Answering John Harshman

[Ray Martinez]

John Harshman: nested hierarchies.

Creationist: appearance of design.

John Harshman:

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 14:46:23 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>
>Creationist: appearance of design.

You should have said:

Creationist: wishful thinking.

>John Harshman:

[John Harshman]

How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.

[Ray Martinez]

But John Harshman won't say that----why?

Ray

[Steady Eddie]

-Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.

[Ray Martinez]

Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.

Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.

Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.

Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.

What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Until JH can show causation all he has is facts based on assumption (discovery of these facts means common descent has occurred).

"effect-without cause" (= backward thinking and logic).

Ray

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <e33c7d28-90b0-4777...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design
> means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in
> nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as
> well.

The appearance of design produces no more than the appearance of a
designer.

But, as evidenced by Rorschach inkblots, humans are wired to find
designs even when there aren't any.

Since discovering minimal environmental hints hints of either evidence
leading to food or evidence helping one not to become food gives one an
evolutionary advantage, many species have evolved it!

[Greg Guarino]

What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.

Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
rather than by each species being individually created by fiat; doing so
by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
those that themselves came about through descent with modification.

Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>
> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >
> > Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >
> > Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >
> > Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >
> > Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >
> > What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
> >
> > Ray
> >
> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
> question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
> descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
>

Why? Unless causation shown how do you *know* a class of objects are related in a evolutionary sense? You seem to be staking your claims on mere discovery of a pattern then concluding common descent has occurred.

> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
> drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
> existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
> conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
> rather than by each species being individually created by fiat;

IF God is involved with biological production then no effect can be described as naturalistic, descent, branching, etc. because these concepts presuppose natural or non-supernatural causation.

> doing so
> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>

If the pattern points to the effect of descent with modification, then how does modification occur, especially in higher taxa?

> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com

Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

Where does the Bible advocate CD?

Are you suggesting the Bible scientifically correct?

Ray

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:46:12 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design
> means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent
> causation is operating in nature.

An extremely strong claim and one that you do not back up.
If you could show that absent "supernatural or Intelligent causation"
the observed "appearance of design" was impossible or unlikely
you might have something. As it is you just have an argument
from incredulity.

-William Hughes

[Greg Guarino]

Exactly so.

We have discovered - and in fact *continue* to discover with each new
species whose genome is sequenced - a pattern that is only found among
classes of objects that are related through descent with modification.
Moreover, we can easily see *why* a designer would never create a class
of objects that fit such a pattern by designing each one separately. It
could only occur through a series of small modifications between
generations, with some parts of populations splitting off and
accumulating different modifications than the lineage they split off
from. The only other possibility is a meticulous effort (and an
incredible accounting system) to *feign* branching descent.

>
>> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection
>> and drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight
>> modifications of existing structures directly by God's genetic
>> tinkering, we could still conclude that the current diversity came
>> about through branching descent rather than by each species being
>> individually created by fiat;
>
> IF God is involved with biological production then no effect can be
> described as naturalistic,

You're already wrong here, but I won't dwell long on it. God could be
"involved" in some things, and leave others to physical laws.

> descent, branching, etc. because these
> concepts presuppose natural or non-supernatural causation.

Descent and branching presuppose no such thing. I have several times
proposed experiments with symbols on pieces of paper and xerox machines
that will inevitably produce such a pattern. Scribe-copied manuscripts
produce such a pattern, and for the same reason that life on earth does:
each manuscript is copied, but slightly imperfectly. Scribes make
errors. The imperfections are then copied in future "generations" of
manuscripts, but only "forward" in the same lineage. Thus by
scrutinizing the changes, we can construct a "tree of descent" of the
manuscripts.

All that matters is that there be a source of modification in the
"reproduction" and that the changes are only carried forward in
lineages, not exchanged "horizontally". (OK, it also matters that parts
of populations become reproductively separated somehow, in order that
they diverge). But the same pattern would be produced whether the source
of modification is God, geneticists or mutation, selection and drift.

>> doing so by examining the resulting pattern of features and
>> genetics. The pattern we see points unavoidably to descent with
>> modification, and just as unavoidably away from any class of
>> designed object we know of, save those that themselves came about
>> through descent with modification.
>>
> If the pattern points to the effect of descent with modification,
> then how does modification occur, especially in higher taxa?
>

Biologists say mutation, selection and drift. But I must reiterate, any
source of heritable modification would produce the pattern we see
through common descent.

Suppose just for a moment that we take an unambiguous case of deliberate
"design". A group of biologists take a strain of bacteria, separate it
into two petri dishes, and deliberately swap in a (different) piece of
altered DNA into each. (now in reality, they'd be very unlikely to do
the swapping on millions of bacteria, they'd alter one and let it
reproduce, but let's not dwell on that detail, because it doesn't matter).

Next they take the two petri dishes and split each one in two again.
They now perform unique modifications to each of the four dishes. They
repeat the procedure several more times: 8 dishes, then 16, then 32,
then 64.

They will now have 64 different strains of bacteria, but related in a
very specific and unusual way; a natural nested hierarchy. If an
unrelated geneticist were to sequence the 64 strains, he'd be able to
tell that the strains were related by common descent, and not simply
genetically engineered one at a time.

Behe proposes almost exactly that scenario, except substituting God for
the team of geneticists that made the modifications to the "dishes" in
each generation. (And of course there's no requirement that there be one
split in each generation). Whether God or humans geneticists, the
pattern would be the same.

>
>> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
>> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work.
>> Why do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related?
>> Certainly not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.

> Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

Ray, I don't think much of Behe's "science". And I suspect he cuts a lot
of logical corners in order to devise an observable place for God in
biology. But I am quite convinced that he sincerely *wants* the
Christian God to be real, and considers himself a Christian. You can
call him deluded if you like, but do you really think he is lying when
he says he believes himself to be a Christian?

>
> Where does the Bible advocate CD?

It doesn't, to my knowledge. In fact, this may be a rare point of
agreement between us. I do not believe that Behe's scenario can be
squared with the Bible. Of course, I have my doubts that yours can
either, but I believe that both of you are likely sincere.

> Are you suggesting the Bible scientifically correct?

No.

[John Harshman]

What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.

[John Harshman]

On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>
>>> John Harshman:
>>>
>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>
> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
>
> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.

But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.
Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
the intelligent design of adaptation.

> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>
> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>
> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?

I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design". Life
might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
that's another matter.

And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
but they aren't alive.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/8/15 4:47 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:31:11 PM UTC-8, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>
>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>
>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>
>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>
>> -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I've been saying.

and that's exactly why you are wrong.

There is an observable mechanism that produces branching descent.
It's called "imperfect reproduction". Any population that keeps on
reproducing copies that are not exactly the same as the parent
population will produce a branching pattern of descent.

>
> Until JH can show causation all he has is facts based on assumption (discovery of these facts means common descent has occurred).

Causation has been demonstrated quite often. It can be seen in any
imperfectly reproducing population.

Are you denying that organisms reproduce?

>
> "effect-without cause" (= backward thinking and logic).

Ray, you know nothing about logic, or thinking, for that matter.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>
> Creationist: appearance of design.

Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
logical, or warranted.

>
> John Harshman:

John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.
What mechanism does an "intelligent designer" use to produce nested
hierarchies?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/8/15 4:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>
>>> John Harshman:
>>>
>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>
> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying.

Ray, it's highly unlikely that even you know what you are saying.

> I'll place the blame on myself.

Good choice.

>
> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature.

No, it's a condition most likely produced by a natural process. Such a
process can be observed. No supernatural intelligent causation has ever
been observed.

> Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.

That is the logical fallacy of assuming one's conclusion.

Also, evolution exists in nature, therefore, according to your
syllogism, evolution must be a work of God.

>
> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.

Except the "claim" is unsupported by any evidence. You can claim
whatever you want produced the appearance of design, but unless you can
provide any evidence your preferred method is capable of producing an
appearance of design, you have no reason to expect that claim to be
taken seriously.

>
> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature;

Which is flatly untrue, as you have been shown many times over.

> rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see;

That makes even less sense than usual, Ray.

> rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.

Creationists claim to see "design" but what they are seeing is only
appearance of design, produced by natural processes.

>
> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design.

Which is irrelevant to the actual presence of a "intelligent
supernatural designer". Since natural processes, without any conscious
design can produce the appearance of design, asserting supernatural
design is not warranted.

> If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?

No, because branching descent has been directly observed to happen.
Assuming a supernatural creator to explain what can be explained by an
existing, and often observed natural processes is unscientific, and not
logical.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/8/15 5:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
>>>
>>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
>>>
>>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>>>
>>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>>>
>>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
>> question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
>> descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
>>
>
> Why? Unless causation shown how do you *know* a class of objects are related in a evolutionary sense?

Causation is shown, time and time again. Reproduction produces descent.
Variations in reproduction produce branching. What do you refuse to
accept about that?

> You seem to be staking your claims on mere discovery of a pattern then concluding common descent has occurred.

Because that pattern is known to be produced by common descent. There's
no cause to assume other processes cause that pattern without evidence
that other processes can produce such a pattern.

If you have any evidence of a process (one observed to happen) that
produces the same pattern, please divulge it.

>
>> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
>> drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
>> existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
>> conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
>> rather than by each species being individually created by fiat;
>
> IF God is involved with biological production then no effect can be described as naturalistic, descent, branching, etc. because these concepts presuppose natural or non-supernatural causation.

That is one of your own unsupported claims. No one else accepts that
definition. God's involvement with biology can't be observed in any
way science can determine, so it's not a idea of scientific interest.

There's no reason why God can't make use of natural processes to create.
You seem intent on limiting God's scope to only the supernatural realm.

>
>> doing so
>> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
>> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
>> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
>> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>>
>
> If the pattern points to the effect of descent with modification, then how does modification occur, especially in higher taxa?

Modification happens during reproduction within populations. Higher
taxa are simply more far removed from the point of modification. In
other words, evolution happens in populations during reproduction.
Evolution does not happen among higher taxonomic groups, such groups are
the result of evolution happening at population level.

>
>
>> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
>> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
>> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
>> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>
> Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

As you do, Ray, without any justification.

>
> Where does the Bible advocate CD?

When it speaks of "be fruitful and multiply"

>
> Are you suggesting the Bible scientifically correct?

No, Ray, you are. But you haven't been able to demonstrate that.


DJT

[Walter Bushell]

In article <abc-101C47.1...@bignews.usenetmonster.com>,

A Nony Mouse <a...@cef.ghi> wrote:

> In article <e33c7d28-90b0-4777...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design
> > means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating
> > in
> > nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as
> > well.
>
> The appearance of design produces no more than the appearance of a
> designer.
>
> But, as evidenced by Rorschach inkblots, humans are wired to find
> designs even when there aren't any.

Or more common to recognize the face of a friend in a stranger,
certainly the beginning of recognition of a quite dissimilar person.

>
> Since discovering minimal environmental hints hints of either evidence
> leading to food or evidence helping one not to become food gives one an
> evolutionary advantage, many species have evolved it!

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:49:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

Whatever He (or "he" or "she" or "it") wants. And since Ray
chooses to invoke an omnipotent, omniscient Designer there
is *no* refutation, whether based on evidence or not, which
will persuade him that he's mistaken; that's the nature of
omnipotence combined with omniscience, and why it's
essentially useless as an explanation for anything. (Yes,
I'm aware you know this. But it's worth noting from time to
time that this argument will go nowhere. Ever.) And the fact
that Ray conflates design with the appearance of design, and
assumes that no one can be religious and still accept
scientific evidence, only makes it worse. Ray is possibly
the most closed-minded individual posting here; facts simply
have no reality for him.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:11:22 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

Specifically, an omnipotent and omniscient God would not be
restricted to the "laws" of nature, and could "sneak past"
such things as quantum probability to ensure His desires are
met, even over billions of years; for such a God, "random"
is no such thing, not is "probable".

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray seems to be incapable of conceiving of a God that is that
powerful. His image of God appears to be restricted to God being a very
limited magical creature, who only works in minor, but showy magic
tricks. Something on the order of a djinn, or a wizard.

This limitation of God's power speaks to the lack of faith, and lack
of appreciation for what omnipotence means, that most creationists seem
to express in their views.



DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:21:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>
> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >
> > Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >
> > Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
>
> But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
> mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.

The entire historical debate between Creationism and Darwinism is framed on causation mutual exclusivity. Since you will go on, in this message, to reject said appearance your comment above, and its implication, exist in contradiction.

> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>

Strong reiteration.

But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.

Your comments above attempt to sway any given Creationist into accepting common descent. You're saying as long as you accept the evidence supporting CD you can believe a Deity created this way. But you've also said that said patterns do not support the work of a Creator. So you're essentially offering a concession: the latter will not be stressed in exchange for acceptance.

One does not need your permission or blessing to hold subjective views. Genesis was written, in part, to say common descent is false.

ID of any phenomena is not a separate issue. IF the concept exists in nature then whatever patterns one might discover, even patterns that depict descent with modification, become the way the Creator chose to create. We take strong refuge in observed or appearance of design. Explaining appearance of design as a separate issue while offering the concession seen above will work on some people but not me.

> > Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >
> > Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >
> > What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design".

I can appreciate this answer. Thanks.

> Life
> might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
> explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
> millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
> that's another matter.
>
> And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
> need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
> but they aren't alive.

Yes, your position conveyed with a clever analogy in support.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 2/9/15, 4:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:21:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
>>>
>>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
>>
>> But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
>> mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.
>
> The entire historical debate between Creationism and Darwinism is
> framed on causation mutual exclusivity. Since you will go on, in this
> message, to reject said appearance your comment above, and its
> implication, exist in contradiction.

You are incorrect. One might, for example, list Asa Gray as an early
proponent of different sorts of causation for different things. Even A.
R. Wallace proposed that human intelligence had a different explanation
from everything else in life.

>> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
>> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
>> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
>> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
>> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
>> the intelligent design of adaptation.

>
> Strong reiteration.
>
> But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept
> of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then
> evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and
> evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.

I tell you again. Concepts don't exist in nature. It's the things
represented by the concepts that you're really talking about, even
though you're locked into reflexive phrasing in so many ways. More
important, you persist in thinking that everything you believe is a unit
and must either be true or false all at the same time. The world doesn't
work like that.

> Your comments above attempt to sway any given Creationist into
> accepting common descent. You're saying as long as you accept the
> evidence supporting CD you can believe a Deity created this way. But
> you've also said that said patterns do not support the work of a
> Creator. So you're essentially offering a concession: the latter will
> not be stressed in exchange for acceptance.

Nothing of the sort. I'm trying to attack your beliefs one piece at a
time, starting with the one with the strongest evidence against it. If
we ever manage to get past that first step, we may proceed to more. But
I doubt you'll ever take one step. I suppose you're afraid of a slippery
slope.

> One does not need your permission or blessing to hold subjective
> views. Genesis was written, in part, to say common descent is false.

You can have all the subjective views you like. I don't see that I ever
implied anything to the contrary. Genesis was written for a variety of
reasons, but I don't think any of them was to say common descent is
false; instead, that would be to say that God created everything in the
beginning. The details may have been considered unimportant, just the
best guess the writers had at the time. I don't actually care; you're
the one who bases your beliefs on it.

> ID of any phenomena is not a separate issue. IF the concept exists in
> nature then whatever patterns one might discover, even patterns that
> depict descent with modification, become the way the Creator chose to
> create. We take strong refuge in observed or appearance of design.
> Explaining appearance of design as a separate issue while offering
> the concession seen above will work on some people but not me.

It's unclear what you were trying to say there. Are you in fact saying
that each and every snowflake is lovingly crafted by God?

>>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>>>
>>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>>>
>>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>>
>> I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design".
>
> I can appreciate this answer. Thanks.

I doubt it. If you were able to appreciate my answer you wouldn't thank me.

>> Life
>> might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
>> explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
>> millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
>> that's another matter.
>>
>> And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
>> need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
>> but they aren't alive.
>
> Yes, your position conveyed with a clever analogy in support.

So what's wrong with the analogy that makes it invalid?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/9/15 5:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:21:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
>>>
>>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
>>
>> But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
>> mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.
>
> The entire historical debate between Creationism and Darwinism is framed on causation mutual exclusivity.

If so, then the "entire historical debate" is wrong. Darwin himself
didn't think that it was necessary for the two to be exclusive.
Theologians since Darwin's time have often held that religion and
science are not at odds, and the belief in God is not threatened by
scientific theories. Scientists also have proclaimed that the two need
not be in conflict. Only a small minority on both sides insist the two
are mutually exclusive.

> Since you will go on, in this message, to reject said appearance your comment above, and its implication, exist in contradiction.

You appear to have entirely misunderstood what John wrote.

>
>> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
>> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
>> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
>> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
>> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
>> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>>
>
> Strong reiteration.
>
> But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept of ID to exist in nature.

More correctly, modern science doesn't find the question to be of
interest, as it isn't testable. Concepts exist only inside minds.
What is found in nature is complexity, and patterns, both of which are
produced by natural processes. "ID" is an interpretation forced on the
findings.

> If the concept exists in nature then evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.

Only if 1. concepts, notoriously abstract things, that exist only within
minds, affected reality
2. evidence of the existence of God was an issue to science
3. presence of God, or other supernatural beings ruled out any
natural phenomena from happening.

You have not shown that any of the above is true.

>
> Your comments above attempt to sway any given Creationist into accepting common descent.

Common descent is a fact. Whether or not you accept it is your own
problem.

> You're saying as long as you accept the evidence supporting CD you can believe a Deity created this way.

If you want to believe that a deity exists, why would you have to reject
established facts? What does your deity have against the reality he
produced?

> But you've also said that said patterns do not support the work of a Creator.

They don't deny the work of a sufficiently powerful creator either.

> So you're essentially offering a concession: the latter will not be stressed in exchange for acceptance.

Or more correctly, the latter is a fact, and you can accept it or not.
If you choose to reject it, that's your own business. Whether or not
God exists is not a scientific question.

If you choose to believe in a supernatural being, you need to either
accept that that being is consistent with reality, or substitute your
own reality. If you choose the former, you don't get to claim
scientific support.

>
> One does not need your permission or blessing to hold subjective views.

Quite true. However science doesn't need Ray Martinez's permission to
blessing to hold objective views, either.

> Genesis was written, in part, to say common descent is false.

No, because the writers of Genesis didn't know about common descent, or
any other modern science. They wrote Genesis to answer a question they
had no objective answer to. As it turns out common descent is true.
The writers of Genesis had no way of knowing that.

>
> ID of any phenomena is not a separate issue. IF the concept exists in nature then whatever patterns one might discover, even patterns that depict descent with modification, become the way the Creator chose to create.

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't mean it is the ONLY way the creator
chose. The concept itself does not exist in nature, as concepts are not
something that can exist in nature. They can only exist within minds.

> We take strong refuge in observed or appearance of design.

Appearance of design is not observed design, Ray. A cloud may have the
appearance of a bunny, but if you observed such a cloud, you have not
observed a bunny. You have observed a mass of water vapor, which your
mind has likened to the shape of a bunny. Humans are very good at
doing that. That does not mean that bunnies live in the sky.

> Explaining appearance of design as a separate issue while offering the concession seen above will work on some people but not me.

Ray, you are assuming the above is a trick, when it's not really. Your
"concept" of the above as a trick is false, something you imposed on the
words. In the same way your "concept" of ID is something you have
imposed on the real world.

>
>
>>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>>>
>>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>>>
>>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>>
>> I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design".
>
> I can appreciate this answer. Thanks.

Note Ray offers no way to interpret his idea.... I wonder why.

>
>> Life
>> might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
>> explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
>> millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
>> that's another matter.
>>
>> And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
>> need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
>> but they aren't alive.
>
> Yes, your position conveyed with a clever analogy in support.

Do you understand what John is saying here? Appearance of design is
like the appearance of a flower. The appearance of a flower is not a
guarantee the object is a flower, any more than the appearance of design
means what you see is actually designed.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >
> > Creationist: appearance of design.
>
> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
> logical, or warranted.
>

No, appearance of design is *explained* as an illusion and by-product of unintelligent agencies. The explanation is illogical and thus false. A far superior explanation of appearance of design is work of invisible Designer. But evolutionary science does not accept an appearance of design as existing in nature.

> >
> > John Harshman:
>
> John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.

Keeping reading the exchanges; John does not know how nested hierarchies are produced.

> What mechanism does an "intelligent designer" use to produce nested
> hierarchies?
>
>
> DJT

His Divine intelligence and power. Since you guys don't know how groups within groups are produced, but cede to traditional evolutionary agencies to get you close, you're trapped, much like the trap of abiogenesis (DNA replication can't occur unless a DNA replication machine exists, but a DNA replication machine can't exist unless DNA replication occurs).

Ray

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 9:41:07 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> His Divine intelligence and power. Since you guys don't know how groups within groups are produced, but cede to traditional evolutionary agencies to get you close, you're trapped, much like the trap of abiogenesis (DNA replication can't occur unless a DNA replication machine exists, but a DNA replication machine can't exist unless DNA replication occurs).
>
> Ray

Of course we're trapped. We accepted the theory of evolution and God therefore afflicted us with an acceptance of the theory of evolution. Be careful Ray, if you look at the evidence and start to think evolution might be true, that could be enough for God to smite you with the evolutionist delusion. It's dangerous for you to hang around here.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:


> The explanation is illogical and thus false.

Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
illogical.

-William Hughes

[Ray Martinez]

Illogical means "can't be true."

Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.

Ray

[wpih...@gmail.com]

Ok But "appearance of design" does not imply design.
(Something that appears to be designed, may or may not
be designed)

Pointing to something and saying "that must have been
designed" is an argument from incredulity.

-William Hughes
>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:36:09 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/9/15, 4:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:21:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Harshman:
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >>>
> >>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >>>
> >>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >>
> >> But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
> >> mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.
> >
> > The entire historical debate between Creationism and Darwinism is
> > framed on causation mutual exclusivity. Since you will go on, in this
> > message, to reject said appearance your comment above, and its
> > implication, exist in contradiction.
>
> You are incorrect. One might, for example, list Asa Gray as an early
> proponent of different sorts of causation for different things. Even A.
> R. Wallace proposed that human intelligence had a different explanation
> from everything else in life.
>

Existence of subjective views doesn't harm the causation mutual exclusivity dualistic frame. Science soundly rejected Gray and Wallace via ignoring them.

> >> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
> >> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
> >> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
> >> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
> >> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
> >> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>
> >
> > Strong reiteration.
> >
> > But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept
> > of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then
> > evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and
> > evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.
>
> I tell you again. Concepts don't exist in nature. It's the things

> represented by the concepts that you're really talking about....

When I write the word "concept" it means "the idea, word, and alleged thing." The fact that you basically said what I just said without even knowing it is flabbergasting.

I see nothing below worth my time.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Here are some simple counter examples, artists using random processes
as part of their design
http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/1066

[Dana Tweedy]

Your own claim that a "mutual exclusivity dualistic frame" exists is
your own subjective view. Others don't accept that such a frame must be
in place.

> Science soundly rejected Gray and Wallace via ignoring them.

Science offered no opinion of Gray and Wallace's religious beliefs.
Individual scientists may agree, or disagree, but science itself states
no opinion on the matter.

>
>>>> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
>>>> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
>>>> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
>>>> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
>>>> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
>>>> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>>
>>>
>>> Strong reiteration.
>>>
>>> But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept
>>> of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then
>>> evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and
>>> evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.
>>
>> I tell you again. Concepts don't exist in nature. It's the things
>> represented by the concepts that you're really talking about....
>
> When I write the word "concept" it means "the idea, word, and alleged thing."

All of which are abstract, and exist only within minds.

> The fact that you basically said what I just said without even knowing it is flabbergasting.

Perhaps you should stop using words inappropriately. That would help
people understand what you mean, and less frustration for you.

>
> I see nothing below worth my time.

Meaning you are running away from the points made.


snip what Ray is afraid of addressing


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/9/15 7:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>
>> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
>> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
>> logical, or warranted.
>>
>
> No, appearance of design is *explained* as an illusion and by-product of unintelligent agencies.

and that explanation is consistent with the evidence, unlike your own.

> The explanation is illogical and thus false.

Please explain why you consider it illogical. (this should be good for a
laugh)

> A far superior explanation of appearance of design is work of invisible Designer.

Please explain why that explanation is "far superior", considering the
lack of evidence of said "invisible designer".

> But evolutionary science does not accept an appearance of design as existing in nature.

Again, this is something you know to be untrue. Individual scientists
may, or may not accept that individual organisms can have the appearance
of design.

>
>>>
>>> John Harshman:
>>
>> John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.
>
> Keeping reading the exchanges; John does not know how nested hierarchies are produced.

Actually, he does, like everyone else. Nested hierarchies are produced
by common descent.

>
>> What mechanism does an "intelligent designer" use to produce nested
>> hierarchies?
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> His Divine intelligence and power.

Which is? That's not a mechanism, it's simply saying "magic", which is
not an explanation for anything.

> Since you guys don't know how groups within groups are produced, but cede to traditional evolutionary agencies to get you close, you're trapped, much like the trap of abiogenesis (DNA replication can't occur unless a DNA replication machine exists, but a DNA replication machine can't exist unless DNA replication occurs).
>

Again, groups within groups are produced by common descent. That much
is trivially true. Exactly how DNA evolved is still unknown, but it is
known that RNA can act much the same as DNA, meaning that DNA doesn't
have to be in place for replication.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/9/15 8:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>
>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>> illogical.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>
> Illogical means "can't be true."

No it does not. This is another example of how you entirely
misunderstand how logic works.

>
> Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.

Again, you don't know what is sound logic, so you can't go around saying
anything about it. "Unintelligence" is not a cause, anymore than
"Divine power" is a cause. Evolution is caused by variations within a
population of imperfectly reproducing organisms. That's a mechanism.
"Unintelligence" is not, and "Intelligence" is not a mechanism.


DJT

[John Harshman]

Whoa, that was a weird sentence. Fortunately, I think I know what you
meant to say. You mean that anyone who contradicts your views is
irrelevant because nothing can be allowed to contradict your views. You
are hermetically sealed, perfect and impenetrable.

>>>> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
>>>> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
>>>> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
>>>> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
>>>> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
>>>> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>>
>>>
>>> Strong reiteration.
>>>
>>> But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept
>>> of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then
>>> evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and
>>> evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.
>>
>> I tell you again. Concepts don't exist in nature. It's the things
>> represented by the concepts that you're really talking about....
>
> When I write the word "concept" it means "the idea, word, and alleged
> thing." The fact that you basically said what I just said without
> even knowing it is flabbergasting.

It shouldn't be. When you use your own private definitions for so many
words, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody understands you. When
other people say "concept" it doesn't mean "the thing represented"; it
means the representation. You can fix your wording just by removing the
word "concept": "Modern science, including yourself, does not accept ID
to exist in nature". See how much simpler and clearer that is?

> I see nothing below worth my time.

Hard to answer, huh?

Ray?

>>>>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design".
>>>
>>> I can appreciate this answer. Thanks.
>>
>> I doubt it. If you were able to appreciate my answer you wouldn't thank me.
>>
>>>> Life
>>>> might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
>>>> explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
>>>> millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
>>>> that's another matter.
>>>>
>>>> And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
>>>> need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
>>>> but they aren't alive.
>>>
>>> Yes, your position conveyed with a clever analogy in support.
>>
>> So what's wrong with the analogy that makes it invalid?

Ray?

[Robert Camp]

On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>
>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>> illogical.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>
> Illogical means "can't be true."

Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."

Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
"demonstrates unsound reasoning."

> Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.

And yet, via the pattern/complexity meaning of design, it is so
described, and quite often.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:34:51 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wpih...@gmail.com:

To Ray, "illogical" makes something false by definition. Ray
is basically ignorant of both logic and science.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:48:10 -0700, the following appeared

He's certainly not alone; nearly every supposed "believer"
tends to put the same restrictions on what an omnipotent
deity is allowed to do. And they refuse to recognize the
fundamental (NPI) error of that position.

I suspect it comes from a visceral reaction to the idea of
our relationship to the rest of nature, specifically
including other apes.

> This limitation of God's power speaks to the lack of faith, and lack
>of appreciation for what omnipotence means, that most creationists seem
>to express in their views.

I've noted quite a few times that a mania for evidence is
the antithesis of faith, but no Biblical literalist or
creationist has seen fit to address that. Including Ray,
which is strange given his belief that "logical" is
equivalent to "possible".

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:44:01 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > The explanation is illogical and thus false.

>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>> illogical.

>Illogical means "can't be true."

No, Ray, it does not; it simply means it can't be derived
via syllogism. You continually make that error.

[Burkhard]

Unless, possibly, you are Keith Campbell or one of his fellow travelers
(in the philosophy of biology, that would be Bence Nanay). Though I
somehow doubt that Ray is deeply into Trope theory.

<snip>

[John Harshman]

Say what?

[Roger Shrubber]

It's a strange perversion of Randian objectivism running off the
foundational statement that existence exists. It then tortures
the abstract nature of a concept to impart a privilege of
existence to the concept if the concept maps to a thing that
has an actual existence. And similarly, it appears that the
concept of something that does not map to a tangible thing,
perhaps a unicorn or a time machine, an anti-privilege is
applied and one says the concept does not exist in nature.

It's rather "special". I especially like the way the concept
of a telephone apparently did not exist until one was built.
I'm not sure what it was that was used to design a telephone
if it wasn't the concept of a telephone. The non-standard
language just becomes too tortured. The rules of English
syntax cry out for mercy.
abandoning English grammar and syntax.

[Burkhard]

There is a school in analytic philosophy, called trope theory, that sits
somewhere between nominalism and universalims. Keith Campbell is its
main proponent. Unlike nominalists, they say concepts such as "red"
exist. Unlike universalism, for them concepts are not universal (the
concept of redness, under which individual re objects "fall") but
particulars. There is an abstract thing, the trope of redness, that is
the "redness of this thing", and the world is basically made up form
thiese abstract particulars.

Keith Cambell is the main proponent, Bence Nanay applied it to biology,
in particular to Ernst Mayr's concept of population.(Population Thinking
as Trope Nominalism,” Synthese, 2010 177: 91–109.

It is a rather weird school of thought and the discussion gets exteely
technical very quick, but they could (though they don't normally do)
talk about things like concepts existing in nature.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:21:05 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
> >>
> >> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
> >> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
> >> illogical.
> >>
> >> -William Hughes
> >
> > Illogical means "can't be true."
>
> Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."
>

In the context of an argument, yes, that too.

> Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
> from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
> "demonstrates unsound reasoning."
>

Your conclusion is completely false. Reasoning and logic are two different things. Reasoning can be logical or illogical. Logic, first and foremost, concerns what can and cannot exist. The fact that you have dismissed the first and foremost is a good sign that you were educated by idealists (non-realists) and Darwinists.

> > Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.
>
> And yet, via the pattern/complexity meaning of design, it is so
> described, and quite often.

Here Robert (our Evolutionist) points out that other Evolutionists employ illogic "quite often." This is true. Quite often Evolutionists assert and explain appearance of design a by-product of unintelligent processes. The explanation is illogical and thus false and thus impossible. A delusion is at work but it is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >
> > Creationist: appearance of design.
> >
> > John Harshman:
> >
> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.

Victorian Creationism (the Creationism Darwin sought to falsify in the Origin) says each species, past and present, were independently or separately created.
Paley said each individual or species was designed. So we explain your facts as the way the Designer chose to create.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:21:05 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>>>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>>>> illogical.
>>>>
>>>> -William Hughes
>>>
>>> Illogical means "can't be true."
>>
>> Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."
>>
>
> In the context of an argument, yes, that too.
>
>> Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
>> from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
>> "demonstrates unsound reasoning."
>>
>
> Your conclusion is completely false. Reasoning and logic are two different things.

Well, yes and no. Logic is simply the theory of correct reasoning, a
subset of reasoning.

Reasoning can be logical or illogical. Logic, first and foremost,
concerns what can and cannot exist.

Ehm, no? That is the job of ontology. Logic concerns itself with the
relation between statements. Etymologically, it is related to logos,
speech. Or as Arsitotle put it in his treatise on logic, the Analytics:
A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been
supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity
because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20

In modern times, Copi put it in his classical textbook "Introduction to
logic" like this: "Logic is the study of the methods and principles used
to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning"

and the mathematician Schoenfield like this: "Logic is the study of
reasoning, and mathematical logic is the study of the type of reasoning
done by mathematicians."

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:

> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>
> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >

> > Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >
> > Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >

> > Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >
> > Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >
> > What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
> >
> > Ray
> >
> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
> question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
> descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
>

> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
> drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
> existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
> conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
> rather than by each species being individually created by fiat;

No you can't. IF God has any INvolvement in biological then the ToE is falsified. One cannot use any known evolutionary term to describe any cause or effect.

> doing so
> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>

Again, I concede that your patterns exist; in response I invoke appearance of design, seen in each species, to mean each species was created separately; therefore said patterns become the way the Creator chose to create at the genetic level. Your only choice is to reject any semblance of design existing in nature. Since, according to evolutionary theory, Intelligent agencies do not exist in nature, only unintelligent agencies exist in nature, nothing in nature can be described as designed.


> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>

By accepting both design and evolution existing in nature, Behe is proven confused. Both concepts are mutually exclusive.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >
> > Creationist: appearance of design.
>

> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
> logical, or warranted.
>

This says unintelligence produces an appearance that falsifies its existence.

Ray

> >
> > John Harshman:
>
> John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.

[John Harshman]

Why would that be so? And why is it just evolution that's falsified.
What about common descent within species? Why can't you say that god
individually, by fiat, created each and every squirrel?

>> doing so
>> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
>> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
>> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
>> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>
> Again, I concede that your patterns exist; in response I invoke
> appearance of design, seen in each species, to mean each species was
> created separately; therefore said patterns become the way the
> Creator chose to create at the genetic level. Your only choice is to
> reject any semblance of design existing in nature. Since, according
> to evolutionary theory, Intelligent agencies do not exist in nature,
> only unintelligent agencies exist in nature, nothing in nature can be
> described as designed.

Why would the appearance of design mean that each species was created
separately but the appearance of design in an individual squirrel would
not mean that each squirrel was created separately?

>> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
>> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
>> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
>> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>
> By accepting both design and evolution existing in nature, Behe is proven confused. Both concepts are mutually exclusive.

Why are they mutually exclusive? If we can imagine a perfectly
reasonable scenario in which both happen, doesn't that show that they
are not mutually exclusive?

[John Harshman]

This doesn't seem quite the same as saying that the concept of a fish
and a fish are the same thing, merely that the concept of a fish is a
thing too. It also seems very silly, but perhaps that's just my
unfamiliarity with sophisticated philosophy.

[John Harshman]

That wasn't in any way a response to my question. It's just a
regurgitation of your standard mantra. Nor do I see any reason why
Victorian creationism should be considered a standard against which
truth should be weighed.

[John Harshman]

On 2/10/15, 6:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>
>> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
>> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
>> logical, or warranted.
>
> This says unintelligence produces an appearance that falsifies its existence.

That would be true if appearance of design were identical to design. And
*that* would be true if appearance were always identical to reality.

If.

[Burkhard]

That would be universalism (or concept realism, or platonism) as it is
commonly understood. Trope theory as I understand it says the concept
"fish" exists, but only in an individual fish. But you;d have to ask
JOhn Wilkins for the details, trope theory is strong in Australia
(possibly because every animal there is deadly poisonous in its own ,
particular way)

It also seems very silly, but perhaps that's just my
> unfamiliarity with sophisticated philosophy.

Well, to a degree. You start with 2 positions that at first sight sound
quite plausible and intuitive, universalism and realism (and that goes
back millenia) Problem is that they are mutually inconsistent, and each
side has made over the centuries good arguments why the other is wrong.
So it is not too surprising that at some point someone tried to develop
a middle ground. But because nominalism and realism are each in their
way quite intuitive, and reflect some basic features of how our language
works, even formulating this middle ground is not easy, I'd grant you
that. As with all academic disciplines it takes time to learn the lingo
>

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you've never been able to produce a coherent argument to support
this assertion.

> One cannot use any known evolutionary term to describe any cause or effect.

Why not? Evolution is a fact, whether or not God is involved.

>
>> doing so
>> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
>> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
>> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
>> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>>
>
> Again, I concede that your patterns exist; in response I invoke appearance of design, seen in each species, to mean each species was created separately;

appearance of design does not equal actual design Ray. How many times
does one have to repeat this simple fact to you?

> therefore said patterns become the way the Creator chose to create at the genetic level.

Why can't the creator have used evolution to create?

> Your only choice is to reject any semblance of design existing in nature.

Why isn't the choice to point out you are wrong an option?

> Since, according to evolutionary theory, Intelligent agencies do not exist in nature, only unintelligent agencies exist in nature, nothing in nature can be described as designed.

Ray, human beings are intelligent agencies, and are known to exist in
nature. Evolutionary theory does not claim that only "unintelligent"
agencies exist in nature. Many things in nature can be described as
designed. Bee hives, beaver dams, bowerbird nests, just to name a few.

>
>
>> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
>> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
>> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
>> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>>
>
> By accepting both design and evolution existing in nature, Behe is proven confused. Both concepts are mutually exclusive.

Or, perhaps you are the one confused, and outright mistaken. Have you
considered that possibility?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/10/15 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>
>>> John Harshman:
>>>
>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>
> Victorian Creationism (the Creationism Darwin sought to falsify in the Origin) says each species, past and present, were independently or separately created.

Well that's not quite correct. Darwin wasn't trying to falsify
"Victorian Creationism". He was presenting a scientific theory to
explain his observations regarding nature. Creationism, Victorian, or
otherwise was always a religious belief, not science.

In any case, the idea that all species were individually created was
withering before Darwin even lived. Linnaeus offered the suggestion
that some species might come about by hybridization.

> Paley said each individual or species was designed.

Obviously, Paley was mistaken. Each individual, or species was produced
by natural processes.

> So we explain your facts as the way the Designer chose to create.

Why can't God have used evolution to create species?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/10/15 6:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:21:05 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>>>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>>>> illogical.
>>>>
>>>> -William Hughes
>>>
>>> Illogical means "can't be true."
>>
>> Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."

You should note, Ray that many of your own claims do not follow from the
premises.

Things that we humans might think of as illogical can indeed exist.

>>
>
> In the context of an argument, yes, that too.

so, why are you so fond of using illogical arguments?

>
>> Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
>> from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
>> "demonstrates unsound reasoning."
>>
>
> Your conclusion is completely false.

Care to explain why?

> Reasoning and logic are two different things.

Neither of which you have any understanding about.

> Reasoning can be logical or illogical. Logic, first and foremost, concerns what can and cannot exist.

Where do you get this idea, Ray? Logic is about intellectual rigor,
not about what can, or cannot exist.

> The fact that you have dismissed the first and foremost is a good sign that you were educated by idealists (non-realists) and Darwinists.

Or, more correctly a sign that Robert isn't completely insane.

>
>>> Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.
>>
>> And yet, via the pattern/complexity meaning of design, it is so
>> described, and quite often.
>
> Here Robert (our Evolutionist) points out that other Evolutionists employ illogic "quite often."

No, he points out that your claim about "unintelligence" is obviously
mistaken.

> This is true. Quite often Evolutionists assert and explain appearance of design a by-product of unintelligent processes.

Something that has been directly observed, and easily reproduced.

> The explanation is illogical and thus false and thus impossible.

Yet the world still moves....

> A delusion is at work but it is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Many people accept evolution and believe in God as well.

Any delusion here seems to be Ray's and Ray's alone.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/10/15 7:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>
>> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
>> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
>> logical, or warranted.
>>
>
> This says unintelligence produces an appearance that falsifies its existence.

As I have stated many times, "unintelligence" is not a mechanism and
produces nothing. Natural processes, on the other hand are unguided,
and not sentient, yet they have been observed to produce results that
appear, superficially to be similar to those produced by human design.

Appearances can't falsify theories, or hypotheses. Only evidence can do
that.

DJT

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/8/15, 3:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>

> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >

> > -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
> >
> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.

Sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to get it.
All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian mechanism creating new life forms.

Now, about your statement:

"How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching."

First of all, your sentence does not make sense semantically. It's unclear what you mean, but let me give my best guess:
"How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it HAPPENED entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching?"

Is that what you mean?

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <1556905d-b18b-4c85...@googlegroups.com>,

Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian mechanism
> creating new life forms.

There is equally no observable evidence of any gods creating anything.

[deadrat]

On 2/11/15 12:58 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
>>>
>> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
>> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to get it.

You don't have the chops, Steadly, to be this dismissive.

> All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian mechanism creating new life forms.

Wrong. Go here:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

<snip/>

[deadrat]

Not equally, since we've seen new life forms but we've never seen any gods.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:36:06 -0600, in article
<kPudnSG_1-TriUbJ...@giganews.com>, deadrat stated..."

Rather, we don't know what it would be like to have evidence of gods
creating.

(That is, what difference it would make between a god creating and not.
Difference is all important for evidence.)


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[jillery]

That's an important point to remind those who like to argue "is
consistent with".

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Chris Thompson]

On 2/11/2015 1:58 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:


>> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
>> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.
>

(snip)

>
> First of all, your sentence does not make sense semantically. It's unclear what you mean, but let me give my best guess:
> "How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it HAPPENED entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching?"
>
> Is that what you mean?

My impression is that John's question meant, "What do you think 'simple
branching' means?"

Can you answer that?

Chris

[raven1]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:44:01 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>
>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>> illogical.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>
>Illogical means "can't be true."

No, it doesn't.
P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates was mortal
C: Socrates was a man
is illogical, but true.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/10/15 10:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
>>>
>> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
>> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to get it.
> All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian
> mechanism creating new life forms.

That is partly true. *You* can never observe any evidence, but that is
just you. Your life is ruled by the fear that you might see some
evidence, so you conscientiously refuse to read any of the hundreds of
thousands of journal articles about evolution which display all kinds of
observable evidence to anyone who is interested in seeing it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[John Harshman]

On 2/10/15, 10:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman:
>>>>>
>>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>>>
>>> -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
>>>
>> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
>> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to get it.
> All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian mechanism creating new life forms.

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as geographic isolation of
populations?

> Now, about your statement:
> "How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching."
>
> First of all, your sentence does not make sense semantically. It's unclear what you mean, but let me give my best guess:
> "How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it HAPPENED entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching?"
>
> Is that what you mean?

No. I mean what I said. I'm not assuming it did happen. I'm saying that,
given time and branching events, it would have happened. Or, to put it
another way, if time and branching are sufficient to explain a nested
hierarchy, why would we be forced to accept a different hypothesis?

[Ymir]

In article <mbftom$lfq$1...@dont-email.me>,

Apparently, though, that doesn't stop him from citing some of those
articles.

Andre

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mbeer4$fmo$1...@dont-email.me>

I think that unnecessarily anti-Aussie. Not all Aussie animals are
deadly poisonous (strictly, I think you mean venomous) . Some of them
(e.g. drop bears) kill you without recourse to any form of venom at
all.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:28:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/10/15, 4:42 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/15, 8:02 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> When I write the word "concept" it means "the idea, word, and alleged
>>>>> thing." The fact that you basically said what I just said without
>>>>> even knowing it is flabbergasting.
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't be. When you use your own private definitions for so many
>>>> words, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody understands you. When
>>>> other people say "concept" it doesn't mean "the thing represented"; it
>>>> means the representation.
>>>
>>> Unless, possibly, you are Keith Campbell or one of his fellow travelers
>>> (in the philosophy of biology, that would be Bence Nanay). Though I
>>> somehow doubt that Ray is deeply into Trope theory.
>>
>> Say what?
>>
>
>There is a school in analytic philosophy, called trope theory, that sits
>somewhere between nominalism and universalims. Keith Campbell is its
>main proponent. Unlike nominalists, they say concepts such as "red"
>exist. Unlike universalism, for them concepts are not universal (the
>concept of redness, under which individual re objects "fall") but
>particulars. There is an abstract thing, the trope of redness, that is
>the "redness of this thing", and the world is basically made up form
>thiese abstract particulars.

<cough> Plato <cough> Eternal Forms <cough>

>Keith Cambell is the main proponent, Bence Nanay applied it to biology,
>in particular to Ernst Mayr's concept of population.(Population Thinking
>as Trope Nominalism,” Synthese, 2010 177: 91–109.
>
>It is a rather weird school of thought and the discussion gets exteely
>technical very quick, but they could (though they don't normally do)
>talk about things like concepts existing in nature.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:45:14 +0000, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

The attributions here are pretty thoroughly munged. See
below...

>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:21:05 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
>>>>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
>>>>> illogical.
>>>>>
>>>>> -William Hughes
>>>>
>>>> Illogical means "can't be true."
>>>
>>> Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."
>>>
>>
>> In the context of an argument, yes, that too.

>>> Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
>>> from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
>>> "demonstrates unsound reasoning."

>> Your conclusion is completely false. Reasoning and logic are two different things.

>Well, yes and no. Logic is simply the theory of correct reasoning, a
>subset of reasoning.

>Reasoning can be logical or illogical. Logic, first and foremost,
>concerns what can and cannot exist.

A bit more care? The second sentence above was Ray's. Sure,
it's clear from the below, and especially to anyone who read
Ray's post, but still...

>Ehm, no? That is the job of ontology. Logic concerns itself with the
>relation between statements. Etymologically, it is related to logos,
>speech. Or as Arsitotle put it in his treatise on logic, the Analytics:
> A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been
>supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity
>because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20
>
>In modern times, Copi put it in his classical textbook "Introduction to
>logic" like this: "Logic is the study of the methods and principles used
>to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning"
>
>and the mathematician Schoenfield like this: "Logic is the study of
>reasoning, and mathematical logic is the study of the type of reasoning
>done by mathematicians."

And this...

>The fact that you have dismissed the first and foremost is a good sign
>that you were educated by idealists (non-realists) and Darwinists.

....was *also* Ray.

>>>> Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.
>>>
>>> And yet, via the pattern/complexity meaning of design, it is so
>>> described, and quite often.
>>
>> Here Robert (our Evolutionist) points out that other Evolutionists employ illogic "quite often." This is true. Quite often Evolutionists assert and explain appearance of design a by-product of unintelligent processes. The explanation is illogical and thus false and thus impossible. A delusion is at work but it is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.
>>
>> Ray
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:06:19 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>> >
>> > Creationist: appearance of design.
>>
>> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
>> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
>> logical, or warranted.
>>
>
>This says unintelligence produces an appearance that falsifies its existence.

And once again you conflate design with its appearance,
implying that *you* are omniscient when you can't even
define "design" unambiguously.

"All that glitters is not gold", an aphorism you might want
to write on your hand...

>> > John Harshman:
>>
>> John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.
>> What mechanism does an "intelligent designer" use to produce nested
>> hierarchies?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:58:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, 8 February 2015 19:16:12 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/8/15, 3:30 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:26:11 UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>> >>>
>> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
>> >>>
>> >>> John Harshman:
>> >>>
>> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
>> >
>> > -Because your assumed mechanism is not known - there's no observable evidence that any naturalistic mechanism is capable of doing your "simple...branching". In fact, it looks like you're dead wrong about it.
>> >
>> What do you think "simple branching" means? I'm suspecting you don't
>> have any idea what I'm talking about. Hence your senseless answer.
>
>Sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to get it.
>All I mean is that there's no observable evidence for Darwinian mechanism creating new life forms.

So you think "simple branching" means "Darwinian mechanism
creating new life forms"? That's not what it means to me. In
fact it has nothing to do with evolution specifically but is
a general term regarding structures.

>Now, about your statement:
>"How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
>entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching."
>
>First of all, your sentence does not make sense semantically. It's unclear what you mean, but let me give my best guess:
>"How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it HAPPENED entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching?"
>
>Is that what you mean?

[Virgil]

In article <s78ndathvg01e9qi6...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> "All that glitters is not gold", an aphorism you might want
> to write on your hand...

The original, "All that glisters is not gold", comes from Shakespeare's
"Merchant of Venice".
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[jillery]

That's because he wouldn't understand them even if he read those
articles. At least he recognizes his own limitations.

>Apparently, though, that doesn't stop him from citing some of those
>articles.

I think he's hoping nobody else understands those articles either.

[jillery]

Perhaps he was thinking of Ken Ham and Rupert Murdoch.

[Burkhard]

Well, Plato is the archetypical universal realist - . But these concepts
are universal, and hence separated from the particular objects that
express them. that's why we sometimes talk about the "platonic heaven of
concepts". Amongst other things, as yo note, they are eternal - but the
objects that have them typically aren't. That's where people started to
ask questions how this is supposed to work. Trope theory is a partial
answer - tropes are abstract, but neither universal not eternal, and not
separate from ordinary objects, but their constituent parts.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:50:07 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.com>:

>In article <s78ndathvg01e9qi6...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> "All that glitters is not gold", an aphorism you might want
>> to write on your hand...
>
>The original, "All that glisters is not gold", comes from Shakespeare's
>"Merchant of Venice".

Ray would have balked at "glisters". But thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:36:30 +0000, the following appeared

OK; thanks for the additional info. It just struck me that
what you described seemed *very* similar to Plato's ideas,
and thus not really a new concept.

>>> Keith Cambell is the main proponent, Bence Nanay applied it to biology,
>>> in particular to Ernst Mayr's concept of population.(Population Thinking
>>> as Trope Nominalism,” Synthese, 2010 177: 91–109.
>>>
>>> It is a rather weird school of thought and the discussion gets exteely
>>> technical very quick, but they could (though they don't normally do)
>>> talk about things like concepts existing in nature.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 8:01:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/8/15 4:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>
> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >

> > Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying.
>
> Ray, it's highly unlikely that even you know what you are saying.
>
>
>
> > I'll place the blame on myself.
>
> Good choice.
>
>
>
> >
> > Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature.
>
> No, it's a condition most likely produced by a natural process. Such a
> process can be observed. No supernatural intelligent causation has ever
> been observed.
>
> > Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
>
> That is the logical fallacy of assuming one's conclusion.
>

No it's not. If evidence of Intelligent agency exists in nature then ALL of nature becomes the work of God. This is why Darwinism rejects design in nature as existing.


> Also, evolution exists in nature, therefore, according to your
> syllogism, evolution must be a work of God.
>

Neither micro/macro evolution exist in nature because natural or unintelligent agencies do not exist.

>
>
> >
> > Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
>
> Except the "claim" is unsupported by any evidence. You can claim
> whatever you want produced the appearance of design, but unless you can
> provide any evidence your preferred method is capable of producing an
> appearance of design, you have no reason to expect that claim to be
> taken seriously.
>
>
>
> >
> > Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature;
>
> Which is flatly untrue, as you have been shown many times over.
>

COMPLETELY FALSE.

I'll give $100.00 dollars to each person who can show me any well known evo scholar who accepts appearance of design existing in nature.

Evo scholars acknowledge what others claim to see (appearance of design) but they agree with evo scientists: the concept of design does not exist in nature.

>
>
> > rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see;
>
> That makes even less sense than usual, Ray.
>

Your reply is the only thing that doesn't make sense.

>
> > rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
>
> Creationists claim to see "design" but what they are seeing is only
> appearance of design, produced by natural processes.
>

That's exactly how evo scholars and evo scientists explain appearance of design.

>
>
> >
> > What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design.
>
> Which is irrelevant to the actual presence of a "intelligent
> supernatural designer". Since natural processes, without any conscious
> design can produce the appearance of design, asserting supernatural
> design is not warranted.
>
>
>
> > If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
>
> No, because branching descent has been directly observed to happen.

It's all based on inference; branching descent happens too slowly to observe directly as it allegedly occurs. You make this mistake regularly.

> Assuming a supernatural creator to explain what can be explained by an
> existing, and often observed natural processes is unscientific, and not
> logical.
>
> DJT


Comments convey the assumptions of Naturalism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 8:16:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/8/15 5:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:

> >> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Harshman:
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >>>

> >>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >>>
> >>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.

> >>>
> >>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >>>

> >>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
> >> question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
> >> descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
> >>
> >
> > Why? Unless causation shown how do you *know* a class of objects are related in a evolutionary sense?
>
> Causation is shown, time and time again. Reproduction produces descent.
> Variations in reproduction produce branching. What do you refuse to
> accept about that?
>
>
>
> > You seem to be staking your claims on mere discovery of a pattern then concluding common descent has occurred.
>
> Because that pattern is known to be produced by common descent. There's
> no cause to assume other processes cause that pattern without evidence
> that other processes can produce such a pattern.
>
> If you have any evidence of a process (one observed to happen) that
> produces the same pattern, please divulge it.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
> >> drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
> >> existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
> >> conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
> >> rather than by each species being individually created by fiat;
> >
> > IF God is involved with biological production then no effect can be described as naturalistic, descent, branching, etc. because these concepts presuppose natural or non-supernatural causation.
>
> That is one of your own unsupported claims. No one else accepts that
> definition.

Darwinian science accepts what I said unanimously.

> God's involvement with biology can't be observed in any
> way science can determine, so it's not a idea of scientific interest.
>

The philosophy of evolution known as Naturalism or Materialism.

> There's no reason why God can't make use of natural processes to create.

This comment says: "There's no reason why Intelligence can't make use of unintelligent processes to create."

Not only is your comment egregiously illogical, you also need to explain why Intelligence would conceal by creating via unintelligent processes? In other words, what is the source of your Theology? Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy, perhaps?

> You seem intent on limiting God's scope to only the supernatural realm.
>

We were talking about nature or what is seen.

>
>
> >
> >> doing so
> >> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
> >> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
> >> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
> >> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
> >>
> >
> > If the pattern points to the effect of descent with modification, then how does modification occur, especially in higher taxa?
>
> Modification happens during reproduction within populations. Higher
> taxa are simply more far removed from the point of modification. In
> other words, evolution happens in populations during reproduction.
> Evolution does not happen among higher taxonomic groups, such groups are
> the result of evolution happening at population level.
>

Then how did higher taxa evolve?

>
> >
> >
> >> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
> >> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
> >> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
> >> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> >> http://www.avast.com
> >
> > Anyone can claim to be a Christian.
>
> As you do, Ray, without any justification.
>
> >
> > Where does the Bible advocate CD?
>
> When it speaks of "be fruitful and multiply"
>

Too loony to address.

> >
> > Are you suggesting the Bible scientifically correct?
>
> No, Ray, you are. But you haven't been able to demonstrate that.
>
>
> DJT

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/15, 12:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> If evidence of Intelligent agency exists in nature then ALL of nature becomes the work of God.

So if I find a watch on the beach and recognize human agency behind it,
that means that the sand on the beach was the work of humans?

By the way, I'm happy that you have finally weaned yourself from that
clumsy wording "...the concept of _____ to exist in nature".
Congratulations on your progress.

> ...the concept of design does not exist in nature.

Whoops, spoke too soon.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 8 de febrero de 2015, 22:51:11 (UTC), Ray Martinez escribió:
> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
>
> Creationist: appearance of design.
>

creationist: brain washing about a god creator.
A brain washing is a psychological process by which you end believing
such a thing like Lord Krishna is a true god, or Brahma, or Jesus, etc.
Eri

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:51:09 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 20:49:32 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
> <reddf...@gmail.com>:

>
> >On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>
> >> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >

> >Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
> >therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
> >logical, or warranted.
> >
> >>

> >> John Harshman:
> >
> >John knows that nested hierarchies are produced by branching descent.
> >What mechanism does an "intelligent designer" use to produce nested
> >hierarchies?
>

> Whatever He (or "he" or "she" or "it") wants. And since Ray
> chooses to invoke an omnipotent, omniscient Designer there
> is *no* refutation, whether based on evidence or not, which
> will persuade him that he's mistaken; that's the nature of
> omnipotence combined with omniscience, and why it's
> essentially useless as an explanation for anything. (Yes,
> I'm aware you know this. But it's worth noting from time to
> time that this argument will go nowhere. Ever.) And the fact
> that Ray conflates design with the appearance of design, and
> assumes that no one can be religious and still accept
> scientific evidence, only makes it worse. Ray is possibly
> the most closed-minded individual posting here; facts simply
> have no reality for him.
> --

If you understood the BASIC claims of Victorian Creationism and the BASIC claims of Victorian Darwinism you wouldn't say what you just said.

In short: You're inexcusably ignorant of the history of Creationism 101 and the history of Darwinism 101, Bob.

In Victorian times "appearance of design" (if the phrase itself was ever used) meant real or actual design.

Your thinking is illogical as "appearance" does not negate existence. This is why Darwin and his original followers rejected appearance of design existing in nature. And you can't name one modern successor who disagrees with Darwin, not even one.

Ray

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 8 de febrero de 2015, 23:26:11 (UTC), John Harshman escribió:

> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >
> > Creationist: appearance of design.
> >

> > John Harshman:
> >
> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.

god wanted to deceive human intelligence by creating creatures that look
as they had evolved through millions of years. Then it is a deceiver
or a liar god. Go created some physics that an earth less than 10,000 years
old looks like it has some billion
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El lunes, 9 de febrero de 2015, 2:11:11 (UTC), Greg Guarino escribió:

> On 2/8/2015 7:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Harshman:
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would
> >>>> happen entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple
> >>>> time and branching.
> >>>

> >>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll
> >>> place the blame on myself.
> >>>
> >>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of
> >>> design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent
> >>> causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists
> >>> in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the
> >>> appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent
> >>> causation operating in nature.
> >>>
> >>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT
> >>> accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these
> >>> persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all
> >>> they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they
> >>> claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what
> >>> others claim to see.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a
> >>> position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence
> >>> of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation
> >>> for branching descent?
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if
> >> the question is whether or not a class of objects is related by
> >> common descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
> >>
> >
> > Why? Unless causation shown how do you *know* a class of objects are

> > related in a evolutionary sense? You seem to be staking your claims

> > on mere discovery of a pattern then concluding common descent has
> > occurred.
>

> Exactly so.
>
> We have discovered - and in fact *continue* to discover with each new
> species whose genome is sequenced - a pattern that is only found among
> classes of objects that are related through descent with modification.
> Moreover, we can easily see *why* a designer would never create a class
> of objects that fit such a pattern by designing each one separately. It
> could only occur through a series of small modifications between
> generations, with some parts of populations splitting off and
> accumulating different modifications than the lineage they split off
> from. The only other possibility is a meticulous effort (and an
> incredible accounting system) to *feign* branching descent.

>
> >
> >> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection
> >> and drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight
> >> modifications of existing structures directly by God's genetic
> >> tinkering, we could still conclude that the current diversity came
> >> about through branching descent rather than by each species being
> >> individually created by fiat;
> >
> > IF God is involved with biological production then no effect can be
> > described as naturalistic,
>

> You're already wrong here, but I won't dwell long on it. God could be
> "involved" in some things, and leave others to physical laws.

>
> > descent, branching, etc. because these
> > concepts presuppose natural or non-supernatural causation.
>

> Descent and branching presuppose no such thing. I have several times
> proposed experiments with symbols on pieces of paper and xerox machines
> that will inevitably produce such a pattern. Scribe-copied manuscripts
> produce such a pattern, and for the same reason that life on earth does:
> each manuscript is copied, but slightly imperfectly. Scribes make
> errors. The imperfections are then copied in future "generations" of
> manuscripts, but only "forward" in the same lineage. Thus by
> scrutinizing the changes, we can construct a "tree of descent" of the
> manuscripts.
>
> All that matters is that there be a source of modification in the
> "reproduction" and that the changes are only carried forward in
> lineages, not exchanged "horizontally". (OK, it also matters that parts
> of populations become reproductively separated somehow, in order that
> they diverge). But the same pattern would be produced whether the source
> of modification is God, geneticists or mutation, selection and drift.

>
> >> doing so by examining the resulting pattern of features and
> >> genetics. The pattern we see points unavoidably to descent with
> >> modification, and just as unavoidably away from any class of
> >> designed object we know of, save those that themselves came about
> >> through descent with modification.
> >>
> > If the pattern points to the effect of descent with modification,
> > then how does modification occur, especially in higher taxa?
> >

> Biologists say mutation, selection and drift. But I must reiterate, any
> source of heritable modification would produce the pattern we see
> through common descent.
>
> Suppose just for a moment that we take an unambiguous case of deliberate
> "design". A group of biologists take a strain of bacteria, separate it
> into two petri dishes, and deliberately swap in a (different) piece of
> altered DNA into each. (now in reality, they'd be very unlikely to do
> the swapping on millions of bacteria, they'd alter one and let it
> reproduce, but let's not dwell on that detail, because it doesn't matter).
>
> Next they take the two petri dishes and split each one in two again.
> They now perform unique modifications to each of the four dishes. They
> repeat the procedure several more times: 8 dishes, then 16, then 32,
> then 64.
>
> They will now have 64 different strains of bacteria, but related in a
> very specific and unusual way; a natural nested hierarchy. If an
> unrelated geneticist were to sequence the 64 strains, he'd be able to
> tell that the strains were related by common descent, and not simply
> genetically engineered one at a time.
>
> Behe proposes almost exactly that scenario, except substituting God for
> the team of geneticists that made the modifications to the "dishes" in
> each generation. (And of course there's no requirement that there be one
> split in each generation). Whether God or humans geneticists, the
> pattern would be the same.

> >
> >> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
> >> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work.
> >> Why do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related?
> >> Certainly not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>

> > Anyone can claim to be a Christian.
>

> Ray, I don't think much of Behe's "science". And I suspect he cuts a lot
> of logical corners in order to devise an observable place for God in
> biology. But I am quite convinced that he sincerely *wants* the
> Christian God to be real, and considers himself a Christian. You can
> call him deluded if you like, but do you really think he is lying when
> he says he believes himself to be a Christian?

> >
> > Where does the Bible advocate CD?
>

> It doesn't, to my knowledge. In fact, this may be a rare point of
> agreement between us. I do not believe that Behe's scenario can be
> squared with the Bible. Of course, I have my doubts that yours can
> either, but I believe that both of you are likely sincere.

>
> > Are you suggesting the Bible scientifically correct?
>

> No.

>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com

you had made a good argument.
Eri

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 6:16:05 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> On 2/10/15, 5:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 4:11:11 PM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2015 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Harshman:
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >>>
> >>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >>>
> >>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >>>
> >>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >> What neither of you gets, or apparently will ever get, is that if the
> >> question is whether or not a class of objects is related by common
> >> descent, the mechanism of variation does not matter.
> >>

> >> Whether the "modification" occurred through mutation, selection and
> >> drift, or whether it occurred (a la Behe) by slight modifications of
> >> existing structures directly by God's genetic tinkering, we could still
> >> conclude that the current diversity came about through branching descent
> >> rather than by each species being individually created by fiat;
> >

> > No you can't. IF God has any INvolvement in biological [production] then the ToE is falsified. One cannot use any known evolutionary term to describe any cause or effect.
>
> Why would that be so?

Because known evolutionary terms presuppose natural or unintelligent causation.

> And why is it just evolution that's falsified.
> What about common descent within species?

I've never heard of "common descent WITHIN species" until now.

> Why can't you say that god
> individually, by fiat, created each and every squirrel?
>

One could, but no reputable person has. Such a statement could easily be falsified by observing the birth of an individual.

> >> doing so
> >> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
> >> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
> >> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
> >> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
> >

> > Again, I concede that your patterns exist; in response I invoke
> > appearance of design, seen in each species, to mean each species was
> > created separately; therefore said patterns become the way the
> > Creator chose to create at the genetic level. Your only choice is to
> > reject any semblance of design existing in nature. Since, according
> > to evolutionary theory, Intelligent agencies do not exist in nature,
> > only unintelligent agencies exist in nature, nothing in nature can be
> > described as designed.
>
> Why would the appearance of design mean that each species was created
> separately but the appearance of design in an individual squirrel would
> not mean that each squirrel was created separately?
>

Because everyone knows individuals appear from the womb via birth.

> >> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
> >> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
> >> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
> >> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
> >

> > By accepting both design and evolution existing in nature, Behe is proven confused. Both concepts are mutually exclusive.
>
> Why are they mutually exclusive?

Many reasons, for instance, both ideas contradict. Design says species appear vertically by supernatural power operating in nature. Evolution presupposes that such an answer is false: species appear horizontally as the modified descendants of previously living species, mainly through the action of natural selection. In short: design presupposes Intelligent agency; evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies. IF the former exists then the latter is falsified; conversely IF the latter exists then the former is falsified. ALL Darwinists agree, and I agree.

Behe can hide behind his credentials all he wants (as Dembski does). No one can stop either of them. But both are manifestly ignorant of the BASIC claims of the debate as these claims originate from the 19th century. Future scholars, after we are dead and gone, will heap scorn on both for their inexcusable confusion.

> If we can imagine a perfectly
> reasonable scenario in which both happen, doesn't that show that they
> are not mutually exclusive?

No, because existence of one falsifies existence of the other. This is what happens when evolution becomes accepted: illogical constructs follow. Behe wants things both ways. He does so because he is attempting to undermine evolution with one foot in the door, much like TEists who attempt to undermine Creationism with one foot in the door. Both camps do so because they are confused. They've lost the ability to think logically. This is what happens when evolution is accepted as existing in nature.

Ray (fixist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 6:21:05 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> On 2/10/15, 5:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>
> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >

> > Victorian Creationism (the Creationism Darwin sought to falsify in
> > the Origin) says each species, past and present, were independently
> > or separately created. Paley said each individual or species was
> > designed. So we explain your facts as the way the Designer chose to
> > create.
>
> That wasn't in any way a response to my question. It's just a
> regurgitation of your standard mantra. Nor do I see any reason why
> Victorian creationism should be considered a standard against which
> truth should be weighed.

Since Victorian Creationism was the object of refutation in the Origin, and since science came to accept common descent based on the Origin, the claims of Victorian Creationism are therefore the most relevant.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 6:26:05 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/10/15, 6:06 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 7:51:11 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> >> On 2/8/15 3:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>

> >> Appearance of design is known to be a product of natural processes,
> >> therefore claiming it to be evidence of deliberate design is not
> >> logical, or warranted.
> >

> > This says unintelligence produces an appearance that falsifies its existence.
>

> That would be true if appearance of design were identical to design. And
> *that* would be true if appearance were always identical to reality.
>
> If.

Your distinctions are illogical: "appearance" doesn't negate a CLAIM of existence. Very few Evolutionists understand this rudimentary fact. The one's who do are logicians and philosophers.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 6:56:05 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/10/15 6:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>
> >>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>

> >>> John Harshman:
> >>>
> >> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >
> > Victorian Creationism (the Creationism Darwin sought to falsify in the Origin) says each species, past and present, were independently or separately created.
>

> Well that's not quite correct. Darwin wasn't trying to falsify
> "Victorian Creationism". He was presenting a scientific theory to
> explain his observations regarding nature. Creationism, Victorian, or
> otherwise was always a religious belief, not science.
>
> In any case, the idea that all species were individually created was
> withering before Darwin even lived. Linnaeus offered the suggestion
> that some species might come about by hybridization.

>
> > Paley said each individual or species was designed.
>

> Obviously, Paley was mistaken. Each individual, or species was produced
> by natural processes.
>

That's the claim of Darwinism, right.

> > So we explain your facts as the way the Designer chose to create.
>
>

> Why can't God have used evolution to create species?
>
> DJT

Because the word "evolution" presupposes natural or unintelligent agencies.

If God created by "evolution" then we need a different term to indicate that causation was and is Intelligent or supernatural.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 12:31:00 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/15, 12:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > If evidence of Intelligent agency exists in nature then ALL of nature becomes the work of God.
>
> So if I find a watch on the beach and recognize human agency behind it,
> that means that the sand on the beach was the work of humans?
>

Your reply is too close to Paley's opening statement while containing an inaccurate inference, so I can't respond.

> By the way, I'm happy that you have finally weaned yourself from that
> clumsy wording "...the concept of _____ to exist in nature".
> Congratulations on your progress.
>
> > ...the concept of design does not exist in nature.
>
> Whoops, spoke too soon.

Yet said "clumsy wording" is seen throughout the writings of persons who accept evolution.

You don't seem to understand that said phrase simply conveys alleged widest possible existence. For example: If I wrote "the concept of table" then I am alluding to anything that has a flat surface supported by four or more legs or less legs. The legs could be short or long, curved or non-curved, decorated or undecorated; and the surface could be made of any material and of any shape: "the concept of table" entails all.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:06:04 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> On 2/10/15 6:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:21:05 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 2/9/15 7:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:36:08 PM UTC-8, wpih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:41:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The explanation is illogical and thus false.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't be silly. The claim may be false (though you have
> >>>> not provided a convincing argument) but it is hardly
> >>>> illogical.
> >>>>
> >>>> -William Hughes
> >>>
> >>> Illogical means "can't be true."
> >>
> >> Illogical means "does not follow from the premises."
>

> You should note, Ray that many of your own claims do not follow from the
> premises.
>
> Things that we humans might think of as illogical can indeed exist.
>

Mentally ill persons believe all sorts of non-existing things as existing. I know an adult who actually believes vampires exist.

>
> >>
> >
> > In the context of an argument, yes, that too.
>

> so, why are you so fond of using illogical arguments?
>

Such as....

>
> >
> >> Sure, illogical also has a colloquial sense, one in which we all indulge
> >> from time to time, but it's not "can't be true." It's more like
> >> "demonstrates unsound reasoning."
> >>
> >
> > Your conclusion is completely false.
>

> Care to explain why?

>
>
>
> > Reasoning and logic are two different things.
>

> Neither of which you have any understanding about.

>
>
>
> > Reasoning can be logical or illogical. Logic, first and foremost, concerns what can and cannot exist.
>

> Where do you get this idea, Ray? Logic is about intellectual rigor,
> not about what can, or cannot exist.
>

Logic is a discipline that presupposes the philosophy of Realism as true and is in the business of identifying contradictions. When a contradiction is identified the same means "cannot exist."

>
>
> > The fact that you have dismissed the first and foremost is a good sign that you were educated by idealists (non-realists) and Darwinists.
>

> Or, more correctly a sign that Robert isn't completely insane.

>
>
>
> >
> >>> Any effect caused by unintelligence, as a matter of sound logic, cannot be described as designed.
> >>
> >> And yet, via the pattern/complexity meaning of design, it is so
> >> described, and quite often.
> >
> > Here Robert (our Evolutionist) points out that other Evolutionists employ illogic "quite often."
>

> No, he points out that your claim about "unintelligence" is obviously
> mistaken.

>
>
>
> > This is true. Quite often Evolutionists assert and explain appearance of design a by-product of unintelligent processes.
>

> Something that has been directly observed, and easily reproduced.

>
>
>
> > The explanation is illogical and thus false and thus impossible.
>

> Yet the world still moves....
>

Non-answer noted.

>
>
> > A delusion is at work but it is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.
>

> Many people accept evolution and believe in God as well.
>
> Any delusion here seems to be Ray's and Ray's alone.
>
>
> DJT

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 4:36:09 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/9/15, 4:17 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:21:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

> >> On 2/8/15, 3:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/15, 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> John Harshman: nested hierarchies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creationist: appearance of design.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Harshman:
> >>>>>
> >>>> How can a nested hierarchy be appearance of design if it would happen
> >>>> entirely naturally through known processes, i.e. simple time and branching.
> >>>

> >>> Clear indication that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll place the blame on myself.
> >>>
> >>> Another stab: I'm saying, first and foremost, that appearance of design means, as a claim, that supernatural or Intelligent causation is operating in nature. Therefore whatever else exists in nature MUST be the work of God as well.
> >>

> >> But even if supernatural causation is happening in one place it doesn't
> >> mean that supernatural causation is happening in every single place.
> >
> > The entire historical debate between Creationism and Darwinism is
> > framed on causation mutual exclusivity. Since you will go on, in this
> > message, to reject said appearance your comment above, and its
> > implication, exist in contradiction.
>
> You are incorrect. One might, for example, list Asa Gray as an early
> proponent of different sorts of causation for different things. Even A.
> R. Wallace proposed that human intelligence had a different explanation
> from everything else in life.
>
> >> Even you don't think that god lovingly crafts each and every snowflake.
> >> You think he set up rules that cause snowflakes to happen. Similarly, he
> >> could set up rules that cause species to separate from each other. And
> >> he could do this even if he lovingly crafted every difference between
> >> those species. In other words, common descent is a separate issue from
> >> the intelligent design of adaptation.
>
> >
> > Strong reiteration.
> >
> > But modern science, including yourself, does not accept the concept
> > of ID to exist in nature. If the concept exists in nature then
> > evidence supporting the existence of God exists in nature and
> > evolution, as a discipline, is falsified.
>
> I tell you again. Concepts don't exist in nature. It's the things
> represented by the concepts that you're really talking about, even
> though you're locked into reflexive phrasing in so many ways. More
> important, you persist in thinking that everything you believe is a unit
> and must either be true or false all at the same time. The world doesn't
> work like that.
>
> > Your comments above attempt to sway any given Creationist into
> > accepting common descent. You're saying as long as you accept the
> > evidence supporting CD you can believe a Deity created this way. But
> > you've also said that said patterns do not support the work of a
> > Creator. So you're essentially offering a concession: the latter will
> > not be stressed in exchange for acceptance.
>
> Nothing of the sort. I'm trying to attack your beliefs one piece at a
> time, starting with the one with the strongest evidence against it. If
> we ever manage to get past that first step, we may proceed to more. But
> I doubt you'll ever take one step. I suppose you're afraid of a slippery
> slope.
>
> > One does not need your permission or blessing to hold subjective
> > views. Genesis was written, in part, to say common descent is false.
>
> You can have all the subjective views you like. I don't see that I ever
> implied anything to the contrary. Genesis was written for a variety of
> reasons, but I don't think any of them was to say common descent is
> false; instead, that would be to say that God created everything in the
> beginning. The details may have been considered unimportant, just the
> best guess the writers had at the time. I don't actually care; you're
> the one who bases your beliefs on it.
>
> > ID of any phenomena is not a separate issue. IF the concept exists in
> > nature then whatever patterns one might discover, even patterns that
> > depict descent with modification, become the way the Creator chose to
> > create. We take strong refuge in observed or appearance of design.
> > Explaining appearance of design as a separate issue while offering
> > the concession seen above will work on some people but not me.
>
> It's unclear what you were trying to say there. Are you in fact saying
> that each and every snowflake is lovingly crafted by God?

>
> >>> Therefore your apple cart is upended and/or trumped by the appearance of design and the claim of supernatural or Intelligent causation operating in nature.
> >>>
> >>> Note the fact that I believe evo scholars themselves do NOT accept an appearance of design existing in nature; rather, these persons acknowledge what Creationists claim to see, which is all they can do because a person cannot tell another person what they claim to see or not see; rather, they can only explain what others claim to see.
> >>>
> >>> What I'm after, if I've failed again, is for you to take a position concerning appearance of design. If you accept existence of an appearance then doesn't that trump a natural explanation for branching descent?
> >>

> >> I'm not sure how to interpret this idea of "appearance of design".
> >
> > I can appreciate this answer. Thanks.
>
> I doubt it. If you were able to appreciate my answer you wouldn't thank me.
>

Ridiculous.

> >> Life
> >> might look like design to a person who had no alternative possible
> >> explanations. Of course it would, to my mind, also look like the work of
> >> millions of competing designers, all working against each other. But
> >> that's another matter.
> >>
> >> And the answer to your question would in any case be "no". Appearance
> >> need not reflect reality. Plastic flowers have the appearance of life,
> >> but they aren't alive.
> >
> > Yes, your position conveyed with a clever analogy in support.
>
> So what's wrong with the analogy that makes it invalid?

From our perspective what we see is real and not counterfeit.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/15, 2:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 12:31:00 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/12/15, 12:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> If evidence of Intelligent agency exists in nature then ALL of nature becomes the work of God.
>>
>> So if I find a watch on the beach and recognize human agency behind it,
>> that means that the sand on the beach was the work of humans?
>
> Your reply is too close to Paley's opening statement while containing an inaccurate inference, so I can't respond.

Of course it's an inaccurate inference. But it's the same inference you
made in the previous sentence. I'm trying to show you how ridiculous
that claim is. My statement is identical to yours.

>> By the way, I'm happy that you have finally weaned yourself from that
>> clumsy wording "...the concept of _____ to exist in nature".
>> Congratulations on your progress.
>>
>>> ...the concept of design does not exist in nature.
>>
>> Whoops, spoke too soon.
>
> Yet said "clumsy wording" is seen throughout the writings of persons who accept evolution.

Not to my knowledge. Can you quote such a person?

> You don't seem to understand that said phrase simply conveys alleged
> widest possible existence. For example: If I wrote "the concept of
> table" then I am alluding to anything that has a flat surface
> supported by four or more legs or less legs. The legs could be short
> or long, curved or non-curved, decorated or undecorated; and the
> surface could be made of any material and of any shape: "the concept
> of table" entails all.

No, you're alluding to the idea of those things, not to the things
themselves. If you meant the things themselves, you would say "table".

[John Harshman]

Some of them do, some of them don't. And how can you generalize from
some terms to an entire theory?

>> And why is it just evolution that's falsified.
>> What about common descent within species?
>
> I've never heard of "common descent WITHIN species" until now.

Ray, are you descended from anyone, parents perhaps? Or did god
personally create you?

>> Why can't you say that god
>> individually, by fiat, created each and every squirrel?
>
> One could, but no reputable person has. Such a statement could easily be falsified by observing the birth of an individual.

What if god personally created every squirrel embryo? Hey, once you
propose an unintelligent cause of baby squirrels, the whole edifice
comes crashing down.

>>>> doing so
>>>> by examining the resulting pattern of features and genetics. The pattern
>>>> we see points unavoidably to descent with modification, and just as
>>>> unavoidably away from any class of designed object we know of, save
>>>> those that themselves came about through descent with modification.
>>>
>>> Again, I concede that your patterns exist; in response I invoke
>>> appearance of design, seen in each species, to mean each species was
>>> created separately; therefore said patterns become the way the
>>> Creator chose to create at the genetic level. Your only choice is to
>>> reject any semblance of design existing in nature. Since, according
>>> to evolutionary theory, Intelligent agencies do not exist in nature,
>>> only unintelligent agencies exist in nature, nothing in nature can be
>>> described as designed.
>>
>> Why would the appearance of design mean that each species was created
>> separately but the appearance of design in an individual squirrel would
>> not mean that each squirrel was created separately?
>
> Because everyone knows individuals appear from the womb via birth.

But we have equally good information to tell us that humans are related
to chimps. So why should we believe the physical evidence in one case
but not in the other?

>>>> Now Ray undoubtedly thinks Behe is another deluded "Christian"
>>>> evolutionist, but Eddie seems to think a great deal of Behe's work. Why
>>>> do you suppose he concludes that all life on Earth is related? Certainly
>>>> not because he's predisposed to "want" it to be so.
>>>
>>> By accepting both design and evolution existing in nature, Behe is proven confused. Both concepts are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Why are they mutually exclusive?
>
> Many reasons, for instance, both ideas contradict. Design says species appear vertically by supernatural power operating in nature. Evolution presupposes that such an answer is false: species appear horizontally as the modified descendants of previously living species, mainly through the action of natural selection. In short: design presupposes Intelligent agency; evolution presupposes unintelligent agencies. IF the former exists then the latter is falsified; conversely IF the latter exists then the former is falsified. ALL Darwinists agree, and I agree.

Sorry, but that's just repeating your premise. Your theory of design
says species appear through special creation. Some other people have
different theories, in some of which species appear by common descent
but with the occasional insertion of designed parts. Why is that theory
self-contradictory?

Nor do all Darwinists agree that design and common descent are
incompatible. Me, for example.

> Behe can hide behind his credentials all he wants (as Dembski does). No one can stop either of them. But both are manifestly ignorant of the BASIC claims of the debate as these claims originate from the 19th century. Future scholars, after we are dead and gone, will heap scorn on both for their inexcusable confusion.

Why should anyone care about the basic claims of the 19th Century? Why
should what was imagined then limit what we can see now?

>> If we can imagine a perfectly
>> reasonable scenario in which both happen, doesn't that show that they
>> are not mutually exclusive?
>
> No, because existence of one falsifies existence of the other. This is what happens when evolution becomes accepted: illogical constructs follow. Behe wants things both ways. He does so because he is attempting to undermine evolution with one foot in the door, much like TEists who attempt to undermine Creationism with one foot in the door. Both camps do so because they are confused. They've lost the ability to think logically. This is what happens when evolution is accepted as existing in nature.

Why is that construct illogical? How does the existence of one falsify
existence of the other?

> Ray (fixist)

I'll admit you are about as fixed as anyone can be. Rather like a brick
wall in that respect.

[John Harshman]

Another non sequitur. Refutation of creaionism was not the object of the
Origin. That object was the presentation of evidence and argument for
two scientific theories. Nor is history a chain around science; we've
advanced quite a bit since 1859, and neither Victorian creationists nor
Darwin is a limit on what we can know today.

[John Harshman]

Your sentence makes no sense. Nobody is saying that "appearance" negates
a claim of existence. Appearance of design might be actual design, or it
might not. So your elementary fact isn't being challenged anywhere and
has nothing to do with what I've said.

I'm saying that appearance is not equal to reality. Things may be other
than what they appear. Do you disagree?

If things may be other than they appear, then appearance of design is
not proof of design. It may be evidence of design, but that's not what
you're saying.

[John Harshman]

I don't know what you mean by that. "From our perspective" would seem to
suggest that our perspective might be mistaken. Further, aren't many
people fooled by artificial flowers? From their perspective, then, the
flowers are real and not counterfeit. Sorry, that doesn't make the
argument invalid.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:16:00 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/15, 2:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 12:31:00 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/12/15, 12:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> If evidence of Intelligent agency exists in nature then ALL of nature becomes the work of God.
> >>
> >> So if I find a watch on the beach and recognize human agency behind it,
> >> that means that the sand on the beach was the work of humans?
> >
> > Your reply is too close to Paley's opening statement while containing an inaccurate inference, so I can't respond.
>
> Of course it's an inaccurate inference. But it's the same inference you
> made in the previous sentence. I'm trying to show you how ridiculous
> that claim is. My statement is identical to yours.
>

It's not identical because no one claims things found in the wild (in this case sand) was created or caused to exist by man.

IF God created species (the main object of explanation of both Creationism and Darwinism) THEN then the wild, or natural world, in its entirety, was and is the product of supernatural power as Genesis claims. The same is true in reverse for Darwinism. IF unintelligent natural processes "created" species THEN the wild, or natural world, in its entirety, was and is the product of natural agencies as Naturalism claims.

> >> By the way, I'm happy that you have finally weaned yourself from that
> >> clumsy wording "...the concept of _____ to exist in nature".
> >> Congratulations on your progress.
> >>
> >>> ...the concept of design does not exist in nature.
> >>
> >> Whoops, spoke too soon.
> >
> > Yet said "clumsy wording" is seen throughout the writings of persons who accept evolution.
>
> Not to my knowledge. Can you quote such a person?
>

Of course, but not today.

> > You don't seem to understand that said phrase simply conveys alleged
> > widest possible existence. For example: If I wrote "the concept of
> > table" then I am alluding to anything that has a flat surface
> > supported by four or more legs or less legs. The legs could be short
> > or long, curved or non-curved, decorated or undecorated; and the
> > surface could be made of any material and of any shape: "the concept
> > of table" entails all.
>
> No, you're alluding to the idea of those things, not to the things
> themselves. If you meant the things themselves, you would say "table".

Each noun----the word itself----presupposes a claim of existence. Your thinking separates ideas, words/terms, and things. My thinking does not. An idea or word/noun conveys a claim of existence. If one cannot produce a thing in support of the idea, or word/noun, then the claim, in the form of the idea/word/noun, is shown to be false.

For example: the word "evolution" (a noun) is a false idea/word/noun/claim. Believers cannot produce a thing or phenomenon to support existence. The same is true concerning "unicorn." Believers cannot produce a thing to support existence.

Moreover, to make it even more easy for believers in evolution, I routinely say the "concept of evolution." By saying the "concept of evolution" I'm inviting an Evolutionist to support the idea/word/noun via ANY thing remotely considered as such. They can't even do that! That's what I'm saying. The same with believers in unicorns. The concept cannot be shown to exist: no horse-like creature with anything that can be construed as a horn, protruding from the head, exists.

Ray