Re: Is this guy familiar with Sean Pitman?

On Jan 25, 8:55 pm, seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:21 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Seanpit wrote:
On Jan 22, 11:25 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 22, 11:24 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 12, 3:49 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"The point of Levinthal's paradox is to demonstrate that when a
mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is impossible,
then it's the calculation that's wrong, or the assumptions behind the
calculation. This point is lost on most Intelligent Design Creationists.
They are tremendously fond of complex calculations proving that some
biological process is impossible. To them, this is not proof that their
calculations are flawed—it's proof that a miracle occurred."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/levinthals-paradox.html

At least one of the papersSeancites is really about Levinthal's
paradox though I am not at all sure he is aware of it.

Tell me, what is "routine" about evolution beyond 1000 fsaars?  Have
you ever seen this sort of evolution happen?  How then is it
"routine"? - by any definition of the word?  How often would you
expect to see evolution at or beyond this level of functional
complexity?  Upon what basis do you make this conclusion - without
using any statistical odds analysis?

Your argument is kinda like determining the likelihood of winning the
California Lottery 10 times in a row by checking with your personal
astrologist . . .

Strawman demolition, at best. The inference of transpositions
and duplications of genetic sequences as the origin of large
scale change is apparent. Your model does not take account of
that.

Apparent by what mechanism?  Where are your odds analysis or your
statical basis for this assumption?  We all agree in a common origin
of some kind.  We just don't agree that RM/NS is remotely likely to
have been the mechanism to do the job beyond very very low levels of
functional complexity.

The odds are obviously 100% because common descent is supported by
comparative genetics. The alternative is "separate descent" and there
is
no obvious separate descent trees of lineage. All of biology seems to
be part
of one big tree. So, given this fact, one should be looking for
details of these
mechanisms, rather than making up phoney statistics in a program of
nay
saying. The probabilities that you demand simply do not exist. Any
attempt
that you have made is simply an attempt to construct a statistical
strawman
to support your religious position.

Basically, it is gone beyondSeansimply being wrong and having
an honest mistake. He now is actively misrepresenting genetics
as he does every other field of science that doesn't agree with
his young-earth global-floodist philosophy.

If I've actually misrepresented genetics, perhaps you can produce some
statistical support for your assertion that the mechanism of RM/NS is
remotely "likely" to have been able to do the job you baldly claim it
did.  Otherwise, upon what do you base your assertion that you're
notions are remotely "scientific"?  Where is your predictive value
here?  Where is your falsifiability when it comes to being able to
tell how long it should take your mechanism to produce any type of
functional system beyond a given level of functional complexity?

You ignore the obvious---that common descent--a law which immediately
and elegantly simplifies all of biology--- is the most reasonable
starting
point for the study of origins. Instead of accepting this particular
reduction
of the data, you seek to claim that no data reduction exists. You
merely
lie with statistics, attempting to create controversy where none
exists. As
alwaysSean, when cornered you attempt to accuse mainstream science
of incompetence----this is the second to the last resort of the crank.
(The last resort of the crank is the "conspiracy theory" and you are
not far from that.)
Even if we never understand the details of evolution to your
satisfaction,
which likely we won't, the notion of common descent still stands.

You forget, John, that common descent isn't a "mechanism".   This
entire discussion concerns the proposed *mechansim* of RM/NS - not
common descent.  Do you have any scientific support for your proposed
mechanism John?  - Remember now, arguments for common descent are not
the same as arguing for the mechanism of RM/NS.  Try to keep that
straight now . . .  I know it must be difficult for you, but I'm sure
you can do it if you try really hard ; )




Hey Sean:
What mechanism for ID are you proposing, Sean? You've said it
involves a "human-level intelligence". That rules out any
supernatural or divine influence, right? No God required, right? No
need for anything that plain old ordinary humans can't do, right?
"Design theory" is just as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is,
right, Sean?

So what WAS involved, Sean, if it wasn't god. Space aliens? Time-
travelling human biologists from the future? Where did THEY come from,
Sean? Did they evolve natgurally? Or were THEY designed by some
OTHER human-level intelligence, and where did THAT come from?

And what did this human-level designer DO, Sean? How did it make new
genetic sequencies? What mechanisms did it use? Where can we see it
using similar mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?

Oh, and hey-- you said that your "ID theory" is testable. Show me.
How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing
did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods" . . ?
How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could
anyone show that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an
unknown time using unknown methods? Do you think there are things
that God -- uh, I mean "the unknown intelligent designer" -- could not
have done, Sean?

Or are you just, uh, telling stories, Sean . . . . .?

Show us your science, Sean. I know it must be difficult for YOU, but
I'm sure YOU can do it if YOU try really really hard . . . . .

OK, actually I'm quite sure you CAN'T. (shrug)


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin, HIV, stem cells, and evolution
    ... CCR5 protein gains the new function of HIV resistance by *deleting* ... You cannot produce a very "sloppy" flagellar motility system. ... How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing ... How could anyone falsify your, uh, hypothesis, Sean -- how could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lennys Counter Argument
    ... Which is it, Sean? ... How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing ... SETI bullshit -- SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. ... Why does ID "science" say that, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ... as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean? ... How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown thing ... bigger than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, ... have your pick of any university you wanted, the Discovery Channel ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski
    ... as athiestic and godless as Darwinism is, right, Sean? ... How can I go about testing the, uh, hypothesis that "an unknown ... SETI bullshit -- SETI doesn't say "We think a designer did this. ... bigger than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Computation of AIC and AIC with weights
    ... In accordance with Venables and Ripley, SAS documentation and other ... Why the slight difference between my calculation in R and R's AIC? ... -joe yarmus ... represented by the constant + 2) and the unknown ...
    (sci.stat.math)