Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 22, 12:36 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

You are back to your usual reference mining I see.

Another term for the glossary, Sean:
"reference mining" - using references to scientific papers

More like listing off references without any relevant quotes. You are
famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing
more than a claim that they support your position. Of course, they
never do. Even the rare occasion when you actually present what you
think is a relavant quote usually doesn't support your position in the
least. So, at the very least, if you think you have something, quote
it along with reference. I do. Otherwise, its pretty much as
pointless and unhelpful as quote mining.

Come on Richard.
If you list a reference, quote the part of that reference that you
think is relevant. In particular, quote the part of the reference
that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least
1000aa working at the same time where each individual amino acid
residue is required to be in a fairly specific orientation relative
all the others.

Why on earth should I, Sean?

Because that's the challenge under discussion here Richard. You said
I was wrong when I said that there are no examples of evolution in
action beyond the 1000aa threshold. You can't prove me wrong by
listing a reference that doesn't have anything to do with proving this
statement wrong.

You are insisting that there is a threshold at 1000aa which evolution
cannot cross in "real time".

Your evolutionary mechanism doesn't not cross this threshold in real
time. I didn't say that it was impossible. What I said is that it
doesn't happen and is very unlikely to happen in observable time - and
statistically this side of trillions of years of time.

1) You have provided no way by which that threshold can be calculated

Find a system that requires at least 1000aa working together at the
same time. At the very least you should be able to start off with a
system that is known to use at least this many residues as an example.
So far, all the "examples" you've given have either been well below
this 1000aa as far as their known minimum requirements or not observed
in real time.

There are lots of examples that are clearly well beyond this
threshold, like the 10,000 or so codons needed for a flagellar motilty
system. It just so happens that such systems have never been observed
to evolve in real time.

You see, it really isn't a problem with knowing that a system is
clearly beyond the 1000aa threshold. The problem is with finding one
that actually evolves in real time.

2) There is no requirement in science that observations should be in
"real time"

The question here is about why no examples of evolution in action
exist beyond the 1000aa threshold. That question can indeed be
evaluated by science. It is just that, for some reason, no one wants
to even try to answer that question.

3) It is not a prediction of evolutionary theory that we should be
able to observe such change in "real time".

The 1000aa threshold is not a measure of the degree of "change" needed
to achieve it. It is only a measure of the minimum size and
specificity required for a system at this level to work - regardless
of what "change" large or small is needed to get something that
already exists in the genome to produce a new system with a novel
function at this level.

Beyond this, the 1000aa level isn't that complex for a minimum
threshold requirement. Emergent systems with far greater minimum
complexities exist in all living things. So, what level would you
suggest that evolutionary theory would predict and end to observable
evolution on action? - - and why?

4) You have specifically excluded changes to existing functions as
being valid examples of such changes

Yet another deliberate lie. I've said over and over again that
changes to existing functions, as starting points, are perfectly fine
- as long as the new system that evolves never existed in the genome
pool in question before. For example, getting a cave fish to "evolve"
eyes back again with a single point mutation isn't the same thing as
demonstrating that eyes are easy to evolve. Why? Because cave fish
are known to have eyes already in existence in their historical gene
pool of options.

5) You insist on a model of the adaptive landscape which is not
supported by evidence, and which is completely different from that
used by evolutionary biologists

I don't insist on any model of adaptive landscape that is not actually
demonstrable. If you think the true model of arrangement of potential
targets in sequence space is as clustered as those like Howard Hershey
suggest, regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements
under consideration, prove it. Present any evidence that shows that
there is no significant relationship between the likely minimum
distance between targets and the level of complexity under
consideration.

6) You have not demonstrated that evolution "stalls out" at any level

You are asking for absolute demonstration of a negative, which is
impossible and not required by science. If you can actually falsify
my negative hypothesis with a positive observation, please do so.
Otherwise, this point is pointless - - and anti-science.

7) You have not provided any alternative, testable explanation for the
evidence that evolutionary processes can cross your arbitrary
"threshold"

The same as SETI scientists have not provided any alternative testable
explanation for the types of radiosignals that they say can only be
produced by intelligent design.

8) You have conceded that the explanation you have offered, which is
"common design" has no predictive value and therefore cannot be
tested.

Please quote me directly on this.

The fact is, I never "conceded" any such thing since this has never
been the basis of my position. In other words, my position is based
on the same basis that SETI scientists use - the design-only
hypothesis. You know this because I've even given titles to entire
threads by this name in direct response to you. And, as you know, the
design-only hypothesis can be falsified, easily, with a single example
of a non-intelligent non-deliberate natural process doing the same
thing.

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A glossary of Pitmanese
    ... evolved, and which demand far more than your "1000aa" to evolve. ... Since when has "real time evidence" been a requirement for science. ... are no examples of evolution in action ... 1000aa threshold. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A glossary of Pitmanese
    ... hypotheses are quite useful in science? ... You are back to your usual reference mining I see. ... You are insisting that there is a threshold at 1000aa which evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... action beyond the 1000aa threshold. ... I posted references to several papers which describe the evolution of ... a million years is not "real time" in the context of this ... Common design and only common design can produce the functional ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and
    ... this "1000 fairly specified residues" nonsense is just a number ... The 1000aa threshold does NOT represent "changes"! ... If it is not an example of evolution in action, ... They did not observe this evolution in real time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another of Richards Strawman "Lists"
    ... famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing ... pointless and unhelpful as quote mining. ... that deals with the evolution of novel systems that require at least ... And I have posted evidence that this is the case. ...
    (talk.origins)