Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- From: <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:08:49 GMT
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1130720595.014928.169900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
>> No you haven't. You have made
>> assertions based on your rather poor
>> knowledge of the biological
>> processes involved which have been
>> eviscerated by those with such knowledge.
>
> My questions aren't that difficult and don't take much biological
> knowledge to understand. They're actually quite simple and
> straightforward - even elementary. I've simply suggested that lower
> levels of functional complexity in any language system, to include
> genetic codes, can be evolved using mindless Darwinian-style mechanisms
> while higher levels are exponentially harder and harder to evolve.
> Such a simple statement, a simple question actually, should not be hard
> to disprove, or answer, with real time examples of evolution in action
> at a level that satisfies my rather elementary question.
>
> Specifically, I've suggested that no system of function requiring more
> than a 1,000 or so fairly specified residues or equivalent amount of
> genetic real estate (i.e., over 3,000bp), at minimum, can be evolved be
> evolved this side of a practical eternity of average time.
>
> So far, none of those experts in this forum, whom you claim have
> eviscerated my position, have yet to produce such a single example of
> real time evolution at such a level of minimum informational
> complexity. All real time examples of evolution in action, that I have
> been shown, require a minimum of only a few hundred *fairly specified*
> residues at best to realize beneficial selectivity of a truly *novel*
> function.
>
> Take flagellar motility, for example. Such a function requires a
> minimum of at least 30,000 fairly specified bp genetic real estate. So
> far, not a single proposed step in the evolution of such a highly
> complex (informationally complex) system of function has yet to be
> demonstrated in real time - not a single step. In comparison, many
> examples of lower-level evolution exist - such as nylonase or lactase
> evolution, where a minimum of only a few hundred fairly specified
> residues is required.
>
> What should such experimental examples of positive evolution at lower
> levels and negative evolution at higher levels tell me? Why does
> evolution tend to decline in creative power in an exponential manner?
> Where have such simple questions been answered in this forum or
> elsewhere in a way that could even remotely be called "eviscerating"?
>
> I just don't get it . . . and it isn't all that helpful for you to tell
> me that my not getting the truth of your position is due to ignorance
> or insanity. Perhaps if you could make your position a bit more easily
> understood by answering a few simple questions for a simple mind?
>
>> RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
I am not a biologist...but I do know that you will never prove design by a
critique of the minutia of evolution. The design argument cannot ever make
predictions or be falsified, so you are left with rhetoric...
JR
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Could Behe be schizophrenic?
- Next by Date: Re: In the news: Dover Board: Religious Fanatics?
- Previous by thread: Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- Next by thread: Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
