Re: Another of Richard's Strawman "Lists"

On Feb 22, 8:31 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
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.

You have not explained why observation of evolution in action beyond
your arbitrary "threshold" is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

You don't falsify a theory by not seeing something it doesn't predict.

How then can you claim, over and
over again, that I'm wrong with this particular statement Richard?

I haven't claimed that your are wrong.

I've asked you to explain why observation of evolution in action
beyond your arbitrary "threshold" is a prediction of evolutionary
theory.

You don't falsify a theory by not seeing something it doesn't predict.


Your "examples" have not been directly *observed*.

I haven't claimed that they have. I've stated repeatedly that they are
conclusions drawn from the evidence, and invited you to produce an
alternative, testable explanation for the evidence.

You appear to suffer from problems of reading for comprehension.

What do you not
understand about the concept of "in action" or "observed in real
time"? Are you having difficulty with English here?

Nothing at all, but I don't understand why you think that not
observing something which evolutionary theory does not predict should
falsify evolutionary theory.


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?

It depends on how extensive the changes are. Large changes will take
more time.

Would you like me to recommend a book which explains some of the
basics of evolutionary theory?


If so, that's quite interesting. What is it about this 1000aa level
that requires thousands or even millions of years to achieve?

There's nothing special about this "1000aa level". It's just an
arbitrary number you have pulled out of the air. The greater the
change, the longer it takes. How many aa changes such evolutionary
changes involve is something we don't know, but scientists are working
on it. A mutation may cause very little change to the proteins
expressed by the genes, or quite major changes, and the effect of
those changes to the phenotype may be undetectable or rather
extensive. A single change in a gene which affects developmental
processes may have rather significant effects on the phenotype.

I mean
really, it isn't a very high level relatively speaking.

How do you know? Or do you have knowledge not known to the scientists
who do research in genetics?

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?

"Lower level examples", in the sense of mutational changes becoming
dominant in populations don't occur in one or two generations. They
take many, many generations. How many generations of bacteria do you
think it takes for antibiotic resistance to develop?


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.

And how do I determine if "evolution beyond the 1000aa level" has not
happened in 50 years? What measurements do I take? If a single
mutation changes 1000 aa bases in a single generation does that
count?

How many aa changes does it take to grow a second head in a dog, for
example?

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.

And what evidence would it take to demonstrate that evolution beyond
this "threshold" (which is, by the way, no more than a number you have
pulled out of the air) has occurred?

How about a mutation which grows a second head in a dog.

How many aa changes does that involve?



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?

If it's not "real time", what is it? False time? Unreal time?

I'm not being obtuse, Sean. I'm trying to make you clarify how you
express yourself.


< 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 . . .

Evasion noted.


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.

I've never denied that large-scale evolutionary changes may not be
observed directly, but as this is not a prediction of evolutionary
theory, I wonder why you keep banging on about it.


Once you accept the observation as valid, we can move on to talking
about what it means.

I have.
You have not explained why not observing something evolutionary theory
does not predict should falsify evolutionary theory.


< 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.

I never claimed that I had.

You have not explained why not observing something evolutionary theory
does not predict should falsify evolutionary theory.


Don't tell me that you don't understand that this is what
"real time" means in the context of this discussion?!

You have not explained why not observing something evolutionary theory
does not predict should falsify evolutionary theory.


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?

So how do I look at, for example, the evolution of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria and measure how many aa changes it involves?

It's taken 50 years or so for bacteria, which reproduce every 20
minutes, to develop antibiotic resistance. How many generations of
bacteria do you suppose that represents? And how many aa changes does
it involve?

Perhaps if you can attach a number to that, we can start to calculate
how many generations it might take for evolutionary changes beyond
your arbitrary limit. However, counting aa changes is not necessarily
a reliable guide to the effect on the phenotype, which is where we
detect evolutionary changes.

So you have an arbitrary limit set on a value which does not
necessarily relate to the degree of evolutionary change.



< 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?

Sean, your question doesn't make sense.
How does one measure the level of evolutionary change?
How is this undefined measurement related to aa changes?


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?

Yes, and I evidently know more about them than you do. They don't
necessarily involve functional changes. If they involve functional
changes, the former function is disrupted.

Or do you know of a way in which something can be changed without
changing it?

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?

So the pre-existing system from which it evolved did not change in any
way?
How does something change without changing?


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.

Sean, you used the word "disruption". Can you change something without
disrupting it?

Having said that, on what basis of evidence do you feel able to
dismiss an evolutionary mechanism?


< 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.

That's not a conclusion drawn by the authors of the paper, and not a
phenomenon which could be observed at the scales they are studying.
The paper makes no mention of "gap size", and the number of proteins
in the analysis is 1,898, and the number of proteins in the "protein
universe" of the earth estimated as 10exp10 to 10exp12.

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.

The paper makes no mention of "degree of clustering", and as the
proteins in the analyis represent about 1 in 10,000,000 of the
proteins in the protein universe on earth there is no way in which you
can support that assertion.


http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue38/images/large/zpq0370634700...

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.

You are claiming conclusion from that paper about quantities which are
not mentioned in the paper, and which cannot be drawn from the data
set used by the authors.


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?

How do I quantify how many aa changes have happened in a population
over the past 50 years?

Is that not evidence of evolution slowing down or
"stalling" with increasing complexity?

No, it's setting an arbitrary limit on a quantity not necessarily
related to degree of evolutionary change and claiming that it
represents a threshold value.

We have observed the evolution of many new species within the past 200
years.
How many aa changes are involve in the origination of a new species of
plant by hybridisation of two existing species?
Or by polyploidy?


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 . . .

So now we have "observable time". How does this differ from "real
time"? Or "false time" for that matter.

If large-scale evolutionary changes take place over long periods of
time, why is evolutionary theory falsified if we don't observe large-
scale evolutionary changes directly?

We have observed many instances of speciation. How many aa changes
does that involve?


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 . . .

An unfounded assertion is not a testable explanation.


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.

Well, perhaps you can point out where they are referring to "1000aa"
thresholds, or throwing around unfounded assertions as it they were
meaningful, or indulging in incompetent mathematical "calculations"

There
is no fundamental difference for the basis of their hypotheses vs.
mine.

Well, SETI scientists publish in academic journals.

What stops you from doing the same?

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.

So the "theory" has no predictive value. Glad we're clear on that.


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.

That's not a prediction. It's an unfounded assertion.

This is the same logical basis for SETI.

Not according to the SETI scientists it ain't.



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.

No it isn't. You have not set any limits on the capability of your
"intelligent designer", so there is no potential phenomenon which
could not be explained by the intervention of such an "intelligent
designer"

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

A single counter-example to what?
Something which could not be "explained" by God did it? (and please
don't pretend that your "intelligent designer" is not your God). I
can't. That's why your "theory" is not science.


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.

They do not mention any "design-only" hypothesis.
SETI scientists are looking very specifically for candidate signals
with characteristics of those produced by known processes. They are
not making sweeping generalisations about "design", or "deliberate"
and "non-deliberate" forces, they are not invoking "explanations" with
no predictive value, they are not setting arbitrary thresholds, and
they are not pretending that a theory can be falsified by not
observing something not predicted by that theory.


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.

No Sean. You have evaded my questions.

For example, I started a post entitled " A list of some of the
questions Sean Pitman refuses to answer"

You have provided a very weak response to one of those questions after
I repeated it at least a dozen times when you asserted that "anyone
with a candid mind" could understand your "theories".

Of course, you evade the question of whether or not "anyone with a
candid mind" is capable of understanding the ins and outs of your
arguments in genetics and so on, and which posters on this forum who
not only understand the science nature of that science but have
contributed to the literature on the subject reject as bull***.

So in the case of the only question you have answered your response
begs further questions which you are now evading.

You have still not answered the rest of those questions.


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?

There is nothing which *cannot* be "explained" by "design". That's the
whole point! That's why it's not falsifiable!


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

Of course it can. A designer might have made it that way because he
thought it was aesthetically pleasing. It's an explanation you have
made *yourself*, Sean.



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


I'm not the one arguing the exact opposite of my case here, Sean!

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.

What nonsense.

The same thing can be said of SETI scientists.

Oh, please. It could be said, but that would not make it true.

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?

Revise the search parameters they are using.

Give up on the notion that detecting deliberate activity
is impossible?

No, they'd revise their search parameters.

Do you understand that setting search parameters is not testing an
hypothesis?

What your argument is really saying here is that all phenomena can
only be explained via non-deliberate non-artifactual processes of
nature.

No, I'm not, and it is a measure of the utter dishonesty of your
position that you seem intent on misrepresenting me.

I'm saying that "it was designed" is not a falsifiable hypothesis
because you set no limits on the capability of your "designer".


That's not true. Some phenomena can *only* be reasonably
explained by invoking a deliberate intelligence.

If they are to be testable hypothesis, you need to set limits on what
a "deliberate intelligence" can do.
There is no evidence for any "deliberate intelligence" not associated
with a brain, for example.

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?

In your case, it would be a good start to *learn* something about it.
Then, after you've *started* doing some science, you'd be in a
position to give up on it.

RF

.