Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- From: poiuy@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Rowley)
- Date: 12 Dec 2005 11:43:35 GMT
From: Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:01:19 -0500, BruceW
> <LevelOneDiag@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Von R. Smith wrote:
> >> ...
> >> You are not *refuting* any such thing; you are merely
> >>rejecting it. Do you understand the difference? To refute
> >>something requires presenting evidence and reasons indicating
> >>that it is false.
> and those reasons and evidence are presented in his random-walk
> model.
Where and how?
You can't refute a model by looking at a different model, you have
to study the model you are claiming to refute and find some fault
with _it_.
> >> The actual *argument* you present is a refutation of your
> >>random walk notion, coupled with the unsupported suggestion
> >>that evolution of the structures we see in life entail such
> >>a walk. So yes, you *are* merely refuting the weaker position
> >>of a random walk, then asking your audience to believe that,
> >> in doing so, you have refuted the argument you are
> >>contesting.
> are you saying that random mutations (that lead to a random
> walk) is a weaker argument of evolutionary theory?
Of course it is.
The real version of evolutionary theory includes the effects of
selection which lead to a non random walk.
I believe it is called a directed random walk, like an avalanche
tumbling down a slope the fine details are random but the main
thrust is directed.
> Are you now discarding the mechanism of random mutations,
> selected for, because you recognize that this is a weaker
> position?
Certainly not.
Sean's model, which is what the previous poster would be
discarding, is that the evolution of new complex features
would have to occur _without_ the benefit of selection.
> It seems
> to me that you're saying that random mutations, selected for, is
> a weaker part of the arguments that evolutionsts hold and,
> therefore, it should not be used to undermine the stronger
> (unsupported) argument that there are closely
> spaced steppingstones.
You are totaly confused, the "stepping stones" represent the
various intermediate forms that can be selected for.
Closely spaced "stepping stones" mean that selection can "guide"
the evolution through all (or most) of the intermediate steps.
(The stronger argument of evolution.)
The absence of "stepping stones" would mean that evolution must
rely almost purely on random luck in a true random walk.
(The weaker argument of evolution.)
> >> ...
> >
> >Precisely:
> >
> >1. The ToE aligns with a model, X ("closely spaced
> >steppingstones").
> well, I am just getting back to TO posting and first thing I
> discover is that Sean is beating his head against a stone
> wall......of stubborn blindness. I haven't been following this
> particular subject so my comments may likely be off course,
Of course. ;-)
> but my question here is:
> Is the true position of the ToE that of "closely spaced
> steppingstones"? If this is your position, then Sean appears to
> be correct, in my opinion, in stating that he is refuting, not a
> strawman, but your true position. His tool for refuting that
> true position is the use of one of your mechanisms, random
> mutations.
You can't separate out one of several cooperating mechanisms
and expect to prove anything by showing that it, by itself, is
inadequate.
> >2. Pitman asserts, without adequate evidence or argument, that
> >X is incorrect. He then proposes that the correct model is Y
> >("neutral gaps").
> no, it appears to me that Pitman is presenting adequate evidence
> that X is incorrect by showing that the underpinning assumptions
> of evolution (random mutations, and what you call model Y) will
> not support your true position of closely spaced steppingstones.
Huh??
Model Y assumes a lack (or paucity) of steppingstones, how in the
world _could_ it support the existance of closely spaced
steppingstones?
And model Y is Sean's assumtion, not an "underpinning assumption
of evolution".
> >3. Pitman then argues that, under Y, evolution cannot proceed.
> EXACTLY. He has produced evidence, using your own mechanism of
> random mutations,
You left out the selection again.
> to demonstrate that you cannot claim closely spaced
> steppingstones as a valid model, not as long as you adhere
> to your weaker mechanism of selected random mutations (that
> naturally will produce a random walk.)
No, selected mutations will produce a _directed_ (random) walk.
Selected random mutations is the stronger mechanism,
_unselected_ random mutations is the weaker mechanism.
And closely spaced "steppingstones" is what allows selection
claiming that one disproves the other is compleatly nonsensical.
> >Y is a strawman.
> why so? Are you saying that selected random mutations
He is not (in the above) saying ANYTHING about _selected_ random
mutations.
Sean's model Y is all about _unselected_ random mutations.
Do you understand the difference?
>(or random walk) is no longer the modus operandi of evolutionary
> theory? Or
> are you crediting intelligence, after all, to natural selection
> such that it knows how to choose such that you will always have
> closely spaced steppingstones?
Youv'e got that precisly backwards,
if the "steppingstones" are closely spaced then an undirected
random mutation will have no problem in "finding" the next one
whereupon that mutation will be selected for.
The mutations that "go off" in the "directions" where there are
no "stepping stones" won't be selected for and thereby evolution
will follow the "stepping stones" with no intelligent choices
needed.
> > A legitimate argument would attempt to show that
> >evolution cannot under X.
> Model Y, as you call it, is a legitimate argument against Model
> X.
No, it isn't, it isn't an argument at all.
It is an alternative model, what's lacking is convincing arguments
for it's being a better model than X.
> Sean is using your mechanism of random mutations, selected
> for, to show that you cannot have closely spaced steppingstones.
No he isn't.
He is showing that IF there aren't closely spaced steppingstones
and therefore no selection (until the evolution of a new function
is finished or nearly so) then evolution dosn't work.
> And, Sean, I may be entirely wrong on my understanding of this
> argument,
Definately!
> seeing that I have come onto the scene late and know
> only a smidgen of what you guys have been discussing. If I am
> incorrect, please set me straight, but until then, this is how I
> see it.
> Maybe I should be minding my own business
Certainly not, it's an open forum.
> and my own threads :-\
I _am_ curious as to where you think you are going with
your laws of intelligence.
<snip>
Eric
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
- Next by Date: Re: The Revelation By Jesus Christ
- Previous by thread: Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- Next by thread: Re: The Strawman Defense: Use at all times - it just in case
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
