1] This is truly astounding. We have been over this …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.

1] This is truly astounding. We have been over this all before; it is not me that is claiming that the majority of scientists in large swaths of biological and physical sciences are incorrect and just-so story tellers. The onus is on you to show the limits not me.

You’re the one claiming the science is so clear. Where is it? Where is the “science” you keep telling me about regarding RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity? Surely you know? – if you understanding is nearly as good as you claim…

Come on now, you’re telling me that you see the non-beneficial gap problem when it comes to short vs. long English character sequences (which is quite unusual for an evolutionist to admit to by the way). But, you don’t see that there is a similar problem for functional protein and/or DNA sequences? Really? Upon what basis is there any difference? You say that you don’t know because you haven’t studied into protein and/or DNA sequence-space issues. Well, if you haven’t studied into this problem, how do you know your mechanism can do the job? How do you know that your position is backed up by any relevant science that has any useful predictive value?

Oh, you fall back on the argument that, “The concept of levels of functional complexity hasn’t been defined very well.” Of course, that’s just not true. This concept has been very precisely defined.

For example, Hazen et. al. define functional complexity as follows:


1) n, the number of letters in the sequence.

2) Ex, the degree of function x of that sequence. In the case of the fire example cited above, Ex might represent the probability that a local fire department will understand and respond to the message (a value that might, in principle, be measured through statistical studies of the responses of many fire departments). Therefore, Ex is a measure (in this case from 0 to 1) of the effectiveness of the message in invoking a response.

M(Ex), the total number of different letter sequences that will achieve the desired function, in this case, the threshold degree of response, r^Ex. The functional information, I(Ex), for a system that achieves a degree of function, r^Ex, for sequences of exactly n letters is therefore

I(Ex)= – log2 [M(Ex) / C^n] (C = number of possible characters per position)

What is also interesting is that Hazen et. al. go on to note that, “In every system, the fraction of configurations, F(Ex), capable of achieving a specified degree of function will generally decrease with increasing Ex.” And, according to their own formulas, this decrease is an exponential decrease with each linear increase in n – or the number of “letters” or characters (or in this case amino acid residues), at minimum, required by the system to achieve the beneficial function in question.

Consider also (as illustrated in the above diagram) that viable sequences with a given level of functionality are separated in sequence space in “islands” that are not connected with each other. The gaps between these islands grows, in a linear manner, with each increase in minimum functional complexity of beneficial systems under consideration.

In this light, also consider the work of those like Yockey on estimates of CytoC ratios in sequence space. Yockey’s estimate for the number of sequences with the CytoC function is around 1e65 for 100aa sequence space. This works out to be around the average FSC density of the sequences listed by Durston of around 2.2 Fits per site. For a 100aa sequence with an FSC density of 2.2 the Durston formula would produce (1/2^220)(20^100) = 1e63; which is pretty close to the Yockey prediction. Direct experimentally-determined degrees of sequence flexibility using cassette mutations by those like Sauer, Olsen, Bowie, Axe and others seem to confirm these rough general estimates for individual system ratios.

So, what do such ratios say about sequence/structure space? What do they mean? These very small ratios strongly suggest that fairly specified systems like CytoC and other such systems are relatively rare in sequence space. Just to get some sort of idea, the entire Sahara Desert contains only about 1e30 grains of sand. And, there are only about 1e80 atoms in the whole universe! Protein sequence space quickly becomes much much larger than many universes.

What does this have to do with anything though? Well, consider the odds that anything within our gene pool of 1e30 bacteria (with the features noted above) will be within one residue difference of a particular protein-based system with an overall FSC value of 2.2.

An FSC density of 2.2 would produce 1e63 protein sequences with a size of 100aa for a ratio of proteins with the given function in question of about 1 in 1e67 (or 1e-67 out of a total sequence space size of about 1e130). For a 1000aa system minimum with the same FSC density the total number of sequences with the function in question would be about 1e638 – – a very very large number. However, the total size of sequence space at this level is about 1e1301 (i.e., 20^1000). This produces an overall ratio of 1 in 1e663. So, the overall ratio of 1e-663 at the 1000aa level is a far far smaller number compared to the 100aa level of FSC of 1e-67 – given the same degree of overall specificity. A difference of almost 600 orders of magnitude is not really even comparable.

So, in this light, what hasn’t been provided, by you your anyone else, is some relevant analysis as to how successfully the mechanism of RM/NS would work at various levels of functional complexity…

2] If you want scientific credibility publish your critique where it counts. I accept the published evidences outside my area of expertise in good faith and make up my own mind where I have the time and resources to investigate.

I’m just seeing if you know the answer to my simple question. If you do not know the answer, where is your “science”?

3] I do not think your questions are delivered in good faith. Your assertions is based on a particular Biblical understanding. You after all claimed on this very thread that you are a PGT supporter only because of the Bible and all evidence for the age of the earth have had absolutely no effect on your Bible based conclusions that the earth is billions of years old.

My questions are delivered in good faith – are yours? I’m asking you for empirical evidence to support your claim that the mechanism of RM/NS is capable of creating stuff beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. How is this not a “good faith” question? any less than the questions you present?

As far as my position on the PGT of creation, there is very good evidence, empirical evidence, for the recent arrival of life on this planet and for the recent formation of the fossil record. I believe that this evidence trumps the radiometric dating methods used to argue that life has existed and evolved for hundreds of millions of years on this planet. I therefore question radiometric dating assumptions in general – to include using them to date the overall age of the material of the planet. The question therefore remains open for me – regarding the age of the basic materials of the planet. It could be very old indeed given that the Bible does seem to suggest the universe and the basic materials of the Earth existed prior to creation week. Exactly how old everything is, I don’t know.

3] If you seriously want me to answer your question from a scientific point of view then you need to couch them properly. You have been very woolly in your thinking about 1000fsaar. Do you mean a single large protein, a protein complex of multiple subunits, a system of interacting or cascading proteins or cummulative changes in amino acids in all the proteins in a functional organ such as a brain? You will need to propose an hypothesis with specificity so that an experimental protocol can be defined that allows a yes/no answer. We can go back again to chimp and human brain development but as I recall that was highly unsuccessful in eliciting any specificity about 1000fsaar limits.

I’ve answered all of these questions very specifically for you before.

1) I’m not talking about a protein-based system that must use only one protein. Have you missed the many times that I’ve specifically mentioned a rotary flagellar system or an ATPsynthase system as being examples of systems functioning at higher levels of complexity (well beyond a minimum of 1000 specifically arranged aa residues)?

2) Cascading systems, as in enzymatic cascades, do not require a specific 3D orientation of residues to achieve their functionality, so these would not qualify – as I’ve explained to you before.

3) The basic concept of levels of functional complexity is not a novel concept. It is published in literature.

Also, I’m not asking for an example of a complex system being produced “from scratch”. Start with anything that already exists within the pool and use that to produce a qualitatively novel higher-level system where the system that is evolved requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged, in 3D space, amino acid residues.

4] If you intend me to answer your question for you then you will have to provide me with the resources to do so. I would think a salary for a research fellow for 3 – 6 months or for outsourcing the bio-informatics should allow this to be done. Perhaps you can write the grant to get that money from NIH or similar funding body. You or course would be in a position to tap into the creationist organization that do original research.

Really? You guys are supposed to already know the answer. If you do not know the answer by now, where is your science? How do you know that RM/NS can do what you claim it did if you have no idea as to have fast or slow it will work at various levels of functional complexity?

5] It is not true that the resources to analyse human and great ape evolution is not available. there is abundant complete genomic data on more than 1000 humans and many higher primates. All the expressed genes are known and the miRNA and non-coding RNA changes can be inferred from the sequence.

Ok, show me a functional difference beyond the level of 1000 specifically arranged residues and you’ll effectively prove that they were originally separate gene pools.

6] But we both know you are not really serious about actually analysing your pet theory on 1000fsaar limits of evolution.

What we both know is that you have no examples of evolution in action at or beyond this level and you have no idea how your mechanism works at various levels of functional complexity. You have no science here my man.

7] Even if I did do the analysis and found no new system in human that was anywhere near your poorly formulated criteria for limits because of your particular biblical understanding you have and will reject any evidence I might provide. I am happy to concede there is no answer to your questions. After all I have stopped beating my wife, have you?

Again, the criteria for levels of functional complexity have been published in literature. They are not poorly formulated as you suggest, but are very clearly defined. What then is your excuse for being unable to present a single example of evolution in action beyond the very low levels you’ve presented thus far and for your complete lack of any statistical analysis at various levels of functional complexity?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.

What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.

Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).

In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.