Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Professor Kent.
No one will ever demonstrate to Sean Pitman’s satisfaction an exception to the 1000-fsaar threshold of the evolution of complexity for several reasons that come to my mind (and I’m sure there are others):
1 – There is no practical way to identify the exact number of “fairly specified amino acid residues” (fsaars) for novel increases in functionality among metazoans (i.e., the problem of uncertainty). Sean can’t tell you, for example, exactly how many amino acid residues were involved for the evolution of the scorpion’s stinger, the evolution of its gland, or the evolution of its various venom components. Sean simply has no clue. But unless God created the deadly stinger to function as it does today, I can’t imagine its evolution requiring any fewer than 1000 amino acids.
2 – The beginning and endpoint for what constitutes Sean’s imagined “1000 fsaar threshold” cannot be precisely stated. How many fsaars would comprise the origin of several novel venom proteins, for example? If three new 400 aa proteins evolve, resulting in a potent venom comprised of a sum of 1200 new aa that function unlike any prior venom enzymes, would this exceed the threshold (i.e., the problem of summation)? If a complex structure that served one function became modified at, say, 12 aa per generation until it began to function very differently 100 generations later, was this a 1200 fsaar change (i.e., the problem of accumulation)? If a protein dependent on three genes, each coding for 400 aa subunits, acquired a new function after gene duplication and tinkering, would this qualify as exceeding the threshold (the problem of gene duplication)?
3 – Because Sean rejects any and all analyses based on phyogenetics, he will not allow any kind of historical reconstruction of traits to infer the evolution of a complex trait (i.e., the problem of constrained inference). The only possibility for demonstrating to Sean a 1000+ fsaar change is for something that might take place within a few centuries–the narrow window of time that detailed natural history observations have been available to give us a benchmark for change. Sean is typical of creationists in demanding a “show me an example of such change.” Of course, the evolutionists will tell you that the accumulation of change can take thousands or millions of years (i.e., generations), but Sean and other creationists demand that it happens within decades or centuries so that it can be “observed.”
4 – Any example of change that introduces higher levels of functionality can be met with one simple objection: God made it that way (i.e., the problem of origin). One might consider clear-cut examples of predation or parasitism, but these are no less problematic. God could have created the scorpion with its stinger, venom gland, and venom, for example, to sting a succulent plant and thereby create a hole in the plant that provides the scorpion a home.
My conclusion: it is not worthwhile to pursue this type of discussion with Sean. One simply cannot reason with these constraints to change. And who gives a monkey’s hairy behind, anyway.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.
