Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Seanpit <seanpit@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:52 pm, NA Sides <nongo1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Apr 30, 1:53 pm, NA Sides <nongo1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OK, I have a couple questions. I have a hemoglobin molecule right here.
I want to calculate its functional complexity as compared with a
bacterial flagellum. How do I make that calculation? What exactly *is*
functional complexity, anyway?

Also I wanted to ask how you can be so certain that, prior to the
emergence of the flagellates, no organisms existed that weren't more
"functionally complex" than the flagellates themselves. Don't you think
that you should investigate this matter before you go calculating odds
based on the likelihood that entire complex systems of proteins, and the
genes that produce them, would just fall together like a 747 from pieces
of scrap stirred up by a tornado?

Directed design does used the tornado-in-a-junkyard approach.  Also,
it would be fine of the original ancestors were more functionally
complex than what exists today.  Downhill evolution is easy.  Uphill
evolution - a whole different story.

Bit of pedeantry here: flagellates are eukaryotes, not prokaryotes.. They
don't have bacterial flagella, but eukaryote flagella. None of them has
a type III secretory apparatus, which is to be expected since it's
related to the bacterial flagellum. Bacteria with flagella aren't
flagellates.

Don't feel too bad, though. Massimo Pigliucci's anti-creationist book
has a discussion of the bacterial flagellum, in which he presents a fine
diagram of the eukaryote flagellum. He doesn't seem to notice.

[snip]

Thanks. You know, I could very easily have looked that up and not
exposed my ignorance. Anyway, i fSean is reading this, I have been
corrected and the question, as amended, goes like this: how can you be
sure that the first flagellated bacteria didn't have ancestors as
complex or more complex than they were themselves?

That's exactly my argument - the originators of such levels of
functional complexity had to have been more complex.

Why do you think they *had* to be more complex? Available evidence
supports the idea that they had to possess exaptions that could give
rise, without large evolutionary steps, to flagellated bacteria, but
there's nothing to indicate that they *had* to be more complex.

Except for the enormous statistical odds that anything would be
remotely close enough to the next step in the proposed evolutionary
pathway to make that step small enough to cross in a reasonable amount
of time (i.e., this side of trillions of years of time).

You've just made an assertion that implies you have data from which to
make probability estimates. But I don't think you really have any data.
If you claim to have data, where is it? As I understand it, you've done
nothing so far except to calculate the odds of the whole system just
falling together without any evolutionary ancestors at all. You merely
*claim* that this computation is relevant. But how is it relevant?
Everyone but you knows that systems don't just fall together from random
molecular components. You need to explain *why* you think no exapted
ancestors existed that could give rise to flagellated bacteria by a
series of small evolutionary steps.


As everyone is
saying, he needs to define "functional information complexity" so that
we can know what he's talking about.

Functional informational complexity is defined as the minimum
structural threshold requirement needed to get the system in question
to work to a beneficial level from the perspective of a given life
form in a given environment.

It seems to me that, until you define this term in a way that it can
provide quantitative results when comparing molecules or multi-molecular
systems, it can't function as a useful scientific concept.

That's true. I can and have quantified this concept so that it can
produce useful results with high predictive power.

I've asked you how I should go about calculating the relative functional
information complexity of the bacterial flagellum and a hemoglobin
molecule. Just give me the equations or the algorithm. I'll do the rest.
You're not keeping your methods secret, are you?

How can you
tell that a particular system is at or above this threshold?

No significantly smaller or less specified systems are known that can
perform the function in question.

So you just observe that some system performs some function, and if no
less complex system is known to perform this same function, you claim
that it represents some kind of minimum informational threshold? Do you
have a speck of evidence to support this sort of claim? If we discover
a simpler system with the same functionality, you just say, "Well,
*that* one is at the minimum informational threshold." That's no
scientifically useful principle. It's just a post hoc assertion that the
system in question has crossed some imaginary threshold.

You've made no attempt to explain, in any particular case, how the
functionality relates to added complexity. You don't seem to have any
method for obtaining a quantitative measure of this relationship. You
haven't even presented evidence that any specific relationship exists
between "informational complexity" and functionality. That's the very
first thing you need to do. You need to define the nature of this
supposed relationship. How, in general, does information content equate
to added functionality? Do you have even a clue as to how this, one of
your primary claims, is related to anything actually occurring in
nature?

How can you
even define what this threshold is, in terms of "functional complexity"?

I just told you. The threshold is the minimum size and specificity
requirement for a certain type of functional system.

You've just *asserted* that you know some secret relationship between
something you call "minimum informational complexity" and functions that
are observable in biological systems. You have not, however, presented
any evidence that you actually do know such a relationship, or even that
such a relationship exists. Your entire argument reduces down to an
unverified claim that complex systems are somehow better.

Since biological systems have employed different sorts of mechanisms to
perform similar functions, how can you even define in general the nature
of this "functionality" that you claim is measurable?  Why can't you
clarify what it is that supposed to be measured and how the measurements
are to be made?

There are many different ways to produce rotary flagellar motility.
It just so happens that none of these ways is able to reduce the part
requirement below many thousands of fairly specified amino acid
residues.

You invoke this "great gap" in the absence of any evidence that the
evolutionary process ever has been required to take such giant leaps.
It's an entirely faith based argument. You assume as a matter of faith,
that the first flagellated bacteria had no exapted ancestors who could
have bequeathed them the molecular systems involved. And you take also
on faith the premise that no conjugating bacteria could have exchanged
parts of the system which then came together in a simple complimentary
way. Your probability calculations are based on this entirely
unsupported and faith-based assumption.

Bacterial flagella are far more complex than single protein enzymes,
like lactase for example, because they a have a far greater minimum
structural threshold requirement.  Lactase activity only requires
around 300 fairly loosely specified residue positions while rotary
flagellar motility requires a minimum of around 10,000 fairly
specified coded residue positions (i.e., ~10,000 codon equivalents of
DNA).

See the difference?  Don't tell me that you don't see the obvious
difference in functional complexity or that you don't understand how
this difference could ever be quantified and qualified in a scientific
manner . . .

Well, I have to think that you yourself can't see any real difference
that could me measured and quantified. Otherwise you could tell me how
to measure the difference between the "functional information
complexity" of a bacterial flagellum and a hemoglobin molecule.

I just did. A the function of hemoglobin has a far far lower minimum
structural threshold requirement - only a few hundred fairly specified
residues at most. Rotary flagellar motility requires many thousands
of such specified residues.

OK. You've just made an assertion that "a few hundred 'fairly specified'
residues" in hemoglobin can be related to some quality that you call
"functional information complexity." But you haven't yet said what this
relationship is supposed to be. Until you define this supposed
relationship, "minimum functional information complexity" is just an
imaginary quality you've made up. If it was a real scientific concept,
you could specify how, in general, it relates to specific biological
functions. You make the same claim about the bacterial flagellum's
several thousand "specified" residues. You imply that there exists some
measurable and quantifiable relationship between your imaginary quality
and its ability to perform any specific biological function. Once again
you're doing nothing more than claiming, without evidence, that such a
relationship exists. You can't measure it. You can't make useful
predictions from your claim that it exists. You're just saying again
that you believe complexity is somehow linked with functionality. It's
just a vague intuition on your part. You have presented no evidence to
back it up.


It's
kind of silly to chide other people about not being able to do it when
you can't do it yourself.

I just showed you how to do it. What part did you not understand in
my original explanation?

That's what you consider a measurement? It's nothing more than an
unsupported claim that number of amino acids correlates with biological
functionality. Not only have you not showed how this relationship is to
be measured, you've not even attempted to show that any such
relationship exists. You merely reiterate your claim that there is some
such relationship and that I ought to be able to recognize it when I see
it.

And it would help out if you'd stop using
those other phrases like "greater minimum structural threshold
requirement." It has a nice ring to it, but doesn't seem to mean
anything specific.

Yes, it does. In fact, it has been measured and the basis for this
measurement has been published by authors such as Yockey, Sauer,
Olsen, Max, and Durston. I've also produced detailed explainations
and calculations as to what I'm talking about here:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation

I just glanced at the page, but didn't see any discussion of the
supposed relationship between complexity and functionality.

NAS


Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (and about tests) Re: Pedantic pickling error after reload?
    ... If there are things with nested classes etc, the programmer will have to ... Yes, I could have written that code on the fly, hitting F5 every few seconds/minutes to see if things work out - and once I'd be finished, I didn't have anything permanent that ensured the functionality over time. ... But we also use selenium to test JS-driven interfaces, as now the complexity of the interface rises, with all the bells & whistles of ajaxiness and whatnot. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Non-beneficial Gaps
    ... In other posts you claim that different levels of functionality *didn't* ... flagellum system may be a single mutation you suddenly switch back to ... comparing a modern, cut down TTSS system and a fully fledged, modern ... All it needs is a mutation that gives minimal motility and it will start climbing flagella island. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More questions for Sean Pitman.
    ... functional complexity, anyway? ... related to the bacterial flagellum. ... structural threshold requirement needed to get the system in question ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... I wrote in my OP regarding Behe: ... complexity". ... the eubacterial flagellum. ... Now it seems to me that evolution seldom ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Flagellum linkage
    ... pore filament to a non-rotary motor inside the cytoplasm. ... Irreducible complexity as proof of design has been KOed by mental models ... flagellum may not be irreducible, ...
    (talk.origins)