Re: Harshman, Felsenstein & Dembski

On Apr 6, 9:20 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:14 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 6 Apr, 02:22, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 5, 4:56 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:02:27 -0700 (PDT), Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx>

Not beyond the 1000fsaarthreshold it doesn't - there's not one
example in all of literature.  Not one.

and there is no single observed case where a being with "human level
intelligence or above" created DNA above OR below the 1000fsar
threshold, not one. and the prior probabilities of such a being
existing out too be close to zero too, given the total lack of
evidence for its existence:

That would be "there is no single observed case of a *non-human* being
with "human level intelligence or above" that created DNA above or
below the 1000 fsar threshold.

  There is not even the barest hint of

independent evidence that such a *non-human* creature with "human
level intelligence or above" that ever existed, visited, or had any
presence on the Earth at *any* time in the past.  That would be just
as true if you are so deluded that you think the earth is only 6000
years old rather than 4+ billion years old.  Positing such invisible,
undetectable *non-humans* is no different than positing fairies.

Pointing to the fact that modern human civilizations can potentially
perform something is not evidence that there were ancient human-like
civilizations on the Earth that could do the same thing.

No, for my argument, I do not need the restriction to non-human
beings. The absence of independent evidence of the existence of non-
human etc factors into the prior probabilities of his theory (close to
nil because of it), observation of humans actually doing it (as
opposed to "theoretically might be able to do so soon) would give  the
conditional probabilities - and of course finally commitment to a
mechanism that can then be falsified. But since we haven't (even)
observed humans creating DNA, his theory is not just merely even less
likely than the one he attacks, it is not even a theory.

Humans have created DNA from scratch by non-life based mechanisms.
Har Gobind Khorana won a Nobel in 1968 (while I was also at U.W.-
Madison for grad school) for, among other things, chemically
synthesizing oligonucleotides and linking them to form a gene.
Oligonucleotides, today, of up to 200 nt, are commercially produced
chemically (by a mechanism not using cellular enzymes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide_synthesis

Producing larger DNA sequences, such as viruses, artificially, is
possible, but most of the attempts have used biochemically extracted
enzymes, such as ligases, to link overlapping artificial duplexes
because of cost and efficiency (fewer side reactions).

However, for humans to make DNA, which they are clearly capable of, it
was absolutely necessary that they first evolve a technological
society with cities, scientific laboratories, and all the detritus
that evolving such societies leave.  There absolutely no evidence of
such technological societies (human or not) on the earth over the long
spans of time Sean is demanding they be present in order to magically
poof these artificial DNAs in select organisms.  So although his HYPE
(hypothetical posited entity) must have at least human-level
intelligence, it must also have something that humans clearly lack: an
invisibility cloak to hide all traces of, not only the beings
themselves, but also any technological civilization similar that
humans would need to produce these results.  Frankly, that makes his
"human-level" intelligence no different from fairies.

Humans, unless Sean is positing time-travel with its paradoxes, are
clearly not the synthesizer of the first eubacterial (or achaean)
rotary flagella.  We know this because the timing is all wrong, even
on a qualitative level.  There is no evidence of human technological
societies at the time that Sean's hypothesis would require them to
exist.  Alas, there are no signs of non-human technological societies
nor evidence of any being with the brainpower to produce it at those
times either.  Sean is proposing invisible fairies that leave no
visible sign of their existence to do whatever it is he wants them to
do.

I'm wondering if this paper has anything to do
with Sean's arguments:

Eukaryotic protein kinase pathways have both grown in number and
changed
their network architecture during evolution. We wondered if there are
pivotal proteins in these pathways that have been repeatedly
responsible
for forming new connections through evolution, thus changing the
topology of the network; and if so, whether the underlying properties
of
these proteins could be exploited to re-engineer and rewire these
pathways. We addressed these questions in the context of the
mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways. MAPK proteins were
found to have repeatedly acquired new specificities and interaction
partners during evolution, suggesting that these proteins are pivotal
in
the kinase network. Using the MAPKs Fus3 and Hog1 of the /
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae/ mating and hyper-osmolar pathways, respectively, we show
that these pivotal proteins can be re-designed to achieve a wide
variety
of changes in the input-output properties of the MAPK network. Through
an analysis of our experimental results and of the sequence and
structure of these proteins, we show that rewiring of the network is
possible due to the underlying modular design of the MAPKs. We discuss
the implications of our findings on the radiation of MAPKs through
evolution and on how these proteins achieve their specificity.

Am I totally off-base on this?

gregwrld

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: plant and human genome
    ... Please give a comparison of human and plant DNA. ... DNA molecules in humans, plants and every living thing is the same-we ... Proteins are the things in our body that do all of the work. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Genetic proof for the descent of man
    ... Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics ... Present-day humans and chimpanzees, ... DNA basics ... "pseudogenes" - might still be present in primates and guinea pigs as relics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics ... Present-day humans and chimpanzees, ... DNA basics ... "pseudogenes" - might still be present in primates and guinea pigs as relics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics ... Present-day humans and chimpanzees, ... DNA basics ... "pseudogenes" - might still be present in primates and guinea pigs as relics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-God ID origin of Life?
    ... How do you know that proteins are the result of ND-nature? ... that non-deliberate robotic machines make them. ... form complex DNA and that assertion is completely wrong. ... nature - just like the SETI-type radio signals are not produce by non- ...
    (talk.origins)