is that specified sequential information is the term that TrueEmpiricism actually wanted to use. However, he made a mistake, and said sequential specified information and since he seems incapable of admitting mistakes, he just keeps asserting that sequential specified information is what he meant all along.

I only skimmed the section that specified sequential information is in, but it appears to be exactly what TrueEmpiricism is claiming. Thus, if you want more information about what TrueEmpiricism is talking about, read that section.

 

[Mugnuts]

If you switch the words and Google “specified sequential information”, on the first page you will see that specified sequential information is used in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design. My guess is that specified sequential information is the term that TrueEmpiricism actually wanted to use. However, he made a mistake, and said sequential specified information and since he seems incapable of admitting mistakes, he just keeps asserting that sequential specified information is what he meant all along.

I only skimmed the section that specified sequential information is in, but it appears to be exactly what TrueEmpiricism is claiming. Thus, if you want more information about what TrueEmpiricism is talking about, read that section.

Yeah, I've read through that already but that doesn't allow for the words "specified information" to be next to each other and that seems to be the key. What he's been trying to do is use the valid term 'specified information' (which no one argues against) in a way like he is teaching you something. Once you agree to that term he starts all over again with it whenever you have a contention of context or question regarding the usage of 'specified'. "But you've already agreed that DNA is specified information. Well there you go."

He has a script and he reads from it. That's why there is no deviation allowed. You can see that by how he has to repeat and start over from the beginning each time. I've been comparing videos that have the camera on him and not. There is a huge difference in the manner of how he brings up information, so writing it all down and presenting it shouldn't be a difficult task to overtake in.

Either way, it does seem to be a double down procedure of backing up the error and firing all guns to avoid admitting a mistake at all costs. I don't think that he will ever allow a non-believer to correct him on anything, and will keep up the duck and dodge until we have lost interest. I don't feel like letting this one go though. I'll keep pressing until it gets addressed.

I'm going to look for the video where he and his crew google the SSI term and come up with the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" and have a big Home Shopping Network discussion talking about it where they have no idea what they are describing.

 

[Trixie]

The problem can be boiled down to this. TE has claimed that when he did a google search for sequential specified information he got numerous hits. It turns out that what he typed into the google search bar was Is DNA sequential specified information without using quotes. As a result he brought up every single page with any or all of those words somewhere on the page and not necessarily together.

On top of that, his first hit was the Wiki page "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology". He claims that the phrase sequential specified information occurs on that page and has gone so far as to suggest that the central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA is sequential specified information. His problem is this. The phrase doesn't occur within the Wiki article at all and in fact specified doesn't seem to appear, although specific does.

What are we to understand from this? Well, firstly that TE doesn't know how to do a google search for a specific phrase and secondly that he didn't even read the Wiki article where he claims the phrase occurs and made the claim based on the sole fact that the article popped up on a google search page.

 

[Mugnuts]

What are we to understand from this? Well, firstly that TE doesn't know how to do a google search for a specific phrase and secondly that he didn't even read the Wiki article where he claims the phrase occurs and made the claim based on the sole fact that the article popped up on a google search page.

It's the same way with Mr. Enyart regarding the Dinosaur soft tissue issue.

Trixie, could you help me out with the link for the video where TE and Vekl go on an on about the HSN discussion on the Dogma of molecular biology? I can't remember who held that Hangout.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

On top of that, his first hit was the Wiki page "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology". He claims that the phrase sequential specified information occurs on that page and has gone so far as to suggest that the central dogma of molecular biology is that DNA is sequential specified information.

:docpalm:

 

[Trixie]

Mugnuts asks

Trixie, could you help me out with the link for the video where TE and Vekl go on an on about the HSN discussion on the Dogma of molecular biology? I can't remember who held that Hangout.

I need a couple more clues. What's HSN?

 

[Mugnuts]

Mugnuts asks

Trixie, could you help me out with the link for the video where TE and Vekl go on an on about the HSN discussion on the Dogma of molecular biology? I can't remember who held that Hangout.

I need a couple more clues. What's HSN?

From my previous post

I'm going to look for the video where he and his crew google the SSI term and come up with the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" and have a big Home Shopping Network discussion talking about it where they have no idea what they are describing.

Maybe Alex Botten will know which video I'm talking about.

 

[Mugnuts]

Okay, so I've been on my own search to decipher this whole SSI origin, or at least the backing of what TrueE is talking about and it brought me to a 'who'. Insert Dr. John Craig Venter

TrueE likes to present Dr. John Craig Venter as someone who speaks in the same way about the same things that TrueE is using the same terminology, and comparisons. Now I've spent some time reading articles, interviews and listening to some of his speeches. The farthest I can go to agree with TrueE's take on it is that Dr. Venter makes statements like "DNA Software" and "DNA code". That's as far as it goes though. Everything else is an analogy for the as far as I can tell: A marketing position. DR. Venter has been working on creating synthetic life (bacteria) and aiming at 'reprogramming' cells for medical use, disease therapy, and so on. Lot's of cool stuff of course, yet not once in any of his talks can you find reference to an original designer of DNA, or that information like DNA can only come from a mind. He's quite the opposite of that, and it's quite disingenuous of TrueE to use a Pioneer in genome mapping, DNA synthesis, as a standpoint to verify that DNA comes from a mind or designer.


That's my take on it so far, and if I'm incorrect or not fully informed on the matter, then I shall amend my position pending the new data in the future.
(seems like there was a lesson in there )

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just have to ask, have you let TrueEmpiricism know about this thread or are you hoping that he will stumble across this on his own?

 

[Mugnuts]

I sent a pm right after I made the first post.

 

[Mugnuts]

I put a link on his channel too. As long as he hasn't blocked me, he should be able to see it there as well.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

TrueEmpiricism claims that DNA has information comparable to what we see in modern technology (I will grant him this for the sake of argument). TrueEmpiricism then goes on to argue that the only thing that we know that can produce such information is a mind. What TrueEmpiricism fails to recognize is that our minds are a product of emergence (i.e. evolution) much like the information that we see in DNA is most likely also a product of a similar form of emergence. The reason this is the case is that TrueEmpiricism has not demonstrated that there is a mind behind the information in DNA and without that first step, there is no argument. Emergence is a far superior explanation for the information we find in DNA for the simple fact that, even though we might not know exactly how it was form, we can demonstrate that emergence actually exists. There is no point in postulating about disembodied minds when there already exists an explanation that works.

 

[tuxbox]

TrueEmpiricism claims that DNA has information comparable to what we see in modern technology (I will grant him this for the sake of argument). TrueEmpiricism then goes on to argue that the only thing that we know that can produce such information is a mind. What TrueEmpiricism fails to recognize is that our minds are a product of emergence (i.e. evolution) much like the information that we see in DNA is most likely also a product of a similar form of emergence. The reason this is the case is that TrueEmpiricism has not demonstrated that there is a mind behind the information in DNA and without that first step, there is no argument. Emergence is a far superior explanation for the information we find in DNA for the simple fact that, even though we might not know exactly how it was form, we can demonstrate that emergence actually exists. There is no point in postulating about disembodied minds when there already exists an explanation that works.

I may be in over my head here, but in my opinion, Emergence only explains the process in which life began. It does not sufficiently explain why a single cell organism's DNA is so complexed. The complexity is far beyond my understanding and Abiogenesis is nothing more than conjecture from what I understand of it. (I hope I did not hijack this thread, if so, ignore this post.)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

TrueEmpiricism claims that DNA has information comparable to what we see in modern technology (I will grant him this for the sake of argument). TrueEmpiricism then goes on to argue that the only thing that we know that can produce such information is a mind. What TrueEmpiricism fails to recognize is that our minds are a product of emergence (i.e. evolution) much like the information that we see in DNA is most likely also a product of a similar form of emergence. The reason this is the case is that TrueEmpiricism has not demonstrated that there is a mind behind the information in DNA and without that first step, there is no argument. Emergence is a far superior explanation for the information we find in DNA for the simple fact that, even though we might not know exactly how it was form, we can demonstrate that emergence actually exists. There is no point in postulating about disembodied minds when there already exists an explanation that works.

I may be in over my head here, but in my opinion, Emergence only explains the process in which life began. It does not sufficiently explain why a single cell organism's DNA is so complexed. The complexity is far beyond my understanding and Abiogenesis is nothing more than conjecture from what I understand of it. (I hope I did not hijack this thread, if so, ignore this post.)

First, I want to say that this is way out of my depth as well, but from what I can read, abiogenesis is far from conjecture. Read up about it and see just how close we are in understanding exactly how life can start from non-life (and the different pathways it can take to get there).

Second, what do you mean exactly by complexity? Because, it appears to me that after life started, evolutionary theory explains quite well the complexity of life (on any scale). The complexity (depending on what you mean exactly) in DNA appears to be the easiest to explain as well with neutral theory alone.

 

[tuxbox]

First, I want to say that this is way out of my depth as well, but from what I can read, abiogenesis is far from conjecture. Read up about it and see just how close we are in understanding exactly how life can start from non-life (and the different pathways it can take to get there).

Second, what do you mean exactly by complexity? Because, it appears to me that after life started, evolutionary theory explains quite well the complexity of life (on any scale). The complexity (depending on what you mean exactly) in DNA appears to be the easiest to explain as well with neutral theory alone.

What I mean by the complexity is all the information stored within a single strand of DNA. Where did the information come from? As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, well it can't be tested in a lab, nor can it be observed. They are guessing how life began from organic molecules and the precursor to RNA. They also, have not observed RNA outside of a living cell (from what I know of it so far, could be wrong). I will read up on it in a few minutes. I am bouncing back in forth from FB and here while listen to music. hehe That said, it sounds like conjecture to me, but I'm willing to change my mind if real evidence is found.

 

[Inferno]

What I mean by the complexity is all the information stored within a single strand of DNA. Where did the information come from? As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, well it can't be tested in a lab, nor can it be observed. They are guessing how life began from organic molecules and the precursor to RNA. They also, have not observed RNA outside of a living cell (from what I know of it so far, could be wrong). I will read up on it in a few minutes. I am bouncing back in forth from FB and here while listen to music. hehe That said, it sounds like conjecture to me, but I'm willing to change my mind if real evidence is found.

I think you're making one or two basic mistakes here.
Scientists will probably never re-create the exact same conditions with which life started on earth. We simply don't know enough about that.
However, there may be hundreds of different ways life could have started. By finding even one of those different ways, we can show that life definitely could have started by natural means and we could show that there is at least one way of doing it.

As for testing it in a lab: Uh yes, that's what scientists have been doing since the 50s. Don't forget the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded most of the basic building blocks for life. You may want to read up on the following pop-science articles, they explain some of the research in only the last ten or so years. There's been much work done before and much later. For example, panspermia (life seeded from outer space) seems like a distinct possibility.

Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, May Explain Life’s Origins
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life
A Theory of Evolution for Evolution
Proof That Meteors Could Have Sparked Life on Earth

 

[tuxbox]

I think you're making one or two basic mistakes here.
Scientists will probably never re-create the exact same conditions with which life started on earth. We simply don't know enough about that.
However, there may be hundreds of different ways life could have started. By finding even one of those different ways, we can show that life definitely could have started by natural means and we could show that there is at least one way of doing it.

As for testing it in a lab: Uh yes, that's what scientists have been doing since the 50s. Don't forget the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded most of the basic building blocks for life. You may want to read up on the following pop-science articles, they explain some of the research in only the last ten or so years. There's been much work done before and much later. For example, panspermia (life seeded from outer space) seems like a distinct possibility.

Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, May Explain Life’s Origins
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life
A Theory of Evolution for Evolution
Proof That Meteors Could Have Sparked Life on Earth

Let me get back to you on this one. I'm currently researching RNA world hypothesis and Extracellular RNA.

 

[tuxbox]

I think you're making one or two basic mistakes here.
Scientists will probably never re-create the exact same conditions with which life started on earth. We simply don't know enough about that.
However, there may be hundreds of different ways life could have started. By finding even one of those different ways, we can show that life definitely could have started by natural means and we could show that there is at least one way of doing it.

As for testing it in a lab: Uh yes, that's what scientists have been doing since the 50s. Don't forget the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded most of the basic building blocks for life. You may want to read up on the following pop-science articles, they explain some of the research in only the last ten or so years. There's been much work done before and much later. For example, panspermia (life seeded from outer space) seems like a distinct possibility.

Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, May Explain Life’s Origins
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life
A Theory of Evolution for Evolution
Proof That Meteors Could Have Sparked Life on Earth

Let me get back to you on this one. I'm currently researching RNA world hypothesis and Extracellular RNA.

Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem:
"However, "it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded
RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."

Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, May Explain Life’s Origins:
"But where did replicons come from? Hammerhead viroids can’t tell us — but replicons may well be the product of non-biological evolution."

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory:
"However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form."

Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life:
The experiment only produced amino acids. Hardly compelling evidence, in my opinion.

A Theory of Evolution for Evolution:
""The transition between chemistry and biology is extremely murky," said Irene Chen, a Harvard University systems biologist and specialist in early biomolecules. She was not involved in the research."

Proof That Meteors Could Have Sparked Life on Earth[/quote]:
""It’s very nice to see some some experimental data in support of that possibility," he said, though he cautioned that more research is needed to extrapolate the results to larger impacts. "

Everything I have read seems to be a maybe, could have, believed, or some other form of, "we don't really know". That said, I found all the articles interesting and fun to read. I learned a lot of info and that is always a good thing.

"I think you're making one or two basic mistakes here.
Scientists will probably never re-create the exact same conditions with which life started on earth. We simply don't know enough about that.
However, there may be hundreds of different ways life could have started. By finding even one of those different ways, we can show that life definitely could have started by natural means and we could show that there is at least one way of doing it."

Regardless of whether there was a creator or not, I believe that life formed naturally. I find it hard to believe a deity spoke some words and kaboom life just appeared. That said, I find the universe and life on this planet to complexed to just happen by accident.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What I mean by the complexity is all the information stored within a single strand of DNA. Where did the information come from?

Did somebody mention information?

Here, we require a definition of information that is robust. Now, there are two robust formulations of information theory, and both of them need to be considered. The first is that of Claude Shannon and, while this is the formulation that most of them will cite, largely due to apologist screeds erecting various claims about information having to contain some sort of message and therefore requiring somebody to formulate the message, it doesn't robustly apply to DNA, because it's the wrong treatment of information. Indeed, when dealing with complexity in information, you MUST use Kolmogorov, because that's the one that deals with complexity.

So just what is information? Well, in Shannon theory, information can be defined as 'reduction in uncertainty'. Shannon theory deals with fidelity in signal transmission and reception, since Shannon worked in communications. Now, given this, we have a maximum information content, defined as the lowest possible uncertainty. Now, if we have a signal, say a TV station, and your TV is perfectly tuned, and there is no noise added between transmission and reception of the TV signal, then you receive the channel cleanly and the information content is maximal. If, however, the TV is tuned slightly off the channel, or your reception is in some other respect less than brilliant, you get noise in the channel. The older ones of you will remember pre-digital television in which this was manifest in the form of 'bees' in the picture, and crackling and noise in the audio. Nowadays, you tend to get breaks in the audio, and pixelated blocks in the picture. They amount to the same thing, namely noise, or 'an increase in uncertainty'. It tells us that any deviation from the maximal information content, which is a fixed quantity, constitutes degradation of the information source, or 'Shannon entropy' (Shannon actually chose this term because the equation describing his 'information entropy' is almost identical to the Boltzmann equation for statistical entropy, as used in statistical mechanics.

This seems to gel well with the creationist claims, and is the source of all their nonsense about 'no new information in DNA'. Of course, there are several major failings in this treatment.

The first comes from Shannon himself, from the book that he wrote with Warren Weaver on the topic:

The semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering aspects

And

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.

So we see that Shannon himself doesn't actually agree with this treatment of information relied on so heavily by the creationists.

The second is that Shannon's is not the only rigorous formulation of information theory. The other comes from Andrey Kolmogorov, whose theory deals with information storage. The information content in Kolmogorov theory is a feature of complexity or, better still, can be defined as the amount of compression that can be applied to it. This latter can be formulated in terms of the shortest algorithm that can be written to represent the information.

Returning to our TV channel, we see a certain incongruence between the two formulations, because in Kolmogorov theory, the noise that you encounter when the TV is slightly off-station actually represents an increase in information, where in Shannon theory, it represents a decrease! How is this so? Well, it can be quite easily summed up, and the summation highlights the distinction between the two theories, both of which are perfectly robust and valid.

Let's take an example of a message, say a string of 100 1s. In it's basic form, that would look like this:

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Now, there are many ways we could compress this. The first has already been given above, namely 'a string of 100 1s'.

Now, if we make a change in that string,

1111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110

We now have a string of 9 1s followed by a zero, repeated 9 times. We now clearly have an increase in information content, even though the number of digits is exactly the same. However, there is a periodicity to it, so a simple compression algorithm can still be applied.

Let's try a different one:

1110011110001111110111110001111111111100110011001111000111111111110111110000111111000111111110011101

Now, clearly, we have something that approaches an entirely random pattern. The more random a pattern is, the longer the algorithm required to describe it, and the higher the information content.

Returning once again to our TV station, the further you get away from the station, the more random the pattern becomes, and the longer the algorithm required to reproduce it, until you reach a point in which the shortest representation of the signal is the thing itself. In other words, no compression can be applied.

This is actually how compression works when you compress images for storage in your computer using the algorithms that pertain to Jpeg, etc. The uncompressed bitmap is the uncompressed file, while the Jpeg compression algorithm, roughly, stores it as '100 pixels of x shade of blue followed by 300 pixels of black', etc. Thus, the more complicated an image is in terms of periodicity and pattern, the less it can be compressed and the larger the output file will be.

What the above does is comprehensively demolish any and all creationist claims concerning information.

Information?

Spoiler: 2

From sand dunes, we can learn about prevailing wind directions over time and, in many cases, the underlying terrain just from the shape and direction

Information?

Spoiler: 1

Dogshit. The dogshit can tell us what the dog ate, how much of it ate, how big the dogs anus is, how long ago the dog shat on your lawn, the digestive health of the dog, whether there are parasite eggs in the shit and contain traces of the dog's DNA we can sequence to identify the individual dog. Seems like a lot of information to me. It also seems like more than enough information is present to shoot your assertion down

Information?

Spoiler: 3

DNA is information in the sense that it informs us about the system, not that it contains a message. It is not a code, more something akin to a cipher, in which the chemical bases are treated as the letters of the language. There is nobody trying to tell us anything here, and yet we can be informed by it.

Information (actually, I just decided that this is my new favourite example, because it is so informative)?

Spoiler: 4

ABout 1% of the interference pattern on an off-channel television screen is caused by the cosmic microwave background.

Information?

Spoiler: 5

This is information in the sense that the squiggles represent more data than would be contained on a blank piece of paper, although even a blank piece of paper is information. In this example, information is defined as the number of bits it would take to represent it in a storage system. This is pure kolmogorov information.

Information?

Spoiler: 6

Of all the information sources in this post, this is the only one that actually contains a message, and is therefore the only one to which Shannon information theory can be applied, as it is the only one that could actually decrease in terms of signal intergity.

Which of the above are information?

Answer: All of them. They are just different kinds of information.

More here by the Blue Flutterby:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=1934111#p1934111