cypress

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

I see that my post stated "we are at an impasse"

And thus we are at an impasse. I sensed we were and that is why I suggested we move on. the only thing to avoid is the half hour I think we wasted on the last several posts.

How do you know if you get the correct conclusion when you have one estimate and no historical data to verify it against?

This was similar to a question I asked of swansont. Earlier I provided some new information by Douglas Axe that provided indication that Hoyle's estimates were reasonable. I believe there is more than one estimate and they are in the same range. I would like to hear how one comes to a conclusion without a basis.

Why are estimates with known flaws "reasonable"?

Because doing nothing is often not an option. If BP did not react to the debacle they created, because they had known flaws in their plans, oil would still be flowing today.

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.

Then you can offer a better estimate given the corrections that have been made in Hoyle's analysis. Please do if you have not given up.

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.

I explained above why it is not good to give up.

I stated from the beginning that Hoyle's number is an estimate. Estimates are generally regarded as being subject to revisions. In other threads you have been quite comfortable with estimates that you know are wrong. Why not this thread? If you know it is wrong, improve on it. If you can't improve on it then it is the best one we have.

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?

I understand and disagree. In my line of business, applied science, we don't have the luxury of throwing up our hands and giving up. Reasonable estimates that we know are not exactly correct but give us the correct conclusion are better than no estimates.

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 am a literalist. You are misreading me when you try to read into me between the lines.

If that one you named earlier is the one I think you're talking about, you're either deliberately misrepresenting him, or you're mistaken. The paper mentioned is freely available online and says no such thing.

Here is what Koonin says:

I argue that the “many worlds in one” version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation implies that emergence of replication and translation by chance, as opposed to biological evolution, is a realistic possibility. Under this model, any life history that does not violate physical laws is realized an infinite number of time in the infinite universe although the frequencies of different histories are vastly different. Thus, the complex system of coupled translation and replication that is required for the onset of biological evolution would emerge an infinite number of times by pure chance although the probability of its appearance in any given region of the universe is vanishingly small.

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 find these argument vacuous and I responded to each one previously, but I don't think it is useful to go through them again. It would only be a diversion from the primary argument. For example the sequential vs. simultaneous issue is addressed once probabilistic resources are applied.

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?

You need to have a basis to understand and demonstrate what it means to be wrong. We know that it is not 7 because we have experience with factorials of numbers, and that for numbers above 2, the solution is greater than the base number. So we have an idea of what it means to have a correct answer for factorials.

Are you not able to offer a better estimate? If Hoyle's supposed errors are known, then corrections can be made and a new estimate is possible. Perhaps the problem is that these supposed errors are nothing more than ignorance masquerading as a critique. But really does it even matter? Skeptic, you, swansont, moontonman and I are in agreement that life by chance alone on earth is and always was an unreasonable position. Should we not move on?

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

Hmm, that's not what I took from his words. However if that is the case, and it is entirely possible that Hoyle's numbers are wrong. They are after all only estimates. Perhaps D H or you have better estimates. I would be grateful if you would please provide them. It seems silly to claim that someone's estimates are wrong if you are unable to offer better estimates.

Why does it matter whether the genetic algorithm contains information? You're making a really big deal about something that doesn't matter. A genetic algorithm can produce many many functional designs. Add them all up, and the genetic algorithm can produce more information than it itself contains. Therefore, it must have generated the additional information.

It matters because I said that random processes do not generate certain kinds of information. You responded that I was wrong and cited genetic algorithms as an exception to my claim. Now in the process you introduced a fallacy by changing the claim when you said that genetic algorithms start with random data and weed out the least useful. I should instead now say that you have not yet offered an example of a random process that generates the kind of information I described.

Well, I shall give you an example. Suppose Bob defines information as a red-skinned fruit with white flesh of the Rosaceae family (ie, an apple). Do you suppose Bob can use the theories you mention to talk about his idea of "information"? No, whenever someone makes a new definition they need to show that whatever theorem they wish to use apply to that definition. This can be done either by showing the definition is in fact identical, or that the theorem still holds. It is hard work and usually people simply use the theorems with the original definitions.

This point has already been addressed by noting that a cat by any other name is still a cat. An apple is still an apple even if Bob wants to believe otherwise. Publications widely make use of the examples I offered as kinds of information so I am not making up new definitions.

I see. This would be unlikely to result from a genetic algorithm -- while the designs genetic algorithms produce work well, they are often baffling to a human. A similar effect can be done by the famous coding while drunk, where the resulting program usually works but the person who wrote it usually has difficulty understanding it. Likewise, two different people might disagree on this. This strikes me as a subjective requirement.

 

Also, DNA is generally not considered orderly, logical, nor aesthetically consistent, so this definition would have limited applicability when talking about life.

Coherent refers to the output of the plan when processed, not necessarily the plan itself. Have you any example of a random process generating a large message that when processed by a natural system outputs a coherent system?

The base pairs are irrelevant without the proteins. Proteins have a digital sequence, but their folding is analogue, and what really matters is the analogue positioning of the groups at the active site and any binding sites. The information necessary for life is not digital.

The pattern of base pairs are transcribed and translated then processed to generate proteins and other components that including control networks that perform functions. DNA is the digitally encoded information storage for biological systems It is the source code for the body plans and functional controls in life.

Source code is nearly irrelevant without the compiler that transcribes the code into binary code. The firmware and hardware then processes the code and function is derived. Have you any example of random processes generating functional digital code?

What is this, a trick question?

No.

The contention that life arose by chance alone is an inherently flawed proposition. Hence there is no valid mechanism for calculating such a probability. Which is why Hoyle's conclusion that life did not arise by random chance is correct, but for the wrong reason.

It seems perfectly valid to develop a hypothesis (life on earth is a product of chance processes) then a prediction (if by chance alone, biological processes require that a minimal set of functional systems would first have to arise randomly, then these systems would generate the system plans for future life) then one could use reaction kinetics, chemical affinities and knowledge of what it means to be functional to derive a mathematical model that shows how this prediction is false and therefore how the hypothesis is false. Seems straightforward. As far as I know, nobody has provided a better demonstration and yet there must be one otherwise we have no basis for coming to a conclusion on this point. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

No, he's saying Hoyle got the answer by accident.

I get that, but thanks for the restatement.

No scientist ANYWHERE says that life arose by chance alone. No scientist ANYWHERE says that all of the molecules necessary for life popped into existence all at once in the same place. No scientist ANYWHERE says that the first life was the same as what we have now.

Hoyle is/was one of these scientists who agree with the others on your points. However, there are some prominent scientists who do still advocate for life by chance alone. I offered one name earlier.

We must be living in different universes. I see only one person who is agreeing with you, and that person is clueless about probabilities.

Hoyle's conclusion is that life on earth did not arise by chance alone. I take it you disagree? I note that swansont, and Skeptic both clarified that they agree with this conclusion. Moontonman and Cap'n did quite a while ago.

Nice one, piling a fallacy on top of a fallacy. Should we call this cypress' fallacy?

 

His answer is wrong, as both of my links (there are several others) show.

Your links take exception to his method but both agree with his conclusion without offering a better method.

The correct method is to say until we have more knowledge it is best to not to practice numerical proctology.

I'm not sure this is the best practice. I will be looking for you to be consistent on this point going forward since you believe so.

Fair enough. The answer to #107 is "no," because you misunderstood Mr Skeptic. Let me quote:

 

 

Mr Skeptic's hypothesis does not mean that if, for example, there is a minute chance that two people on Earth have the same DNA, the size of the universe alters that chance. It means that if an event has a probability of occurring, and the size of the universe alters how many chances that event has, the probability that it will occur at least once in the entire universe is increased when the size of the universe increases.

 

For example, if we are looking at the chance that life will occur by chance alone anywhere in the universe, it increases when the universe (and amount of matter, and number of habitable planets, and so on) increases in size. A large universe gives more opportunities for life to arise; an infinite universe gives infinite opportunities.

 

If we are looking at the chance that life will occur by chance alone at one specific location, the size of the universe is irrelevant. Only the age is.

So Skeptic's argument does not apply to the probability of life by chance alone on earth? Do I have that correct?

Coming to the right conclusion is not a guarantee that you got there via valid means. So yeah, he got there by luck.

Please demonstrate the valid mechanism.

In case you're wondering, tautologies are always true. Calling something circular logic doesn't mean anything when you don't know the meaning of circular logic.

Yes, it is always true by definition as I said. Thanks.

Well, it turns out you are wrong. A counterexample is a genetic algorithm. What a genetic algorithm does is start with random data and from simple rules weed out the least useful of that data.

Genetic algorithms are not random. They are designed and thus far they all appear to import information from the designer to allow the intended processes to succeed. But please prove me wrong. Offer up a functional genetic algorithm that does not import information into the process to guarantee success.

OK then but it would be best to be clear from the start what exactly we are talking about. I'm sure we agree on what "digitally encoded" means. What about "coherent", "functional", and "information"? And since we are no longer talking about Shannon information, please avoid using theorems related to Shannon information for this definition of yours.

Why should we avoid using entropy and information theory to measure any kind of information? That makes no sense to me. References to use of this system of measurement go way beyond communication and messaging; way beyond shannon information. What justification do you offer for such an unreasonable position that breaks with years of generally undisputed tradition?

Coherent (a blueprint is an example): When processed the results are marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

Functional (Software is an example): When processed it results in a system that have function.

And as to my questioning the relevance, if we are going to use this to talk about life, it would be kind of useless to define the above if it does not describe the information contents of a cell. For example, "digitally encoded" does not match.

Incorrect. The base pairs form a base four digital code.

DH, the fact that you are able to cite it as Hoyle's fallacy indicate that I did provide Hoyle as one of two references by the way. You simply don't accept his method of estimating life by chance alone and I am OK with that, because I note that nobody has offered a better estimate of the probability before considering resources. Skeptic chose to try to improve the odds by making an appeal to ignorance about what might extend beyond the observable universe. We continue to discuss that approach. It is interesting though that you and everyone else here seems to agree with Hoyle's conclusion.

Please answer these two questions:

If his method is incorrect then did he stumble into the correct conclusion by luck?

What is the correct method and result?

DJBruce, the formal estimate is that the combinatorial probability of life by chance alone not considering the resources available to act is less than 10^41000. If you have information that shows there is a probability floor above zero, I would like you to describe it and provide a reference.

It seems very much like another example of we don't actually know what happened so we'll fudge it.

Not too a bad summary of the situation that faces many of the historical sciences. As is often the case, these ideas include portions that are difficult to verify because the concepts lack causal adequacy. They make citations to processes that are not observed in current operation and are thus notional. In the case of sisyphus' description both inflation and the mode of expansion generally don't seem to have analogs in current reality and don't have a basis in any known physical laws. It would be interesting for the key aspects of these ideas if anybody could describe the observed process and the physical laws that allow for inflation and uniform expansion of 3 dimensional shape space. We of course know that mathematics can model many aspects of the but models are not necessarily reality. We all know the term garbage in, garbage out.

In this sense they are speculative just as you indicate, though "fudging" implies shifting it from some known reality which also is not quite right either.

How can you call something a dog if you can't ever tell the difference between it and a cat? If you call such a thing a cat then it might as well be a cat, and if you call it a dog it might as well be a dog.

But since in many cases we can distinguish the difference between encoded information and data, when we can we should.

My words function in informing humans of things. They also function as part of several compute programs. Yet another function of my words is to change the pattern of light pixels on computer screens.

Yes there are different kinds of information.

The point is that Shannon information can be created via random processes. The event of which the message informs is a random event.

Sure but it is an uninteresting. It is a direct result of the definition for a particular kind of information; namely Shannon information. To say that this shows that random processes generates information is a tautology. It is circular logic.

However since it is a definition for just one kind of information, we should not expect it to be true of all kinds of information. I doubt random processes can generate a compression algorithm, and I doubt random processes can generate all the text in an encyclopedia, and I doubt a random process can generate digitally encoded functional information.

What is the relevance of this? It looks an awful lot like word soup for playing "gotcha" with.

This was the question that spawned this thread. At some point we should advance to this question. I am anxious to get to the point.

I don't have Penrose's book, but I do have the paper from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that you say his work was an "outgrowth" of. Despite your claims to the contrary, it says nothing about infinite universes -- it refers to inflationary cosmology, which can have finite or infinite universes, and explores difficulties in the entire theory. It makes no specific claims about infinite universes that I know of.

Right that is why I called it an outgrowth as opposed to a restatement.

Are there other peer-reviewed papers that he has published on the subject? Lorenzo and Sorbo (UC Davis physicists) characterize inflationary cosmology as having "survived extensive theoretical and observational scrutiny and has come to be seen as the leading theory of the origin of the universe (see for example [2])" as of 2008, while of course noting there are open questions -- which still may be solved.

 

But we'll see what you think about the chance of the universe being infinite when you get back later, apparently.

Yes, I have a couple diversions to work through. will be back to the other topics tonight or tomorrow. I don't know of any other articles Pemrose wrote on inflation and infinite universe ideas.

Returning to the probability equations I note again that zero probability is potential solution to the probability for life from non -life by chance alone. Since this is the case, it is not a certainty that the probability assuming an infinite universe approaches one. It is also possible that it is zero.

Agreed.

 

I thought it worthwhile to note that he was arguing from a paper that the author suggests shouldn't be referenced. By arguing from S&B 2008, his argument was flawed from the start.

John, I do not believe I am referencing the S&B2008 paper. Help me better understand the connection between the the S&B2008 paper which reports on a mechanism for estimating the feedback contribution to satellite measurements of radiative flux and the the paper I linked which attributes nearly most of the recent warming trend to changes in radiative forcing presumably due to changes in cloud cover.

 

It's generally considered bad etiquette to ignore questions when you're making claims.

Agreed, I did look at that question again now. I didn't respond because I considered it answered in the explanation. You pointed out the error I made and I believe I revised my statement. If you want to continue with the discussion let me know.

As DJBruce points out, this is why limits exist. When we multiply by infinite, we get an undefined result; but when we increase the operand towards infinity, we can see the result also tends to infinity. So as the universe increases in size to infinitely large, the probability of life scales similarly.

Fair point. DJBruce, you needn't explain any further. The remaining issues with postulating infinite mass is that it lacks a real analog from uniform experience and it leads to illogical outcomes. I will continue to describe these issues next.

You again forget that the same inflationary model that can predict an infinite universe can also predict a finite universe, depending on observations. If you throw out the inflationary model because of issues, you are left with an assortment of finite or infinite models.

I have not forgotten. The assortment of infinite models all have issues according to Pemrose. He addresses nearly all of them and you have said nothing about his work. 2005 was when he published his latest summary.

And again Mr Skeptic's point about probability still stands. So long as there's a chance of the universe being infinite, his argument works.

Perhaps by the math edit: though I'm not convinced that this treatment of limits applies to independent chance events, for now I will stipulate this while I work it over a bit. I may come back to this :end edit

but I am not sure it works by reason. I will come back to this.

I'm a capable argumentative multitasker.

Yes you are.

I am going to guess that Mr. Skeptic just used shorthand in his quoted post. Yes you cannot plug infinity into an equation, however:

 

[math] \lim_{n\to\infty} 1-\left(1-10^{-41000}\right)^{n}=1-0=1[/math]

 

So there Mr. Skeptic's point still stands.

I'm not following this formula. Help me relate it to the probability equation relevant to the situation described by Mr. skeptic. I did give you a + for the translation.

No... He (and Shannon) specifically said "messages". Changing this context changes the meaning.

Messages works for me.

I do. The same data might or might not be meaningful, depending on context. Since no one can consider all the context, the prudent choice is to either treat the data as information or ignore it.

Please show me how treating something as if it was information makes it information. You can call a cat a dog but even if you do, it remains a cat.

Compression is the ability of the instruction set to reproduce the original stream, whereas Shannon's message information is most definitely not. Shannon can accept lossy compression that cannot reproduce the original stream, so long as the same meaning is understood.

Relevance? I think we are in general agreement here.

My words are digitally encoded (when written) and also functional.

I fail to understand your point. Please explain. Also please offer a process that when it operates on your words, produces a functional system because I don't see how your words are functional in the sense I mean.

OK, I set as my example lottery numbers. These are pure information (according to Shannon and my own compressibility definitions), yet they were originally randomly generated.

I agree they fit the shannon and your definition of information. I am not certain they can be generated by random processes alone though. You still have a problem that the basic symbols require a mind to decipher the message generated to obtain meaning, so even in this example you have a long ways to go.

I find it irrelevant to the earlier question if lottery numbers can be generating by some random processes. It does not seem to address the question I asked.

Can you offer a mechanism to derive digitally encoded coherent functional information as I previously described?

Well now this sounds exactly like an opinion, and if we are in the mood to share opinions. Capn, your demonstration was very compelling. Cypress your rebuttal on the other hand was much much less than compelling.

It was an opinion, intended to emphasize that I believe that point is still being discussed. I followed it with an indication of where the discussion has stalled. I am hopeful that Cap'n and Skeptic will answer to my request for clarity so that I can make a proper response and you may thoughtfully comment.

As I pointed out you did not start out with the claim that we are concern with the development of life only on Earth. So at some point the goal posts were moved.

I apologize for not including every aspect of my entire argument in the opening post.

What request or demonstration do you refer to? I refer to posts #103 and #105. You did not bring up any requests for clarification. If you're thinking of #107, I let Mr Skeptic answer that rather than putting words in his mouth.

 

If you want to accuse me of avoiding clarifying, please request I clarify first.

Yes 107, I believe I did request clarification and I am interested in your understanding because you clearly had something in mind when you answered as you did. Since my question was to you, and my eventual response will likely be to you, I figured it is reasonable for you to answer it. But please I am through being difficult in this thread so I will refrain from being condescending as much as possible. Do take my comments and requests at face value from here forward and I will try to do the same.

And while we're at it, you haven't answered my questions in post #101.

I'll have a look at it again. Does this site require that every question be answered? That will be difficult for everyone to follow.

I believe Mr Skeptic's calculations don't require an infinite universe to be a certainty. Just a slight possibility.

It does require an non zero probability for life by chance alone. But your statement reveals a more fundamental problem with an infinite anything. I alluded to this before but did not explain it at the time. Infinity is not a number it is a concept. When you attempt to multiply by infinity the answer is undefined.

So In addition to the other issues Mr. Skeptic's solution to his is not 1 or any other number, it is undefined.

"How Probable is Inflation?" is also 22 years old; Lorenzo and Sorbo present a newer calculation in Physical Review that is more favorable.

The issues discussed in the material were the focus and they remain unresolved which is the point I was making. Revised numbers are to be expected. Can I assume you agree that the models are likely not 100% correct and adjustments will be forthcoming? Can we agree that there are remaining issues with aspects that are required for an infinite universe? If you don't then we should go through the references I provided and discuss each point one by one.

What point is there to speak only of life on Earth? Suppose the probability of life emerging on Earth is small, but the probability of life emerging anywhere in the universe is rather large. In such a universe, it would be likely that some planet would have beings like us pondering the existence of life. In other words, that would stack the universe in favor of us existing, on whatever planet.

I suggest we hold this question until we resolve the previous open ones.

And I demonstrated that no such illogical outcomes would occur. You appear to have ignored that.

No your demonstration was not compelling, and is the subject of my request to clarify the claim being made. I suspect you may have a sense where it is heading and thus you want to avoid the discussion. Please either accept or correct my description so we can proceed.

The model that produces an infinite universe is testable and falsifiable. As Mr Skeptic pointed out, it is the same model that produces a finite universe, but with different input observations. Those observations are being made, and point to an infinite universe conclusion.

 

If you want to reject widely accepted cosmological models, I'd appreciate peer-reviewed sources to back up your claims.

I'm not sure why you think I would want to wholesale reject cosmological models. Do you actually believe the current models are 100% correct? Or is it acceptable and reasonable to think that some parts of it will over time be adjusted? Oxford physicist Roger Penrose has been critical of some aspects of the model that provide for an infinite universe. He explains many in his book "The Road To Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" much of this particular material was an outgrowth of a paper for the Proceedings of the 14th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Stephen Hawking and Don Page also note as yet unresolved issues with some aspects of the model that are necessary to produce an infinite universe in "How Probable is Inflation?" Nuclear Physics.

Don't shift the goalposts. That's not what was stated in the first post in this topic. Hoyle's mathematics apply to any Earth-like planet.

This point was clarified when it came up in the discussion long ago. What point is there to speak of life elsewhere that we know nothing about? It is an uninteresting question on which I would not spend this much time.

Again please address the question asked of you previously.

I disproved your claim that the probability of life forming by chance is 10^-41,000. The method I used was to demonstrate that were the universe to be infinite then the probability of life would be 1. In no way is this speculation -- it is absolute certainty.

I previously explained and I believe I can clearly show that it would lead to illogical outcomes were it true and therefore it should be rejected. In addition it is irrelevant as a scientific conclusion since it has as a necessary component, speculation about an infinite material property that lack causal adequacy. We have no observable evidence of anything with infinite physical characters. To argue that this speculation should be accepted while others should be rejected is a double standard and is metaphysical.

In addition the claim was that life by chance alone on earth has a probability no higher than 1 in 10^41000. Since you have not definitely ruled out zero probability, therefore you have not demonstrated certainty either.

Finally, we are speaking of life on earth so the probability of life anywhere in the universe is not interesting. The question is what is the probability of life by chance alone on this earth.

Seriously cypress, as long as you cling to the idea that life has a 10^-41,000 chance of forming we have nothing to discuss here.

That's a cop out. You know very well that my position is that life by chance alone (on earth) has a probability that is estimated no greater than 10^-41000. It may seem like a minor point but it makes all the difference in the world. When properly considered, I conclude (and you do too) that it is an unreasonable position to accept that life occurred by chance alone. Some other processes were involved, and after including these processes, these long odds collapse. We are violently agreeing and I can only conclude that it is the agreement that has you so worked up.

Instead of ranting about a straw man idea I do not hold and claiming I am unreasonable, perhaps you should put some of your advice to use.

In the context of this discussion, I think it's moot. cypress was asked to back up a specific claim, and this does not address that issue.

I tend to agree with this point. The Blog addresses a slightly different issue.

The part of Spencer's blog post that does purport to address the issue does not constitute evidence, and this point has been conceded by cypress.

Incorrect. Spencer's blog, and the paper I offered, in addition to the primary points, both include a discussion of a simple climate model developed by Spencer among other purposes to:

illustrate how natural monthly-to-yearly variability in global (a) cloud cover and ( b ) surface evaporation can affect our satellite observations of (1) temperature and (2) total radiative flux.

Spencer uses his simple climate model for purposes other than evidence, and I agree it should not and was not offered as evidence. That the model is not evidence is the where you seem to be on the same page as Spencer and me.

However swansont errors when he implies that the paper contains no evidence that natural events account for much of the current warming trend. Spencer describes why he developed the model and what he uses it for and then includes an excellent summary of the observable evidence that the PDO drives changes in radiative forcing which in turn change the Earth's energy budget and thus temperature. He attributes the change in forcing to natural changes in cloud cover as a result of the PDO. In other research of his and of others he references, it has been shown that very minor changes in average cloud cover (less than 2%) is more than sufficient to account for the observed temperature fluctuations over the past 200 years.

The evidence that natural causes accounts for much of the recently observed warming has been presented as a direct response to the topic of this thread. In addition, as a bonus, a simple climate model was included to illustrate the point more clearly but unfortunately has also provided a venue to raise red herrings.

Yes that appears to be correct. I don't see any errors at all.

It means the later only it refers to a definite relationship not a likely relationship so remove the word likely and you have it right . The former would be an example of a non-syntenic relationship.