Re: Eleven questions Pitman refuses to answer. was Non-beneficial

On Feb 15, 4:02 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Speaking as the author of the very last bit of nonsense, I really would
appreciate an answer. No typos involved.

I've already given you my answer to the pattern argument. A nested
pattern is not an unreasonable way to create an overall interacting
interdependent system. It is actually quite an appealing creative
idea and not beyond that produced by human creativity on occasion. In
fact, before Darwin, the overall orderliness of the pattern of life
suggested to many the creative balance and orderliness of the mind of
God.

The fact is that you can't rule out the design-only hypothesis based
on a pattern. You can only falsify it by demonstrating that a non-
deliberate natural process can do the job - to include all the
functional aspects of the system. So far, the only part of the
pattern demonstrated to be within the range of the proposed mechanism
of random mutation and function-based selection are low-level systems
that require no more than a few hundred fairly specified amino acid
residues working together at the same time.

Of course, you argue that the nested pattern only supports the notion
of common descent, regardless of mechanism. However, without the
potential for falsification (an alternative hypothesis) this isn't
really a scientific position. It simply isn't testable in a
falsifiable manner. If anything, it can be demonstrated that such a
pattern is in fact within the reach of intelligent design. Therefore,
common descent is demonstrably not the only viable option to explain a
nested hierarchical pattern.

Beyond this problem, if it can be shown that your proposed mechanism
couldn't produce certain functional aspects of the overall pattern
(supporting the ID notion for at least some functional aspects) the
notion of common descent looses a great deal of appeal. You suddenly
go pre-Darwin as far as evolutionary support goes. Darwin's big
contribution wasn't so much coming up with evolutionary ideas. Those
existed long before he came on the scene. What really made
evolutionary concepts so appealing to the majority of mainstream
scientists was the presentation of a convincing mechanism. Darwin
brought this to the table with his unique idea that small changes
combined with mindless natural selection can produce the vast variety
of form and function that we see today in living things.

Until this point, evolutionary concepts really were not all that
forceful or convincing. So, what do you think would happen if
Darwin's proposed mechanism was convincingly shown to loose creative
power, exponentially, at the lowest levels of functional complexity?
Your overall nested pattern just wouldn't have the same convincing
power when it came to higher-level systems - without Darwin's
mechanism to go along with it. That's the problem with relying only
on pattern to support the notions of either common descent or common
design.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eleven questions Pitman refuses to answer. was Non-beneficial
    ... I find it a bit annoying that you will carry on endless discussion of your neutral gap stuff but are unwilling to continue a discussion of common descent past a single round. ... > I've already given you my answer to the pattern argument. ... > pattern demonstrated to be within the range of the proposed mechanism ... But in fact you couldn't falsify design that way either. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Eleven questions Pitman refuses to answer. was Non-beneficial
    ... > I've already given you my answer to the pattern argument. ... And when you did this I asked you wasn't it odd that out of all the myriad possible balanced and orderly ways to create life, we just happen to have the one that mimics exactly what we would see from common descent. ... > pattern demonstrated to be within the range of the proposed mechanism ... But in fact you couldn't falsify design that way either. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Eleven questions Pitman refuses to answer. was Non-beneficial
    ... necessity of deliberate design behind most of the key differences. ... deliberate design without the need for common descent. ... The problem with that is that any pattern at all, or no pattern at all, ... If on the other hand we allow that anything can actually be rules, out, we can certainly rule out the idea that only design could result in a nested hierarchy, right? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
    ... definition for a nested hierarchical pattern. ... type of fractal structures formed by the patterns of life. ... theory of common descent is simply not true - by your own admission. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Nested Patterns = Common Descent?
    ... nested hierarchical pattern implies common descent in all cases where ... processes cannot make a nested hierarchical pattern without the use of ... a reason why an intelligent designer would create such a pattern. ... is because the intelligent agent is using the same mechanism as occurs ...
    (talk.origins)