Have you done the math? or are you just accepting …

Comment on Emergence and the Origin of Life? by Sean Pitman.

Have you done the math? or are you just accepting the stories without any statistical analysis on the odds of subsystems coming together to form larger more complex systems?

As you know, I have done the math. I’ve given you the link to the statistical argument on my website several times now. Where is your statistical argument? I’ve failed to see you even try to present evidence along these lines…

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Emergence and the Origin of Life?
I certainly agree that useful religion and true science have the same Source and therefore should be in harmony. However, when scientists start arguing for the magical appearance of biological complexity by appeals to some mystical kind of “emergence”, that’s not science or useful religion. That’s just blind faith in some kind of naturalistic philosophy.

It’s fine to try to discover the limits of what naturalistic mechanisms can explain. However, to define science as “methodological naturalism”, in a way that rules out any ability to detect the activities of intelligent design of any kind behind various features of living things, isn’t scientific or empirically rational. And, it isn’t consistent with other mainstream sciences that are based on the ability to detect intelligent design behind various phenomena – to include forensic science, anthropology, and even SETI science.

How long should SETI scientists look for some mindless “raw” force of nature to explain the types of radio signals that currently have no known natural explanation? – before they can rationally conclude that such signals would indeed be very good evidence of true artefacts of intelligent design?

You see, just because somethings that where once thought to require intelligent design are now known to be produced by mindless natural forces doesn’t therefore mean that everything can therefore be explain by mindless “raw” forces of nature. Such a conclusion is based on a non-falsifiable logical fallacy, not valid science.


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?

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


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com