Annoying creationists

[CapelDodger]

How often are people chased by your window by cops?! I'd certainly give it a second thought, and would certainly be VERY interested.

I'd have been the same in some places I've lived. I've lived out in the sticks where a strange face draws attention. A face such as mine, for instance. Normally unremarkable.

The full Torchwood pursuit is actually quite credible, it goes around Adamsdown Square (making it look a lot bigger than it is), comes across the Black Bridge, and dives into the back-to-back geometry of Splott. The Black Bridge is a footbridge, so joyriders and such that are under motorised pursuit habitually ditch the vehicle on one side and leg it across to the other. Pursued by Cardiff's finest.

It's all about location. location and location . We have a low local crime-rate, but a high throughput.

 

[Fnord]

I had the second "O" surgically removed, and all records thereof destroyed.

The following statement is false:
The previous statement is true.
Welcome to my corner of the universe.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We may be graced with the presence of the annoying creationist I mentioned in the OP. He has admonished himself "... to remember to bring my raincoat so that when all you evolutionist crybabies start throwing your pabulum it will be easier to clean up."

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sometimes these annoying creationists just piss me off:

One of the reasons Paul says this is that he believes when I quote him, I twist his words, so a figure I may as well start twisting.

Paul has done a very poor job presenting my arguments about Dr Tom Schneider’s ev computer program when he said the following:

Kleinman is attempting to convince us that Ev demonstrates that there was not enough time for binding sites to develop. Actually, his thesis is that there was not enough time for macroevolution to occur. What that has to do with genetic binding sites I cannot imagine. He claims that various results that we got from running experiments with Ev support his thesis. He throws around numbers like 4^1000.

That's all well and good. He can discuss this if he wants. But I really get annoyed when he starts misrepresenting what I said.

Before I present my basic argument, let the readers know that unlike most creationists and IDers, I find Dr Schneider’s computer model of the evolution of binding sites by random point and natural selection a plausible representation of this phenomenon.

My argument is that the ev computer program shows that this process is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used in the model that macroevolution by this mechanism is mathematically impossible. In addition, Dr Schneider in his publications on ev concludes that ev demonstrates evolution by punctuated equilibrium as described by Stephen Gould. Dr Schneider’s conclusions are likewise impossible since Gould’s thesis of punctuated equilibrium states that evolution occurs over short time spans in small sub-populations. The mathematical results from the ev model directly contradict these two conditions.

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency. The theory of evolution is modern mythology, not hard mathematical science.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Welcome! Now that you're here on this fresh, new forum, you will present us the mathematical proof that macroevolution is impossible, won't you? After you define macroevolution, of course. Thanks so much.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Welcome! Now that you're here on this fresh, new forum, you will present us the mathematical proof that macroevolution is impossible, won't you? After you define macroevolution, of course. Thanks so much.

You are very welcome, I’m glad you enjoy being annoyed.

I like to keep it simple for you evolutionists. Since you already asked me to define macroevolution on the Evolutionisdead forum, I referred you to wikipedia. You asked me to summarize that definition and I will repeat my summary here.

Macroevolution is big change, microevolution is small change. I am still working on my abridged summary for evolutionists with short attention spans, but my grammar checker keeps underlining it in red.

Now let’s start with the mathematics of ev and explain why it shows macroevolution is impossible. Consider the computation Dr Schneider used in his publication of ev Evolution of Biological Information available at Dr Schneider’s web.

In this paper, Dr Schneider says the following:

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

Dr Schneider arrived at this estimate of the evolution of an entire human genome in the following manner. Dr Schneider used the rate of acquisition of information from his 256 base case with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. That case evolved 16 binding sites, each 6 bases wide in about 1,000 generations. The rate of acquisition of information for that case is about 1 bit per 11 generations. Dr Schneider then extrapolated that rate of acquisition of information of 1 bit per 11 generations to a human size genome. If you take Dr Schneider’s published example of the 256 base genome and simply use a realistic mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation, it requires 4,000,000 generations to evolve the same 16 binding sites. The rate of acquisition of information declines from 1 bit per 11 generations to about 1 bit per 40,000 generations. Dr Schneider’s estimate of the evolution of the human genome goes from a billion years to four trillion years. Dr Schneider’s extrapolation becomes more ridiculous when you examine the rate of acquisition of information for genomes larger than 256 bases.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So is the evolution of binding sites to be considered microevolution or macroevoluion? Sounds like microevolution to me, in which case what does it have to do with problems with macroevolution?

~~Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So is the evolution of binding sites to be considered microevolution or macroevoluion? Sounds like microevolution to me, in which case what does it have to do with problems with macroevolution?

I believe you hold the view that if you have enough microevolutionary steps you can obtain a macroevolutionary change. So I think it is worthwhile to try to get some perspective on your question. With respects to Dr Schneider’s single published case of the evolution of the 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 256 base genome in 1,000 generations, I think you could call this a macroevolutionary process (greater that 1/3 of the genome is evolving). With respects to the case you did in which you evolved these 16 binding sites on a 100,000 base genome in 200,000,000 generations, this would represent more of a microevolutionary process. I tend to agree with you conceptually that in theory enough microevolutionary steps can be combined to obtain a macroevolutionary change. Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum. We see this effect for example with dog breeding. Particular traits are selected for by breeders and in this process, peculiar health problems often arise from this human induced selective pressure. As soon as that pressure is removed and these “pure bred” dogs are allowed to breed with mutts, these features (and peculiar health problems) tend to disappear.

You need to remember that Dr Schneider used his result from his single published case using an unrealistic genome length and unrealistic large mutation rate to predict the evolution of a human genome. Dr Schneider clearly is demonstrating that he believes that his model explains macroevolution. The peer reviewers from Nucleic Acids Research must also believe that as well since they published this result.

 

[Cuddles]

Macroevolution is big change, microevolution is small change. I am still working on my abridged summary for evolutionists with short attention spans, but my grammar checker keeps underlining it in red

Now define "big" and "small" and we might be able to get somewhere.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

Ah, so now macroevolution is prevented because of a hypothesis of "divergence from an optimum." What happened to speciation as the definition? What happened to big vs. small? This macroevolution thing seems to be a slippery concept.

What happens when the environment changes and the optimum is no longer optimum?

~~ Paul

 

[Mashuna]

Ah, so now macroevolution is prevented because of a hypothesis of "divergence from an optimum." What happened to speciation as the definition? What happened to big vs. small? This macroevolution thing seems to be a slippery concept.

What happens when the environment changes and the optimum is no longer optimum?

~~ Paul

There's also the implication that things are at their optimum now - that any change is inherantly inferior.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Macroevolution is big change, microevolution is small change. I am still working on my abridged summary for evolutionists with short attention spans, but my grammar checker keeps underlining it in red.

Now define "big" and "small" and we might be able to get somewhere.

Small is a single point mutation which I believe occurs. Big is the de novo evolution of a gene, for example the gene which codes for hemoglobin. The transition from small to big is more difficult to pin point. I tried to make this point in my previous post. Paul’s case of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome in 200,000,000 generations which gives a glimpse of what happens in this transition from micro to macroevolution according to Dr Schneider’s model of evolution by point mutations and natural selection.

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution. Once you get to four point mutations I think you have gotten full into the realm of big evolutionary changes. This principle is used in the treatment of HIV. The strategy for treatment calls for 3 different drugs in order to avoid getting drug resistant strains. One would have to get at least three different mutations simultaneously in order to have a drug resistant virus assuming that each of the drugs are virucidal.

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

Ah, so now macroevolution is prevented because of a hypothesis of "divergence from an optimum." What happened to speciation as the definition? What happened to big vs. small? This macroevolution thing seems to be a slippery concept.

This concept of divergence from its genetic optimum is observed all the time. Consider all the genetic diseases that are due to a single point defect in a gene. Consider what happens in the laboratory when organisms are subjected to mutagens. Only in science fiction do we find super creatures arising from organisms subject to mutagens. In reality mutagens which cause divergence from the organism's genetic optimum kill the organism.

What happens when the environment changes and the optimum is no longer optimum?

You weaken your own arguments when you take a view like this. If you believe in gradualism, the selection pressure to evolve a particular characteristic must remain for long periods of time in order to achieve macroevolution. According to your calculation of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome using Dr Schneider’s ev program, the selection process takes 200,000,000 generations. Look back at the results from ev when you turn off selection in the model and what happens to the binding sites. The short answer to your question is; when the environment changes and the selection pressure specified by that pressure is removed, any genetic changes that were selected for under that previous selection pressure disappear.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution. Once you get to four point mutations I think you have gotten full into the realm of big evolutionary changes.

So you're proposing that there is a biological mechanism that prevents the accumulation of more than one or two mutations? This is now your fourth definition of macroevolution.

You weaken your own arguments when you take a view like this. If you believe in gradualism, the selection pressure to evolve a particular characteristic must remain for long periods of time in order to achieve macroevolution.

Sometimes so, yes.

According to your calculation of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome using Dr Schneider’s ev program, the selection process takes 200,000,000 generations.

In Ev, not in real life. We have no idea how long it would take in real life. You are extrapolating statistics from Ev to real life with gleeful abandon.

Look back at the results from ev when you turn off selection in the model and what happens to the binding sites. The short answer to your question is; when the environment changes and the selection pressure specified by that pressure is removed, any genetic changes that were selected for under that previous selection pressure disappear.

I suspect it's quite rare for a selection pressure to simply disappear, as it can in Ev. So what does this have to do with real life and a "genetic optimum"?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

There's also the implication that things are at their optimum now - that any change is inherantly inferior.

That is a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution that is selection pressure evolves the organism to some higher level. If the selection pressure is removed, the driving force for evolution is removed. The theory of evolution requires that a fixed selective pressure stays in place for huge amounts of time in order for that optimum to be reached. This effect can be demonstrated mathematically by Dr Schneider’s ev program. Evolve a set of binding sites to their optimum and then turn off selection in the program. The information in the evolved binding sites is lost when the selection pressure is removed. Not only does the selection pressure have to be in place long enough for the binding sites to evolve, the selective pressure must remain in order for the binding sites to stay evolved (at their optimum).

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution. Once you get to four point mutations I think you have gotten full into the realm of big evolutionary changes.

So you're proposing that there is a biological mechanism that prevents the accumulation of more than one or two mutations? This is now your fourth definition of macroevolution.

Yes I am, and that mechanism is called natural selection.

I didn’t realize a had I presented so many different definitions for macroevolution. Feel free to quote all my different definitions.

Since my summary definition for macro and microevolution seems to be too complex for you, I decided to turn off my grammar checker in order to write an abridged version of my summary definition. Here it is:

Macroevolution big change microevolution small change

Punctuation was left off this abridged summary so that evolutionists not confuse the above as an example of punctuated equilibrium. Any further reduction of this abridged summary is not possible due to the theory of irreducible complexity.

You weaken your own arguments when you take a view like this. If you believe in gradualism, the selection pressure to evolve a particular characteristic must remain for long periods of time in order to achieve macroevolution.

Sometimes so, yes.

Perhaps you would explain what this selection pressure is for the formation of the hemoglobin gene and how this pressure would select for a partially formed hemoglobin gene that is non-functional and therefore offers no selective advantage.

According to your calculation of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome using Dr Schneider’s ev program, the selection process takes 200,000,000 generations.

In Ev, not in real life. We have no idea how long it would take in real life. You are extrapolating statistics from Ev to real life with gleeful abandon.

Now Paul, you are the one who is changing your definitions. I know how much you hate when I quote you but in order to be an Annoying Creationist, I have to do something. This quote is from this site:

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

There are an abundance of quotes from Dr Schneider’s web site that also say he believes that ev models real life. Which words of yours am I twisting?

Look back at the results from ev when you turn off selection in the model and what happens to the binding sites. The short answer to your question is; when the environment changes and the selection pressure specified by that pressure is removed, any genetic changes that were selected for under that previous selection pressure disappear.

I suspect it's quite rare for a selection pressure to simply disappear, as it can in Ev. So what does this have to do with real life and a "genetic optimum"?

I don’t think that this phenomenon is rare at all. Take the selection pressure off pure bred dogs and see what happens. Consider what happens when the selective pressure of a particular antibiotic is removed from a population of bacteria. After some time, that antibiotic becomes effective again. Sulfa antibiotics are a good example. Wide spread resistance to that class of antibiotics was seen a while back and these antibiotics became less widely used. The selective disadvantage of maintaining sulfa resistance in a non-sulfa selective environment caused the sulfa resistant bacteria to be selected out. Sulfa drugs are again more commonly used and we again seeing the emergence of sulfa resistance. Consider what Hemoglobin-S does for the individual in a non-malaria endemic environment. If you want, I will give you more examples of this phenomenon. I think ev is a very good simulation of this effect. I also think that ev is a good simulation of macroevolution when realistic parameters such as genome lengths and mutation rates are used. Macroevolution can’t happen, it is mathematically impossible according to ev. So now your argument to this has degraded to changing your view on ev, you now say it now longer simulates reality. Would you make up your mind.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution that is selection pressure evolves the organism to some higher level.

Does it say somewhere that selection always drive an organism to some single "optimum"?

Now Paul, you are the one who is changing your definitions. I know how much you hate when I quote you but in order to be an Annoying Creationist, I have to do something. This quote is from this site:

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

You're absolutely right. I should have said "... it is a model of an aspect of actual life." Of course, that is patently obvious.

I didn’t realize a had I presented so many different definitions for macroevolution. Feel free to quote all my different definitions.

I like to keep it simple for you evolutionists. Since you already asked me to define macroevolution on the Evolutionisdead forum, I referred you to wikipedia. ["Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, ..."]

Macroevolution is big change, microevolution is small change.

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution.

Color me confoosed.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

That is a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution that is selection pressure evolves the organism to some higher level.

Does it say somewhere that selection always drive an organism to some single "optimum"?

I don’t think I ever said that a particular selection pressure would drive an organism to a single “optimum”. In fact dog breeders might breed animals for a good sense of smell and good vision simultaneously.

You're absolutely right. I should have said "... it is a model of an aspect of actual life." Of course, that is patently obvious.

And that “aspect of actual life” is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution, that is random point mutations and natural selection. Ev shows that this process of evolution is profoundly slow, far too slow to explain macroevolution.

I didn’t realize a had I presented so many different definitions for macroevolution. Feel free to quote all my different definitions.

And Paul quotes my four different definitions for macroevolution:

I like to keep it simple for you evolutionists. Since you already asked me to define macroevolution on the Evolutionisdead forum, I referred you to wikipedia. ["Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, ..."]

Macroevolution is big change, microevolution is small change.

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

My view on this issue is that once you get beyond a single point mutation you are already starting to enter the realm of macroevolution.

Paul, I only see at most two definitions, the first is the wikipedia definition and the second is the summary you asked me to write of the wikipedia definition which I have attempted to quantify.

Color me confoosed.

Paul the only paint I give to evolutionists is to paint themselves into a corner. Don’t worry about being confoosed. I’ll be patient with you.

 

[Yahzi]

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency. The theory of evolution is modern mythology, not hard mathematical science.

The theory of evolution started from observations of the real world.

The fact that mathematicians cannot simulate these observations is a comment on mathematics, not evolution.

Now let’s start with the mathematics of ev and explain why it shows macroevolution is impossible.

And this argument will conclude that a sky-god using magic is therefore the logical answer?

If your standard is impossibility, then how is ID an answer? If you assert that evolution must be false because it violates the known laws of physics and mathematics, then how can you suggest any other answer that also violates the laws of physics and mathematics?

Is this the same old trick used to stop infinite regress - "But God is defined as not having a beginning, so he doesn't need one!" Will you tell us that since magic is a defined characteristic of God, it's ok for ID to work by magic?

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

I call Platonism!

When an evolutionist says "genetic optimum," he means, "best suited to its current environment."

When you say "genetic optimum," you mean, "closest to its Platonic form."

Once you rid yourself of the Theory of Forms, you will be able to see how ludicrous your answer is.

Since my summary definition for macro and microevolution seems to be too complex for you

The definitions are not to complex; they are simply useless. What do you mean by "big" and "little" change? From the viewpoint of evolution, there is only... change. Fold a protein to the wrong side, and suddenly your entire species dies. Is that a big change or a little change?

Macroevolution can’t happen, it is mathematically impossible according to ev.

Is anyone else reminded of when they said bumblebees can't fly becuase it was mathematically impossible?

Again, an interesting comment on mathematics, but not really helpful to understanding bees or evolution.


"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think the world derives from truth, and those who think truth derives from the world." - Yahzi Coyote

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency. The theory of evolution is modern mythology, not hard mathematical science.

The theory of evolution started from observations of the real world. The fact that mathematicians cannot simulate these observations is a comment on mathematics, not evolution.

And the evolutionist interpretation of these observations fit no mathematical model, so blame the mathematician.

Now let’s start with the mathematics of ev and explain why it shows macroevolution is impossible.

And this argument will conclude that a sky-god using magic is therefore the logical answer?

I doubt that, I think the way this argument will conclude is with the evolutionist saying that the random process god can do anything.

If your standard is impossibility, then how is ID an answer? If you assert that evolution must be false because it violates the known laws of physics and mathematics, then how can you suggest any other answer that also violates the laws of physics and mathematics?

No, it is evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational microbiology at the National Cancer Institute, whose peer reviewed published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection that sets the standard.

Yahzi, you need to pay attention, I am the annoying creationist that Paul was talking about when he started his thread.

Is this the same old trick used to stop infinite regress - "But God is defined as not having a beginning, so he doesn't need one!" Will you tell us that since magic is a defined characteristic of God, it's ok for ID to work by magic?

Who are you quoting?

Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum.

I call Platonism! When an evolutionist says "genetic optimum," he means, "best suited to its current environment." When you say "genetic optimum," you mean, "closest to its Platonic form." Once you rid yourself of the Theory of Forms, you will be able to see how ludicrous your answer is.

Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by Platonic optimum.

Since my summary definition for macro and microevolution seems to be too complex for you

The definitions are not to complex; they are simply useless. What do you mean by "big" and "little" change? From the viewpoint of evolution, there is only... change. Fold a protein to the wrong side, and suddenly your entire species dies. Is that a big change or a little change?

Since you blame mathematicians for the failure of the theory of evolution to have a mathematical foundation, I can see why when I quantify micro and macroevolution that you would see this as useless.

With respects to a protein folding to the wrong side, natural selection is much better at selecting out a single harmful mutation then selecting in the hundreds of mutations required to evolve a single gene. Dr Schneider’s ev program demonstrates this.

Macroevolution can’t happen, it is mathematically impossible according to ev.

Is anyone else reminded of when they said bumblebees can't fly becuase it was mathematically impossible? Again, an interesting comment on mathematics, but not really helpful to understanding bees or evolution. "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think the world derives from truth, and those who think truth derives from the world." - Yahzi Coyote

I don’t think you can attribute that statement about bumblebees to me. In fact, I have worked in the aerospace industry and the thinking there was that you put a big enough engine on anything and you can make it fly. The problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn’t have a big enough engine. Dr Schneider thought he found the engine with his ev computer model but when you use realistic parameters in the model, the theory of evolution doesn’t get off the ground. Yahzi, perhaps you can find the engine that will get the theory of evolution off the ground.

Yahzi, one thing I can tell you about the truth is that it can withstand mathematical scientific examination. So you have to do better than blame the mathematicians for the lack of a mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

 

[fishbob]

The annoying part is that this particular one has decided that a simulation proves or disproves something or other. The other annoying part is that no response gets this one past this point. The really annoying part is that facts, evidence, reason, logic, observation, repetition, data - none of these mean anything because of the results of a simulation.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The annoying part is that this particular one has decided that a simulation proves or disproves something or other. The other annoying part is that no response gets this one past this point. The really annoying part is that facts, evidence, reason, logic, observation, repetition, data - none of these mean anything because of the results of a simulation.

fishbob, have you read evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider’s papers and looked at his simulation? Have you looked at his evidence, reasons, logic, observation, repetition, data - claims? This is a peer review, published computer model of random mutation and natural selection which when realistic parameters are used in the model show three things. They are, huge populations don’t speed up the evolutionary process markedly as shown by the results from ev, punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Stephen Gould is contradicted by the results from ev, and macroevolution is impossible when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in ev.

I told Dr Schneider that when evolutionists became aware of what his program shows when realistic parameters are used that evolutionists would discredit his work. fishbob, you have just joined that crowd.

The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.