Re: Lack of evolution in computers and living things

On Jun 16, 6:13 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 16, 1:14 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Vernon Balbert wrote:
On 6/15/2008 11:45 AM, Ron O went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:
On Jun 15, 1:32 pm, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/15/2008 10:40 AM, Seanpit went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:

On Jun 15, 9:04 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For example, a bacterial flagellum requires that all of its protein
parts be specifically arranged with each other at the same time in
order for the flagellar motility function to be realized (totaling
over 10,000 specifically coded amino acid residue positions or codons
of DNA).  Statistically, it is much much harder to achieve this
degree
of sequence specificity for a given number of structural building
blocks in a given pool of options than it is to achieve an equal
number of parts where such specificity of arrangement of all parts is
not required.
I would say, "I hate to say this," but I don't hate what I'm about to
say.  This particular argument in favor of design due to irreducible
complexity was debunked a long time ago.  It was used in the trial
/Kitzmiller v Dover/ and was successfully shown that that flagellum
could be simplified even further to a structure which shot out a
stinger
to obtain food.  It didn't require that the stinger move around in a
mode with which to propel the organism.  The structures are similar
enough to each other, but the stinger is less complex than flagella
and
is shown to be the evolutionarily ancestor of flagella.
The argument you give has been proven wrong time and time again.
Ah yes, the famous TTSS toxin injector that only uses around 10 of the
50 or so flagellar proteins.  You do realize that the flagellar
motility function is indeed irreducibly complex.  You reduce the part
requirement below the minimum threshold of around 30 proteins and the
motility function disappears.  It doesn't matter if a different
subsystem with a different function still remains intact.  That has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the flagellar system
itself requires a higher-level minimum specified part requirement.
Beyond this, many scientists believe that the TTSS system evolved from
the flagellar motility system, not the other way around.  Also, none
of the proposed steppingstones for flagellar motility evolution have
ever been shown to evolve in observable time - not one step.
Good try though.  For more information on this whole scenario see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
Considering that I do not agree with any of the assertions made by those
who promote intelligent design or creationism, based on the URLs alone
I'm not going to be going to those sites since they're already biased in
favor of a concept that's not even scientific, much less a theory.  Try
something less biased, grounded in science and I'll look at it.  Or
perhaps you have scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design?  If
so, you'd be the first to come up with any.

You are the one who brought up the TTSS system as an example of how
evolution could produce a system as complex as the flagellar motility
system.  The fact of the matter is, you haven't got the first clue as
to how the TTSS system helps to explain the evolution of the flagellar
motility system, and neither does anyone else since the gap between
the TTSS toxin injector system and the flagellar motility system is
absolutely enormous.  The gaps between the other proposed
steppingstones in the evolutionary pathway toward flagellar motility
are just as enormous.  I list these problems out in the links to my
own website I provided you on these topics - arguments that you refuse
to even consider.  How lame is that?





detectingdesign is Sean's bogus site.  You can go there to see what
he's got on the subject, but as you indicate the name of the site
pretty much tells it all.

Sean doesn't have a viable alternative, he knows that he doesn't have
the science to back up intelligent design, so all he can do is blow
smoke.  Smoke is all you are going to find at the site.

Just ask him for his alternative to the scientific explanation and the
scientific evidence to back up that alternative.  You get a big fat
zero from Sean.

Sean has claimed that he has an alternative to common descent, and the
evidence to back it up that is just as good as the scientific evidence
for common descent, but he keeps running and pretending instead of
putting up what he claimed to have.  He claimed to have the science of
intelligent design to teach to school kids, but the name of his site
must be bogus because he just runs and pretends from that claim too.
No viable alternative, and no scientific evidence backing up
intelligent design.  Nothing to do but blow smoke and pretend to be
doing something constructive.  That is all Sean is.

Ron Okimoto is the one who is full of nothing but bluster and hot
air.  Ask Ron for any example of evolution in action beyond the 1000aa
threshold.  He has no examples beyond his just-so stories - not a
single observable example of evolution actually happening even close
to this threshold.  Ron doesn't even understand the difference between
a threshold requirement and a mutational gap distance (hint: they
aren't the same thing despite Ron's confusion on this key issue).

You can say this if you support what you claimed instead of running.
It might also help if I ever claimed any such things that I would have
to support.

You on the other hand are just about nothing but bluster. Demonstrate
that I am wrong. Where is that science of intelligent design that you
claimed to have to teach to school kids? Why keep running instead of
putting up the ID science? Where is your alternative to common
descent and the evidence to back it up that is just as good as the
evidence that you claim isn't good enough that science has for common
descent? If you don't have these things, why keep blowing worthless
smoke when it doesn't impact the fact that you have nothing worthwhile
to put up on your side of the arguement? Sounds like nothing but
bluster to me.

I understand you better than you seem to understand yourself. You are
a pretender and a liar. You could demonstrate that I am wrong, but
all you ever do is run and pretend and then come up with bull pucky
like you wrote above. You don't even try to deny that you are running
and pretending, you just run and pretend. Want to deny that you ever
made those claims? If you do that, what does that make you? An
obvious liar, right? That seems to be too much for what moral
integrity that you have left, so what do you do instead? Why not try
to do the right thing instead of running and pretending so that you
can claim that you aren't really lying to yourself?

Why should anyone take you seriously when you run instead of admit
error or at least try to support your claims? Why should anyone dance
to your fantasies when you don't have the integrity to stand by your
claims or admit that you were wrong?

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

.

Relevant Pages