A message from Sean Pitman
Gary Bohn
Carbon dating doubts came up. I replied that his ideas have been soundly
trounced on this forum more than once. My opponent decided to email Sean.
Here is the email he sent back to my opponent. Since it was published on
another open forum I assume it is OK to post it here.
<quote>
I’d be very interested to hear exactly which arguments this b_sharp guy
thinks have destroyed any of my positions concerning biology or the
supposed abilities of the evolutionary mechanism. I’d also like to see
where my statistical arguments have failed . . . Ask him to present his
thoughts on probability with regard to the evolutionary mechanism.
A lot of people on T.O. have presented all kinds of hair-brained notions
regarding how evolution supposedly works, but absolutely none of them
have presented any statistical argument whatsoever regarding the odds
that the supposed mechanism will work beyond extremely low levels of
functional system complexity ( i.e., beyond a minimum structural
threshold requirement for a novel type of function of more than 1000
specifically arranged amino acid residues).
It is easy to make bald assertions; it is quite another thing to actually
back them up.
Sean
</quote>
Am I misremembering those arguements or is Sean taking a few freedoms
with his interpretation of them?
Anyone have any comments they want passed on to Sean via my opponent?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” — Noam Chomsky, 1957
Pata...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, after a good 2-3 billion years, why would you -not- see some
things get complex?
2-3 billion years, when you reproduce as fast as one-celled organisms,
is a -very- long time.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> Sean
> </quote>
I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
debate, from which he has been fleeing for years. Under the
leadership of Harshman a few of us had a go at him awhile back.
But despite his PROMISE to defend his YEC position he gave up
and ran.
More details here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/defb4b07ceb56386
I bet he is still running and won't even respond to this post.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
R. Baldwin
news:Xns9957C27D5...@130.133.1.4...
Sean's arguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
back up, the very thing he complains of. He repeatedly made asertions about
this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on specious math that did not
represent actual evolutionary mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated to
be specious. He argued strenuously against the proofs without understanding
them, then ran away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity, because
he is clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
I recall one thread in which he was arguing in favor of a straw man argument
that Dembski set up on Wolpert's No Free Lunch Theorem, which even Dembski's
article acknowledged was not a valid argument nor the actual issue. In more
recent articles he has made invalid arguments about Kolmogorov Complexity,
but stopped responding when proofs were provided (at his request) showing
his errors. He never did respond the the critique of his Information Theory
article, though he engaged in the follow-up discussion.
Bobby Bryant
Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
> I was arguing with a loon on another forum and the subject of
> Pitman's Carbon dating doubts came up. I replied that his ideas have
> been soundly trounced on this forum more than once. My opponent
> decided to email Sean.
>
> Here is the email he sent back to my opponent. Since it was
> published on another open forum I assume it is OK to post it here.
>
>
> <quote>
> I’d be very interested to hear exactly which arguments this
> b_sharp guy thinks have destroyed any of my positions concerning
> biology or the supposed abilities of the evolutionary
> mechanism. I’d also like to see where my statistical arguments
> have failed
Sean's a big fan of forgetting that his arguments have been refuted.
> . . . Ask him to present his
> thoughts on probability with regard to the evolutionary mechanism.
>
> A lot of people on T.O. have presented all kinds of hair-brained notions
> regarding how evolution supposedly works, but absolutely none of them
> have presented any statistical argument whatsoever regarding the odds
> that the supposed mechanism will work beyond extremely low levels of
> functional system complexity ( i.e., beyond a minimum structural
> threshold requirement for a novel type of function of more than 1000
> specifically arranged amino acid residues).
>
> It is easy to make bald assertions; it is quite another thing to actually
> back them up.
>
> Sean
> </quote>
>
> Am I misremembering those arguements or is Sean taking a few freedoms
> with his interpretation of them?
>
> Anyone have any comments they want passed on to Sean via my opponent?
Tell him he's welcome back anytime, but we're going to take up right
where we left off when he ran away.
IIRC, he was arguing that symmetry was a signature of design, and
people had some questions about that.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> writes:
> I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
> active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
> debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
Age of the birth?
Bobby Bryant
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> writes:
> Sean's arguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he
> did not back up, the very thing he complains of. He repeatedly made
> asertions about this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on
> specious math that did not represent actual evolutionary
> mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated to be specious. He argued
> strenuously against the proofs without understanding them, then ran
> away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity, because he is
> clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
>
> I recall one thread in which he was arguing in favor of a straw man
> argument that Dembski set up on Wolpert's No Free Lunch Theorem,
> which even Dembski's article acknowledged was not a valid argument
> nor the actual issue. In more recent articles he has made invalid
> arguments about Kolmogorov Complexity, but stopped responding when
> proofs were provided (at his request) showing his errors. He never
> did respond the the critique of his Information Theory article,
> though he engaged in the follow-up discussion.
I only occasionally peep in on his neutral gap arguments, but in
his information/complexity/symmetry arguments he likes to modify
the argument stepwise over time.
He does pretty good at bridging the neutral gaps that way, having
gone from Shannon entropy to symmetry as the indicator of design
(over a couple of years, I think).
He also tends to alternate between his neutral gaps arguments and
his i/c/s arguments between his Sir Robin episodes, so I'm expecting
him to be back on neutral gaps when he returns.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> In article <Xns9957C27D55C34GaryB...@130.133.1.4>,
He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
*apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
been used.
As far as I could gather from his posts, his method in respect of his
beloved granite cube consists of
1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
3) Calculating statistically the range of the forms produced by such
processes.
4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by
*ALL*
such forms.
5) Demonstrating that this statistical method can provide a
statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
outcome of such processes.
He claims that this method can detect that Michaelangelo's "David" is
an artefact, though he has never applied it to anything in the real
world. To quote from one of his posts:
"My methodology is based on finding the same irregularities on both
sides of a line of reflective symmetry. Clearly, you can do this with
David's face. You can measure this symmetry. Symmetry is not some
vague concept Richard. It is measurable in degree. David's face has
an
extremely high degree of measurable reflective symmetry. The angle of
the head with respect to the rest of the body has absolutely nothing
to
do with this fact. As long as at least one line of symmetry can be
drawn through and object of any kind, that object displays "symmetry"
which can indeed be measured - in a quantifiable way. It doesn't
matter what the object is - human or statue or granite rock."
Note that he is didactic mode here: lecturing me on a subject about
which he quite evidently knows very little, and inventing terminology
as he goes along in an attempt to appear erudite.
He is also the master of the bleedin' obvious. He arguments about
erosion boil down to the assertion that if we ignore all the factors
affecting the rate of erosion except slope angle, slope angle is the
most important factor in the rate of erosion. True, but not exactly
useful.
There is also the subject of taphonomy, of course, about which he
knows very little, but refuses to learn. He apparently thinks that
localised supersaturation can be caused by catastrophic mixing of
sediments for one thing - something which would be very surprising to
anyone who has ever stirred sugar into a cup of tea. He also, and
apparently deliberately, confuses preservation mode in one locality
with mode on other localities.
So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
thinking that he has valid arguments. Obviously other creationists are
easily fooled by his nonsense. The only question in my mind is whether
or not Sean *knows* that it is nonsense. He is evidently fairly
intelligent, and holds down a professional post. We know that
creationists are masters of doublethink, but I find it hard to
understand how someone can hold such completely discordant views and
act rationally.
RF
Ron O
wrote:
I think that even Sean knows at some level that he never had a valid
argument. Ask him about his claims about the Ohio bait and switch
scam and what he would have taught about ID instead of giving them a
stupid obfuscation scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever
existed. He claimed to have this wonderful ID stuff to teach, but he
never got around to putting any of it up for evaluation. Oh, and he
also claimed to have scientific evidence for his alternative to common
descent, but he never bothered to put up any such evidence. He tends
to just run away a lot, and come back and pretend that he never made
the claims.
Speaking of which, there isn't anything about carbon dating in his
response. I wonder why?
Ron Okimoto
Friar Broccoli
> In article <1182562795.407640.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
> > active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
> > debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
>
> Age of the birth?
Pretty strange mistake.
Just as well, since Sean believes in and old physical earth, but
that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
have claimed that I intended what I said.
richardal...@googlemail.com
It's because he has "refuted" it.
That means that he simply denies that it is reliable, offers no
evidence to support that position, and refuses point-blank any
evidence which demonstrates conclusively that he is wrong.
As ever, creationist use of language is not the same as that of the
educated and knowledgeable section of the population who gang up on
them.
RF
> Ron Okimoto
Seanpit
wrote:
> Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> back up, the very thing he complains of.
I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
back them up. You and many of the others in this thread tried to
counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
arranged amino acid residues.
> He repeatedly made asertions about
> this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on specious math that did not
> represent actual evolutionary mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated to
> be specious. He argued strenuously against the proofs without understanding
> them, then ran away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity, because
> he is clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
This is simply a false assertion. I've yet to see any statistical
counter argument beyond the assumption (ala Howard Hershey) that
despite extremely low ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial, the
beneficial sequences somehow cluster themselves into one tiny courner
of sequence space. That is a rather fantastic assumption that is
assumed, not on the basis of any experimental evidence, but on the
notion that the stated evolutionary mechanism simply must be true.
> I recall one thread in which he was arguing in favor of a straw man argument
> that Dembski set up on Wolpert's No Free Lunch Theorem, which even Dembski's
> article acknowledged was not a valid argument nor the actual issue.
Please do list this "strawman argument" that I supposedly made, with
an actual link to the discussion, instead of simply making statements
without ever backing them up. You have a habbit of doing this, of
making assertions without presenting the actual evidence or details to
back yourself up.
> In more
> recent articles he has made invalid arguments about Kolmogorov Complexity,
> but stopped responding when proofs were provided (at his request) showing
> his errors. He never did respond the the critique of his Information Theory
> article, though he engaged in the follow-up discussion.
I've definitely learned more about KC over the years, but I didn't
stop the discussion of KC until it became clear to me that the
discussion had come to a point of futility. My main opponent was
starting to argue for concepts that are clearly not true - such as the
notion that the concepts of KC played no part in gambling strategies
or the ability to detect non-random bias in a sequence of numbers so
as to successfully predict, with better than even odds of success,
what would come next in the series (without any other knowledge
regarding the source of the series).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > IIRC, he was arguing that symmetry was a signature of design, and
> > people had some questions about that.
>
> He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
> parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
> designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
> *apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
> impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
> that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
> demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
> been used.
It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
the planet.
> As far as I could gather from his posts, his method in respect of his
> beloved granite cube consists of
>
> 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
One does not need to have knowledge of *all* possible processes before
a reasonable theory of artifact can be entertained. Remember, science
does not require absolute perfection before useful predictive value
can be realized for a given hypothesis or theory. Science is only
useful because of limited knowledge. Perfect knowledge would remove
the need for the scientific method.
Where did I invent terminology Richard? You are the one who evidently
doesn't know how to determine symmetry in its various forms. You also
don't seem to realize that the statue of David is a real object in the
real world which does indeed exhibit a great degree of symmetry of
various kinds - i.e., reflective, rotational etc.
> He is also the master of the bleedin' obvious. He arguments about
> erosion boil down to the assertion that if we ignore all the factors
> affecting the rate of erosion except slope angle, slope angle is the
> most important factor in the rate of erosion. True, but not exactly
> useful.
It is a truth that took me many weeks to get you to understand, one
that you originally denied. Yet, you still don't seem to grasp the
implications with regard to erosion rates on sloped mountain surfaces.
> There is also the subject of taphonomy, of course, about which he
> knows very little, but refuses to learn. He apparently thinks that
> localised supersaturation can be caused by catastrophic mixing of
> sediments for one thing - something which would be very surprising to
> anyone who has ever stirred sugar into a cup of tea. He also, and
> apparently deliberately, confuses preservation mode in one locality
> with mode on other localities.
Localized supersaturation can be produced in a huge overall complex
catastrophe or as part of the subsequent fallout by a number of
factors, all of which you simply ignore with a wave of your hand. I
also do not ignore the fact that the preservation mode in one locality
may be different compared to another locality. I never said
otherwise. Your problem is that you simply assume that the same
preservation mode that might explain a given situation is the only one
to be considered - despite significant evidence to the contrary.
> So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> thinking that he has valid arguments. Obviously other creationists are
> easily fooled by his nonsense. The only question in my mind is whether
> or not Sean *knows* that it is nonsense. He is evidently fairly
> intelligent, and holds down a professional post. We know that
> creationists are masters of doublethink, but I find it hard to
> understand how someone can hold such completely discordant views and
> act rationally.
Ditto . . .
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Lizzardwoman
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Then he has the identical problem Zoe has, to wit, to explain how young
fossils are trapped in old rock formations.
sharon
Seanpit
wrote:
> I was arguing with a loon on another forum and the subject ofPitman's
> Carbon dating doubts came up. I replied that his ideas have been soundly
> trounced on this forum more than once. My opponent decided to emailSean.
>
> Here is the email he sent back to my opponent. Since it was published on
> another open forum I assume it is OK to post it here.
>
> <quote>
> I'd be very interested to hear exactly which arguments this b_sharp guy
> thinks have destroyed any of my positions concerning biology or the
> supposed abilities of the evolutionary mechanism. I'd also like to see
> where my statistical arguments have failed . . . Ask him to present his
> thoughts on probability with regard to the evolutionary mechanism.
>
> A lot of people on T.O. have presented all kinds of hair-brained notions
> regarding how evolution supposedly works, but absolutely none of them
> have presented any statistical argument whatsoever regarding the odds
> that the supposed mechanism will work beyond extremely low levels of
> functional system complexity ( i.e., beyond a minimum structural
> threshold requirement for a novel type of function of more than 1000
> specifically arranged amino acid residues).
>
> It is easy to make bald assertions; it is quite another thing to actually
> back them up.
>
> Sean
> </quote>
>
> with his interpretation of them?
>
> Anyone have any comments they want passed on toSeanvia my opponent?
Good luck getting anything specific to help you out here Gary. Also,
I really loved it when you quoted yourself regarding the dice-rolling
problem - highlighting your use of the median "average" when I was
talking about the mean. That was a real winner!
> Gary Bohn
>
> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
> bible.
>
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Noam Chomsky, 1957
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> > back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> back them up.
No you have not. You have not come up with a single example of any
putatively evolved system that performs a "function" (such as
enzymatic activity) that *requires* 1000 selectively neutral *changes*
before there is any possible useful function. IOW, you keep positing
that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
> You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
> requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> arranged amino acid residues.
That is irrelevant precisely because evolution does not and never was
proposed to work by random walks across 1000 step neutral or non-
functional gaps. IOW, you are arguing against a strawman.
> > He repeatedly made asertions about
> > this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on specious math that did not
> > represent actual evolutionary mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated to
> > be specious. He argued strenuously against the proofs without understanding
> > them, then ran away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity, because
> > he is clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
>
> This is simply a false assertion. I've yet to see any statistical
> counter argument beyond the assumption (ala Howard Hershey) that
> despite extremely low ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial, the
> beneficial sequences somehow cluster themselves into one tiny courner
> of sequence space.
If evolution works the way that science says it does, by
*modification* of previously useful sequences rather than the strawman
random walk your argument is against, it would be almost inevitable
that the useful sequences found *in the real biological world* would
be clustered in structure space (less clustered in sequence space
because so much of any functional sequence allows some to massive
amounts of sequence substitution without affecting function too
much). That would be a natural consequence of *descent with and by
modification*, which is the method that evolution *actually*
proposes. They are. This clustering in *real* organisms tells us
precisely nothing about the existence of useful sequences outside the
ones that nature *has* found. In fact, we know from artificial
searches and natural events that lactase activity, for example, can be
generated from antibodies (by a random process that does not involve
1000 or even 300 step changes) and that there are several
independently evolved (from different pre-existing starting sequences)
structures that can have cellulase activity. Thus we *know* that
there are *functional* sequences that exist in total sequence space
that have not been found. Moreover, we *know* that, because most
enzymatic activities involve interaction with similar and usually
*small* organics and similar functions (hydrolases, dehydrogenases,
carboxylations, etc.) that one does not have to change any precursor
by an entire 1000 steps to get a new function. Only a small fraction
of any enzyme sequence is in the 'active' site.
> That is a rather fantastic assumption that is
> assumed, not on the basis of any experimental evidence, but on the
> notion that the stated evolutionary mechanism simply must be true.
I presented the papers that demonstrated the *fact* of clustering in
structure (not sequence) space using real experimentally generated
data on structures. You must have a black hole in your memory.
Remember that evolution works by *descent by modification* and not
random 1000 step walks in functionless structure space.
[snip]
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Lizzardwoman
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1182610812....@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 23, 1:51 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
|
| > > IIRC, he was arguing that symmetry was a signature of design, and
| > > people had some questions about that.
| >
| > He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
| > parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
| > designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
| > *apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
| > impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
| > that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
| > demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
| > been used.
|
| It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
| materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
| reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
| 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
| as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
| 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
| block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
| found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
| the planet.
What about the anorthosite/pyroxene couplet layering in the Stillwater
complex? Artificial?
http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/GEODEPT/hollocher/teaching_petrology/stillwater.htm
Third, fourth, fifth and sixth pictures up from the bottom.
I saw this formation in person field camp in the summer of 1982 and have
never forgotten it.
sharon
Lizzardwoman
to him.)
"Friar Broccoli" <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Then he has the identical problem Zoe has in explaining how young fossils
occur incorporated in old rocks.
sharon
Bobby Bryant
richardal...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
> parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
> designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
> *apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
> impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
> that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
> demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
> been used.
Sounds like a big fan of Dembski's methodology.
Bobby Bryant
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> writes:
> On Jun 23, 1:51 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> > IIRC, he was arguing that symmetry was a signature of design, and
>> > people had some questions about that.
>>
>> He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
>> parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
>> designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
>> *apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
>> impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
>> that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
>> demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
>> been used.
>
> It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
> materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> as measured from the center of the block
Could you clarify what you mean by that? (I can think of two
interpretations of the words: one is nonsense and the other doesn't
give the result you intended. But maybe you have a third
interpretation in mind.)
> and yet match, within 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on
> the other side of block, the artifactual nature of the block would
> be clear - even if found on an alien planet without any knowledge of
> any aliens occupying the planet.
It's perfectly clear that you're pulling numbers out of the blue and
adjusting them as necessary to rule out false positives in your
current thought experiment.
But what principles are those numbers derived from? And how do you
plan on getting a _general_ detection methodology from an argument
that's already overfitted to your thought experiment?
For example, what biological organisms meet the above requirement? Do
_you_ feature 10,000 symmetries that are perfect to within 0.00001% ?
Baron Bodissey
0catch.com> wrote:
"It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
the planet."
I'm not a mathematician so excuse my denseness, but as I understand it
you are saying that symmetry proves design. Are not a number of
natural objects perfectly symmetrical? Some crystals come to mind, for
example. And how many organisms do you think would attain your
criterion of matching within 0.00001% one side of their body to the
other?
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
Ron O
In women one breast is usually larger than the other and they are
asymetrical. We should do a study to demonstrate that it isn't within
0.00001%. I don't care about the math. That is a heck of a lot more
interesting than anything that Sean has ever come up with.
Ron Okimoto
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> ( Think I mistakenly sent this to Broccoli instead of the group. Apologies
> to him.)
>
>
> news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> | On Jun 23, 2:13 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> | > In article <1182562795.407640.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> | > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
> | >
> | > > I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
> | > > active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
> | > > debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
> | >
> | > Age of the birth?
> |
> | Pretty strange mistake.
> |
> | Just as well, since Sean believes in and old physical earth, but
> | that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
> | was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
> | have claimed that I intended what I said.
>
> Then he has the identical problem Zoe has in explaining how young fossils
> occur incorporated in old rocks.
No, it's only a problem for Zoe, since she(?) has the courage to
discuss it.
Seanpit
wrote:
> What about the anorthosite/pyroxene couplet layering in the Stillwater
> complex? Artificial?
>
> http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/GEODEPT/hollocher/teaching_petrology/stil...
>
> Third, fourth, fifth and sixth pictures up from the bottom.
>
> I saw this formation in person field camp in the summer of 1982 and have
> never forgotten it.
Cool pictures, but doesn't show significant symmetry with regard to
irregularities on all opposing sides. Therefore, is not detectable as
being deliberate artifact and almost certainly is the result of non-
deliberate natural processes.
> sharon
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jun 23, 10:20 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> > > back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> > I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> > back them up.
>
> No you have not. You have not come up with a single example of any
> putatively evolved system that performs a "function" (such as
> enzymatic activity) that *requires* 1000 selectively neutral *changes*
> before there is any possible useful function.
As I've pointed out to you literally dozens and dozens of times now,
I'm not asking for 1000 neutral changes. In fact I've specifically
told you that a function that requires a minimum structural threshold
of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues could always be
evolved with fewer than 1000 *changes* starting with what already
exists in any gene pool of any living thing. Yet, despite my
constantly correcting this strawman misrepresentation of my argument,
you still keep using it over and over again? Why keep presenting this
notion as representing my true argument when you know for a fact that
it doesn't? Don't you have anything to counter my actual position?
> IOW, you keep positing
> that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
> away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
> completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
> keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
I deny this false strawman of your own creation *because* it has never
been my position and my own calculations have never supported this
notion either. What the 1000aa threshold does is falsify your notion
that the minimum possible distance (i.e., one residue *change* from
something that already exists) is always the most likely distance
regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements for the
function(s) in question. That notion of yours is clearly mistaken.
The odds that the step will be the minimum possible distance drop
dramatically with each additional structural threshold minimum
requirement. That's a cold hard fact. Why not actually try to deal
with this reality instead of resorting to strawman building all the
time?
> > You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> > counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> > that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> > experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> > yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> > evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
> > requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> > arranged amino acid residues.
>
> That is irrelevant precisely because evolution does not and never was
> proposed to work by random walks across 1000 step neutral or non-
> functional gaps. IOW, you are arguing against a strawman.
Evolution can *only* work, in the way you envision, if the gaps remain
the same size or nearly the same minimum possible size (i.e., one)
regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements involved
for achieving higher and higher level functions. If the gaps actually
increase, in a linear manner like I propose, your evolutionary
mechanism is deal in the water on the lowest rungs of the ladder of
functional complexity.
> > > He repeatedly made asertions about
> > > this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on specious math that did not
> > > represent actual evolutionary mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated to
> > > be specious. He argued strenuously against the proofs without understanding
> > > them, then ran away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity, because
> > > he is clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
>
> > This is simply a false assertion. I've yet to see any statistical
> > counter argument beyond the assumption (ala Howard Hershey) that
> > despite extremely low ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial, the
> > beneficial sequences somehow cluster themselves into one tiny courner
> > of sequence space.
>
> If evolution works the way that science says it does, by
> *modification* of previously useful sequences rather than the strawman
> random walk your argument is against, it would be almost inevitable
> that the useful sequences found *in the real biological world* would
> be clustered in structure space (less clustered in sequence space
> because so much of any functional sequence allows some to massive
> amounts of sequence substitution without affecting function too
> much). That would be a natural consequence of *descent with and by
> modification*, which is the method that evolution *actually*
> proposes. They are. This clustering in *real* organisms tells us
> precisely nothing about the existence of useful sequences outside the
> ones that nature *has* found.
That's just it. Those useful sequences that have been found are not
clustered to nearly the degree that they would have to have been
clustered to have been found by evolutionary mechanisms - at least not
when it comes to functional systems that require a minimum structural
threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
> In fact, we know from artificial
> searches and natural events that lactase activity, for example, can be
> generated from antibodies (by a random process that does not involve
> 1000 or even 300 step changes) and that there are several
> independently evolved (from different pre-existing starting sequences)
> structures that can have cellulase activity. Thus we *know* that
> there are *functional* sequences that exist in total sequence space
> that have not been found. Moreover, we *know* that, because most
> enzymatic activities involve interaction with similar and usually
> *small* organics and similar functions (hydrolases, dehydrogenases,
> carboxylations, etc.) that one does not have to change any precursor
> by an entire 1000 steps to get a new function. Only a small fraction
> of any enzyme sequence is in the 'active' site.
Of course such relatively simple enzymatic-type functions can be found
very easily, because their minimum structural threshold limitations
are far less than my 1000aa cut-off limitation. None of the enzymatic
functions that you just listed require more than a few hundred
residues for minimum useful function of said type - not one.
Take lactase, again, for illustration. The minimum structural
threshold requirement needed to achieve useful/beneficial lactase
function for a bacterium seems to be about 480 fairly specified amino
acid residues. Starting with a given bacterial gene pool, most likely
the significant majority of these 480 residues exist as part of other
systems of function in the proper order. The resulting "gap", for
most types of bacteria, is probably no more than 6 or 7 non-beneficial
mutations. And, for some types of bacteria the gap is demonstrably
only a distance of a single step (i.e., a gap of just one change).
That is why a 400aa or 500aa threshold of fairly specified residues
can be crossed by most bacterial populations in relatively short
order. The problem here is that the odds that the gap between what is
and what might be beneficial doesn't remain so favorable as one moves
up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements. The
likely gap distance increases in a linear manner with each threshold
increase. So, by the time the threshold requirements are over 1000aa,
the likely gap distance is dozens of *changes* wide.
> > That is a rather fantastic assumption that is
> > assumed, not on the basis of any experimental evidence, but on the
> > notion that the stated evolutionary mechanism simply must be true.
>
> I presented the papers that demonstrated the *fact* of clustering in
> structure (not sequence) space using real experimentally generated
> data on structures. You must have a black hole in your memory.
What you presented, if you recall, is a paper dealing with single
protein sequences projected onto 3-D space (down from hundreds of
dimensions). The "clustering" even at this relatively low level, was
quite widely spaced indeed (refer to the following links to refresh
your memory):
http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html#Choi%20and%20Kim%20paper
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/38/14056
> Remember that evolution works by *descent by modification* and not
> random 1000 step walks in functionless structure space.
Remember, and really try this time, that I'm not asking for 1000 step
walks in functionless structure space. I'm asking for a walk starting
from any real life starting point you can find to end up at any novel
functional system that requires a minimum structural threshold of more
than 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues. You do understand the
difference between a minimum structural threshold requirement and the
most likely non-beneficial gap size - don't you? Hint: They aren't
the same thing despite your constant confusion over this rather
elementary concept.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jun 23, 11:00 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
>
> "It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
> materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
> 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
> block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
> found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
> the planet."
>
> I'm not a mathematician so excuse my denseness, but as I understand it
> you are saying that symmetry proves design. Are not a number of
> natural objects perfectly symmetrical? Some crystals come to mind, for
> example. And how many organisms do you think would attain your
> criterion of matching within 0.00001% one side of their body to the
> other?
You have to know something about the basic material you are dealing
with before you can successfully use symmetry to evaluate the
likelihood of design. It is true that many types of materials form
very high symmetry without any need for deliberate design to be
invoked. However, when it comes to certain materials, like granite or
marble, this isn't true. They do not form the degree of symmetry I've
just listed, with regard to surface irregularities, without the input
of deliberate intelligence.
That is why if you found a *granite* rock on any alien planet having
the degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities as I've
described, the design hypothesis would be far and away the most
reasonable one and carry with it the greatest degree of predictive
value.
> Baron Bodissey
> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> nothing but sea.
> - Francis Bacon
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
> > materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> > reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> > 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> > as measured from the center of the block
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by that? (I can think of two
> interpretations of the words: one is nonsense and the other doesn't
> give the result you intended. But maybe you have a third
> interpretation in mind.)
Why don't you just present your two interpretations?
Regarding granite, a surface irregularity is where not every surface
point is the same distance from the center of the stone. For example,
a perfectly round polished stone would have no surface irregularities
at all since every point on the surface would be the same distance
from the center of the stone. Or, another way to put it is that every
surface point would be the same distance from the exactly opposing
surface point if there were no surface irregularities.
Now, for comparison, consider a highly symmetrical polished granite
cube. Such a cube has surface irregularities that are not the same
distance from the center of the cube nor are they the same distance
from exactly opposing surface points. Yet, each "irregularity", in
this case, exactly matches the irregularity on the exact opposite side
to within a very narrow threshold.
Are you starting to get the picture? The more irregular the
irregularities, while maintaining a very high degree of reflective
symmetry (or other forms of symmetry), the more confident one can be
that deliberate artifact was in play.
> > and yet match, within 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on
> > the other side of block, the artifactual nature of the block would
> > be clear - even if found on an alien planet without any knowledge of
> > any aliens occupying the planet.
>
> It's perfectly clear that you're pulling numbers out of the blue and
> adjusting them as necessary to rule out false positives in your
> current thought experiment.
As long as they actually work with very good predictive value, I don't
see the problem. Can you actually falsify these numbers with regard
to the material of granite? If not, they I'd say they carry with them
pretty high predictive value.
> But what principles are those numbers derived from? And how do you
> plan on getting a _general_ detection methodology from an argument
> that's already overfitted to your thought experiment?
One starts with specific methods and then works from these to more
general methods. Once you accept that the specific method works, we
can move on to other methods and more general hypotheses. As of yet,
I don't see that you've grasped much less accepted the validity of the
specific applications.
> For example, what biological organisms meet the above requirement? Do
> _you_ feature 10,000 symmetries that are perfect to within 0.00001% ?
It is the ability to detect bias that is not "natural" to the material
in question that is important here. Symmetry does that for some
materials - like granite. There are other methods for detecting ET in
radio signals, which are similar and even sometimes closely related to
using symmetry. These same methods can be applied to biosystems.
Yet, if you refuse to admit to seeing the validity of the application
of symmetry to the material of granite, there is no way we can move on
to more general applications of this concept.
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
containing young fossils?
I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the rocks of
most of the geologic column are old. They are also young. However, I
do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
indeed.
> sharon
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Tiny Bulcher
> On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>
> wrote:
>> I was arguing with a loon on another forum
>
> millions of years be calling anyone a "loon"?
Yeah, we should. You're a loon.
(I know, I know, too easy. Fish, barrel, bang).
Lizzardwoman
| On Jun 23, 8:25 am, "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
| wrote:
| > "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Jun 23, 2:13 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
| > | > In article <1182562795.407640.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
| > | > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
| > | >
| > | > > I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
| > | > > active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
| > | > > debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
| > | >
| > | > Age of the birth?
| > |
| > | Pretty strange mistake.
| > |
| > | Just as well, since Sean believes in and old physical earth, but
| > | that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
| > | was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
| > | have claimed that I intended what I said.
| >
| > Then he has the identical problem Zoe has, to wit, to explain how young
| > fossils are trapped in old rock formations.
|
| Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
| containing young fossils?
There are no old rocks containing young fossils. That impossibility arises
in imagination only out of your requirements for an old physical world and
young life. It is ruled out but mutually butressing observations.
What is your explanation for fossils that are at most ~6K years old being
incorporated in rocks that are much, much older. I can't remember Zoe's
explanation if she ever provided one. Do you agree with her if you recall?
| I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the rocks of
| most of the geologic column are old. They are also young. However, I
| do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
| sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
| indeed.
How do you explain:
1. The Green River Formations?
2. Chalk formations?
sharon
--
"And if I had a boat
I'd go out on the ocean
And if I had a pony
I'd ride him on my boat
And we could all together
Go out on the ocean
Me upon my pony on my boat"
-- Lyle Lovett
Free Lunch
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1182637717.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>
>wrote:
>> I was arguing with a loon on another forum
>
>Gary: should persons like yourself who believe apes morphed into over
>millions of years be calling anyone a "loon"?
I see that you are still losing your war against reality. Take a hint,
reality always wins.
crownofp...@yahoo.com
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>
>wrote:
>> I was arguing with a loon on another forum
>
>Gary: should persons like yourself who believe apes morphed into over
>millions of years be calling anyone a "loon"?
>
>Ray
Ray, you lying little schmuck - how many times do you have to be
corrected about the claims of evolution?
R. Baldwin
> On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
>> back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> back them up. You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
> requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> arranged amino acid residues.
You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino
acid residues."
>
>> He repeatedly made asertions about
>> this supposed 1000 amino acid threshold, based on specious math that did
>> not
>> represent actual evolutionary mechanisms. His math has been demonstrated
>> to
>> be specious. He argued strenuously against the proofs without
>> understanding
>> them, then ran away. He has done this more than once. It is a pity,
>> because
>> he is clearly a smart man, and seems to be a generally decent person.
>
> This is simply a false assertion.
Which is a false assertion? That you are a smart man, or that you are a
generally decent person? ;)
> I've yet to see any statistical
> counter argument beyond the assumption (ala Howard Hershey) that
> despite extremely low ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial, the
> beneficial sequences somehow cluster themselves into one tiny courner
> of sequence space. That is a rather fantastic assumption that is
> assumed, not on the basis of any experimental evidence, but on the
> notion that the stated evolutionary mechanism simply must be true.
Why should anybody provide a statistical argument in favor of a model that
they do not believe represents reality?
>
>> I recall one thread in which he was arguing in favor of a straw man
>> argument
>> that Dembski set up on Wolpert's No Free Lunch Theorem, which even
>> Dembski's
>> article acknowledged was not a valid argument nor the actual issue.
>
> Please do list this "strawman argument" that I supposedly made, with
> an actual link to the discussion, instead of simply making statements
> without ever backing them up.
It seems I was mistaken. In doing a Google search today, it appears this was
Pagano. Sorry. I should remember not to trust my recollections at my age,
but I forget.
> You have a habbit of doing this, of
> making assertions without presenting the actual evidence or details to
> back yourself up.
Well, you are fond of saying that. I've repeatedly provided mathematical
proofs, even though you say I haven't. The last one you never responded to.
Here is the post where you requested it. My response with the requested
proof follows in two posts.
news:1175788133.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>
>> In more
>> recent articles he has made invalid arguments about Kolmogorov
>> Complexity,
>> but stopped responding when proofs were provided (at his request) showing
>> his errors. He never did respond the the critique of his Information
>> Theory
>> article, though he engaged in the follow-up discussion.
>
> I've definitely learned more about KC over the years, but I didn't
> stop the discussion of KC until it became clear to me that the
> discussion had come to a point of futility. My main opponent was
> starting to argue for concepts that are clearly not true - such as the
> notion that the concepts of KC played no part in gambling strategies
> or the ability to detect non-random bias in a sequence of numbers so
> as to successfully predict, with better than even odds of success,
> what would come next in the series (without any other knowledge
> regarding the source of the series).
I was your main opponent. You are still mistaken, and apparently have not
yet understood the explanations. Especially the part about Kolmogorov
Complexity being uncomputable and therefore not useful for any kind of
actual filter.
Try going over the response where I provided the proof you requested above,
in which I proved that the probability for a given finite string not being
algorithmically ranndom with respect to a randomly selected Universal Turing
Machine is effectively zero.
Friar Broccoli
>>|On Jun 23, 2:13 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>>|> Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
>>|>> I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
>>|>> active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
>>|>> debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
>>|> Age of the birth?
>>|Pretty strange mistake.
>>| Just as well, since Sean believes in andoldphysical earth, but
>>| that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
>>| was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
>>| have claimed that I intended what I said.
>> Then he has the identical problem Zoe has, to wit, to explain
>> how young fossils are trapped in old rock formations.
> Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
> containing young fossils?
Before formulating this reply I went back and read some of your
old messages to see how you argue this case. What I saw were
arguments concerning specific cases that could be reinterpreted
to appear ambiguous (or perhaps some of the specific situations
actually were ambiguous).
The problem with this form of argument is that casting doubt on
specific pieces of ambiguous research, does not address the
clear, simple and unambiguous evidence for a biologically old
earth such as:
- Trilobites that went extinct about 250 million years ago are
never found buried with crabs, which occupied a similar
ecological niche but first show up in the fossil record about
200 million years ago. (In fact even most species of
trilobite are not found together with other species of
trilobites since many species only existed for 10 million
years or less during the long reign of trilobites from 525 to
250 years ago.)
- Similarly modern mammals such as elephants and mammoths are
never found buried together with dinosaurs.
> I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the
> rocks of most of the geologic column are old. They are also
> young. However, I do believe that the material that
> originally gave rise to the sedimentary rocks of the geologic
> column were probably very old indeed.
To reiterate Sean, all you can do is try to throw doubt on
specific pieces of evidence for a biologically old earth.
We can support our position with piles of clear and unambiguous
evidence from many disciplines, while you have NO clear
evidence that all life on earth dates back no farther than 6000
years.
If I am wrong about that, please produce your positive evidence.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
hersheyhv
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Jun 23, 2:13 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> > | > In article <1182562795.407640.57...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > | > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
> > | >
> > | > > I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
> > | > > active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
> > | > > debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
> > | >
> > | > Age of the birth?
> > |
> > | Pretty strange mistake.
> > |
> > | Just as well, since Sean believes in and old physical earth, but
> > | that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
> > | was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
> > | have claimed that I intended what I said.
>
> > Then he has the identical problem Zoe has, to wit, to explain how young
> > fossils are trapped in old rock formations.
>
> Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
> containing young fossils?
No. We assume, quite reasonably, that, in most sedimentary beds,
rocks formed at a certain time contain equally old fossils that were
present while these rocks became rock. Old rocks simply do not
contain fossils *younger* than the rocks. That would require some
mechanism of inserting younger fossils into the rock. There is no
such mechanism.
However, in conglomerates (beds composed of weathered largish chunks
of older rocks), of course, some of the embedded chunks can contain
fossils *older* than the time when the conglomerate itself formed.
But not *younger*.
> I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the rocks of
> most of the geologic column are old. They are also young.
And that they somehow arranged their radioisotopes to leave the false
impression of considerable age? And distributed the fossils (both
macro and micro) in a way that cannot be explained by anything but
history?
> However, I
> do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
> sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
> indeed.
Then you have to explain how this "old" material became distributed in
the sediments in an "age-related" fashion distributed (in undisturbed
columns) from the oldest (lowest) material to the youngest (topmost)
strata.
>
> > sharon
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
Wait a minute, Sean. You say that 'symmetry' can do that for granite
because you have prior knowledge that a certain degree of 'symmetry'
would be "unnatural" for granite. Then you assert (without
specifying) that you have to use a *different* method for detecting ET
in radio signals. But somehow this undescribed *different* method is
similar to the geometric symmetry you use for granite. Which you know
because of your prior knowledge of what is 'natural' for granite.
What is this *other* method used for radio signals and how is it
similar to the geometric symmetry you used for granite? And what
prior knowledge about what is 'natural' are you sneaking into this
*other* method?
And lastly, which of these *same* methods (but presumably *different*)
can be applied to biosystems? And what prior knowledge (or, in your
case, false assumptions) of what is 'natural' for biosystems do you
need to sneak in?
It is rather difficult to make sense of such a non-specific and self-
contradictory set of assertions.
>
> Yet, if you refuse to admit to seeing the validity of the application
> of symmetry to the material of granite, there is no way we can move on
> to more general applications of this concept.
Are you saying that geometric symmetry in living organisms (think
amoeba as an example of what kind of symmetry is 'natural' for
biosystems) is evidence of design? Or is it whatever *other* method
that is used for detecting ET?
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:19 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:00 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
>
> > "It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
> > materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> > reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> > 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> > as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
> > 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
> > block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
> > found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
> > the planet."
>
> > I'm not a mathematician so excuse my denseness, but as I understand it
> > you are saying that symmetry proves design. Are not a number of
> > natural objects perfectly symmetrical? Some crystals come to mind, for
> > example. And how many organisms do you think would attain your
> > criterion of matching within 0.00001% one side of their body to the
> > other?
>
> You have to know something about the basic material you are dealing
> with before you can successfully use symmetry to evaluate the
> likelihood of design.
I certainly would agree. Now all you have to do is tell us what
knowledge about the basic material of biosystems you need to know in
order to evaluate the likelihood of design. And the *specific* method
for detecting design in biosystems, since geometric symmetry would be
a poor choice for biosystems. [Although many organisms have some form
of symmetry, others don't. And the symmetry of organisms that have
symmetry appears to be 'natural' to them.]
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:34 am, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:20 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> > > > back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> > > I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> > > back them up.
>
> > No you have not. You have not come up with a single example of any
> > putatively evolved system that performs a "function" (such as
> > enzymatic activity) that *requires* 1000 selectively neutral *changes*
> > before there is any possible useful function.
>
> As I've pointed out to you literally dozens and dozens of times now,
> I'm not asking for 1000 neutral changes. In fact I've specifically
> told you that a function that requires a minimum structural threshold
> of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues could always be
> evolved with fewer than 1000 *changes* starting with what already
> exists in any gene pool of any living thing. Yet, despite my
> constantly correcting this strawman misrepresentation of my argument,
> you still keep using it over and over again? Why keep presenting this
> notion as representing my true argument when you know for a fact that
> it doesn't? Don't you have anything to counter my actual position?
I keep presenting it because I have to to get you to present your
"true" argument. If your "true" argument is that the number of steps
required is much fewer than 1000 and that things evolve by
modification of existing structures by many fewer steps, then you
should argue that. If you are assuming that you can positively
determine the number of random or neutral steps as some mathematical
processing of the number 1000, then get the right number, not 1000.
The number 1000 is completely irrelevant and is only presented to make
it *appear* (falsely, which even you acknowledge when forced to) that
you need 1000 changes. IOW, you are using 1000 for its propaganda
value and only its propaganda value.
> > IOW, you keep positing
> > that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
> > away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
> > completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
> > keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
>
> I deny this false strawman of your own creation *because* it has never
> been my position and my own calculations have never supported this
> notion either. What the 1000aa threshold does is falsify your notion
> that the minimum possible distance (i.e., one residue *change* from
> something that already exists) is always the most likely distance
> regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements for the
> function(s) in question.
The 1000 aa number is utterly without relevance to *how* things
evolve. It is a GIGO number used for propaganda purposes. The
minimum possible distance between *functions* or *non-function to
function* is always one aa. That does not mean that such a small gap
always exists. But for the subset of functional proteins that *do*
exist in organisms, there almost always is a possible precursor that
is not *too far* away wrt a *functional* change.
> That notion of yours is clearly mistaken.
> The odds that the step will be the minimum possible distance drop
> dramatically with each additional structural threshold minimum
> requirement. That's a cold hard fact.
No it is not. It is an assumption that you make based on an _ex post
facto_ fallacy. I am not interested in the evolution of some
hypothetical average protein from some hypothetical other protein. I
am interested in how the proteins that actually exist in real
organisms evolved. And in the real proteins that exist in real
organism, we see extensive homologies and gene families that are
evidence that these *real* proteins evolved by relatively minor
changes in pre-existing proteins.
> Why not actually try to deal
> with this reality instead of resorting to strawman building all the
> time?
You are the one that is engaged in strawman presentations. Your
continued use of the totally discredited and useless except for
propaganda 1000 aa number is evidence of that. That number is
irrelevant to the real argument you have to make. Even you know and
admit that. If that number is to be meaningful you have to present an
algorithm that goes from your 1000 aa number to the real number you
need, the number of mutational steps from some pre-existing precursor.
[And even if you could, you would only have an average number of steps
with no evidence that the proteins that actually evolved had to do so
by that average number as opposed to a much smaller number.] You
can't do that, so you keep on throwing out this bogus 1000 aa level as
if it were relevant. That is a tired and disreputable dishonesty.
> > > You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> > > counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> > > that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> > > experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> > > yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> > > evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
> > > requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> > > arranged amino acid residues.
>
> > That is irrelevant precisely because evolution does not and never was
> > proposed to work by random walks across 1000 step neutral or non-
> > functional gaps. IOW, you are arguing against a strawman.
>
> Evolution can *only* work, in the way you envision, if the gaps remain
> the same size or nearly the same minimum possible size (i.e., one)
> regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements involved
> for achieving higher and higher level functions. If the gaps actually
> increase, in a linear manner like I propose, your evolutionary
> mechanism is deal in the water on the lowest rungs of the ladder of
> functional complexity.
Then you have to present the evidence that, for those proteins that
*did* evolve, some specific gap size between functional intermediates
actually is a linear function of the total size. You have failed to
do that. I have told you how to do it. For new functions that have
been observed to evolve, you plot the number of mutational steps
required to generate that function from its precursor against the size
of the protein (or the large fraction thereof that gets you the 1000
number). What you will find is that there is no correlation.
You have no evidence to support this assertion. And, in fact, in
structure space, there is clustering of proteins to a considerable
degree.
>
> > In fact, we know from artificial
> > searches and natural events that lactase activity, for example, can be
> > generated from antibodies (by a random process that does not involve
> > 1000 or even 300 step changes) and that there are several
> > independently evolved (from different pre-existing starting sequences)
> > structures that can have cellulase activity. Thus we *know* that
> > there are *functional* sequences that exist in total sequence space
> > that have not been found. Moreover, we *know* that, because most
> > enzymatic activities involve interaction with similar and usually
> > *small* organics and similar functions (hydrolases, dehydrogenases,
> > carboxylations, etc.) that one does not have to change any precursor
> > by an entire 1000 steps to get a new function. Only a small fraction
> > of any enzyme sequence is in the 'active' site.
>
> Of course such relatively simple enzymatic-type functions can be found
> very easily, because their minimum structural threshold limitations
> are far less than my 1000aa cut-off limitation. None of the enzymatic
> functions that you just listed require more than a few hundred
> residues for minimum useful function of said type - not one.
And in no case is the number of residues in the proteins relevant to
how the protein evolved. In most cases, they evolved from other pre-
existing proteins by a small number of functionally relevant changes
(and, in the case of the natural proteins, often a much larger number
of *subsequent* selectively neutral changes). Why is it that you
cannot name any *function* that cannot be evolved from functional
precursors that meet your 1000 aa cut-off limit? Nor can you present
evidence that there is a linear relationship between size and the
number of mutational steps between precursor and modified protein for
those proteins that actually did evolve. Not a hypothetical average,
but the ones that actually did evolve.
> Take lactase, again, for illustration. The minimum structural
> threshold requirement needed to achieve useful/beneficial lactase
> function for a bacterium seems to be about 480 fairly specified amino
> acid residues. Starting with a given bacterial gene pool, most likely
> the significant majority of these 480 residues exist as part of other
> systems of function in the proper order. The resulting "gap", for
> most types of bacteria, is probably no more than 6 or 7 non-beneficial
> mutations. And, for some types of bacteria the gap is demonstrably
> only a distance of a single step (i.e., a gap of just one change).
So now you hand-wave the number you actually need for your argument
into existence? How did you determine that the size of the 'gap'
would be 6-7, and why is this number relevant even if true. What
would be the case would be that some bacteria would have a gap of
'480' (lack the appropriate precursor) and some would have a gap of 1
(e.g., E. coli with the ebg gene). Proteins do not have to evolve
independently in each organism. They typically evolve once and then
are passed on by either vertical or horizontal (in bacteria)
transmission with continuing neutral changes along the way. Guess
which bacteria (the one with the gap of 480, the one with a gap of 7,
or the one with the gap of 1) will, in all probability be the one to
evolve the new function? Once evolved, transmission will be vertical.
> That is why a 400aa or 500aa threshold of fairly specified residues
> can be crossed by most bacterial populations in relatively short
> order.
Not really. *If* the gap is 400 or 500, the evolution of that
function likely will not happen. *If* the gap is 6-7, it will take,
on average, considerable time. *If* the gap is 1-3, it will be fairly
short. Subsequent selectively neutral changes that do not have a
major effect on function (neutral changes, which happen as a function
of time alone) or changes that optimize the new function (faster,
because selection will be involved) will continue to happen after the
generation of selectable levels of new function.
> The problem here is that the odds that the gap between what is
> and what might be beneficial doesn't remain so favorable as one moves
> up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements.
This, of course, is an unsupported assertion. One that is actually
contradicted by evidence. I see no correlation between gap size
between functions and total size and no necessary reason for there to
be such a correlation. This is the real argument you need to make and
keep failing to make, instead presenting bogus irrelevant numbers
(that you know are bogus and irrelevant) like 1000 instead.
> The
> likely gap distance increases in a linear manner with each threshold
> increase. So, by the time the threshold requirements are over 1000aa,
> the likely gap distance is dozens of *changes* wide.
And the spread around a mean of "dozens" is? If the mean gap distance
for an organism is 24, what fraction of organisms (different species)
will have a gap distance of 1? Of 2? Again, one does not have to
evolve "lactase" function a million times over the course of
geological time. Once is enough. The reason why so many lactases are
homologous is not because there is only one possible way to invent a
lactase. It is because some lactase genes have a common ancestor that
evolved once.
Actually I find your whole exercise a pure hypothetical of no
relevance. But demonstrate that you can actually compute an average
"gap size" as a function of "total size" rather than simply hand-wave
such an average into existence. Then present the variance around that
mean. At least that would be a relevant argument. Keeping on
presenting the dishonest 1000 aa *without mentioning that it is the
gap size that is *really* important* until I force you to do so is
dishonest propaganda.
> > > That is a rather fantastic assumption that is
> > > assumed, not on the basis of any experimental evidence, but on the
> > > notion that the stated evolutionary mechanism simply must be true.
>
> > I presented the papers that demonstrated the *fact* of clustering in
> > structure (not sequence) space using real experimentally generated
> > data on structures. You must have a black hole in your memory.
>
> What you presented, if you recall, is a paper dealing with single
> protein sequences projected onto 3-D space (down from hundreds of
> dimensions). The "clustering" even at this relatively low level, was
> quite widely spaced indeed (refer to the following links to refresh
> your memory):
There was clustering along axes and sparseness between the axes.
>
> > Remember that evolution works by *descent by modification* and not
> > random 1000 step walks in functionless structure space.
>
> Remember, and really try this time, that I'm not asking for 1000 step
> walks in functionless structure space.
Then *start* your frigging argument with your real argument instead of
assuming that this bogus number is relevant to the argument you are
making.
Your *real* argument should be presented as follows.
I assert [without evidence] that there is a strict linear relationship
between the size of a protein (or the size of the existing minimum
protein that has a function) and the number of mutational steps
required to produce that function from some pre-existing protein that
lacks that function (or in which the function is secondary to another
function). According to my calculations [shown here for the first
time] there is a linear relationship between the total size and the
*mean* [median, modal] gap size. The variance in this mean gap size
is [presented here for the first time]. For a protein of total size
1000, I calculate a mean gap size of x based on my algorithm
[presented here for the first time]. Because the variance is +/- y,
I calculate that it is impossible for any organism to have a gap size
of 1-2 mutational steps (not just aa residues, which excludes chimera
formation and endoduplications) in the time rrame consistent with the
geological age of the earth. This is evidenced by there being no
possible protein homologous either in part or in whole to the protein
of interest and no possible utility of intermediates in the gap size I
present.
But, nooooooo. All we get is the assertion that the number 1000 is
somehow meaningful. It isn't.
> I'm asking for a walk starting
> from any real life starting point you can find to end up at any novel
> functional system that requires a minimum structural threshold of more
> than 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues. You do understand the
> difference between a minimum structural threshold requirement and the
> most likely non-beneficial gap size - don't you?
Yes. You keep presenting the former *as if* it were sufficent and
effectively the latter. And then accuse me of presenting a strawman
version of your argument. Yawn. I will keep calling you on this.
Why don't you simply present the evidence you know you need rather
than the number 1000 as if that were useful to your position?
> Hint: They aren't
> the same thing despite your constant confusion over this rather
> elementary concept.
I am not confused. I know the difference between total size (which is
what your 1000 number is effectively) and gap size. I am just trying
to get you to focus on determining and calculating and using the
latter rather than pretending that the former is the same thing.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:51 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > IIRC, he was arguing that symmetry was a signature of design, and
> > > people had some questions about that.
>
> > He essentially proposed a statistical method for determining
> > parameters of symmetry and surface roughness which distinguish
> > designed from non-designed objects. He has never even attempted to
> > *apply* his method in the real world - something which would be
> > impossibly time-consuming even for a single material - yet claims
> > that his method can do so. Furthermore, he claims that his method
> > demonstrates that some objects are designed, even though it has never
> > been used.
>
> materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
> 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
> block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
> found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
> the planet.
As you have never applied your method, I suggest that you refrain from
telling us what the findings will be.
>
> > As far as I could gather from his posts, his method in respect of his
> > beloved granite cube consists of
>
> > 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
>
> One does not need to have knowledge of *all* possible processes before
> a reasonable theory of artifact can be entertained. Remember, science
> does not require absolute perfection before useful predictive value
> can be realized for a given hypothesis or theory. Science is only
> useful because of limited knowledge. Perfect knowledge would remove
> the need for the scientific method.
>
More blathering bullshit,Sean.
You have never applied your method, yet you claim to know what the
results would be.
So I suggest that you stop making such claims until such time as you
have demonstrated that your method does what you claim that it does.
>
>
> > 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
> > 3) Calculating statistically the range of the forms produced by such
> > processes.
> > 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by
> > *ALL* such forms.
> > 5) Demonstrating that this statistical method can provide a
> > statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> > outcome of such processes.
>
> > He claims that this method can detect that Michaelangelo's "David" is
> > an artefact, though he has never applied it to anything in the real
> > world. To quote from one of his posts:
>
> > "My methodology is based on finding
> > the same irregularities on both
> > sides of a line of reflective symmetry.
> > Clearly, you can do this with
> > David's face. You can measure
> > this symmetry. Symmetry is not some
> > vague concept Richard. It is
> > measurable in degree. David's face has
> > an extremely high degree of
> > measurable reflective
> > symmetry. The angle of
> > the head with respect to the rest
> > of the body has absolutely nothing
> > to do with this fact. As long as
> > at least one line of symmetry can be
> > drawn through and object of any
> > kind, that object displays "symmetry"
> > which can indeed be measured
> > - in a quantifiable way. It doesn't
> > matter what the object is
> > - human or statue or granite rock."
>
> > Note that he is didactic mode here: lecturing me on a subject about
> > which he quite evidently knows very little, and inventing terminology
> > as he goes along in an attempt to appear erudite.
>
> Where did I invent terminology Richard?
You use the term "reflective symmetry" in a non-standard way.
> You are the one who evidently
> doesn't know how to determine symmetry in its various forms. You also
> don't seem to realize that the statue of David is a real object in the
> real world which does indeed exhibit a great degree of symmetry of
> various kinds - i.e., reflective, rotational etc.
Which does not alter the fact that your method could not detect that
David is an artifact. Nothing in the way you have described your
method would lead one to think that it could detect "reflective
symmetry". Mind you, as you have never applied your method to any
material of any sort, you cannot honestly tell us what your method
would show.
>
> > He is also the master of the bleedin' obvious. He arguments about
> > erosion boil down to the assertion that if we ignore all the factors
> > affecting the rate of erosion except slope angle, slope angle is the
> > most important factor in the rate of erosion. True, but not exactly
> > useful.
>
> It is a truth that took me many weeks to get you to understand, one
> that you originally denied. Yet, you still don't seem to grasp the
> implications with regard to erosion rates on sloped mountain surfaces.
>
What that whole dialogue showed is you dogmatic ignorance and denial
of reality. Do you not understand how uttterly useless the proposition
that if we ignore every factor affecting erosions rates except slope
angle, the most important factor affecting erosion rates is slope
angle?
> > There is also the subject of taphonomy, of course, about which he
> > knows very little, but refuses to learn. He apparently thinks that
> > localised supersaturation can be caused by catastrophic mixing of
> > sediments for one thing - something which would be very surprising to
> > anyone who has ever stirred sugar into a cup of tea. He also, and
> > apparently deliberately, confuses preservation mode in one locality
> > with mode on other localities.
>
> Localized supersaturation can be produced in a huge overall complex
> catastrophe or as part of the subsequent fallout by a number of
> factors, all of which you simply ignore with a wave of your hand.
You are making this assertion. You need to produce the evidence that
such a phenomenon can occur. I advise you to start by looking up the
meaning of "supersaturation".
> I
> also do not ignore the fact that the preservation mode in one locality
> may be different compared to another locality.
Yes you do. You consistently confuse the mode of preservation of the
Berlin ichthyosaurs with those from the European lias and the fish of
the Solnhofen lagoon.
> I never said
> otherwise. Your problem is that you simply assume that the same
> preservation mode that might explain a given situation is the only one
> to be considered - despite significant evidence to the contrary.
You have not produced any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, and
what's more have refused even to look at the evidence which supports
the scientific model. Have you, for example, bothered to download the
relevant papers from "Palaeobiology"?
>
> > So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
> > dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
> > stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
> > thinking that he has valid arguments. Obviously other creationists are
> > easily fooled by his nonsense. The only question in my mind is whether
> > or not Sean *knows* that it is nonsense. He is evidently fairly
> > intelligent, and holds down a professional post. We know that
> > creationists are masters of doublethink, but I find it hard to
> > understand how someone can hold such completely discordant views and
> > act rationally.
>
> Ditto . . .
1 ) I've provided extensive evidence.
2) I have not ignored evidence which contradicts my position, quite
simply because you have produced no such evidence.
3) I have not made claims about what a method I have proposed but
never applied will show.
4) I have not made ridiculous assertions which I am unable to defend.
5) I have not refused even to consider the implications of my
"theories", such as your refusal to address the implications of your
"flood" model
This is not a matter in which the same failings apply on both sides.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
How do you know? You claim to have a method which can detect design,
you have never applied your own method and here you are telling us
what your method is capable of demonstrating.
How do you know?
RF
>
> > sharon
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You have never applied your method to any material, yet you claim to
know what the application of your method will show.
How do you know?
RF
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca>
>wrote:
>> I was arguing with a loon on another forum
>
>Gary: should persons like yourself who believe apes morphed into over
>millions of years be calling anyone a "loon"?
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
I've never understood why you always seem to feel it necessary to lie
about evolution Dishonest Ray.
Humans are apes. We, and the other great apes, have all evolved from a
common ancestor.
Stop being so dishonest and maybe people will start taking you
seriously.
--
Bob.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Carbon dating doubts came up. I replied that his ideas have been soundly
> > trounced on this forum more than once. My opponent decided to emailSean.
>
> > Here is the email he sent back to my opponent. Since it was published on
> > another open forum I assume it is OK to post it here.
>
> > <quote>
> > I'd be very interested to hear exactly which arguments this b_sharp guy
> > thinks have destroyed any of my positions concerning biology or the
> > supposed abilities of the evolutionary mechanism. I'd also like to see
> > where my statistical arguments have failed . . . Ask him to present his
> > thoughts on probability with regard to the evolutionary mechanism.
>
> > A lot of people on T.O. have presented all kinds of hair-brained notions
> > regarding how evolution supposedly works, but absolutely none of them
> > have presented any statistical argument whatsoever regarding the odds
> > that the supposed mechanism will work beyond extremely low levels of
> > functional system complexity ( i.e., beyond a minimum structural
> > threshold requirement for a novel type of function of more than 1000
> > specifically arranged amino acid residues).
>
> > It is easy to make bald assertions; it is quite another thing to actually
> > back them up.
>
> > Sean
> > </quote>
>
> > Am I misremembering those arguements or isSeantaking a few freedoms
> > with his interpretation of them?
>
> > Anyone have any comments they want passed on toSeanvia my opponent?
>
> Good luck getting anything specific to help you out here Gary. Also,
> I really loved it when you quoted yourself regarding the dice-rolling
> problem - highlighting your use of the median "average" when I was
> talking about the mean. That was a real winner!
>
> > Gary Bohn
>
> > Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> > emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
> > bible.
>
> > "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Noam Chomsky, 1957
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Perhaps you should start by explaining how you know what your
methodology for detecting "design" will show when nobody has ever
applied your methodology.
Scientists all over the world are waiting with bated breath to know
how this can be done. After all, here we are in our laboratories, in
the field, hunched over old bones in museum basements measuring and
recording, then applying our methodology to the data set to see what
results it produces. Your method seems to cut out that drudgery, and
lead to results *without* any of that tedious business of data
gathering, or processing that data.
So please explain this apparent paradox.
Surely, as an honest man, you are not claiming to know the outcome of
something you haven't actually carried through? Wouldn't that be,
well, lying?
RF
Ron O
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is just the classic creationist obfuscation scam method of
arguing about nothing and making it look like they are making some
kind of valid argument. This is all the latest "teach the
controversy" or "critical analysis" creationist scams are. The people
like Sean need a valid alternative, but they don't have one, and they
know it. Their last try at one was intelligent design, but it turned
out to be bogus and they had to fall back on the old obfuscation scam.
Just ask Sean what his alternative to common descent is and his
evidence to back it up. He has made claims that he has such an
alternative years ago and that the evidence is just as good as the
existing scientific evidence for common descent, but he never gets
around to demonstrating it. He even claims that he has something
worth teaching about intelligent design (also years ago but fewer
years, just 3 or 4?), but the guys that ran that creationist scam are
admitting that they don't have anything worth teaching at this time.
Meyer (the director of the science wing of the Discovery Institute
creationist scam outfit) just this year admitted that teaching ID was
"premature." That was after the godfather of the ID creationist scam
(Philip Johnson) admitted that ID had nothing equivalent to teach as
the science of evolutionary biology, that the "science" people
associated with the ID "movement" hadn't come up with anything
equivalent to teach about ID. He only adimitted that after the
courtroom defeat of the ID scam in Dover. These are the creationists
that used to claim that ID was their business and have been hawking ID
for over a decade. So these guys know that they don't have what they
need to make valid arguments, but that doesn't stop them from what
amounts to dishonest discourse on the subject.
Even Sean knows this or we would have seen his alternative to common
descent and the evidence to back it up, and he would have been able to
back up his claim about having something to teach about intelligent
design in the high school science class. Failures like these mark
creationists as dishonest. if not with others, obviously, to
themselves. They might have the insanity defense, but Sean has been
living with this shortcoming for years. The fact that he is
periodically reminded of it only demonstrates how incompetent or
willfully dishonest he must be. Mental incompetence or willfull
dishonesty are Sean's only outs at this time. If someone has some
other explanation I'd like to see it.
Ron Okimoto
Seanpit
> > Yet, if you refuse to admit to seeing the validity of the application
> > of symmetry to the material of granite, there is no way we can move on
> > to more general applications of this concept.
>
> You have never applied your method to any material, yet you claim to
> know what the application of your method will show.
But I have applied my method to materials such as granite. If you can
falsify my position, regarding the material of granite, please do list
your argument. Otherwise, what do you have as a counter?
> How do you know?
I don't know with 100% perfection - that's impossible. But, I do know
with a very high degree of predictive value. If you think otherwise,
please do present your evidence that falsifies my position regarding
the material of granite and the parameters I've just listed . . . and
good luck ; )
Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
symmetry found in materials like granite or marble. There really is
no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
use it or something like it regarding biosystems. That is why you
don't want to accept the obvious even when it comes to something so
simply as high degrees of symmetry in granite being clearly
artifactual.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
raven1
wrote:
"When I fight reality, reality always wins..." - Ray "Cougar" Martinez
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:39 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Yet, if you refuse to admit to seeing the validity of the application
> > > of symmetry to the material of granite, there is no way we can move on
> > > to more general applications of this concept.
>
> > You have never applied your method to any material, yet you claim to
> > know what the application of your method will show.
>
> But I have applied my method to materials such as granite. If you can
> falsify my position, regarding the material of granite, please do list
> your argument. Otherwise, what do you have as a counter?
>
If you have, please tell us where we can find your data set?
Where is the statistical analysis of that data set?
How have your established what are the parameters which distinguish
"designed" from "non-designed" objects?
*ALL* you have done is to make assertions about what your "method"
shows without showing *ANY* evidence whatsoever that your "method" can
do what you claim that it can.
> > How do you know?
>
> I don't know with 100% perfection - that's impossible. But, I do know
> with a very high degree of predictive value. If you think otherwise,
> please do present your evidence that falsifies my position regarding
> the material of granite and the parameters I've just listed . . . and
> good luck ; )
If your method has "predictive value", please demonstrate by reference
to data that this is the case.
You have no data.
You have no calculations.
You have no predictions.
>
> Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
> parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
> admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
> symmetry found in materials like granite or marble.
That may be the case, but you have not demonstrated any method of
detecting it.
You have *asserted* that your "method" can detect it. That's not the
same thing.
> There really is
> no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
> this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
> use it or something like it regarding biosystems. That is why you
> don't want to accept the obvious even when it comes to something so
> simply as high degrees of symmetry in granite being clearly
> artifactual.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Sean quite frankly you are lying.
You claim to have a *STATISTICAL* method of detecting design.
You claim that this *STATISTICAL* method shows that an hypothetical
granite cube is designed.
Do carry out any form of statistical analysis, you need numerical data
to which you can apply statistical analyses.
Where is your data?
Where is your statistical analysis?
The simple answer is that you have no data.
You have *NOTHING* except unfounded assertion.
So either demonstrate that you are not lying by producing numerical
data and a statistical analysis of
that data - which is what your method requires - or withdraw the
assertion that your *statistical* method can demonstrate the presence
of design.
RF
Seanpit
wrote:
> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182608450.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> >> back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> > I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> > back them up. You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> > counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> > that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> > experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> > yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> > evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
> > requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> > arranged amino acid residues.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
> minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino
> acid residues."
Oh please. What is the minimum number of codons it takes to code for
a flagellar motility system? 100? 1,000? - - How about more than
10,000!
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
I always have. I've specifically pointed this out to you personally
many many times. Don't you remember me explaining to you many times
that the gap size is always smaller than the minimum structural
threshold size? Yet, you continually get these concepts confused over
and over again. You has some huge block in your brain to remembering
this particular concept even though it really isn't that difficult.
I simply don't believe that you really can't understand and so I must
assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position at this
point. That is deliberate false misrepresentation Howard - deliberate
strawman building. Why do you feel the need to use
misrepresentation? If you want to clarify my position, why don't you
just clarify it using honest means instead of misrepresentation where
I have to constantly point out to you that you are in fact
misrepresenting me yet again?
> If you are assuming that you can positively
> determine the number of random or neutral steps as some mathematical
> processing of the number 1000, then get the right number, not 1000.
> The number 1000 is completely irrelevant and is only presented to make
> it *appear* (falsely, which even you acknowledge when forced to) that
> you need 1000 changes. IOW, you are using 1000 for its propaganda
> value and only its propaganda value.
For the umpteenth time Howard, the 1000aa threshold is simply that
threshold beyond which there are no examples of evolution in action
listed in literature. My hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is
linearly expanding non-beneficial gaps. The evidence to back this
hypothesis up is found in real experimental evidence as well as
analysis of existing functionally beneficial biosystems that do indeed
become more and more widely separated from each other, in a linear
manner, with each additional minimum structural threshold
requirement.
Compare this with your notion that the minimum possible gap size, a
single change, is always the most likely gap size regardless of the
minimum structural threshold requirements under consideration. This
notion of yours is what is the true fantasy - not supported by any
statistical or experimental evidence.
>
> > > IOW, you keep positing
> > > that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
> > > away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
> > > completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
> > > keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
>
> > I deny this false strawman of your own creation *because* it has never
> > been my position and my own calculations have never supported this
> > notion either. What the 1000aa threshold does is falsify your notion
> > that the minimum possible distance (i.e., one residue *change* from
> > something that already exists) is always the most likely distance
> > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements for the
> > function(s) in question.
>
> The 1000 aa number is utterly without relevance to *how* things
> evolve. It is a GIGO number used for propaganda purposes. The
> minimum possible distance between *functions* or *non-function to
> function* is always one aa. That does not mean that such a small gap
> always exists. But for the subset of functional proteins that *do*
> exist in organisms, there almost always is a possible precursor that
> is not *too far* away wrt a *functional* change.
You have absolutely no evidence to support this bald assertion aside
from your faith that it must be true because you are so sure Darwinian-
style evolution is true. Outside of this bravado of yours, there is
no statistical or experimental evidence to back your notions up here.
Sorry. The evidence is clearly weighing against you.
> > That notion of yours is clearly mistaken.
> > The odds that the step will be the minimum possible distance drop
> > dramatically with each additional structural threshold minimum
> > requirement. That's a cold hard fact.
>
> No it is not. It is an assumption that you make based on an _ex post
> facto_ fallacy. I am not interested in the evolution of some
> hypothetical average protein from some hypothetical other protein. I
> am interested in how the proteins that actually exist in real
> organisms evolved. And in the real proteins that exist in real
> organism, we see extensive homologies and gene families that are
> evidence that these *real* proteins evolved by relatively minor
> changes in pre-existing proteins.
There are always homologies, as there are in any language/information
system. The problem here is with your notion of what is and what
isn't "extensive". With each increase in the minimum structural
threshold requirements the homologies decrease in a linear manner
creating a linearly increasing gap in the number of non-beneficial
changes that would be required on average. A 95% homology might seem
like "extensive" homology, but the remaining 5% is enough to
absolutely stall out evolutionary mechanisms this side of trillions of
years when that 5% represents just a few dozen necessary "changes". A
20% homology, as exists between the flagellar motility system and the
toxin injector system TTSS might seem "extensive" but it is absolutely
devastating to the ToE when one actually start to consider the
absolute gap size this number represents.
< snip >
> > Evolution can *only* work, in the way you envision, if the gaps remain
> > the same size or nearly the same minimum possible size (i.e., one)
> > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements involved
> > for achieving higher and higher level functions. If the gaps actually
> > increase, in a linear manner like I propose, your evolutionary
> > mechanism is dead in the water on the lowest rungs of the ladder of
> > functional complexity.
>
> Then you have to present the evidence that, for those proteins that
> *did* evolve, some specific gap size between functional intermediates
> actually is a linear function of the total size. You have failed to
> do that. I have told you how to do it. For new functions that have
> been observed to evolve, you plot the number of mutational steps
> required to generate that function from its precursor against the size
> of the protein (or the large fraction thereof that gets you the 1000
> number). What you will find is that there is no correlation.
There is a correlation - that's just it. The larger the minimum
structural threshold, the larger the gap between the system in
question and the next closest intact independently functional system.
That's a fact. Your notion that the gap size is always one regardless
of the structural threshold requirements is demonstrably false.
> > That's just it. Those useful sequences that have been found are not
> > clustered to nearly the degree that they would have to have been
> > clustered to have been found by evolutionary mechanisms - at least not
> > when it comes to functional systems that require a minimum structural
> > threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
>
> You have no evidence to support this assertion. And, in fact, in
> structure space, there is clustering of proteins to a considerable
> degree.
Not beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity. Even
relatively small single protein systems are fairly widely spaced and
become more and more widely spaced with increasing structural
threshold requirements. The pattern is clear even at very low levels
of functional complexity.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html#Choi%20and%20Kim%20paper
> > Of course such relatively simple enzymatic-type functions can be found
> > very easily, because their minimum structural threshold limitations
> > are far less than my 1000aa cut-off limitation. None of the enzymatic
> > functions that you just listed require more than a few hundred
> > residues for minimum useful function of said type - not one.
>
> And in no case is the number of residues in the proteins relevant to
> how the protein evolved. In most cases, they evolved from other pre-
> existing proteins by a small number of functionally relevant changes
> (and, in the case of the natural proteins, often a much larger number
> of *subsequent* selectively neutral changes). Why is it that you
> cannot name any *function* that cannot be evolved from functional
> precursors that meet your 1000 aa cut-off limit?
I've named such functional systems over and over again for you. How
many times have we gone over flagellar motility (>10,000 fairly
specified codons), for example? Your fantastic just so stories about
how the gaps in the evolution of flagellar motility could have been
very small are just that - fantasies. Why not put your little stories
to the test and actually demonstrate the evolution of a couple of your
evolutionary steps in an actual experiment. If the gaps are really as
small as you claim they are, just one or two mutations wide, then
demonstration of such an evolutionary step should be no problem. Yet,
not a single proposed step in the evolution of any system with the
structural threshold requirements of flagellar motility has ever been
experimentally demonstrated. You'd be famous if you could ever
achieve such a feat. Good luck!
< snip >
> > That is why a 400aa or 500aa threshold of fairly specified residues
> > can be crossed by most bacterial populations in relatively short
> > order.
>
> Not really. *If* the gap is 400 or 500, the evolution of that
> function likely will not happen. *If* the gap is 6-7, it will take,
> on average, considerable time. *If* the gap is 1-3, it will be fairly
> short. Subsequent selectively neutral changes that do not have a
> major effect on function (neutral changes, which happen as a function
> of time alone) or changes that optimize the new function (faster,
> because selection will be involved) will continue to happen after the
> generation of selectable levels of new function.
That's right. The problem is that the odds that the gap size will
stay at 1-3 drop exponentially with each increase in the minimum
structural threshold requirements. Increasing the population size
helps to keep up with these increasing odds at low levels, but very
quickly the increasing odds outpaces the populations ability to keep
up and evolution simply stalls out on the lowest rungs of functional
complexity.
> > The problem here is that the odds that the gap between what is
> > and what might be beneficial doesn't remain so favorable as one moves
> > up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements.
>
> This, of course, is an unsupported assertion. One that is actually
> contradicted by evidence. I see no correlation between gap size
> between functions and total size and no necessary reason for there to
> be such a correlation. This is the real argument you need to make and
> keep failing to make, instead presenting bogus irrelevant numbers
> (that you know are bogus and irrelevant) like 1000 instead.
It's not the total size, but the minimum required threshold size and
specificity that comes into play. The fact that you cannot see a
correlation between an increase in such a required structural minimum
and a resulting increase in average gap size is simply deliberate
blindness to reality as far as I can tell. The same correlation
occurs in every language/information system that we know of -
including written and spoken human languages and information systems
such as computer code. All have the same problem. This problem is
what prevents computers from being able to evolve their own software
beyond very low levels of functional complexity and what keeps
computer programmers employed.
> > The
> > likely gap distance increases in a linear manner with each threshold
> > increase. So, by the time the threshold requirements are over 1000aa,
> > the likely gap distance is dozens of *changes* wide.
>
> And the spread around a mean of "dozens" is?
Extremely limited on the less-than-dozens side of the mean.
> If the mean gap distance
> for an organism is 24, what fraction of organisms (different species)
> will have a gap distance of 1? Of 2?
It depends upon the specificity of the gap. If the gap mean is 24
specific changes (20^24), then the odds are extremely low that any
organism in the pool of organisms would have a gap of only 1 or 2.
The odds of any organism having a gap of only 1 or 2 drop dramatically
with each increase in the mean gap size given a constant specificity.
It's a Poisson distribution in fact. Just plug in the numbers:
http://www.anesi.com/poisson.htm
< snip >
> > > I presented the papers that demonstrated the *fact* of clustering in
> > > structure (not sequence) space using real experimentally generated
> > > data on structures. You must have a black hole in your memory.
>
> > What you presented, if you recall, is a paper dealing with single
> > protein sequences projected onto 3-D space (down from hundreds of
> > dimensions). The "clustering" even at this relatively low level, was
> > quite widely spaced indeed (refer to the following links to refresh
> > your memory):
>
> There was clustering along axes and sparseness between the axes.
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html#Choi%20and%20Kim%2...
The "clustering" along the axes showed a clear decrease in clustering
with increase in the minimum size requirement. Also, let me repeat,
this "clustering" was only dealing single protein systems and was
projected from hundreds of dimensions onto just three dimensions.
This clustering isn't even close to what you need to save evolution.
This clustering actually demonstrates my position that increasing size
requirements widens the spaces between existing functional sequences -
it does not stay the same as you envision even at very low levels of
functional complexity.
> > > Remember that evolution works by *descent by modification* and not
> > > random 1000 step walks in functionless structure space.
>
> > Remember, and really try this time, that I'm not asking for 1000 step
> > walks in functionless structure space.
>
> Then *start* your frigging argument with your real argument instead of
> assuming that this bogus number is relevant to the argument you are
> making.
>
> Your *real* argument should be presented as follows.
>
> I assert [without evidence] that there is a strict linear relationship
> between the size of a protein (or the size of the existing minimum
> protein that has a function) and the number of mutational steps
> required to produce that function from some pre-existing protein that
> lacks that function (or in which the function is secondary to another
> function). According to my calculations [shown here for the first
> time] there is a linear relationship between the total size and the
> *mean* [median, modal] gap size. The variance in this mean gap size
> is [presented here for the first time]. For a protein of total size
> 1000, I calculate a mean gap size of x based on my algorithm
> [presented here for the first time]. Because the variance is +/- y,
> I calculate that it is impossible for any organism to have a gap size
> of 1-2 mutational steps (not just aa residues, which excludes chimera
> formation and endoduplications) in the time frame consistent with the
> geological age of the earth. This is evidenced by there being no
> possible protein homologous either in part or in whole to the protein
> of interest and no possible utility of intermediates in the gap size I
> present.
>From your perspective, that would be a much more honest rebuttle of my
position than to constantly misstate it so badly (even disregarding a
number of more minor misstatements in this paragraph of yours). I
heartily recommend that you use this paragraph in the future instead
of your usual blatant strawman dishonest tactics.
> But, nooooooo. All we get is the assertion that the number 1000 is
> somehow meaningful. It isn't.
It is meaningful, even by itself, in that there are no examples in all
of scientific literature of evolution in action beyond a minimum
structural threshold of 1000 specified amino acid residues. That's a
fact. That's a very good starting point - an interesting phenomenon
to explain. My hypothesis is that an expanding non-beneficial gap is
responsible. What's yours?
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rolf
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1182632107....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 3:19 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:00 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
> >
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> >
> > "It is very easy to apply my method to the real world for specific
> > materials, such as granite. Any time you find a very high degree of
> > reflexive symmetry in exhibited in the material of granite, say,
> > 10,000 irregularities on one side of the block that vary by over 100%
> > as measured from the center of the block and yet match, within
> > 0.00001%, *all* the opposing irregularities on the other side of
> > block, the artifactual nature of the block would be clear - even if
> > found on an alien planet without any knowledge of any aliens occupying
> > the planet."
> >
> > I'm not a mathematician so excuse my denseness, but as I understand it
> > you are saying that symmetry proves design. Are not a number of
> > natural objects perfectly symmetrical? Some crystals come to mind, for
> > example. And how many organisms do you think would attain your
> > criterion of matching within 0.00001% one side of their body to the
> > other?
> >
> > Baron Bodissey
> > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> > nothing but sea.
> > - Francis Bacon
>
> In women one breast is usually larger than the other and they are
> asymetrical. We should do a study to demonstrate that it isn't within
> 0.00001%. I don't care about the math. That is a heck of a lot more
> interesting than anything that Sean has ever come up with.
>
Reading Seanpit's postings gives me the same sickening feeling as reading
Dembski's blog. It seems like a desperate effort to deny reality by making
up all kinds of convoluted arguments.
It seems to me it would be sufficient if he could falsify the generally
accepted geological column. Our oil and mining industries depend on a
correct understanding and interpretation for their success and I can't for
the life of me believe that any scientist working in these fields would use
universally accepted theories and methods if they were false. I believe one
would get fired if one uttered a word in support of Sean's weird 'theories'.
Not before if and when that problem of understanding science has been
resolved for Sean do we need a discussion about all of his other
idiosyncrasies.
> Ron Okimoto
>
Lizzardwoman
news:1182674222.3...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
When I saw that outcrop, I was blown away.
It stands easily next to the flagellum in terms of shear amazement value,
whether you have seen a million other outcrops or not I think.
I don't see why you couldn't get as many theists lined up and claiming this
was evidence of design equal to the flagellum. Sean is missing that point
completely.
Nature is far and away more amazing, numinous, etc. than anything any
theology ever dreamed up. I think of being on a research vessel in the
middle of Lake Superior and noting that the water was almost completely
still. The surface was glasslike. And I was shocked, literally, by the
thought that this huge mass of lake water, at least as far as I could see in
all directions, could be so still. Like the Stillwater complex, the memory
of that has never left me.
Religious dogma cannot hold a candle to what is out there in nature to be
observed and understood.
Seanpit
> I was your main opponent. You are still mistaken, and apparently have not
> yet understood the explanations. Especially the part about Kolmogorov
> Complexity being uncomputable and therefore not useful for any kind of
> actual filter.
>
> Try going over the response where I provided the proof you requested above,
> in which I proved that the probability for a given finite string not being
> algorithmically ranndom with respect to a randomly selected Universal Turing
> Machine is effectively zero.
Try going over the part where I pointed out to you that this argument,
though true, becomes less and less relevant as the string continues to
increase in size.
You just don't seem to grasp the notion that though non-computable,
the concepts of KC do indeed play a key role in the detection of bias
and the ability to successfully predict the future of a growing string
with better than even odds of success - without knowing the actual
mechanism of string production. This concept can even be applied to
finite strings using a UTM based on a subsection of the finite string
and then seeing if the chosen UTM can successfully predict the rest of
the finite string. This is where the concept of symmetry comes into
play as far as predictability of a subset of 0101010 . . . regarding
the rest of the string. The larger the repetitive pattern of the
subset, inductive reasoning suggests that the odds that the next
characters in the sequence will share the same pattern increase.
Your arguments that knowledge of how the string is being produced is
required before useful bias can be detected or better than even odds
of success achieved by betting on what will come next is simply
mistaken - and obviously so. This is what places like Las Vegas are
built upon and this is the basis behind those that have successfully
beat Las Vegas at their own game. A few famous examples include
betting on roulette after analyzing many thousands of results from a
particular wheel, to determine the bias of that wheel for particular
numbers in the analyzed sequence. Knowledge about how the roulette
wheel actually worked was not needed before the obvious bias could be
detected in the resulting number sequence. This bias was used to win
millions of dollars. KC is related to how the bias was detected as
successfully used. Yet, you yourself said that you wouldn't bet any
money at all on such sequence information?! Go figure . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf...@comcast.net
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
>parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
>admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
>symmetry found in materials like granite or marble. There really is
>no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
>this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
>use it or something like it regarding biosystems.
how
does
design
work?
creationists keep telling us it's NOT by natural law. NO physical
forces involved. yet their conclusion is drawn from the physical
world, where such forces are ALWAYS involved
a fatal contradiction that seanpit can not and will not answer.
Seanpit
> > Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
> > parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
> > admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
> > symmetry found in materials like granite or marble.
>
> That may be the case, but you have not demonstrated any method of
> detecting it.
> You have *asserted* that your "method" can detect it. That's not the
> same thing.
The measurement of a very high degree of symmetry is the method
Richard. That isn't just an empty assertion. It is a clearly
falsifiable hypothesis and therefore a valid scientific position. If
you can falsify my parameters, have at it. Until then, they gain more
and more predictive value. If you want more statistical details, have
at it yourself. I don't need to provide the detail you demand before
my hypothesis becomes useful as a real falsifiable scientific
hypothesis with very useful predictive power.
Seanpit
> Perhaps you should start by explaining how you know what your
> methodology for detecting "design" will show when nobody has ever
> applied your methodology.
>
> Scientists all over the world are waiting with bated breath to know
> how this can be done. After all, here we are in our laboratories, in
> the field, hunched over old bones in museum basements measuring and
> recording, then applying our methodology to the data set to see what
> results it produces. Your method seems to cut out that drudgery, and
> lead to results *without* any of that tedious business of data
> gathering, or processing that data.
Not true. At least some experience is needed with the material in
question before my method of symmetry measurement as a measure of
likely artifact can be reasonably applied.
> So please explain this apparent paradox.
>
> Surely, as an honest man, you are not claiming to know the outcome of
> something you haven't actually carried through? Wouldn't that be,
> well, lying?
I've actually had a fair amount of personal experience with the
material of granite. I don't have to tell you about all the rough
measurements I've taken before I can be quite certain that the
parameters I've listed are extremely unlikely to be the result of non-
deliberate processes when it comes to the material of granite. This
hypothesis is based on experience, not completely blind speculation.
While my experience is admittedly limited, science does not demand
complete knowledge regarding anything before a valid scientific
hypothesis can be proposed. All that is required is that the
hypothesis explain a particular phenomenon in a falsifiable manner.
I've done that. Now, try falsifying my position with regard to
symmetry and artifact regarding the material of granite.
I know you love to paint your opponents as either insane or dishonest
and seem to strongly favor using "dishonest" regarding me and my
ideas. I'd back off of this accusation if I were you. Anyone reading
what I have to say with a candid mind can clearly see that I'm being
as honest as I possibly can. Deluded? - maybe, but dishonest - a very
hard sell.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
>
> >news:1182598977.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Jun 23, 2:13 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> > | > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> writes:
> > | >
> > | > > I note that Pitman's reply did not deal with the question; radio
> > | > > active dating; as that would get him into the age of the birth
> > | > > debate, from which he has been fleeing for years.
> > | >
> > | > Age of the birth?
> > |
> > | Pretty strange mistake.
> > |
> > | that ALL life was created 6000 years ago. So oddly, what I said
> > | was not a clear error, and I could (with an almost straight face)
> > | have claimed that I intended what I said.
>
> > Then he has the identical problem Zoe has, to wit, to explain how young
> > fossils are trapped in old rock formations.
>
> Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
> containing young fossils?
>
> most of the geologic column are old. They are also young. However, I
> do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
> sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
> indeed.
>
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Have you read the relevant chapters in "Palaeobiology" which go into
great detail on the taphonomy of several fossil lagerstatten?
If not, why not? Is it that the only way that you can preserve your
beliefs is by deliberately maintaining your ignorance on the subject?
Do you think that ignorance of a subject gives your views on the
subject any weight?
RF
Seanpit
Oh please - Can you explain how human design works? Of course not.
One does not need to be able to explain how deliberate design works
before one can detect that it has been involved. I mean really, even
SETI scientists think they can detect the activities of alien
intelligences without having actually met the aliens or knowing how
their intelligence is actually produced. This isn't a "fatal
contradiction". You just don't understand the problem.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:39 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Yet, if you refuse to admit to seeing the validity of the application
> > > of symmetry to the material of granite, there is no way we can move on
> > > to more general applications of this concept.
>
> > You have never applied your method to any material, yet you claim to
> > know what the application of your method will show.
>
> But I have applied my method to materials such as granite. If you can
> falsify my position, regarding the material of granite, please do list
> your argument. Otherwise, what do you have as a counter?
>
> > How do you know?
>
> I don't know with 100% perfection - that's impossible. But, I do know
> with a very high degree of predictive value. If you think otherwise,
> please do present your evidence that falsifies my position regarding
> the material of granite and the parameters I've just listed . . . and
> good luck ; )
>
> Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
> parameters when it comes to the material of granite.
But only because you admit that you are sneaking in outside knowledge
about the limitations of what can happen to granite in the absence of
humans when you say that you have to *know* something about the
material in question.
And, of course, that means that you also have to sneak in information
about what can happen to living organisms in the absence of humans or
any other putative intelligent artificer and use a different method
(other than geometry) to distinguish between "designed, aka artificed"
and "not designed". And then show that, given your knowledge about
what can happen to living organisms over geological time frames, it is
impossible for such events to happen to living things in the absence
of an "artificer".
> Why not just
> admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
> symmetry found in materials like granite or marble.
No. It is not "obvious" if, by that word, you mean that you do not
have to actually present a specific and formal argument. One based
on, as you point out, your outside knowledge about what shapes granite
(but not salt crystals) can take in the absence of human designers.
And then you would also have to do the same for living systems and
whatever measure you consider valid for detecting design in that
*different* system.
> There really is
> no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
> this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
> use it or something like it regarding biosystems. That is why you
> don't want to accept the obvious even when it comes to something so
> simply as high degrees of symmetry in granite being clearly
> artifactual.
I am specifically pointing out that the only way you can do this is by
sneaking in outside knowledge. And that you have to do that for
living systems as well, but also need a different metric to
distinguish between "designed" features of living things and
"naturally evolvable" features of living things.
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
To recap:
Your method consists of the following stages, and I have included your
comments which confirm that these are the stages
"> 1) Identifying all natural processes affecting the form of granite
How many times are you going to ask this same question? I've told you
over a dozen times now, personally, that all natural processes with
the
potential to affect a granite form do NOT need to be identified. My
"methodology" is based on determining nearly identical limits to a
subset of non-deliberate processes as one observes them interacting
with granite over time. Since many different non-deliberate processes
share pretty much the same limitations with respect to creating
certain
features, like symmetry, with granite and other homogenously mixed
materials like marble, or flint, this consistency can be used to
extrapolate to the entire set of potential non-deliberate processes -
hypothesizing, through inductive reasoning, that the entire set will
also share the same limitations as the subset shares."
So if you have applied your method, where is your data set?
Which parameters did you measure?
How big was your sample size?
What procedures did you use to ensure that your samples were
representative of the range of variation found in natural objects?
What measures did you use to determine the minimum size of sample
needed to provide accurate results?
"> 2) Recording the range of forms produced by such processes
You record the range of granite forms produced by a subset of
non-deliberate processes and show that all of these non-deliberate
forces have pretty much the same limitations when it comes to a
certain
characteristic, like symmetry."
So where is this record?
What methods of analysis did you use?
"> 3) Calculating the statistical range of the forms produced by such
> processes.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces."
So what statistical methods did you use?
How did you describe a three-dimensional form in a way which allows
statistical analysis to carried out?
If you used only two-dimensional forms which can be described
mathematically using fourier analysis, how did you determine that this
two-dimensional shape is a suitable proxy for a three-dimensional
object?
"> 4) Demonstrating that there is a set of characteristics shared by
*ALL*
> such forms.
Yes, - by a subset of non-deliberate forces."
So how have you demonstrated this? Where is your demonstration? Who
have you showed it to?
"> 5) Demonstrating that your statistical method can provide a
> statistically valid estimate of the chance of a granite cube being the
> outcome of such processes.
Yes, - by extrapolation to the whole set of non-deliberate random-type
forces."
So what is this statistical method?
"> You have not carried through any of the stages, yet you claim
> conclusions based on your methodology.
I have carried them out. I haven't published anything yet, but that
doesn't mean I don't have enough information to present a very
reasonable hypothesis."
This is, I think, a bald-faced lie. You haven't gathered any data. You
haven't used any statistical tools to analyze any data. You have not
established any parameters.
" If you think my hypothesis is clearly in error,
you must believe that my hypothesis can be easily falsified - making
it
a valid scientific statement. If you have such falsifying
information,
I'd be very glad to know about it. Please do present it to me and I'll
send you $1,000 for your trouble - no risk to you. "
You have not presented any hypothesis. You have made assertions about
the findings of a method which it is very clear that you have not
applied, or even thought about in any detail.
So, Sean, you are lying.
If you want to prove me wrong, tell us a few things:
1) where is your data set?
2) Which parameters did you measure?
3) How big was your sample size?
4) What procedures did you use to ensure that your samples were
representative of the range of variation found in natural objects?
5) What measures did you use to determine the minimum size of sample
needed to provide accurate results?
6) How did you describe three-dimensional forms mathematically in a
way which allows statistical analysis to be carried out?
7) What statistical methods did you use to analyze your dataset?
You claim to have carried through all the stages of your method.
I say that you are lying.
So prove me wrong by producing some evidence, or be exposed as a liar.
RF
Seanpit
wrote:
> | Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
> | containing young fossils?
>
> There are no old rocks containing young fossils.
I agree ; )
> That impossibility arises
> in imagination only out of your requirements for an old physical world and
> young life.
Actually, the sedimentary rocks are young in my view - so there is no
real paradox from my perspective - you see?
> It is ruled out but mutually butressing observations.
That's where we disagree . . .
> What is your explanation for fossils that are at most ~6K years old being
> incorporated in rocks that are much, much older. I can't remember Zoe's
> explanation if she ever provided one. Do you agree with her if you recall?
I don't think the rocks in which the fossils are incorporated are much
much older.
> | I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the rocks of
> | most of the geologic column are old. They are also young. However, I
> | do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
> | sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
> | indeed.
>
> How do you explain:
>
> 1. The Green River Formations?
> 2. Chalk formations?
What about them requires them to be old? Chalk can form very very
fast given the appropriate neutrient level that promoted algal
blooms.
For further discussion see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
> sharon
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
You keep 'forgetting' that the number that is relevant is not 10,000
or 1000 or 100. It is the number of mutational steps required to
generate a "function" from a pre-existing system that lacks that
"function".
How many mutational steps, at a minimum, is required to produce the
flagellar motility *function* from a pre-existing system with an
independently useful rotateable pore containing a pilin or other whip-
like structure and a motor system designed to cause movement at a
distance by the flow of either ions or the breakdown of ATP. I
mention both possibilities because flagellar motility has been
independently evolved using different pre-existing and useful
subsystems in eubacteria and archae.
Actual experiments demonstrate that, in a system where the "function"
does not exist, but the necessary pre-existing structures do, it is
*possible* to generate the "function" in a single mutational step by a
deletion fusion that accomplishes the linkage in a *different* way
than the original system worked by. That is, regardless of the total
size of the system in the end, there is no correlation to the number
of required mutational steps needed to produce a new "function". All
that is needed is the appropriate positioning of two genes, and gene
rearrangements occur neutrally all the time, meaning that *some*
organism at *some* time is likely to have the appropriate
arrangement. And, as I have pointed out, it is not the "mean" number
of mutational steps that is relevant to evolving a new function. It
is the *minimum* number. After all, bacteria can and do survive in
the absence of flagella (flagella are a nice benefit in some
environments, but if the competition doesn't have them you are not at
a selective disadvantage). And we do not require flagella to evolve
independently a thousand times. Once is enough. After that, lineages
with flagella may displace and drive to extinction (or into niches
where flagella are not needed) lineages that lack flagella. That is,
subsequent evolution of flagella will be primarily vertical.
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
You claim not only to have a statistical method, Sean, but claim to
have carried it out.
1) What method did you use to record three-dimensional forms as
numerical data?
2) Which parameters did you measure?
3) How big is your dataset?
4) How did you determine that your dataset is large enough to give the
level of statistical confidence you need to draw the conclusions that
you have?
I don't believe that you have carried out any form of statistical
analysis on the range of forms in granite.
> While my experience is admittedly limited, science does not demand
> complete knowledge regarding anything before a valid scientific
> hypothesis can be proposed.
You claim to have carried out a statistical analysis.
For a statistical analysis to be carried out you need numbers.
What numbers did you use, how did you acquire them, how did you verify
them, what methods of analysis did you use, and how did you test the
robustness of your conclusions?
> All that is required is that the
> hypothesis explain a particular phenomenon in a falsifiable manner.
> I've done that.
No, you haven't.
You have asserted that you have carried through a statistical method
of determining if a granite object is natural or "designed".
For a statistical analysis to be carried out you need numbers.
What numbers did you use, how did you acquire them, how did you verify
them, what methods of analysis did you use, and how did you test the
robustness of your conclusions?
> Now, try falsifying my position with regard to
> symmetry and artifact regarding the material of granite.
>
> I know you love to paint your opponents as either insane or dishonest
> and seem to strongly favor using "dishonest" regarding me and my
> ideas.
I'm not painting you as dishonest, Sean.
You are doing it to yourself by claiming to have carried through a
methodology which you patently have not done.
> I'd back off of this accusation if I were you. Anyone reading
> what I have to say with a candid mind can clearly see that I'm being
> as honest as I possibly can. Deluded? - maybe, but dishonest - a very
> hard sell.
>
If you are being honest, please tell us:
1) What method did you use to record three-dimensional forms as
numerical data?
2) Which parameters did you measure?
3) How big is your dataset?
4) How did you determine that your dataset is large enough to give the
level of statistical confidence you need to draw the conclusions that
you have?
Unless you can do so, you are exposed as being dishonest.
It is perfectly clear that you have *NOT* carried through the
methodology you claim to have done - i.e. a *STATISTICAL* method of
distinguishing between artifacts and natural objects.
I suggest that you withdraw the assertion that you have.
RF
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Lizzardwoman
news:1182699527.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 23, 4:15 pm, "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
| wrote:
|
| > | Seems like you have the same problem - how to explain old rocks
| > | containing young fossils?
| >
| > There are no old rocks containing young fossils.
|
| I agree ; )
|
| > That impossibility arises
| > in imagination only out of your requirements for an old physical world
and
| > young life.
|
| Actually, the sedimentary rocks are young in my view - so there is no
| real paradox from my perspective - you see?
So you are saying all the fossil-bearing strata (including fossil microbes)
are no older than ~6K y? That is demonstrably false even without resort to
radchem data.
| > It is ruled out but mutually butressing observations.
|
| That's where we disagree . . .
Well, you have to understand the data in order to agree or disagree, yes?
Do you understand how the Green River Formation and chalk deposits formed?
| > What is your explanation for fossils that are at most ~6K years old
being
| > incorporated in rocks that are much, much older. I can't remember Zoe's
| > explanation if she ever provided one. Do you agree with her if you
recall?
|
| I don't think the rocks in which the fossils are incorporated are much
| much older.
What direct evidence in your possession supports this thought?
Are you aware of facts that rule this out? If you understood the facts that
rule this out, are you emotionally capable of accepting that life is older
than ~6K years?
How do you explain all the scientists who are Christians (two of which were
on my doctoral committee) yet accept the facts of a few billion year old
earth and evolution over those few billion years? Are they all just too
dumb or are they lying? Why are you smarter and more correct than folks who
study this stuff for decades?
| > | I should also clarify one more thing - I don't believe the rocks of
| > | most of the geologic column are old. They are also young. However, I
| > | do believe that the material that originally gave rise to the
| > | sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were probably very old
| > | indeed.
| >
| > How do you explain:
| >
| > 1. The Green River Formations?
| > 2. Chalk formations?
|
| What about them requires them to be old? Chalk can form very very
| fast given the appropriate neutrient level that promoted algal
| blooms.
If you would actually investigate these matters, you could answer for
yourself why they necessarily indicate an age > ~6K y.
You, like Zoe, have an emotional block to seeking out facts and evidence
that contradicts your religious inculcation.
| For further discussion see:
|
| http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html
| http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
I scanned those TOCs. Do you address either the Green River Formation or
chalk deposits? An understanding of those examples would disabuse you of a
YEC world view. I suggest this is why you refrain from investigating them
in a meaningful way. You have much in common with Zoe and I feel sorry for
the predicament you are in.
As folks here say, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not
entitled to your own facts. The entire YEC enterprise is predicated on
having their own "facts," identical in this regard to alchemy and astrology.
Do you also subscribe to astrology and alchemy?
hersheyhv
But ONLY when I have explicitly required you to do so. Otherwise you
pretend that all you have to do is wave the large number around and
not have to deal with the real number.
> Don't you remember me explaining to you many times
> that the gap size is always smaller than the minimum structural
> threshold size? Yet, you continually get these concepts confused over
> and over again. You has some huge block in your brain to remembering
> this particular concept even though it really isn't that difficult.
Again. I am not confused. I am simply trying to get you to
explicitly present a good argument rather than pretend that waving the
larger number is relevant. I am glad that you do remember that the
*real* number you need is much smaller than the 1000 number you wave
around. But, since the smaller number, the one you really need, seems
to be nothing but a wild-assed guess (WAG) that you produce ONLY when
forced to, I do have to keep forcing you to focus on the *relevant*
number rather than the *irrelevant* total size number.
> I simply don't believe that you really can't understand and so I must
> assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position at this
> point. That is deliberate false misrepresentation Howard - deliberate
> strawman building. Why do you feel the need to use
> misrepresentation? If you want to clarify my position, why don't you
> just clarify it using honest means instead of misrepresentation where
> I have to constantly point out to you that you are in fact
> misrepresenting me yet again?
I am not misrepresenting the fact that you need to be *forced* to
admit that the number you keep waving about is NOT the number you
need. And that you apparently have no way of determining the number
you need from the larger number. That all you can do is throw out a
WAG.
>
> > If you are assuming that you can positively
> > determine the number of random or neutral steps as some mathematical
> > processing of the number 1000, then get the right number, not 1000.
> > The number 1000 is completely irrelevant and is only presented to make
> > it *appear* (falsely, which even you acknowledge when forced to) that
> > you need 1000 changes. IOW, you are using 1000 for its propaganda
> > value and only its propaganda value.
>
> For the umpteenth time Howard, the 1000aa threshold is simply that
> threshold beyond which there are no examples of evolution in action
> listed in literature.
Evidence? I have presented *evidence* that larger systems can evolve
to produce modified (but new) function (strep resistance in ribosomes)
and even novel ways of linking motor subsystems to rotateable pore +
whip to generate a *new* function of rotateable motility in an
organism that lacked that function. Where is this so-called
*evidence* that *real* systems act like your hypothetical model of
sequence space? Where is the so-called *evidence* that there actually
is a correlation between system size and gap size?
> My hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is
> linearly expanding non-beneficial gaps.
At present this is an unsupported assertion that appears to be
contradicted by evidence. I have seen no evidence supporting such a
correlation. I have seen you pretend that a particular irrelevant
model of evolution involving random spacing of functions in total
sequence space and a number of other unsupported assumptions would
lead you to conclude that, *if* life were like that, there would be
such gaps. But the evidence of *real* systems that have evolved and
how they evolve (such as the aldosterone/cortisone receptor or the
color vision of primates or the different embryonic/fetal/adult beta
globins) says your model is irrelevant at best.
> The evidence to back this
> hypothesis up is found in real experimental evidence
Where? You have presented a hypothetical model that is irrelevant to
any mechanism of evolution that I have ever seen described. That is,
you have presented a strawman to argue against. When you are not
pretending that somehow the gap is 1000, you then pretend that it is
smaller but still too large by assuming that the relevant gap is the
mean gap (which you have no way of calculating) and not the minimum
gap allowed by variance.
> as well as
> analysis of existing functionally beneficial biosystems that do indeed
> become more and more widely separated from each other, in a linear
> manner, with each additional minimum structural threshold
> requirement.
That is an unsupported assertion. And the mean gap size would be
irrelevant in any case, since evolution would occur via the smallest
gap reasonably likely to occur by the variance in gap size. The
minimum gap is always one mutational step, but several steps still
make evolution of a function possible.
> Compare this with your notion that the minimum possible gap size, a
> single change, is always the most likely gap size regardless of the
> minimum structural threshold requirements under consideration. This
> notion of yours is what is the true fantasy - not supported by any
> statistical or experimental evidence.
*When* an evolutionary event occurs, it is made possible because the
number of mutational steps required is small enough. *When*
evolutionary events do not occur, it is because too many mutational
steps are required. This means that most evolutionary events will
produce new proteins by duplication and divergence or by chimera
formation or other mutational steps producing systems that, in
general, will have sequence homology to pre-existing proteins
(although there may be subsequent neutral drift over very long
geological time frames that can obscure this homology). That, in
fact, is what is observed.
Your model of evolution *necessarily* involving mean gap distance
crossings (or, as you keep implying with the numbers you keep
presenting while continuing to only produce the WAG relevant number
when forced to, even larger distances that amount to total sequence
size) rather than only occurring when the distances are minimal (a few
mutational steps) is irrelevant.
> > > > IOW, you keep positing
> > > > that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
> > > > away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
> > > > completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
> > > > keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
>
> > > I deny this false strawman of your own creation *because* it has never
> > > been my position and my own calculations have never supported this
> > > notion either. What the 1000aa threshold does is falsify your notion
> > > that the minimum possible distance (i.e., one residue *change* from
> > > something that already exists) is always the most likely distance
> > > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements for the
> > > function(s) in question.
>
> > The 1000 aa number is utterly without relevance to *how* things
> > evolve. It is a GIGO number used for propaganda purposes. The
> > minimum possible distance between *functions* or *non-function to
> > function* is always one aa. That does not mean that such a small gap
> > always exists. But for the subset of functional proteins that *do*
> > exist in organisms, there almost always is a possible precursor that
> > is not *too far* away wrt a *functional* change.
>
> You have absolutely no evidence to support this bald assertion aside
> from your faith that it must be true because you are so sure Darwinian-
> style evolution is true. Outside of this bravado of yours, there is
> no statistical or experimental evidence to back your notions up here.
> Sorry. The evidence is clearly weighing against you.
The evidence that supports this is the fact of sequence homology of
members of protein families that perform different functions. The
homology is evidence that evolution works by modification of pre-
existing proteins and not by random walks between average gaps. How,
given your model of sequence space, do you explain the ubiquity of
sequence homology (and the even greater ubiquity of structural
homology) in proteins that perform different functions? How does
your model of evolution by random walks in total sequence space
explain the homology of proteins in systems like flagella to proteins
in other functionally useful subsystems?
> > > That notion of yours is clearly mistaken.
> > > The odds that the step will be the minimum possible distance drop
> > > dramatically with each additional structural threshold minimum
> > > requirement. That's a cold hard fact.
Yet you keep failing to present any actual *evidence* that there is a
correlation between total size (and that is your measurement of
"structural threshold minimum [sic] requirement") and gap size in
*real* proteins that *really* have evolved. What you are presenting
is a bogus artificial model of evolution (your abstract ideas about
total sequence space and the distribution of functional islands) that
has no relevance to how evolution is actually proposed to work.
> > No it is not. It is an assumption that you make based on an _ex post
> > facto_ fallacy. I am not interested in the evolution of some
> > hypothetical average protein from some hypothetical other protein. I
> > am interested in how the proteins that actually exist in real
> > organisms evolved. And in the real proteins that exist in real
> > organism, we see extensive homologies and gene families that are
> > evidence that these *real* proteins evolved by relatively minor
> > changes in pre-existing proteins.
>
> There are always homologies, as there are in any language/information
> system. The problem here is with your notion of what is and what
> isn't "extensive". With each increase in the minimum structural
> threshold requirements the homologies decrease in a linear manner
> creating a linearly increasing gap in the number of non-beneficial
> changes that would be required on average. A 95% homology might seem
> like "extensive" homology, but the remaining 5% is enough to
> absolutely stall out evolutionary mechanisms this side of trillions of
> years when that 5% represents just a few dozen necessary "changes".
You seem to be falsely assuming that most of the 5% difference
represents functionally relevant differences. That is obviously
untrue, since many different sequences can perform the same function
(which is why the cytochrome c's and any other protein from different
organisms can differ in sequence yet be quite capable of performing
the same function when introduced into another organism). Most, if
not all, of the 5% difference seen in proteins with the same function
represents *selectively neutral* changes that are a consequence of
neutral drift which is almost entirely a function of time and mutation
rate since the two species diverged from a common ancestor.
> A
> 20% homology, as exists between the flagellar motility system and the
> toxin injector system TTSS might seem "extensive" but it is absolutely
> devastating to the ToE when one actually start to consider the
> absolute gap size this number represents.
Only if one assumes that each and every difference is selectively
important rather than a consequence of drift. But that would be an
assumption in total denial of evidence.
> < snip >
>
>
>
> > > Evolution can *only* work, in the way you envision, if the gaps remain
> > > the same size or nearly the same minimum possible size (i.e., one)
> > > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements involved
> > > for achieving higher and higher level functions. If the gaps actually
> > > increase, in a linear manner like I propose, your evolutionary
> > > mechanism is dead in the water on the lowest rungs of the ladder of
> > > functional complexity.
>
> > Then you have to present the evidence that, for those proteins that
> > *did* evolve, some specific gap size between functional intermediates
> > actually is a linear function of the total size. You have failed to
> > do that. I have told you how to do it. For new functions that have
> > been observed to evolve, you plot the number of mutational steps
> > required to generate that function from its precursor against the size
> > of the protein (or the large fraction thereof that gets you the 1000
> > number). What you will find is that there is no correlation.
>
> There is a correlation - that's just it. The larger the minimum
> structural threshold, the larger the gap between the system in
> question and the next closest intact independently functional system.
> That's a fact. Your notion that the gap size is always one regardless
> of the structural threshold requirements is demonstrably false.
You *assert* that there is this correlation only on the basis of an
irrelevant hypothetical model of evolution that doesn't look like
evolution. I have seen no evidence that, for real systems, there is
any such correlation between total size and gap size. In fact, I have
not seen how you actually determine your gap size from your knowledge
of total size. What is the mathematical relationship between these
two numbers?
> > > That's just it. Those useful sequences that have been found are not
> > > clustered to nearly the degree that they would have to have been
> > > clustered to have been found by evolutionary mechanisms - at least not
> > > when it comes to functional systems that require a minimum structural
> > > threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
>
> > You have no evidence to support this assertion. And, in fact, in
> > structure space, there is clustering of proteins to a considerable
> > degree.
>
> Not beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity.
How do you measure "functional" complexity? Oh, I know. It is the
size of the system in aa's. So how does size determine "function"?
> Even
> relatively small single protein systems are fairly widely spaced and
> become more and more widely spaced with increasing structural
> threshold requirements. The pattern is clear even at very low levels
> of functional complexity.
How is size a measure of "functional" complexity?
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html#Choi%20and%20Kim%2...
>
> > > Of course such relatively simple enzymatic-type functions can be found
> > > very easily, because their minimum structural threshold limitations
> > > are far less than my 1000aa cut-off limitation. None of the enzymatic
> > > functions that you just listed require more than a few hundred
> > > residues for minimum useful function of said type - not one.
>
> > And in no case is the number of residues in the proteins relevant to
> > how the protein
>
> ...
>
> read more »
hersheyhv
But ONLY when I have explicitly required you to do so. Otherwise you
pretend that all you have to do is wave the large number around and
not have to deal with the real number.
> Don't you remember me explaining to you many times
> that the gap size is always smaller than the minimum structural
> threshold size? Yet, you continually get these concepts confused over
> and over again. You has some huge block in your brain to remembering
> this particular concept even though it really isn't that difficult.
Again. I am not confused. I am simply trying to get you to
explicitly present a good argument rather than pretend that waving the
larger number is relevant. I am glad that you do remember that the
*real* number you need is much smaller than the 1000 number you wave
around. But, since the smaller number, the one you really need, seems
to be nothing but a wild-assed guess (WAG) that you produce ONLY when
forced to, I do have to keep forcing you to focus on the *relevant*
number rather than the *irrelevant* total size number.
> I simply don't believe that you really can't understand and so I must
> assume that you are deliberately misrepresenting my position at this
> point. That is deliberate false misrepresentation Howard - deliberate
> strawman building. Why do you feel the need to use
> misrepresentation? If you want to clarify my position, why don't you
> just clarify it using honest means instead of misrepresentation where
> I have to constantly point out to you that you are in fact
> misrepresenting me yet again?
I am not misrepresenting the fact that you need to be *forced* to
admit that the number you keep waving about is NOT the number you
need. And that you apparently have no way of determining the number
you need from the larger number. That all you can do is throw out a
WAG.
>
> > If you are assuming that you can positively
> > determine the number of random or neutral steps as some mathematical
> > processing of the number 1000, then get the right number, not 1000.
> > The number 1000 is completely irrelevant and is only presented to make
> > it *appear* (falsely, which even you acknowledge when forced to) that
> > you need 1000 changes. IOW, you are using 1000 for its propaganda
> > value and only its propaganda value.
>
> For the umpteenth time Howard, the 1000aa threshold is simply that
> threshold beyond which there are no examples of evolution in action
> listed in literature.
Evidence? I have presented *evidence* that larger systems can evolve
to produce modified (but new) function (strep resistance in ribosomes)
and even novel ways of linking motor subsystems to rotateable pore +
whip to generate a *new* function of rotateable motility in an
organism that lacked that function. Where is this so-called
*evidence* that *real* systems act like your hypothetical model of
sequence space? Where is the so-called *evidence* that there actually
is a correlation between system size and gap size?
> My hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is
> linearly expanding non-beneficial gaps.
At present this is an unsupported assertion that appears to be
contradicted by evidence. I have seen no evidence supporting such a
correlation. I have seen you pretend that a particular irrelevant
model of evolution involving random spacing of functions in total
sequence space and a number of other unsupported assumptions would
lead you to conclude that, *if* life were like that, there would be
such gaps. But the evidence of *real* systems that have evolved and
how they evolve (such as the aldosterone/cortisone receptor or the
color vision of primates or the different embryonic/fetal/adult beta
globins) says your model is irrelevant at best.
> The evidence to back this
> hypothesis up is found in real experimental evidence
Where? You have presented a hypothetical model that is irrelevant to
any mechanism of evolution that I have ever seen described. That is,
you have presented a strawman to argue against. When you are not
pretending that somehow the gap is 1000, you then pretend that it is
smaller but still too large by assuming that the relevant gap is the
mean gap (which you have no way of calculating) and not the minimum
gap allowed by variance.
> as well as
> analysis of existing functionally beneficial biosystems that do indeed
> become more and more widely separated from each other, in a linear
> manner, with each additional minimum structural threshold
> requirement.
That is an unsupported assertion. And the mean gap size would be
irrelevant in any case, since evolution would occur via the smallest
gap reasonably likely to occur by the variance in gap size. The
minimum gap is always one mutational step, but several steps still
make evolution of a function possible.
> Compare this with your notion that the minimum possible gap size, a
> single change, is always the most likely gap size regardless of the
> minimum structural threshold requirements under consideration. This
> notion of yours is what is the true fantasy - not supported by any
> statistical or experimental evidence.
*When* an evolutionary event occurs, it is made possible because the
number of mutational steps required is small enough. *When*
evolutionary events do not occur, it is because too many mutational
steps are required. This means that most evolutionary events will
produce new proteins by duplication and divergence or by chimera
formation or other mutational steps producing systems that, in
general, will have sequence homology to pre-existing proteins
(although there may be subsequent neutral drift over very long
geological time frames that can obscure this homology). That, in
fact, is what is observed.
Your model of evolution *necessarily* involving mean gap distance
crossings (or, as you keep implying with the numbers you keep
presenting while continuing to only produce the WAG relevant number
when forced to, even larger distances that amount to total sequence
size) rather than only occurring when the distances are minimal (a few
mutational steps) is irrelevant.
> > > > IOW, you keep positing
> > > > that evolution works by starting with some point that is 1000 steps
> > > > away from *any* functionally useful end point and proceeds by a
> > > > completely random neutral walk to the single specified end point. You
> > > > keep denying that, but it remains exactly what your math proposes.
>
> > > I deny this false strawman of your own creation *because* it has never
> > > been my position and my own calculations have never supported this
> > > notion either. What the 1000aa threshold does is falsify your notion
> > > that the minimum possible distance (i.e., one residue *change* from
> > > something that already exists) is always the most likely distance
> > > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements for the
> > > function(s) in question.
>
> > The 1000 aa number is utterly without relevance to *how* things
> > evolve. It is a GIGO number used for propaganda purposes. The
> > minimum possible distance between *functions* or *non-function to
> > function* is always one aa. That does not mean that such a small gap
> > always exists. But for the subset of functional proteins that *do*
> > exist in organisms, there almost always is a possible precursor that
> > is not *too far* away wrt a *functional* change.
>
> You have absolutely no evidence to support this bald assertion aside
> from your faith that it must be true because you are so sure Darwinian-
> style evolution is true. Outside of this bravado of yours, there is
> no statistical or experimental evidence to back your notions up here.
> Sorry. The evidence is clearly weighing against you.
The evidence that supports this is the fact of sequence homology of
members of protein families that perform different functions. The
homology is evidence that evolution works by modification of pre-
existing proteins and not by random walks between average gaps. How,
given your model of sequence space, do you explain the ubiquity of
sequence homology (and the even greater ubiquity of structural
homology) in proteins that perform different functions? How does
your model of evolution by random walks in total sequence space
explain the homology of proteins in systems like flagella to proteins
in other functionally useful subsystems?
> > > That notion of yours is clearly mistaken.
> > > The odds that the step will be the minimum possible distance drop
> > > dramatically with each additional structural threshold minimum
> > > requirement. That's a cold hard fact.
Yet you keep failing to present any actual *evidence* that there is a
correlation between total size (and that is your measurement of
"structural threshold minimum [sic] requirement") and gap size in
*real* proteins that *really* have evolved. What you are presenting
is a bogus artificial model of evolution (your abstract ideas about
total sequence space and the distribution of functional islands) that
has no relevance to how evolution is actually proposed to work.
> > No it is not. It is an assumption that you make based on an _ex post
> > facto_ fallacy. I am not interested in the evolution of some
> > hypothetical average protein from some hypothetical other protein. I
> > am interested in how the proteins that actually exist in real
> > organisms evolved. And in the real proteins that exist in real
> > organism, we see extensive homologies and gene families that are
> > evidence that these *real* proteins evolved by relatively minor
> > changes in pre-existing proteins.
>
> There are always homologies, as there are in any language/information
> system. The problem here is with your notion of what is and what
> isn't "extensive". With each increase in the minimum structural
> threshold requirements the homologies decrease in a linear manner
> creating a linearly increasing gap in the number of non-beneficial
> changes that would be required on average. A 95% homology might seem
> like "extensive" homology, but the remaining 5% is enough to
> absolutely stall out evolutionary mechanisms this side of trillions of
> years when that 5% represents just a few dozen necessary "changes".
You seem to be falsely assuming that most of the 5% difference
represents functionally relevant differences. That is obviously
untrue, since many different sequences can perform the same function
(which is why the cytochrome c's and any other protein from different
organisms can differ in sequence yet be quite capable of performing
the same function when introduced into another organism). Most, if
not all, of the 5% difference seen in proteins with the same function
represents *selectively neutral* changes that are a consequence of
neutral drift which is almost entirely a function of time and mutation
rate since the two species diverged from a common ancestor.
> A
> 20% homology, as exists between the flagellar motility system and the
> toxin injector system TTSS might seem "extensive" but it is absolutely
> devastating to the ToE when one actually start to consider the
> absolute gap size this number represents.
Only if one assumes that each and every difference is selectively
important rather than a consequence of drift. But that would be an
assumption in total denial of evidence.
> < snip >
>
>
>
> > > Evolution can *only* work, in the way you envision, if the gaps remain
> > > the same size or nearly the same minimum possible size (i.e., one)
> > > regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements involved
> > > for achieving higher and higher level functions. If the gaps actually
> > > increase, in a linear manner like I propose, your evolutionary
> > > mechanism is dead in the water on the lowest rungs of the ladder of
> > > functional complexity.
>
> > Then you have to present the evidence that, for those proteins that
> > *did* evolve, some specific gap size between functional intermediates
> > actually is a linear function of the total size. You have failed to
> > do that. I have told you how to do it. For new functions that have
> > been observed to evolve, you plot the number of mutational steps
> > required to generate that function from its precursor against the size
> > of the protein (or the large fraction thereof that gets you the 1000
> > number). What you will find is that there is no correlation.
>
> There is a correlation - that's just it. The larger the minimum
> structural threshold, the larger the gap between the system in
> question and the next closest intact independently functional system.
> That's a fact. Your notion that the gap size is always one regardless
> of the structural threshold requirements is demonstrably false.
You *assert* that there is this correlation only on the basis of an
irrelevant hypothetical model of evolution that doesn't look like
evolution. I have seen no evidence that, for real systems, there is
any such correlation between total size and gap size. In fact, I have
not seen how you actually determine your gap size from your knowledge
of total size. What is the mathematical relationship between these
two numbers?
> > > That's just it. Those useful sequences that have been found are not
> > > clustered to nearly the degree that they would have to have been
> > > clustered to have been found by evolutionary mechanisms - at least not
> > > when it comes to functional systems that require a minimum structural
> > > threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
>
> > You have no evidence to support this assertion. And, in fact, in
> > structure space, there is clustering of proteins to a considerable
> > degree.
>
> Not beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity.
How do you measure "functional" complexity? Oh, I know. It is the
size of the system in aa's. So how does size determine "function"?
> Even
> relatively small single protein systems are fairly widely spaced and
> become more and more widely spaced with increasing structural
> threshold requirements. The pattern is clear even at very low levels
> of functional complexity.
How is size a measure of "functional" complexity?
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html#Choi%20and%20Kim%2...
>
> > > Of course such relatively simple enzymatic-type functions can be found
> > > very easily, because their minimum structural threshold limitations
> > > are far less than my 1000aa cut-off limitation. None of the enzymatic
> > > functions that you just listed require more than a few hundred
> > > residues for minimum useful function of said type - not one.
>
> > And in no case is the number of residues in the proteins relevant to
> > how the protein
>
> ...
>
> read more »
richardal...@googlemail.com
Oh, and how about some of the assertions you make about the geological
column:
"One of the very foundations of evolution and popular science today is
the "geologic column."
FALSE. Evolution does not rely on the geological column, and neither
does "popular science". The primary evidence for evolution comes from
existing living organisms.
"This column is made up of layers of sedimentary rock that supposedly
formed over millions and even billions of years."
FALSE. The geological column is a theoretical construct based on rock
formations from many different geographical locations. The geological
record is made up of rocks of many different types, including igneous
and metamorphic rocks deposited within sedimentary structures and
intruding through sedimentary structures.
" Although not found in all locations and although it varies in
thickness as well as the numbers of layers present, this column can be
found generally over the entire globe. "
FALSE. The geological column is a theoretical construct, and rocks of
all ages *cannot* be found "all over the globe". In fact, most of the
surface rocks of the globe are those of ocean floors which are
generally much younger than sedimentary rocks on continental plates.
This is very elementary geology, and can be checked by reference to
almost any textbook on the subject.
"Many of its layers can even be found on top of great mountains - such
as Mt. Everest and the American Rockies. In some places, such as the
mile deep Grand Canyon, the layers of the column have been revealed in
dramatic display."
"As one looks at the geologic column, it is obvious that the contact
zones, between the various layers, are generally very flat and smooth
relative to each other (though the layers may be tilted relative to
what is currently horizontal or even warped since their original
"flat" formation). Many of the layers extend over hundreds of
thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth
and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of
one another (before they were warped).
FALSE. Generally they are not uniform in thickness over large areas,
and many sedimentary structures vary considerably in thickness even
over short distances.
> And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if not millions of years?
FALSE. The rate at which layers form varies widely. In some
sedimentary rock, such as volcanic tuffs, several meters thickness can
be formed in a single catastrophic event. In other formations,
deposition rates are very slow and it may take thousands of years to
form a few millimeters of rock.
> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that there should be a fair amount of weathering of each of these layers over that amount of time?
Yes, and we frequently find erosion surfaces in sedimentary
structures.
Here are some photographs of erosion surfaces:
http://www.uta.edu/paleomap/homepage/Schieberweb/Picture%20Pages/shphoto5.htm
http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/erosion.html
http://www.gly.uga.edu/speleoatlas/SAimage0605.html
http://www.severnichthys.co.uk/geology03.htm
http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/charlier/currentprojects/pics/tien_shan/naryn.jpg
> But this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see illustration).1 Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. Long term erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is only accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the geologic column so generally even and smooth relative to each other?
They aren't.
It's an outright falsehood to claim that they are.
When you start your web page with such a series of outright
falsehoods, what do you suppose that tells us about the quality of
your knowledge of geology or the soundness of your conclusions?
RF
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:37 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 6:20 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 8:34 am, hersheyhv <hersh...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 10:20 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > > > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
Actually I think *you* need to start with some such paragraph instead
of blathering on about 1000 aa residues. That is why I keep pointing
out that you are appearing to ignore your real argument and pretend
that the size number is relevant. That is not a strawman tactic. It
is a tactic designed to keep *you* from using a strawman argument.
So here is your opportunity. Start with the above paragraph and
*using real data rather than a hypothetical model* tell me how you
determine the mean gap size and its variance solely from knowledge of
the size of the smallest known protein with a particular function.
And then demonstrate that, for real proteins or real functions that we
know can evolve, that your calculation of gap size accurately reflects
reality.
[snip]
>
> < snip >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
TomS
<1182698493.4...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Seanpit stated..."
I'm used to seeing odd claims in t.o, but this one is worth remarking
on:
"Can you explain how human design works? Of course not."
Of course yes.
There is a lot that I know about how human design works.
I wonder what this chap could possibly have in mind.
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
wf...@comcast.net
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 8:02 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:29:28 -0700, Seanpit
>>
>> <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
>> >parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
>> >admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
>> >symmetry found in materials like granite or marble. There really is
>> >no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
>> >this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
>> >use it or something like it regarding biosystems.
>>
>> how
>>
>> does
>>
>> design
>>
>> work?
>>
>> creationists keep telling us it's NOT by natural law. NO physical
>> forces involved. yet their conclusion is drawn from the physical
>> world, where such forces are ALWAYS involved
>>
>> a fatal contradiction that seanpit can not and will not answer.
>
>Oh please - Can you explain how human design works? Of course not.
sure i can. absolutely.
1. a design is conceived.
2. it is implemented via the use of natural laws..forces such as
levers, inclined planes, etc.
and your explanation?
oh. you have none
QED
>One does not need to be able to explain how deliberate design works
yeah i know. you creationists keep saying that even though you say
that
1. we can look at nature to see design
2. we can't look at nature to see how design works
contradiction after contradiction.
>before one can detect that it has been involved. I mean really, even
>SETI scientists think they can detect the activities of alien
>intelligences without having actually met the aliens or knowing how
>their intelligence is actually produced.
jesus what goalpost moving. the reason they use RADIO is that RADIO is
an electromagnetic force...the kind that creationists say doesn't
exist.
This isn't a "fatal
>contradiction". You just don't understand the problem.
>
and YOU don't understand science.
hell you don't even understand religion.
Rolf
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1182699527.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
and calculations showing how they could have been deposited and eventually
end up where they are found today. Methods of determining age instead of
guesswork might perhaps be applicable as well? AFAIK, the geological column
was quite well researched and determined already before Darwin; isn't it
funny that by and large, no dramtic revisions have been made during 150
years?
wf...@comcast.net
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>That is why if you found a *granite* rock on any alien planet having
>the degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities as I've
>described, the design hypothesis would be far and away the most
>reasonable one and carry with it the greatest degree of predictive
>value.
nonsense. why wouldn't an unknown natural cause be more likely?
Ray Martinez
Sean: there is no insult in being called dishonest by persons who
believe that apes morphed into men and that design indicates blind
unintelligent process instead of invisible Designer.
If they said you were otherwise (honest) this would be good evidence
that you were not. The Pharisees (status quo) said Jesus was insane
and had a demon (= liar). Jesus said His servants are no better than
the Master and will be treated in like fashion.
Ray
Shane
Poor Ray, if only he actually read the bible, instead of just
accepting what Gene Scot said it says. To demonstrate the inanity of
Ray's position, let's look at somethin else the Pharisees said of
Jesus:
Matthew 22
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle
him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with
the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and
teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for
thou regardest not the person of men.
So according to Raylogic(tm) Jesus, at that time, was false, did not
teach the way of god, and lied.
> Jesus said His servants are no better than
> the Master and will be treated in like fashion.
By this logic one would expect that an identifier of his servants
would be that they die by crucifixion. Looks like ol Gene was a false
prophet after all.
chosp
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1182703472....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> FALSE. The geological column is a theoretical construct based on rock
> formations from many different geographical locations. The geological
> record is made up of rocks of many different types, including igneous
> and metamorphic rocks deposited within sedimentary structures and
> intruding through sedimentary structures.
R. Baldwin
> On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>> "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182608450.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> not
>> >> back up, the very thing he complains of.
>>
>> > I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
>> > counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
>> > that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
>> > experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
>> > yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
>> > evolving by any means from any starting point where the novel system
>> > arranged amino acid residues.
>>
>> You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
>> minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged
>> amino
>> acid residues."
>
> Oh please. What is the minimum number of codons it takes to code for
> a flagellar motility system? 100? 1,000? - - How about more than
> 10,000!
>
The quantity is not what matters. You, Sean, would have to exhaustively
demonstrate that the string of amino acids one mutation away, two mutations
away, three mutations away, etc. cannot possibly do anything useful for
life, whether or not it is still coding for a flagellar motility system.
R. Baldwin
>
>
>
>> I was your main opponent. You are still mistaken, and apparently have not
>> yet understood the explanations. Especially the part about Kolmogorov
>> Complexity being uncomputable and therefore not useful for any kind of
>> actual filter.
>>
>> Try going over the response where I provided the proof you requested
>> above,
>> in which I proved that the probability for a given finite string not
>> being
>> algorithmically ranndom with respect to a randomly selected Universal
>> Turing
>> Machine is effectively zero.
>
> Try going over the part where I pointed out to you that this argument,
> though true, becomes less and less relevant as the string continues to
> increase in size.
I did go over your arguments about "growing strings." I addressed them. You
made some rather ridiculous claims in the process, such as "It is possible
for the KC of a growing string to remain constant. If the algorithm based
on a particular UTM uccessfully predicts additions to a string, that
string's KC remains the same." For reference, that quote was in this post:
news:1175788133.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
and it is something you would only say if you don't understand the math. It
is precluded by the Pigeonhole Principle, which I explained in my reply to
you.
Sean, when you make such errors, why should I believe your other claims?
Furthermore, the relevance you object to is this: petending we actually
could compute Kolmogorov Complexity, if we took finite (and therefore
computable) strings producted by one UTM, and if we used a KC-based
martingale to make predictions about their successive symbols, and if the
martingale was derived from a susbstantially similar UTM, then we might
expect a reasonable good predictor for strings produced by short programs.
Hardly surprising. The martingale is at substantial risk of being "suckered
in" by discontinuities in the other program, however, and this can happen
anywhere, regardless of string length. I've explained this to you before.
For a concrete example, a program outputs the first 1000 digits of pi, then
10 digits of sqrt(pi). Martingales are likely to fail badly on such a
program, and without a priori knowledge about the source UTM and source
program, the existence of discontinuities is not decideable (see Rice's
Theorem).
BUT, if the strings were produced by a randomly selected UTM, the martingale
with near certainty would be testing algorithmically random strings with
respect to its own UTM, in which case it can ONLY make predictions about the
strings if they happen to be ergodic. Ergodic strings can be produced by
statistically random processes or by non-random processes. Non-ergodic
strings can be produced by statistically random processes or by non-random
processes.
You don't need anything so complicated as Kolmogorov Complexity to make
predictions about ergodic strings, because you can simply tally the symbol
pair frequencies to estimate the conditional probabilities of the symbols.
Now I will point out, Sean, that in your previous post you complained when I
referred to past arguments wihout list references to the relevant posts, and
said I have a habit of doing so - yet you just did the exact same thing
here. Would you not agree that you should hold yourself to the same standard
you ask others to meet?
>
> You just don't seem to grasp the notion that though non-computable,
> the concepts of KC do indeed play a key role in the detection of bias
> and the ability to successfully predict the future of a growing string
> with better than even odds of success - without knowing the actual
> mechanism of string production. This concept can even be applied to
> finite strings using a UTM based on a subsection of the finite string
> and then seeing if the chosen UTM can successfully predict the rest of
> the finite string. This is where the concept of symmetry comes into
> play as far as predictability of a subset of 0101010 . . . regarding
> the rest of the string. The larger the repetitive pattern of the
> subset, inductive reasoning suggests that the odds that the next
> characters in the sequence will share the same pattern increase.
No sir, that is incorrect. Martingales based on KC make predictions on
ergodic strings, or strings produced by short programs on UTMs similar to
the UTM on which the Martingale is based, so (1) you must at least know that
your string is in one of these two categories. Without a priori knowledge
that discontinuities do not exist in the UTM producing the specific strings,
the odds of success only increases with string length for the ergodic case,
because the existence of discontinuities is undecideable. Therefore, (2) you
must at least know the string is ergodic. Undersampling results in aliasing.
A martingale testing an undersampled signal will be making predictions on
the aliasing rather than on the source data, so (3) you must at least know
you are not testing an undersampled string. Here, then, are three facts you
would want to know besides the results of your martingale on the strings.
Furthermore, as I have repeatedly explained to you, all symmetry is with
respect to the reference computer. Humans usually (but not always) build
computers that use sequential ordering from left to right or right to left,
with symmetry defined on that basis. That is not the only way to define
symmetry. The number of ways to define symmetry in strings is uncountably
infinite, because the number of ways to arrange the description numbers in a
Universal Turing Machine is a power set on {0, 1}^*, just as the number of
ways to arrange the Gödel numbers is a power set on the natural numbers.
That is, the set of all symmetry measures for strings has cardinality
aleph-one, which is the cardinality of the set of real numbers.
>
> Your arguments that knowledge of how the string is being produced is
> required before useful bias can be detected or better than even odds
> of success achieved by betting on what will come next is simply
> mistaken - and obviously so.
Hah! See above. Tell me, do you understand what "ergodic" means and why that
has relevance to these martingales you dug up in the previous KC thread?
> This is what places like Las Vegas are
> built upon and this is the basis behind those that have successfully
> beat Las Vegas at their own game. A few famous examples include
> betting on roulette after analyzing many thousands of results from a
> particular wheel, to determine the bias of that wheel for particular
> numbers in the analyzed sequence. Knowledge about how the roulette
> wheel actually worked was not needed before the obvious bias could be
> detected in the resulting number sequence. This bias was used to win
> millions of dollars. KC is related to how the bias was detected as
> successfully used. Yet, you yourself said that you wouldn't bet any
> money at all on such sequence information?! Go figure . . .
>
Please provide cites for this. I am not willing to take your word for it,
that there was zero knowledge of (or at the very least, assumptions about)
the process.
I will note that you've misunderstood what I've said about betting. I might
be inclined to bet on a roulette wheel that showed a bias. It would depend
on observations unrelated to the action of the wheel. For example, if the
bias changed when a certain croupier was working, I would not bet on the
wheel - especially if it also depended who was gambling at the time. That
human element would be less predictable than a biased machine. If the bias
remained constant, I might be inclined to bet on the bias, but would stop
immediately if they took the wheel down for maintenance (which would alter
its biases, something that would have absolutely wrecked the scheme of the
person you described above).
richardal...@googlemail.com
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
If you are posting this to say that the geological column *does*
exist, I have to disagree with the talk.origins web page. There may be
places in which rocks of every geological period exist, but that is
not the geological column. It's a bit of the geological records in
which rocks representing every period in the geological column exist.
In practice, palaeontologists rarely to the broader divisions of the
geological column in only very general terms. The depth of these
periods is far to large to be useful. Stages, such as "Pliensbachian"
and "Hettangian" are more applicable, and even then we try to pin-
point the stratigraphic range to an ammonite zone, or a particular bed
in a formation. YOU can find more about these smaller sub-divisions
here: http://www.stratigraphy.org/geowhen/index.html
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
So are you saying that because I accept that the evidence shows that
humans have evolved from other apes means that Sean has carried out
the statistical study he claims to have?
I can't see a causal link.
I think Sean is lying because he claims to have done something which
he clearly hasn't. Do *you* think that Sean has gone through the
process of numeric data collection and mathematical analysis he claims
to have done? If you think that he has, perhaps you can explain his
resistance to posting any evidence whatsoever that he has done so.
RF
Ron O
Time to run Sean. Ray is trying to support you.
Before you run again, could you give an estimate as to when you will
make good on your claims about having an alternative to common descent
and the evidence for it that is just as good as the evidence that we
have for common descent? What ever happened to the wonderful stuff
about ID that you claimed that you could put up to teach in the public
schools? I know that you have been dodging the issues for years, but
this would be truely earth shattering junk.
Ron Okimoto
hersheyhv
>
> >That is why if you found a *granite* rock on any alien planet having
> >the degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities as I've
> >described, the design hypothesis would be far and away the most
> >reasonable one and carry with it the greatest degree of predictive
> >value.
>
> nonsense. why wouldn't an unknown natural cause be more likely?
It would at least have to be considered. Especially if the "natural"
conditions on this alien planet were significantly different from the
conditions on the earth. Under those circumstances, one could not
*automatically* sneak in prior knowledge about what was "natural" for
granite in the absence of humans and pretend that one hasn't done so.
TomS
<1182779096.1...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, hersheyhv stated..."
Excuse me, but I don't see the boundary being drawn between
"natural" and "designed".
Every design that I've ever seen, heard about, or can imagine, uses
natural means. Maybe I'm wrong about all designs being natural,
I'll admit that. Maybe someone has a description of a design
process that uses some other means.
But, granting that as a possibility, still - some designs are natural.
And I certainly don't see how "not natural" implies "designed".
Seanpit
You're making yourself look rather ridiculous here Richard. I'm not
sure I've seen arguments as strained as this since for some time now.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
> "On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:44:56 -0700, in article
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 24, 6:10 pm, w...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:27:21 -0700, Seanpit
>
> >> <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> >> >That is why if you found a *granite* rock on any alien planet having
> >> >the degree of symmetry with regard to surface irregularities as I've
> >> >described, the design hypothesis would be far and away the most
> >> >reasonable one and carry with it the greatest degree of predictive
> >> >value.
>
> >> nonsense. why wouldn't an unknown natural cause be more likely?
>
> >It would at least have to be considered. Especially if the "natural"
> >conditions on this alien planet were significantly different from the
> >conditions on the earth. Under those circumstances, one could not
> >*automatically* sneak in prior knowledge about what was "natural" for
> >granite in the absence of humans and pretend that one hasn't done so.
>
> Excuse me, but I don't see the boundary being drawn between
> "natural" and "designed".
The distinction is really between "natural" and "artificial", as used
by Darwin in making the distinction between "natural" selection and
"artificial" selection. Both types of selection occur by natural
mechanisms, but one requires the presence and activity of an artificer
using those natural mechanisms and typically would not happen in the
absence of such an artificer.
"Designed" means something that is planned out by an intelligent
entity. Of course, unless the entity also "manufactures" or
"produces" the design, there is no evidence of any design. Both the
thought process that produces the design and the manufacturing process
must, AFAICT, be done in accordance with "natural" law by "material"
processes. But *if* the object is "designed" and "manufactured", then
it is not "natural" in the meaning of "natural" that distinguishes
between "natural" and "artificial". Even though, certainly, only
natural materials and processes consistent with natural laws are used
in both design and manufacture.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Given your knowledge of geology, who are you to judge if this
"argument" is ridiculous or not?
Are you telling me that I don't know how palaeontolgists use
stratigraphical information? I can refer you to numerous papers on the
subject which give detailed stratigraphical information including
several of my own if you wnat.
By the way, you claim to have applied a statistical method to granite
which can determine if a granite object is made by "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate" forces.
So:
1) What method did you use to record three-dimensional forms as
numerical data?
2) Which parameters did you measure?
3) How big is your dataset?
4) How did you determine that your dataset is large enough to give the
level of statistical confidence you need to draw the conclusions that
you have?
...for starters.
Or are you lying when you say that you have carried out such a
statistical analysis?
RF
Seanpit
wrote:
> >> You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
> >> minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged
> >> amino acid residues."
>
> > Oh please. What is the minimum number of codons it takes to code for
> > a flagellar motility system? 100? 1,000? - - How about more than
> > 10,000!
>
> The quantity is not what matters. You, Sean, would have to exhaustively
> demonstrate that the string of amino acids one mutation away, two mutations
> away, three mutations away, etc. cannot possibly do anything useful for
> life, whether or not it is still coding for a flagellar motility system.
Quantity as well as quality does matter. Your notion that there is no
minimum structural threshold requirement for functions like flagellar
motility is clearly mistaken. There most certainly is a minimum size
and specificity threshold and this threshold can be delineated to
useful, though not perfect, degree of certainty.
Your notion that science requires "exhaustive" demonstration is simply
mistaken. Exhaustive demonstration is impossible. In fact, that is
what makes the scientific method so useful. If one could exhaustively
demonstrate anything, science would not longer be needed. It is
because we have access to limited knowledge that science becomes a
useful tool.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Oh, and while we're on the subject of falsehoods:
1) Evolution does not rely on the geological column, and neither
does "popular science". The primary evidence for evolution comes from
existing living organisms.
2) Sedimentary layers are generally not uniform in thickness over
large areas,
and many sedimentary structures vary considerably in thickness even
over short distances.
3) The rate at which layers form varies widely. In some
sedimentary rock, such as volcanic tuffs, several meters thickness can
be formed in a single catastrophic event. In other formations,
deposition rates are very slow and it may take thousands of years to
form a few millimeters of rock.
4) We frequently find erosion surfaces in sedimentary structures. Here
are pictures of several such surfaces:
Here are some photographs of erosion surfaces:
http://www.uta.edu/paleomap/homepage/Schieberweb/Picture%20Pages/shph...
http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/erosion.html
http://www.gly.uga.edu/speleoatlas/SAimage0605.html
http://www.severnichthys.co.uk/geology03.htm
http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/charlier/currentprojects/pics/tie...
5) Sedimentary layers in sedimentary structures are generally *not*
"even and smooth relative to each other"
Those are a few outright falsehoods picked from the first couple of
paragraphs of your web page.
By the way, have you read the chapters in "Palaeobiology" about
taphonomy which demonstrate that your assertions about modes of
preservation are false?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> | On 23 Jun, 22:51, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>| wrote:
>
> | > On Jun 23, 8:43 am, "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>| > wrote:
>
> | >
> | > > What about the anorthosite/pyroxene couplet layering in the Stillwater
> | > > complex? Artificial?
> | >
> | >
> >http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/GEODEPT/hollocher/teaching_petrology/stil...
> | >
> | > > Third, fourth, fifth and sixth pictures up from the bottom.
> | >
> | > > I saw this formation in person field camp in the summer of 1982 and
> have
> | > > never forgotten it.
> | >
> | > Cool pictures, but doesn't show significant symmetry with regard to
> | > irregularities on all opposing sides. Therefore, is not detectable as
> | > being deliberate artifact and almost certainly is the result of non-
> | > deliberate natural processes.
> |
> | How do you know? You claim to have a method which can detect design,
> | you have never applied your own method and here you are telling us
> | what your method is capable of demonstrating.
> |
> | How do you know?
>
> When I saw that outcrop, I was blown away.
>
> It stands easily next to the flagellum in terms of shear amazement value,
> whether you have seen a million other outcrops or not I think.
>
> I don't see why you couldn't get as many theists lined up and claiming this
> was evidence of design equal to the flagellum. Sean is missing that point
> completely.
>
> Nature is far and away more amazing, numinous, etc. than anything any
> theology ever dreamed up. I think of being on a research vessel in the
> middle of Lake Superior and noting that the water was almost completely
> still. The surface was glasslike. And I was shocked, literally, by the
> thought that this huge mass of lake water, at least as far as I could see in
> all directions, could be so still. Like the Stillwater complex, the memory
> of that has never left me.
>
> Religious dogma cannot hold a candle to what is out there in nature to be
> observed and understood.
>
> sharon
Hear, hear.
I've been grubbing around for fossils for decades.
I still get a visceral thrill when I crack open a nodule and expose an
ammonite to the sun for the first time in 180 million years. A few
years ago I helped to excavate a huge fish called Leedsichthys from a
clay pit. On days which were too hot to work in the open sun, we used
to sit in the shade of a bridge with blocks of the layered clay, and
just peel away millimeter thick layer after layer. Each one reveals a
new tiny drama of life - tracks, fragments of shell, a sea lily, a
tooth, or some other event of 160 million years ago. One can spend
hours just going through a single small block. The Oxford Clay
Formation is about 30 meters deep, and covers an area of several
hundred square miles, and this is just one of many, many other
Formations which can be explored on such tiny scales. Just this small
glimpse of the immensity of geological time is awe-inspiring.
I pity those whose minds are bound by a petty, tiny and incompetent
God they can contain within the pages of a book.
RF
#>
Friar Broccoli
Strained and ridiculous arguments are easy to refute.
So why don't you provide us with a demonstration, rather
than just making this unsupported assertion?
Otherwise somebody might get the impression you are
doing everything you can to avoid discussing the evidence
for life older than 6000 years.
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:02 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:29:28 -0700, Seanpit
>
> > <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> > >Come on now Richard, even the likes of Howard Hershey agree with these
> > >parameters when it comes to the material of granite. Why not just
> > >admit it yourself. Design is obvious given a certain degree of
> > >symmetry found in materials like granite or marble. There really is
> > >no argument here. The only reason why some of you guys are balking at
> > >this rather elementary concept is because you know that I'm going to
> > >use it or something like it regarding biosystems.
>
> > how
>
> > does
>
> > design
>
> > work?
>
> > creationists keep telling us it's NOT by natural law. NO physical
> > forces involved. yet their conclusion is drawn from the physical
> > world, where such forces are ALWAYS involved
>
> > a fatal contradiction that seanpit can not and will not answer.
>
> Oh please - Can you explain how human design works? Of course not.
Of course not. That is why we don't detect design, we model
manufacture. We *can* and do understand human manufactured objects by
understanding the manufacturing process.
> One does not need to be able to explain how deliberate design works
> before one can detect that it has been involved. I mean really, even
> SETI scientists think they can detect the activities of alien
> intelligences without having actually met the aliens or knowing how
> their intelligence is actually produced. This isn't a "fatal
> contradiction". You just don't understand the problem.
SETI uses human generated signals (objects of known manufacture) as a
standard against which unknown signals are tested. The assumptions are
that the aliens use the same manufacturing processes we do, or those
which are compatible with the processes we know.
-John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the Pharisees, that is persons who were theists and believers said
Jesus was a demon possessed liar (and they did), and in turn Jesus
told His disciples that they will be treated in like fashion, then how
much more will Atheist-evolutionists like yourself, that is persons
who are not theists or believers call Christians like Sean and myself
a liar?
We know all Atheist-evolutionists think all Christians, IDists and
Creationists are liars, what is your point, Richard?
By slandering Sean the way you have (and you have done the same to me
in the past) you are proving that the Biblical truths just cited and
briefly explained correspond to reality, which is what the Bible
claims: correspondence to reality. Since Jesus went on to identify the
Pharisees as "of their father the devil" this, of course, explains and
corresponds to your slander.
The only evidence that we need to know that Sean is honest is your
disapproval and slander of him. Anytime a Atheist-evolutionist
approves of a Christian or IDist or Creationist that is the best
evidence that they are dishonest and that they are not a real
Christian because an evolutionist would never approve of a real
Christian.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here we have Ron Okimoto, militant Darwinist and Christian deriding a
fellow Christian at the behest and approval of all of the Atheist-
Darwinists looking on. What is wrong with this picture, how is it that
Christians (Ron O.) and Atheists (the T.O. Group) get along over
ORIGINS?
How could Christian Ron believe what Richard Dawkins believes
concerning ORIGINS?
Invulnerable logic says: either Ron or Dawkins is confused. Since all
Atheists believe ToE I doubt that Dawkins is confused. Since Judas
betrayed Jesus to His face with a kiss (= no conscience) we have an
explanation for the likes of a Ron Okimoto - the Bible corresponds to
reality (unfortunately).
Ray
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>We know all Atheist-evolutionists think all Christians, IDists and
>Creationists are liars, what is your point, Richard?
>
The truth of that depends on what your term Atheist-evolutionist (is the
capitalisation significant) denotes, but as an agnostic/atheist that
accepts the factuality of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes, I would like to point
out that I don't think that all Christians all liars (or at least no
more liars than the rest of the populace), nor that all creationists and
persons who have fallen for the ID rhetoric are lying rather than
deceived.
--
alias Ernest Major
hersheyhv
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 9:30 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
> > >> You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
> > >> minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged
> > >> amino acid residues."
>
> > > Oh please. What is the minimum number of codons it takes to code for
> > > a flagellar motility system? 100? 1,000? - - How about more than
> > > 10,000!
>
> > The quantity is not what matters. You, Sean, would have to exhaustively
> > demonstrate that the string of amino acids one mutation away, two mutations
> > away, three mutations away, etc. cannot possibly do anything useful for
> > life, whether or not it is still coding for a flagellar motility system.
>
> Quantity as well as quality does matter. Your notion that there is no
> minimum structural threshold requirement for functions like flagellar
> motility is clearly mistaken. There most certainly is a minimum size
> and specificity threshold and this threshold can be delineated to
> useful, though not perfect, degree of certainty.
And that minimum size, and it is clear from archae that it can be much
smaller than the eubacterial flagella, is irrelevant to whether or not
the *function* of whip rotation can arise in one, two, three, or a
hundred mutational steps. *Function* can change abruptly with very
small changes in structure (or, via linkages or fusions of useful
substructures in a very few mutational steps).
> Your notion that science requires "exhaustive" demonstration is simply
> mistaken. Exhaustive demonstration is impossible. In fact, that is
> what makes the scientific method so useful. If one could exhaustively
> demonstrate anything, science would not longer be needed. It is
> because we have access to limited knowledge that science becomes a
> useful tool.
But you do have to show the utter impossibility of generating a
*function* like rotary motility via either a small step or a
mutational event that links useful substructures to perform a new
*function*. That would be quite difficult since we actually have
experimental evidence that the *function* of rotary motility can be
generated from potentially useful substructures (rotatable pore with
whip + motor) by a single fusion step from a state where that
*function* did not exist.
You do keep confusing *structural size* with *functional complexity*.
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
By identifying statements you have made which are false, and can be
shown to be false by reference to evidence, I can show that you and
Sean are making statements which are false. If you and Sean refuse to
address the evidence which shows that the statements you are making
are false, and does so in spite of repeated invitations to look at the
evidence, I conclude that you are making statements you know to be
false with the intention to deceive.
I call this lying.
What do you call it?
And if you and Sean are demonstrably lying, to call you liars is not
slander.
> Since Jesus went on to identify the
> Pharisees as "of their father the devil" this, of course, explains and
> corresponds to your slander.
>
> The only evidence that we need to know that Sean is honest is your
> disapproval and slander of him. Anytime a Atheist-evolutionist
> approves of a Christian or IDist or Creationist that is the best
> evidence that they are dishonest and that they are not a real
> Christian because an evolutionist would never approve of a real
> Christian.
>
> Ray
Sean claims that he has carried through a methodology which can
determine on a statistical basis if a granite object was the product
of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces.
He is unable to produce any evidence whatsoever that he has done what
he claims to have done, and refuses to answer any questions on his
methodology, such as how he measures shape, how many samples he
measured, how he calculated the number of measurements he needs to
make his findings statistically valid and so on.
I do not believe that Sean has done what he claims to have done, and
that he is lying. If he had done what he claims to have done, it would
be easy to prove me wrong by answering my questions. He doesn't.
Do you think that there is any evidence that Sean is telling the
truth, or do you agree that the evidence shows that he is lying?
RF
Stuart
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1182608450.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jun 22, 9:06 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Sean'sarguments on T.O. were essentially bald assertions that he did not
> > >> back up, the very thing he complains of.
>
> > > I've presented very detailed hypotheses with experimental evidence to
> > > back them up. You and many of the others in this thread tried to
> > > counter with absolutely nothing but wishful and fanciful speculations
> > > that are completely removed from reality - with absolutely no
> > > experimental evidence to back yourselves up. For example, you have
> > > yet to come up with a single example of any novel system of function
> > > requires a minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically
> > > arranged amino acid residues.
>
> > You have yet to demonstrate that there exists a "novel system requires a
> > minimum structural threshold of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino
> > acid residues."
>
> Oh please. What is the minimum number of codons it takes to code for
> a flagellar motility system? 100? 1,000? - - How about more than
> 10,000!
>
aroce
completely de-novo. Again you keep making the same error. New genes
can arise
via duplication and subsequent modification. That is why there is such
heavy clustering.
Howard has been clear as a bell on this. Yet it doesn't appear to have
soaked in.
Given homologies with other genes, we already know this to be false.
Stuart
Martin Hutton
On 25-Jun-2007, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 12:08 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On 24 Jun, 23:16, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> By slandering Sean the way you have (and you have done the same to me
> in the past)...
Still don't know the difference between slander and libel, eh?
[snip]
> The only evidence that we need to know that Sean is honest is your
> disapproval and slander of him. Anytime a Atheist-evolutionist
> approves of a Christian or IDist or Creationist that is the best
> evidence that they are dishonest and that they are not a real
> Christian because an evolutionist would never approve of a real
> Christian.
Remember:
Both slander and libel are *false* claims that harm the reputation
of the target of the claims. Slander uses an ephemeral medium
(often speech) and libel uses a fixed medium (often writing)
As the claims made of you and Sean seem to be true and as
neither of you seem to have any reputation to be harmed the
charges of "slander" (and/or libel) can be safely dismissed.
--
Martin Hutton
Ye Old One
You would look far less the fool, Dishonest Ray, if you actually
looked up slander in a dictionary.
Tell you what, just to show willing, I've done it for you.
slander
n noun Law the action or crime of making a false spoken
statement damaging to a person's reputation. Compare with libel. Øa
false and malicious spoken statement.
n verb make false and malicious spoken statements about.
DERIVATIVES
slanderer noun
slanderous adjective
slanderously adverb
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Old French esclandre, alteration of
escandle, from late Latin scandalum (see scandal).
Now could you do us all a very big favour and learn that it is totally
impossible for you to be slandered on usenet?
--
Bob.
Robert
> - Trilobites that went extinct about 250 million years ago are
> never found buried with crabs, which occupied a similar
> ecological niche but first show up in the fossil record about
> 200 million years ago. (In fact even most species of
> trilobiteare not found together with other species of
> trilobites since many species only existed for 10 million
> years or less during the long reign of trilobites from 525 to
> 250 years ago.)
>
Here's interesting background on trilobites from
The universe began approximately fifteen billions years ago
in the deafening lifeless silence of the big bang. Some ten billion
years later, the Earth made its debut. A billion years or so after
that, the first one celled organisms began our dance of life. That was
nearly four billion years ago.
As the Earth's crust cooled, it settled into continental
shapes somewhat similar to those we know today. Under the influence of
tectonic forces, these elevated fragments would periodically be forced
together to form supercontinents. These supercontinents would remain
intact for a few hundred millions years and then break apart into
their constituent continental fragments. Over time, this process of
congregating and dissociating would repeat itself over and over again.
Though its existence is debatable, a proto-supercontinent, Yilgarn,
may have formed as early as four and a half billion years ago, shortly
after Earth's formation. However, the first recognized supercontinent
was Vaalbara which coalesced around three billion years ago while
single celled organisms still ruled the planet. After its breakup, the
second supercontinent, Kenorland, was in formation some two and a half
billion years ago when multicellular organisms first appeared.
Kenorland, in turn, broke apart and was succeeded by the third
supercontinent, Nuna (also called Columbia), around one and a half
billion years ago. It then separated and reformed about one billion
years ago as the fourth supercontinent Rodinia which, in turn, lasted
for some two hundred and fifty million years before its dissolution.
Pannotia, also known as the Vendian supercontinent, may have briefly
appeared around six hundred million years ago, but its existence, like
Yilgarn's, is also disputed. Either way, from Yilgarn to Kenorland,
life was strictly unicellular, while from Kenorland through Pannotia
it remained close to the rudimentary multicellular stage.
It was not until Pangea, the fifth and final official
supercontinent which started to form around five hundred million years
ago that organisms began to evolve rapidly. Trilobites, arthropods
with large exoskeletons that bear a striking resemblance to today's
horseshoe crabs dominated the land. While early versions of these
extinct creatures were less than a millimeter long, later varieties
grew up to twenty-eight inches in length. Of note, some trilobites had
eyes with upwards of fifteen thousand microscopic lenses in each one.
They disappeared around the time that Pangea broke up into the sub-
supercontinents of Laurasia and Gondwana, around two hundred and fifty
million years ago. By then, evolution had unveiled fish, small
reptiles, and a wide spectrum of plant life which covered both land
masses. Amongst these reptiles were the theriodontias, our pre-
mammalian ancestors.
As Laurasia and Gondwana moved apart, the former heading
north and the latter moving south, dinosaurs ruled the Earth until
their extinction some sixty-five million years ago. By that time,
Laurasia had divided into the major northern continents we know today:
North America, Mexico, Central America, Europe and Asia (minus India).
Gondwana, on the other hand, would take another sixty million years or
so to regress into the southern hemisphere's major land masses: South
America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. About half way through the
dinosaurs' age of domination, India, originally part of Gondwana,
broke apart from Antarctica and headed toward the northern hemisphere.
Along the way, about ninety million years ago, it dropped off
Madagascar by the southeastern edge of Africa before slamming itself
into Asia. During its journey, the six mile wide Chicxulub Meteor
landed near the Yucatan Peninsula, bringing the dinosaurs' reign to
and end. Thus began the age of mammals.
Quoted from:
For more about trilobites, see topic:
Free Lunch
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1182793390.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:...
>> I think Sean is lying because he claims to have done something which
>> he clearly hasn't. Do *you* think that Sean has gone through the
>> process of numeric data collection and mathematical analysis he claims
>> to have done? If you think that he has, perhaps you can explain his
>> resistance to posting any evidence whatsoever that he has done so.
>>
>> RF- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>If the Pharisees, that is persons who were theists and believers said
>Jesus was a demon possessed liar (and they did), and in turn Jesus
>told His disciples that they will be treated in like fashion, then how
>much more will Atheist-evolutionists like yourself, that is persons
>who are not theists or believers call Christians like Sean and myself
>a liar?
What evidence do you have that Jesus said what he is supposed to have
said? What evidence do you have that Sean did any of the work he claims
to have done, but refuses to verify? What evidence do you have that Sean
is a follower of Jesus? Why should we accept your claim that you are a
follower?
>We know all Atheist-evolutionists think all Christians, IDists and
>Creationists are liars, what is your point, Richard?
I run into few Christians who are liars, but I find that the heretics
who teach creationism have a huge edifice of lies that they will trot
out for our entertainment.
>By slandering Sean the way you have (and you have done the same to me
>in the past) you are proving that the Biblical truths just cited and
>briefly explained correspond to reality, which is what the Bible
>claims: correspondence to reality. Since Jesus went on to identify the
>Pharisees as "of their father the devil" this, of course, explains and
>corresponds to your slander.
Telling the truth is not defamation in the US. Deal with the fact that
he caught you and exposed your dishonesty. Just as we all know that you
have absolutely no 'killer post' in the works, but aren't honest enough
to admit that you were making things up, so we know that a small group
of heretical Christians call God a trickster with their anti-science
doctrines.
>The only evidence that we need to know that Sean is honest is your
>disapproval and slander of him. Anytime a Atheist-evolutionist
>approves of a Christian or IDist or Creationist that is the best
>evidence that they are dishonest and that they are not a real
>Christian because an evolutionist would never approve of a real
>Christian.
Sean is every bit as honest as you are, Ray.