Re: Kenneth Miller's Interview with NOVA

On Dec 5, 3:05 am, JAlexander <godgunsgu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 4, 3:37 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Dec 4, 6:43 am, JAlexander <godgunsgu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 3, 10:35 am, gregwrld <GCzeba...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 1, 2:34 pm, JAlexander <godgunsgu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 1, 8:33 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 30, 11:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 30, 1:30 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:10 am, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

The same thing is true of

the bacterial flagellum since the stated mechanism of random mutation
and function-based selection can't come remotely close this side of
trillions upon trillions of years of time - on average.

SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

where is your math proving this "trillions and trillions of years"
again?

Listed many times in this forum and on my website in my essay on the
flagellum.

I have *repeatedly* asked you for your math.

And I've repeatedly given it to you - along with a lot of other
evidence to include experimental evidence. It is just that you
constantly assume, for some very strange reason, that the likely gap
distance between what already exists and what might exist in a
beneficial capacity is always one mutational step regardless of the
minimum structural threshold requirements involved.

I've explained to you over and over again that the odds of the gap
distance being one mutational step decline along a Poisson
distribution with each increase in the minimum structural threshold
requirement under consideration. I've shown you the actual
experimental evidence that clearly demonstrates the increase in
minimum gap distances with increasing threshold requirements. Yet, you
continue to refuse to see the obvious.

I have *looked* at your
website. The relevant math simply is not there.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation%20of%20"Trillions%20upon%20Trillions%20of%20Years";

Instead you keep
presenting your bull*** total sequence size as if that were an
answer. When even you know and admit it isn't the right or relevant
number. The number you need is the gap size. The number of mutations
between the last functional structure that lacks the modified or 'new'
function you identify and the sequence that has that modified or 'new'
function is what you need. You continually assert that you can
calculate that number as a fraction of the total sequence size, but I
have not seen this analysis anywhere in your website.

You keep refusing to see that the gap distance is indeed a function of
the minimum sequence and/or structural threshold requirements. It is
your notion that your desired gap size of one is somehow unrelated to
increasing threshold requirements that is utter nonsense. All you
have to do is actually look at the experimental evidence if nothing
else to see that your notion is completely untenable. I've gone over
this dozens of times with you. You seem to deliberately refuse to
even consider that your one-step-gap notion regardless of thresholds
might actually be mistaken.

this is the key point at which your argument fails flat on its
head. all working biologists are saying the exact opposite, and
providing evidence for it, while all you, a non-expert who does
absolutely no experiments of his own, do is assert that they are wrong.

Please do present just one reference to back up this bald assertion.
As far as I've been able to find there are no published calculations
detailing the time needed to evolve anything at the level of
complexity of a flagellar motility system based on the mechanism
alone.

The only *mechanism* you hint at, although you deny it, is one where
you start with a maximally distant (not even average distant) random
sequence of the final size and move in a completely functionless
pathway by random changes until you hit upon some sequence with the
desired function. IOW, the mathematical equivalent of the old 747 in
a tornado strawman. Its boring to have to keep reminding you that
this "model" has no relationship to what evolution proposes.

How many times do I have to correct you on this? How many times
Howard? I've said over and over and over again to you directly that
the minimum structural threshold size is NOT the gap distance. How
can you continually forget this? The starting point is NEVER the
maximum possible distance - NEVER!!!!! Can't you get that into your
head?! The starting point distance is always smaller than the maximum
possible distance. I've explained this to you at nausium yet you
continue to present this strawman misrepresentation as if you've never
heard anything else? It is just that the minimum possible gap
distance, i.e., one, is exponentially less likely to be the actual gap
distance with increasing structural threshold requirements.

The assumption of the time involved is based entirely on the
assumed age of the geologic column and fossil record - - NOT on any
understanding of the actual mechanism involved, mutation rates, and
distances that must be crossed to get from one proposed intermediate
steppingstone function to the next. These calculations and time
estimates are not discussed in literature.

You certainly have not discussed it. Except for your implication of
the 747 in a tornado strawman argument.

And you are a deliberate liar who goes around making deliberate
misrepresentations regardless of the fact that you know you are
building a strawman each time you make such comments.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hidequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Finally! You don't debate liars like hersheyh...you expose them for
what they are.

Since you're so enamored of Sean, why don't you ask him when he and
his fellow IDers are going to start doing some actuall science. You
know,
they kind that actually gets published in legitimate journals.
Of course, you'll have to quit kissing his ass, first.

gregwrld- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been reading Sean's posts for some time. And I have long
waited for him to call some of his detractors what they really are--
liars. He did so a few days ago, and I heartily congratulate him for
it. As for doing "actual science," you certainly won't find that in
the Evo journals. The Evos merely use the language of science to
worship their mindless natural selection god...and Darwin is its
prophet.

Please post a link to any post in which any of Sean's detractors have
lied - i.e. made a statement they know to be false with the intent to
deceive.

Sean has stated repeatedly that not only has he a statistical method
which can detect "non-deliberate" forces in granite objects, but that
he has actually carried through his methodology on thousands of such
objects.

1) Sean is unable to describe his "methodology"
2) Sean is unable to produce any data.
3) Sean has demonstrated such a basic lack of understanding of
statistics that his capability to develop such a methodology is
doubtful to say the least.

The conclusion I have drawn from this that he has no such methodology,
that he knows that he has no such methodology, and that when he states
that he has carried through his methodology he is making a statement
he knows to be untrue with the intent to deceive.

What conclusion do you draw from this evidence?

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What I conclude is the following. Have watched you guys harass Sean
for months. Call him all sorts of names, and never concede a point
even when he has you dead-to-rights.

Do you think that Sean can carry out a statistical analysis without a
dataset of numbers?

Sean claims to have a methodology for detecting "non-deliberate"
forces in granite objects. Do you think that he has such a
methodology? If so, can you explain why he is unable to describe his
methodology?

Sean claims to have carried through this methodology on granite
objects, yet can produce no evidence that he has done so, or even
evidence that he understands statistics well enough to be able to do
so.

Do you think that he's telling the truth?

All you guys do is move on and
pretend that it never happened and move on to your next objection.

Actually, if you read the posts, you'll find that it's Sean who is
evading questions.

When that objection is answered, you again move on as if it never
happened, all the while hurling insults or otherwise attacking Sean's
character.

Do you think that Sean is telling the truth when he claims to have
carried through a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" forces
in the granite objects?

In my eyes it makes you guys look weak and defensive. I
have no idea why Sean wastes his time on you people.

I think that it's because he is a weak character who craves the sort
of adulation he gets from creationists such as yourself. He knows that
your ignorance of science and strong desire to believe that there is a
scientific basis to creationism makes you incapable of discerning that
his arguments are utterly lacking in substance. Provided he carries on
spouting scientific-sounding prose you will be fooled into thinking
that he is formulating a scientific argument. The only question in my
mind is whether or not Sean is doing this consciously, or
unconsciously.


He either has
Herculean powers of hospitality, or he is using you to perfect his own
theories...or perhaps both.

He has no theories. All he has in unsubstantiated assertions.

RF

.

Loading