Comment on Emergence and the Origin of Life? by Sean Pitman.
In other words pard, the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because the TTSS is likely a simpler precursor or component part right? Which means that the bacterial flagellum in its own right can not proven to be intelligently designed.
That’s just the point! The motility function of the rotary bacterial flagellum is not reducible below its minimum structural threshold requirement. Below this threshold level, you will not be able to achieve the motility function to any useful degree. In other words, you can’t produce a rotary bacterial flagellum with just 100aa or even 1000aa – regardless of how they’re put together. Rather, such a system requires coding for several thousand specifically arranged amino acid residues, within a couple dozen different structural proteins, at minimum, before the rotary flagellar motility function can be realized.
Now, as far as evolvability is concerned, it matters not if smaller subsystems might still retain their functionality (like the radio still working in your car when the engine is taken away). The higher level system, and it’s minimum structural threshold requirements, will not be evolved regardless of what lower level systems exist that might be put together in novel ways to form higher level systems. Why not? Because, too many non-selectable modifications would be required to do the job beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
You don’t seem to understand the concept of minimum structural threshold requirements. You have this popular but mistaken idea that if any smaller functional system can be found within the larger system that the larger more complex system can therefore easily evolve via the simple linking together of smaller systems. Well, that’s just not true. It isn’t nearly as simple as you imagine to get smaller systems to link up properly. And, it gets exponentially more and more difficult to get this to happen with each linear increase in the level of functional complexity (i.e., minimum structural threshold requirements).
It likely evolved from the coupling of simpler biological machines with small modifications and they in turn from even smaller machines or molecules.
That certainly is the evolutionary story of how it “likely” happened. Your problem is that you haven’t sat down and calculated the odds like I asked you to do – nor have you read my argument on why this story becomes exponentially less and less tenable with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. Why not at least read through the statistical argument that falsifies this story of yours?
I think the mistake you are making is to calculate the odds in linear fashion of the end product formed step by step instead of looking at the odds of smaller biological machines hooking up at random and then being naturally selected.
Not true. I do in fact calculate the odds of “smaller biological machines hooking up at random” to form selectably beneficial higher level systems. That’s exactly the kind of odds I’m talking about. I’m not talking about evolving something completely from scratch! – not at all. Take whatever smaller systems you want. Put them into the same gene pool, and calculate the odds that they will randomly mutate so that they can attach themselves together in the proper manner to form higher level systems.
What are the odds? Well, the odds are pretty good when your talking about very small systems – comparable to 3-letter words and such. However, the odds of anything hooking up to produce a system that requires more than 1000 specifically arranged characters (amino acid residues in this case) are extraordinarily unlikely this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.
Please do actually try to read through the argument and/or do a little of the math yourself.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
The Krebs Cycle is another example of a combination of smaller precursor cycles combining. This is where both your assumptions and math fail you in my layman’s estimation as you advised me to make and not rely on the experts!
First off, the Krebs Cycle is an enzymatic cascade. It is not a machine that requires a specific 3D orientation of all of its parts in order to function. Such cascading systems are not much more complex, statistically speaking, than the most complex single protein part in the cycle. In other words, such enzymatic cascades are not like a flagellar motility system were all of the parts are required to be in a specific orientation relative to all of the other parts at the same time for the function in question to be realized. In fact, one can remove most of the enzymes from the cascading system without a complete loss of the same basic type of selectable function – energy production for the cell. This is not true of the flagellar system where a removal of the minimum part requirement will result in a complete loss of the motility function.
Now, please, do some actual math…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Emergence and the Origin of Life?
I’ve asked you for the math that addresses function-based selection (i.e., natural selection). Your cited study doesn’t explain how a function-based selection mechanism can produce much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity. This paper doesn’t even address the concept of function-based selection. So, I ask you yet again, where’s your math? Where is anything beyond just-so story telling to support your assertion that natural selection is the fantastic creative force you claim it to be?
Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Right, so because you can’t specifically demonstrate or prove biblical creation you rely on your subjective weight of the evidence.
The “weight of evidence” is the basis of science. You do realize that nothing is absolutely provable in science? All there is as a basis for scientific belief is the “weight of evidence” or “predictive value” of a hypothesis or theory.
But when it comes to evolution, you acknowledge micro evolution, you acknowledge that RMNS works at a certain level,
Of course. It is the extrapolation from lower-level examples to higher-levels of evolution that isn’t scientifically or statistically rational or tenable or demonstrable. In other words, it isn’t scientific.
you know that DR. Ben Clausen of the GRI has stated that there is no viable scientific young earth or young life model.
I know he says this and believes this, but I think he is wrong. There is a very good young-life model – the Biblical model. This model has the weight of evidence clearly on its side for those who take the time to candidly consider it.
Yet you call evolution the just so story. Hmmm….seems like you have a bit of a double standard there, pard!
I’m asking from you just what I would ask from anyone proposing a rational hypothesis or theory – including myself. I’m not asking anything from you that I’m not willing to do myself.
For example, I’ve done the statistical analysis and calculations for random mutations finding novel beneficial sequences within various levels of sequence space. Where have you presented any relevant calculations or mathematical analyses of any kind to support your arguments for the creative potential of RM/NS? – anything beyond just-so story telling?
I’m sorry, but you seem to be the one with the double standard here…
Emergence and the Origin of Life?
Except for the fact that termites build termite nests while bees build bee nests?
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
