Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?

On Jan 28, 9:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:15 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"



<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:00 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

If it's flawed, how in earth can it be considered to be supporting his
argument?

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.

There is no "original theory", and no valid argument.

This renders your belief that Sean is
lying to be gross misunderstanding.

I'd say that it is very clear that Sean is lying when he asserts that
his "theory" has nothing to do with his beliefs.

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.

Well, that's not what ID "theorists" claim.
What do you know that they don't?

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.

Well, bully for you.

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 arguments are bogus because they are based on bogus and
incompetent mathematics, and on a model of evolution devised by Sean
which bears no relationship whatsoever to any ever proposed by an
evolutionary biologist.

Sean has every right, like anyone, to
challenge and overthrow orthodoxy.

Quite so. However, if his challenge is utterly bogus and transparently
dishonest, science will give him short shrift.

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."

The *fact* is that Sean's model of evolution is of an adaptive
landscape of isolated islands of function. This is *not* a model of
any adaptive landscape every proposed by any evolutionary biologist,
and the citations he claims support his model do exactly the opposite.
This has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions, citing the
relevant parts of the papers which show this.

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.

So you are asserting that just because his model is original he
doesn't need to provide any evidence to support it. What utter
nonsense!

No Richard that is not what I said. Your inability to understand this
simple point while maintaining understanding of more complicated
things like Sean's evolutionary model, compared against accepted
models, is evidence that you do not understand either.

Oh, please! What *do* you mean by " insulates Sean from a charge of
subjectivity or having to produce sources for any unique component in
his overall argument or theory." if you don't mean that? Or is
evidence not a "unique component" in a theory?


Sean does not need to support the *original* aspect; but he needs to
support everything else.

That is not what you wrote.

Supporting the original aspect itself would
then reveal said aspect to not be original! Again, your inability to
grasp is not an aberration; rather, it appears to be systematic;
indicative of not being very bright.

What is rather more apparent is that you express yourself in
convoluted terms in the pretence that you understand rather more than
you do.





Neither Ronald Fisher or Richard Dawkins have any degree in biology.

So what? They both carried out research in the subject, published
numerous papers in the subject, and demonstrated a profound
understanding of the subject.

Advocating scholarly legitimacy to exist outside of actual credentials
in behalf of evolutionists but not for anti-evolutionists/IDists is
hypocrisy or a classic double standard.

I've never attacked anyone for their lack of credentials. I've
attacked the evidence (or lack of it) and argument they present. I
have no credentials in the field of vertebrate palaeontology, yet have
published several papers in the field.



Which evolutionary biologist has proposed such a model? Sean isn't an
evolutionary biologist. He has carried out no research in the subject,
published no findings in the subject, and has generally indicated a
profound lack of understanding of the subject.

Here again we see support of my contention that you are not very
bright, having forgot the point and counterpoint.

You asserted Sean's theory was invalid based on having no actual
degree in biology.

No, I didn't. I said that Sean is not an evolutionary biologist
because he has carried out no research in the subject, published no
findings in the subject and has generally indicated a profound lack of
understanding of the subject.

That makes no reference to his formal qualifications.

I reminded you or informed you that neither Dawkins
or Fisher have a degree in biology.

Neither do I.

Now you type a series of non-
sequiturs evading your own hypocrisy and/or double standard.

In what way is pointing out that Sean has carried out no research in
the subject of evolutionary biology, published no findings in the
subject and has generally indicated a profound lack of understanding
of the subject *not* relevant to what he is asserting *on authority*
in the field of evolutionary biology?

This is
dishonest. But I have given you a break by assigning the evasion to
actually be caused by your dull mind and its inability to understand
and keep track of each point and the status of each point in our
exchanges.

Oh, please spare me your condescension, Ray!


Intelligent people know you are also making an ad hoc point. Your
point has no legitimacy.

So you think that we should accept on his authority, and without
evidence Sean's pronouncements in the field of evolutionary biology
when he has carried out no research in the subject, published no
findings in the subject and has generally indicated a profound lack of
understanding of the subject?

Why?

Applied equally the same negates the
legitimacy of Darwinism's biggest scholars.

I suggest that if you are pretending that anyone on this forum is
arguing against anyone else on the basis of academic qualifications in
a subject, your choice of victim is very poor. I have no formal
qualifications in the field of evolutionary biology.

And I have never seen ANY
evolution scholar make this point in their published writings----
including arch-anti-creationist Eugenie Scott (anthropology degree;
but most of her published writings (if not all in recent years) are
philosophical and cultural analysis critical of Creationism and
IDism). While I disagree with Eugenie she nonetheless is qualified to
expound on the aforementioned subject matter based solely on her non-
relevant credentials. Again, you are not very bright; nor do you show
any signs of being objective----unlike myself:


Thank you for that moment of pure comedy, Ray. The assertion that you
are objective is very funny.


If Sean's theory is false, as you assert, then the "point" you are
making here (attacking the man) makes no sense.

But I have not attacked the man! I have attacked his "theory". *You*
have asserted that I have attacked him on the basis of his formal
qualifications in the subject. I haven't. However, as much of his
argument is based on his self-appointed authority in the subject, it's
pretty reasonable to point out that he has no such authority.

Ordinary Darwinists
make this type of "point" when they cannot refute the when they cannot refute the work.

Who are these "ordinary Darwinists"? Sean's "work" is heavily
criticised on this forum, but I can recall nobody making an ad hominem
argument against it.

Look, I
have no axe to grind in behalf of Sean Pitman. We disagree on major
fundamental matters. He accepts RM+NS to be operating in reality. I
know for a scientific fact that neither exist because the full and
objective claim made in behalf of RM+NS by Darwinists is creator of
species.

No Ray, you don't know this "for a fact". It is a fact that it
happens.

Sean accepts species mutability. I am a fixist. I have every
reason to be on the anti-Sean Pitman bandwagon. To attack his
credentials is illegitimate since he is highly credentialed like
Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins. The main point here, Richard, is
that your criticisms make no sense if *Sean's theory* is as you say it
is.

IN what way is pointing out that his "theory" is fundamentally flawed
an invalid criticism?

These type or kind of criticism indicate that you do fear Sean's
theory. You ought to stick to your version of the facts and forego
this stupid ad hominem attack.

I have made no ad hominem attack.


I have no qualification in the subject of evolutionary biology, but
unlike Sean I *have* carried out research and published my results.
Qualifications are irrelevant. What matters is knowledge of and
contribution to the science.

Ronald Fisher's official professional title: "Professor of
Eugenics" [= white superiority]. He wrote the book that gained natural
selection broad acceptance by 20th century Darwinian biologists.

I do give you credit for admitting that you have no credentials in
biology. Therefore it seems to me that the standard you are advocating
is having something published.

Which part of "What matters is knowledge of and contribution to the
science" do you find so hard to understand?

Based on your egregious hypocrisy we
have no reason to believe that this standard can ever be applied to
those of whom you disagree with. Everything boils down to personal
agreement.

It boils down to argument and evidence. Sean's "theory" is not based
on evidence, and his argument is incompetent. That is *not* an ad
hominem attack.

This is obviously a bad idea, that is, to actually argue
legitimacy to only reside with those who you agree with. Again, you
are shown not to be very bright.


Oh no! I'm stung to the core!



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.

He didn't say that Sean's maths is sound!

He contradicted himself. I am sure he would produce no contradictions
in rebuttal.

I suggest that it is your understanding which is at fault here.


But he ended his criticism in the
negative concerning Sean's math.


RF

.

Loading