Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:57:17 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

On Mar 28, 9:00 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:59 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 23, 11:41 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

For reasons too complicated to explain, I am only now reading
2-year-old issues of the Reports of the NCSE. But volume 27 #3-4
contains a great article by Joe Felsenstein that neatly demolishes
every one of William Dembski's arguments in easy to understand
language. I recommend it to anyone, but especially Tony.

Ah, I see it's on the web too:

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-
ar...

The problem with arguments such as Felsenstein is that they only
consider fitness landscapes at very low levels of functional
complexity.  He does not consider that fitness landscapes do not remain
at the same density regarding potentially beneficial islands as one
moves up the ladder of functional complexity.  The landscapes thin out
dramatically - exponentially in fact.  The become exponentially more
and more "rugged".

So, while evolutionary progress via the mechanism of RM/NS works just
fine at very low levels (i.e., below a few hundred fsaars) this
creative potential drops off exponentially as the 1000 fsaar level of
functional complexity is approached.  Beyond this level, the fitness
landscape is so sparse that success, without the input of outside
intelligence, is very unlikely to be realized this side of trillions
upon trillions of years of time.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with such otherwise "devastating"
arguments.  They are only devastating at very very low levels of
functional complexity, but quickly fall apart at higher and higher
levels.

In this line, consider that there are no mathematical calculations or
statistical support for the assumption that the mechanism of RM/NS
actually works at the rates needed by the ToE beyond the 1000 fsaar
level of functional complexity.  There are plenty of assertions that it
works, but none of these are backed up by any demonstration or
statistical relevant analysis regarding the actual mechanism of
evolution.  It is simply assumed that various levels of homologies must
have been produced by RM/NS.  Yet, this assumption is just that - a
bald assumption that doesn't carry with it the actual force of real
scientific investigation.

As it stands, it is nothing more than a just so story - a fairytale of
origins really.  Certainly not "science".

thanks for the update...very informative. i was shocked to read
stephen meyer being quoted saying:

"We know that information — whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio
signals — always arises from an intelligent source. .... So the
discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for
inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.
(Meyer 2006)"

because this seems to indicate ALL of nature is 'intelligently
design' since all of nature contains SOME type of information...hell
even crystals have information on orientation, periodicity, etc.

Not all types or forms of "information" are on the same level. Mindless
natural mechanisms also carry with them a degree of informational
complexity - as do human-designed robots.  These mindless forces can
indeed produce various creations that also carry a degree of
informational complexity.  However, mindless forces of nature can never
produce something that has greater functional informational complexity
than they have.  It is part of a law of a kind of functional
informational entropy that the product can never be significantly more
informationally complex (in a functional sense of the term) than the
creator of that product.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

Sean: In the link below John Harshman calls your first post in this
thread "[your] mantra."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/074a99722d89db86?hl=en

That "mantra" is also seen above since I am responding to your first
post in this particular thread.

I believe Behe 1996 changed the world; and I believe his popular success
can be attributed to the fact that he was able to *depict* complicated
scientific jargon and evidence. His depictions were the mouse trap and
Rube Goldberg machines. Behe created imagery that reflected his
scientific arguments thus allowing the ordinary man the ability to see
and understand.

Can you do the same with "your mantra, " that is, the part which
Harshman is referring to?


Oh, that's easy enough Ray.

Think of a big jar of pennies -- thousands of them. The only way your
progeny can evolve is if they get exactly the same flagellum as we
currently observe in exactly one species. There's no other way forward.
You fling all the pennies to the floor. If they all come up heads --
congratulations! -- your progeny have a fully-formed flagellum. If you
get even one tail, you'll have no tail (so to speak) and all the pennies
must be collected back in the jar for the next generation.

That's Sean's model. As you might guess, things don't evolve very
often. If Sean were modeling evolution, this might cause some concern.

Evolution (the coloring-book version) would let the next generation keep
all the heads that landed on the floor and only put back in the jar those
that turned up tails. On average, about half of the pennies you toss
will end up heads, meaning that half as many tails go back in the jar
each time. Very quickly you'll end up with all heads on the floor and a
new tail on your ***.

Sean likes to claim this is unlikely to happen. As proof, he offers a
non-evolutionary model where it's unlikely to happen. We all agree --
evolution does not occur in Sean's model. We'll also stipulate that in a
universe without gravity, solar systems are unlikely to form. Since we
live in a universe that does have gravity, models that lack it are not a
compelling reason to believe a creator is required for planet formation.


At a minimum I am asking you to provide the objects that inhabit reality
to which "your mantra" has their correspondence?

If "low level evolution" (to use a phrase that you are known to use)
only happens below a certain threshold is this "threshold" the species
level?

Thanks.

Ray

.

Loading