> > Have any demonstration or > > statistical analysis?
> It's been demonstrated over and over again by the evidence, and > exhaustively investigated using *real* statistical analyses (unlike > the technically incompetent rubbish you pull out of the air). I've > given you references. Of course, you ignore them as you ignore > anything which shows that you are wrong.
All of the references you've listed deal only with the assumption that RM/NS did the job. If fact, some of the authors in the very references you've listed admit that they have only assumed that RM/NS did the job - i.e., the use the very word "assume". Nowhere is there even a shred of statistical analysis of the particular creative potential of RM/NS beyond 1000 fsaars. There isn't a single paper to this effect anywhere. The very best there is are bald assumptions that given certain degrees of homology that RM/NS must have done the job. However, no one actually sits down and considers the odds of this notion being remotely realistic.
Your bald declarations that there is overwhelming "evidence" available is just a bunch of hot air. There is no such evidence, none at all; not even an attempt at producing it.
> > > No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested > > > by the acquisition of evidence.
> > > What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at > > > least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods > > > is required?
> > The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID > > mechanism doing the job.
> Bullshit, Sean. > How do you know that the mechanism doesn't work only because some > supernatural force is manipulating it?
What? This question doesn't make any sense . . .
> More to point, your "hypothesis" of a "non-ID mechanism doing the job" > is so vague and unspecified as to be meaningless.
How is that? All you have to do to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is to demonstrate any non-intelligent force of nature doing the job in question. If you can show that certain chemical interactions, or weather system or volcanic activity, or whatever is likely to produce the phenomenon in question in a reasonable amount of time, the ID-only hypothesis is clearly falsified.
Take a snowflake, for example. It is very intricate and geometrically beautiful. Some, not knowing much about how they are produced my propose an ID-only hypothesis for their formation. However, all you have to do to disprove the ID-only hypothesis for the origin of snowflakes is show that they are in fact often produced by storms in cold weather . . . And, tada! the ID-only hypothesis is neatly falsified in this case.
The very same thing is true of SETI. They have an artifact-only hypothesis that is essentially the same as a ID-only hypothesis. All you have to do to falsify their hypothesis is to show their proposed artefactual radio signal being produced by non-intelligent forces of nature. If you were to be able to do that, you'd completely undermine the current basis of SETI.
> > > Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bullshit, > > > but then why should I care?
> > I don't know? Why do you care?
> Because I want you to make yourself look dishonest so that I can > demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationism. I've told you > this several times in the past but you carry on posting your dishonest > garbage.
Deluded, maybe. Dishonest, nope.
It just amazes me how many evolutionists there are in forums like this that can't stand the idea of a sincere, but mistaken, opponent to their ideas. All those who disagree with you must be fundamentally evil liars - right? LOL - sounds a bit desperate and narrow minded to me . . .
> > > You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bullshit. > > > That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it > > > to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time > > > it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing > > > yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are > > > not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as > > > scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bullshit. > > > Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid > > > as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try > > > to get it published.
> > Someday I might publish -
> Bullshit, Sean. You'll never publish because you know that your > "theory" will not stand up to critical scrutiny.
It likely will not stand up to narrow minded passionately and dogmatically opposed scrutiny - that's quite true.
> > though publishing something so fundamentally > > counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely > > unlikely to get past the vetters.
> Something which is such a load of unmitigated bullshit won't get past > the "vetters".
I've published many papers in mainstream literature - more than you have. Vetters are just as passionate about their personal beliefs on certain issues as any church going dogmatic group of hardened sectarian fundamentalists. That's the fact of the matter. Often, science does not progress until old and powerful scientists die off and new ideas are allowed to be seriously considered.
> > Certainly no one here would > > published something along these lines regardless of how good of a > > paper it might be.
> But you have claimed that anyone with a "candid mind" can understand > your "theory".
That's right . . .
> Are you seriously telling us that no editor of any > journal in academia has a "candid mind"?
I'm not holding my breath . . . that's correct.
> > In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely > > resembling a reasonable counter?
> The fact that your "theory" is based on a model of evolution which has > never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist, which is > unsupported by any evidence, and the technical incompetence of your > mathematics is a pretty good start.
My model is the very same proposed by evolutionary biologists - RM/ NS. There is also overwhelming evidence that sequence space is populated by potentially beneficial target sequences that are fairly homogeneously distributed throughout that space and that the ratio of targets vs. non-targets is very low and gets exponentially lower and lower with each step of the ladder of minimum structural size and/or specificity requirements.
Those are the facts. You've not come remotely close to explaining how the mechanism of RM/NS can remotely deal with these cold hard facts. Sorry.
> > Do you really need an argument to be > > "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before > > you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
> What's wrong with the facts that your "theory" is based on a model of > evolution which has never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist, > that it is unsupported by any evidence, and that your mathematics is > technical incompetent?
Produce at least an attempt at your own mathematical support then. Your position has absolutely no statistical analysis or support whatsoever. Short of this, you haven't remotely challenged my own statistical calculations - you haven't even tried. Of course, this is only to be expected from someone who doesn't really deal with or care about mathematical analysis. You're much happier telling just-so stories about what is possible without having to consider if your stories are actually likely to represent reality or not . . .
> On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a > > > natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals, > > > temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
> > > in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND > > > what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing > > > that nature itself could not do.
> > Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that. > > ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS > > cannot.
> sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes > lightening.
Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not. See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do, but mindless nature cannot do.
> that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt. > and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains, > mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
> and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life > in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have > accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural > processes. and forces.
> > > seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary > > > among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his > > > church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of > > > science.
> > Your ignorance drives your view.
> says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean? > phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
> On Jan 28, 2:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 11:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The use of ID makes the production of
> > > > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e., > > > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in > > > > > > play.
> > > > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told > > > > > us a lot of him/her.
> > > > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is > > > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right > > > > now.
> > > what it's demonstrated is such an event is possible in nature. it has > > > not demonstrated intelligence is needed to accomplish this.
> > > big difference
> > What it is demonstrating is that ID can do something in a given span > > of time which has never been observed outside of intelligent input in > > that same period of time
> Woah there, young jedi -- WHAT "intelligent input"?
> All the experimenters did was place some subunits together. Chemistry > and physics did all the rest -- the very same chemistry and physics > that operates in the very same way otuside the lab without anything > intelligent within a billion light-years.
> Is it your opinion that it's impossible for subunits to find > themselves together in a reactable distance, in nature . . . ?
Essentially yes. It is very very unlikely for the subunits to find themselves in sequential supplies to a particular environment in the very precise ordering necessary to get them to arrange themselves in functionally meaningful way beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity without the input of at least human level ID.
> If so, I'd sure like for you to explain to me how all those amino > acids got insdie those carbonaceous chondrite > meteorites . . . . . . . . .
We aren't just talking simple amino acids here. We are talking about a very specific ordering of long sequences of nucleotides and/or amino acid residues - - big big difference.
> You're just bullshitting us. Again.
And you're still full of it . . .
> ================================================ > Lenny Flank > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
> On Jan 28, 7:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The use of ID makes the production of
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e., > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in > > > > play.
> > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told > > > us a lot of him/her.
> > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right > > now.
> "A" human designer might, does "your" designer? And do you finally > commit yourself to some testable statements about the designer? After > all, the evidence indicates that assuming there is design it is by a > committee of rather confused people which would slow things down.
I don't really understand your questions here? I'm not arguing for the specific identity of the designer here. I'm only arguing that the designer was intelligent to at least the human level. You don't have to like what was produced. You might not have done it that way yourself. But all of those arguments are irrelevant to the validity of the ID-only hypothesis.
> On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The use of ID makes the production of
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e., > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in > > > > play.
> > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told > > > us a lot of him/her.
> > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right > > now.
> So how fast is that?
Within hours . . .
> We all know that the unnamed, unembodied designer could have done it > all last Thursday. Is that when your designer did it all? If not, when > did major events occur - the first life, Cambrian, KT boundary, first > humans, etc.? If you don't find "last Thursday" convincing, and if > like 100% of anti-evolution pseudoscientists you *must* base your > conclusions on "weaknesses" in other explanations, then just show us > how it had to take place other than last Thursday.
It is the period of time that is necessary to explain. How long would it take for the mechanism of RM/NS to produce anything beyond a given level of functional complexity? If you cannot answer that question with relevant statistical arguments, you're don't have a scientific basis for your belief in the creative potential of this mechanism.
> Or....if you want to be the first anti-evolution pseudoscientist to > support your idea on it's own strengths, you can stop avoiding the > "Sean Pitman: Cutting to the Chase" thread.
Lots of people want me to respond to their "arguments". I respond to those I'm interested in at the moment . . .
> On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The use of ID makes the production of
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e., > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in > > > > play.
On Jan 28, 2:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 3:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > . .
> > > humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature > > > needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
> > Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However, > > humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example, > > humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes
> irrelevant. prove that venter's mechanisms are impossible. they > violate no known laws of chemistry.
Neither does making highly symmetrical polished granite cube violate any laws of physics. That doesn't mean that any non-deliberate natural process comes remotely close to being able to do the job. The very same thing is true of mindless laws of chemistry being able to do what Venter does. Not remotely likely this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.
> > > Your move, Sean. Tell me which is the ID mechanism, which is not, and > > > why the presence of one falsifies the other.
> > This is a very common argument in this forum. The problem with it is > > that ID can produce stuff that cannot be readily distinguished from a > > mindless production of nature. It is only in those situations where > > the phenomenon in question clearly goes beyond what mindless natural > > processes are known to be able to achieve, yet well within what human- > > level ID is able to achieve, that the ID-only hypothesis is > > supported.
> and why does DNA fall into this category?
Artifactual sequence tags are being produced in DNA that are in fact written in a DNA sequence a proprietary markers - i.e., they are deliberately produce to be recognized as artefactual.
> and ID is not a hypothesis since it's not a mechanism.
Intelligence is a manipulative force. And, this type of manipulation can be detected by science. That is in fact the basis of SETI as well as other sciences like forensics and anthropology.
> >I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets. > >Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one > >target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement > >that is greater than 1000 fsaar. The odds of finding such a target > >are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds > >of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote > >this side of trillions of years of time.
> As I suggested in a posting which you ignored, to talk about > the odds against an event occurring and the actual occurrence of the > event are two completely different things.
> This undermines your argument. As I said earlier, you don't > have to exhaust all the other possibilities before the occurrence of > the event.
We're talking about predicting the occurrence of certain types of events before they actually happen or are directly observed Joe. That sort of prediction requires statistical analysis - analysis which you obviously don't yet comprehend.
On Jan 29, 9:01 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:46 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 2:56 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
> > > The results LOOK like an intelligence crafted it, but only those > > > desperately wishing to believe in Magical Sky Pixies assert the > > > unknown intelligent agent actually exists.
> > LOL - If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a > > chicken anyway? Really? Tell that to SETI scientists . .
> SETI is not biochemistry.
The ID argument used by SETI is universal. It is not limited to radio waves. Artifactual manipulation of chemicals and molecular sequences can also be detected in the very same way. In fact, artificial DNA sequences are being produced right now as markers of proprietary genetic sequences. These markers can be and are detected as deliberately produced in the very same ways that SETI scientists propose to detect deliberately produce radio signals. There is no fundamental difference.
> you only use this analogy because you're not > a scientist and can't develop a testable mechanism as a scientist > would. it's a mark both of your lack of education, and the failure of > your mechanism.
> > > In REALITY, the 'minimal structural threshold requirement' is WHATEVER > > > WORKS. If a team of three 400 aa proteins get the job done, then that > > > is all that is required.
> > If 400 fsaar is all that is required, that system isn't nearly as > > functionally complex as one that requires a minimum of over 1000 > > fsaars
> how do you know this? a system where the ACTIVE REGION of a protein is > 400aa's is more complex than a protein which is 1400aa's long, but has > an active region of 200aa...which is more complex?
> . Again, Nature doesn't have to produce high levels of
> > functional complexity. It is just that if you claim that she did in > > fact do this, you have to support your proposed mechanism for how She > > did this with some actual evidence that goes beyond your say so. As > > impressive as your "say so" may be to your friends in this forum, it > > isn't science . . . sorry.
> <chuckle> and what you require of others you ignore for your own > mechanism. you have proposed none.
Human-level ID is a driving force behind human-designed mechanisms.
> > > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
> > To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively > > excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
> But have you effectively excluded all other mechanisms, mindless or > otherwise, that produce new classes or orders in what Behe calls a > "biological contimuum"?
Science does not require nor can it achieve this sort of level of certainty. Science only deals with what is and is not known at the current time. Therefore, at this point in time, science can only use the facts that no currently known non-deliberate forces of nature, to include RM/NS, come remotely close to doing the job that at least human-level intelligence and creativity can and has produced with biological systems. Therefore, the very best that science can say at the present time is that the hypothesis that only ID can do the job has the most predictive value.
On Jan 28, 4:24 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > if sean had an INKLING of how science actually worked, he'd be digging > > up evidence FOR creationism instead of AGAINST evolution.
> Well, he would be looking for evidence that could test his hypothesis > that the eubacterial flagella was (the equivalent of) man-made. Like > independent evidence that such an entity actually existed at the right > time and place. Given that the ID is invisible and undetectable and > probably supernatural, that is hard to do. Kind of makes ID > equivalent to "I don't have a bung hole clue how the flagella came > into existence" with more arrogant rectumtudiousness and less > curiosity.
SETI is not looking for evidence of human production, but human-like or human-level production. I'm doing the same thing. Proving human production is not the hypothesis here. Supporting at the argument at only human-level ID could have done the job is the issue here. There's a subtle, but important difference.
> On Jan 28, 4:17 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 3:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target" > > > sequence by definition.
> > And "target" sequences that are close to a current sequence are the > > ones most likely to be found.
> That's right. The problem is that the odds that a target sequence > will be "close" to any starting sequence drop, exponentially, with > each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement.
The problem is that your math is modeled on a bogus search mechanism. You yourself have likened it to a blind-folded man searching *total* sequence space in which "targets" are randomly or uniformly placed. Your model *assumes* that the field is completely "flat", that the blind-folded man can, after a given period of time, wind up *anywhere* in that sequence space with equal probability. That it is only time that determines how far the search can go. That is an absurd assumption when you compare it to the selective sequence space of real evolutionary mechanisms. In real evolutionary landscapes, the landscape does have "pathways" that are selectively neutral (flat relative to the starting sequence). It also has, for a particular organism in a particular environment, selective hill and valley pathways that go either up or down from the flat pathways. The steepness of these pathways varies from sheer cliff faces to sharp declines. Unlike real landscapes, however, the steepness of the slopes and inclinations are not static but *can* be different in different environmental conditions. [We will, for our model's purposes, switch the usual idea of a selective peak for a selective valley, since going downhill is easier than going uphill.]
RM starts with a current sequence and changes that sequence only until it reaches a block of lower reproductive success for the sequence change (a strong upward slope, the steeper the slope and the more it continues uphill, the less time will be spent in that direction and the less frequently it will be visited -- unless there are environments where the organism exists where the slope is changed, in that case, some organisms, in that environment, may follow the downward path, splitting the population into those that favor one environment over another). What that means is that the probability of frequent visitation to a new position depends on time, on what sorts of "selective barriers" to reach that position existed, and whether the local environmental condition caused the path to slope up or down at the time a real attempt could be made.
None of that is considered in your mathematical model of sequence space.
If you were to plot the frequency of visitation of possible positions after x amount of time, wrt sequence, you would never see a random or uniform distribution of sites throughout total sequence space, with every site having equal probabilities of visitation. You would, instead, see fuzzy threads of change along branching selectively neutral paths, where, at each new step of neutral change, new side paths are tried, but not usually followed for any distance (the further away in an upward direction, the less frequent visitation will be). Over long time frames, such selectively neutral drift can visit quite different areas of a sequence landscape arranged by sequence similarity, but primarily along the threads of selective neutrality. But again,along these threads, there will be a search of other sequences making the thread a fuzzy one. Most of the time this fuzziness along a thread of neutral change will be like the idea of the position of electrons in an atom; a fuzzy cloud with some positions being more probable and others less probable, but none completely excluded from search. Unlike the cloud of possible electron sites, however, some directions will be more probable than others (slope matters).
Searches by the blind searcher in *real* sequence space where selection exist and tests each change are much more constrained than in your assumed flat plain. New downward paths in such a landscape may be rare, but those are the ones that will be found and traveled down. In general, it will be the target that is nearest some possible neutral search thread that will be most likely to be found. The closer a path of downward slope is to the fuzzy area around a neutral thread that has been searched, the more probable that it will be found.
Even in your imaginary flat sequence space, it is the "target" *closest* to the starting point that is most likely to be found by a random search. The distance of the *closest* target is not, however, what your math calculates. You cannot predict that number unless you know, for each starting sequence, what the closest target sequence with a modified, additional, emergent, or novel function is and when it was first discovered (since target sequences change over time neutrally -- and to optimize new function -- as well as the starting sequence, current sequence positions are certainly not going to be the same as sequence at discovery).
> > > Many sequences in sequence space are > > > potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target".
> > And almost all of them are utterly irrelevant if you require them to > > be found starting with a specific sequence. OTOH, new, modified, > > emergent, or additional functions that are nearby the specified start > > site *are* likely to be found. What is the probability that a "target > > sequence" one aa change (or one mutational step) away will be found > > compared to the probability that a target sequence in which almost all > > the sequence is different will be found?
> That's not the important question here. The important question is, > "What are the odds that a target sequence will happen to be one aa > change away from any starting position?"
I have no idea because I can only observe the target sequences that have been found. They represent the winners which did happen to be close to some other pre-existing sequence. You cannot calculate probability from a biased sample. Nor, as you do, from a bogus, completely simple-minded, methodological idea of what RM/NS involves.
> That's the real question > here, and the answer to that question depends upon the level of > functional complexity under consideration.
No way to tell from your model. Higher levels of functional complexity that you point to (all seemingly involve multiprotein complexes) appear to arise by a completely different mechanism than a random search through total sequence space where you change one aa at a time to get to a new function within a single protein. You would have to model a different sort of mutational space involving just those mutations that affected specific protein-protein interactions between different proteins without changing other sites in any major functional way. Or a sequence space where you include chimeric protein formation. Contact me when you have such a model. Hopefully one more realistic than the flat total sequence space model you have been shilling for.
> I have shown you several papers that clearly prove that even at very > low levels of functional complexity the odds of a target being within > a single aa change of any starting point are low.
Since most of the functional complexity you point to is due to protein- protein interactions, is it your claim that those cannot be affected by single aa changes? Again, your model of sequence space is for a single sequence, not a model of protein-protein interaction.
> These odds only get > exponentially lower and lower with each step up the ladder of > functional complexity.
> I know, I know . . . your standard comeback is that evolution only > happens when it can happen.
Wrong tense. Evolution only *happened* when it *could* happen. Existing systems are the winners and do not represent a random sample of anything. They are a decidedly biased sample. And one clearly biased feature is the degree of similarity they have to other pre- existing genes and systems. Your claim is that that bias is not a causally relevant bias that helps explain how such systems evolve. Instead we get a false dichotomy between complete randomness that actually can search total sequence space and a magical invisible untestable intelligent fairy.
> Well, Howard, that isn't very scientific > of you. Science is about predicting the future -
That would be a surprise to all those archeologists, SETI researchers, and forensic scientists you keep invoking. It would also be a surprise to geologists, paleontologists, meterolgists, historians, and many others that use the scientific method to understand the past to *understand* the principles and mechanisms at work that may affect the future but cannot necessarily allow us to predict it with specificity.
> about predicting > when something is or isn't "likely" to happen in a given amount of > time.
Which depends on the mechanism one is proposing. Which you understand by asking if the proposed mechanism can explain what actually *has* happened. Your total random walk math clearly cannot explain the past, so it probably is not the mechanism that *did* cause the past and is, thus, worthless in predicting the future. Now you have to test alternative mechanisms that could explain the past. But how do you test a model that an invisible untestable something did something somehow (without leaving any traces of having done it) at some time and some place to produce whatever I claim cannot be done by chance alone. That leaves out a whole big range of alternative explanations that do not involve long chains of completely chance changes *before* selection is applied at the end.
seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote: >On Jan 29, 1:48 am, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@orange.fr> wrote:
>> >I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets. >> >Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one >> >target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement >> >that is greater than 1000 fsaar. The odds of finding such a target >> >are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds >> >of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote >> >this side of trillions of years of time.
>> As I suggested in a posting which you ignored, to talk about >> the odds against an event occurring and the actual occurrence of the >> event are two completely different things.
>> This undermines your argument. As I said earlier, you don't >> have to exhaust all the other possibilities before the occurrence of >> the event.
>We're talking about predicting the occurrence of certain types of >events before they actually happen or are directly observed Joe. That >sort of prediction requires statistical analysis - analysis which you >obviously don't yet comprehend.
Well, Sean,
I'm prepared to learn.
I think I've already established that to talk about the odds against an event happening and the actual occurrence of the event are somewhat different. At least you haven't disagreed.
What you are now saying, and here I'm learning, is that if the odds against an event happening , as determined mathematically, are very great,then it is not possible to predict when they will occur, or rather that it will take a very long time for them to occur..
Seanpit wrote: > On Jan 29, 9:45 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >>>> andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a >>>> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals, >>>> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed. >>>> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND >>>> what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing >>>> that nature itself could not do. >>> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that. >>> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS >>> cannot. >> sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes >> lightening.
> Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not. > See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans > and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do, > but mindless nature cannot do.
But nature can do anything, if you give it enough time;) At least, that's what "science" has been telling us for the past century.
>> that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt. >> and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains, >> mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
>> and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life >> in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have >> accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural >> processes. and forces.
>>>> seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary >>>> among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his >>>> church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of >>>> science. >>> Your ignorance drives your view. >> says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean? >> phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
wf3h wrote: > On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>> andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a >>> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals, >>> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed. >>> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND >>> what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing >>> that nature itself could not do. >> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that. >> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS >> cannot.
> sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes > lightening. that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt. > and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains, > mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
> and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life > in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have > accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural > processes. and forces.
>>> seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary >>> among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his >>> church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of >>> science. >> Your ignorance drives your view.
> says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean? > phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
Here we have Sean, who uses statistics and probability to make a valid point, and all we've been getting from you are ad homs, insults and an endless loop of stereotype rumination.
> On Jan 28, 1:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 7:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The use of ID makes the production of
> > > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e., > > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in > > > > > play.
> > > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told > > > > us a lot of him/her.
> > > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is > > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right > > > now.
> > "A" human designer might, does "your" designer? And do you finally > > commit yourself to some testable statements about the designer? After > > all, the evidence indicates that assuming there is design it is by a > > committee of rather confused people which would slow things down.
> I don't really understand your questions here? I'm not arguing for > the specific identity of the designer here. I'm only arguing that the > designer was intelligent to at least the human level. You don't have > to like what was produced. You might not have done it that way > yourself. But all of those arguments are irrelevant to the validity > of the ID-only hypothesis.
The point is that it is not a hypothesis, nor a theory. But once you commit yourself to testable qualities of the designer, which enable us to decide between one hypothesised designer (e.g. an individual) from another hypothesised designer (e.g. the committee) because they design in different ways and leave different forms of evidence behind, or a fast designer from a slow one, you have a theory.
My question simply was: do you now committ yourself to such testable qualities of the designer, as your post indicated (giving a design speed faster than evolution) or not? if yes, you have a theory and we can start testing, and calculating ITS odds, if not, it's just so much waffle.
> wf3h wrote: > > On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>> andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a > >>> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals, > >>> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed. > >>> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND > >>> what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing > >>> that nature itself could not do. > >> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that. > >> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS > >> cannot.
> > sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes > > lightening. that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt. > > and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains, > > mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
> > and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life > > in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have > > accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural > > processes. and forces.
> >>> seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary > >>> among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his > >>> church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of > >>> science. > >> Your ignorance drives your view.
> > says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean? > > phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
> Here we have Sean, who uses statistics and probability to make a valid > point, and all we've been getting from you are ad homs, insults and an > endless loop of stereotype rumination.
I'm sure a guy who writes something like this wouldn't follow it up with an insult. Would he? No, I'm sure he wouldn't.
Seanpit wrote: > On Jan 29, 6:28 am, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@orange.fr> wrote: >>> Seanoutclasses you in both knowledge of science and his capacity to >>> understand it at a far deeper level than most of the evo-cheerleader >>> posters (and I mean this in the nicest way). >>> I can understand why most of you resort to insults and ad homs, as it's >>> probably the best you can do;) >> If Sean has the powerful intellect you claim, why hasn't he >> answered my critique:
>> "I've just laid out a sequence of all the cards in a pack. The >> odds against this particular sequence being laid out are:
>> 8,1391431308861550195039369918735e+68 to one.
>> "Yet it's there on the table.
>> "If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according >> to Sean, it should have taken the above number times five minutes for me >> to have produced this result.
> It would have taken 8e67 times five minute for you to have predicted a > particular result - given a truly random shuffling of a deck of 52.
> You see, you are confusing the fact that each particular result has > the same odds of success with the idea that finding a particular > result with some attached importance does not have the same odds of > success if sequences with attached importance are relatively rare.
No you are confusing the significance of the example. You are also failing to differentiate between the chances of something happening and the chances of it happening exactly the way it did. The probability of having the cards in any particular order is very small. The probability of having the cards in some order is 1. The chances of life ending up with the set of proteins that it has is undoubtedly microscopic but that doesn't mean anything. Some of those ancient proteins might have been unlikely finds, but there might have been lots of unlikely finds to be made. But your central error is below.
> This is the problem with biosystem evolution via the mechanism of RM/ > NS. The vast majority of options do not have any attached > importance. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible options do have > selectable importance to a given population in a given environment.
That's what you say again and again but do you realize that only you are saying it? It sure looks like vast numbers of sequences will produce viable products. Apparently, they do and your claim is just wrong.
On Jan 29, 1:27 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:45 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes > > lightening.
> Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not. > See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans > and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do, > but mindless nature cannot do.
which you haven't proven for DNA processes. and your argument has always failed.
i can't put it more bluntly. your argument is wrong. the creation of DNA does not depend on any processes that nature can't use. the changes in DNA do not depend on processes that nature can't use. you haven't proven otherwise and your argument is wrong.
your argument is wrong. it was wrong when newton used it. it was wrong when it was used 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and 5 years ago. it has never been right. not once
why are you so dense that you think a failed argument is right? you're absolutely oblvious to the idea of disproof in science. that's why you're not a scientist. there's NOTHING that will convince you your religion is wrong. nothing. no scientist thinks as you do. therefore you're not a scientist.
> wf3h wrote: > > On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>> andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a > >>> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals, > >>> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed. > >>> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND > >>> what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing > >>> that nature itself could not do. > >> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that. > >> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS > >> cannot.
> > sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes > > lightening. that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt. > > and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains, > > mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
> > and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life > > in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have > > accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural > > processes. and forces.
> >>> seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary > >>> among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his > >>> church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of > >>> science. > >> Your ignorance drives your view.
> > says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean? > > phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
> Here we have Sean, who uses statistics and probability to make a valid > point, and all we've been getting from you are ad homs, insults and an > endless loop of stereotype rumination.
really? what probability has he used to establish creationism? answer: none. not a single one. you haven't pointed out a single statistic to demonstrate his position.
as to ad hominem i guess you're kinda stupid so didn't see his comment, which i've left above.
you creationists...thick as thieves...and i mean thick, in many ways
> On Jan 28, 2:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 3:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > . .
> > > > humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature > > > > needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
> > > Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However, > > > humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example, > > > humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes
> > irrelevant. prove that venter's mechanisms are impossible. they > > violate no known laws of chemistry.
> Neither does making highly symmetrical polished granite cube violate > any laws of physics.
an analogy is not an answer. you avoid answering specific questions. it's part of the reason your view isn't scientific.
That doesn't mean that any non-deliberate
> natural process comes remotely close to being able to do the job. The > very same thing is true of mindless laws of chemistry being able to do > what Venter does. Not remotely likely this side of trillions upon > trillions of years of time.
prove it. go ahead. show the work. show the probabilities based on the chemistry and the environment at the time DNA was formed.
On Jan 29, 1:35 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you cannot answer that question
> with relevant statistical arguments, you're don't have a scientific > basis for your belief in the creative potential of this mechanism.
well, what a coincidence. neither do you.
of course, you have a double standard for science vs SDA religion so it won't make any difference. there's no evidence in the world that will convince you otherwise
