Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- From: "Von R. Smith" <traklman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Oct 2005 06:03:54 -0800
Seanpit wrote:
> 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.
Right, with "fairly specified" and "novel" being defined as "whatever
the hell Sean Pitman needs them to mean to escape the latest
counterexample".
I know that we've had this conversation before, but I'd like you to
explain for the benefit of our current audience why vancomycin
resistance and the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathways don't fit your
requirement.
>
> Take flagellar motility, for example. Such a function requires a
> minimum of at least 30,000 fairly specified bp genetic real estate.
Tell us again how many, exactly, are actually specified. Which active
regions did you add up to get to 30,000, and what criteria did you use
to determine whether or not they are specified? You didn't just take
the entire sequence length and assert it all to be "fairly specified"
for no reason, did you?
And besides, you and I both know how you would respond to such an
example appearing in real time: you would suggest that the function,
or the capability to realize it was not really novel, but had somehow
been there hidden all along.
> 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.
Perhaps you can explain once more for the benefit of our current
audience how the appearance of such a sequence within a few decades
demonstrates that a putative sequence only a few times as large could
not evolve in 10 million years. It's been a while, after all.
>
> What should such experimental examples of positive evolution at lower
> levels and negative evolution at higher levels tell me?
The same thing that observing an acorn for a few hours tells you about
what it will become in 20 years.
> 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"?
You have not demonstrated that evolution "declines in creative power in
an exponential manner". You have merely asserted it.
>
> 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.
It might not be helpful, but it is an appropriate reaction to your
charade. You are an educated man who knows full well how to find and
read the primary literature. If you had a real case against the real
science, you would be writing articles for those journals, not trolling
a layman's newsgroup or cutting and pasting YEC junk onto your website.
> Perhaps if you could make your position a bit more easily
> understood by answering a few simple questions for a simple mind?
Your questions have been answered many times. You either ignore the
answers or make up new requirements that they somehow fail to meet.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Dover Trial
- Next by Date: Re: OT: White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
- Previous by thread: Re: A Few Simple Questions for a Simple Mind
- Next by thread: Re: In the news: Dover Board: Religious Fanatics?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
