Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

On Nov 21, 6:56 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:48 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 21, 7:47 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 20, 4:29 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 20, 11:17 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No.  SETIscientists would say that the radio signals they are looking
for are *probably* the result of intelligent creation.

The hypothesis is that only intelligent design can do the job

the hypothesis is actually more detailed than this...and this
indicates, again, why creationist sloppy language cramps the argument

the idea is that we know enough about mechanisms to exclude natural
processes from producing the type of signal we think an ETI would
produce. seth shostak calls it 'context'.  if we see 2 laser signals,
one of which comes from an extended gas cloud, and another from a
planet, since we KNOW gas clouds can lase, while planets can't we can
safely assume the planetary signal is intelligent.

the same is not know for DNA. the mechanisms for complex DNA formation
are unknown. we KNOW, for example, that complex info can be created by
nature (proteins). we do not know enough about DNA to exclude natural
processes. sean says we do but he's presenting a religious argument
based on 'god of the gaps'. he has no data to back up his assertion.
he's upset that research is being done in this area right now since it
falsifies his argument...he just wants scientists to stop doing
research and become creationists since that would prove his case.

Oh, but Sean has some evidence.  He knows that humans, in a whole 50
years, have never seen evolution of whatever he thinks a 1000aa system
is.  He has also observed the evolution of functions in proteins as
large as 300 aa well within that time frame.  Therefore, it is
impossible (according to him) that the type of evolution he does not
see in a whole 50 years could occur naturally in, oh, say several
hundred million years.

Thus, the appearance of such systems some hundreds of millions of
years ago when humans (and as far as we can tell *any* intelligent
agent) were absent must be due to an intelligent agent with the
additional property of invisibility and undetectability and one who
works only with biodegradable machinery.  The fairies, the fairies,
the fairies did it.  That is the natural conclusion of his assertion
that, because he doesn't see what he will agree to as a big enough
change in 50 years, that it must be due to some hypothetical
intelligent agent he invented in that space between his ears who is
both not human and not detectable.

You think given a few hundred million years the 1000aa is clearly
within range?  

*If* your model of evolution is that of the "747 in a tornado" straw
man, I agree that protein systems would not evolve and one can, *in
that case*, make a predictive probability calculation. However, that
is not the model of evolution that scientists deal with.

Have any actual math or statistical analysis to back up
this little bald assertion.

In real evolutionary models, one cannot calculate probabilities based
on size alone, because in the real model of evolution, the gaps (in a
series of gaps) depend on the systems that exist in a particular
organism and not on total sequence space wandered randomly. Your
statistics are GIGO.

Again, I keep asking you for some actual
statistical analysis and you keep coming back with bald assertions
that a few hundred million years can solve everything.  

The idea of common descent has *repeatedly* passed the statistical
requirement of consilience between changes in sequence into basically
an identical branching pattern. This despite the fact that different
genes change at different rates of change (due to the degree of
selection for retention of function). There is even consilience in
pathways based on morphology (where changes tend to be more often
selective) and sequence (where changes are largely neutral or near
neutral). Statistics overwhelmingly support the idea of common
descent.

Given that, are you proposing that your hypothetical *human-like*
intelligence that had a completely invisible presence on the earth
(talk about leaving a light footprint!) for hundreds of millions of
years worked by just interjecting a bacterial flagellar system here
and there occasionally?

Based on
what?  How do you know this?  Have any actual calculations or
estimates of the odds based on real statistical analysis of any kind
that actually deals with the mechanism of RM/NS?  

It certainly seems adequate to produce all the genomic differences
between chimpanzees and humans. Hell, RM and neutral drift is
adequate to do that on an gross basis (there are about 50 or so places
where there has been change large enough to be likely due to selection
*for* change). And there certainly have been some other differences
that due to selection for change, but without enough difference from
the rate of neutral drift to be identifiable as due to selection.
Small changes can have big effects. Big changes (such as inversions
and chromosome fusions) can have small effects.

I haven't seen a
single calculation from you explaining why 50 years isn't enough time
but a few hundred million years obviously is enough time.  Where is
your math?  Where is your science?

You yourself have said that changes in proteins of 300 aa that alter
function have been observed in this time frame. How much harder is it
to alter function in a protein of 1000aa? Of course, I would argue
that that depends on the *specific* starting state and *specific* end
state and not on size of the end system, which appears to pretend that
any new function must be built from scratch by random assembly or the
mathematical equivalent.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experiment on Natural Selection
    ... would help to test the suggested methodology for evolution - selected ... Natural selection is only a part of it. ... mutations is considered to be the key to the evolution of new life ... Why assume that the first self-replicators even had proteins? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Come on people...
    ... Evolution doesn't have a direction, ... selection is a very blunt tool that works slowly ... ago people noticed that cells of a certain type that were ... variety of unexpected proteins -- each cell a different set. ...
    (uk.rec.humour)
  • Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading