Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?

On Jan 14, 3:23 pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Some criticism of Stephen's criticism:

Rusty Sites wrote:
"The point of Levinthal's paradox is to demonstrate that when a
mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is
impossible, then it's the calculation that's wrong, or the
assumptions behind the calculation. This point is lost on most
Intelligent Design Creationists.  They are tremendously fond of
complex calculations proving that some biological process is
impossible. To them, this is not proof that their calculations are
flawed—it's proof that a miracle occurred."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/levinthals-paradox.html

At least one of the papers Sean cites is really about Levinthal's
paradox though I am not at all sure he is aware of it.

This is very interesting.  However remember all this math is just part
of an overall argument. It seems to me emphasizing the math is a
diversion from the failure of the overall argument.


Error.

The math is not a diversion; it is a component or interlocking line of
evidence supporting the overall argument.

This "ID" argument can be boiled down to the following:


(As an aside: placing quotes marks around ID is accurate in this case
since Sean stipulates that his ID is not about supporting the
existence of invisible Designer/God.)

1.  Through a set of mathematical arguments, the likelihood that
evolution can proceed via random-mutation/natural-selection (RM/NS)
beyond a certain level of "functional complexity" is shown to be
vanishingly small, something less than one chance in "trillions and
trillions" of years.


This is why the mathematical aspect is a component of the overall
argument thus exposing your description of the component as a
"diversion" to be wholly inaccurate.

2.  This likelihood (rather, unlikelihood) fails to cross a certain
believability threshhold, and therefore we can say, effectively,
evolution by RM/NS does not and has not produced entities of greater
complexity than that specified in (1) above.

3.  Therefore at least human-level intelligence must be involved in
producing observed entities or greater complexity than specified in (1).

This is a failed argument:

As for (1), the mathematics has intrinsic appeal. It's interesting in
itself, and that is perhaps why it serves so effectively as a diversion
from the failure of the overall argument; whether or not the math is
correct and valid is irrelevant to whether the entire argument is sound;


These comments admit that the mathematics are appealing and
interesting, but then these positive characteristics are suddenly
defined to correspond to a negative, "diversion." Then the overall
argument is presupposed or simply asserted to fail while exempting the
negative mathematical component from contributing to the alleged
failure. What we have here is contradiction and unjustified conclusion
based on assumption and/or bias.

As for (2), we note that just because some likelihood is vanishingly
small does not mean it is impossible or that the unlikely circumstance
could not have occurred (although, to me, this is a less than
satisfying response);


These comments seem to conclude, based on the ending parenthesis, that
the mathematical component is credible, which again contradicts the
previous negative description of the component as "diversion."

As for (3), we come to the failure of the argument: this is plainly and
simply a non sequitur, a fallacy of irrelevance. Nothing in (1) or (2),
separately or together, impels us to conclusion (3).


If (1) and (2) are true then the author has a right to tell us what it
means (3).

According to the author: (1) and (2) do support (3) based on the
presuppositions and totality of evidence in which the argument is
offered.

Your comments simply assert (3) to be false. You haven't provided us
with any evidence or argument in support of your opinion. Assertion
does not harm (3). It simply tells us your opinion of the conclusion.

Conclusion (3) is neither a valid deduction from (1) and (2), nor a
supported inference from empirical evidence.


The whole point of the conclusion says the exact opposite. That (1)
and (2) support (3). Again, you have simply re-stated your opinion.
The mathematical component supports impossible odds for certain
mechanisms to operate beyond a certain threshold. If true the author
then has a right to deploy his presuppositions at this juncture. Your
opposition to (3), beside being bare assertion, is rooted in violation
of your starting presuppositions (Naturalism). Since you have voiced
support of (1) and (2) (despite the contradictions) opposition to (3)
is ideological or philosophical. Both (1) and (2) stand which, like I
have pointed out, give the author the right to tell us what they mean
(3).

At best you might conclude from (1) and (2) that RM/NS doesn't by
itself account for all the biological complexity observed.  The
"intelligent design" conclusion is simply grabbed out of thin air.


Not true. It was the well known presupposition of the overall argument
and its author. Based on the evidence and argument, that is, the
alleged failure of NS, the author has supported his presupposition
(explicated in (3)).

(Note: I do not agree with Sean's presuppositions concerning "ID" or RM
+NS; neither exist in nature.)

My opinion of (1) is along the lines you suggest here: that the math is
flawed, if not in the calculation, in the underlying conceptualization.
Many posters in other threads have pointed that out.  But don't forget
the overall failure of the argument the math is intended to support.

Regards,
Stephen

--

This is your only option to oppose scientifically: attack the veracity
of (1) and (2). But again: you have made both positive and negative
comments concerning the mathematical aspect----but ending in negative.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is ... deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt ... that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed. ... and do support based on the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
    ... what intuition would lead you to expect. ... I could spend a day performing and checking the above calculation by ... trick of summing up the digits (and I sum up the digits using the old ... Well, in order to improve the Quality Assurance of mathematics, there ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt ... In my opinion the totality of Sean's claims, ... that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed. ... presuppositions and totality of evidence in which the argument is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dealing with hijackers
    ... beyond a screenful of questions and the suggestion that you reinstall ... large US company that obviously employs Indian technical support. ... company that turns out software to enable teachers to produce ... who teaches degree students mathematics for nudging me repeatedly into ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Who is able to answer these simple questions in ZF-set theory coherently? Not WM!
    ... added an explanatory note to his enthusiastic support in your stuff ... You believe that this invalidates my disproof of actual infinity from ... invalidates most of what you think you've proved in mathematics is the ...
    (sci.math)