Re: Howard theory - "cannot be computed"

On Mar 2, 2:27 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:16 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

In order to support your assertions that was
is possible is also plausible, you need to produce some real
statistical support for your argument.  Howard hasn't done this - and
neither has anyone else.

Bullshit.  I have to present supporting *evidence*.  I have. I have
agreed that your statistics would be valid *if* evolution involved
random assembly from scratch or the mathematical equivalent.  So we
both agree that we can rule out that evolution is due to chance
alone.  Only you think that is actually how evolution works, however.
In my way of thinking that means we need to look at non-random causal
factors.

The only thing you look at is what is possible without considering the
likelihood of what is possible.  That's your problem.  Without
statistical support, your stories about what is possible are just-so
fairytale stories - not science.

The actual statistical evidence strongly suggests that each one of
Howard's proposed steppingstones is widely surrounded by very large
Hamming distances (likely much greater than 50 or even 100).

Those are numbers you simply pull out of yer arse.  They have no basis
whatsoever.  We have rejected the idea that protein sequences are
assembled by chance alone.

That's why you're wrong.  Protein sequences are assembled by chance
alone until the next beneficial steppingstone in sequence space is
actually discovered.

At NO point after the current protein synthetic mechanisms first
formed, both phylogenetically and ontologically, were or are protein
sequences ever assembled by chance alone.  

If you have no idea as to the odds that the next
steppingstone will be reached in a given amount of time, your position
isn't scientific since it has no predictive power.

To calculate the amount of time between "steppingstones" you have o
have a model in which you know both the starting point for *each*
*specific* steppingstone and the end point that needs to be reached.
That is NOT the model you present. I have presented reasonable models
for "steppingstone" start and end points. You talk about some airy
fairy "minimum likely distance" that is not any *specific* distance at
all. Just a number you pull out of yer arse that is less than the
total size.

 That means you have NO idea at all about
the size of the Hamming distance (which must be gaps that are non-
functional) that was crossed in those systems that have evolved.

The Hamming distance concerns gaps that are neutral as well as
functionally non-beneficial.  

And why the bloody hell are neutral changes included?

And yes, this distance can be determined
to a useful degree of certainty.

Then why the bloody hell have you not done so? All you have done is
present the *maximum* gap size and then pull an arbitrary smaller
number out of yer arse and claim that it is the "likely minimum gap
size".

Demonstrating that a small Hamming distance exists between a plausible
functional ancestral state (plausible because cell still have those
functions, as do flagella) and the added function is all I need.  The
odds of a flagella arising from the linkage of a pre-existing pore and
motor are much higher than the odds of either a magical poofer or
random assembly from scratch.

But you haven't demonstrated any such thing.  You've only demonstrated
that the distance could be small if things were set up like you
imagine they could be set up.  

Is it my imagination that eubacterial flagella are composed of
rotatable pores and motors that rotate them? Is it my imagination
that a *real* flagella has sequence substructures that already are
'rotatable pores' and 'motors'? Your complaint is merely and only
based on the fact that the system described is similar in *sequence*
to a fully functional flagella, even though it only has the specific
functions I claim would be likely *functional* precursors to the added
function of motorized rotation.

That's not the same thing as
demonstrating that this small distance you imagine is remotely likely
to exist in the real world.  

Showing that this small mutational step from predicted precursor
function to have the added function of motorized rotation actually
exists in a real experiment is somehow NOT showing that that such a
system cannot exist in the real world?

You position is built entirely on
imagining what could exist without any consideration of what is
actually likely to exist.

Like the *functional* systems with the same required properties that
exist in real cells. Face it, Sean, you would not be happy unless I
started from a completely non-functional precursor sequence and
magically poofed 1000 changes all at once. But magical poofing of
1000's of aa's in one swell foop is not MY explanation for the added
function of motorized rotation. It's yours. Can you tell me how your
mechanism works in as much detail as I used to explain mine. Since
neither of us are not discussing "random assembly from scratch", we
can both discard that strawman you generate your probability numbers
from and discuss causal mechanisms.

Again, demonstrating what is possible is not the same thing as
demonstrating what is likely . . .

And you prefer impossible fairies magically poofing systems into
existence... so you prefer impossible explanations?

 Howard
has presented absolutely nothing to counter this statistical and
observational evidence.

I just did. The odds of a flagella arising from the linkage of a pre-
existing pore and motor are much greater than either of the two models
you present.  How *much* greater depends on particulars that cannot be
computed.  But greater none-the-less.

LOL - if you can't determine the "how much" part of the problem, your
position isn't scientific.  It has absolutely no quantifiable
"advantage".

The *requirement* for calculating a probability number is that the
step involved occur completely by chance. My claim is that the system
has chance elements, but also has *causal factors*. Calculating a
probability number and discovering that something occurs far more
often than would be predicted by that frequency only tells you that
there is some causal factor (e.g., the dice are loaded) distorting the
results. It doesn't tell you that God-did-it even if you are too
ignorant or stupid to think of another explanation. I agree that we
can reject chance alone as an explanation. You present your empirical
evidence for your magical poofer causal explanation and I have already
presented my evidence for how intermediate functional steps can arise
(because they are useful to the organism's reproductive success) and
how, once arisen, small modifications can produce added functions
which also may increase reproductive success.

 The supposed advantage of your position is entirely in
your head.  It is not quantifiable or determinable in any degree.

Neither is your preferred explanation. But yours alternative to pure
chance assembly, unlike mine, has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
It is merely a fall-back explanation used by the ignorant who "think"
that such an explanation explains anything. What is your evidence
that some entity exists who comes down and poofs complex biochemical
systems like flagella into existence all at once?

That is why you don't put forward any numbers, calculations, or
statistical analysis of any kind to support your position.  

I did. I accepted your numbers for what they are: the probability of
completely random assembly from scratch. And then I rejected that
explanation in favor of one that has causal factors like intermediate
utility and selection. You're just upset that I didn't choose your
evidenceless explaination that something intelligent did something at
some point and place somehow producing whatever you want your fairy to
produce.

I cannot give a probability number in the absence of knowing exactly
what the start and end points are that must be accomplished by chance
alone. If that mutational distance is the probability of forming a
functional chimeric linker protein, I think I have adequately shown
that the minimum random step can be that of the set of deletion
mutants that have been experimentally observed in the model system.
And that probability is a hell of a lot more likely than complete
random assembly from scratch (or by assembly by magical assembly
fairies, AFAICT).

Your
position is simply not falsifiable or testable in any scientific way.
That is why it isn't science.  It's just-so story telling.

Supported by *real* evidence rather than by *assertion* that if total
random assembly isn't true the only causal explanation is the magical
fairy causal explanation.

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC iplayer
    ... even in the presence of variables Y and Z. ... perfectly possible, and the statistics work. ... that the result may be chance despite seeming otherwise. ... exactly - that's the output - the probability of what you're ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Definitive proof ;-)
    ... What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y? ... You realise that you're only going to confuse him. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Definitive proof ;-)
    ... What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y? ... chance of death or serious injury while riding a bike. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Definitive proof ;-)
    ... What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y? ... Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Wilkins, Sober
    ... then goes on to determine that chance alone cannot explain ... And intelligent design becomes an arbitrary and ... privileged fall-back position rather than a testable explanation. ... test *first* the specific mathematical expectations of chance alone. ...
    (talk.origins)