 |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Feb 29 2008 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
On Feb 29, 1:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote: > Seanpit wrote: That' isn't the question here. The question is: If you know a > >> > Sean Pitman wrote: > >> > Your efforts to presuppose limits on all intelligent designers, even > >> > ones you do not know, reduces your hypothesis to a position of non- > >> > falsifiability. Given the way you describe your position, it is true > >> > by definition. It cannot be challenged, even in theory, because you > >> > defined what a designer can and cannot do. > >> John Harshman wrote: > > Sean Pitman wrote: > Stop right there. Once more you are conflating the nested hierarchy with particular NHP is designed, what is the likelihood that the designer used CD as the mechanism of design? In short, the creative methods to which mindless nature is limited are > But I don't agree that if differences among species were It certainly is possible to use the method of CD by design to produce > designed, that means the nested hierarchy was designed. the NHP - but not overwhelmingly likely. Given that the NHP was in fact designed, the question is, would most designers choose to produce a NHP with the use of CD? I think not. I think that most intelligent designers would choose to > It just means Not at all . . . You are in fact saying that even given knowledge > that god dropped certain mutations (perhaps even macromutations or whole > sequences of mutations) into the tree at certain points. That says > nothing about the tree, except that it gives us an idea of the tree > structure, just as random mutations would do. > > Given this > No, this is a silly way of stating the problem, because you are still that ID was used to produce the key aspects of the NHP in question, that the method the designer used would be CD in *every* instance - that the odds of the designer using any other method are "essentially nil". That is in fact your basic argument - as far as I can tell. > > What is interesting here is that this notion is testable and it's The goal is not to simulate common descent. That's a method. The > > outcome is not "almost nil" as you suggest. For example, give a bunch > > of people, from artists to housewives, a piece of paper and a pencil > > and tell them to sketch out various objects according to a NHP. Do > > you actually think that none of them will use any other method besides > > common descent to produce the NHP? > I will agree that human beings can simulate common descent, if indeed goal here is to produce a NHP with any *method* the intelligent designer chooses. Given that the goal is to produce a NHP will an intelligent designer always choose to use the CD method? I think not. You seem agree with this last point. So, given that we know a particular NHP was in fact designed, I do not > > Not according to Michael Leyton, Dept. of Psychology, Rutgers How is that? How is a highly symmetrical column, or colonnade made up > > University. In his book, Lyton argues that the "human perceptual > > system is organized as a nested hierarchy of symmetries." He goes on > > to argue that "architects exploit this psychological fact in the > > structure of their buildings" . . . and that the "same is true of > > painters, and of composers." > >http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mleyton/arch0.html > Google is a wonderful thing. It lets you find all manner of stuff using of a bunch of columns, in high symmetry, not an example of a true NHP? - arising from examination of the elements themselves? > > It seems only natural then that we humans tend to use NHP in our own Tell me, how can you deliberately design every single distinguishing > > creations without being told to do so and that we do not always use CD > > to produce our buildings, paintings, or other "compositions". In > > other words, the odds that a NHP, that is known to be designed, is the > > produce of CD is not "essentially 100%" as you suggest. > Again, you conflate the design of features of species with the design of feature in every aspect of a system and not be responsible for the design of the overall pattern as well? > >> Or we could talk about specified information. A nested hierarchy is You're mistaken - on at least the first account . . . > >> specified information. If we see a particular pattern that we expect to > >> find resulting from X, we don't invoke some other process that has no > >> expectation. The probability of getting that specified result from > >> chance, or from an unpredictable god, are close to zero. > > Not if you know that ID was *required* to produce the NHP. We know > No, the article you noted above has nothing to do with nested hierarchy > >> You actually use this reasoning yourself in other contexts. You only I don't assume that all aspects of every living thing required ID. My > >> invoke god when convenient, and reject one when you think a natural > >> model applies. > > I wouldn't call this "convenient". I would call this a necessity. I > Again, this reasoning only works if you assume that all aspects of life position is that only those functional aspects that required at least 1000 specified aa working together at minimum clearly required ID. > >> Recently you claimed that the geological record is By showing a process which is agreed to be non-deliberate in nature > >> clearly the product of a catastrophic event. I said you couldn't rule > >> out god creating the record. And your response was that since natural > >> processes could explain the record, god was unnecessary. > > What I reject is the notion that only ID could produce such a > How could that notion be supported, or, more importantly, rejected, by giving rise to the phenomenon in question. That demonstration would neatly falsify the ID-only hypothesis. The same thing is true of the radiosignal SETI scientists are looking for. All you have to do to falsify their hypothesis that such a signal would be clear evidence of ET would be to show a non-deliberate natural process producing the same type of signal. > >> You reject god ID isn't necessary for the NHP, but for the key differences of the > >> as an explanation purely because there is a natural explanation, because > >> the probability of god producing a result that happens to mimic a > >> natural process is, in your mind, very low. > > That's not my reasoning at all. The probability of an intelligent > So why is ID necessary for the nested hierarchy, which we both agree various elements that make up the pattern. Given that ID is required for every key aspect of what makes up the overall pattern in question, in this particular case, the overall NHP itself is logically the result of ID. The question is, did this NHP, which is know to be deliberately produced by ID, the product of the CD mechanism? Was the intelligent agent required, statistically, to use CD as his only option to create such a NHP? - as you suggest? > >> And this reasoning doesn't It was a response to a repetitive statement that was already answered > >> come from a constraint put on god; quite the opposite: it comes from a > >> total lack of constraint, which makes the probability of any particular > >> result almost zero. > > Nope. > Now that was a convincing argument. earlier . . . > >> Similarly, you have already agreed that nested hierarchies are a How possible is "quite possible"? Hmmmmm? Initially you indicated > >> predicted product of common descent; > > Only given that non-deliberate natural processes could produce the > Why? I must remind you that it's quite possible for deliberate processes that it wasn't just quite possible, it was "virtually certain" - i.e., ~100%. Are you backing off of this assertion just a bit here by uses the equivocation "quite possible"? That sounds a bit more wobbly to me. > We simply end up with a model in which god intervenes at Again, you seem unable to see that there is no "conflation". > various points in the tree to produce particular mutations. Again, you > seem unable to avoid conflation of hypotheses. > >> we have no need of god to explain The thing is, it is known that non-deliberate sources can only produce > >> that hierarchy just as we have no need of god to explain the > >> stratigraphic record. > > Not all NHP are created equal in that not all of them can be explained > This is all irrelevant, since we both agree that the nested hierarchy of NHPs via CD. It is also known that CD is not required or even commonly used by intelligent agents to produce NHPs. That's the difference in a nutshell. > >> Yet you reject common descent but accept stratigraphy. Why the It is not invalid at all. Given that the source of variation for a > >> difference? Simple, it's the elephant in the room that you won't > >> mention. You have a prior template into which all conclusions must fit: > >> biblical inerrancy. You know that common descent is false because > >> Genesis says kinds were separately created. But you know strata weren't > >> created because Genesis says (or is interpreted as implying) that the > >> strata formed naturally from the Flood. All your argument is in service > >> to that hidden agenda. And that's where the difference comes from. > >> Nowhere else. Have the honesty to realize that. > > I know that the key differences between the various "kinds" of > Again, this makes sense only if you conflate the source of variation particular NHP is known to include non-ID processes, CD is the only known option. However, given that the source of the all variation in a NHP is *known* to *require* ID, CD is not the only known or even the most common mechanism used. > > This observation has nothing to do with the Bible. I'd be an IDist Whatever - it's the truth. > > without the Bible. In fact, I thought that the ToE was quite > > reasonable for quite some time. It wasn't until after medical school > > when I was in the army that I discovered that the evolutionary > > mechanism simply didn't work beyond very low levels of functional > > complexity. It wasn't until then that I really started reconsidering > > the ToE. > Please try not to strain my credulity too much. It's delicate. > At any It says a great deal. It says that all the key differences between > rate, your reasoning was faulty. If RM + NS don't work beyond yadda > yadda that says nothing at all about the presence or absence of common > descent. different living things definitely required ID. If one agrees to this, the notion that CD was definitely the mechanism used to produce these differences is no longer the only reasonable default assumption because it is know that intelligent agents can and do use other methods besides CD to produce NHPs. I repeat: The creative methods to which mindless nature is limited > You have to glue them together in some way to make your case, You are the one who is asserting, without any appeal to a falsifiable > and so far all you're using for glue is the assertion that they're > connected. (Or, most often, just the tacit assumption that they're the > same thing.) test, that there is no association. You argue that it doesn't matter if every aspect of a NHP is known to be designed, CD is still the clear method that was used simply because it is the overwhelming choice of mindless nature? That's just nonsense given the known requirement for ID to produce a particular NHP. > > < snip repetitive > Me too! I'm betting the outcome would not be nearly the 100% like you > >> > The difference between the nested pattern in living things and the > >> Irrelevant even if true, because we are talking about an aspect (the > > It is not irrelevant if true. All you have to do to see the relevance > Actually, I'd like to see this experiment. originally suggested. > I bet the most common method Well, that certainly is a falsifiable hypothesis. Good luck with the > used would be to make an "ancestral" pattern, vary it, and keep varying > it some more until you had a nested set of variations. actual test and your prediction of essentially 100% use of the CD method. > I doubt you would Your doubts are not backed up by any actual test. I doubt that most > be likely to end up with such a detailed simulation of common descent in > any other way. Of course, god can do anything. intelligent designers would go through all the hassle of going through all the CD steps to produce the final pattern. I sure wouldn't want to do it this way. That's what's so neat about having access to an intelligent mind. You can skip many steps that non-intelligent natural processes cannot skip. Why then would anyone feel forced to used the same mindless mechanism that nature is forced to use? That's what your brain is for . . . to skip steps. < snip rest > Sean Pitman You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||