Re: Pitman's Miller Time

On Jun 26, 4:41 pm, "Rolf" <r...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1182866090.880384.254900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Jun 26, 5:17 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So what exactly happened instead of "evolution" in those instances
that your "math" (or Behe's or Dembski's) suggests otherwise? Do you
specifically rule out *Darwinian* evolution, or other, e.g.
Lamarckian?

I believe intelligent design was clearly involved when it comes to the
origin of novel biosystem functions having structural threshold
requirements beyond a thousand specified residues.

Yet you seem terminally confused about the distinction between
*function* and *structure* by your continued use of this meaningless
language that conflates *function* and *structure*. The number of
mutational steps required to produce a particular *novel* function
does not correlate with the size of the end product. This language
appears to mean that you are claiming (without evidence) that it is
impossible for a protein with one function to acquire a *different* or
*additional* function by fewer than the number of residues in the
total protein. Yet you keep saying that that is a strawman
interpretation of what you are saying. That you do, in fact,
recognize that the number of a 1000 is meaningless and that you
*really* mean the number of mutational steps required to change or add
a new function for a protein that big is some unspecified number that
is too big to occur. You keep failing to present the metric for
calculating the *real* number you need.

How many mutational steps, at *minimum* (and it is the minimum number
that is relevant to evolution, not the mean or maximum), are required
to generate the *function* of rotary motility from a starting point of
a cell that has the subsystems of a rotatable pore and a motor system
if it is possible to link the two systems by a simple deletion?
According to your argument, that number should be calculateable
directly from the size of the end product and should not be dependent
on irrelevancies like the position of the relevant genes to each
other, but should be a simple function of the size of the end
product. I keep pointing out that the number 1000 is not the number
you need. You keep agreeing that it isn't (but only when I point it
out, and you always do it in conjunction with the claim that I am
making a strawman of your argument). Your claim is that the number
you do need is directly calculateable from the number 1000, the
minimum size of the end product, yet you never present any argument
about how you get the number you need, the minimum (or even the mean)
number of mutational steps required.

Do you see why I get frustrated with this meaningless claim you keep
making about the number of mutational steps to generate a new or
additional *function* from a pre-existing system being a function of
the end product's size? You do it without *ever* presenting the math
that allows you to calculate the number you do need from this size
number. You keep presenting it as if that were all you had to do.
The total size number is the *start* of your argument, not the end of
it.

You also seem totally incapable of understanding the role of
duplications and chimeric protein formation in evolution, totally
incapable of understanding the mosaic nature of *function* in proteins
(different parts of structure play different independent roles), and
seem to be just plain ignorant of the meaning of homology and the role
of neutral changes in reducing homology over geological time frames.

An interesting theory. Seems that the designer sits back, ready to jump in
and do some advanced, sophisticated genetic engineering whenever he sees
that a species needs to exceed the threshold imposed by Sean.

But why doesn't he fix the genetic technology to eliminate the threshold? If
I were him, I would have fixed it for good so I could concentrate on more
interesting and rewarding projects. But I suppose his resources are limited.

Also, your previous writing suggests disagreement with Behe's
biological continuity (aka common descent). Have you changed your
mind, or will you show some scientific integrity by "ripping Behe to
shreds" too?

I believe the evidence clearly shows a common origin for all living
things. However, this evidence could equally be explained by common
design and common descent.

What can't be explained by invoking an unconstrained supernatural
entity to do whatever you think needs to be done? Since most of the
evidence for common descent represents a historical pattern of change
rather than other patterns of 'common design' that are possible, you
do have to ask why your putative 'designer' wanted to create a design
that mimicked history. The real absence in the pattern is more than
incidental horizontal transfer. It is a fact that the pattern largely
represents a vertical historical pattern than, like most human
technologies and designs, a pattern that includes substantial
horizontal transfer of design.

If Darwinian-style evolutionary mechanisms
of random mutation and function-based selection cannot do the job
beyond very low levels of functional complexity,

You have presented no metric of "level of functional complexity". You
have only presented a metric of "structural complexity". You have
presented no way of saying that the additional function of "rotary
motility" via linking two pre-existing subsystems is more or less
'complex' than the additional function of "antibiotic resistance" by
modifying a binding site. Absent some metric of "functional
complexity", your claim amounts to nothing but your personal claim
that your personal ignorance is evidence of the level of functional
complexity.

then intelligent
outside input is most certainly required. The notion that this input
was added over long periods of time vs. a sudden creation event of
different basic "kinds" of creatures can both be classified as
"creationism" (slow vs. fast creationism). I personal tend to favor
"fast creationism" because of the evidence of geology for a fairly
rapid formation of much of the geologic and fossil record.

LOL. This so-called evidence is nonsense.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Intelligent design"
    ... > nor supportable by evidence. ... > wouldn't expect atoms to be made up of littler atoms. ... Perhaps "Intelligent Design" ... By comparing the complexity of human beings with the ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: "Intelligent design"
    ... religionists to find a reason not to drop their faith - what has ... nor supportable by evidence. ... By comparing the complexity of human beings with the ... complexity of the things they design, you see that a conscious designer ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Ernst Mayr Calls Evolutionary biology: -a "historical" science-philosophy
    ... And we think that the scientific evidence supports that conclusion. ... When we argue for design, ... What else is "irreducible complexity" in that case? ... falsify evolution in small incremental steps. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ernst Mayr Calls Evolutionary biology: -a "historical" science-philosophy
    ... And we think that the scientific evidence supports that conclusion. ... When we argue for design, ... What else is "irreducible complexity" in that case? ... falsify evolution in small incremental steps. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ernst Mayr Calls Evolutionary biology: -a "historical" science-philosophy
    ... And we think that the scientific evidence supports that conclusion. ... When we argue for design, ... What else is "irreducible complexity" in that case? ... falsify evolution in small incremental steps. ...
    (talk.origins)