What are the odds?

On Nov 21, 4:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

In other words, if you know the gap size ahead of time, only then can
the ToE use real math to determine how long it would take to cross
it?

LOL - that's hilarious! You do understand that the whole question
here concerns the ability to predict the gap size. If you already
know the gap size, determining the average time needed to cross it
isn't a real prediction or science. I'm asking you for a prediction
concerning what gap size is likely to be found at a given level of
functional complexity without knowing the actual gap size directly.
You're predicting what the actual gap size is likely to be.

If you cannot do this, you're ToE is not based on real science. It is
in fact based on your simple self-fulfilling prophecy that evolution
happens when it can happen. Only if your stories about how the gap
distances could be small are true could evolution happen. That's
obvious. The question is, what are the odds that your stories are
true? You don't know the answer to that question. You don't have the
first clue. Why not? Because you don't subject them to any sort of
statistical analysis. All you have is bald assertions and fantasy
just-so stories. That's it.

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'm not asking for an explanation of the similarities. I'm asking for
an explanation of novel functional differences. Until you can
actually know the genetic basis for novel functional differences
(which fairly difficult to determine between humans and apes at this
point) you don't have anything to work with. Why not deal with
something we know much more about? - like subcellular systems such as
the differences between the TTSS system and the flagellar system? - or
any other potentially beneficial subsystem in the proposed
evolutionary pathway?

No one in this forum or elsewhere in scientific literature actually
deals with the odds that their just-so stories are likely to be true.
Care to explain how you determine if what the theory needs to be true
is actually likely to have been true? Any numbers here? Any math?
What do you have besides the need for your stories to actually be
true?

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?  

You tell me! How much harder is it? Use real math this time. And,
remember, we aren't just talking an alteration in the same type of
function here. We are talking about producing a novel function.

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.

The question concerns the odds that a specific starting and ending
state are likely. What are the odds Howard? Where is your math
behind your bald non-statistics based assertions that the odds are
remotely "good" given any period of time to work with? Have any real
calculations? I've yet to see a single formula or even an attempt at a
statistical estimate of the odds coming from you. Still waiting . . .

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most valuable poster
    ... nylonase or lactase evolution examples. ... residues), you have the ability, so you say, to tell us *exactly* what ... the average gap size is based on the size of the end product. ... recognizable sequence homologs or recognizable intermediate functions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lennys Counter Argument
    ... There is extensive evidence on evolution way, ... Bullshit, Sean. ... Where's the statistics in Einstein's seminal paper on relativity? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A message from Sean Pitman
    ... that the gap size is always smaller than the minimum structural ... threshold beyond which there are no examples of evolution in action ... I have presented *evidence* that larger systems can evolve ... produce new proteins by duplication and divergence or by chimera ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A message from Sean Pitman
    ... that the gap size is always smaller than the minimum structural ... threshold beyond which there are no examples of evolution in action ... I have presented *evidence* that larger systems can evolve ... produce new proteins by duplication and divergence or by chimera ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Most valuable poster
    ... nylonase or lactase evolution examples. ... sequence within an entire genome, one or two, will be within striking ... within striking distance of very low-level functions. ... The gap distance is always much smaller than the size of the next ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading