No, I was trying to say in a gentle manner that you botched the probability calculation. And you did, by astronomical orders of magnitude.
I am gasterflabbed. I gave a simple derivation of the correct application of probability theory to our discussion. Then your response was a complete non sequitur, and did not even attempt to address the derivation. What kind of discussion is this? Instead of interacting with the substance of my arguments, you seem to be trying to score rhetorical points.
Chris: Your framework for scientific theories of origins is at odds with well accepted theories in many branches of science.
Raymond: Systems engineering is helping biologists understand cellular structures better.
Again, your response is a non sequitur. The appearance is that you are trying to score rhetorical points rather than interact with the substance of my arguments.
I gave a very detailed argument for inference to theory in a variety of natural sciences, but you completely ignored it. Instead, you said, “Hey, look at my favorite subject!”
This statement is an oxymoron on its face. Engineers are marvelous people and they do marvelous work–engineering. It is not by a very long stretch the same thing as science. The disciplines certainly interact, but they are very different disciplines.
You have been ignoring every criticism of your choice to focus on a very narrow set of SE principles. Hundreds of posts ago you did not understand the most fundamental tenets of microservice architecture, yet you insisted that my criticism of your statements was personal invective. Thus you still do not seem to understand how microservice principles–a different subset of SE principles–provide a very evolution-friendly view of how changes can be introduced into complex systems. You did cite an INCOSE statement to the effect that microservice architecture does not eliminate complexity, but I have never contended otherwise. What I have asserted is that microservice architecture is orders of magnitude more robust to incremental change than monolithic architecture. The evidence for my assertion is the rate of change at Amazon and Netflix.
You also showed zero interest in how the mathematical dynamics of neural networks, another form of system engineering, can provide insights into biological evolution. I invited you to ask questions, and your response was…crickets.
Your intense focus on a subset of SE principles to the exclusion of other highly relevant SE principles leads me to believe that you are not willing to take account the ideas that I am trying to introduce to our discussion. I’m sorry that I have had to reach this conclusion, Raymond. But note well: The conclusion is based on your behavior in this thread.
Clearly you did not read my LinkedIn profile.
I already answered this in posts #382 and #383, and I do not care to repeat myself. If you are interested in having a conversation, I invite you to read those posts and respond to their content.
Go back to all the issues I and Dennis Venema have raised that you have chosen to ignore, and address them. Then I will know that you are sincere in pursuing a true exchange of ideas, and we can continue.
I already addreesed the issue of multiple classes of evidence in post #385 and I do not care to repeat myself. If you would like to have a conversation, I invite you to read that post and respond to its content.
More importantly, your statement is an extraordinarily ungracious thing to say about tens of thousands of scientists–thousands of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ–who have devoted their lives to a scientific oeuvre that you have studied very little.
And no, studying the criticism of their work does not qualify as studying their work. I am not saying you should never study the critics. I am saying you should put Proverbs 18:17 into practice. Silence the voice in your head that is shouting “But SE!” for a while (not forever) as you read some books by evolutionary biologists.
When all is said and done, have a blessed day, my brother.