Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?

On Jan 23, 9:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

As the math is utterly bogus, technically incompetent and based on a
deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt
to discredit evolution, it doesn't provide much support, does it?


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.)

Yes, but he's quite obviously lying.

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.

It's a diversion because it is based on a model of evolution which
devised by Sean Pitman, not by any evolutionary biologist. Even if
Pitman *were* mathematically competent - which he clearly is not - all
that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed.


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."

Which they are because they are not based on any model of the
evolutionary process ever proposed by any evolutionary biologist.

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.

The unjustified conclusion is Pitman's: He has constructed a
deliberately flawed model of evolution, and on the basis of a
mathematical argument which is in itself utterly incompetent, argues
that because his model doesn't work evolutionary theory if falsified.
The reasonable conclusion is that his model is flawed.


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."

It doesn't conclude that his mathematical model is credible. It merely
notes that even if it were credible, it is not a valid argument
against evolution.


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.

The "mathematical component" simply demonstrates that Pitman's model
of evolution is flawed. This would be the case even if his grasp of
mathematics were not utterly lacking.

The *evidence* which Pitman simply refuses to address is that
evolution is perfectly capable of creating novel and complex systems
by purely naturalistic means.


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).

Naturalism is the "startig presupposition" of *ALL* science.

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.

If this is not true, where is the evidence for the existence of an
"Intelligent Designer"? Asserting that something must have been
designed because there is no scientific explanation for how it could
have been created is not a testable assertion.

Pitman has already conceded that his argument has no scientific merit
even though he will no doubt protest strongly that he hasn't. He has
*specifically* included the possibility of supernatural intervention
as part of his "explanation". That makes his explanation untestable
using the tools of science.

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.)

Denial of reality seems a rather poor position on which to base an
argument, Ray.


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

Perhaps you can point out where any commentator has said anything
positive about Pitman's transparently bogus mathematics?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt ... to discredit evolution, it doesn't provide much support, does it? ... since Sean stipulates that his ID is not about supporting the ... that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is ... the mathematics has intrinsic appeal. ... and do support based on the ... then has a right to deploy his presuppositions at this juncture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt ... since Sean stipulates that his ID is not about supporting the ... and the citations he claims support his model do exactly the opposite. ... that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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 ... I doubt Sean has said such a thing. ... that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: JSH: Something wrong in your brains
    ... to do all of the above and more in a quest to keep the species viable.. ... as middle class societies tend to have too low birth-rates. ... Evolution itself is rejected by a ... Nature is never bound by the assumptions of mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)