Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?

On Jan 24, 1:49 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?


I was criticizing Stephen's criticism (see opening comment above to
confirm). This makes your comment a non-sequitur.

But I will address your claim that Sean's evolution model is flawed
(below).



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.


I agreed with Stephen here.

Sean is offering what is known commonly as a "stipulated" definition
(of ID) and he is arguing the stipulation in the context of an
original theory or argument. This renders your belief that Sean is
lying to be gross misunderstanding.

Stipulated definitions are, of course, completely valid. But in this
particular instance the stipulated definition is, in my opinion,
illegitimate since ID always presupposes, indicates and corresponds to
Divine power and NOT human. I also readily admit that I do not
understand Sean's stipulated definition. In my conversations with
Sean, I gather him to accept both supernatural and non-supernatural
causation agencies to be operating in reality. This can be deduced
from Stephen's criticism alone. Apparently Sean is claiming that a
threshold exists where RM+NS ceases to operate and drive evolution.
Beyond this threshold is where his version of ID allegedly operates.

In my opinion the totality of Sean's claims, as represented by Stephen
(minus his criticism, of course), along with my own understanding
(minus my own criticism, too), assuming both understandings are
correct, are valid and legitimate since these claims are original
claims, argument and conclusion. Sean has every right, like anyone, to
challenge and overthrow orthodoxy. Originality *could also mean* and
include the view of others, of whom he subscribes, which is not
accepted. These facts, I believe, address and refute your claim that
Sean is propagating a "deliberately flawed model of evolution."

Originality (in my opinion, seen mainly in his stipulated definition
of ID, and in his claim of dual antithetic causation agencies
operating in reality, separated by a threshold) also insulates Sean
from a charge of subjectivity or having to produce sources for any
unique component in his overall argument or theory.

I can declare with absolute certainty that Sean Pitman cannot support
any claim or argument for dual antithetic causation agencies operating
in reality: it is either one or the other according to the History and
Philosophy of Science. Again, since his overall argument presupposes
originality, attempting to overthrow the status quo, he is insulated
from this theory or argument killing claim.



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.

Neither Ronald Fisher or Richard Dawkins have any degree in biology.
IIRC Dawkins called Fisher the greatest scientist since Darwin.
Speaking of Darwin, the only degree he had was in Theology. I could
list many more examples. Your point is completely illegitimate.

Even if
Pitman *were* mathematically competent - which he clearly is not - all
that his mathematics could demonstrate is that his model is flawed.


But in context, the issue between Stephen and I, is not about
mathematical veracity. It was about me criticizing Stephen's
criticism. While Stephen offered a similar opinion, which is of no
surprise since he is a Darwinist (like yourself), the point I made was
that Stephen offered contradictory assessments of the mathematical
aspect. "Contradictory" in this context means that Stephen said things
indicating the math to be sound. But he ended his criticism in the
negative concerning Sean's math.








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.


Addressed above.

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.


Did you not mean to say that because his model *does work* not
"doesn't work"?



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.


Okay, I can accept that interpretation of Stephen's criticism. But
again: Sean's argument says it is valid. Merely asserting the argument
to be invalid is not a refutation of the argument. The assertion
simply announces your opinion.







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.


Reiteration of opinion.

Now you need to support your opinion; or you can state that your
opinion is a "professional opinion," which presupposes that you have
thoroughly considered Sean's argument and have come to a negative
conclusion. If enough professionals agree, then in this context
opinion becomes evidence. Quality or weight of *this* evidence is
debateable. This evidence can also be explained differently by others
who disagree.

In my opinion Sean's argument is DOA, not because of any flaw, but
because his theory violates the doctrine of Naturalism. Therefore your
rejection of Sean's theory was predetermined. The concept of evolution
is not subject to falsification; rather, the only aspect that is
subject to amendment or modification is *how* it allegedly occurs. ID
is never an option because Darwinism decided long ago, (since 1859)
that Intelligent causation is false.

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.


This comment supports my observation that his theory is rejected
because it violates Naturalism, and not because of any scientific
problems. At issue is which agency produces phenomena. Paradigm
presuppositions determine this answer.

I reject Sean's theory based solely on the following facts: dual
antithetic causation agencies cannot be operating in reality
simultaneously. It is one or the other----not both. No such thing as
"ID" exists (that is, ID with quote marks around it).


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.


"Science" that accepts Darwinism, that is.

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.


Again, your comments base rejection on philosophic reasons.

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.


Unless the supernatural (= God) is presupposed it is not science, but
Materialism (= Atheism ideology).

Again, Sean is presupposing both to operating in nature. This, in my
opinion, is unprecedented. In fact I know for a fact that both is NOT
an option.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have already pointed out Stephen's contradictions. Since you replied
to *this* message re-read and see.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?
    ... deliberately flawed model of evolution devised by Pitman in an attempt ... Sean is offering what is known commonly as a "stipulated" definition ... In my opinion the totality of Sean's claims, ... 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)
  • Re: Discriminative Destruction: Two Epistles to Charles Petzold, an Author of Computing Books, on Su
    ... "Evolution & James Clerk Maxwell", which came about while debating on ... James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat. ... Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle ... 34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Discriminative Destruction? (Two Epistles)
    ... "Evolution & James Clerk Maxwell", which came about while debating on ... James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat. ... Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle ... 34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Discriminative Destruction: Two Epistles to Charles Petzold, an Author of Computing Books, on Su
    ... "Evolution & James Clerk Maxwell", which came about while debating on ... James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat. ... Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle ... 34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)