Nominations for COTY
Dunk
I nominate Sean Pitman.
Dunk
Sean Pitman
> Creationist of the year.
> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>
> Dunk
Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
Lenny Flank
> Creationist of the year.
> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>
"Dr" Gastrich. Hands down. He epitomizes everything essential about
creationists and creationism.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ken Shaw
"Dunk" <pdu...@palebluedot.net> wrote in message
news:3ff2d31a...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Creationist of the year.
> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>
> Dunk
>
You misspelled cretin.
Ken
Jim Helfer
"Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3ff36ad4$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Dunk wrote:
>
> > Creationist of the year.
> > I nominate Sean Pitman.
> >
>
>
>
>
> "Dr" Gastrich. Hands down. He epitomizes everything essential about
> creationists and creationism.
>
>
Please add another vote for the phony Doctor !
Jim H
John Wilkins
> pdu...@palebluedot.net (Dunk) wrote:
> > Creationist of the year.
> > I nominate Sean Pitman.
> >
> > Dunk
>
> Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as such.
I nominate Jason Gastrich, and that isn't a compliment either.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
>Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>> pdu...@palebluedot.net (Dunk) wrote:
>> > Creationist of the year.
>> > I nominate Sean Pitman.
>> >
>> > Dunk
>>
>> Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
>>
>> Sean
>> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
>I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as such.
>
>I nominate Jason Gastrich, and that isn't a compliment either.
This may break out into a vote as well and "Dr." Jason has the early lead
. . . deservedly so (i.e. me too).
Don't feel bad, Dr. Pitman (Note to Jason: *he* has the right to use the
title). That *is* a compliment (of sorts) for you.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
Carl
Even after only minimal participation I must nominate "Dr" Jason Gastrich.
I first encountered Gastrich about 12 months ago (from memory). He
seemed a nice type of chap; claiming academic training and willingness
for discussion. However, I can see he has lost these qualities
(assuming he had them in the beginning).
If I can make a second nomination: Roadrunner - what a nutjob!
Perhaps it is a coincidence that both these men are a fan of Kent Hovind.
--
Creation Science: the bastard child of Scientism and Fundamentalism.
KelvynT
>Dunk wrote:
>
>> Creationist of the year.
>> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>>
>
>
>
>
>"Dr" Gastrich. Hands down. He epitomizes everything essential about
>creationists and creationism.
>
I'm afraid I have to agree. Except he'd probably use the nomination
for credits towards his Ph.D.
Kelvyn
KelvynT
>Dunk wrote:
>> Creationist of the year.
>> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>>
>> Dunk
>>
>
>Even after only minimal participation I must nominate "Dr" Jason Gastrich.
>
>I first encountered Gastrich about 12 months ago (from memory). He
>seemed a nice type of chap; claiming academic training and willingness
>for discussion. However, I can see he has lost these qualities
>(assuming he had them in the beginning).
>
>If I can make a second nomination: Roadrunner - what a nutjob!
And he likes Rupert Bear. Who owns the media!!!!!!!!
Kelvyn
Tom McDonald
> Dunk wrote:
>
>
>>Creationist of the year.
>>I nominate Sean Pitman.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dr" Gastrich. Hands down. He epitomizes everything essential about
> creationists and creationism.
>
Yes. Yes he does. I agree with Jason's nomination for this
high honor.
Don't suppose he'll begin signing himself, Dr. Jason Gastrich,
COTY, MA, BS, CS, CEO, et al., ad nauseum?
Tom McDonald
Seppo Pietikainen
Me too, me too!
Seppo P.
Mike Dworetsky
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g6vwfz.1xt71bi12vpk0dN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
> > pdu...@palebluedot.net (Dunk) wrote:
> > > Creationist of the year.
> > > I nominate Sean Pitman.
> > >
> > > Dunk
> >
> > Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
> >
> > Sean
> > www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
> I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as such.
>
> I nominate Jason Gastrich, and that isn't a compliment either.
"Dr." JG gets my vote too.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Dunk
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>
>> pdu...@palebluedot.net (Dunk) wrote:
>> > Creationist of the year.
>> > I nominate Sean Pitman.
>> >
>> > Dunk
>>
>> Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
>>
>> Sean
>> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>
>I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as such.
Yes it was. My nomination is based on the quality of discussion
provoked. I think the sundry threads on Sean's arguments have the most
interesting content, including real analysis of the origins of
functions and numerous supporting references.
Can other nominations be supported on a similar basis?
Dunk
John McKendry
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:15:33 +0000 (UTC), john.w...@bigpond.com
> (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
>>Sean Pitman <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
>>
>>> pdu...@palebluedot.net (Dunk) wrote:
>>> > Creationist of the year.
>>> > I nominate Sean Pitman.
>>> >
>>> > Dunk
>>>
>>> Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment ; )
>>>
>>> Sean
>>> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>>
>>I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as such.
>
> Yes it was. My nomination is based on the quality of discussion
> provoked. I think the sundry threads on Sean's arguments have the most
> interesting content, including real analysis of the origins of
> functions and numerous supporting references.
>
> Can other nominations be supported on a similar basis?
>
> Dunk
>
I nominate Zoe Althrop. In spite of her legendary
miscomprehension of arithmetic, Zoe impresses me as
a person who operates from an honest belief that
there is a real mistake somewhere in our calculations,
and that the scientific facts of the real world can
be reconciled with the notion of special creation.
She presents her arguments for criticism, and she
responds to criticism by modifying her arguments
and by trying to find new approaches. She doesn't
mock, she doesn't call names, and she doesn't
vilify her opponents as atheists or adherents of
the evolutionist religion.
Dr. Pitman has one argument, which he hasn't modified
since his first appearance here: the mindless processes
of evolution simply stall out beyond the
lowest levels of functional complexity, due to vast
uncrossable neutral gaps in sequence space. Numerous
knowledgable disputants have pointed out what's wrong
with that claim, and his response is simply to repeat
the assertion. He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
event.
Zoe tries, quixotically but sincerely, to deal with
the facts. Dr. Pitman does not. Of the two, Zoe is the
better scientist.
>
>>I nominate Jason Gastrich, and that isn't a compliment either.
>>--
>>John Wilkins
>>"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
>>
Jason, with his plain-spoken acknowledgments that he will not
consider the possibility of his Biblical interpretation being
wrong, that his conscience does not compel him to remove
inaccurate and misleading quotations from his Web site, and
that his objections to evolution have nothing to do with
science, is a strong contender for Representative Creationist
of the Year. That's not the category for which I'm nominating
Zoe.
John
Frank J
> I nominate Sean Pitman.
>
> Dunk
Like the Oscars, this needs multiple categories, as in:
Best attempt at sounding scientific: Sean, hands down
Most likely to convince lurkers that all creationists are nuts: DrSilence
Most independent hypothesis: Ed Conrad
Most independent non-hypothesis: Charlie Wagner
Best convert to the postmodern strategy: Roadrunner
Best escape artist: Zoe
Worst escape artist: Nowhere Man
Mujin
I second the nomination.
I agree with you. I've long since stopped reading Zoe-threads in
their entirety, and in fact only occasionally look in. But from her
first posts here, to the most recent, she is capable of admitting
error (once she's been argued into a corner, anyway) seems sincerely
interested in learning and is unfailingly polite even in the face of
the (sometimes caustic) frustration of her indefatigable instructors.
I personally think she's a bit loony, but we all are, and at least
she's a nice loon and she's sincere and honest, which is more than can
be said about some.
--
K
Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Mike Dworetsky
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.04010...@posting.google.com...
"Dr" Jason Gastrich should get an award for most creative use of
authoritative sounding non-qualifications.
Sean Pitman
> Dr. Pitman has one argument, which he hasn't modified
> since his first appearance here: the mindless processes
> of evolution simply stall out beyond the
> lowest levels of functional complexity, due to vast
> uncrossable neutral gaps in sequence space. Numerous
> knowledgable disputants have pointed out what's wrong
> with that claim, and his response is simply to repeat
> the assertion.
How typical of evolutionists to claim victory when you haven't even
come close. Certainly there have been numerous knowledgeable
disputants who have tried very hard to point out what's wrong with my
position, but these attempts have been feeble at best. My challenges
stand untouched by the best that you evolutionists have tried to put
on the table. The very best that you seem to be able to do is present
evidence of loosely to fairly specified novel functions evolving that
require no more than a 200 or 300 amino acids working together at the
same time. No one has succeeded in explaining how evolution might go
beyond such relatively low levels of specified functional complexity.
I have repeatedly drawn the line at a few thousand fairly specified
amino acids working together at the same time. The flagellar motility
system is just one example of a type of function that requires several
thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
time at minimum. No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
There have been many bold statements to the contrary, but no
significant supporting evidence.
> He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
> the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
> complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
> in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
> never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
> the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
> event.
Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
evolutionary potential. I mean really, a novel system that requires
only a couple thousand specified amino acids cannot be said to be all
that complex, at least not for intelligent minds to create, and yet it
is very far beyond the abilities of mindless processes.
> Zoe tries, quixotically but sincerely, to deal with
> the facts. Dr. Pitman does not. Of the two, Zoe is the
> better scientist.
I certainly admire Zoe for her honestly, sincerity, and creativity of
thought. She may indeed be the better scientist despite my honest
efforts to be a good one. However, in order to be convinced of error,
one must first be presented with a convincing counter argument. Now
granted, I may just be too dull witted to understand the brilliance of
the arguments that you evolutionists have tried to float so far. But
so far, it is my sincere and honest opinion that the best arguments
leveled against my position to date have been extremely lame. Don't
give up though! It has been most interesting and often humorous
seeing the desperate and often outlandish attempts to explain the
complete lack of evolution beyond the lowest levels of informational
complexity.
> John
Giant Sloth
> "John McKendry" <jmck...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.01...@comcast.net>...
>
> > Dr. Pitman has one argument, which he hasn't modified
> > since his first appearance here: the mindless processes
> > of evolution simply stall out beyond the
> > lowest levels of functional complexity, due to vast
> > uncrossable neutral gaps in sequence space. Numerous
Completely false. Dr. Pitman has engaged in a wide variety of
subjects, including the geologic column, lengthy discussion of
fossilization, clarifying comments on chaos and complexity,
irreducible complexity, Neanderthal DNA, primate phylogenies, etc.
Why the list is endless! And Dr. Pitman always sounds like an expert
on any of these subjects with plenty of scientific and creationist
literature to back him up. No other creationist on TO comes close.
> > knowledgable disputants have pointed out what's wrong
> > with that claim, and his response is simply to repeat
> > the assertion.
>
> How typical of evolutionists to claim victory when you haven't even
> come close. Certainly there have been numerous knowledgeable
> disputants who have tried very hard to point out what's wrong with my
> position, but these attempts have been feeble at best. My challenges
> stand untouched by the best that you evolutionists have tried to put
> on the table. The very best that you seem to be able to do is present
> evidence of loosely to fairly specified novel functions evolving that
> require no more than a 200 or 300 amino acids working together at the
> same time. No one has succeeded in explaining how evolution might go
> beyond such relatively low levels of specified functional complexity.
>
> I have repeatedly drawn the line at a few thousand fairly specified
> amino acids working together at the same time. The flagellar motility
> system is just one example of a type of function that requires several
> thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
> time at minimum. No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
> reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
> living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
> There have been many bold statements to the contrary, but no
> significant supporting evidence.
>
Dr. Pitman actually feels that he has won every debate here, and it
shows in his writing. Note how he has saved his victories on his web
page with links to the debates here at TO, inviting his creationist
friends to view his triumphs.
> > He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
> > the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
> > complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
> > in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
> > never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
> > the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
> > event.
>
> Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
> would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
> very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
> evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
> as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
> specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
> evolutionary potential. I mean really, a novel system that requires
> only a couple thousand specified amino acids cannot be said to be all
> that complex, at least not for intelligent minds to create, and yet it
> is very far beyond the abilities of mindless processes.
>
> > Zoe tries, quixotically but sincerely, to deal with
> > the facts. Dr. Pitman does not. Of the two, Zoe is the
> > better scientist.
>
This is a sign of weakness in a creationist.
> I certainly admire Zoe for her honestly, sincerity, and creativity of
> thought. She may indeed be the better scientist despite my honest
> efforts to be a good one. However, in order to be convinced of error,
> one must first be presented with a convincing counter argument. Now
> granted, I may just be too dull witted to understand the brilliance of
> the arguments that you evolutionists have tried to float so far. But
And, oh! The humility!
> so far, it is my sincere and honest opinion that the best arguments
> leveled against my position to date have been extremely lame. Don't
> give up though! It has been most interesting and often humorous
> seeing the desperate and often outlandish attempts to explain the
> complete lack of evolution beyond the lowest levels of informational
> complexity.
>
The goal of the creationist is to convince others (and oneself), that
the theory of evolution is highly speculative at best. In doing so,
it is important to make plausible sounding assertions, appeal to
intuition rather than logic, and to present oneself as knowledgable,
confident and scientific, in order to persuade an audience lacking in
a solid understanding of the science. I don't know of any other
creationist who is even in the same league with Dr. Pitman in
completing these objectives. When you consider the goals of the
creationist, Dr. Pitman stands head and shoulders above the rest.
> > John
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
Sean Pitman
> The goal of the creationist is to convince others (and oneself), that
> the theory of evolution is highly speculative at best. In doing so,
> it is important to make plausible sounding assertions, appeal to
> intuition rather than logic, and to present oneself as knowledgable,
> confident and scientific, in order to persuade an audience lacking in
> a solid understanding of the science.
Of course, such accusations could just as easily be applied to you
evolutionists. Certainly you evolutionists are very eager and driven
to make plausible sounding assertions, like this one, without adequate
evidence, appeal to "just-so stories" rather than falsifiable
hypothesis, and present oneself as knowledgeable, confident and
scientific, in order to persuade an audience lacking in a solid
understanding of the science or even an audience who is quite "expert"
in the area, but who is strongly biased. In short, you are the pot
calling the kettle black.
Von Smith
Perhaps the reason that no one has been able to demonstrate such to
you is because it doesn't exist. You say that flagellum requires
"several thousand fairly specified amino acids working together", etc,
but have been unable to support this assertion or even reconcile it
with what is known about how proteins actually work. How many
thousands, exactly? Which amino acids are specified? How did you
conclude this?
When posters give you examples of how large proteins or even
multi-protein systems can evolve, you claim that their examples don't
count, either because you find reasons that they fail your "several
thousand fairly specified," etc. criterion (missing the point that
most protein structures in biology, probably including your flagellum,
fail this criterion for the same reasons) or because the precursor
structure from which it evolved was sufficiently similar and complex
in its own right that you can claim that the requisite information was
"already there" somehow (again missing the point that this is exactly
how such structures are supposed to evolve).
>
> > He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
> > the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
> > complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
> > in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
> > never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
> > the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
> > event.
>
> Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
> would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
> very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
> evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
> as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
> specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
> evolutionary potential. I mean really, a novel system that requires
> only a couple thousand specified amino acids cannot be said to be all
> that complex, at least not for intelligent minds to create, and yet it
> is very far beyond the abilities of mindless processes.
I'm quite surprised to learn that abrupt, saltational evolution of
complex structures is such an obvious implication of current theories
in evolutionary biology, especially since the biologists who actually
work with these theories don't seem to expect such things to happen.
Could it be that this "obvious" implication of evolutionary theories
has somehow eluded so many otherwise competent scientists, only to be
discovered by a humble physician? Or perhaps they know that their
theory predicts this, but are engaged in a vast conspiracy of silence
to hide this from the public?
Or maybe, just maybe, evolutionary processes as they are currently
understood do *not* entail the sort of rapid appearance of complex
structures you describe above, and that it is you, rather than the
evolutionary biologists, who have misunderstood the theory's
implications?
Perhaps current evolutionary theories take into account significant
physiological constraints on simply sprouting new structures that
don't otherwise fit in with the organism's body plan, and the
substantial "cost" of such sprouting in terms of energy?
Perhaps evolutionary theories keep in mind that selection as a
normally conservative force that has generally kept overall body plans
in the animal kingdom stable for the last 500 million years, in spite
of the considerable degree of adaptive change that has happened since
then?
Perhaps evolutionary biologists had compelling theoretical, as well as
empircal grounds for rejecting Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster"
hypothesis decades ago?
If your "neutral gaps" argument were really needed to save the
appearances, I would expect someone would long since not only have
pointed it out, but also would have put it on a much firmer
theoretical grounding than you have done so far. I suppose it is
possible that yours is a unique, brilliant, underappreciated insight
into the implications of current theories that others have missed;
however, there is at least one other possibility that I would consider
first, and I would suggest that you do the same. I leave it to you to
figure out what that other possibility is.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
John McKendry
> "John McKendry" <jmck...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.01...@comcast.net>...
>
>> Dr. Pitman has one argument, which he hasn't modified
>> since his first appearance here: the mindless processes
>> of evolution simply stall out beyond the
>> lowest levels of functional complexity, due to vast
>> uncrossable neutral gaps in sequence space. Numerous
>> knowledgable disputants have pointed out what's wrong
>> with that claim, and his response is simply to repeat
>> the assertion.
>
> How typical of evolutionists to claim victory when you haven't even
> come close. Certainly there have been numerous knowledgeable
> disputants who have tried very hard to point out what's wrong with my
> position, but these attempts have been feeble at best. My challenges
> stand untouched by the best that you evolutionists have tried to put
> on the table. The very best that you seem to be able to do is present
> evidence of loosely to fairly specified novel functions evolving that
> require no more than a 200 or 300 amino acids working together at the
> same time. No one has succeeded in explaining how evolution might go
> beyond such relatively low levels of specified functional complexity.
>
I am not claiming victory; I will leave any claims of victory to the
people who have engaged you in substantive debate. I am merely remarking
the nature of your arguing. Speaking as a spectator, I find it very
frustrating to read your contributions because they don't progress
beyond your initial assertion.
And you illustrate my point. Quite a few people have explained that
evolution might go beyond the 300 aa point, as it goes to this point, one
step at a time. Do you feel you've responded to this? It means that
we "evolutionists" would be astonished and embarrassed to see the
arising of a new system from no useful precursor. You persist in
demanding evidence for a process that we don't expect to happen,
and you then claim that the failure to produce that evidence
is a weakness of our theory.
> I have repeatedly drawn the line at a few thousand fairly specified
> amino acids working together at the same time. The flagellar motility
> system is just one example of a type of function that requires several
> thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
> time at minimum. No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
> reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
> living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
> There have been many bold statements to the contrary, but no
> significant supporting evidence.
>
Well, the "several thousand" number has been questioned, but I think
there are more fundamental objections to your argument. Quite a few
people have pointed out that your mathematical argument seems to
assume the creation of a system of n amino acids by random walk
through n-dimensional sequence space. I would really like to see you
address this objection directly. If this is in fact your model,
we can talk about whether it's a valid representation of the proposed
processes of evolution; we can also talk about whether your math is
sound (I have some questions about how one measures distance in
such a sequence space). If this is not your model, you should tell
us what your model is.
And in fairness I recognize that since I began writing this, you
have begun to address this question in the "Stacking the deck"
thread. Good for you for that. Please keep it up.
>> He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
>> the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
>> complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
>> in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
>> never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
>> the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
>> event.
>
> Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
> would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
> very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
> evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
> as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
> specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
> evolutionary potential.
It seems breathtakingly obvious to me that functions requiring
several mutations will take longer to arise than functions requiring
a single mutation. Your argument here seems similar to the transitional
fossils claims of traditional Creationists who want to see creatures
with half a wing or half an eye. The real evolutionary expectation
is to see a complex system arising from a previous functioning system
of slightly less complexity, as a flagellar system arising from a
secretory system. Now, would this kind of single-step change
count as an exponential increase in complexity?
> I mean really, a novel system that requires
> only a couple thousand specified amino acids cannot be said to be all
> that complex, at least not for intelligent minds to create, and yet it
> is very far beyond the abilities of mindless processes.
>
I find this part of your argument particularly deserving of scrutiny.
Couldn't we at least equally well conclude that it's intelligent
agency that simply stalls out beyond the lowest levels of
functional complexity? I mean, on the face of it, those systems
that require a couple thousand specified aas *are* mindless
processes, aren't they? Can you provide any evidence at all,
beyond the stubborn incredulity of "they can't be", to suggest
that they're not? All those exquisitely balanced and connected
metabolic pathways are natural chemical reactions, in the end.
They follow no more than the known laws of chemistry.
Are there any undoubted examples of intelligent agency producing
anything of such complexity? Nothing I can think of, certainly.
Not the mechanical watch; when we need accurate timekeeping, we
harness the mindless natural processes of crystal oscillation or
simple atomic vibration. Not any kind of engine; no mechanical
device comes anywhere near the ability of an animal heart to
function continuously for decades without lubrication, service,
or replacement. Can we manufacture a device with the energy
efficiency and strength-to-weight ratio of a hummingbird or a
dragonfly? Engineers look at mindless natural processes and
despair of producing anything so elegant.
So I really think the burden is on you to provide evidence
that intelligence is capable of the kind of sophisticated
manufacture you claim. More than that, you ought to provide
evidence that intelligence is capable of material manufacture
at all. It is not intelligence, after all, that creates a watch;
it is the watchmaker's tools. What are the watchmaker's tools
that create the hummingbird? Intelligence, in itself, creates
only in the realm of ideas.
>> Zoe tries, quixotically but sincerely, to deal with
>> the facts. Dr. Pitman does not. Of the two, Zoe is the
>> better scientist.
>
> I certainly admire Zoe for her honestly, sincerity, and creativity of
> thought. She may indeed be the better scientist despite my honest
> efforts to be a good one. However, in order to be convinced of error,
> one must first be presented with a convincing counter argument. Now
> granted, I may just be too dull witted to understand the brilliance of
> the arguments that you evolutionists have tried to float so far. But
> so far, it is my sincere and honest opinion that the best arguments
> leveled against my position to date have been extremely lame. Don't
> give up though! It has been most interesting and often humorous
> seeing the desperate and often outlandish attempts to explain the
> complete lack of evolution beyond the lowest levels of informational
> complexity.
>
>> John
>
> Sean
> www.naturalselection.0catch.com
I have no doubt of your sincerity or of your honesty. I maintain that
Zoe is a better scientist because she addresses the objections to her
arguments in a substantive manner, and you do not. The argument you
give above is exactly the argument you started with; there is no
attempt to expand, enlarge, clarify, justify, or test. You make lots
of assertions about numbers, like the density of beneficial
sequences in sequence space. It seems to me that your arguments
there entail some testable empirical consequences, e.g. that the
frequency of beneficial mutations should show some correlation with
the size of the proteins involved. Have you considered this? Would
you expect to see such a correlation? Have you looked to see whether
there is any evidence for such a correlation? If so, is it in fact
exponential? I think if Zoe were making your claims, she would
actually try to answer these questions.
But fundamentally, the counterarguments center on the claim that
you misunderstand, or misrepresent, how mainstream scientists
understand the evolution of complex structures to happen. From
my position on the sidelines, this certainly looks like a valid
criticism. Looking back through some of your previous threads,
I see numerous replies that offer concrete counterexamples to
your claim that complex multiprotein systems cannot evolve. You
typically reject those counterexamples by pointing out that they
are not the sort of thing you are demanding evidence for; but the
thing you are demanding evidence for is your imaginary whole-cloth
method of constructing novel functions de novo by random search.
Anyway, what I intended was a pro-Zoe post, not an anti-Sean post.
Just measured by the quality of the responses you elicit, you are
clearly distinguished from the common run of quote-miners,
hit-and-run Hovindites, and mendacious and belligerent know-nothings
we generally see here. But my vote this year is committed to Zoe.
John
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
How dreadful.
What, again, did oyu say the scietnific theory of intelligent design is?
How, again, did you say that we can test it using the scientific
method? What, again, is it that you are proposing your "intelligent
designer" did, precisely? What mechanisms, again, did you say it used
to do whatever it is you think it did, and where, again, can we see
these mechanisms in action?
Is there some sort of problem with your answering those simple questions?
Eric Root
Sean Pitman wrote:
Scientists would not _be_ in the frustrating position of having to try to
convince naive audiences if the only opposition to the ToE were scientific. But
at the same time as scientists would love to go on studying nature and teaching
others, they are opposed by an ugly political movement that has arisen. The
opposition they are faced with is driven not by science, but by some sort of
hatred for science itself. I'm not sure what the actual disease is, but it
seems that with these folks, the normal human desire for certainty has raged out
of control and eaten their personalities to the point that they can get no
satisfaction from ordinary mainstream churches with their pluralism, but must
believe in, if you'll pardon the expression, "crackpot" ideas such as Biblical
inerrancy. Among their other negative characteristics: they are often stuck in
the preadolescent stage of moral development, as shown by their belief that
morals do not exist based on any principle, but rather are rules imposed
arbitrarily by a deity. They will frequently say that, e.g., murder would be
okay if God hadn't forbidden it in the Ten Commandments.
-Eric Root
Jack Dominey
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
>reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
>living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
<snip>
>Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
>would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
>very eyes.
Since you're talking about a rate, rather than an off/on condition,
don't you think there just might possibly be something in between
"zillions of years" and "popping into existence...right before our
very eyes"?
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Sean Pitman
> Sean Pitman wrote:
> Scientists would not _be_ in the frustrating position of having to try to
> convince naive audiences if the only opposition to the ToE were scientific.
But the only real opposition to the ToE is scientific. Just because a
particular notion is popular among most scientists does not mean that
it is correct or that there is no real scientific evidence against it.
Certainly the scientific method is extremely powerful and I dare say
the only rational means of sorting out error to narrow the boundaries
of where truth might be found, but popular scientist do not have any
sort of edge in their ability to use the scientific method.
> But
> at the same time as scientists would love to go on studying nature and teaching
> others, they are opposed by an ugly political movement that has arisen.
And you don't think that scientists are just as politically motivated
and aggressive as is any other ideological group? Please now, where
do you have your head buried? The promotion of the ToE is done in an
extremely aggressive politically charged way.
> The
> opposition they are faced with is driven not by science, but by some sort of
> hatred for science itself.
There may be some who "hate" science, but certainly not all those who
oppose the ToE are in this camp. I for one think that science and
rational thought are wonderful tools to use in the search of real
truth. However, "scientists" are not always using science (i.e., the
scientific method) properly, or at least come to erroneous conclusions
based on any number of reasons. Certainly scientists are human, just
like the rest of us, and as such are not removed from the realm of
human passion and bias. No one should accept out of hand the
statements of popular scientists as the "gospel truth". Using one's
own mind to filter the ideas of even popular scientists is an
important exercise, especially when statements are presented that do
not make sense to one's own understanding.
> I'm not sure what the actual disease is, but it
> seems that with these folks, the normal human desire for certainty has raged out
> of control and eaten their personalities to the point that they can get no
> satisfaction from ordinary mainstream churches with their pluralism, but must
> believe in, if you'll pardon the expression, "crackpot" ideas such as Biblical
> inerrancy.
And you think you know better than the statements of the Bible?
That's fine, but in order to call someone who believes in certain
Biblical statements a "crackpot", you must be able to give more valid
reasons for your own beliefs that counter these Biblical statements.
In certain cases, you may have such evidence that seems overwhelming
to you, and in some instances, I might even agree with you. Certainly
you think that the ToE has overwhelming evidence in its support,
contrary to what many think the Bible has to say about the origin of
life on this planet. But this really isn't about the Bible, it is
about the evidence supporting the ToE. Where is it? The "mountain"
of evidence that evolutionists often refer to is nothing more than an
ant hill from my perspective while the actual mountain of evidence
raised up to the stars is screaming out, "Intelligent Design!"
> Among their other negative characteristics: they are often stuck in
> the preadolescent stage of moral development, as shown by their belief that
> morals do not exist based on any principle, but rather are rules imposed
> arbitrarily by a deity. They will frequently say that, e.g., murder would be
> okay if God hadn't forbidden it in the Ten Commandments.
Again, there may be a few like this, but most Bible believers that I
know personally are not like this at all. They believe that God is
non-arbitrary, rational and quite reasonable, and that we are made in
His image with an ability to understand and think along similar lines
as He does, "naturally" - that the law is "written on our hearts".
One does not have to read the Bible or even know about God to know, in
their heart, that the "Golden Rule" is true. The idea that murder is
wrong is an inner idea to those who are not pathologic. It is written
on each of our hearts. We are born with this idea already in place.
So, a belief or disbelief in the ToE is not really a moral issue at
all, or at least it doesn't have to be. Like other beliefs, it may
contribute to ones good or bad morality, but in itself, it is not a
moral issue. Still, it is an important since it has to do with a
fundamental truth that is important to many of us - our origins. An
understanding of our origins, where we came from and why we are here,
dramatically affects many of us in different ways depending upon how
we understand this concept. And yet, it is still an amoral truth. It
is not "written on our hearts" as morality is, but it still affects
many of us in profound ways. Even evolutionists often seem to find
significant meaning and even comfort in their beliefs. This doesn't
make them right or necessarily wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad.
It's the same for those who hold the Bible to be "true" or any other
book, teaching, or idea to be "true". Ideas don't make someone moral
or immoral. It is motive that drives the use of these ideas that
makes a person morally "good" or "bad".
> -Eric Root
Sean Pitman
> I am not claiming victory; I will leave any claims of victory to the
> people who have engaged you in substantive debate. I am merely remarking
> the nature of your arguing. Speaking as a spectator, I find it very
> frustrating to read your contributions because they don't progress
> beyond your initial assertion.
Of course, you would only see "progress" if I admitted that evolution
was true or that I was significantly wrong about my initial position
in some way or another. Well, by this definition, none of you
evolutionists have shown any "progress" in discussion either! Where
have any of the contributors to threads challenging my ideas admitted
any sort of significant error? Not too many have come even close to
the admission of error even in rather small details. In fact, I dare
say that I have been willing to admit error far more often than most
of those who oppose me.
> And you illustrate my point. Quite a few people have explained that
> evolution might go beyond the 300 aa point, as it goes to this point, one
> step at a time. Do you feel you've responded to this?
Where have you been?! I have responded to these assertions numerous
times! The fact is that going beyond the "300aa point" is not al l
that my position requires. An increase in functional complexity does
not rely simply on an increase in the number of parts, but in the
degree of specificity of these parts. Remember, we are talking
"specified" complexity here. Many have tried to float examples of
huge proteins that are composed of repetitive subunits that require
very little genetic real estate to code for them. This is what we are
talking about here: The minimum genetic real estate requirement and
level of specificity needed to code for a particular type of function.
Given this definition, there simply are no examples of a novel
function evolving that requires, at minimum, more than a few hundred
fairly *specified* amino acids working together at the same time.
> It means that
> we "evolutionists" would be astonished and embarrassed to see the
> arising of a new system from no useful precursor.
Again, you are only parroting other evolutionists, such as Howard
Hershey, who make this strawman assertion about my position all the
time. Start with whatever you want, functional or nonfunctional, and
evolve a new type of function with a new sequence that requires at
minimum, just a couple thousand fairly specified amino acids working
together at the same time.
> You persist in
> demanding evidence for a process that we don't expect to happen,
> and you then claim that the failure to produce that evidence
> is a weakness of our theory.
You must "expect" this to happen because the theory of evolution
claims that it did happen and that it continues to happen. The ToE
proposes that creatures evolved what they started with over time to
gain many novel functions at higher and higher levels of functional
complexity via random mutation and natural selection. That IS what
the ToE claims. The problem, of course, is that such a mindless
evolutionary process can only work at the lowest levels of functional
complexity due to the neutral gap problem that grows exponentially at
higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
> > I have repeatedly drawn the line at a few thousand fairly specified
> > amino acids working together at the same time. The flagellar motility
> > system is just one example of a type of function that requires several
> > thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
> > time at minimum. No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
> > reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
> > living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
> > There have been many bold statements to the contrary, but no
> > significant supporting evidence.
> >
> Well, the "several thousand" number has been questioned, but I think
> there are more fundamental objections to your argument. Quite a few
> people have pointed out that your mathematical argument seems to
> assume the creation of a system of n amino acids by random walk
> through n-dimensional sequence space. I would really like to see you
> address this objection directly.
Oh I have addressed this objection directly many times. See the
"Stacking the Deck" thread for one example. The fact of the matter is
that evolution must search through N sequences an X sequence space via
random walk where N is the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial
sequences within X space.
> If this is in fact your model,
> we can talk about whether it's a valid representation of the proposed
> processes of evolution; we can also talk about whether your math is
> sound (I have some questions about how one measures distance in
> such a sequence space).
Obviously this is my model. This should have been made clear to you
far before now as I have been repeating this assertion for quite some
time without any significant challenges to this hypothesis. If you
have something new to "talk about" that would falsify my position,
then please do present it. What are your questions about the
measurement of distance in sequence space - for example? Instead of
just saying that you have "questions" it would be much better to
simply present them.
> If this is not your model, you should tell
> us what your model is.
That is my model. Higher and higher levels of complexity result in an
exponential decline in the density of beneficial sequences within
sequence space. This translates into an exponentially longer average
random walk. Very quickly, at the level of only a few thousand fairly
specified amino acids, evolution simply stalls out this side of
trillions of years of average time.
That is my model as I have repeated it over and over again. Really,
it should be clear by now.
> And in fairness I recognize that since I began writing this, you
> have begun to address this question in the "Stacking the deck"
> thread. Good for you for that. Please keep it up.
At least you recognize this much. This is promising.
> >> He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
> >> the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
> >> complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
> >> in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
> >> never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
> >> the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
> >> event.
> >
> > Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
> > would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
> > very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
> > evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
> > as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
> > specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
> > evolutionary potential.
>
> It seems breathtakingly obvious to me that functions requiring
> several mutations will take longer to arise than functions requiring
> a single mutation.
Not that much longer if each intermediate "steppingstone" mutation is
more functionally beneficial than the one that came before. However,
if the intervening steps are not sequentially more and more beneficial
(i.e., neutral or even detrimental with regard to function), then the
crossing of the same distance will be exponentially more difficult and
require exponentially greater amounts of average time.
> Your argument here seems similar to the transitional
> fossils claims of traditional Creationists who want to see creatures
> with half a wing or half an eye. The real evolutionary expectation
> is to see a complex system arising from a previous functioning system
> of slightly less complexity, as a flagellar system arising from a
> secretory system.
Yes, that is certainly what evolutionists claim and what must be
there. However, where are the intermediates? That is why the concept
of the, "density of beneficial sequences in sequence space" argument
is so important. If the density of beneficial sequences at such
levels is really as low as I suggest, evolution would truly be in
significant trouble. If evolution is true, then you must be able to
find or at least give good evidence for the existence of real
"steppingstone" functions. Your use of the TTSS system as an
intermediate to the much higher complexity of the flagellar motility
function is not convincing because the TTSS system is still thousands
of fairly specified amino acids away from the motility function of the
flagellum (i.e., the TTSS system requires a minimum of just half a
dozen unique fairly specified genes while the flagellar system
requires a minimum of at least 20 fairly specified genes). So, how do
you get from the few than to have to the many that you need? You need
to find a lot more steppingstones for evolution to be tenable. TTSS,
by itself, is not a big enough steppingstone. In fact, most of the
prominent evolutionists suggest that the TTSS system was not involved
in the evolution of the flagellar system, but that each arose
independently and some have even proposed that the TTSS system evolved
from the fully formed flagellar system (see Nguyen et. al., 2000).
Other "intermediate" systems have been proposed as "steppingstone"
functions, but no one has ever demonstrated the evolution of any one
stepping-stone function to any other in real life in any living thing.
The reason for this is that the gaps between these proposed
stepping-stones are truly enormous as well as functionally neutral or
even detrimental.
> Now, would this kind of single-step change
> count as an exponential increase in complexity?
Where is the "single step" here? You need to go back and look at the
differences between the secretory function of the TTSS system and the
motility function of the flagellar system.
> > I mean really, a novel system that requires
> > only a couple thousand specified amino acids cannot be said to be all
> > that complex, at least not for intelligent minds to create, and yet it
> > is very far beyond the abilities of mindless processes.
> >
> I find this part of your argument particularly deserving of scrutiny.
> Couldn't we at least equally well conclude that it's intelligent
> agency that simply stalls out beyond the lowest levels of
> functional complexity? I mean, on the face of it, those systems
> that require a couple thousand specified aas *are* mindless
> processes, aren't they?
Yes, they are mindless processes that arose via pre-established code.
We are talking about how their order arose, not about the job that
they do once they are formed. Formation is much different from
function. A watch performs its task without a mind, but its initial
formation/creation required a highly intelligent mind. You do see the
difference don't you?
> Can you provide any evidence at all,
> beyond the stubborn incredulity of "they can't be", to suggest
> that they're not? All those exquisitely balanced and connected
> metabolic pathways are natural chemical reactions, in the end.
> They follow no more than the known laws of chemistry.
Certainly true, but their formation was not spontaneous. It was
dependent upon the specified order of a pre-established code in the
DNA of the creature that formed these systems. That is what we are
talking about here; the evolution of informational complexity, not the
job that these systems do once they are formed.
> Are there any undoubted examples of intelligent agency producing
> anything of such complexity? Nothing I can think of, certainly.
> Not the mechanical watch; when we need accurate timekeeping, we
> harness the mindless natural processes of crystal oscillation or
> simple atomic vibration.
You are wrong. The informational complexity needed to "harness" such
mindless processes in the form of a meaningful timepiece like a watch
is extraordinarily huge. It is certainly beyond the ability of any
mindless process to even come close. The specified order of the watch
parts is fantastically more complex, as far as the information
required for assembly, than anything a mindless process has ever been
known to do. Remember now we are talking functional complexity, not
chaos here. There is a very important difference between chaos and
complexity in the present sense. In other words, the number of ways
that the watch parts could interact with each other in a
non-beneficial, far less functionally complex way, is far far greater
than the number of ways in which they could be assembled at this level
of specified functional complexity.
> Not any kind of engine; no mechanical
> device comes anywhere near the ability of an animal heart to
> function continuously for decades without lubrication, service,
> or replacement.
Now that certainly is true, and yet human made engines, watches, and
other mechanical devices go far beyond any known mindless process to
create such specified informational complexity/functions. Given this,
the finding of functional systems that go significantly beyond what
even our own minds have yet been able to achieve is very good evidence
of some higher intelligence at work. It simply is mystifying to me how
the finding of systems that go beyond what even humans are able to do
can be attributed to mindless processes when human creations go so far
beyond what any known mindless process can put together outside of
pre-established order. Isn't this just an insane notion?! It just
isn't logical. I mean really, if we observe that humans can create
greater levels of complexity than can mindless processes, does the
finding of a level of complexity that goes beyond current human
creativity suggest a mindless cause? How does this assumption
follow?
For example, if scientists were to visit an alien planet and find a
spaceship that goes far beyond anything that humans have ever
achieved, would it be reasonable for them to assume that this fabulous
level of functional complexity arose via the mindless shifting sands
and other mindless interactions of stuff on that planet over vast
periods of time? Or, would it be more reasonable to assume a mindful
origin? Really, the only way to detect intelligent activity is by an
understanding of the limits of what mindless processes can do.
Anything that goes significantly beyond the known limits of mindless
processes can be reasonably attributed to a mindful cause.
> Can we manufacture a device with the energy
> efficiency and strength-to-weight ratio of a hummingbird or a
> dragonfly? Engineers look at mindless natural processes and
> despair of producing anything so elegant.
Again, the creation of fantastic systems of function, like a
hummingbird, is dependent upon the pre-established order of a code for
that hummingbird. The hummingbird parts simply do not self-assemble
outside of this pre-established code. For example, lets say that I
create and program a robot to make more robots just like itself.
Would it be reasonable for someone finding one of these robots making
more robots to assume that the function of these robots was the
original result of mindless cause just because their current function
is mindless?
> So I really think the burden is on you to provide evidence
> that intelligence is capable of the kind of sophisticated
> manufacture you claim. More than that, you ought to provide
> evidence that intelligence is capable of material manufacture
> at all. It is not intelligence, after all, that creates a watch;
> it is the watchmaker's tools.
LOL - Now you are just being silly just like many other evolutionists
who have tried to float this very same argument. Certainly the
watchmaker's tools, by themselves, without the aid of an intelligent
mind, won't do much of anything, much less make a highly complex
watch. For example, what if the lawyers for the sniper murderers on
trial in the news recently claimed that their client was not
responsible for murder by reason of the idea that it was not their
client who shot anyone, but the rifle in his hand that did the
shooting of all his victims? Certainly no intelligence was required
as the gun did all the work. Do you really think this argument would
hold any water with a halfway intelligent jury?
> What are the watchmaker's tools
> that create the hummingbird? Intelligence, in itself, creates
> only in the realm of ideas.
And ideas give rise to physical systems of function via expression of
these ideas through the mind, into the hands, and through the tools of
the watchmaker. Without the expression of the "realm of ideas" the
realm outside these ideas would not do much of anything beyond the
lowest levels of functional complexity.
<snip>
> I have no doubt of your sincerity or of your honesty. I maintain that
> Zoe is a better scientist because she addresses the objections to her
> arguments in a substantive manner, and you do not.
That she may, but to say that I do not is certainly a matter of
debatable opinion. Certainly Zoe would disagree with you as she seems
rather taken with many of my ideas and she thinks that I address
objections rather well.
> The argument you
> give above is exactly the argument you started with; there is no
> attempt to expand, enlarge, clarify, justify, or test.
Again, you must not have followed my thread for very long or you would
know that I have spent a great deal of time expanding, enlarging,
clarifying, justifying, and suggesting falsifiable tests to support my
initial argument, which has not changed significantly because it has
not been falsified in the least.
> You make lots
> of assertions about numbers, like the density of beneficial
> sequences in sequence space. It seems to me that your arguments
> there entail some testable empirical consequences, e.g. that the
> frequency of beneficial mutations should show some correlation with
> the size of the proteins involved.
Exactly - I'm glad you recognize this as a falsifiable, testable,
consequence of my position. I certainly do predict that the size and
level of specificity of a protein is most certainly related to the
frequency of beneficial mutations at that level of specified
complexity.
> Have you considered this?
Yes, since this is obviously the basis of my position.
> Would
> you expect to see such a correlation?
Haven't I been saying this for a long time now?
> Have you looked to see whether
> there is any evidence for such a correlation?
Just read back through a few of my threads on this topic and you will
see that I give a lot of evidence for such a correlation. Or, go to
my website and read the papers I have written on this topic. I show
that very simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic resistance,
arise quickly via evolutionary processes sine the neutral gap between
what is there and what is needed is very small. I then show that more
complex functions, like independent enzymatic functions such as
lactase, nylonase, etc., are more complex and are much less common and
harder to evolve than the most simple functions. Then, I show that
very quickly at levels just a bit higher than this, at just a few
thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
time, as in the flagellar motility system, there simply are not
examples of evolution in action - period.
> If so, is it in fact
> exponential? I think if Zoe were making your claims, she would
> actually try to answer these questions.
I have tried. Perhaps Zoe would do a better job than I have done, but
I'm not sure how. What more evidence do you need beyond that which I
have already provided?
> But fundamentally, the counterarguments center on the claim that
> you misunderstand, or misrepresent, how mainstream scientists
> understand the evolution of complex structures to happen.
Not at all. Many creationists do misunderstand and misrepresent how
mainstream scientist think about evolution, but I do not. I am fully
aware and I accurately represent how evolution is thought to work. I
cannot be accused of building a strawman to represent evolution. I
just think that the stated way that evolution is supposed to work is
completely inadequate to explain much of anything beyond the lowest
levels of functional complexity. You evolutionists have failed
miserably to explain how these problems can be overcome.
> From
> my position on the sidelines, this certainly looks like a valid
> criticism.
Then, with all due respect, I think you are misinformed or at least
are mistaken in your understanding of the issues involved in this
debate.
> Looking back through some of your previous threads,
> I see numerous replies that offer concrete counterexamples to
> your claim that complex multiprotein systems cannot evolve.
In your looking back through these "concrete counterexamples" did you
find any references to a novel system evolving that required more than
a 300 or 400 fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
time? I think not. The only examples of multiprotein systems
evolving that I am aware of involved less than this number of fairly
specified amino acids. If you check again, you will find that this is
the truth. My position is that those functions that go very far
beyond this low level of specified complexity do not evolve and cannot
evolve this side of zillions of years (i.e., those functions that
require just a few thousand fairly specified amino acids working
together at the same time in the form of single or multiple protein
systems of function).
> You
> typically reject those counterexamples by pointing out that they
> are not the sort of thing you are demanding evidence for; but the
> thing you are demanding evidence for is your imaginary whole-cloth
> method of constructing novel functions de novo by random search.
Not at all. What I am demanding is that starting with anything you
want, you will not be able to evolve anything new within a higher
level of specified complexity, as defined above, via random mutation
and natural selection in less than zillions of years on average.
> Anyway, what I intended was a pro-Zoe post, not an anti-Sean post.
> Just measured by the quality of the responses you elicit, you are
> clearly distinguished from the common run of quote-miners,
> hit-and-run Hovindites, and mendacious and belligerent know-nothings
> we generally see here. But my vote this year is committed to Zoe.
Thanks for the compliment. However, I really have very little
interest in your ideas about who is the "best" creationist. I could
care less although I am glad that you like Zoe. She's great isn't
she? However, when you say that my position is unsupported and that I
do not answer challenges adequately, it would be more helpful if you
be more specific in exactly where you think my position is wrong and
why. It seems to me, from what you have written so far, that you have
a poor grasp on the issues involved in this debate. Some of your
arguments, such as the idea that the tools, not the watchmaker, makes
the watch, are simply ludicrous and I believe any halfway reasonable
person would agree. I'm sure that if you thought about such
statements just a little longer before you made them you would say
things a bit differently. So please, before you reply again, try and
put a little more thought into it before you post. In other words,
use your mind, not just your fingers, when you type.
> John
Mark Isaak
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote
(midst much else snipped):
>But the only real opposition to the ToE is scientific.
Huh?!? Where is this scientific opposition? Why have scientists not
been introduced to it?
The only real opposition to the ToE is politico-religious. Just
because someone attacks science does not make the opposition
scientific. In fact, it makes the opposition anti-scientific.
>But this really isn't about the Bible, it is
>about the evidence supporting the ToE. Where is it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ has a lot of it. You can find a lot more
pretty much anywhere in nature. I particularly recommend spending a
few weeks exploring a tropical rain forest.
>The "mountain"
>of evidence that evolutionists often refer to is nothing more than an
>ant hill from my perspective while the actual mountain of evidence
>raised up to the stars is screaming out, "Intelligent Design!"
Which is your opinion, which is of no consequence beyond you.
Besides, it still says nothing whatsoever against the theory of
evolution.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
R. Dunno
> The "mountain" of evidence that evolutionists often refer to
> is nothing more than an ant hill from my perspective while the
> actual mountain of evidence raised up to the stars is screaming
> out, "Intelligent Design!"
>
Cool. Within the last couple of days at least one school
teacher has asked about the existance of an ID lesson plan.
There doesn't seem to be one available, or at least not one
that has been presented to a SBOE. Maybe you could help
out? The folks with the ant hill have provided educational
materials, surely the folks with the mountain could do a
little something in this regard.
david ford
Giant Sloth <nospa...@dslextreme.com>:
>> The goal of the creationist is to convince others (and oneself),
that
>> the theory of evolution is highly speculative at best.
The goal of many blindwatchmakingist posts is to convince others (and
one's self) that the hypothesis of intelligent design of biology is
highly speculative at best.
>> In doing so,
>> it is important to make plausible sounding assertions, appeal to
>> intuition rather than logic, and to present oneself as
knowledgable,
>> confident and scientific, in order to persuade an audience lacking
in
>> a solid understanding of the science.
>
> Of course, such accusations could just as easily be applied to you
> evolutionists. Certainly you evolutionists are very eager and driven
> to make plausible sounding assertions, like this one, without adequate
> evidence,
Compare
1981 Francis Crick: "plausibility is not enough," is "usually
contaminated with our unstated prejudices"
http://tinyurl.com/257oa
> appeal to "just-so stories" rather than falsifiable hypothesis,
Compare with Gould in
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://tinyurl.com/2pf8u
Margulis; Gould on paedomorphosis
http://tinyurl.com/23j3l
> and present oneself as knowledgeable, confident and
> scientific, in order to persuade an audience lacking in a solid
> understanding of the science
Compare
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://tinyurl.com/y8c2
Gould, Davies, Yockey, Thaxton (a creationist)
http://tinyurl.com/2ohdg
howard hershey
Sean Pitman wrote:
I keep waiting for you to tell us how you calculate the "degree of
specificity" or "increase in functional complexity" of anything. These
are what I call pseudomathematical positions. They appear to be
quantitative, but really amount to a gut feeling and a wave of one's
hands before pulling a number out of some dark and moist spot.
> Many have tried to float examples of
> huge proteins that are composed of repetitive subunits that require
> very little genetic real estate to code for them. This is what we are
> talking about here: The minimum genetic real estate requirement and
> level of specificity needed to code for a particular type of function.
And how does one calculate this "minimum genetic real estate requirement
and level of specificity needed to code for a particular type of function"?
> Given this definition, there simply are no examples of a novel
> function evolving that requires, at minimum, more than a few hundred
> fairly *specified* amino acids working together at the same time.
There was a useful definition in that verbiage? I must have missed it.
>>It means that
>>we "evolutionists" would be astonished and embarrassed to see the
>>arising of a new system from no useful precursor.
>
>
> Again, you are only parroting other evolutionists, such as Howard
> Hershey, who make this strawman assertion about my position all the
> time. Start with whatever you want, functional or nonfunctional, and
> evolve a new type of function with a new sequence that requires at
> minimum, just a couple thousand fairly specified amino acids working
> together at the same time.
Except that every example we give doesn't seem to be what you mean,
which you always then explain in a mathematical sense of starting with a
random sequence and reaching a specified end point by a random walk.
Either we start with a system which already had some very similar
'function' or already had a sequence too close to the new one or some
such. It is very hard to guess what you think you mean. Especially
since you always come back to math that says something you claim you are
not saying.
>>You persist in
>>demanding evidence for a process that we don't expect to happen,
>>and you then claim that the failure to produce that evidence
>>is a weakness of our theory.
>
>
> You must "expect" this to happen because the theory of evolution
> claims that it did happen and that it continues to happen. The ToE
> proposes that creatures evolved what they started with over time to
> gain many novel functions at higher and higher levels of functional
> complexity via random mutation and natural selection.
And you keep forgetting the repeated role of natural selection.
> That IS what
> the ToE claims. The problem, of course, is that such a mindless
> evolutionary process can only work at the lowest levels of functional
> complexity due to the neutral gap problem that grows exponentially at
> higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
How do you measure "levels of functional complexity"? Be specific.
>>>I have repeatedly drawn the line at a few thousand fairly specified
>>>amino acids working together at the same time. The flagellar motility
>>>system is just one example of a type of function that requires several
>>>thousand fairly specified amino acids working together at the same
>>>time at minimum. No one seems to be able to explain in any sort of
>>>reasonable way how such levels of complexity, as are found in all
>>>living things, can evolve in less than zillions of years of time.
>>>There have been many bold statements to the contrary, but no
>>>significant supporting evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the "several thousand" number has been questioned, but I think
>>there are more fundamental objections to your argument. Quite a few
>>people have pointed out that your mathematical argument seems to
>>assume the creation of a system of n amino acids by random walk
>>through n-dimensional sequence space. I would really like to see you
>>address this objection directly.
>
>
> Oh I have addressed this objection directly many times. See the
> "Stacking the Deck" thread for one example. The fact of the matter is
> that evolution must search through N sequences an X sequence space via
> random walk where N is the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial
> sequences within X space.
Only if you start with a random or average protein or a protein of no
function at all (a random sequence). Otherwise the ratio of beneficial
to non-beneficial sequences is utterly irrelevant. If one starts with
proteins of non-random sequence (such as ones that actually do something
relevant), all your pseudocalculations are GIGO.
>>If this is in fact your model,
>>we can talk about whether it's a valid representation of the proposed
>>processes of evolution; we can also talk about whether your math is
>>sound (I have some questions about how one measures distance in
>>such a sequence space).
>
>
> Obviously this is my model. This should have been made clear to you
> far before now as I have been repeating this assertion for quite some
> time without any significant challenges to this hypothesis. If you
> have something new to "talk about" that would falsify my position,
> then please do present it. What are your questions about the
> measurement of distance in sequence space - for example? Instead of
> just saying that you have "questions" it would be much better to
> simply present them.
>
>
>>If this is not your model, you should tell
>>us what your model is.
>
>
> That is my model. Higher and higher levels of complexity result in an
> exponential decline in the density of beneficial sequences within
> sequence space. This translates into an exponentially longer average
> random walk. Very quickly, at the level of only a few thousand fairly
> specified amino acids, evolution simply stalls out this side of
> trillions of years of average time.
How do you measure and quantitate "levels of complexity"? I keep not
seeing any answer. That seems to be rather crucial to your model. How
does one quantitate "fairly specified amino acids"? How does one
determine that the mechanism requires some *specific* single step that
requires a neutral walk of (changes in) a few thousand amino acids? Is
there any system that you can present actual *evidence* for that *must*
have had such a single evolutionary step?
> That is my model as I have repeated it over and over again. Really,
> it should be clear by now.
But it seems to be a model composed of hand-waving numbers and vague
ideas rather than something that is testable.
>> And in fairness I recognize that since I began writing this, you
>>have begun to address this question in the "Stacking the deck"
>>thread. Good for you for that. Please keep it up.
>
>
> At least you recognize this much. This is promising.
>
>
>>>>He has one piece of claimed "evidence",
>>>>the fact that we haven't seen a new system with the
>>>>complexity of the bacterial flagellum evolving from nothing
>>>>in the laboratory in the past, say, seventy years. He has
>>>>never, to my knowledge, responded to the objection that
>>>>the real theory of evolution doesn't predict any such
>>>>event.
>>>
>>>Without neutral gaps slowing evolution down, such levels of complexity
>>>would be popping into existence at an amazing rate, right before our
>>>very eyes. The fact that such levels of functional complexity do not
>>>evolve nearly as fast as the lowest levels of complexity evolve (such
>>>as the evolution of antibiotic resistance) proves that increasing
>>>specified complexity results in dramatic exponential decrease in
>>>evolutionary potential.
>>
>> It seems breathtakingly obvious to me that functions requiring
>>several mutations will take longer to arise than functions requiring
>>a single mutation.
>
>
> Not that much longer if each intermediate "steppingstone" mutation is
> more functionally beneficial than the one that came before.
Yes it would. It would take significant time for a *single* new
mutation of modest selective advantage (say 1-5%) to approach fixation
in a population even in the case where the selective effect is dominant.
And not every new mutation of modest selective advantage will reach
fixation. For a stepwise process where, say, 6 mutations are required
for full functionality rather than partial, it would take 6 times as long.
> However,
> if the intervening steps are not sequentially more and more beneficial
> (i.e., neutral or even detrimental with regard to function), then the
> crossing of the same distance will be exponentially more difficult and
> require exponentially greater amounts of average time.
Yes. If you start with a large random sequence and require a long
random walk *without* any selection, it would indeed shortly be
impossible. That is why no biological system has *ever* happened that
way. They have all happened by mechanisms that do not require crossing
these increasingly hypothetical neutral gaps.
>>Your argument here seems similar to the transitional
>>fossils claims of traditional Creationists who want to see creatures
>>with half a wing or half an eye. The real evolutionary expectation
>>is to see a complex system arising from a previous functioning system
>>of slightly less complexity, as a flagellar system arising from a
>>secretory system.
>
>
> Yes, that is certainly what evolutionists claim and what must be
> there. However, where are the intermediates?
Why do they *need* to exist in some modern organism? They only *needed*
to exist in the ancestral organisms in a selective landscape that
favored its existence in the past. Historical process is like that.
> That is why the concept
> of the, "density of beneficial sequences in sequence space" argument
> is so important. If the density of beneficial sequences at such
> levels is really as low as I suggest, evolution would truly be in
> significant trouble. If evolution is true, then you must be able to
> find or at least give good evidence for the existence of real
> "steppingstone" functions. Your use of the TTSS system as an
> intermediate to the much higher complexity of the flagellar motility
> function is not convincing because the TTSS system is still thousands
> of fairly specified amino acids away from the motility function of the
> flagellum (i.e., the TTSS system requires a minimum of just half a
> dozen unique fairly specified genes while the flagellar system
> requires a minimum of at least 20 fairly specified genes).
I think I will talk about the evolution of the flagella in some detail
later. Needless to say, the numerology that Sean uses here is as bogus
as all his other numbers. And absolute numbers in the final flagella is
irrelevant when the sub-components of the flagella have indepedent
utility, as evidenced by homology of sub-component proteins with related
proteins in other systems that have independent utility. At that point
the only question is how to connect the subcomponents in a functionally
useful way.
> So, how do
> you get from the few than to have to the many that you need? You need
> to find a lot more steppingstones for evolution to be tenable. TTSS,
> by itself, is not a big enough steppingstone. In fact, most of the
> prominent evolutionists suggest that the TTSS system was not involved
> in the evolution of the flagellar system, but that each arose
> independently and some have even proposed that the TTSS system evolved
> from the fully formed flagellar system (see Nguyen et. al., 2000).
They ALL, however, say that the two systems are related by descent. And
that is the important point. They differ in whether *modern* TTSSs and
flagella arose independently from a common ancestor, the *ancestral*
TTSS-like system, or *modern* TTSSs diverged from an ancestral flagella,
which, in turn, evolved from an *ancestral* TTSS. But they ALL say that
the two systems are not indepedent but share a common ancestry.
> Other "intermediate" systems have been proposed as "steppingstone"
> functions, but no one has ever demonstrated the evolution of any one
> stepping-stone function to any other in real life in any living thing.
> The reason for this is that the gaps between these proposed
> stepping-stones are truly enormous as well as functionally neutral or
> even detrimental.
In the case of going from an ancestral TTSS to a modern flagella, this
is mostly the evolution of a 'whip' of some sort and the linkage of the
motor to chemotaxis indicators. And for modern systems, further
evolution of the 'whip' from a primitive state is almost a certainty. I
will discuss this later in more detail.
>
>
>>Now, would this kind of single-step change
>>count as an exponential increase in complexity?
>
>
> Where is the "single step" here? You need to go back and look at the
> differences between the secretory function of the TTSS system and the
> motility function of the flagellar system.
[snip rest]