Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 22, 5:57 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
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.

Which is standard practice in any academic publication. This is so
that "quotations" can't be taken out of context and presented in a way
which distorts their meaning.

You are
famous for doing this - listing off dozens of reference with nothing
more than a claim that they support your position.

So why not read those references and demonstrate that they don't
support my position. That's why I give references. Or is that too much
like real science for you, Sean?

I can't give you an education in a subject as broad as taphonomy, for
example, by providing a few "quotations". Evidently the idea of
learning anything is too challenging for you.

Of course, they
never do.

How do you know if you have not read them?

Mind you, you cite papers as supporting your position which quite
explicitly don't, or claim that they show something which the data
presented cannot.

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 perhaps you can provide an example of this.

You claim that the Choi and Kim paper which you cite in support of you
assertion that evolution can't happen beyond an arbitrary limit you
have pulled out of the air by asserting that the figures show
something which they don't.

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.

No, it's a lot more useful than quote mining, as it is intended to
avoid misrepresenting the meaning of the authors of the reference
cited. This is why quote miners are in the habit of leaving references
rather vague.

It's standard practice in scientific papers for that reason.

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.

And it has been pointed out over and over again that it is an utterly
meaningless challenge.

You said
I was wrong when I said that there are no examples of evolution in
action beyond the 1000aa threshold.

And I have posted evidence that this is the case. You have not
addressed that evidence.

You can't prove me wrong by
listing a reference that doesn't have anything to do with proving this
statement wrong.

I posted references to several papers which describe the evolution of
novel structures and functions which presumably involve evolutionary
changes way beyond your arbitrary limit. Why not address the evidence
presented in those papers and provide an alternative, testable
explanation for the evidence?


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.

As changes at that level may take thousands or millions of years
according to evolutionary theory, why don't you set up an experiment
which monitors many populations of living organisms over a million
years or so so that you demonstrate that such changes *can't* happen
in "real time"?

Or is a million years not "real time"?

Until you've done that, we'll just have to rely on other strands of
evidence. All those strands support each other in the conclusion that
evolution can and does cross your arbitrary limit.

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.

And, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, your model of
evolution is utterly bogus and your "statistical" argument no more
than numbers you have pulled out of the air.


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.


That is not telling anyone how your threshold is calculated.
"Calculation" does not mean "pulling numbers out of the air".


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.

Perhaps you can explain why this is relevant? It is not a prediction
of evolutionary theory that large-scale evolutionary changes should
be observed "in real time". We can't make observations on populations
of living organisms for millions of years, though a million years is
"real time" just as much as a second is "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.

Which it does. However, although a million years is real time
(presumable as opposed to "fake time"), we can't monitor populations
of living organism for a million years, and therefore have to rely on
other forms of evidence.

Why not address that evidence instead of pretending that you can
falsify evolutionary theory by testing a prediction it does not make?


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.

There is massive evidence that they do.
You have not addressed that evidence.

That question can indeed be
evaluated by science.

I've given you the answer. It's because large-scale evolutionary
changes take a long time.

Which part of that do you not understand?

It is just that, for some reason, no one wants
to even try to answer that question.


I've answered the question several times, Sean. It's because large-
scale evolutionary changes take a long time.


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.

So how did you calculate this "threshold"?
Pulling numbers out of the air is not calculation.


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.

No it isn't, Sean. You have quite explicitly said that you do not
count mutations which involve, and I quote "the loss or disruption of
existing functions".

*ALL* functional changes involve the "loss or disruption of existing
functions". If there was no disruption there would be no change!

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.

Yes you do, because you have not demonstrated that your model is
supported by evidence. You use bogus "mathematics", not evidence.

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.

Well, that's what the Choi and Kim paper which you are fond of citing
concludes.

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.

It's up to you to support your assertions, Sean. It's not my job to do
your work for you.


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.

No I'm not. I'm asking for evidence that evolution "stalls out" at any
level. I'm not asking for anything more than that.

If you can actually falsify
my negative hypothesis with a positive observation, please do so.
Otherwise, this point is pointless - - and anti-science.

Well, there is all the evidence that living organisms *have* evolved
from a common ancestor. Books on biology, genetics and palaeontology
are packed with such evidence.

Why not provide and alternative testable explanation for that
evidence?


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.

The SETI scientists are not making the sort of silly assertions you
are.


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.

You have not set any limits on the abilities of your designer.

Unless you do so, your "explanation has no predictive value.


The fact is, I never "conceded" any such thing since this has never
been the basis of my position.

The basis of your position has been an unfounded, untestable
assertion.

In other words, my position is based
on the same basis that SETI scientists use - the design-only
hypothesis.

Well, the SETI scientists disagree with you. Perhaps they know more
about what they are doing than you do?

You know this because I've even given titles to entire
threads by this name in direct response to you.

....and then proceeding to make unfounded assertions, and refuse to
answer any of the questions which challenge your assumptions.

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.


No, Sean. The "design-only" hypothesis can be falsified only by
proposing a potential phenomenon which can *not* be "explained" by an
"design". It's a process we call "science".

If a natural process could be shown to do the same thing, you'd only
move on to the next assertion that something could only be produced by
"deliberate" processes.

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Credibility of ICR
    ... about evolution, but in many cases they flat out lie. ... What exactly do they mean by "true" transitional fossil? ... going through paragraph 12 quote "NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE" as the heading ... the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Prof Waagen says evolution is not by chance as Darwin supposed
    ... that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, ... Perhaps the fact that he wrote this book you quote from when I ... In response to the quotation, all scientific thought can be challenged ... evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science is inconvenient for Al Gore
    ... quote doesn't mean 45 centuries - I probably should have removed those ... as that is a footnote reference in the text to support this ... forcing for the next 50 yr surpass that of solar forcing in previous ... evidence for variance beyond the 11 year sunspot cycle which is yet to ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: More lies and strawmen
    ... If you list a reference, quote the part of that reference that you ... no observed examples of evolution in action producing any novel system ... directly observe them, nor addressed the evidence that they have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question about science in general (might be a philisophical question)
    ... The author of that quote goes on to explain what that "something else" ... Evolution" logic. ... existence of vestiges is consistent with Evolution. ... can vestiges really be considered evidence for Evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)