Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 22, 11:35 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

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.

That doesn't prove the statement that evolution is not *observed* to
happen beyond the 1000aa threshold. How then can you claim, over and
over again, that I'm wrong with this particular statement Richard?
Your "examples" have not been directly *observed*. What do you not
understand about the concept of "in action" or "observed in real
time"? Are you having difficulty with English here?

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,

Are you suggesting that producing novel systems that require a minimum
of 1000aa would require, according to evolutionary theory, thousands
or millions of years? Is that what you are suggesting?

If so, that's quite interesting. What is it about this 1000aa level
that requires thousands or even millions of years to achieve? I mean
really, it isn't a very high level relatively speaking. Why would it
require so much time. What is your explanation for this requirement
when lower level examples happen in one or two generations all the
time?

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"?

Let me make this even more specific for you. Evolution beyond the
1000aa level doesn't happen in 50 years. There isn't a single example
of it happening in 50 years while there are lots and lots of examples
happening below this level in far less time than 50 years.

Now, here's your question: Why does evolution happen so easily below
the 1000aa threshold, but not at all given 50 years of time? Answer
that.

Or is a million years not "real time"?

No, a million years is not "real time" in the context of this
discussion, obviously, because it cannot be directly observed by
anyone. No one lives that long - obviously. Do you really have to be
so obtuse ALL the time?

< snip >

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".

Are you telling me that you have no idea that the likely minimum
threshold of a flagellar motility system is clearly over 1000aa? None
at all? Please . . .

There are lots of examples that are clearly well beyond this
threshold, like the 10,000 or so codons needed for a flagellar motility
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?

There's no point as long as you keep denying the observation itself.
Once you accept the observation as valid, we can move on to talking
about what it means.

< snip >

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.

Where is your example? You don't have any example where evolution has
actually been directly observed "in action" beyond the 1000aa
threshold. Don't tell me that you don't understand that this is what
"real time" means in the context of this discussion?! If you want to
get even more specific, lets defined "real time" as 50 years. Is that
easier for you to understand in the context of this discussion? Why
doesn't evolution happen within 50 years beyond the 1000aa threshold?
Hmmmm?

< snip >

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 in action? - - and why?

Why not answer this question Richard? I repeat: What level would you
suggest that evolutionary theory would predict and end to observable
evolution in 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!

That's not true. Do you not know about duplication mutations and
neutral mutations? Do you not understand that the evolution of the
lactase function demonstrated by Barry Hall was not dependent upon the
loss or destruction of any other pre-existing system or interaction?

While novel functions that are based on the destruction or loss of pre-
existing systems or interactions, like most forms of antibiotic
resistance, are indeed real examples of evolution in action, they are
not remotely on the same level as are those systems that are not based
on the loss of something else - but are independent of a need for the
loss of any other specific function or interaction.

< snip >

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.

What the Choi and Kim paper clearly demonstrates is an increase in the
average and minimum gap distances with an increase in the size
requirement for proteins. The notion that the degree of clustering
stays the same regardless of increasing structural threshold
requirements (the notion proposed by you and Howard) is falsified by
the Choi and Kim paper. The degree of clustering demonstrably does
NOT stay the same.

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue38/images/large/zpq0370634700004.jpeg

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.

The Choi and Kim paper does that just fine - - if you only knew how to
read for comprehension.

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.

Why does evolution happen well within 50 years below the 1000aa, but
not above it? Is that not evidence of evolution slowing down or
"stalling" with increasing complexity?

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.

Not in observable time . . .

Why not provide and alternative testable explanation for that
evidence?

Common design and only common design can produce the functional
differences that exist beyond the 1000aa threshold . . .

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.

SETI scientists are making exactly the same assertions as I am. There
is no fundamental difference for the basis of their hypotheses vs.
mine.

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.

That's true - because there are no theoretical limits for an
intelligent designer.

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

The predictive value is in the design-only hypothesis - i.e., that
only an intelligent designer could produce the phenomenon in question.
This is the same logical basis for SETI.

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.

My basis is testable and potentially falsifiable. All you have to do
is show a single counter example and my design-only hypothesis will be
neatly falsified.

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?

SETI scientists do not disagree with the basis of my position - i.e.,
the design-only hypothesis since they use the very same hypothesis to
support their search for ETI.

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.

I've responded to your questions extensively. You just don't like my
answers.

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".

You evolutionists are famous for saying that design explains
everything and therefore nothing. Are you saying that this isn't
true? If this saying is not actually true, please do tell me, what
process cannot be explained by design?

Can an amorphous rock be explained by design? Think carefully . . .

You can't even figure out your own truisms can you?

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.

You'd definitely falsify a major basis of my position for the last 10
years. The same thing can be said of SETI scientists. If you show
them a non-deliberate natural process doing what they said could only
be produced as the result of deliberate artifact, what do you think
they'd do? Give up on the notion that detecting deliberate activity
is impossible?

What your argument is really saying here is that all phenomena can
only be explained via non-deliberate non-artifactual processes of
nature. That's not true. Some phenomena can *only* be reasonably
explained by invoking a deliberate intelligence. Is such an
invocation falsifiable? Sure it is - as are all scientific theories.
What should be done if it is falsified? Hmmmm? Give up on science?

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OT: lets ignore bvallelys political postings
    ... ntelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher ... In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology ... form first arose during the evolution of life. ... and classes of animals also arose at this ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • 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: Steven & Mark: Faith has an object
    ... Acceptance of material causation instead of Divine casuation refutes ... claims of evolution or the Bible. ... As explained over, and over, and over, the appearance of design is not evidence of either a designer, or "divine causation". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
    ... > mischaracterization of what constitutes Intelligent Design. ... > creationism as it is an attempt to, using scientific methodology alone, ... evolution, nor those offered against it, but are convinced that ID is based ... Johnson), or progressive separate creations, or recent ...
    (talk.origins)