Lenny's Counter Argument
Seanpit
>
> > > The odds of any three three-unit subassemblies combining to form a
> > > particular end sequence of 9 units are 1 in 27,Sean.
>
> > Not true . . . not if a specific order of all the residues in all 9
> > units is required to be realized - all 999 of them in one specific
> > sequence.
>
> Not true. According to YOU, the formation of 333-unit sequence is
> "easy" for natural selection.
The formation of a functionally beneficial system that requires at
least 333 fsaar is fairly easy for RM/NS - that's true. That doesn't
mean the formation of the specific 333aa requirements for a portion of
a 999 fsaar system is remotely likely to happen within a given gene
pool - much less all three such subsections.
> All natural selection does is tinker with the components that are
> already there.
Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
they are at 333aa.
> And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy. The
reason for this is that the 999aa system likely requires a specific
arrangement of subsystem residue parts that each individual subsystem,
as an independent smaller system, does not require. That means that
the odds that each 333aa system will be properly setup to match the
structural requirements of the 999aa system are extremely remote. The
odds are extremely good that 50+ required residue positions will still
be out of place regardless of the combination of the three 333aa
subsystems.
That's the problem. It isn't an easy thing to simply link up
subsystems in a way that will make them collectably functional, to a
beneficial degree, at a higher level of functional complexity. Odds
are that a significant amount of "tweeking" would have to take place,
at minimum, before any selectable degree of higher level functionality
could be realized.
> ALSO according to you, there is nothing -- nothing at all whatsoever
> -- that prevents a sub-component of an already-existing system (such
> as, oh, part of a bacterial flagellum), moving it somewhere else and
> using it for an entirely unrelated and new function (such as, oh,
> cellular excretion).
That's right. This is because the odds that smaller subsystems will
exist within larger systems of function are extremely good. It's like
taking the drive shaft out of a car and still having the lights or
radio work. That's easy. It is much different to go the other
direction however - - to start with independently acting light, radio,
motor, wheels, carburetor, etc., systems and have them effectively
link together with other systems to produce the motility function of a
car. That's where the real problems come into play.
For example, it is very easy to have a single point mutation remove
the ability of a fish to make eyes - in a single generation. However,
it is not so easy to get a fish whose gene pool has never had eyes
before to easily produce them - - even in trillions of generations.
All the subparts may be there doing other types of functions within
the fish genome, but getting them to link up properly, via random
mutations, is much much less likely.
> Combining these two assertions of YOURS, it stands to reason that
> nothing, absolutely nothing at all wehatsoever, prevents natural
> selection from moving any number of "easily produced" 333-unit
> subassemblies anywhere they might be useful, and combining them
> together.
That's where you're mistaken. You don't understand the statistics
involved. The minimum structural threshold requirements for a 333aa
system are very unlikely to be the same as any 333aa section of any
potentially beneficial 999 fsaar system.
> NOW all of a sudden, you want to wave your arms in the air and declare
> that it's NOT easy, and NOWE, all of a sudden, you want to declare
> that all of these subunits too must appear all at once,
> simultaneously, in oen fell swoop, before they can be combined.
> It's horseshit,Sean. And you know it just as well as I do.
You're clueless here Lenny. The odds that all the needed subsystem
parts for a 999 fsaar system will actually exist in a given gene pool
in the proper arrangement required by the 999aa system are extremely
remote. A given gene pool has very limited options. It doesn't have
an endless library at its disposal. That is why the odds of higher
and higher level systems having the needed subsystem parts in
existence within a given gene pool get less and less likely at higher
and higher levels of functional complexity.
> > > And according to YOU, formation of all those 333-units is "easy" for
> > > natural selection to accomplish.
>
> > That's right . . . relatively easy.
>
> > > And if, as you yourself have declared, larger "functional structures"
> > > can have within them smaller units which can themselves be pulled out
> > > and used for entirely different unrelated functions (such as a part of
> > > a bacterial flagellum being pulled out and used fort an unrelated
> > > bacterialo secretory apparatus) it becomes even easier for natural
> > > selection to combine these subassemblies into larger functions.
>
> > Not true. The odds are very much against going from smaller to
> > larger. It is very easy to go from larger to smaller, but the reverse
> > is not true.
>
> Says you. (shrug)
>
> However, you have already declared that smaller units can be cut out
> of larger ones and moved elsewhere for new unrelated functions.
That's right . . . This is very easy to do because novel structures
do not have to be produced. If evolution could work by simply
trimming pre-existing sequences, there would be no statistical
problem. The problems only come into play when you try to go from
smaller to larger minimum structural threshold requirements or to
produce something that requires a novel structural component that
isn't already present, pre-formed, within a given gene pool.
> And if we have a number of smalelr units that can be cut-and=pasted
> like that, then there is NO reason, none at all whatsoever, why they
> can't be spliced into larger units. Indeed, if there are three 3-unit
> subassemblies involved, the odds of any particular larger sequence
> appearing are 1 in 27. Hardly "impossible odds".
You're odds are mistaken since you assume, wrongly, that the
subsystems are properly arranged to fulfill the structural
requirements of the higher level system. They aren't. You also
assume, wrongly, that there are only 27 ways to concatenate 333aa
systems. End-to-end linkups are not the only options.
> You are simply bullshitting us again,Sean. (shrug)
You are simply confused again, Lenny. You don't understand basic
biology nor do you understand the difference between lower level
structural requirements and higher level structural requirements. The
odds that they are the same are very very unlikely. If the odds were
nearly as good as you think they are, high-level evolution well beyond
the 1000 fsaar threshold would happen on a daily basis. The fact that
this does not happen and has never been observed to happen even once
should give you a bit of pause in considering the validity of your
notions here.
> > > You are just bullshitting everyone again with your mathy sciencey
> > > statisticy armwaving.
>
> > You just don't understand the relevant statistics.
>
> Horse shit,Sean.
>
> Three units of three pieces gives 27 possible combinations.
Not true. Three units of 333aa have far far more than 27 possible
combinations. You forget about the fact that end-to-end combos are
not the only options. You also forget about the fact that a
particular 999 fsaar target sequence is very unlikely to have any of
its fsaar 333 sections, in the proper arrangement, within any given
genome, much less all three of them.
> That makes the odds of any particular combination, 1 out of 27.
Not remotely true.
> Unless, of course, you can present some biochyemical or mechanical
> reason why it is simply and utterly impossible for smaller sequences
> to join together to form lagrer ones. Got any?
Again, it isn't the linking up of sequences that is the problem. It
is having the proper sequences in the genome to begin with that is the
real problem here.
< snip repetitive >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
> they are at 333aa.
>
> > And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
>
> Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
why not? ventor's group's done it, remember? looks like nature's done
the job already.
Seanpit
I'm talking about "easy" from the perspective of RM/NS. If you're
talking about the perspective of human-level ID, it's a whole lot
easier. That's the whole point. The use of ID makes the production of
higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
play.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
have a specific paragraph of 1000 specifically arranged characters.
This paragraph is functionally meaningful and this function is
dependent up the specific arrangement of all the characters in the
paragraph. What are the odds that any single sequence in a given book
or series of books, like all the books in the Encyclopedia Britannica
(EB), would have more than a few dozen character matches to a specific
1000 paragraph?
It is very likely, unless this paragraph was a direct quote from one
of these books, that no more than 20 or so characters would match any
20 characters in the target paragraph. In fact, in finding enough
subsequence matches in the EB, the average sequence match size would
probably be around 10 characters or so. In other words, it would take
about 100 fragments each averaging 10 characters in size to make up
the specific 1000 character paragraph. While this is better than
starting with pure random sequences, the odds that random mutations to
the EB will line up all 100 snippets of 10 characters each to produce
our specific 1000 character paragraph are extremely remote this side
of trillions of years of time.
And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
and/or specificity requirements.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Burkhard
The use of ID makes the production of
> higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> play.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
us a lot of him/her.
Seanpit
Take the above paragraph as an example for a little experiment: If
you do a Google search for, "And that's the problem in a
nutshell" (i.e., A 36-character match to the paragraph), you'll get
471 matches. If you do a search for, "And that's the problem in a
nutshell. With", you'll only get one match. If you do a search for
And that's the problem in a nutshell. With each", you'll not get any
matches.
And, as the target sequence gets longer and longer, what happens to
the average match size for portions of the target sequence? Do they
get longer and longer as well? - relative to a given pool of sequence
options? No. The average size of a sequence match stays the same.
What does this mean? It means that more and more sequences of the
average length are required to be linked together in the proper
collective arrangement by purely random processes before the final
product can be realized.
Of course, the followup argument usually is that larger subsections
would also be beneficial well before the final sequence is realized.
Therefore, a non-random selection force could be employed along the
way. The problem with this argument is that the gaps between the
proposed steppingstones along the way are simply too large once a
certain level of minimum size and/or specificity is reached - like
1000 fairly specified characters.
The same problem holds true for protein-based systems. This is the
reason why computer software programmers will never be out of a job
and it is also the reason why the software of biological systems did
not arise by the mechanism of RM/NS beyond very very low levels of
functional complexity (i.e., well shy of the 1000 fsaar threshold
level).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
already known. It has already been done and is being done right
now.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 9:28 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 11:47 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
> > > they are at 333aa.
>
> > > > And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
>
> > > Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> > > that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
>
> > why not? ventor's group's done it, remember? looks like nature's done
> > the job already.
>
> I'm talking about "easy" from the perspective of RM/NS.
it IS easy from the standpoint of RM/NS. ventor's group has shown how
such a process could work.
If you're
> talking about the perspective of human-level ID, it's a whole lot
> easier.
wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
nature.
they're not.
That's the whole point. The use of ID makes the production of
> higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> play.
>
actually it doesn't. what it shows is how nature may accomplish
something, as ventor's group has done. it has manufactured a system
that nature could use to produce proteins >1000aa in length. so i'd
say your whole argument collapsed.
wf3h
>
> And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> and/or specificity requirements.
>
we know processes exist in nature to allow events that would almost
never happen to happen rather quickly. enzymatic processes are an
example.
you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
wf3h
what it's demonstrated is such an event is possible in nature. it has
not demonstrated intelligence is needed to accomplish this.
big difference
Seanpit
>
> > > > Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> > > > that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
>
> > > why not? ventor's group's done it, remember? looks like nature's done
> > > the job already.
>
> > I'm talking about "easy" from the perspective of RM/NS.
>
> it IS easy from the standpoint of RM/NS. ventor's group has shown how
> such a process could work.
Oh really? Please do provide the reference to this demonstration of
RM/NS "working" beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold without the us of
ID.
> > If you're talking about the perspective
> > of human-level ID, it's a whole lot
> > easier.
>
> wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
> force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
> that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
> nature.
LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
Without the influence of ID, there are no natural forces that produce
qualitatively novel functionally beneficial biosystems beyond the 1000
fsaar threshold level of functional complexity . . .
>
> they're not.
>
> That's the whole point. The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > play.
>
> actually it doesn't. what it shows is how nature may accomplish
> something, as ventor's group has done. it has manufactured a system
> that nature could use to produce proteins >1000aa in length. so i'd
> say your whole argument collapsed.
No 1000 fsaar system has been produced without the input of ID. If
you think otherwise, by all means, produce your reference - - - and
stop trying to play with semantics. That'll get you nowhere.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Enzymatic processes require only a few hundred fsaar at most.
> you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS. Science doesn't require
perfection. In fact, if perfection could be achieved, science would
no longer be needed.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
What it is demonstrating is that ID can do something in a given span
of time which has never been observed outside of intelligent input in
that same period of time - not even close. In fact, without
intelligent input, this level of functional complexity (i.e., 1000+
fsaars) has never been observed being produced in nature at all.
There isn't a single observable example - - not one.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 28, 11:30 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 1:47 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> > we know processes exist in nature to allow events that would almost
> > never happen to happen rather quickly. enzymatic processes are an
> > example.
>
> Enzymatic processes require only a few hundred fsaar at most.
>
> > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
>
> To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
> excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
Bullshit, Sean. All you have demonstrated is that *your* model of
evolution doesn't work. We have exhaustive evidence that evolution
goes way beyond the arbitrary "threshold" you have pulled out of the
air - the evolution of humans from lobe-finned fish is one of
countless examples - so all you are demonstrating is that your model
is flawed. Of course, you *know* that is it flawed because you
constructed it *because* it is flawed. Even if you could demonstrate
that natural selection cannot account for some evolutionary processes
that provides not one scrap of evidence for any other mechanism for
evolution. Faced with the unknown in science we don't abandon
centuries of development in the basic principles of science and invoke
unknown but possibly supernatural "intelligent designers". We look at
the evidence and try to formulate hypotheses of *how* that unknown
mechanism works, and test them by the acquisition of further evidence.
> Science doesn't require
> perfection.
No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested
by the acquisition of evidence.
What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
is required?
Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bullshit,
but then why should I care?
You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bullshit.
That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it
to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time
it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing
yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are
not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as
scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bullshit.
Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
to get it published.
RF
RF
pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu
And THAT is the core idiocy of your model, Sean - in nature, THERE ARE
NO EXTERNALLY IMPOSED PREDETERMINED TARGETS. Evolution is
demographics - if mutation A grants an advantage, it will become more
common, and become the baseline for later mutations. They stack up -
thus there is no exponential gain (the 'non-beneficial sequences'
would have been mostly purged as one 'beneficial' sequence rises to
dominance).
Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
In your paragraph example, if we use "And that's the problem in a
nutshell" as the baseline, then insert random words in various
positions, one will match the longer sequence "And that's the problem
in a nutshell. With".
If matching your 'target' is beneficial, THAT longer string will
become the baseline.
Starting from "And that's the problem in a nutshell. With" as the
baseline and repeating the addition of random words in random
locations, the next best match will come in quickly. Evolution is
sequential and parallel, not your 'stagger drunkenly through ALL of
sequence space until it all falls together all at once'.
All you've done is notice a complex system, then did 'math' to
'calculate' the 'odds' that it would fall together all at once purely
by chance.
Then notice that since reality does not conform to the 'expectations'
of your 'model', deduce that an unknown external intelligence somehow
did something. Its the same foolishness Dembski wallows in.
> Of course, the followup argument usually is that larger subsections
> would also be beneficial well before the final sequence is realized.
> Therefore, a non-random selection force could be employed along the
> way. The problem with this argument is that the gaps between the
> proposed steppingstones along the way are simply too large once a
> certain level of minimum size and/or specificity is reached - like
> 1000 fairly specified characters.
Only if one were silly enough to believe there are predetermined
sequences in nature that evolution MUST find.
And that it had to find them completely at random, staggering through
ALL of sequence space.
And that nature were obligated to conform to your silly ideas.
By your mathemasturbations, chimeric genes should not exist in nature;
examination of reality shows they exist.
> The same problem holds true for protein-based systems. This is the
> reason why computer software programmers will never be out of a job
> and it is also the reason why the software of biological systems did
> not arise by the mechanism of RM/NS beyond very very low levels of
> functional complexity (i.e., well shy of the 1000 fsaar threshold
> level).
Too bad that computers - using RM/NS - have 'designed' systems more
complex and efficient than anything human programmers could devise.
Kinda castrates your whole 'the designer was just as smart as humans !!
1!' bit, doesn't it ?
In fact, using RM/NS is an effective design strategy when humans DON'T
know what changes to make to a protein to generate the desired
phenotype - they can clone into XL-1 Red, with a 5000-fold higher
mutation rate than usual.
If something as complex as a human could ONLY be designed by a human
level intellect, then WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER ? I note you have not
dealt with that question - not surprising, since all of your 'effort'
has gone into urinating all over science and evolution (ie, negative
argumentation : If evolution be false, then Magical Skymanism becomes
true !!1!!!1!!!) instead of forming a coherent and rational
explanatory model.
Good thing that REALITY is under no obligation to conform to your
silly 'constraints' and analogies.
Evolution has worked with what's available for 3.8+ billion years; you
have EVIDENCE it couldn't (other than your simpering Argument from
Heep Big Numbers routine) ?
What are the 'odds' that there are alcohol dehydrogenase sequences in
jingwei ? 1 in 20^300 ? Or 1 ?
Frank J
So how fast is that?
We all know that the unnamed, unembodied designer could have done it
all last Thursday. Is that when your designer did it all? If not, when
did major events occur - the first life, Cambrian, KT boundary, first
humans, etc.? If you don't find "last Thursday" convincing, and if
like 100% of anti-evolution pseudoscientists you *must* base your
conclusions on "weaknesses" in other explanations, then just show us
how it had to take place other than last Thursday.
Or....if you want to be the first anti-evolution pseudoscientist to
support your idea on it's own strengths, you can stop avoiding the
"Sean Pitman: Cutting to the Chase" thread.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 11:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > > play.
>
> > > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > > now.
>
> > what it's demonstrated is such an event is possible in nature. it has
> > not demonstrated intelligence is needed to accomplish this.
>
> > big difference
>
> What it is demonstrating is that ID can do something in a given span
> of time which has never been observed outside of intelligent input in
> that same period of time - not even close.
wrong. what it's demonstrated is that a similar natural process could
exist in nature that has not yet been discovered. this happens all the
time. in fact, it's how science works.
your view? it's wrong. how do we know that? because it's always BEEN
wrong. always.
your qualification is an 'observed process of a novel function'. and
that's a catch 22 since darwin predicted that such events take longer
than a human lifetime. and he's right. they do.
so what we see is that natural chemical processes can do exactly what
you said they can't do. what we see is that YOUR view is wrong.
and that's the difference between science and religion.
In fact, without
> intelligent input, this level of functional complexity (i.e., 1000+
> fsaars) has never been observed being produced in nature at all.
> There isn't a single observable example - - not one.
>
sure there is. newton made your argument and he was wrong. ventor has
demonstrated such a process is feasible using known laws of
biochemistry. there is nothing his group did that is forbidden in
nature. so it's quite possible nature used a very similar process to
do what you say is impossible.
so, again, your view has been proven wrong, and science is right.
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 11:28 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
> > force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
> > that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
> > nature.
>
> LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
> Without the influence of ID, there are no natural forces that produce
> qualitatively novel functionally beneficial biosystems beyond the 1000
> fsaar threshold level of functional complexity . . .
humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature
needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
what venter has shown is that the laws of chemistry are completely
compatible with the process of dna formation and replication. there
are no barriers to such a process.
implicit in your argument is that such barriers exist. he's shown
they don't. so, right away, you have a problem.
>
> > actually it doesn't. what it shows is how nature may accomplish
> > something, as ventor's group has done. it has manufactured a system
> > that nature could use to produce proteins >1000aa in length. so i'd
> > say your whole argument collapsed.
>
> No 1000 fsaar system has been produced without the input of ID.
ID is not an 'input'. there is no force of nature called "ID". there
is no meter than can measure it. it has no definition.
what venter has shown is that there are no chemical kinetics or
thermodynamics that prohibit the laws of nature from carrying out the
formation of DNA strands that code for amino acid chains >1000 in
length.
implicit in your argument is that there are barriers to such a process
being done naturally. that is not the case.
If
> you think otherwise, by all means, produce your reference - - - and
> stop trying to play with semantics. That'll get you nowhere.
ROFLMAO!! sean, you play with semantics the way a nymphomanic plays
with...well, you know...
as to the reference, you're the one telling us about how
"ID" (whatever that is) is a force of nature that can cause things to
exist
prove it.
Seanpit
Your "examples" of evolution demonstrate the validity of the mechanism
of RM/NS how again? Upon what basis do you assume that this
particular mechanism was remotely likely to have been capable of doing
the job in any given period of time? Have any demonstration or
statistical analysis?
> > Science doesn't require
> > perfection.
>
> No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested
> by the acquisition of evidence.
>
> What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
> least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
> is required?
The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
mechanism doing the job.
> Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bullshit,
> but then why should I care?
I don't know? Why do you care?
> You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bullshit.
> That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it
> to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time
> it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing
> yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are
> not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as
> scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bullshit.
> Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
> as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
> to get it published.
Someday I might publish - though publishing something so fundamentally
counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
unlikely to get past the vetters. Certainly no one here would
published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
paper it might be.
In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
resembling a reasonable counter? Do you really need an argument to be
"published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Frank J
As you know, Michael Behe pursues a similar "evolution can't operate
beyond this 'edge'" approach. Are you or anyone aware of Behe citing
Sean's argument, and commenting either positively or negatively on it?
>
> RF
>
> RF
>
>
>
> > In fact, if perfection could be achieved, science would
> > no longer be needed.
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 11:30 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 1:47 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> > we know processes exist in nature to allow events that would almost
> > never happen to happen rather quickly. enzymatic processes are an
> > example.
>
> Enzymatic processes require only a few hundred fsaar at most.
you're avoiding the issue. enzymes allow processes that would proceed
at GLACIAL speeds to happen very quickly indeed. so there are systems
in nature that allow apparently 'never observed' processes to happen.
>
> > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
>
> To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
> excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
'effectively' by WHOSE standards? yours? you'll forgive me if i dont
slam my desk and shriek with amazement that you're right.
you've adopted the tony pagano method of argument: you're right
because you say you are.
Science doesn't require
> perfection. In fact, if perfection could be achieved, science would
> no longer be needed.
>
and yet you say perfection exists because god exists and you can prove
it scientifically. such is the nonsense you believe, without blushing
and without shame.
Seanpit
Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
sequence by definition. Many sequences in sequence space are
potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target". It is
just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
> Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
> find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
The targets do exist in the potential of sequence space. If the
mechanism of RM finds them, then they will be selected, in a positive
manner, by NS. If not, evolution won't happen. Of course, evolution
doesn't have to happen at all. That's quite true.
> If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
> that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
> is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
> fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
> commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
> numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
> unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
that is greater than 1000 fsaar. The odds of finding such a target
are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds
of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote
this side of trillions of years of time.
> In your paragraph example, if we use "And that's the problem in a
> nutshell" as the baseline, then insert random words in various
> positions, one will match the longer sequence "And that's the problem
> in a nutshell. With".
> If matching your 'target' is beneficial, THAT longer string will
> become the baseline.
That's the big question. If the addition is beneficial, then
certainly it will be added. The problem is that as sequences get
longer and longer, getting to the next potentially beneficial
steppingstone will require longer and longer additions. Single
character additions only work so far before two-character additions
are needed to bridge the growing gap sizes and then 3, 4, 5, 10, 50,
etc., character additions are needed to hit the next closest
potentially beneficial target. Simply adding "with" at the end is not
going to improve the beneficial nature of the paragraph. You have to
add quite a bit more to actually improve the functional beneficial
nature of the sequence. That's the problem at this level.
> Starting from "And that's the problem in a nutshell. With" as the
> baseline and repeating the addition of random words in random
> locations, the next best match will come in quickly. Evolution is
> sequential and parallel, not your 'stagger drunkenly through ALL of
> sequence space until it all falls together all at once'.
Not true. The next best match will require a lot more characters to
match correctly to produce the next functionally beneficial
steppingstone in the evolutionary sequence. That's the whole
problem.
> All you've done is notice a complex system, then did 'math' to
> 'calculate' the 'odds' that it would fall together all at once purely
> by chance.
Nope. I've calculated the odds that the next closest steppingstone
will be within a certain numbers of character additions of a large set
of starting points.
> Then notice that since reality does not conform to the 'expectations'
> of your 'model', deduce that an unknown external intelligence somehow
> did something. Its the same foolishness Dembski wallows in.
You just don't understand the issue at hand here. You're just as
confused as Dawkins was in his "Methinks it is like a weasel"
algorithm. You think the mechanism is easy because all you have to do
is match one more letter in the sequence and NS will be able to guide
the process. The problem with this notion is that no sequential
addition of single characters will be sequentially beneficial. Very
quickly the addition of multiple characters is required to leap the
ever growing gap distances at higher and higher levels of functional
complexity.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
You call that argument scientific? Using this logic, absolutely
anything is possible. The problem is that not everything that is
possible is likely. Science is based on establishing the likelihood
of what is possible in a given span of time based on currently
available evidence - not evidence that might or might not be found
sometime in the future. What your proposing is wishful thinking akin
to the "hopeful monster" argument - not science.
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 2:35 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 11:28 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
> > > force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
> > > that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
> > > nature.
>
> > LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
> > Without the influence of ID, there are no natural forces that produce
> > qualitatively novel functionally beneficial biosystems beyond the 1000
> > fsaar threshold level of functional complexity . . .
>
> humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature
> needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However,
humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example,
humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes - nature
cannot. That is why such granite cubes are clearly "artifactual",
while amorphous river rocks are not - even though humans can make
those as well. So, those things that both humans and nature can
produce are not clearly artefactual while those things that humans can
produce but nature cannot produce, or is at least not known to
produce, are clearly artifactual - given currently available
information.
> what venter has shown is that the laws of chemistry are completely
> compatible with the process of dna formation and replication. there
> are no barriers to such a process.
Not without the use of ID. What is possible is not necessarily what
is likely. That's the barrier.
> implicit in your argument is that such barriers exist. he's shown
> they don't. so, right away, you have a problem.
The barriers are statistical barriers - not absolute barriers.
Anything is possible. Not everything is likely. For example, it is
possible that a tornado in a junkyard could put together a 747. It is
possible. It just is highly unlikely.
The very same thing is true of RM/NS. It is possible that this
mechanism could do the job beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of
complexity. It is just highly unlikely this side of trillions upon
trillions of years of time.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> >
> > What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
> > least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
> > is required?
>
> The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> mechanism doing the job.
of course, such a statement is one of blatant and stupdendous idiocy
no theory in science sits around on its fat ass waiting for other
theories to die so it's the last one standing
if sean had an INKLING of how science actually worked, he'd be digging
up evidence FOR creationism instead of AGAINST evolution.
but for him it's the only game in town. ANOTHER reason why he's wrong.
> > Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
> > as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
> > to get it published.
>
> Someday I might publish - though publishing something so fundamentally
> counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> unlikely to get past the vetters.
blah blah blah. tell it einstein. your problem is you think an OLD
idea is a NEW one. hell even the moron who founded your ridiculous
little church believed in your magical houdini approach to science and
she lived over 100 years ago.
so this idea that your poor, persecuted little theory is SO
revolutionary is like saying the outhouse will replace the flush
toilet but no one will listen because the outhouse is a new invention.
Certainly no one here would
> published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
> paper it might be.
>
> In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
> resembling a reasonable counter? Do you really need an argument to be
> "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
> you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
>
yeah the reasonable argument is that your idea has always been wrong
how many arguments do you need?
Burkhard
"A" human designer might, does "your" designer? And do you finally
commit yourself to some testable statements about the designer? After
all, the evidence indicates that assuming there is design it is by a
committee of rather confused people which would slow things down.
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 12:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
.
>
> > wrong. what it's demonstrated is that a similar natural process could
> > exist in nature that has not yet been discovered. this happens all the
> > time. in fact, it's how science works.
>
> You call that argument scientific? Using this logic, absolutely
> anything is possible.
hey sean...no shit. really.
it's an exact counterpoint to your creationist position since, with
creationism, anything is possible
the only difference is that MY way works and YOUR way has ALWAYS been
wrong. always.
humans have often developed processes in the lab and then found
natural parallels later. can you deny this has happened?
but where...even ONCE has creationism ever been validated? when newton
used it? because he was wrong. and i can't think of a better attempt
to integrate intelligent design than newton.
The problem is that not everything that is
> possible is likely.
prove it. go ahead. prove that venter's mechanism is 'unlikely'. show
me the thermodynamics and kinetics data that says it can't happen in
nature.
Science is based on establishing the likelihood
> of what is possible in a given span of time based on currently
> available evidence - not evidence that might or might not be found
> sometime in the future. What your proposing is wishful thinking akin
> to the "hopeful monster" argument - not science.
>
and, pray tell, what 'hopeful monster' has the intelligence to do
what you want it to do?
the argument cuts both ways, my friend. the difference is my hopeful
monster is around every day in science.
yours has never been seen, even under YOUR bed let alone mine.
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> . .
>
> > humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature
> > needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
>
> Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However,
> humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example,
> humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes
irrelevant. prove that venter's mechanisms are impossible. they
violate no known laws of chemistry.
- nature
> cannot. That is why such granite cubes are clearly "artifactual",
they are artifactual because we can polish rocks. if we had never seen
granite, would we know an 'artificial' polished rock? if we knew
nothing about how granite forms, would we be able to exclude natural
processes from polishing granite?
no. your answer would be that god could do it. and that would be a non
scientific answer
> while amorphous river rocks are not - even though humans can make
> those as well. So, those things that both humans and nature can
> produce are not clearly artefactual while those things that humans can
> produce but nature cannot produce, or is at least not known to
> produce, are clearly artifactual - given currently available
> information.
gee. we know lots about granite. we know very little about DNA.
>
> > what venter has shown is that the laws of chemistry are completely
> > compatible with the process of dna formation and replication. there
> > are no barriers to such a process.
>
> Not without the use of ID.
prove it. you made a statement.
go ahead. you think you're the scientist. prove your statement
What is possible is not necessarily what
> is likely. That's the barrier.
prove it. YOU used the word 'barrier'. show the barrier.
>
> > implicit in your argument is that such barriers exist. he's shown
> > they don't. so, right away, you have a problem.
>
> The barriers are statistical barriers - not absolute barriers.
which is garbage. statistics address mechanism. something is only
impossible until it's not. a phenomenological mechanism is not a
mechanism. we chemists know that a 3rd order kinetics phenomenological
rate equation is almost never the actual mechanism of a chemical
reaction.
> Anything is possible. Not everything is likely. For example, it is
> possible that a tornado in a junkyard could put together a 747. It is
> possible. It just is highly unlikely.
The very same thing is true of RM/NS. It is possible that this
> mechanism could do the job beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of
> complexity. It is just highly unlikely this side of trillions upon
> trillions of years of time.
so we need another mechanism. it's natural. without ID. that's
science.
your view isn't. venter has shown that. he's developed a potential
mechanism for development of DNA able to code for proteins >1000aa.
wf3h
well let's see. how many theories of dark matter are there? 1? 10?
100? 1000? who knows.
you've 'excluded' RM/NS. so? and on that basis you bring in the most
commonly failed idea in history?
is that your argument? 1 mechanism has failed, so let creationism have
a try...after having failed for 2000 years?
wow. impressive
pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu
But then WHY is all your 'math' fixated on 'calculating' the 'odds' of
ONE target being found ?
> Many sequences in sequence space are
> potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target". It is
> just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
> exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
> specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
So you continuously bellow - too bad that your model relies on
staggering randomly through 'sequence' space, and thus has no
relevance to reality.
Selection keeps winnowing out non-targets each generation, so you
don't get your silly 'exponential decline' - beneficial 'targets'
remain, non-beneficial get culled out. In other words - natural
selection acts like an 'intelligent designer'.
The results LOOK like an intelligence crafted it, but only those
desperately wishing to believe in Magical Sky Pixies assert the
unknown intelligent agent actually exists.
> > Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
> > find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
>
> The targets do exist in the potential of sequence space. If the
> mechanism of RM finds them, then they will be selected, in a positive
> manner, by NS. If not, evolution won't happen. Of course, evolution
> doesn't have to happen at all. That's quite true.
Too bad for you that there is abundant evidence that evolution has
indeed happened - and no amount of frantic handwaving and blubbering
about 'long odds' can change that.
> > If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
> > that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
> > is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
> > fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
> > commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
> > numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
> > unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
>
> I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
> Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
> target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
> that is greater than 1000 fsaar.
There's that core idiocy again - nature is under NO obligation to find
anything of any size YOU say it must.
In REALITY, the 'minimal structural threshold requirement' is WHATEVER
WORKS. If a team of three 400 aa proteins get the job done, then that
is all that is required.
How many systems OBSERVED IN NATURE actually meet your 'requirement'
that CANNOT be explained by standard evolution ?
You seem to have this silly idea that everything MUST fall together
all at once PURELY by chance on a timescale YOU decree. And creotards
claim evolutionists are arrogant !
That example with the 1/300,000 was to show your core error - the
silly arsed notion that there IS an exponential decline in beneficial/
non-beneficial targets. Once the system has reached one target, there
is no need for it to find it again and again and again and again and
again and again and again like your mathemagics require.
You seem under the Dembski Delusion - you observe a complex system
(the end result of billions of years of evolution), then whip out a
calculator and calculate the odds of it falling together all at once
PURELY by chance exactly the way it is now (ie, completely ignore its
history). Then, when you see how unlikely it is, claim an unknown
external intelligence somehow did something.
> The odds of finding such a target
> are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds
> of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote
> this side of trillions of years of time.
Good things that REALITY IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO FIND ANYTHING LIKE
THAT, despite how much you bluster and bellow that it must.
Complex systems evolve - what you keep doing is ignoring their
history, and instead invoke ridiculous math to 'prove' an unknown
intelligence somehow did something.
A raindrop hits you in the middle of your forehead - what are the odds
that THAT particular drop would hit YOU at that particular spot, at
that particular time, at that particular location on Earth, at that
particular location in the galaxy ?
About 10^2345 : 1 against.
Would you then, upon seeing how 'unlikely' that event was, 'deduce'
that the drop was guided by an intelligent agent ?
How do you reconcile the FACT that beneficial sequences HAVE arisen
within YEARS and NOT 'trillions and trillions of years' as your own
simpering math claims ?
Oh, right - the magical excuse of 'well, THAT is a low leve/complexity
system ! I will permit such things to evolve !!1!!'
> > In your paragraph example, if we use "And that's the problem in a
> > nutshell" as the baseline, then insert random words in various
> > positions, one will match the longer sequence "And that's the problem
> > in a nutshell. With".
> > If matching your 'target' is beneficial, THAT longer string will
> > become the baseline.
>
> That's the big question. If the addition is beneficial, then
> certainly it will be added. The problem is that as sequences get
> longer and longer, getting to the next potentially beneficial
> steppingstone will require longer and longer additions.
RiiIiiIIIiiIIiGHT ! I stated whole WORDS could be added in various
locations.
You seem to have this ridiculous habit of ignoring the conditions
people give, and hallucinate others.
Probably the only way you can get your 'arguments' to even come close
to looking valid.
> Single
> character additions only work so far before two-character additions
> are needed to bridge the growing gap sizes and then 3, 4, 5, 10, 50,
> etc., character additions are needed to hit the next closest
> potentially beneficial target. Simply adding "with" at the end is not
> going to improve the beneficial nature of the paragraph.
Actually, if how well it matches to your 'target' paragraph is the
measure of fitness, IT DOES !
> You have to
> add quite a bit more to actually improve the functional beneficial
> nature of the sequence. That's the problem at this level.
Not really - once the ". With" is added, it becomes the new baseline.
From there, random WORDS AND PHRASES can be inserted in various
positions, and the sentence tested to see how
fit it is by Lord Pitman's standard : how well it conforms to your
most bellicose and holy words.
The more words and phrases match, the more fit the phrase is.
>
> > Starting from "And that's the problem in a nutshell. With" as the
> > baseline and repeating the addition of random words in random
> > locations, the next best match will come in quickly. Evolution is
> > sequential and parallel, not your 'stagger drunkenly through ALL of
> > sequence space until it all falls together all at once'.
>
> Not true. The next best match will require a lot more characters to
> match correctly to produce the next functionally beneficial
> steppingstone in the evolutionary sequence. That's the whole
> problem.
Good thing that biology is more robust than the English language, and
you are STILL wrong - if fitness is
measured by how well the sentences match up to your holy writ, then as
more words and phrases match up, the more fit it is, and the best
match becomes the new starting point. As only the most fit
configuration goes through to the next generation, vast tracts of 'non-
beneficial' sequences are ignored. Thus there is no exponential
decline.
> > All you've done is notice a complex system, then did 'math' to
> > 'calculate' the 'odds' that it would fall together all at once purely
> > by chance.
>
> Nope. I've calculated the odds that the next closest steppingstone
> will be within a certain numbers of character additions of a large set
> of starting points.
Only in your imagination - once you have most of the sentence, there
is no need to regenerate it again.
You've 'calculated' the 'odds' that RANDOM tests will find your
blubberings; evolution does not work like that. It starts with what
works. Non-viable sequences tend to go extinct rather quickly, and
since living critters reproduce more often than dead ones, the
'sequence space' becomes depleted of non-viable sequences.
> > Then notice that since reality does not conform to the 'expectations'
> > of your 'model', deduce that an unknown external intelligence somehow
> > did something. Its the same foolishness Dembski wallows in.
>
> You just don't understand the issue at hand here. You're just as
> confused as Dawkins was in his "Methinks it is like a weasel"
> algorithm.
He wasn't confused about it - the whining creotards who blubber that
the program is invalid are confused.
The Weasel program was intended SOLELY to demonstrate the power of
cumulative selection. That it has a target phrase is beside the point
of how evolution works - evolution has no ultimate target, but does
have selection.
> You think the mechanism is easy because all you have to do
> is match one more letter in the sequence and NS will be able to guide
> the process. The problem with this notion is that no sequential
> addition of single characters will be sequentially beneficial.
You seem to be hallucinating again - I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT WHOLE
WORDS COULD BE ADDED
to your silly whining.
Your flatulent 'argument' was that there were fewer and fewer matches
to your target phrase the more words you added.
But that is not how evolution works - you have PRESUMED a final target
that evolution MUST find, 'calculated' the 'odds' of it finding it all
at once PURELY by chance, then felt the need to invoke the
intervention of an unknown intelligence to somehow do something to
'explain' why reality does not conform to your model.
> Very
> quickly the addition of multiple characters is required to leap the
> ever growing gap distances at higher and higher levels of functional
> complexity.
Once again : I STATED THAT WORDS WERE ADDED TO YOUR SENTENCE, not
single letters.
Your 'ever growing gap distances' are hallucinations brought about by
the need to keep the 'odds' bloated by any means necesary.
Since evolution isn't looking for a PARTICULAR SEQUENCE, calculating
the odds of evolution finding it AS IF IT WAS SEARCHING FOR IT is
silly to the extreme.
> < snip rest >
Translation : SH*T !!! He's immune to my arrogant posturing !!! Must
evade !
What are the 'odds' that alcohol dehydrogenase sequences are in
jingwei, Sean ?
1 in 20^300 ? Or something else ?
By your 'math', chimeric genes cannot exist (the 'trillions and
trillions of years !!!1!!' needed for them to arise hasn't passed
yet); examination of reality shows that chimeric genes DO exist.
How DARE they sit there - brazenly EXISTING in direct defiance to your
bellicose posturing !
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Indeed, it HAS already been done. Smaller subassemblies have been
placed together, and they have combined to from functional larger
assemblies.
So what are you bitching about?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > particular end sequence of 9 units are 1 in 27,Sean.
>
> > > Not true . . . not if a specific order of all the residues in all 9
> > > units is required to be realized - all 999 of them in one specific
> > > sequence.
>
> > Not true. According to YOU, the formation of 333-unit sequence is
> > "easy" for natural selection.
>
> The formation of a functionally beneficial system that requires at
> least 333 fsaar is fairly easy for RM/NS - that's true. That doesn't
> mean the formation of the specific 333aa requirements for a portion of
> a 999 fsaar system is remotely likely to happen within a given gene
> pool - much less all three such subsections.
What stops it.
If it happens once (and you've alrwady declared that it did), why
can't it happen twice. Or three times.
>
> > All natural selection does is tinker with the components that are
> > already there.
>
> Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
> they are at 333aa.
>
Right-- they are BETTER, since there are fewer units to work with.
Instead of getting 333 units in a row, it only neds to get three or
four.
> > And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
>
> Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
Show us.
Is linking three 333-unit strings together to form a 999 striong
easier, or harder, than forming a 999-unit string from scratch, Sean?
You are bullshiting us again.
The
> reason for this is that the 999aa system likely requires a specific
> arrangement of subsystem residue parts that each individual subsystem,
> as an independent smaller system, does not require. That means that
> the odds that each 333aa system will be properly setup to match the
> structural requirements of the 999aa system are extremely remote. The
> odds are extremely good that 50+ required residue positions will still
> be out of place regardless of the combination of the three 333aa
> subsystems.
Uh, Sean, YOU are the one who declared that a fully functional
cellular exrretaory system was already there waiting patiently inside
a totally unrerlated flagellar systemn, just waiting to be plucked out
and utilized for an entirely novel function.
Would you mind calculating the odds of that for us, please?
>
> That's the problem. It isn't an easy thing to simply link up
> subsystems in a way that will make them collectably functional, to a
> beneficial degree, at a higher level of functional complexity. Odds
> are that a significant amount of "tweeking" would have to take place,
> at minimum, before any selectable degree of higher level functionality
> could be realized.
Says you. (shrug)
Yet oddly enough you ALSO declare that a fully functional intact
cellular excretory system was siting there patiently inside a totally
different functional system, the flagellum, just waiting to be
polucked out and used for a novel function.
What is it, again, that prevents that from happening twice? Or three
times? Or four times? After all, aren't YOU the one who declared
that forming 300-unit sequencesd was easy to do?
>
> > ALSO according to you, there is nothing -- nothing at all whatsoever
> > -- that prevents a sub-component of an already-existing system (such
> > as, oh, part of a bacterial flagellum), moving it somewhere else and
> > using it for an entirely unrelated and new function (such as, oh,
> > cellular excretion).
>
> That's right. This is because the odds that smaller subsystems will
> exist within larger systems of function are extremely good.
Glad to hear it.
What is it that prevents these various smaller subsystems from being
cobbled together to form lagrer ones?
It's like
> taking the drive shaft out of a car and still having the lights or
> radio work.
You're bullshitting again, Sean.
After all, YOU were the one whon was bitching and mjopaning and weping
and whining about US using pieces that "are already part of the
functional system". And now here YOU are, doing the sdame thing.
Your analogy is wrong, Sean. Using a part of the flagellum as a
secretory apparatus (as you declare) is NOT like taking the engine out
of a car and finding that the lights still work -- it's like taking
the engine and lights outr of a car and finding an aircraft rudder
there. The functions are uterly totally absolutely completely
unrelated.
What are the odds of that, Sean . . . .
That's easy. It is much different to go the other
> direction however - - to start with independently acting light, radio,
> motor, wheels, carburetor, etc., systems and have them effectively
> link together with other systems to produce the motility function of a
> car. That's where the real problems come into play.
Bullshit, Sean. Since we're working with a smaller number of units
the odds of forming a 999-unit string from various 333-unit pieces are
MUCH better than forming the whole 999-unit string at once by itself.
You are simply bullshitting everyone (again) by demanding (again) that
all of the subunits be independently formed simultaneously before the
larger string can be assembled. And that demand is bullshit.
>
> For example, it is very easy to have a single point mutation remove
> the ability of a fish to make eyes - in a single generation. However,
> it is not so easy to get a fish whose gene pool has never had eyes
> before to easily produce them - - even in trillions of generations.
Uh, Sean, how easy is it to take some pieces out of the fish's eye and
have the remaining piece work as a fish's heart valve instead?
THAT is what YOU are claiming happened with the secretory apparatus.
> All the subparts may be there doing other types of functions within
> the fish genome, but getting them to link up properly, via random
> mutations, is much much less likely.
Wrong. Since there is a smaller number of units, and since those
unitsd bare already relatyed and therefore more likely top connebct,
it is EASIER to form a 999-unit string from three 333-unit strings
than it is to form the wholoe 999-unit strong by itself from single
pieces.
You are just bullshitting everyone (yet again).
>
> > Combining these two assertions of YOURS, it stands to reason that
> > nothing, absolutely nothing at all wehatsoever, prevents natural
> > selection from moving any number of "easily produced" 333-unit
> > subassemblies anywhere they might be useful, and combining them
> > together.
>
> That's where you're mistaken. You don't understand the statistics
> involved. The minimum structural threshold requirements for a 333aa
> system are very unlikely to be the same as any 333aa section of any
> potentially beneficial 999 fsaar system.
And yet there is the secretory system, sitting there happily. It,
like all 333-unit systemsd, formed, as you say, "easi;y" by natural
selection.
How did it get there, Sean.
What are the odds of that, Sean.
And what prevents it from happening again, Sean. And again. And
again.
>
> > NOW all of a sudden, you want to wave your arms in the air and declare
> > that it's NOT easy, and NOWE, all of a sudden, you want to declare
> > that all of these subunits too must appear all at once,
> > simultaneously, in oen fell swoop, before they can be combined.
> > It's horseshit,Sean. And you know it just as well as I do.
>
> You're clueless here Lenny. The odds that all the needed subsystem
> parts for a 999 fsaar system will actually exist in a given gene pool
> in the proper arrangement required by the 999aa system are extremely
> remote
YOU said that forming 333-unit strings is "easy", Sean.
How many 333-string units do we need to try before we get the three
that work, Sean.
Is it easier, Sean, ort is it harder, to produce a 999-unit string by
combining 999 individual units randomly, or by combining three 333-
units randomly.
You;re just bullshiting us, Sean.
>. A given gene pool has very limited options.
Then why does natural selection have to "search" THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE
SPACE, Sean.
Why can't it just search those "limited options".
You're bullshiting nus again, Sean.
It doesn't have
> an endless library at its disposal.
So shit, Sean. That is what everyone has been trying to tell YOU
about your "random search through total sequence space" horseshit.
That is why the odds of higher
> and higher level systems having the needed subsystem parts in
> existence within a given gene pool get less and less likely at higher
> and higher levels of functional complexity.
>
\
Says you. (shrug)
How did that intact excretory system get inside that flagellar system,
Sean.
>
>
> > > > And according to YOU, formation of all those 333-units is "easy" for
> > > > natural selection to accomplish.
>
> > > That's right . . . relatively easy.
>
> > > > And if, as you yourself have declared, larger "functional structures"
> > > > can have within them smaller units which can themselves be pulled out
> > > > and used for entirely different unrelated functions (such as a part of
> > > > a bacterial flagellum being pulled out and used fort an unrelated
> > > > bacterialo secretory apparatus) it becomes even easier for natural
> > > > selection to combine these subassemblies into larger functions.
>
> > > Not true. The odds are very much against going from smaller to
> > > larger. It is very easy to go from larger to smaller, but the reverse
> > > is not true.
>
> > Says you. (shrug)
>
> > However, you have already declared that smaller units can be cut out
> > of larger ones and moved elsewhere for new unrelated functions.
>
> That's right . . . This is very easy to do because novel structures
> do not have to be produced. If evolution could work by simply
> trimming pre-existing sequences, there would be no statistical
> problem. The problems only come into play when you try to go from
> smaller to larger minimum structural threshold requirements or to
> produce something that requires a novel structural component that
> isn't already present, pre-formed, within a given gene pool.
In other weords, evolution only works by modifying what is al;reasdy
there.
See, Sean, I ***knew*** you weren't really that stoopiod, and would
grasp sooner or later that your "random seaqrch of total sequencfe
space" horseshit was, well, horseshit.
But alas, Sean, you're still bullshitting us, since, no mater how much
nyou wave your arms, it's still easier to make a particular 999-unit
string from a small number of subassemblies than it is to make the
whole thing at once from random single units.
And as you yourself have now declared, making those 333-unit
subassemblies is easy for natural selection.
Which makes your entire "747 assembling itself from parts in a
junkyard" argument, utter horse shit.
>
> > And if we have a number of smalelr units that can be cut-and=pasted
> > like that, then there is NO reason, none at all whatsoever, why they
> > can't be spliced into larger units. Indeed, if there are three 3-unit
> > subassemblies involved, the odds of any particular larger sequence
> > appearing are 1 in 27. Hardly "impossible odds".
>
> You're odds are mistaken since you assume, wrongly, that the
> subsystems are properly arranged to fulfill the structural
> requirements of the higher level system. They aren't.
I am assuming no such thing, nor do I need to. I am simply
demonstrating that YOUR idiotic assumption that making a 1000-unit
string is "mathematically impossibler" because the whole 999-unit
string must form all at once, intact and complete, from random single
pieces found by searching total sequence space, is horseshit. All you
need is three proper subunits of 333 units each. As you yourself have
declared, forming such subassemblies is "easy" for natural selection.
And nany moron can see that it'sd far easier to form a 999-unit
striong from three subunits than it is to make the whole thing at once
from 999 individual units.
Which makes your entire asrgument, bullshit.
You also
> assume, wrongly, that there are only 27 ways to concatenate 333aa
> systems. End-to-end linkups are not the only options.
But they are by far the most likely.
>
> > You are simply bullshitting us again,Sean. (shrug)
>
> You are simply confused again, Lenny. You don't understand basic
> biology nor do you understand the difference between lower level
> structural requirements and higher level structural requirements. The
> odds that they are the same are very very unlikely. If the odds were
> nearly as good as you think they are, high-level evolution well beyond
> the 1000 fsaar threshold would happen on a daily basis.
It has.
The fact that
> this does not happen and has never been observed to happen even once
> should give you a bit of pause in considering the validity of your
> notions here.
How did that secretoary apparatus get inside that flagellum, Sean.
>
> > > > You are just bullshitting everyone again with your mathy sciencey
> > > > statisticy armwaving.
>
> > > You just don't understand the relevant statistics.
>
> > Horse shit,Sean.
>
> > Three units of three pieces gives 27 possible combinations.
>
> Not true. Three units of 333aa have far far more than 27 possible
> combinations. You forget about the fact that end-to-end combos are
> not the only options. You also forget about the fact that a
> particular 999 fsaar target sequence is very unlikely to have any of
> its fsaar 333 sections, in the proper arrangement, within any given
> genome, much less all three of them.
>
Horse shit, Sean. YOU declared already that making 333-unit sequences
is "easy". You've also declared that making 999-unit sequence is
"impossible". So by your own logic, all evolution has to do is make
lots fand lots of those 333-unit subassemblies (which it can do
easily) and keep trying different combvinations till it hits the right
one.
Unless, of course, you want to argue to me that making a 999-unit
sequence from three 333-unitsd is NOT easier than making the whole 999-
unit string at once from individual units . . . . .?
You're just bullshiting everyone again, Sean.
> > That makes the odds of any particular combination, 1 out of 27.
>
> Not remotely true.
>
> > Unless, of course, you can present some biochyemical or mechanical
> > reason why it is simply and utterly impossible for smaller sequences
> > to join together to form lagrer ones. Got any?
>
> Again, it isn't the linking up of sequences that is the problem.
That's not what you just said before. Make up your goddamn mkind,
Sean.
It
> is having the proper sequences in the genome to begin with that is the
> real problem here.
But my dear Sean, YOU have already declared that making 333-unit
sequences is EASY for natural selection.
And I'm sure even YOU would not be stoopid enough to argue that
assembling a particular 999-unit string using a lot of easily-made
smaller 333-unit sequences is NOT easier than making the whole 999-
unit string at once from individual units.
Or ARE you that stoopid?
If the functional subunits are impossible to make, Sean, then please
by all emans feel free to explain to me how that intact secrtetory
apparatus managed to get inside an totally unrelated flagellar
function . . . . ?
Or do you want to,uh, re-think THAT particular bit of bullshit,
now . . . . . .
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jan 28, 11:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > > play.
>
> > > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > > now.
>
> > what it's demonstrated is such an event is possible in nature. it has
> > not demonstrated intelligence is needed to accomplish this.
>
> > big difference
>
> What it is demonstrating is that ID can do something in a given span
> of time which has never been observed outside of intelligent input in
> that same period of time
Woah there, young jedi -- WHAT "intelligent input"?
All the experimenters did was place some subunits together. Chemistry
and physics did all the rest -- the very same chemistry and physics
that operates in the very same way otuside the lab without anything
intelligent within a billion light-years.
Is it your opinion that it's impossible for subunits to find
themselves together in a reactable distance, in nature . . . ?
If so, I'd sure like for you to explain to me how all those amino
acids got insdie those carbonaceous chondrite
meteorites . . . . . . . . .
You're just bullshitting us. Again.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah.
Would you mind showing us YOUR, uh, "science", again, Sean?
You are just bullshitting us. Again.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
>
>
> > > > > Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> > > > > that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
>
> > > > why not? ventor's group's done it, remember? looks like nature's done
> > > > the job already.
>
> > > I'm talking about "easy" from the perspective of RM/NS.
>
> > it IS easy from the standpoint of RM/NS. ventor's group has shown how
> > such a process could work.
>
> Oh really? Please do provide the reference to this demonstration of
> RM/NS "working" beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold without the us of
> ID.
>
> > > If you're talking about the perspective
> > > of human-level ID, it's a whole lot
> > > easier.
>
> > wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
> > force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
> > that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
> > nature.
>
> LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
> Without the influence of ID, there are no natural forces that produce
> qualitatively novel functionally beneficial biosystems beyond the 1000
> fsaar threshold level of functional complexity . . .
>
>
How'd that cellular excretory apparatus get inside that flagellum,
Sean.
================================================
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jan 28, 10:47 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Another way to look at this issue is to consider a situation where you
> > have a specific paragraph of 1000 specifically arranged characters.
> > This paragraph is functionally meaningful and this function is
> > dependent up the specific arrangement of all the characters in the
> > paragraph. What are the odds that any single sequence in a given book
> > or series of books, like all the books in the Encyclopedia Britannica
> > (EB), would have more than a few dozen character matches to a specific
> > 1000 paragraph?
>
> > It is very likely, unless this paragraph was a direct quote from one
> > of these books, that no more than 20 or so characters would match any
> > 20 characters in the target paragraph. In fact, in finding enough
> > subsequence matches in the EB, the average sequence match size would
> > probably be around 10 characters or so. In other words, it would take
> > about 100 fragments each averaging 10 characters in size to make up
> > the specific 1000 character paragraph. While this is better than
> > starting with pure random sequences, the odds that random mutations to
> > the EB will line up all 100 snippets of 10 characters each to produce
> > of trillions of years of time.
>
> > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> Take the above paragraph as an example for a little experiment: If
> you do a Google search for, "And that's the problem in a
> nutshell" (i.e., A 36-character match to the paragraph), you'll get
> 471 matches. If you do a search for, "And that's the problem in a
> nutshell. With", you'll only get one match. If you do a search for
> And that's the problem in a nutshell. With each", you'll not get any
> matches.
>
> And, as the target sequence gets longer and longer, what happens to
> the average match size for portions of the target sequence? Do they
> get longer and longer as well? - relative to a given pool of sequence
> options? No. The average size of a sequence match stays the same.
> What does this mean? It means that more and more sequences of the
> average length are required to be linked together in the proper
> collective arrangement by purely random processes before the final
> product can be realized.
>
> would also be beneficial well before the final sequence is realized.
> Therefore, a non-random selection force could be employed along the
> way. The problem with this argument is that the gaps between the
> proposed steppingstones along the way are simply too large once a
> certain level of minimum size and/or specificity is reached - like
> 1000 fairly specified characters.
>
> reason why computer software programmers will never be out of a job
> and it is also the reason why the software of biological systems did
> not arise by the mechanism of RM/NS beyond very very low levels of
> functional complexity (i.e., well shy of the 1000 fsaar threshold
> level).
>
How'd that secretory apparatus get inside that flagellum, Sean.
Then how did it get out?
fc...@verizon.net
>
> > On Jan 28, 1:47 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> > we know processes exist in nature to allow events that would almost
> > never happen to happen rather quickly. enzymatic processes are an
> > example.
>
> Enzymatic processes require only a few hundred fsaar at most.
>
> > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
>
> To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
> excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
But have you effectively excluded all other mechanisms, mindless or
otherwise, that produce new classes or orders in what Behe calls a
"biological contimuum"?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
>
> You seem under the Dembski Delusion - you observe a complex system
> (the end result of billions of years of evolution), then whip out a
> calculator and calculate the odds of it falling together all at once
> PURELY by chance exactly the way it is now (ie, completely ignore its
> history). Then, when you see how unlikely it is, claim an unknown
> external intelligence somehow did something.
(snip)
Indeed, this is the core of ALL of the various ID/creationist
"probability" arguments. It is what I call the "Texas Marksman"
argument. The Texcas Marksman blasts a shot at the side of a barn,
wealks over and paints a bullsye around it, then declares how
wonderful it is that he hit the bullseye exactly.
Of course, if he had hit somewhere else instead, he'd be declaring how
wonderful it is that he hit THAT bullseye,l instead. (shrug)
Hey Sean, there's a leaf sitting on my sidewalk right now. What is
the statistical probability that this particular leaf from this
particular tree would be sitting on that exact spot on my particular
sidewalk at this particular time and day?
Oh, and Sean, that leaqf even performed a FUNCTION -- since it is a
contrasted color with the rest of the sidewalk, it cauight my eye and
dfre my attention to that area of my porch, where a package from UPS
was waiting for me (that, it getting dark, I probably wouldf have
overlook but for the leaf).
Does the enormous improbability of that leaf performing that function,
mean that God put it there as a signal for me?
I kind of doubt that, Sean . . . . .
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jan 28, 11:30 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 1:47 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> > we know processes exist in nature to allow events that would almost
> > never happen to happen rather quickly. enzymatic processes are an
> > example.
>
> Enzymatic processes require only a few hundred fsaar at most.
What preventsw enzyme sequences from working together to produce new
functions, Sean.
>
> > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
>
> To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
> excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
Really. How'd that secretory apparatus get inside that flagellum,
Sean. And how did it then get out.
What you've shown is that (1) it's easy for natural selection to
produce small 300-unit or so sequences, (2) natural selection can pick
functional pieces out of one structure and move them elsewhere to
perform an entirely different unrelated novel function (the secratory
apparatus from the flagellum), and (3) no physical, chemical or
biological process at all whatsoever prevents these 300-unit
assemblies from joining together to form larger 1000 unit sequences.
Exactly what you inhsist can NOT happen, Sean.
You are just bullshitting everyone again, Sean.
Science doesn't require
> perfection. In fact, if perfection could be achieved, science would
> no longer be needed.
Yeah, right, whatever.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> mechanism doing the job.
Why. Why can't the designer deliberaterly use a process that mimics a
random mechanism.
Let's try an exdperiment, Sean. I will give you two strings of
characters. One of them will be produced by me allowing a halfgrown
Eastern Musk Turtle to crawl across the keyboard and unintelligently
press whatever random keys happen to get pressed. The other string
will come from me, and be deliberately intelligently designed to look
like a random string of characters produced by a turtle crossing a
keyboard.
Tell me which is which:
1...":<<<<<<<<<<Lmkji;oouimh o nyig8k6hu76ry64er4363t
2. zcvegzvgrvrtgtrr6ehy666666666666666u76u467ih58u9u
Your move, Sean. Tell me which is the ID mechanism, which is not, and
why the presence of one falsifies the other.
You are just bullshitting us again, Sean.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
reluctant to answer.
Here, let me remind you again:
SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. But, ya know, we're
really not interested, at all, in finding out what that designer is,
what it did, how it did it, or what it's doing today."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean?
Can you think of any OTHER area of science which concludes "We think
something happened here, but we're not remotely interested in finding
out what it was or what did it."
Why does ID "science" say that, Sean? Is there some non-science
reason for that? A legal strategy, perhaps . . . ?
Oh, and would you mind pointing to an example of any scientific
discovery, of any note, in any area of science, that has resulted from
the hypothesis "Godiddit!!!!" . . .?
So what WAS involved, Sean, if it wasn't god. Space aliens? Time-
travelling human biologists from the future? Where did THEY come from,
Sean? Did they evolve natgurally? Or were THEY designed by some
OTHER human-level intelligence, and where did THAT come from?
And what did this human-level designer DO, Sean? How did it make new
genetic sequencies? What mechanisms did it use? Where can we see it
using similar mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
Oh, and hey-- you said that your "ID theory" is testable. Show me.
How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing
did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods" . . ?
How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could
anyone show that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an
unknown time using unknown methods? Do you think there are things
that God -- uh, I mean "the unknown intelligent designer" -- could not
have done, Sean?
Oh, and I'd sure like to see your, uh, scientific evidence that life
on earth is "young" . . . . .
By the way, Sean, why have you not tried to publish all of your
startling wonderful mathy findings? By golly, such world-shaking
earth-shattering paradigm-changing darwin-destroying mathematical
statistical thingies would make you WORLD FAMOUS, Sean. You'd be
bigger than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science Guy,
all rolled into one. That next Nobel Prize would be yours, you could
have your pick of any university you wanted, the Discovery Channel
would do endless specials on you. You would pack lecture halls all
across the country. Just think of it, Sean -- all those thousands and
thousands of people waiting for YOU to tell them why Ellen G White was
a prophet. And yet you foolishly toss all that fame, fortune and world
position away by presenting your world-shattering findings in an
obscure Internet newsgroup, instead of the front page of Nature or
Science.
Why is that, Sean?
Why won't you answer those simple questions, Sean? What is it you
have to hide, Sean?
fc...@verizon.net
If all you have is a worthless argument from incredulity of course it
would be unlikely to get past the vetters. But if you state testable
whats, whens and hows of your mysterious alternate mechanism, and
support them on their own strengths, no one will turn it down and you
know it. Besides, as I mentioned before, you have been given the
advantage of having it pre-screened here. See the thread that you have
been avoiding.
> Certainly no one here would
> published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
> paper it might be.
>
> In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
> resembling a reasonable counter?
Behe's hypothesis is counter to yours. Care to challenge it?
> Do you really need an argument to be
> "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
> you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
It's not about formally publishing so much as admitting that the onus
is on you, not those who accept (however reluctantly) the current
theory. Nice try, though.
>
> > RF
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> Someday I might publish
Before Ray does, or after . . . .?
- though publishing something so fundamentally
> counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> unlikely to get past the vetters.
Yeah, I hear the flat earthers have the same problem.
You're a bullshitter, just like Ray. (shrug)
hersheyh
> On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
>
> Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
> sequence by definition.
And "target" sequences that are close to a current sequence are the
ones most likely to be found.
> Many sequences in sequence space are
> potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target".
And almost all of them are utterly irrelevant if you require them to
be found starting with a specific sequence. OTOH, new, modified,
emergent, or additional functions that are nearby the specified start
site *are* likely to be found. What is the probability that a "target
sequence" one aa change (or one mutational step) away will be found
compared to the probability that a target sequence in which almost all
the sequence is different will be found?
> It is
> just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
> exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
> specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
Doesn't matter if that is true or not. The fact remains that any
target that is close to a current sequence will be likely to be found
regardless of the size of the end product. And those that are not
close won't be found. History is written by the winners. It is also
written about the events that *did* happen, not the ones that *didn't*
happen.
> > Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
> > find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
>
> The targets do exist in the potential of sequence space. If the
> mechanism of RM finds them, then they will be selected, in a positive
> manner, by NS. If not, evolution won't happen. Of course, evolution
> doesn't have to happen at all. That's quite true.
Which is why your "averages" (which are not averages) and "minimal
likelys" are irrelevant. We need to determine the source of the
winners, not the losers that never happened.
> > If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
> > that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
> > is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
> > fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
> > commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
> > numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
> > unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
>
> I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
> Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
> target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
> that is greater than 1000 fsaar.
There is no relevant statistic that can do that using the assumptions
you make. You would need to include knowledge of what sequences are
actually available, actually searchable, what the environmental
conditions are, and how close the *absolute* closest sequence that has
a modified, additional, emergent, or novel function is.
> The odds of finding such a target
> are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds
> of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote
> this side of trillions of years of time.
I don't see that you have presented enough evidence to say that. I
say that such searches are highly idiosyncratic wrt finding a
"winner". In most cases, proteins, just like morphology and
physiology, are exaptated to perform the new function before the new
function was needed.
> > In your paragraph example, if we use "And that's the problem in a
> > nutshell" as the baseline, then insert random words in various
> > positions, one will match the longer sequence "And that's the problem
> > in a nutshell. With".
> > If matching your 'target' is beneficial, THAT longer string will
> > become the baseline.
>
> That's the big question. If the addition is beneficial, then
> certainly it will be added. The problem is that as sequences get
> longer and longer, getting to the next potentially beneficial
> steppingstone will require longer and longer additions.
Perhaps that accounts for the relative rarity of large proteins. I
certainly do not see a cut-off point at 1000 aa's (or fsaars which you
seemingly keep forgetting is a different number from minimal size,
just as you forget to actually look for the minimal size). Certainly
doesn't tell us how the ones that do exist came into existence.
> Single
> character additions only work so far before two-character additions
> are needed to bridge the growing gap sizes and then 3, 4, 5, 10, 50,
> etc., character additions are needed to hit the next closest
> potentially beneficial target. Simply adding "with" at the end is not
> going to improve the beneficial nature of the paragraph. You have to
> add quite a bit more to actually improve the functional beneficial
> nature of the sequence. That's the problem at this level.
>
> > Starting from "And that's the problem in a nutshell. With" as the
> > baseline and repeating the addition of random words in random
> > locations, the next best match will come in quickly. Evolution is
> > sequential and parallel, not your 'stagger drunkenly through ALL of
> > sequence space until it all falls together all at once'.
>
> Not true. The next best match will require a lot more characters to
> match correctly to produce the next functionally beneficial
> steppingstone in the evolutionary sequence. That's the whole
> problem.
>
> > All you've done is notice a complex system, then did 'math' to
> > 'calculate' the 'odds' that it would fall together all at once purely
> > by chance.
>
> Nope. I've calculated the odds that the next closest steppingstone
> will be within a certain numbers of character additions of a large set
> of starting points.
And that number, even if you could calculate it would tell you nothing
about how any particular protein *did* form or how large a gap it
*actually* had to cross.
hersheyh
> On Jan 28, 3:27 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
> > > least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
> > > is required?
>
> > The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> > mechanism doing the job.
>
> of course, such a statement is one of blatant and stupdendous idiocy
>
> no theory in science sits around on its fat ass waiting for other
> theories to die so it's the last one standing
>
> if sean had an INKLING of how science actually worked, he'd be digging
> up evidence FOR creationism instead of AGAINST evolution.
Well, he would be looking for evidence that could test his hypothesis
that the eubacterial flagella was (the equivalent of) man-made. Like
independent evidence that such an entity actually existed at the right
time and place. Given that the ID is invisible and undetectable and
probably supernatural, that is hard to do. Kind of makes ID
equivalent to "I don't have a bung hole clue how the flagella came
into existence" with more arrogant rectumtudiousness and less
curiosity.
David Hare-Scott
..snip details of theory....
Perhaps you missed this question in a previous thread so I will repeat it.
<quote>
I wouldn't know a sequence space from a spaceman's face so I have no
argument at all about the substance of your proposition(s). However just
for the non technical reader like me please explain why you don't submit
your work to the relevant learned journals and let the real experts say if
it has any merit?
<unquote>
David
William Morse
> On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The odds of any three three-unit subassemblies combining to form a
>> > > particular end sequence of 9 units are 1 in 27,Sean.
>>
>> > Not true . . . not if a specific order of all the residues in all 9
>> > units is required to be realized - all 999 of them in one specific
>> > sequence.
>>
>> Not true. According to YOU, the formation of 333-unit sequence is
>> "easy" for natural selection.
>
> The formation of a functionally beneficial system that requires at least
> 333 fsaar is fairly easy for RM/NS - that's true. That doesn't mean the
> formation of the specific 333aa requirements for a portion of a 999
> fsaar system is remotely likely to happen within a given gene pool -
> much less all three such subsections.
>
>> All natural selection does is tinker with the components that are
>> already there.
>
> Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
> they are at 333aa.
>
>> And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
>
> Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy. The reason
> for this is that the 999aa system likely requires a specific arrangement
> of subsystem residue parts that each individual subsystem, as an
> independent smaller system, does not require. That means that the odds
> that each 333aa system will be properly setup to match the structural
> requirements of the 999aa system are extremely remote. The odds are
> extremely good that 50+ required residue positions will still be out of
> place regardless of the combination of the three 333aa subsystems.
>
> That's the problem. It isn't an easy thing to simply link up subsystems
> in a way that will make them collectably functional, to a beneficial
> degree, at a higher level of functional complexity. Odds are that a
> significant amount of "tweeking" would have to take place, at minimum,
> before any selectable degree of higher level functionality could be
> realized.
But this is only (based on current knowledge) a problem for abiogenesis.
Once we get a collectably functional system, we just need to gradually
add additional functionality, and this we know to be well within the
capabilities of natural selection and evo-devo.
>> ALSO according to you, there is nothing -- nothing at all whatsoever --
>> that prevents a sub-component of an already-existing system (such as,
>> oh, part of a bacterial flagellum), moving it somewhere else and using
>> it for an entirely unrelated and new function (such as, oh, cellular
>> excretion).
>
> That's right. This is because the odds that smaller subsystems will
> exist within larger systems of function are extremely good. It's like
> taking the drive shaft out of a car and still having the lights or radio
> work. That's easy. It is much different to go the other direction
> however - - to start with independently acting light, radio, motor,
> wheels, carburetor, etc., systems and have them effectively link
> together with other systems to produce the motility function of a car.
> That's where the real problems come into play.
You have this backward, with respect to evolution. You assume the car,
and then try to deconstruct it. Let's just assume the bacteria - then
everything follows by mutation and natural selection. We get to
independently acting systems through evolution, but we don't have to
start with independently acting systems, so your problems are illusory.
> For example, it is very easy to have a single point mutation remove the
> ability of a fish to make eyes - in a single generation. However, it is
> not so easy to get a fish whose gene pool has never had eyes before to
> easily produce them - - even in trillions of generations. All the
> subparts may be there doing other types of functions within the fish
> genome, but getting them to link up properly, via random mutations, is
> much much less likely.
>
There are no fish whose gene pools have never had eyes before, unless you
are a believer in fairy tales. There are pre-Cambrian species with
primitive eyespots, and these did not involve lots of different subparts.
Evolution often involved two functions linking, but this is not
difficult. The only difficulty is your insistence on hurricanes in
junkyards.
>> Combining these two assertions of YOURS, it stands to reason that
>> nothing, absolutely nothing at all wehatsoever, prevents natural
>> selection from moving any number of "easily produced" 333-unit
>> subassemblies anywhere they might be useful, and combining them
>> together.
>
> That's where you're mistaken. You don't understand the statistics
> involved. The minimum structural threshold requirements for a 333aa
> system are very unlikely to be the same as any 333aa section of any
> potentially beneficial 999 fsaar system.
>
>> NOW all of a sudden, you want to wave your arms in the air and declare
>> that it's NOT easy, and NOWE, all of a sudden, you want to declare that
>> all of these subunits too must appear all at once, simultaneously, in
>> oen fell swoop, before they can be combined. It's horseshit,Sean. And
>> you know it just as well as I do.
>
> You're clueless here Lenny. The odds that all the needed subsystem
> parts for a 999 fsaar system will actually exist in a given gene pool in
> the proper arrangement required by the 999aa system are extremely
> remote. A given gene pool has very limited options. It doesn't have an
> endless library at its disposal. That is why the odds of higher and
> higher level systems having the needed subsystem parts in existence
> within a given gene pool get less and less likely at higher and higher
> levels of functional complexity.
Nice try at a misdirection, but this still boils down to the hurricane in
a junkyard argument. The argument is interesting at the level of
abiogenesis, but since then biology is only about filling in the details
of evolution, unless you want to seriously argue for YEC (i.e. you want
to claim the earth is flat)
(snip)
Yours,
Bill Morse
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
They aren't *my* examples, Sean. They are the cumulative evidence from
centuries of research by scientist who actually *study* nature by
testing hypotheses against the evidence.
They demonstrate it because we observe it in action in populations of
organisms, and because it makes predictions which can and have been
verified against the evidence.
> Upon what basis do you assume that this
> particular mechanism was remotely likely to have been capable of doing
> the job in any given period of time?
On the basis of the evidence, Sean. You know, the thing you seem to
think irrelevant in science.
> Have any demonstration or
> statistical analysis?
It's been demonstrated over and over again by the evidence, and
exhaustively investigated using *real* statistical analyses (unlike
the technically incompetent rubbish you pull out of the air). I've
given you references. Of course, you ignore them as you ignore
anything which shows that you are wrong.
>
> > > Science doesn't require
> > > perfection.
>
> > No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested
> > by the acquisition of evidence.
>
> > What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
> > least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
> > is required?
>
> The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> mechanism doing the job.
Bullshit, Sean.
How do you know that the mechanism doesn't work only because some
supernatural force is manipulating it?
More to point, your "hypothesis" of a "non-ID mechanism doing the job"
is so vague and unspecified as to be meaningless.
>
> > Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bullshit,
> > but then why should I care?
>
> I don't know? Why do you care?
Because I want you to make yourself look dishonest so that I can
demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationism. I've told you
this several times in the past but you carry on posting your dishonest
garbage.
>
> > You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bullshit.
> > That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it
> > to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time
> > it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing
> > yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are
> > not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as
> > scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bullshit.
> > Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
> > as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
> > to get it published.
>
> Someday I might publish -
Bullshit, Sean. You'll never publish because you know that your
"theory" will not stand up to critical scrutiny.
> though publishing something so fundamentally
> counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> unlikely to get past the vetters.
Something which is such a load of unmitigated bullshit won't get past
the "vetters".
> Certainly no one here would
> published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
> paper it might be.
But you have claimed that anyone with a "candid mind" can understand
your "theory". Are you seriously telling us that no editor of any
journal in academia has a "candid mind"?
> In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
> resembling a reasonable counter?
The fact that your "theory" is based on a model of evolution which has
never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist, which is
unsupported by any evidence, and the technical incompetence of your
mathematics is a pretty good start.
> Do you really need an argument to be
> "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
> you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
What's wrong with the facts that your "theory" is based on a model of
evolution which has never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist,
that it is unsupported by any evidence, and that your mathematics is
technical incompetent?
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>>
>> > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
>> > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
>> > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
>> > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
>> > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
>> > > and/or specificity requirements.
>>
>> > Take the above paragraph as an example for a little experiment: If
>> > you do a Google search for, "And that's the problem in a
>> > nutshell" (i.e., A 36-character match to the paragraph), you'll get
>> > 471 matches. If you do a search for, "And that's the problem in a
>> > nutshell. With", you'll only get one match. If you do a search for
>> > And that's the problem in a nutshell. With each", you'll not get any
>> > matches.
>>
>> > And, as the target sequence gets longer and longer, what happens to
>> > the average match size for portions of the target sequence? Do they
>> > get longer and longer as well? - relative to a given pool of sequence
>> > options? No. The average size of a sequence match stays the same.
>> > What does this mean? It means that more and more sequences of the
>> > average length are required to be linked together in the proper
>> > collective arrangement by purely random processes before the final
>> > product can be realized.
>>
>> And THAT is the core idiocy of your model, Sean - in nature, THERE ARE
>> NO EXTERNALLY IMPOSED PREDETERMINED TARGETS. Evolution is
>> demographics - if mutation A grants an advantage, it will become more
>> common, and become the baseline for later mutations. They stack up -
>> thus there is no exponential gain (the 'non-beneficial sequences'
>> would have been mostly purged as one 'beneficial' sequence rises to
>> dominance).
>
>Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
>sequence by definition. Many sequences in sequence space are
>potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target". It is
>just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
>exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
>specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
>
>> Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
>> find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
>
>The targets do exist in the potential of sequence space. If the
>mechanism of RM finds them, then they will be selected, in a positive
>manner, by NS. If not, evolution won't happen. Of course, evolution
>doesn't have to happen at all. That's quite true.
>
>> If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
>> that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
>> is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
>> fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
>> commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
>> numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
>> unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
>
>I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
>Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
>target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
>that is greater than 1000 fsaar. The odds of finding such a target
>are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds
>of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote
>this side of trillions of years of time.
As I suggested in a posting which you ignored, to talk about
the odds against an event occurring and the actual occurrence of the
event are two completely different things.
This undermines your argument. As I said earlier, you don't
have to exhaust all the other possibilities before the occurrence of
the event.
Joe Cummings
>Sean Pitman
>www.DetectingDesign.com
Nashton
wf3h,
Sean outclasses you in both knowledge of science and his capacity to
understand it at a far deeper level than most of the evo-cheerleader
posters (and I mean this in the nicest way).
I can understand why most of you resort to insults and ad moms, as it's
probably the best you can do;)
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
>
> > the argument cuts both ways, my friend. the difference is my hopeful
> > monster is around every day in science.
>
> > yours has never been seen, even under YOUR bed let alone mine.
>
> wf3h,
>
> Sean outclasses you in both knowledge of science and his capacity to
> understand it at a far deeper level than most of the evo-cheerleader
> posters (and I mean this in the nicest way).
yes, i'm sure to a person who thinks electrons have smiley faces
painted on them by god, sean is an intellectual giant. more's the
pity.
>
> I can understand why most of you resort to insults and ad moms, as it's
> probably the best you can do;)-
and it's more than you can understand. ;-)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
He's waiting for Ray to go first. (snicker, giggle)
Perhaps Sean's reluctance to publish his, uh, world-shattering earth-
changing paradigm-altering scientific discovery of the millenium
(snicker, giggle) has something to do with the fact that he has been
presenting it here for years, and hasn't convinced a single person
that he's right. None. Not one. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Which would seem to indicate that either (1) he's wrong, or (2) he's
too incompetent to be able to tell people why he's right.
Of course, we already know that Sean is, uh, not terribly bright as a
religious apologist, since he is, apparently seriously and with a
straight face, attempting to argue for the existence of God (and that
of course is ID's only utility), by, uh, denying that the designer is
God.
(snicker) (giggle)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Because I want you to make yourself look dishonest so that I can
> demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationism. I've told you
> this several times in the past but you carry on posting your dishonest
> garbage.
(snip)
If the fundamentalists were sdtill a real threat, I'd have the same
motivatrion. But alas for Sean, creationism/ID is dead as a mackerel.
It died horribly in court, all its primary cheerleaders have retired
to small Bible colleges in Texas, and nobody pays the slightest
attention to it or them anymore.
Indeed, nobody even takes Sean seriously. No one has been convinced
by his bullshit, and even his fellow creationists think he's a
heretic. So Sean is just wanking his intellectual weiner. (shrug)
I'm just here to laugh at him.
Ilas
news:234afae7-033f-482a...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 28, 11:28 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> wrong. there is no 'human level ID' present in nature and ID is not a
>> force. a force is defined rather stringently, i'm afraid, in science.
>> that's what's got you confused. you think thoughts are forces of
>> nature.
>
> LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
> Without the influence of ID, there are no natural forces that produce
> qualitatively novel functionally beneficial biosystems beyond the 1000
> fsaar threshold level of functional complexity . . .
So, publish. Let the world see your theory of the century (if not the
theory of all time). Usenet truly isn't the place for this sort of world
changing stuff. You are sure it'll stand up to examination, aren't you? So,
besides the fact that, you, an obscure pathologist, will becomes the most
famous scientist since Einstein (in fact, your fame will probably exceed
his), for the sake of humanity's cumulative knowledge don't keep such an
extraordinary discovery secret. Publish. Or at the very least tell us why
you can't.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
LOL -- show us.
Show us a force which has been maniupulated by this ID.
Show us what bthis ID did.
Show us what mechanisms it used to do whatever the heck you think it
did.
Show us where we should look to see the ID manipulating something else
using similar methods.
Put up or shut up, Sean.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Joe Cummings
If Sean has the powerful intellect you claim, why hasn't he
answered my critique:
"I've just laid out a sequence of all the cards in a pack. The
odds against this particular sequence being laid out are:
8,1391431308861550195039369918735e+68 to one.
"Yet it's there on the table.
"If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according
to
Sean, it should have taken the above number times five minutes for me
to have produced this result.
"To talk about the odds against an event happening and the
actual fact of the event is mixing one's methods more than slightly.
"Perhaps it will be helpful to Sean to realise that to reach a
particular event does not mean having to exhaust all the other
possibilities first."
Joe Cummings
Maybe he isn't such a giant. Could you help him out?
JC
Seanpit
>
> >Seanoutclasses you in both knowledge of science and his capacity to
> >understand it at a far deeper level than most of the evo-cheerleader
> >posters (and I mean this in the nicest way).
>
> >probably the best you can do;)
>
> If Sean has the powerful intellect you claim, why hasn't he
> answered my critique:
>
> "I've just laid out a sequence of all the cards in a pack. The
> odds against this particular sequence being laid out are:
>
> 8,1391431308861550195039369918735e+68 to one.
>
> "Yet it's there on the table.
>
> "If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according
> to Sean, it should have taken the above number times five minutes for me
> to have produced this result.
It would have taken 8e67 times five minute for you to have predicted a
particular result - given a truly random shuffling of a deck of 52.
You see, you are confusing the fact that each particular result has
the same odds of success with the idea that finding a particular
result with some attached importance does not have the same odds of
success if sequences with attached importance are relatively rare.
This is the problem with biosystem evolution via the mechanism of RM/
NS. The vast majority of options do not have any attached
importance. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible options do have
selectable importance to a given population in a given environment.
> "To talk about the odds against an event happening and the
> actual fact of the event is mixing one's methods more than slightly.
You don't have a clue as to the statistical problems involved here.
> "Perhaps it will be helpful to Sean to realise that to reach a
> particular event does not mean having to exhaust all the other
> possibilities first."
Tell me, what are the odds that you, you in particular, will win the
California Lottery in your lifetime if you play every single time? No
doubt you will come back and say that the odds are very low for you to
win, but very high that someone will win. Ok, so, what are the odds
that the same person will win 10 times in a row?
You see, if you keep increasing the rarity of an event, pretty soon
the odds that anyone will win in a reasonable amount of time, even in
a very large population, drop to essentially nil. That's the problem
with the mechanism of RM/NS beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold. The odds
of success, even for any individual within a very large population,
are still essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of
years of time.
> Joe Cummings
>
> Maybe he isn't such a giant. Could you help him out?
Well, where you're dealing with midgets, being a "giant" is somewhat
relative ; )
> JC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 29, 6:28 am, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > "If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according
> > to Sean, it should have taken the above number times five minutes for me
> > to have produced this result.
>
> It would have taken 8e67 times five minute for you to have predicted a
> particular result - given a truly random shuffling of a deck of 52.
>
> You see, you are confusing the fact that each particular result has
> the same odds of success with the idea that finding a particular
> result with some attached importance does not have the same odds of
> success if sequences with attached importance are relatively rare.
>
> This is the problem with biosystem evolution via the mechanism of RM/
> NS. The vast majority of options do not have any attached
> importance. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible options do have
> selectable importance to a given population in a given environment.
unfortunately, recent work by venter's group has shown, contrary to
pitman's fantasies, that there are no kinetic or thermodynamic
barriers to the development and evolution of DNA that codes for aa
chains>1000. such systems can develop by entirely natural processes.
there are no physical reasons why they can't. there is no input
needed other than chemistry or physics.
and sean has proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a
natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals,
temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND
what venter's group has done. sean has no testable mechanism, nothing
that nature itself could not do.
sean has an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary
among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his
church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of
science.
>
> You see, if you keep increasing the rarity of an event, pretty soon
> the odds that anyone will win in a reasonable amount of time, even in
> a very large population, drop to essentially nil. That's the problem
> with the mechanism of RM/NS beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold. The odds
> of success, even for any individual within a very large population,
> are still essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of
> years of time.
well let's look at creationism shall we? it's been tested for 2000
years.
and it's always failed. but sean has no objectivity so insists that,
THIS TIME, it's right. he insists that HIS methodology does not
include testing theories...because his church would not approve...but
that OTHERS must test THEIR theories according to science
and he insists that's how science is done because, after all, it's
what his church teaches.
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 3:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> > > > > And, that's the problem in a nutshell. With each step up the ladder
> > > > > of functional complexity, the odds that a sizable percentage of the
> > > > > needed sequence will exist, preformed, within any collection of
> > > > > sequences that wasn't already derived from the sequence in question,
> > > > > drop, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum sequence size
> > > > > and/or specificity requirements.
>
> > > > Take the above paragraph as an example for a little experiment: If
> > > > you do a Google search for, "And that's the problem in a
> > > > nutshell" (i.e., A 36-character match to the paragraph), you'll get
> > > > 471 matches. If you do a search for, "And that's the problem in a
> > > > nutshell. With", you'll only get one match. If you do a search for
> > > > And that's the problem in a nutshell. With each", you'll not get any
> > > > matches.
>
> > > > And, as the target sequence gets longer and longer, what happens to
> > > > the average match size for portions of the target sequence? Do they
> > > > get longer and longer as well? - relative to a given pool of sequence
> > > > options? No. The average size of a sequence match stays the same.
> > > > What does this mean? It means that more and more sequences of the
> > > > average length are required to be linked together in the proper
> > > > collective arrangement by purely random processes before the final
> > > > product can be realized.
>
> > > NO EXTERNALLY IMPOSED PREDETERMINED TARGETS. Evolution is
> > > demographics - if mutation A grants an advantage, it will become more
> > > common, and become the baseline for later mutations. They stack up -
> > > thus there is no exponential gain (the 'non-beneficial sequences'
> > > would have been mostly purged as one 'beneficial' sequence rises to
> > > dominance).
>
> > Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
> > sequence by definition.
>
> ONE target being found ?
My calculations concern the odds of finding at least one of the
targets among a great many targets using a very large population of
searchers. For example, imagine a field that is a million km square.
Now, lets say that there are 100 targets that are each 1m square
within that field - in a homogeneous distribution . Let's also say
that we have 1000 blindfolded searchers starting on one of these
targets. The blindfolded searcher each take on step into off of their
starting point target into the field randomly and start walking around
randomly. At a rate of 1 second per step, how long will it take for
any one of the searchers to find the first new target in the field?
Do you have any idea how to solve this problem? If so, you also have
an idea how to solve this very same problem for biosystem evolution
via RM/NS.
> > Many sequences in sequence space are
> > potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target". It is
> > just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
> > exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
> > specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
>
> So you continuously bellow - too bad that your model relies on
> staggering randomly through 'sequence' space, and thus has no
> relevance to reality.
That is reality. That is why mutations are called "random mutations"
- i.e., because they are, well, random. There is no guiding force
involved here until after a target is actually found by pure random
chance.
> Selection keeps winnowing out non-targets each generation, so you
> don't get your silly 'exponential decline' - beneficial 'targets'
> remain, non-beneficial get culled out. In other words - natural
> selection acts like an 'intelligent designer'.
We're talking about finding new targets. Keeping a target once it is
already part of the population is easy. Finding new targets is the
hard part. The ratio we are talking about here are the number of
potential targets that exist in sequence space which have not yet been
found vs. the number of sequences that are not targets and would not
be beneficial even if they were found.
> The results LOOK like an intelligence crafted it, but only those
> desperately wishing to believe in Magical Sky Pixies assert the
> unknown intelligent agent actually exists.
LOL - If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a
chicken anyway? Really? Tell that to SETI scientists . . .
> > > Life is only dealing with sequences that actually WORK, not trying to
> > > find some 'target' you bellow must exist.
>
> > The targets do exist in the potential of sequence space. If the
> > mechanism of RM finds them, then they will be selected, in a positive
> > manner, by NS. If not, evolution won't happen. Of course, evolution
> > doesn't have to happen at all. That's quite true.
>
> Too bad for you that there is abundant evidence that evolution has
> indeed happened - and no amount of frantic handwaving and blubbering
> about 'long odds' can change that.
Where is this evidence regarding the mechanism of RM/NS beyond 1000
fsaars? You keep asserting that you have such evidence, but so far
the very best you have produced is a clarification of your own
ignorance regarding the statistical problems with your own theory.
> > > If the 'odds' of a beneficial mutation are 1/300,000, and you 'decree'
> > > that 500 MUST exist, the 'odds' that it will happen
> > > is NOT (1/300,000)^500, but only 1/300,000 - once the first mutation
> > > fixes, it becomes the baseline. You seem pathologically determined to
> > > commit the multiple-AND error (most likely because it bloats the
> > > numbers so you have an excuse to invoke the unknowable whim of an
> > > unknown intelligence that somehow does stuff).
>
> > I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
> > Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
> > target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
> > that is greater than 1000 fsaar.
>
> There's that core idiocy again - nature is under NO obligation to find
> anything of any size YOU say it must.
That's true. Nature is under no obligation to evolve anything. It is
just that you claim that Nature has in fact evolved quite a lot of
stuff that is well over 1000 fsaar in functional complexity. That
claim is simply fairytale story telling unless you can back it up with
some relevant odds analysis or demonstration. So far, you have
nothing but bald assertions and story telling - not predictive value
and therefore not science.
> In REALITY, the 'minimal structural threshold requirement' is WHATEVER
> WORKS. If a team of three 400 aa proteins get the job done, then that
> is all that is required.
If 400 fsaar is all that is required, that system isn't nearly as
functionally complex as one that requires a minimum of over 1000
fsaars. Again, Nature doesn't have to produce high levels of
functional complexity. It is just that if you claim that she did in
fact do this, you have to support your proposed mechanism for how She
did this with some actual evidence that goes beyond your say so. As
impressive as your "say so" may be to your friends in this forum, it
isn't science . . . sorry.
> How many systems OBSERVED IN NATURE actually meet your 'requirement'
> that CANNOT be explained by standard evolution ?
Beyond the fact that quantity doesn't matter here (the quality of
systems is what is important here), all subcellular organelles qualify
and all multicellular systems qualify. In short, you wouldn't exist
without 1000+ fsaar systems.
> You seem to have this silly idea that everything MUST fall together
> all at once PURELY by chance on a timescale YOU decree. And creotards
> claim evolutionists are arrogant !
>
> That example with the 1/300,000 was to show your core error - the
> silly arsed notion that there IS an exponential decline in beneficial/
> non-beneficial targets. Once the system has reached one target, there
> is no need for it to find it again and again and again and again and
> again and again and again like your mathemagics require.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of sequence space or the notion of
targets that have not yet been found that exist within that space - as
"potential targets". It is this ratio of potentially beneficial vs.
non-beneficial sequences or "targets" that is important here. This
ratio changes as one considers different levels of functional
complexity.
For example, what is the ratio of meaningfully defined 2-character
sequences in the English language system vs. non-meaningful
sequences? This ratio is about 1 in 7. What is it for 3-character
sequences? The answer is about 1 in 18. What about 7-character
sequences? The ratio is about 1 in 250,000.
Do you see the pattern? There is an exponential decline in meaningful
vs. non-meaningful in the English language system with each increase
in the minimum size requirement given a particular degree of
specificity. The very same thing is true of protein-based systems.
Each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement
reduces the ratio of potential viable vs. non-viable in an exponential
manner. This reduction in ratio makes it exponentially harder for a
given population of random searchers to find new target sequences at
higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
> You seem under the Dembski Delusion - you observe a complex system
> (the end result of billions of years of evolution), then whip out a
> calculator and calculate the odds of it falling together all at once
> PURELY by chance exactly the way it is now (ie, completely ignore its
> history). Then, when you see how unlikely it is, claim an unknown
> external intelligence somehow did something.
That's not what's happening here. What is happening here is a
calculation of the odds of getting from one to the next steppingstone
along the pathway toward the evolution of a higher-level system. The
problem isn't one where all the parts of a system have to come
together all at once. They don't. There are in fact many potential
steppingstones along the way. The real problem here is that these
steppingstones get progressively farther and farther apart in sequence
space at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
< snip rest until you can grasp at least this much of the problem >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 3:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
> > sequence by definition.
>
> And "target" sequences that are close to a current sequence are the
> ones most likely to be found.
That's right. The problem is that the odds that a target sequence
will be "close" to any starting sequence drop, exponentially, with
each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement.
> > Many sequences in sequence space are
> > potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target".
>
> And almost all of them are utterly irrelevant if you require them to
> be found starting with a specific sequence. OTOH, new, modified,
> emergent, or additional functions that are nearby the specified start
> site *are* likely to be found. What is the probability that a "target
> sequence" one aa change (or one mutational step) away will be found
> compared to the probability that a target sequence in which almost all
> the sequence is different will be found?
That's not the important question here. The important question is,
"What are the odds that a target sequence will happen to be one aa
change away from any starting position?" That's the real question
here, and the answer to that question depends upon the level of
functional complexity under consideration.
I have shown you several papers that clearly prove that even at very
low levels of functional complexity the odds of a target being within
a single aa change of any starting point are low. These odds only get
exponentially lower and lower with each step up the ladder of
functional complexity.
I know, I know . . . your standard comeback is that evolution only
happens when it can happen. Well, Howard, that isn't very scientific
of you. Science is about predicting the future - about predicting
when something is or isn't "likely" to happen in a given amount of
time. Arguing that something happens when it happens isn't a
scientific statement or hypothesis. It's nothing but a nonsense
statement.
> > It is
> > just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
> > exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
> > specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
>
> Doesn't matter if that is true or not.
Yes, it does - at least when it comes to real science and predictive
value is concerned.
> The fact remains that any
> target that is close to a current sequence will be likely to be found
> regardless of the size of the end product.
LOL - there you go using the word "likely". Of course it is true that
if a target happens to be within one aa change of a starting point
that it is very likely to be found in a very short amount of time by a
large population. What isn't remotely likely, however, is that such a
close distance will actually exist beyond the 1000 fsaar level of
functional complexity. Why is that? Because the very low ratio of
targets, with a uniform distribution in sequence space at this level,
does have a great deal to do with this particular notion of yours -
despite your assertions and wishful thinking to the contrary.
> And those that are not
> close won't be found. History is written by the winners. It is also
> written about the events that *did* happen, not the ones that *didn't*
> happen.
You assume that it happened this way because you want it to have
happened this way. The odds of you being right, however, are very
much against you beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of functional
Ilas
news:259f1384-35d8-479f...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
<biiiig snip>
Sean, let's forget all this to-ing and fro-ing in an obscure corner of the
Internet. Why aren't you publishing your astonishing work? Surely, if
you're right, you've made the greatest scientific breakthrough of the past
100 years. So, publish. If not, why not?
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 2:56 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> > The results LOOK like an intelligence crafted it, but only those
> > desperately wishing to believe in Magical Sky Pixies assert the
> > unknown intelligent agent actually exists.
>
> LOL - If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a
> chicken anyway? Really? Tell that to SETI scientists . .
SETI is not biochemistry. you only use this analogy because you're not
a scientist and can't develop a testable mechanism as a scientist
would. it's a mark both of your lack of education, and the failure of
your mechanism.
>
> > In REALITY, the 'minimal structural threshold requirement' is WHATEVER
> > WORKS. If a team of three 400 aa proteins get the job done, then that
> > is all that is required.
>
> If 400 fsaar is all that is required, that system isn't nearly as
> functionally complex as one that requires a minimum of over 1000
> fsaars
how do you know this? a system where the ACTIVE REGION of a protein is
400aa's is more complex than a protein which is 1400aa's long, but has
an active region of 200aa...which is more complex?
. Again, Nature doesn't have to produce high levels of
> functional complexity. It is just that if you claim that she did in
> fact do this, you have to support your proposed mechanism for how She
> did this with some actual evidence that goes beyond your say so. As
> impressive as your "say so" may be to your friends in this forum, it
> isn't science . . . sorry.
<chuckle> and what you require of others you ignore for your own
mechanism. you have proposed none.
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
>
> ..snip details of theory....
>
> Perhaps you missed this question in a previous thread so I will repeat it.
>
> argument at all about the substance of your proposition(s). However just
> for the non technical reader like me please explain why you don't submit
> your work to the relevant learned journals and let the real experts say if
> it has any merit?
You are under the assumption that mainstream journals are operated by
open minded individuals. They aren't. They are run by those who are
just as opposed as anyone in this particular forum to anyone remotely
questioning the basis of the ToE. This isn't cold hard science under
attack here. This is a religious perspective on the part of
mainstream scientists who are just as passionate about their personal
beliefs in the ToE as is any group of hardened sectarian
fundamentalists. Well educated scientists who have dared to openly
question some of the more basic tenets of the ToE have been ostracized
by their peers and many have lost their reputations and even their
jobs over this issue. Even some up for Nobel Prizes have been
overlooked because of their negative views of the ToE.
I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue that is clear of personal passion
and prejudice. It is a very heated topic and it stirs up a lot of
deep seated emotions and irrational fears - even in mainstream
scientists.
Beyond this, I'm just asking my questions in this forum to see if
anyone here has any decent responses or answers to my questions. So
far, I've not seen anything beyond a severe misunderstanding of the
statistical problems involved, just-so story telling, bald assertions,
appeals to authority, passing the buck, and lame attempts and ad hom
attacks. Practically nobody in this forum hasn't used at least a few
swear words and capital letters in their responses to my questions.
Only one or two have produced any serious attempt to respond in kind
with some effort to deal with the actual questions presented.
So hey, if you have something to contribute, by all means do so. I'm
not here to convince your or anyone else of anything. I'm here to
test my own ideas against those who are most passionately against me -
- and I mean passionate. This almost seems like a life and death
issue for some in this forum. Very interesting for so much passion,
and even vitriolic hatred, to be exuded by those who call themselves
"scientists" - i.e., dispassionately interested in searching for and
discovering "truth".
> David
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:47:14 -0800, Seanpit wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:53 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, but the odds of success are not the remotely the same at 999aa as
> > they are at 333aa.
>
> >> And according to YOU, getting those components is "easy".
>
> > Getting subsystems is easy. Getting them to be properly arranged so
> > that they can link up to produce a 999aa system is not easy.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it certainly is a hell of a lot easier than
trying to poof it *all* into existence in one swell foop like your
math says is the *only* way it can happen. Most of the heavy lifting
(generating the subsystems in the range of 334 aa lengths) has already
been done by RM/NS, after all. You have already stated that
generating functional 334 aa sequences would be "easy" and well within
the capabilities of RM/NS. All that is necessary, then, is for each
334 aa protein to have sufficient interaction with another one of the
proteins to form a two-protein subsystem, which doesn't *even* have to
have a different, additional, modified, or novel function so long as
the interaction doesn't interfere with the previous functionality.
Not that a different, additional, modified, or novel improvement is
impossible with that initial pairing, just that it is technically
unnecessary. Most such protein-protein interaction sites are quite
small wrt the number of aa residues involved. Then add the third.
Lots of time to find the rare interaction that has an additional
selective benefit without destroying the subfunctions that can easily
be evolved by RM/NS according to you.
> > The reason
> > for this is that the 999aa system likely requires a specific arrangement
> > of subsystem residue parts that each individual subsystem, as an
> > independent smaller system, does not require. That means that the odds
> > that each 333aa system will be properly setup to match the structural
> > requirements of the 999aa system are extremely remote. The odds are
> > extremely good that 50+ required residue positions will still be out of
> > place regardless of the combination of the three 333aa subsystems.
What is your model for such combinations being so completely remote
that they become impossible?
>
[snip]
Seanpit
wrote:
Not beyond very low levels of functional complexity this is by no
means true. It simply has not been observed to happen nor is it
remotely likely to happen, by RM/NS, beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold
level of functional complexity. The gradual addition of structural
elements to produce higher and higher levels of functional complexity
becomes exponentially harder and harder to do because of the
exponential decline in the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets
in sequence space at higher and higher levels of functional
complexity.
It is very much like adding letters to growing English-language
sequences. It is very easy to start out with a one or two character
sequence, like I or It, and then add another letter and have it be
meaningful - like kit or pit, and then add another letter to that and
have it be meaningful like spit or kits . . . etc. Using random
mutational additions in this manner, in a fairly large population, one
can fairly quickly produce a sequence of over a dozen characters.
However, pretty soon, the evolutionary progress starts to die off, in
an exponential manner, even for very large populations of mutating
sequences undergoing function-based selection, until there is simply
no more evolutionary progress, even given trillions of years of time,
well before the 1000-character level is reached.
> >> ALSO according to you, there is nothing -- nothing at all whatsoever --
> >> that prevents a sub-component of an already-existing system (such as,
> >> oh, part of a bacterial flagellum), moving it somewhere else and using
> >> it for an entirely unrelated and new function (such as, oh, cellular
> >> excretion).
>
> > That's right. This is because the odds that smaller subsystems will
> > exist within larger systems of function are extremely good. It's like
> > taking the drive shaft out of a car and still having the lights or radio
> > work. That's easy. It is much different to go the other direction
> > however - - to start with independently acting light, radio, motor,
> > wheels, carburetor, etc., systems and have them effectively link
> > together with other systems to produce the motility function of a car.
> > That's where the real problems come into play.
>
> You have this backward, with respect to evolution. You assume the car,
> and then try to deconstruct it. Let's just assume the bacteria - then
> everything follows by mutation and natural selection. We get to
> independently acting systems through evolution, but we don't have to
> start with independently acting systems, so your problems are illusory.
This is not the case with the TTSS system. This toxin injector system
required around 10 different proteins. It has recently been
conclusively demonstrated that this system evolved from a fully formed
flagellar system which required around 40 structural proteins.
So, you see, this is an example of evolutionary deconstruction, not
construction - unlikely your assertions of what is likely to occur at
this level of functional complexity.
> > For example, it is very easy to have a single point mutation remove the
> > ability of a fish to make eyes - in a single generation. However, it is
> > not so easy to get a fish whose gene pool has never had eyes before to
> > easily produce them - - even in trillions of generations. All the
> > subparts may be there doing other types of functions within the fish
> > genome, but getting them to link up properly, via random mutations, is
> > much much less likely.
>
> There are no fish whose gene pools have never had eyes before, unless you
> are a believer in fairy tales. There are pre-Cambrian species with
> primitive eyespots, and these did not involve lots of different subparts.
> Evolution often involved two functions linking, but this is not
> difficult. The only difficulty is your insistence on hurricanes in
> junkyards.
Not remotely true. All you have to do is remove the genes for eyes
from fish population and see how long it takes, even in an environment
that strongly favors eye evolution, for this population to evolve its
eyes back again by using historically non-eye systems. This is a much
much different scenario that putting fish with eyes into an
environment where eyes are not selectably advantageous and seeing how
long it takes for these fish to loose their eyes. This scenario
happens very very rapidly - relative to the first scenario (which
would never happen at all - statistically).
You simply don't understand the statistical basis of your argument.
Actually sit down and try do understand the idea that the ratio of
potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial in sequence space is
reduced, exponentially, with each step up the ladder of functional
complexity. Consider also that this pattern poses more and more of a
problem for evolutionary progress, via the mechanism of RM/NS, at
higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
> Yours,
> Bill Morse
Sincerely,
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jan 29, 11:20 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 6:28 am, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > "If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according
> > > to have produced this result.
>
> > It would have taken 8e67 times five minute for you to have predicted a
> > particular result - given a truly random shuffling of a deck of 52.
>
> > You see, you are confusing the fact that each particular result has
> > the same odds of success with the idea that finding a particular
> > result with some attached importance does not have the same odds of
> > success if sequences with attached importance are relatively rare.
>
> > This is the problem with biosystem evolution via the mechanism of RM/
> > NS. The vast majority of options do not have any attached
> > importance. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible options do have
> > selectable importance to a given population in a given environment.
>
> barriers to the development and evolution of DNA that codes for aa
> chains>1000. such systems can develop by entirely natural processes.
> there are no physical reasons why they can't. there is no input
> needed other than chemistry or physics.
>
> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals,
> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
>
> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND
> that nature itself could not do.
Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that.
ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS
cannot.
> seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary
> among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his
> church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of
> science.
Your ignorance drives your view.
> > You see, if you keep increasing the rarity of an event, pretty soon
> > the odds that anyone will win in a reasonable amount of time, even in
> > a very large population, drop to essentially nil. That's the problem
> > with the mechanism of RM/NS beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold. The odds
> > of success, even for any individual within a very large population,
> > are still essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of
> > years of time.
>
> well let's look at creationism shall we? it's been tested for 2000
> years.
>
> and it's always failed. butseanhas no objectivity so insists that,
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 4:17 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Many sequences in sequence space are
> > > potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target".
>>
> happens when it can happen. Well, Howard, that isn't very scientific
> of you. Science is about predicting the future - about predicting
> when something is or isn't "likely" to happen in a given amount of
> time. Arguing that something happens when it happens isn't a
> scientific statement or hypothesis. It's nothing but a nonsense
> statement.
gee. evolution makes a number of testable predictions.
creationism? it says 'something will happen when it happens'. and sean
calls that science. he doesn't let OTHERS get away with it, but since
his church allows it, that's OK....
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't know a sequence space from a spaceman's face so I have no
> > argument at all about the substance of your proposition(s). However just
> > for the non technical reader like me please explain why you don't submit
> > your work to the relevant learned journals and let the real experts say if
> > it has any merit?
>
> You are under the assumption that mainstream journals are operated by
> open minded individuals. They aren't. They are run by those who are
> just as opposed as anyone in this particular forum to anyone remotely
> questioning the basis of the ToE.
ah, yes, the behe paranoia model. i talked with behe once about this
issue at lehigh and he made the same argument, saying that all journal
editors were atheists. i asked him how the hell he could POSSIBLY know
that and he, to his credit, retracted his statement. so even he knows
it's wrong.
but you are, like all creationists, confusing open mindedness with
gullibility. the reason journal editors do not question the ToE or the
existence of stars, or of atoms or of any other well established fact
of nature is that it IS established fact.
now, your 7th day adventist madrassa may prefer the science of 1400
rather than the science of 2009, but there's no reason...other than
your arbitrary preference...to suppose what YOU say is true, and the
rest of the world false.
This isn't cold hard science under
> attack here. This is a religious perspective on the part of
> mainstream scientists who are just as passionate about their personal
> beliefs in the ToE as is any group of hardened sectarian
> fundamentalists.
and how do we know this? is there any evidence? has sean presented any
evidence?
no and no. so we're left with sean's spittle flecked assertions that
the GODDAMN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY just wont CONVERT to ellen white's
view of reality so we're all just bastards.
of course every madrassa graduate says that across the world. every
lunatic from every fringe group says that. it's why peer review got
established...because paranoid lunatics like sean simply would insist
their religion was science
journal editors are trans cultural. they come from every religion,
nation, etc. this allows for the screening out of most biases. but
sean, a fundamentalist, has no control over HIS biases. he simply
assumes, and therefore asserts, they are true. such is the logic of
the madrassa.
Well educated scientists who have dared to openly
> question some of the more basic tenets of the ToE have been ostracized
> by their peers and many have lost their reputations and even their
> jobs over this issue.
really? care to cite proof of this? because i have a counter proof,
mentioned above. mike behe was an assistant professor when i graduated
from lehigh. even AFTER publishing his creationist book he was
promoted to professor with tenure
so not only does sean have NO proof of his lies, he overlooks DISPROOF
of his lies. and that is proof enough of his paranoia.
>
> I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue that is clear of personal passion
> and prejudice. It is a very heated topic and it stirs up a lot of
> deep seated emotions and irrational fears - even in mainstream
> scientists.
well actually it doesn't. if it wasn't for the existence of 3rd rate
medical schools that teach religion and not science, if not for
lawyers and school boards....if not for the existence of fringe cults
like the 7th day adventists, creationism would be dead.
no scientists accept creationism/ID except for a handful of fringe
lunatics. it makes as much sense to say behe or sean is a 'scientist'
as it does to say that the father of the pakistani atomic bomb is a
'scientist' for his desire to pursue an 'islamic physics'.
it's really outhouse science. at one time the outhouse was the
pinnacle of hygiene. sean and his group think the outhouse is still
the best idea around, and rail at those who use toilets. sean just
can't accept he's part of a lunatic fringe.
>
> Beyond this, I'm just asking my questions in this forum to see if
> anyone here has any decent responses or answers to my questions.
you have no questions. so how can you expect answers? you see the
evidence for evolution and you define it out of existence in a way so
cramped that it makes sense only to other creationists. that's why no
SCIENTISTS take it seriously
your standard of proof is hypocritical. you INSIST others
1. specify a mechanism
2. develop a test for this mechanism
3. present the data on this test
and you? you do nothing...no mechanism, no test, no stats. nothing.
you're completely silent other than to mutter, like an alzheimer's
patient drooling into his oatmeal, something about SETI.
So
> far, I've not seen anything beyond a severe misunderstanding of the
> statistical problems involved, just-so story telling, bald assertions,
> appeals to authority, passing the buck, and lame attempts and ad hom
> attacks
says a man who:
1. never presented a testable mechanism
2. never presented statistical data on a mechanism
3. told us a just so story of how creationism...the most used failed
idea in history, is right
4. made bald assertions that creationism MUST be right because
evolution is wrong even though NO scientist would reason this way
5. passed the buck to his church as an authority
6 insisted that he alone was a scientist because he had all the
credentials that he himself defined
is there anyone MORE hypocritical, even in the CREATIONIST community
than this deluded creationist liar?
. Practically nobody in this forum hasn't used at least a few
> swear words and capital letters in their responses to my questions.
> Only one or two have produced any serious attempt to respond in kind
> with some effort to deal with the actual questions presented.
you have an arbitrary set of definitions that pretty well encompasses
everything. and part of that is that only YOU are serious. only YOUR
ideas are serious. unless someone conforms to YOUR way of thinking,
they're wrong
that's proof of being part of the aluminum foil hat crowd. you have no
objectivity and you've convinced yourself that everyone else in the
entire world is a liar.
>
> So hey, if you have something to contribute, by all means do so. I'm
> not here to convince your or anyone else of anything. I'm here to
> test my own ideas against those who are most passionately against me -
> - and I mean passionate. This almost seems like a life and death
> issue for some in this forum. Very interesting for so much passion,
> and even vitriolic hatred, to be exuded by those who call themselves
> "scientists" - i.e., dispassionately interested in searching for and
> discovering "truth".
>
i lived in texas. if it weren't for politicians, schoolboards and
lawyers, no one would give a rat's ass what you believed. but because
you DO believe a rat's ass and INISIST it's a silk purse to be taught
to society at large, it's an issue. SCIENTISTS don't take you
seriously but LAWYERS do.
and you're just too inbred to realize the difference.
Seanpit
< snip >
> > > NOW all of a sudden, you want to wave your arms in the air and declare
> > > that it's NOT easy, and NOWE, all of a sudden, you want to declare
> > > that all of these subunits too must appear all at once,
> > > simultaneously, in oen fell swoop, before they can be combined.
> > > It's horseshit,Sean. And you know it just as well as I do.
>
> > You're clueless here Lenny. The odds that all the needed subsystem
> > parts for a 999 fsaar system will actually exist in a given gene pool
> > in the proper arrangement required by the 999aa system are extremely
> > remote
>
> YOU said that forming 333-unit strings is "easy", Sean.
It is.
> How many 333-string units do we need to try before we get the three
> that work, Sean.
To get a match to a 333aa sequence within a specific 999aa string?
You'll need to try out 20^333, on average.
> Is it easier, Sean, ort is it harder, to produce a 999-unit string by
> combining 999 individual units randomly, or by combining three 333-
> units randomly.
There really is no significant advantage either way. The odds that
even one of your 333aa sequences will match any 333aa section of a
particular 999aa sequence are essentially nil. That's the basic
problem with your argument.
> You;re just bullshiting us, Sean.
You're just clueless is all . . .
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> By the way, Sean, there are still a few questions that you seem, uh
> reluctant to answer.
>
> Here, let me remind you again:
I've already responded to each one of these endless cut-n-paste
questions of yours - many times. Every time I point this out you
claim that I didn't respond, but simply "evaded" these questions of
yours. Sorry Lenny, but I did respond to these questions of your and
until you actually respond to my responses, I'm not going to play your
little game here.
>
> SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. But, ya know, we're
> really not interested, at all, in finding out what that designer is,
> what it did, how it did it, or what it's doing today."
>
> Why does ID "science" say that, Sean?
>
> Can you think of any OTHER area of science which concludes "We think
> something happened here, but we're not remotely interested in finding
> out what it was or what did it."
>
> Why does ID "science" say that, Sean? Is there some non-science
> reason for that? A legal strategy, perhaps . . . ?
>
> Oh, and would you mind pointing to an example of any scientific
> discovery, of any note, in any area of science, that has resulted from
> the hypothesis "Godiddit!!!!" . . .?
>
> So what WAS involved, Sean, if it wasn't god. Space aliens? Time-
> travelling human biologists from the future? Where did THEY come from,
> Sean? Did they evolve natgurally? Or were THEY designed by some
> OTHER human-level intelligence, and where did THAT come from?
>
> And what did this human-level designer DO, Sean? How did it make new
> genetic sequencies? What mechanisms did it use? Where can we see it
> using similar mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?
>
> Oh, and hey-- you said that your "ID theory" is testable. Show me.
> How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing
> did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods" . . ?
> How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could
> anyone show that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an
> unknown time using unknown methods? Do you think there are things
> that God -- uh, I mean "the unknown intelligent designer" -- could not
> have done, Sean?
>
> Oh, and I'd sure like to see your, uh, scientific evidence that life
> on earth is "young" . . . . .
>
> By the way, Sean, why have you not tried to publish all of your
> startling wonderful mathy findings? By golly, such world-shaking
> earth-shattering paradigm-changing darwin-destroying mathematical
> statistical thingies would make you WORLD FAMOUS, Sean. You'd be
> bigger than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science Guy,
> all rolled into one. That next Nobel Prize would be yours, you could
> have your pick of any university you wanted, the Discovery Channel
> would do endless specials on you. You would pack lecture halls all
> across the country. Just think of it, Sean -- all those thousands and
> thousands of people waiting for YOU to tell them why Ellen G White was
> a prophet. And yet you foolishly toss all that fame, fortune and world
> position away by presenting your world-shattering findings in an
> obscure Internet newsgroup, instead of the front page of Nature or
> Science.
>
> Why is that, Sean?
>
> Why won't you answer those simple questions, Sean? What is it you
> have to hide, Sean?
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
wf3h
> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a
> > natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals,
> > temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
>
> > in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND
> > what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing
> > that nature itself could not do.
>
> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that.
> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS
> cannot.
sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes
lightening. that hardly is proof that god makes every lightening bolt.
and once the DNA is formed, that can code for >1000aa chains,
mutations can easily code for changes in protein structures.
and ID is not a force of nature. if einstein had lived his whole life
in a coma, regardless of how intelligent he is, he could have
accomplished nothing. design can not be implemented without natural
processes. and forces.
>
> > seanhas an arbitrary set of conditions and requirements. primary
> > among these is that nature obey the dictates of the dead leader of his
> > church. that, rather than objective science, drives sean's view of
> > science.
>
> Your ignorance drives your view.
says the guy with a 13th century view of nature. what's next, sean?
phases of the moon as a cure for the vapors?
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 3:27 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> > mechanism doing the job.
>
> random mechanism.
Sure, but then we couldn't detect it as requiring ID because the ID-
only hypothesis would be falsified in such a situation . . .
> Let's try an exdperiment, Sean. I will give you two strings of
> characters. One of them will be produced by me allowing a halfgrown
> Eastern Musk Turtle to crawl across the keyboard and unintelligently
> press whatever random keys happen to get pressed. The other string
> will come from me, and be deliberately intelligently designed to look
> like a random string of characters produced by a turtle crossing a
> keyboard.
>
> Tell me which is which:
>
> 1...":<<<<<<<<<<Lmkji;oouimh o nyig8k6hu76ry64er4363t
>
> 2. zcvegzvgrvrtgtrr6ehy666666666666666u76u467ih58u9u
>
> Your move, Sean. Tell me which is the ID mechanism, which is not, and
> why the presence of one falsifies the other.
This is a very common argument in this forum. The problem with it is
that ID can produce stuff that cannot be readily distinguished from a
mindless production of nature. It is only in those situations where
the phenomenon in question clearly goes beyond what mindless natural
processes are known to be able to achieve, yet well within what human-
level ID is able to achieve, that the ID-only hypothesis is
supported.
For example, it is very unlikely that my own pet turtle types the
above paragraph. Therefore, the ID-only hypothesis is very well
supported as a theory to explain the origin of the above paragraph.
Got it now? This isn't that difficult . . .
> You are just bullshitting us again, Sean.
And you're just full of it . . .
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Someday I might publish - though publishing something so fundamentally
> > counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> > unlikely to get past the vetters.
>
> would be unlikely to get past the vetters. But if you state testable
> whats, whens and hows of your mysterious alternate mechanism, and
> support them on their own strengths, no one will turn it down and you
> know it.
You're much more optimistic about the dispassionate position of
mainstream scientists on this issue that I am . . .
> Besides, as I mentioned before, you have been given the
> advantage of having it pre-screened here. See the thread that you have
> been avoiding.
Such as? There are so many of you and so few of me that I don't see
everything and don't even care to respond to everything that is
directed at me . . .
> > Certainly no one here would
> > published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
> > paper it might be.
>
> > In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
> > resembling a reasonable counter?
>
> Behe's hypothesis is counter to yours. Care to challenge it?
Which one? There are several of Behe's ideas that I don't accept or
promote.
> > Do you really need an argument to be
> > "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
> > you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
>
> It's not about formally publishing so much as admitting that the onus
> is on you, not those who accept (however reluctantly) the current
> theory. Nice try, though.
I'm not here to convince you of anything. I feel no onus here. You
can take it or leave it for all I care. I simply don't care what you
think. I only care if someone has some counter argument that makes
sense to me. That's all I'm here for . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 3:46 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell me which is which:
>
> > 1...":<<<<<<<<<<Lmkji;oouimh o nyig8k6hu76ry64er4363t
>
> > 2. zcvegzvgrvrtgtrr6ehy666666666666666u76u467ih58u9u
>
> > Your move, Sean. Tell me which is the ID mechanism, which is not, and
> > why the presence of one falsifies the other.
>
> This is a very common argument in this forum. The problem with it is
> that ID can produce stuff that cannot be readily distinguished from a
> mindless production of nature. It is only in those situations where
> the phenomenon in question clearly goes beyond what mindless natural
> processes are known to be able to achieve, yet well within what human-
> level ID is able to achieve, that the ID-only hypothesis is
> supported.
and why does DNA fall into this category?
and ID is not a hypothesis since it's not a mechanism.
>
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seanpit
>
> > - though publishing something so fundamentally
> > counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> > unlikely to get past the vetters.
>
Anyone who challenges anyone else's firmly and passionately held
points of view is going to have this same problem. Mainstream science
is turning into religious-type dogma and doctrine. It is becoming
less about science and questioning and challenging ideas than about
preserving the personal points of view of a few of the most powerful
in the politics of mainstream science.
> You're a bullshitter, just like Ray. (shrug)
I've just asked a few simple questions. So far, you don't seem to
understand the very basics of the statistical basis of these
questions. You couldn't tell BS from roses from what I've seen of our
arguments so far. The very best you have are your cute little
"giggles" and "chuckles" and your lame attempts at pejoratives and ad
hominems . . .
Seanpit
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
< snip >
> > Have any demonstration or
> > statistical analysis?
>
> It's been demonstrated over and over again by the evidence, and
> exhaustively investigated using *real* statistical analyses (unlike
> the technically incompetent rubbish you pull out of the air). I've
> given you references. Of course, you ignore them as you ignore
> anything which shows that you are wrong.
All of the references you've listed deal only with the assumption that
RM/NS did the job. If fact, some of the authors in the very
references you've listed admit that they have only assumed that RM/NS
did the job - i.e., the use the very word "assume". Nowhere is there
even a shred of statistical analysis of the particular creative
potential of RM/NS beyond 1000 fsaars. There isn't a single paper to
this effect anywhere. The very best there is are bald assumptions
that given certain degrees of homology that RM/NS must have done the
job. However, no one actually sits down and considers the odds of
this notion being remotely realistic.
Your bald declarations that there is overwhelming "evidence" available
is just a bunch of hot air. There is no such evidence, none at all;
not even an attempt at producing it.
> > > > Science doesn't require
> > > > perfection.
>
> > > No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested
> > > by the acquisition of evidence.
>
> > > What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
> > > least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
> > > is required?
>
> > The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
> > mechanism doing the job.
>
> Bullshit, Sean.
> How do you know that the mechanism doesn't work only because some
> supernatural force is manipulating it?
What? This question doesn't make any sense . . .
> More to point, your "hypothesis" of a "non-ID mechanism doing the job"
> is so vague and unspecified as to be meaningless.
How is that? All you have to do to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is
to demonstrate any non-intelligent force of nature doing the job in
question. If you can show that certain chemical interactions, or
weather system or volcanic activity, or whatever is likely to produce
the phenomenon in question in a reasonable amount of time, the ID-only
hypothesis is clearly falsified.
Take a snowflake, for example. It is very intricate and geometrically
beautiful. Some, not knowing much about how they are produced my
propose an ID-only hypothesis for their formation. However, all you
have to do to disprove the ID-only hypothesis for the origin of
snowflakes is show that they are in fact often produced by storms in
cold weather . . . And, tada! the ID-only hypothesis is neatly
falsified in this case.
The very same thing is true of SETI. They have an artifact-only
hypothesis that is essentially the same as a ID-only hypothesis. All
you have to do to falsify their hypothesis is to show their proposed
artefactual radio signal being produced by non-intelligent forces of
nature. If you were to be able to do that, you'd completely undermine
the current basis of SETI.
> > > Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bullshit,
> > > but then why should I care?
>
> > I don't know? Why do you care?
>
> Because I want you to make yourself look dishonest so that I can
> demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationism. I've told you
> this several times in the past but you carry on posting your dishonest
> garbage.
Deluded, maybe. Dishonest, nope.
It just amazes me how many evolutionists there are in forums like this
that can't stand the idea of a sincere, but mistaken, opponent to
their ideas. All those who disagree with you must be fundamentally
evil liars - right? LOL - sounds a bit desperate and narrow minded to
me . . .
> > > You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bullshit.
> > > That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it
> > > to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time
> > > it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing
> > > yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are
> > > not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as
> > > scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bullshit.
> > > Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
> > > as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
> > > to get it published.
>
> > Someday I might publish -
>
> Bullshit, Sean. You'll never publish because you know that your
> "theory" will not stand up to critical scrutiny.
It likely will not stand up to narrow minded passionately and
dogmatically opposed scrutiny - that's quite true.
> > though publishing something so fundamentally
> > counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
> > unlikely to get past the vetters.
>
> Something which is such a load of unmitigated bullshit won't get past
> the "vetters".
I've published many papers in mainstream literature - more than you
have. Vetters are just as passionate about their personal beliefs on
certain issues as any church going dogmatic group of hardened
sectarian fundamentalists. That's the fact of the matter. Often,
science does not progress until old and powerful scientists die off
and new ideas are allowed to be seriously considered.
> > Certainly no one here would
> > published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
> > paper it might be.
>
> But you have claimed that anyone with a "candid mind" can understand
> your "theory".
That's right . . .
> Are you seriously telling us that no editor of any
> journal in academia has a "candid mind"?
I'm not holding my breath . . . that's correct.
> > In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
> > resembling a reasonable counter?
>
> The fact that your "theory" is based on a model of evolution which has
> never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist, which is
> unsupported by any evidence, and the technical incompetence of your
> mathematics is a pretty good start.
My model is the very same proposed by evolutionary biologists - RM/
NS. There is also overwhelming evidence that sequence space is
populated by potentially beneficial target sequences that are fairly
homogeneously distributed throughout that space and that the ratio of
targets vs. non-targets is very low and gets exponentially lower and
lower with each step of the ladder of minimum structural size and/or
specificity requirements.
Those are the facts. You've not come remotely close to explaining how
the mechanism of RM/NS can remotely deal with these cold hard facts.
Sorry.
> > Do you really need an argument to be
> > "published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
> > you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?
>
> What's wrong with the facts that your "theory" is based on a model of
> evolution which has never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist,
> that it is unsupported by any evidence, and that your mathematics is
> technical incompetent?
Produce at least an attempt at your own mathematical support then.
Your position has absolutely no statistical analysis or support
whatsoever. Short of this, you haven't remotely challenged my own
statistical calculations - you haven't even tried. Of course, this is
only to be expected from someone who doesn't really deal with or care
about mathematical analysis. You're much happier telling just-so
stories about what is possible without having to consider if your
stories are actually likely to represent reality or not . . .
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a
> > > natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals,
> > > temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
>
> > > in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND
> > > what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing
> > > that nature itself could not do.
>
> > Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that.
> > ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS
> > cannot.
>
> sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes
> lightening.
Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not.
See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans
and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do,
but mindless nature cannot do.
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 2:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 11:32 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > > > play.
>
> > > > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > > > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > > > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > > > now.
>
> > > what it's demonstrated is such an event is possible in nature. it has
> > > not demonstrated intelligence is needed to accomplish this.
>
> > > big difference
>
> > What it is demonstrating is that ID can do something in a given span
> > of time which has never been observed outside of intelligent input in
> > that same period of time
>
> Woah there, young jedi -- WHAT "intelligent input"?
>
> All the experimenters did was place some subunits together. Chemistry
> and physics did all the rest -- the very same chemistry and physics
> that operates in the very same way otuside the lab without anything
> intelligent within a billion light-years.
>
> Is it your opinion that it's impossible for subunits to find
> themselves together in a reactable distance, in nature . . . ?
Essentially yes. It is very very unlikely for the subunits to find
themselves in sequential supplies to a particular environment in the
very precise ordering necessary to get them to arrange themselves in
functionally meaningful way beyond extremely low levels of functional
complexity without the input of at least human level ID.
> If so, I'd sure like for you to explain to me how all those amino
> acids got insdie those carbonaceous chondrite
> meteorites . . . . . . . . .
We aren't just talking simple amino acids here. We are talking about
a very specific ordering of long sequences of nucleotides and/or amino
acid residues - - big big difference.
> You're just bullshitting us. Again.
And you're still full of it . . .
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 28, 7:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > play.
>
> > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > now.
>
> commit yourself to some testable statements about the designer? After
> all, the evidence indicates that assuming there is design it is by a
> committee of rather confused people which would slow things down.
I don't really understand your questions here? I'm not arguing for
the specific identity of the designer here. I'm only arguing that the
designer was intelligent to at least the human level. You don't have
to like what was produced. You might not have done it that way
yourself. But all of those arguments are irrelevant to the validity
of the ID-only hypothesis.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > play.
>
> > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > now.
>
Within hours . . .
> We all know that the unnamed, unembodied designer could have done it
> all last Thursday. Is that when your designer did it all? If not, when
> did major events occur - the first life, Cambrian, KT boundary, first
> humans, etc.? If you don't find "last Thursday" convincing, and if
> like 100% of anti-evolution pseudoscientists you *must* base your
> conclusions on "weaknesses" in other explanations, then just show us
> how it had to take place other than last Thursday.
It is the period of time that is necessary to explain. How long would
it take for the mechanism of RM/NS to produce anything beyond a given
level of functional complexity? If you cannot answer that question
with relevant statistical arguments, you're don't have a scientific
basis for your belief in the creative potential of this mechanism.
> Or....if you want to be the first anti-evolution pseudoscientist to
> support your idea on it's own strengths, you can stop avoiding the
> "Sean Pitman: Cutting to the Chase" thread.
Lots of people want me to respond to their "arguments". I respond to
those I'm interested in at the moment . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 28, 2:21 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 6:30 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The use of ID makes the production of
>
> > > > higher level informational complexity a much much easier job - i.e.,
> > > > trillions upon trillions of years are not required when ID is in
> > > > play.
>
> > > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > How do you know how fast your designer works? So far you haven;'t told
> > > us a lot of him/her.
>
> > How fast a human-level designer can work at the 1000 fsaar level is
> > already known. It has already been done and is being done right
> > now.
>
> placed together, and they have combined to from functional larger
> assemblies.
>
> So what are you bitching about?
It's only been done, beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional
complexity, with the input of human-level ID.
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 28, 2:35 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > LOL - I'm talking about "forces" which are being manipulated by ID.
>
> LOL -- show us.
>
> Show us a force which has been maniupulated by this ID.
>
> Show us what bthis ID did.
>
> Show us what mechanisms it used to do whatever the heck you think it
> did.
>
> Show us where we should look to see the ID manipulating something else
> using similar methods.
>
> Put up or shut up, Sean.
Human's are doing this very thing right now. Did you not see the
above discussion concerning the work of Venter and others?
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 28, 3:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > . .
>
> > > humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature
> > > needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
>
> > Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However,
> > humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example,
> > humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes
>
> irrelevant. prove that venter's mechanisms are impossible. they
> violate no known laws of chemistry.
Neither does making highly symmetrical polished granite cube violate
any laws of physics. That doesn't mean that any non-deliberate
natural process comes remotely close to being able to do the job. The
very same thing is true of mindless laws of chemistry being able to do
what Venter does. Not remotely likely this side of trillions upon
trillions of years of time.
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 29, 12:53 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:46 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tell me which is which:
>
> > > 1...":<<<<<<<<<<Lmkji;oouimh o nyig8k6hu76ry64er4363t
>
> > > 2. zcvegzvgrvrtgtrr6ehy666666666666666u76u467ih58u9u
>
> > > Your move, Sean. Tell me which is the ID mechanism, which is not, and
> > > why the presence of one falsifies the other.
>
> > This is a very common argument in this forum. The problem with it is
> > that ID can produce stuff that cannot be readily distinguished from a
> > mindless production of nature. It is only in those situations where
> > the phenomenon in question clearly goes beyond what mindless natural
> > processes are known to be able to achieve, yet well within what human-
> > level ID is able to achieve, that the ID-only hypothesis is
> > supported.
>
> and why does DNA fall into this category?
Artifactual sequence tags are being produced in DNA that are in fact
written in a DNA sequence a proprietary markers - i.e., they are
deliberately produce to be recognized as artefactual.
> and ID is not a hypothesis since it's not a mechanism.
Intelligence is a manipulative force. And, this type of manipulation
can be detected by science. That is in fact the basis of SETI as well
as other sciences like forensics and anthropology.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
>
> >I'm not asking for the mechanism to find a certain number of targets.
> >Where did you get that idea? I'm asking for the mechanism to find one
> >target, just one, that has a minimum structural threshold requirement
> >that is greater than 1000 fsaar. The odds of finding such a target
> >are extremely remote per try. Even given trillions of tries, the odds
> >of finding just one target at this level are still extremely remote
> >this side of trillions of years of time.
>
> As I suggested in a posting which you ignored, to talk about
> the odds against an event occurring and the actual occurrence of the
> event are two completely different things.
>
> This undermines your argument. As I said earlier, you don't
> have to exhaust all the other possibilities before the occurrence of
> the event.
We're talking about predicting the occurrence of certain types of
events before they actually happen or are directly observed Joe. That
sort of prediction requires statistical analysis - analysis which you
obviously don't yet comprehend.
>
> Joe Cummings
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> On Jan 29, 11:46 am, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:56 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> > > The results LOOK like an intelligence crafted it, but only those
> > > desperately wishing to believe in Magical Sky Pixies assert the
> > > unknown intelligent agent actually exists.
>
> > LOL - If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a
> > chicken anyway? Really? Tell that to SETI scientists . .
>
> SETI is not biochemistry.
The ID argument used by SETI is universal. It is not limited to radio
waves. Artifactual manipulation of chemicals and molecular sequences
can also be detected in the very same way. In fact, artificial DNA
sequences are being produced right now as markers of proprietary
genetic sequences. These markers can be and are detected as
deliberately produced in the very same ways that SETI scientists
propose to detect deliberately produce radio signals. There is no
fundamental difference.
> you only use this analogy because you're not
> a scientist and can't develop a testable mechanism as a scientist
> would. it's a mark both of your lack of education, and the failure of
> your mechanism.
>
>
>
> > > In REALITY, the 'minimal structural threshold requirement' is WHATEVER
> > > WORKS. If a team of three 400 aa proteins get the job done, then that
> > > is all that is required.
>
> > If 400 fsaar is all that is required, that system isn't nearly as
> > functionally complex as one that requires a minimum of over 1000
> > fsaars
>
> how do you know this? a system where the ACTIVE REGION of a protein is
> 400aa's is more complex than a protein which is 1400aa's long, but has
> an active region of 200aa...which is more complex?
>
> . Again, Nature doesn't have to produce high levels of
>
> > functional complexity. It is just that if you claim that she did in
> > fact do this, you have to support your proposed mechanism for how She
> > did this with some actual evidence that goes beyond your say so. As
> > impressive as your "say so" may be to your friends in this forum, it
> > isn't science . . . sorry.
>
> <chuckle> and what you require of others you ignore for your own
> mechanism. you have proposed none.
Human-level ID is a driving force behind human-designed mechanisms.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
>
> > > you haven't demonstrated how you can exclude natural processes.
>
> > To a very high degree of statistical certainty, I have effectively
> > excluded the mindless mechanism of RM/NS.
>
> But have you effectively excluded all other mechanisms, mindless or
> otherwise, that produce new classes or orders in what Behe calls a
> "biological contimuum"?
Science does not require nor can it achieve this sort of level of
certainty. Science only deals with what is and is not known at the
current time. Therefore, at this point in time, science can only use
the facts that no currently known non-deliberate forces of nature, to
include RM/NS, come remotely close to doing the job that at least
human-level intelligence and creativity can and has produced with
biological systems. Therefore, the very best that science can say at
the present time is that the hypothesis that only ID can do the job
has the most predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com
> > if sean had an INKLING of how science actually worked, he'd be digging
> > up evidence FOR creationism instead of AGAINST evolution.
>
> Well, he would be looking for evidence that could test his hypothesis
> that the eubacterial flagella was (the equivalent of) man-made. Like
> independent evidence that such an entity actually existed at the right
> time and place. Given that the ID is invisible and undetectable and
> probably supernatural, that is hard to do. Kind of makes ID
> equivalent to "I don't have a bung hole clue how the flagella came
> into existence" with more arrogant rectumtudiousness and less
> curiosity.
SETI is not looking for evidence of human production, but human-like
or human-level production. I'm doing the same thing. Proving human
production is not the hypothesis here. Supporting at the argument at
only human-level ID could have done the job is the issue here.
There's a subtle, but important difference.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:41 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 12:17 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Any sequence change that produces a selectable advantage is a "target"
> > > sequence by definition.
>
> > And "target" sequences that are close to a current sequence are the
> > ones most likely to be found.
>
> That's right. The problem is that the odds that a target sequence
> will be "close" to any starting sequence drop, exponentially, with
> each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement.
The problem is that your math is modeled on a bogus search mechanism.
You yourself have likened it to a blind-folded man searching *total*
sequence space in which "targets" are randomly or uniformly placed.
Your model *assumes* that the field is completely "flat", that the
blind-folded man can, after a given period of time, wind up *anywhere*
in that sequence space with equal probability. That it is only time
that determines how far the search can go. That is an absurd
assumption when you compare it to the selective sequence space of real
evolutionary mechanisms. In real evolutionary landscapes, the
landscape does have "pathways" that are selectively neutral (flat
relative to the starting sequence). It also has, for a particular
organism in a particular environment, selective hill and valley
pathways that go either up or down from the flat pathways. The
steepness of these pathways varies from sheer cliff faces to sharp
declines. Unlike real landscapes, however, the steepness of the
slopes and inclinations are not static but *can* be different in
different environmental conditions. [We will, for our model's
purposes, switch the usual idea of a selective peak for a selective
valley, since going downhill is easier than going uphill.]
RM starts with a current sequence and changes that sequence only until
it reaches a block of lower reproductive success for the sequence
change (a strong upward slope, the steeper the slope and the more it
continues uphill, the less time will be spent in that direction and
the less frequently it will be visited -- unless there are
environments where the organism exists where the slope is changed, in
that case, some organisms, in that environment, may follow the
downward path, splitting the population into those that favor one
environment over another). What that means is that the probability of
frequent visitation to a new position depends on time, on what sorts
of "selective barriers" to reach that position existed, and whether
the local environmental condition caused the path to slope up or down
at the time a real attempt could be made.
None of that is considered in your mathematical model of sequence
space.
If you were to plot the frequency of visitation of possible
positions after x amount of time, wrt sequence, you would never see a
random or uniform distribution of sites throughout total sequence
space, with every site having equal probabilities of visitation. You
would, instead, see fuzzy threads of change along branching
selectively neutral paths, where, at each new step of neutral change,
new side paths are tried, but not usually followed for any distance
(the further away in an upward direction, the less frequent visitation
will be). Over long time frames, such selectively neutral drift can
visit quite different areas of a sequence landscape arranged by
sequence similarity, but primarily along the threads of selective
neutrality. But again,along these threads, there will be a search of
other sequences making the thread a fuzzy one. Most of the time this
fuzziness along a thread of neutral change will be like the idea of
the position of electrons in an atom; a fuzzy cloud with some
positions being more probable and others less probable, but none
completely excluded from search. Unlike the cloud of possible
electron sites, however, some directions will be more probable than
others (slope matters).
Searches by the blind searcher in *real* sequence space where
selection exist and tests each change are much more constrained than
in your assumed flat plain. New downward paths in such a landscape
may be rare, but those are the ones that will be found and traveled
down. In general, it will be the target that is nearest some possible
neutral search thread that will be most likely to be found. The
closer a path of downward slope is to the fuzzy area around a neutral
thread that has been searched, the more probable that it will be
found.
Even in your imaginary flat sequence space, it is the "target"
*closest* to the starting point that is most likely to be found by a
random search. The distance of the *closest* target is not, however,
what your math calculates. You cannot predict that number unless you
know, for each starting sequence, what the closest target sequence
with a modified, additional, emergent, or novel function is and when
it was first discovered (since target sequences change over time
neutrally -- and to optimize new function -- as well as the starting
sequence, current sequence positions are certainly not going to be the
same as sequence at discovery).
> > > Many sequences in sequence space are
> > > potential "targets" according to this definition of a "target".
>
> > And almost all of them are utterly irrelevant if you require them to
> > be found starting with a specific sequence. OTOH, new, modified,
> > emergent, or additional functions that are nearby the specified start
> > site *are* likely to be found. What is the probability that a "target
> > sequence" one aa change (or one mutational step) away will be found
> > compared to the probability that a target sequence in which almost all
> > the sequence is different will be found?
>
> That's not the important question here. The important question is,
> "What are the odds that a target sequence will happen to be one aa
> change away from any starting position?"
I have no idea because I can only observe the target sequences that
have been found. They represent the winners which did happen to be
close to some other pre-existing sequence. You cannot calculate
probability from a biased sample. Nor, as you do, from a bogus,
completely simple-minded, methodological idea of what RM/NS involves.
> That's the real question
> here, and the answer to that question depends upon the level of
> functional complexity under consideration.
No way to tell from your model. Higher levels of functional
complexity that you point to (all seemingly involve multiprotein
complexes) appear to arise by a completely different mechanism than a
random search through total sequence space where you change one aa at
a time to get to a new function within a single protein. You would
have to model a different sort of mutational space involving just
those mutations that affected specific protein-protein interactions
between different proteins without changing other sites in any major
functional way. Or a sequence space where you include chimeric protein
formation. Contact me when you have such a model. Hopefully one more
realistic than the flat total sequence space model you have been
shilling for.
> I have shown you several papers that clearly prove that even at very
> low levels of functional complexity the odds of a target being within
> a single aa change of any starting point are low.
Since most of the functional complexity you point to is due to protein-
protein interactions, is it your claim that those cannot be affected
by single aa changes? Again, your model of sequence space is for a
single sequence, not a model of protein-protein interaction.
> These odds only get
> exponentially lower and lower with each step up the ladder of
> functional complexity.
>
> I know, I know . . . your standard comeback is that evolution only
> happens when it can happen.
Wrong tense. Evolution only *happened* when it *could* happen.
Existing systems are the winners and do not represent a random sample
of anything. They are a decidedly biased sample. And one clearly
biased feature is the degree of similarity they have to other pre-
existing genes and systems. Your claim is that that bias is not a
causally relevant bias that helps explain how such systems evolve.
Instead we get a false dichotomy between complete randomness that
actually can search total sequence space and a magical invisible
untestable intelligent fairy.
> Well, Howard, that isn't very scientific
> of you. Science is about predicting the future -
That would be a surprise to all those archeologists, SETI researchers,
and forensic scientists you keep invoking. It would also be a
surprise to geologists, paleontologists, meterolgists, historians, and
many others that use the scientific method to understand the past to
*understand* the principles and mechanisms at work that may affect the
future but cannot necessarily allow us to predict it with specificity.
> about predicting
> when something is or isn't "likely" to happen in a given amount of
> time.
Which depends on the mechanism one is proposing. Which you understand
by asking if the proposed mechanism can explain what actually *has*
happened. Your total random walk math clearly cannot explain the
past, so it probably is not the mechanism that *did* cause the past
and is, thus, worthless in predicting the future. Now you have to
test alternative mechanisms that could explain the past. But how do
you test a model that an invisible untestable something did something
somehow (without leaving any traces of having done it) at some time
and some place to produce whatever I claim cannot be done by chance
alone. That leaves out a whole big range of alternative explanations
that do not involve long chains of completely chance changes *before*
selection is applied at the end.
> Arguing that something happens when it happens isn't a
> scientific statement or hypothesis. It's nothing but a nonsense
> statement.
Which, of course, is why I propose *specific* pre-existing subsystems
(at a functional and structural level, since sequence is not
particularly useful) and specific types of mutation that are known to
happen as explanations that are consistent with the observations and
reject both explanations you propose.
> > > It is
> > > just that the ratio of potential targets vs. non-targets declines,
> > > exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or
> > > specificity level of functional complexity under consideration.
>
> > Doesn't matter if that is true or not.
>
> Yes, it does - at least when it comes to real science and predictive
> value is concerned.
>
> > The fact remains that any
> > target that is close to a current sequence will be likely to be found
> > regardless of the size of the end product.
>
> LOL - there you go using the word "likely". Of course it is true that
> if a target happens to be within one aa change of a starting point
> that it is very likely to be found in a very short amount of time by a
> large population. What isn't remotely likely, however, is that such a
> close distance will actually exist beyond the 1000 fsaar level of
> functional complexity. Why is that? Because the very low ratio of
> targets, with a uniform distribution in sequence space at this level,
> does have a great deal to do with this particular notion of yours -
> despite your assertions and wishful thinking to the contrary.
Again, essentially none of your examples of 1000 fsaar systems involve
anything that fits your model of sequence space.
> > And those that are not
> > close won't be found. History is written by the winners. It is also
> > written about the events that *did* happen, not the ones that *didn't*
> > happen.
>
> You assume that it happened this way because you want it to have
> happened this way.
No. I use the evidence available, including other the nature of pre-
existing functional structures (again, sequence is not as useful
because of the neutral and optimizing selective changes that would
occur after the initial event) to make reasonable alternate hypotheses
that do not involve either completely random walks until some sequence
is randomly found in total sequence space (a completely bogus model of
evolution) or involve untestable magical entities. Whether every
detail in such hypotheses are correct may never be known, but those
"just-so" stories have the advantage of being possible, testable, and
scientific, unlike either your bogus numerology random search model or
your untestable fairy model.
> The odds of you being right, however, are very
> much against you beyond the 1000 fsaar threshold level of functional
> complexity.
So you keep asserting, without denying that my hypotheses are
*possible* and *more likely* than either of yours (your bogus complete
randomness model or your magical fairy model) in your false dichotomy.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Joe Cummings
Well, Sean,
I'm prepared to learn.
I think I've already established that to talk about the odds
against an event happening and the actual occurrence of the event are
somewhat different. At least you haven't disagreed.
What you are now saying, and here I'm learning, is that if the
odds against an event happening , as determined mathematically, are
very great,then it is not possible to predict when they will occur, or
rather that it will take a very long time for them to occur..
Is this what you are saying?
Nashton
> On Jan 29, 9:45 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 8:35 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>> andseanhas proposed no reason why this work should be excluded as a
>>>> natural process. with the right concentration of chemicals,
>>>> temperature, etc., nothing else is needed.
>>>> in addition, he's proposed no mechanism that requires anything BEYOND
>>>> what venter's group has done.seanhas no testable mechanism, nothing
>>>> that nature itself could not do.
>>> Except that Venter's group used ID. Mindless nature cannot do that.
>>> ID is able to find rare sequences by intelligent design - RM/NS
>>> cannot.
>> sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes
>> lightening.
>
> Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not.
> See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans
> and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do,
> but mindless nature cannot do.
But nature can do anything, if you give it enough time;) At least,
that's what "science" has been telling us for the past century.
Nashton
Here we have Sean, who uses statistics and probability to make a valid
point, and all we've been getting from you are ad homs, insults and an
endless loop of stereotype rumination.
Would you be in grade 7?
Burkhard
The point is that it is not a hypothesis, nor a theory. But once you
commit yourself to testable qualities of the designer, which enable
us to decide between one hypothesised designer (e.g. an individual)
from another hypothesised designer (e.g. the committee) because they
design in different ways and leave different forms of evidence behind,
or a fast designer from a slow one, you have a theory.
My question simply was: do you now committ yourself to such testable
qualities of the designer, as your post indicated (giving a design
speed faster than evolution) or not? if yes, you have a theory and we
can start testing, and calculating ITS odds, if not, it's just so much
waffle.
Inez
I'm sure a guy who writes something like this wouldn't follow it up
with an insult. Would he? No, I'm sure he wouldn't.
>
> Would you be in grade 7?-
Gosh, now I'm all disappointed in you.
Rusty Sites
> On Jan 29, 6:28 am, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@orange.fr> wrote:
>>> Seanoutclasses you in both knowledge of science and his capacity to
>>> understand it at a far deeper level than most of the evo-cheerleader
>>> posters (and I mean this in the nicest way).
>>> I can understand why most of you resort to insults and ad homs, as it's
>>> probably the best you can do;)
>> If Sean has the powerful intellect you claim, why hasn't he
>> answered my critique:
>>
>> "I've just laid out a sequence of all the cards in a pack. The
>> odds against this particular sequence being laid out are:
>>
>> 8,1391431308861550195039369918735e+68 to one.
>>
>> "Yet it's there on the table.
>>
>> "If I take five minutes to lay out the cards, then according
>> to Sean, it should have taken the above number times five minutes for me
>> to have produced this result.
>
> It would have taken 8e67 times five minute for you to have predicted a
> particular result - given a truly random shuffling of a deck of 52.
>
> You see, you are confusing the fact that each particular result has
> the same odds of success with the idea that finding a particular
> result with some attached importance does not have the same odds of
> success if sequences with attached importance are relatively rare.
No you are confusing the significance of the example. You are also
failing to differentiate between the chances of something happening and
the chances of it happening exactly the way it did. The probability of
having the cards in any particular order is very small. The probability
of having the cards in some order is 1. The chances of life ending up
with the set of proteins that it has is undoubtedly microscopic but that
doesn't mean anything. Some of those ancient proteins might have been
unlikely finds, but there might have been lots of unlikely finds to be
made. But your central error is below.
>
> This is the problem with biosystem evolution via the mechanism of RM/
> NS. The vast majority of options do not have any attached
> importance. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible options do have
> selectable importance to a given population in a given environment.
That's what you say again and again but do you realize that only you are
saying it? It sure looks like vast numbers of sequences will produce
viable products. Apparently, they do and your claim is just wrong.
wf3h
> On Jan 29, 9:45 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > sure mindless nature can do it. humans make lightening. nature makes
> > lightening.
>
> Humans make lemon meringue pies too, but mindless nature does not.
> See the difference? We're not talking about stuff that both humans
> and nature can do. We're talking about stuff that only humans can do,
> but mindless nature cannot do.
which you haven't proven for DNA processes. and your argument has
always failed.
i can't put it more bluntly. your argument is wrong. the creation of
DNA does not depend on any processes that nature can't use. the
changes in DNA do not depend on processes that nature can't use. you
haven't proven otherwise and your argument is wrong.
your argument is wrong. it was wrong when newton used it. it was wrong
when it was used 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100
years ago, 50 years ago and 5 years ago. it has never been right. not
once
why are you so dense that you think a failed argument is right?
you're absolutely oblvious to the idea of disproof in science. that's
why you're not a scientist. there's NOTHING that will convince you
your religion is wrong. nothing. no scientist thinks as you do.
therefore you're not a scientist.
wf3h
>
> But nature can do anything, if you give it enough time;) At least,
> that's what "science" has been telling us for the past century.
science has done more in the last century than you fundies did in the
previous 20.
you're a failure. you were, are, and always will be a failure
wf3h
really? what probability has he used to establish creationism? answer:
none. not a single one. you haven't pointed out a single statistic to
demonstrate his position.
as to ad hominem i guess you're kinda stupid so didn't see his
comment, which i've left above.
you creationists...thick as thieves...and i mean thick, in many ways
wf3h
> On Jan 28, 2:39 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:51 pm, Seanpit <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > . .
>
> > > > humans can make lightening. so can nature. that does not prove nature
> > > > needs 'ID" (whatever that is) to make lightening.
>
> > > Humans can make many things that nature can also make. However,
> > > humans can also make things that nature cannot make. For example,
> > > humans can make highly symmetrical polished granite cubes
>
> > irrelevant. prove that venter's mechanisms are impossible. they
> > violate no known laws of chemistry.
>
> Neither does making highly symmetrical polished granite cube violate
> any laws of physics.
an analogy is not an answer. you avoid answering specific questions.
it's part of the reason your view isn't scientific.
That doesn't mean that any non-deliberate
> natural process comes remotely close to being able to do the job. The
> very same thing is true of mindless laws of chemistry being able to do
> what Venter does. Not remotely likely this side of trillions upon
> trillions of years of time.
prove it. go ahead. show the work. show the probabilities based on the
chemistry and the environment at the time DNA was formed.
wf3h
If you cannot answer that question
> with relevant statistical arguments, you're don't have a scientific
> basis for your belief in the creative potential of this mechanism.
well, what a coincidence. neither do you.
of course, you have a double standard for science vs SDA religion so
it won't make any difference. there's no evidence in the world that
will convince you otherwise