I read your entire post John. I didn’t need to see it again. I stand by what I said. You are defining homology by assuming evolutionary relationships and universal common descent.
If that’s okay, and I would actually agree that it is, then intelligent design doesn’t need to define what a specification is either. We are allowed to assume our paradigm and build off our own assumptions just as you are allowed to assume your paradigm and build off of your assumptions. That’s how paradigms work in science.
Sorry, Ben, but I can make no sense out of what you said there. No, you can’t just make up whatever you want. It has to be tested against the real world. Claims of homology are tested against data. How would you test your “paradigm”?
Claims of homology are tested against arbitrary standards that are considered legitimate only because universal common descent is assumed to be true.
I can come up with all kinds of arbitrary standards upon which a specification can be defined.
In the fine tuning argument, the specification is “the values of the fundamental constants necessary to allow complex life to exist”.
In protein structure, I can define a specification as two or more protein-protein binding sites with a binding affinity above a certain level.
I could also define this as a protein complex of three or more proteins with two or more protein-protein binding sites that require six unique residues each for binding.
I could define a specification as an irreducibly complex structure defined biochemically.
I can do all this because I am assuming intelligent design is real and that specified complexity is a valid way of inferring it. Then I try to define what a specification is. I don’t have to prove that a specification is non-arbitrary nor do I have to prove design using specified complexity to a hostile audience.
This is just not true. The standards are not arbitrary: nested hierarchy is a prediction of common descent, and we can test common descent by seeing if nested hierarchy is present in the data.
Of course you can. But they’re arbitrary, which is a problem.
What does this have to do with refuting the evidence of common descent?
They are arbitrary from the perspective of a skeptic of common descent, just as a specification is arbitrary from the perspective of a skeptic of intelligent design.
No, that is not a problem. Arbitrary choices have to be made to build any model. Even mathematics would not exist without first making arbitrary choices of what rules to follow.
Nothing. That is not the purpose of this discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to explore what a specification is. I am making the point that intelligent design is an opposing paradigm and will make arbitrary choices in exactly the same manner as evolutionary theory does.
I believe we differ on what “arbitrary” means. I don’t understand what your meaning is.
You mistake mathematics for science. In science, the choices are constrained by empirical data. If you’re trying to model something in the real world, choices can’t be arbitrary.
Then why is the title “independent patterns and homology”?
They are similar concepts in that they only exist within their respective paradigms. If you don’t subscribe to the paradigm, then they can’t really be defined objectively without reference to the paradigm.
Or you can prove me wrong and give me a definition of homology that doesn’t employ common descent.
@BenKissling can you please define independent pattern. Because from my point of view specification is completely subjective and is therefore useless in determining what is designed and what is not. Is this an example of CSI?
Why would we need such a definition? All the evidence shows common descent, which makes a definition that uses it handy. But “they only exist within their respective paradigms” hardly seems like an important similarity, and hardly a reason for comparing the two concepts. What is an “independent pattern”, incidentally? What is a “specification”?
Now of course there are multiple definitions of “homology” that don’t refer to common descent. It’s just that they’ve been superseded by the modern definition. Surely you’re familiar.
This is just mindless mirroring, as far as I can tell. I believe I’ve already explained the objective criterion for recognizing homology, and its explanation is obvious too. Why would you say it’s useless?
I would disagree here but for the sake of the argument I’ll say you’re right. There are tons of other ways to argue for common descent outside homology. But CSI seems critical for ID. And you seem to agree it can be pretty subjective and you have to assume the truth of design to use it. I mean if that’s the case then nature is filled with CSI and it isn’t a reliable indicator of design. It could be design but you can’t be sure since nature produces it as well:
You can cite evidence for almost any conclusion wrong or right. Common descent is not validated by the branching pattern. The argument is circular and does not bode well for evolutionary theory. I agree with @T.j_Runyon here that it should be defined as similarity. Common descent is an inference in most cases and should not be treated as factual.
Yes it is, because it is predicted by common descent, and there is no other theory that does.
Many facts are facts derived from inference(DNA being the heritable material is just one such fact established by inference). That doesn’t make them not be facts.
That’s epistemic nihilism, the last refuge of creationists. I’m reminded of the great philosopher Homer Simpson: “Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts schmacts.” I’m also reminded of Kelly Ann Conway and her “alternative facts”.
It’s up to you if you want to be part of a theory that is grounded in spin. Assuming your conclusion is the definition of question begging or circular reasoning. If you go with TJ’s suggestion you still have a robust theory and will not be accused of public deception. As @swamidass has suggested you need public trust. If you think you have it right now you are fooling yourself.
