The cell example is an example of evolution being used to justify contradictory phenomena. The exact same justification is used for two opposing conclusions. If you thought there was nothing wrong with those two examples being used as they were, then there is something wrong with your model. They literally use the exact same justification to come to opposing conclusions.
The second set of explanations have fewer, more reliably-determinable dependencies, and their reasoning is more generally applicable.
That is correct, they have zero prediction and compression power. I would argue that the same can be said of many cases where people misuse evolution as an explanation.
When people falsely pretend to have knowledge of some underlying structure or correlate, they are (1) lying and (2) increasing noise, which by various definition is negative information. When people use evolution as an explanation in cases where it does not align with the implications of evolution, they are doing so under a false pretense. My suggested approach (1) is honest and (2) conveys information about the lack of known underlying structure or correlate.
I don’t know what you mean by “sensible definition”. I have a model for that phrase, and yours doesn’t seem to align with mine.
The cell example is an example of evolution being used to justify contradictory phenomena. The exact same justification is used for two opposing conclusions. If you thought there was nothing wrong with those two examples being used as they were, then there is something wrong with your model. They literally use the exact same justification to come to opposing conclusions.
The second set of explanations have fewer, more reliably-determinable dependencies, and their reasoning is more generally applicable.
That is correct, they have zero prediction and compression power. I would argue that the same can be said of many cases where people misuse evolution as an explanation.
When people falsely pretend to have knowledge of some underlying structure or correlate, they are (1) lying and (2) increasing noise, which by various definition is negative information. When people use evolution as an explanation in cases where it does not align with the implications of evolution, they are doing so under a false pretense. My suggested approach (1) is honest and (2) conveys information about the lack of known underlying structure or correlate.
I don’t know what you mean by “sensible definition”. I have a model for that phrase, and yours doesn’t seem to align with mine.