Re: What Pitman never did

On Dec 4, 1:42 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:44 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



"Michael Siemon" <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:mlsiemon-15ABE5.20291403122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <gh7kvo$la...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul J Gans <g...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Michael Siemon <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <gh7ekl$gp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul J Gans <g...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...
You continually insist that in making a change of n amino acid
residues in the produced protein, *all* the intermediates have
to produce useful material or the organism dies.  After duplication
that is no longer the case.

But I'm not surprised you don't see it.

Of courseSean"can't" see it. He is even less able to see
that most changes, even without duplication, have little or
no impact on "function".

My reading ofSeanis more charitable.  His model does encompass
neutral evolution as well as "the islands of functionality" that
Wilkins mentions.  He merely insists (reasonably, IMHO) that long
journeys from island to island on that neutral sea are unlikely -
exponentially unlikely in the length of the journey.

I can agree with this, as far as it goes. I also think it's fair to
add that if the above encompassed the extent of Sean'sclaims his
posts would engender far fewer responses. He goes beyond merely
insisting the above, he asserts that inference to deliberate causal
agency is warranted by such an observation, denies the explanatory
efficacy of possible non-deliberate pathways that are presented to
him, and relies upon strawmen and logical fallacy to support his
dismissal of counter-arguments.

Again, it is very easy to imagine what is possible and to present all
kinds of possible stories about how this or that could have happened.
It is quite another thing to present these stories as not just
possible, but likely, based on real statistical analysis and
predictive value. This has yet to be done for the proposed mechanism
of RM/NS. There is no such analysis supporting this mechanism in
scientific literature. So far, the only support for this mechanism in
literature are these endless just-so stories. How is that a real
scientific basis that means anything when it comes to generating real
predictive value?

And yes, all one has to do to support the ID-only hypothesis is to
show that all *known* non-intelligent driven mechanisms don't come
remotely close to doing the job while those driven by at least human-
level intelligence can do the job. That is, after all, the basis of
SETI.

Still, as compared to Mad Uriel, he has to be thought of as
a serious poster.  BothSeanand Uriel attract both serious
and abusive responses.  However, notice that Uriel delights
in responding to the abuse, whereasSeanseeks out the
serious responses.  

Though I will take slight issue with your complement below, I have to
agree here that Sean is very different from the average creationist. I
have often tried to get him to see that certain of his arguments are
little more than dressed up versions of well-worn anti-evolution
boilerplate, but he is no addle-pated fundy poster.Sean is educated,
courteous, responsive and generally reasonable. It is possible to have
an enjoyable conversation with him without it degenerating into a
frustrating suspicion that one is dealing with an adolescent or a
fanatic.

LOL - I'll take it ; )

And, as recently with Baldwin, he will
even sometimes admit his mistakes and even seek instruction.

Well, he does deserve credit here, but keep in mind that this kind of
interaction sustains exactly that in which Sean delights: the
impression that this is all an open question, that two opposing but
equivalent sides are engaged in a discussion of interpretation of
scientific details.

I think he genuinely enjoys this kind of back and forth, but I also
believe he is well aware that it is a useful distraction from the
broader points that leave him sleeping squarely in the camp of those
creationists we all agree he surpasses in demeanor and competence.

That's because I am a creationist - just not the usual creationist.

RLC (noctiluca)

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages