Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

When talking about set theory any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.

With set theory in general anything can be a set. Just put whatever you want in {} and you have a set. Or if you can't find {} just declare what you want to be in a set. Then all subsets are just that set and/ or that set minus any number of items.

For example with Zachriel's paternal family tree I can make a set of {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Abdul Ilah,Faisal}. A subset would then be {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Failsal}. It is a valid set and it is a valid subset. However neither make sense in a nested hierarchy.

In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.

In nested hierarchy each set and each level are specifically defined by several criteria. This is done such that a person can pick an item from one set, hand it to another person, and from the specifications be able to replace the item in its original set.

That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.

The Nested Hierarchy fiasco

My claim has ALWAYS been that the theory of evolution does NOT predict nested hierarchy. Sure it can explain it but there is a huge difference between explaining something and predicting it. My position is clearly stated in many of my blogs. That I heavily referenced chapter 6 in Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" should have been a clue- Oops Zachriel refused to read my reference. Quite the twit that one.


May Archive

November archive

Another fact is that the theory of evolution does NOT predict vertebrates. It does not predict metazoans and it does not predict there would be organisms who could study and ponder the universe.

That vertebrates are observed is meaningless. The debate is about predictions- at least that is what I was discussing.

Just how can one predict a pattern of something that isn't even predicted to exist?

I then posted THE RULES of hierarchy. Zachriel and his ilk just ignore them or twist them.

That the scientists I quote disagree with my overall inference is also irrelevant to the point being discussed. Obviously they are perfectly happy with the fact that nested hierarchy isn't observed through-n-through because they understand it isn't to be expected.

And no Zachriel, I do not need to visit Alan's blog again*. My last visit was two days ago and I am sure the discussion hasn't progressed much beyond grunting and posturing.

BTW Zachriel, humans are eukaryotes. And if one can't make a nested hierarchy out of our alleged single-celled ancestors why would one expect to be able to make one from their descendants? From chaos, order? From the survival of random replicators?

And just so that everyone is clear, the following was Zachriel's position before reality smacked him upside his head:

Zachriel said:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.



*Evolution in action- watching a mob of evolutionitwits "evolve" into a blob of spineless, nadless wonders.

A note to Alan Fox: setting up a debate

Alan, just a note for future considerations-

1) When you set up a debate you have to make sure only the participants and perhaps a moderator can post in that thread.

2) A topic must be decided on. For example- Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms

3) A format must be decided on- for example each person submits an opening essay that defends and substantiates their position. Each person then gets a chance to respond to the other person's opening. And then perhaps each would get a closing statement/essy.

See the following as an example:

Formal Debate Section

Although both parties left it at one opening essay each, each person did have the choice to post further.

That might be something I would be interested in. Zachriel takes the pro and I take the con. Each presents their case, regardless of what one may think the other knows or doesn't know, understand or doesn't understand, about set theory and/ or nested hierarchy. Everything can be explained in the opening essay. Each person would be given the same set date and time to present their opening.

The only other way is a face-to-face discussion. That would be my choice...

“The Phylogenetic Tree Topples”

The following was taken from International Scientific Discoveries Since Kitzmiller Which Support ID (Part II)

- Leading biologist Lynn Margulis (who rejects ID) explained in the article “The Phylogenetic Tree Topples” that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern!” But she dissents from that view: “‘No!’ I say.” Margulis notes that “[e]specially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the ‘tree of life’ who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don't study ancestors.” She explains that many Darwinian scientists are “[v]ictims of a Whiteheadian ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness,’ they correlate computer code with names given by ‘authorities’ to organisms they never see! Our zealous research, ever faithful to the god who dwells in the details, openly challenges such dogmatic certainty. This is science.” Margulis also stated in a news article this year that, "Random mutation indisputably exists . . . But I claim that new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."


- Two biologists from Canada and the United Kingdom were brave enough to admit in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the animal phylogeny has undergone “major reorganisations over the past few years” as genetic evidence is overturning previously held ideas about common ancestry. Their article recommends building the tree of life by comparing large numbers of genes because trees based upon one individual protein so commonly conflict with trees based upon other proteins. However, resorting to such techniques requires biologists to assume common descent is true, and not engage in robust testing of the theory.


- Similarly, three days after Kitzmiller was issued, biologists in Science acknowledged that “[t]he phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain.” Again, the problem lies in the fact that trees based upon one gene or protein often conflict with trees based upon other genes. Their study employed the many-gene technique, and yet still found that "[a] 50-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan phyla." The en vogue ad hoc explanations for the discrepancies between trees are said to be "insufficient amounts of available sequence data, mutational saturation, the occurrence of unequal rates of evolution between lineages, or the rapidity with which metazoan phyla diversified."


-The most striking admissions of deficiencies in the tree of life (TOL) came from a paper entitled "Bushes in the Tree of Life" by Antonis Rokas and Sean B. Carroll, who also co-authored the above-mentioned Science paper. They acknowledge that “a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality,” observing that in one study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.” What about the technique of simply adding more data? They suggest that "certain critical parts of the TOL may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available." This means that the excuse that problems exist because of "insufficient amounts of available sequence data" is not panning out and more data is not fixing the discrepancies. The paper suggests that "[t]he recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics." Rokas and Carroll are Neo-Darwinists, and thus one assumption they unfortunately do not re-evaluate is common descent. They suggest the problems can be fixed by using less studied types of molecular characteristics--in short, they appeal to new untried techniques. Perhaps the inability to construct robust phylogenetic trees using molecular data is because common descent is not the answer. Consider what the article says:

"For example, in the case of metazoan superclades (Figure 2D) what has been reported in two different studies is not a lack of resolution but two apparently well supported but contradicting phylogenies."
"Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern."

(Antonis Rokas & Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Vol 4(11):1899-1904 (November, 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted))

Science refutes the premise that nested hierarchy is a prediction of the ToE

Can evolution make things less complicated?
Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process

Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.

“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.” (bold added)

That last sentence applies to ALL populations and individuals. Traits can be gained and lost, then regained and lost. Lines can be crossed, double-crossed and merge.

And again I am not saying that the ToE can't explain nested hierarchy. I am saying, and science confirms, that NH is not a prediction of the ToE. It can live with it and it can just as easily live without it.

ADDED VIA EDIT:

The point about traits being gained and lost is key because it is via traits that we classify organisms.

Again from Denton:

"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance." (bold added)

This is all relevant because my debate with Zachriel is with biological classification and biological classification alone.

The History Channel agrees with me

Recently the History Channel has been presenting a show called "The Last Days" which is about the destruction of the planet Earth. At the end of the show they state that our existence is either due to some grand design or just luck.

Why a paternal family tree is NOT an example of nested hierarchy

I don't know why I have to continue to beat a dead horse...

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

Origin Of Life: Another reason the ToE does NOT predict nested hierarchy

As most everybody knows the theory of evolution does NOT say anything about the origin of life. The theory of evolution starts with living organisms (or at least one organism) already in place.

The point being is that the ToE does not tell us that living organisms can arise from non-living matter only once. And it does not have any say in the number of ways that living organisms could arise from non-living matter. The ToE does not say there would be a universal genetic code for the same reason.

Therefore when evolution starts there could already be in place populations that could not be placed in any hierarchial arrangement. And when those original populations evolved we wouldn't expect to form a nested hierarchy with those descendants.

Another note for Zachriel, liar, loser and momma's boy

Zachriel is again acting like himself, liar, loser and momma's boy- see for yourself:

Zach's hack job on reality.

Here is the reality- I didn't run away from anything. I am right here. I am not refusing to allow you to respond to anything on my blog. The key to Zachriel's posting privileges here has been given to him. What he does with it is up to him.

Now instead of responding to the relevant points Zachriel again brings up the irrelevant "paternal family tree". It is irrelevant for the many reasons already provided, plus it does not even fitthe definition of hierarchy.


I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.

So how would you describe Zachriel's behavior? I already have...

A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

I should have posted this months ago, not that it would have done any good.

A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory

The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.

Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A set of definitions and principles follows immediately:

Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.

Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.

The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in The Machine" referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question "How?" and the upper level answers the question, "So what?"

Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.

Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.

Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.

Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.

How many of the above conditions are violated by Zachriel's continued attempts at deception?

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below.

In the "paternal family tree" there is no way "A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below." It just cannot happen.

IOW once again I am vindicated by reality. However it is sad that neither Zachriel nor blipey will ever come to grips with that.

ID and Creation: The $64,000 question:

Why is it that the only people who conflate ID and Creation the same people who know the least about either?

"Sheer-Dumb-Luck"- strawman or anti-ID materialistic reality?

I have been using the phrase "sheer-dumb-luck" to describe the materialistic anti-ID position. I have also been accused by some who say that is a strawman. So here is their chance to demonstrate that "sheer-dumb-luck" is a strawman when discussing the materialistic anti-ID position.

Please keep the following in mind:

"Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

IOW Monod substantiates my claim. Let us see what the nay-sayers have to offer to substantiate their claim.

Just to be clear this extends to the rules of physics/ the laws that govern nature. IOW it extends beyond biology because ID extends beyond biology

Calling Zachriel's Bluff- Nested Hierarchy and Common Descent

OK Zachriel, here it is. The key to your posting privileges for Intelligent Reasoning is being placed in your hands.

Your next post will be regardless of what you think I know or don't know, understand or don't understand about nested hierarchy and/ or set theory. It will be for our reader's benefit. It will also prevent you from continuing to waste bandwidth on my blog.

Here is the deal to the key:

1) You have to respond in this thread.

2) Your response must demonstrate that a nested hierarchy is an expected result of Common Descent*.

3) It must also demonstrate why Common Descent would be falsified if we did not observe a nested hierarchy.

4) And it must demonstrate why, if all the alleged transitionals that would have had to have existed in a Common Descent scenario were still alive, we would still observe a nested hierarchy.

Nothing else from you will be posted on this blog, in any thread, until you comply.

Scientific references would be nice. You know like the reference I posted that demonstrates that evolution can take any direction. (see below added via edit)



*Common Descent refers to the premise that all of the extant living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown popuklation(s) of single-celled organisms.

common descent refers to the premise that I am directly related to my parents and my children. There are subsequent degrees of separation in both directions, each with varying degrees of genetic connectivity.

My only argument is using nested hieararchy as evidence for Capital C capital D, ie Common Descent. Especially when it is obvious that it can also live without it.



Now Zachriel you can call this a "banning" if your dishonest little heart so deems necessary. However I call it a shit scraper. All your posts will be held until you comply with the above 4 conditions.

Good luck, and good night...


Added via edit:

As should have been obviously clear from the title of this blog (ie thread), this is for ZACHRIEL to answer.


However, The MAIN reason NH is NOT an expected outcome of common descent- NO ANCESTRAL OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS CAN BE PERMITTED TO SURVIVE (page 136 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"). For if they do that would do away with the nice neat distinctive divisions as then the classes and traits would be blurred due to overlapping.

pg 136 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":

"There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as an end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive. (italics in original)

Confirmed by Darwin:

Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate classes from each other- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes.

Everyone knows the alleged "tree of life" is just a methaphor, IOW a piece of imagination. And even on that imagined tree all we have to observe are the imagined twigs.

Agassiz:

What we call branches expresses, in fact, a purely ideal connection between animals, the intellectual conception which unites them in creative thought. It seems to me the more we examine the true significance of this kind of group, the more we shall be convinced that they are not founded upon material relations.

Denton in Chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":

Whenever classification schemes are drawn up for phenomena which fall into a continuous or obviously sequential pattern—such as climatic zones from the artic to the tropics, subspecies in a circumpolar overlap, the properties of atoms in the periodic table, series of fossil horses, or wind strengths from breeze to hurricane—class boundaries are bound to be relatively arbitrary and indistinct. Most of the classes defined in such schemes are inevitably partially inclusive of other classes, or, in other words, fundamentally intermediate in character with respect to adjacent classes in the scheme. Consequently, when such schemes are depicted in terms of Venn diagrams, most of the classes overlap and the schemes overall have a disorderly appearance.

A quite different type of classification system is termed hierarchic. In which there are no overlapping or partially inclusive classes, but only classes inclusive or exclusive of other classes. Such schemes exhibit, therefore, an orderly “groups within groups” arrangement in which class boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended. The absence of any overlapping classes implies the absence of any sort of natural sequential relationships among the objects grouped by such a scheme."

Denton page 122

"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance."- bold added

Carrying on with Denton- Page 131:

“While hierarchic schemes correspond beautifully with the typological model of nature, the relationship between evolution and hierarchical systems is curiously ambiguous. Ever since 1859 it has been traditional for evolutionary biologists to claim that the hierarchic pattern of nature provides support for the idea of organics evolution. Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.

Of course evolutionary biologists do not look for the direct evidence in the hierarchy itself but rather argue, as Darwin did, that the hierarchic pattern is readily explained in terms of an evolutionary tree.”

Can evolution make things less complicated?
Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process:

"Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.

“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

and again:

To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.



note to blipey: What part about-

As should have been obviously clear from the title of this blog (ie thread), this is for ZACHRIEL to answer.

-don't you understand? There are several other blogs that deal with nested hierarchy. You can post your drivel** in any of those.

** drivel- as in all of your posts to Intelligent Reasoning to date. And since I am sure you will NEVER substantiate anything in support of the anti-ID position, every subsequent post you make.

Odd Digit's "Just-So" stories

OD's Just So story

Odd Digit's story starts with nonsense:

One things that the attackers of science (including ID advocates) frequently do is accuse scientists of constructing 'just-so stories'.

One does have to be an attacker of science to know that scientists do this. Scientists frequently accuse other scientists of doing just that. Also ID advocates don't attack science. We "attack" materialistic dogma. There is a huge difference between science and materialistic dogma.

Then OD shows his ID ignorance:

This is first of all a deeply ironic claim, given that the ID advocates either are unable to or refuse to identify any candidate for a designer.

Unable. However reality tells us that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process(es) involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

Wm. Dembski spells it out in "No Free Lunch" that the detection and study are separate from the designer and specific processes (see pages 110-112 hard cover NFL).

Therefore the ID 'explanation' for - well - everything is: 'an unknown intelligent designer did it using unknown methods for unspecified reasons at an unknown time'.

Ummm, no:

Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.-- Dr Behe

And we are just starting OD's messy essay. But now comes an outright lie. A lie which is the basis for the essay!:

'Just-so story'

A scientist while investigating a bacterial genome discovered that two genes doing apparently different tasks were almost identical in sequence, only differing by a few base pairs. This was a very interesting discovery, and the scientist decided to investigate a bit further. The first thing he did was to sit down and think about ways in which this related genes could have been produced. He came up with a few explanations, but the one he thought was the most likely was that the original gene had been copied (duplicated) in it's entirety, and then one of the copies had been changed by point mutations until was performing a different task to the original.

(The above explanation is typically labelled a 'just-so story' by ID advocates. We have some evidence. The scientist has constructed a explanation to account for it. There is no other evidence at this point that the explanation is correct. Science typically refers to these kinds of explanations as 'hypotheses', and they are acknowledged to be entirely tentative in nature.)

OD's above explanation would NOT be labeled a 'just-so story' by ID advocates. Like everything else OD says about ID this turd was taken from his arse.

Finally the ending is in sight but it's more of the same ID ignorance:

Given that ID is merely a 'inference' of design which is baseless without any detail concerning the designer, the mechanisms of the design, the timeframe of the design or the intentions of the designer, there is literally nothing we can pull out of here in order to make predictions or perform tests.

ID is NOT merely an inference of design. ID is about the detection AND understanding of the design. THAT is the ONLY way to answer the questions Odd Digit thinks we should already have the answers to.

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?--WD

Feb Archive

But anyway- a real "just-so story" is telling us that chimps and humans share a common ancestor when no one knows whether or not any mutation/ selection process can account for the changes observed.

A real "just-so story" is telling us vertebrates arose via stocahstic processes on a planet that at one time didn't have a single vertebrate- without even knowing if such a transformation is even possible.

So sure OD can make up some story, claim it is what ID advocates call a "just-so story", and write an essay about it. However he should make sure that people who know better don't read it.

What is even sadder is that PvM thinks OD did a good job. So much so he linked to OD's essay in one of his. Losers of a feather...


And the beat goes on...

Imagination Deficit- an anti-ID site dedicated to dishonesty and censorship

I ran across a blog titled Imagination DEficit that is run by someone who goes by "Odd Digit". I had read his sloppy thoughts on ID over on Telic Thoughts and from there linked to his blog.

Noting that his blogs on ID were full of errors I posted some comments to try to help OD better understand ID. So what did OD do when confronted with ID reality? OD deletes all the comments and disables comments from being posted. IOW OD doesn't care about reality. OD wants whatever he can imagine to be true.

However that appears to be the same with all anti-IDists (ie IDiots)- they think that they can erect any strawman of ID they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real.

That is ID reality- dealing with people who aren't interested in reality...

A note to Zachriel

Zachriel,

You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.

You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy. However if that is true neither does Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Linnaeus, Mayr nor Simpson. Not to mention Patterson and Thompson.

Your dumba$$ tree analogy fails for reasons presented- that being the same DNA will be found throughout the tree, regardless of what branch or twig. And even though some SNPs may exist, that would be true regardless of the twig or branch. That I can take 20 twigs from any given tree and you could not put them back in their original positions is another example that refutes your analogy.

As for your continued misrepresentation of the debate by referring to "snap shots" of arbitrarily chosen family segments, is an indication you don't know what you are talking about. That you don't understand the concept that Darwin discusses even further exposes your nonsense.

And BTW, just because we can arrange nested hierarchies as a branching diagram in no way should be mistaken to mean that trees can form nested hierarchies just because they too have branches and birds can use the twigs to make a nest in those branches.

To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.

Common Descent- Explain the DIFFERENCES (revisited)

Nested hierarchies are alleged evidence for Common Descent. However one would also expect nested hierarchies in a common design scenario. Common being the operative word. Army ranks form a nested hierarchy without any requirement of troop relationship. Transportation forms a nested hierachy without the vehicles sharing evolutionary relationships.

So in order for Common Descent to separate itself from Common Design it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example. (see also Wobbling Stability)

Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely:

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

I would even say that Common Descent, as in all of the diversity of living organisms owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that.

For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress.

So here is the chance for Smokey or any other evo to ante up. The following site demonstrates the differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the differences and you may be on to something scientific:

Chimps become Human?

How NOT to refute Irreducible Complexity

In his article, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, Pete Dunkelberg tries to demonstrate that IC really isn't. However his article falls flat on its face right from the beginning (3rd sentence):

Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution.

ID does NOT say anything about "God". Nor does acceptance of ID require a belief in "God". But that isn't the issue. Complexity is only part of the equation and "evolution" has several meanings.

It just gets worse:

The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

That is all wrong. First IC does NOT mean that something could not have evolved. The debate is all about the MECHANISM(s) involved-> willy-nilly vs design. Natural selection only works on what exists- what works stays, what doesn't gets culled. However we know that artificial selection can keep what nature would discard.

Also part 2 needs to be clarified- the design inference requires more than just saying it couldn't have "evolved". Specific criterion must be met- the specified complexity criterion.

He then uses Dr Behe's original definition of IC, which is strange because by April 2003 IC had been revised. Revised because we know that some IC structures do have parts that, if removed, do not alter the function.

Pete goes on to say:

A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution.

Dr Behe responds:

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Next Pete wants us to join in on "mind-games"- IOW he wants us to try to think how alleged IC systems could evolve- However reality doesn't exist in our minds alone. Somewhere along the line the rubber has to meet the road- which it never does in Pete's article.

Pete also brings up diseases as evidence against design! Diseases or alleged poor designs have nothing to do with the concept of ID. Diseases could be caused by the random effects on a once good design.

If IC is so easy to refute one must wonder why no one has done so in a lab. Why hasn't any evolutionist conducted the experiment Dr Behe taked about at Dover? Rambling rhetoric is not the way to refute something scientifically.