Re: Pitman's Miller Time

On Jun 25, 5:06 pm, nickmatzke.n...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 25, 2:03 pm, Giant Sloth <nospamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





I've always been amazed at the time and effort Dr.Pitmanputs into
the creationist cause. Lately I noticed a section of his website
devoted to Ken Miller. How he rips Miller's arguments to shreds!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html

I pointed it out to Dr. Miller who was also impressed:

****
...wow.... am I flattered!

I'm delighted that I seem to have caused them so much trouble
that they need to "take care" of me in such a special way.

Later this week, my review of Michael Behe's new book
will be published in NATURE. I suspect that they will then
have even more things to say about me.
****

No doubt, although the book has been reviewed plenty already. But Dr.
Miller usually states his case so well!

GS

LOL, Pitman concedes the evolutionary origin of the 2,4-DNT
degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after
humans started putting the xenobiotic compound 2,4-DNT
(dinitrotoluene, closely related to explosives production with TNT)
into the environment in the 1930s.

I've never claimed otherwise. I've always thought and said that the
evolution of the 2,4-DNT cascade was indeed a real example of
evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level
evolution of novel functional systems.

He doesn't mention this, but it was assembled from bits and pieces of
3 separate ancestral pathways.

You evidently didn't read the essay very carefully. Look at the last
sentence of the second paragraph of the 2,4-DNT section. It has been
there all along . . .

Yep, evolution sure has strict limits Sean. . .

Evolutionary mechanisms do have very significant limits that are
strikingly obvious onece you actually start to consider the very
different statistical gaps involved for different types of functional
systems. Cascading functions are much much easier to evolve when
compared to those types of functions, of the same minimum threshold
size and individual protein specificity, where all the individual
protein parts must be specifically oriented relative to every other
part in the system. This additional degree of specificity makes a huge
difference in evolvability.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... devoted to Ken Miller. ... degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after ... evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level ... obfuscation ploys so what are they and how can you back them up? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... devoted to Ken Miller. ... degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after ... evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level ... Where is your evidence? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... devoted to Ken Miller. ... degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after ... evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level ... evolution of novel functional systems. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... devoted to Ken Miller. ... degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after ... evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level ... size and individual protein specificity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... degradation cascade, a seven-enzyme cascade that was assembled after ... evolution in action - along with many other such examples of low-level ... evolution of novel functional systems. ... Where is your evidence? ...
    (talk.origins)