@Brad: @Sean Pitman: Now, your arguments concern the third claim. You

Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.

@Sean Pitman:
Now, your arguments concern the third claim. You claim that no one has reconstructed the functional history of these stages to a level of detail that tracks reasonable probabilities for actual evolutionary transitions. As far as I know, this is correct. You also seem to have an in-principle reason for thinking that this cannot be done, but I am unclear what it is. Itâ€™s very difficult to establish the claim that precursors are non-functional, for the simple reason that it is very difficult to formulate all of the possible functional hypotheses. And as I expect you know, the fact that removing a certain number of components results in a non-functioning flagellum does not support the inference that the associated structure is without function, due to the possibility of exaptation.

If you remove parts below the minimum structural requirement for flagellar motility, for example, the motility function will not be realized even if some other functionality still exists for the simpler structure. An example of this is the TTSS system which has 10 protein parts that are essentially identical to the corresponding parts in the 50-protein flagellar system. The fact that the TTSS system is functional does not mean that the rotary flagellar motility system can be realized with just 10 unique protein parts. And, contrary to the original suggestions of those like Kenneth Miller and PZ Meyers that something like the TTSS system was in the evolutionary pathway of the flagellar system, just the opposite has proven true. The TTSS system has recently been shown, in real time, to have degenerated from the fully formed flagellar system.

The problem here is the non-beneficial gap distance between the proposed steppingstones in these evolutionary stories of how the flagellar system and other such systems evolved. These stories simply do not discuss the odds of crossing the minimum structural differences needed to get from one functionally beneficial steppingstone to the next within sequence space. They also do not discuss the fact, and it is a fact, that the ratio of potential steppingstones vs. non-steppingstones decreases exponentially as one considers systems with higher and higher minimum structural threshold requirements… producing ever wider and wider minimum gap distances.

As far as your first two points, I discuss nested hierarchical phylogenetic patterns below. But, in short, phylogenetic patterns do not explain how the mechanism of RM/NS is remotely likely to have done the job that evolutionists assume it did beyond very very low levels of functional complexity.

More relevant to the original claim you made is the fact that you have not given any reason to doubt the first and second points. The evidence in Liu and Ochman supports the inference that gene duplication was in part responsible for the evolution of complex novel function. It does so independently of any particular selectionist hypothesis. If you doubt this, Iâ€™m interested in your alternative hypothesis for why the phylogenetic structure maps so smoothly onto the physical structure, or for the molecular similarities between the flagellar core genes.

Phylogenetic differences and similarities and the formation of nested hierarchies can be explained by intelligent design. These same sorts of nested hierarchical patterns are seen in human designed systems all the time – especially when dealing with the formation of functionally interacting and integrated systems. Consider Object Oriented Computer Programming (OOCP) for example.

So, how does one tell the difference between patterns that require intelligent input and patterns that do not? If one can find a feature associated with a particular pattern that cannot be explained by any known non-deliberate process in nature, yet is within the realm of intelligent production, that is a very good hint that the associated pattern was also the product of intelligent design.

In the case of biosystem phylogenetic patterns, the associated functionality of these patterns can only be explained, beyond very low levels of functional complexity, by the input of high-level intelligent design and manipulation – this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.

The timing of these patterns is also assumed, by your authors, based on various molecular clock hypotheses which themselves are based on assumed evolutionary relationships. Not only is this a form of circular reasoning, but the molecular clock hypothesis has been called into question again and again, and show numerous times, via real time studies of mutation rates, to be off by as much as 20-100 fold.

The assumed age of some phylogenetic and phenotypic differences based more on the fossil record is based on radiometric dating assumptions – assumptions which are also problematic in the face of other features of the fossil record and geologic column which are far more consistent with recent catastrophic formation.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Brad:

I am probably going to write far too much but if you want the conclusion, it is that Sean Pitman is completely and utterly wrong in everything he says in his comments and displays a great ignorance of proteins and their structure and function.

And:

I hope the above short essay on protein structure and function is useful even to Sean Pitman who needs to stop being obsessed with computer-based numerology and do some reading and talk to some practical protein scientists.

From David Dryden of the University of Edinburgh. See: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a7f670c859772a9b

Ah, so you’ve read Dryden’s arguments…

Where did Dryden point out my ignorance of protein structure and function? I am, after all, a pathologist with a subspecialty in hematopathology – a field of medicine that depends quite heavily on at least some understanding of protein structure and function. Yet Dryden says that I’m completely and utterly wrong in everything I say on this topic? Sounds just a bit overwrought – don’t you think?

In any case, where did Dryden substantively address my argument for an exponential decline of evolutionary potential with increasing minimum structural threshold requirements? Dryden himself only deals with very low level examples of evolution in action. He doesn’t even consider the concept of higher levels of functional complexity and the changes in the ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences that would be realized in sequence space.

Dryden also completely misunderstands the challenge of the structural cutoff of systems that require a minimum of at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work to do a particular function. He also flatly contradicts Axe’s work which suggests that it is not an easy thing to alter too many amino acid residue positions at the same time and still have the system in question work to do its original function. There is some flexibility to be sure, but there is a limit beyond which this flexibility cannot by crossed for protein-based systems. And, as this minimum limit increases for higher level systems, the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial does in fact decrease exponentially. Dryden seems completely clueless on this particular all-important point.

This cluelessness is especially highlighted by Dryden’s comment that the bacterial rotary flagellum isn’t very complex at all:

These increasing degrees of functional complexity are a mirage.
Just because a flagellum spins and looks fancy does not mean it is
more complex than something smaller. The much smaller wonderful
machines involved in manipulating DNA, making cell walls or
cytoskeletons during the cellâ€™s lifecycle do far more complex and
varied things including switching between functions. Even a small
serine protease has a much harder job than the flagellum. The
flagellum just spins and spins and yawnâ€¦

I really couldn’t believe that Dryden actually said this when I first read it. Dryden actually suggests that a small serine protease is more functionally complex than a bacterial flagellum?! – just because it is used more commonly in various metabolic pathways? – or more interesting to Dryden? He completely misses the point that the bacterial flagellum requires, at minimum, a far far greater number of specifically arranged amino acid “parts” than does a serine protease – thousands more.

And Dryden is your “expert” regarding the potential of RM/NS to create protein-based systems beyond very low levels of functional complexity? Why not find somebody who actually seems to understand the basic concept?

Here’s another gem from Dryden. In response to my comment that, “The evidence shows that the distances [in sequence space] between
higher and higher level beneficial sequences with novel functions
increases in a linear manner.” Dryden wrote:

Reply: What evidence? And if importance of function scales with
sequence length and the scaling is linear then I am afraid that 20^100
is essentially identical to 2 x 20^100. Also a novel function is not a
new function but just one we stumble upon in doing the hard work in
the lab. Itâ€™s been there a long timeâ€¦

Dryden doesn’t grasp that in the debate over the creative potential of RM/NS that a novel functional system is one that the evolving population is looking for – not some lab scientists. It is only there in the potential of sequence space. It is not found until random mutations within the gene pool discover it by pure luck.

Dryden also doesn’t understand that this discussion isn’t over the “importance of function” but over levels of beneficial functionality – regardless of there “importance”. He also doesn’t understand that if a system requires a minimum sequence length or size (to include multiprotein systems) and a minimum degree of specific arrangement of amino acid residues within that minimum size, that a linear increase in this minimum structural threshold requirement does not result in a linear increase in average number of random mutations needed to achieve success. The linear increase in structural threshold results in an exponential decrease in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial. This, obviously (to the candid mind anyway) will result in an exponential increase in the average number of random mutations needed to achieve success at the higher level.

Really, I would love to hear your take on Dryden’s paper in the light of a complete lack of evolution in action beyond very very low levels of functional complexity – i.e., minimum structural threshold requirements. I’m sure you could do a better job than he did…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Brad:

I’ll reply to your comments over on the special thread I created for this particular discussion regarding the anti-ID arguments of Elliot Sober:

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/elliot-sober-just-dont-call-the-designer-god/

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Brad:

So, do you or do you not accept that, regarding this specific question, the design hypothesis predicts that we will not see congruence between the phylogenies (conditional on the two testable possibilities you provided having low probability)? If you do not, you owe us an explanation of why not, given your claim that the hypothesis is testable.

The “prediction” of ID is that only ID-driven mechanisms will be found to produce the phenomenon in question – that no non-intelligent mechanism will come remotely close to doing the job.

As I’ve mentioned to you before, you cannot “predict” any particular features of what a designer will do or would have done without direct knowledge of the designer in question. However, a lack of such direct knowledge does not remove the scientific ability to detect a true artifact when you see one with high predictive value.

This is the reason I’ve asked you to discuss the granite NHP problem I’ve presented. Instead, you’ve referred me, yet again, to the arguments of another without presenting any argument of your own or even commenting on those ideas that you consider to be most personally convincing to you.

My interest is in forcing you to make a prediction. You claimed you have one; we are all still waiting.

My claim was that evolutionists would have an easier time of things if functionality wasn’t involved in the ToL. The reason for this is that mindless mechanisms can produce NHPs – and do so all the time. However, mindless mechanisms are extremely unlikely to produce high levels of functional complexity in a reasonable amount of time and have never been observed to do so.

In short, some things you can’t predict; some things you can – – with regard to the ID-only hypothesis. You are asking me to predict those things that are not predictable from an ID perspective. You are then arguing that because such things are not predictable that ID cannot be scientifically detectable. This assumption of yours simply doesn’t follow for me…

Therefore, I’m interested in hearing you explain the logical basis behind various fields of science which invoke ID (such as anthropology, forensics, and SETI). What “predictions” are needed to support the ID hypothesis in those sciences? You don’t seem to want to personally address this question for some reason. Why not?

Regarding your reference to Elliot Sober, it would be more interesting for me if you would present your personal take on his arguments rather than simply referencing him without presenting any argument of your own.

But anyway, to get you started, I suggest that there are a number of logical flaws in Elliott Sober’s paper:

The anti-ID Arguments of Elliot Sober

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/design%20argument%2011%202004.pdf

For example, Sober presents the â€œinverse gamblerâ€™s fallacyâ€ noting that it would be a logical error to assume that just because a pair of dice landed on double sixes the first few times that they were observed to be rolled does not mean that a roll of double sixes is more likely. After all, Sober argues, the odds of rolling double sixes are 1/36 regardless of how many times double sixes are initially observed to be rolled in a row. The problem here is that Sober assumes, a priori that the dice are actually â€œfairâ€ dice that havenâ€™t been loaded or biased in any way.

The problem here is that Sober assumes, a priori that the dice are actually “fair” dice that haven’t been loaded or biased in any way. The assumption of fair dice is a hypothesis that can be subject to testing and potential statistical falsification simply by observing the outcome of a number of rolls of the dice – without actually knowing, for sure, if the dice are or are not loaded. Based on the statistical pattern alone one can gain very high predictive value regarding the hypothesis that the dice are in fact loaded or biased vs. the alternate hypothesis that they are actually fair dice. Such observations have been very successfully used by carefully observant gamblers to exploit subtle biases in roulette wheels, dice, and other games of chance that are dependent upon apparent randomness or non-predictability of a biased pattern against the pattern that the house is betting on…

Can such biases be determined with absolute certainty? – based only on the patterns produced and nothing else? Of course not! But, science isn’t about perfection, but about determining useful degrees of predictive value that are always open to additional testing and potential falsification by future information.

This addresses yet another flaw in Sober’s paper. Sober accuses IDists of appealing to the concept of “modus tollens“, or the absolute perfection of the ID hypothesis. He uses the illustration of a million monkey’s randomly typing on typewriters producing all of the works of Shakespeare. He argues that while such a scenario is extremely unlikely, that it isn’t statistically impossible. There is still a finite probability of success.

While this is true, science doesn’t go with what is merely possible, but what is probable given the available evidence at hand. This is the reason why nobody reading a Shakespearean sonnet would think that it was the product of any kind of mindless random production. The same would be true if you were to walk out of your house and see that the pansies in your front yard had spelled out the phrase, “Good Morning. We hope you have a great day!”

Given such a situation you would never think that such a situation occurred by any non-deliberate mindless process of nature. You would automatically assume deliberate design. Why? Do you know?

Sober argues that if a known designer is not readily available to explain a given phenomenon, that the likelihood that a designer was responsible is just as remotely unlikely as is the notion that a mindless process was responsible for such an unlikely event. Therefore, there is essentially no rational basis to assume intelligent design. However, by the same argument, there would be no rational basis to assume non-intelligent design either.

The detail that Sober seems to selectively overlook is that if certain features fall within the known creative potential of known intelligent agents (i.e., humans) while being well outside of the realm of all known non-deliberate forces of nature, the most rational conclusion is that of ID.

Essentially, Sober does away with all bases for hypothesizing ID behind anything for which an intelligent agent is not directly known. This essentially includes all of modern science that deals with ID – to include anthropology, forensic science, and especially SETI. Yet, amazingly, he goes on to use this very same argument in support of the ID detecting abilities of the same.

In the end, it seems like Sober is more concerned about the specific identity of the designer not being “God” rather being concerned about the idea that the scientific inference of a need for some kind of intelligent designer to explain certain kinds of phenomena is in fact overwhelmingly reasonable – scientifically.

Ultimately, it seems to me like Sober’s arguments are really directed against the detection of God, not intelligent design…

In this line Sober writes:

The upshot of this point for Paleyâ€™s design argument is this: Design arguments for the existence of human (and human-like) watchmakers are often unproblematic; it is design arguments for the existence of God that leave us at sea.

– Elliot Sober

Of course, my ID-only hypothesis does not try to demonstrate the need for God. Rather it suggests that at least human-level intelligence had to have been involved to explain certain features of the universe and of life on this planet. It doesn’t attempt to argue that a God or God-like intelligence had to have been involved. If fact, it is impossible for the finite to prove the need for the infinite. However, one may argue that from a given finite perspective a particular phenomenon would require the input of a creative intelligence that would be indistinguishable from a God or God-like creative power.

At this point, a belief that such a God-like creator is in fact omnipotent is not unreasonable, but must be based, not on demonstration, but on trust in the testimony of this Creative Power. If a God-like creative power personally claims to be “The” God of all, Omnipotent in every way, it would be very hard for someone from my perspective to reasonably argue otherwise…

Anyway, your thoughts regarding what seems so convincing to you about Sober’s “arguments” would be most interesting – especially as they apply to granite NHPs or other such “artifacts”…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com