Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.

On Apr 30, 1:52 pm, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

But then,Sean, we know you're dishonest, and we know you have nothing
of any substance to offer. But why make it so obvious?

Ok, Richard, produce an example of functional informational complexity
being produced significantly beyond the functional informational
complexity of its source.

The evolution of humans from lobe-finned fishes, from protochordates
and ultimately from bacteria.
Several different strands of evidence support this conclusion. If you
have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested using
the tools of science, feel free to offer it.#

What is your mechanism Richard? What lines of evidence support your
proposed mechanism beyond just-so stories and wishful thinking? Where
is the statistical basis for your mechanism beyond very low levels of
functional complexity? What is the predictive value of your
mechanism? - an actual calculated value.

Again, I'm sure this is difficult for someone who thinks that F=MA is
a scientific theory, but think about it. A theory requires more than
formulations of observations. A scientific theory is all about
predicting the future with a certain degree of accuracy. In order for
an observation like F=MA to be a scientific theory it must be applied
to predicting future occurrences - - as in the notion that F will
always = MA at all places and times. Now that is prediction that can
be evaluated scientifically over time to gain or loose predictive
value.

See the difference? You must do this same sort of thing for your
"theory" of the creative potential of RM/NS to actually be a true
scientific theory with a real statistical basis and predictive value
beyond just-so story telling.

By the way "common design" is not an explanation. It proposes no
mechanism, it set no limits on possible outcomes, it is not derived
from an study of the patterns of output of known designers, and is not
more than a post hoc rationalisation of anything which is observed.

At least human-level design is a potentially falsifiable hypothesis
and therefore can be proposed in a valid scientific manner that has
the potential to gain predictive power over time. This is in fact the
basis of anthropology, forensics, and SETI.

To repeat the question:
Who formulated the "law of conservation of functional informational
complexity"?

 Functional information simply isn't derived
without it already existing, pre-formed, at the same or higher level.

And the evidence on which you base this assertion is.....?

It can degenerate over time, but it cannot regenerate to any
significant degree without the input of outside information that is of
superior quality.

And the evidence on which you base this assertion is ....?



If you think otherwise, if you think I'm being dishonest or
disingenuous here, by all means produce some sort of counter
example . . .

I've done so time and time again.
The evolution of humans from lobe-finned fishes, protochordates and
ultimately bacteria.

That's not a theory of mechanism Richard.

Also, try reading the rest of the paragraph before you take a section
of a paragraph out of context.  That's what's dishonest . . .

I've read the whole paragraph. It doesn't give any sources for any
"law of conservation of functional informational complexity". As your
whole argument seems to be based on the existence of a law which you
have just invented, the argument is unsound.

It's not dishonest to point out that you are inventing non-existent
"laws" to support your argument. What *is* dishonest is inventing
"laws" to justify your argument.

Laws can be discovered Richard. This is one of them that is in fact a
truth of nature but which has not been generally recognized for some
very strange reason.

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ...Why Space Solar Power should be the future of NASA!
    ... I spent the four years needed to get a math degree. ... predicting a stock market crash is like ... You can't even grasp the core idea in complexity science which allows ... is now analogous to uncertainty. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.
    ... a scientific theory, but think about it. ... to predicting future occurrences - -  as in the notion that F will ... and the statistics of creationism? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Learning the Context of Scales: Was: Bass Scale
    ... That is the definition of a scientific theory (or at least necessary ... interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future ... I'd say much of what we call "music theory" is more like the ... modern theory and Newton's take on gravity has been proven wrong. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: ID rears its ugly head
    ... >> If you have a scientific theory that, ... *person* predicting it. ... more precise predictions with less need for human judgement, ... and the explanation is often more important. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: A Major Blow Dealt Against Intelligent Design/Creationism Doctrine (Again)
    ... is the complexity of the eye, i.e., "it's just too complex to have ... scientific research. ... Rationality marches on... ... ID will never EVER be a scientific theory. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)