In a message dated 10/5/2000 9:27:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
>
>
> >Ccogan: I suppose that even you would admit that many living things are
> very
> complicated. This certainly proves that material things can be as complex
> as we might desire.
>
> DNAunion: *IF* you are implying that this in any way validates evolution,
> your logic is flawed. Existence of something complicated does not tell us
> that it came about by evolutionary mechanisms.
>
Nor does it tell us that it came about through intelligent design.
> For example, "I suppose that even you would admit that computers are very
> complicated. That certainly proves that material things can be as complex
> as
> we might desire." Computers are designed.
>
True so now we have a problem: Complex things might be designed
intelligently. Designed by humans, designed by natural selection, designed by
what? Intelligent design does not identify the designer, remember?
So now to eliminate the potential pathways we have to show the pathways.
Evolutionary pathways, intelligent design pathways and we need probabilities
and hard work to show which one of the pathways is the most probable.
"That definition has the advantage of promoting research: to state clear,
detailed evolutionary pathways; to measure probabilistic resources; to
estimate mutation rates; to determine if a given step is selected or not. It
allows for the proposal of any evolutionary scenario a Darwinist (or others)
may wish to submit, asking only that it be detailed enough so that relevant
parameters might be estimated. If the improbability of the pathway exceeds
the available probabilistic resources (roughly the number of organisms over
the relevant time in the relevant phylogenetic branch) then Darwinism is
deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one. "
Here Behe merely restates what science has already been doing. But he seems
to suggest that one has to do this in order to prove or disprove an IC
evolutionary pathway. I am looking forward to ID'ers taking notice from Behe
and start producing some evidence that measures probabilistic resources,
estimates non evolutionary pathways and if the improbability of the pathway
exceeds the available probabilistic resources then ID is deemed an unlikely
one. But unlike Behe I will not make the leap of logic to suggest that this
would prove a Darwinian pathway.
"At no step --not even one-- does Doolittle give a model that includes
numbers or quantities; without numbers there is not science."
Behe pp. 95 Darwin's Black Box
> >Ccogan: Finally, I may as well point out that, if you understood the
> literally *infinite* richness that derives mathematically from the
> principle
> of repeated, cumulative variational branching, it's doubtful that you would
> claim that the theory is "simplistic."
>
> DNAunion: That is incorrect: there is not *literally infinite* richness
> produced by repeated cumulative variational branching. Had you said
> "infinite", in double quotes to indicate the word should not be taken
> literally, then your comment could be considered correct. But had you even
> said simply infinite, without double quotes, your statement would be wrong.
> And it is clearly wrong since you prefaced the word infinite with the word
> LITERALLY.
>
> Simple refutation. There are 20 amino acids. If they are peptide bonded
> into a 10,000 amino acid protein, then there are 20^10,000 possible unique
> arrangements of symbols (i.e., amino acids). This is many orders of
> magnitude larger than the estimated number of fundamental particles in the
> universe.
>
So far so good but what are you trying to show here? Repeated cumulative
variational branching?
> But then there are 20 times MORE unique combinations that are have just one
> more amino acid in the chain. Then there are another 20 times MORE thatn
> that one when another single amino acid is added, and so on, and so on, and
> so on. All the possible unique combinations have not been hit, and never
> will, even if the universe gets to be trillions of trillions of trillions
> of
> trillions … [you get the idea] years old.
>
Mathematically the possibilities are infinite. You are confusing forms of
infinite here it seems.
> >Ccogan: Is it possible that it's your *understanding* of it that is
> "simplistic"?
>
> DNAunion: That might be the pot calling the kettle black.
>
We shall see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:42:27 EDT