Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider’s posted version of ev pascal will run on a pc under the GNU version of the pascal compiler. You can download a version of that pascal compiler for your platform at: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/binary/

Snore. I'm not going to bother installing stuff just to compile the Pascal version. If you have one for the PC, send it. Otherwise never mind.

You are so lazy, I will email the executable for the 2 meg population case. You do have intel processors on your computer?

What is the strawman you are talking about?

The one where evolution proceeds by single-point mutation from large random genomes and has to evolve binding sites in some ill-specified short period of time. You know, the one trick straw pony.

Paul, haven’t you figured out that I am not affected by your crybaby complaints. You can continue to try to make the readers think that ev is the simulation of a large random genome but once this belly aching phase of this discussion ends we can start discussing what this model is simulating. That includes the assumption that there is a point where evolutionist stop belly aching.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Duplications of genes or entire chromosomes as with polyploidy does give working material from which to evolve new genes but the only mechanism you have is random point mutations and natural selection in order for this material to be evolved gradually. The other mechanisms you suggest do not work gradually. If these other mechanisms of large scale mutation that you suggest do contribute significantly to macroevolution, it should be easy to set up an experiment to evolve an entire gene quickly. Find an agent that causes these types of large scale mutations and make bacteria produce an entirely new gene de novo.

~~ Paul

P.S. Call me rude.

Edited to add: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1206269

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/25/8791

 

[joobz]

Professor!!!! Look at the word thermodynamics. The simplest examples in the study of thermodynamics are equilibrium cases, in general, thermodynamics studies as the word says dynamic or changing situations. You must really confuse your students.

thank you for falling into the trap I set.
You've just proved what I knew all along, you really don't know the subject.

The origin of term "Thermodyanmics" is the translation of heat into mechanical engery. Hence, thermo and dynamic. But what it really is (especially when we use your beloved 2nd law) is a study of equilibirum systems.

So, again, thank you for proving to all, that you really don't know what you are doing.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

P.S. Call me rude.

I don’t need to, but I do appreciate you telling me that’s what you were trying to do.

I’ve sent you the ev pascal executable version to run the 2 meg population case along with the associated input files. Depending on the speed of your computer, that case will take 1-2 weeks of CPU time.

 

[kleinman]

Professor!!!! Look at the word thermodynamics. The simplest examples in the study of thermodynamics are equilibrium cases, in general, thermodynamics studies as the word says dynamic or changing situations. You must really confuse your students.

thank you for falling into the trap I set.
You've just proved what I knew all along, you really don't know the subject.

Oh joozb, and you call me tricky and deceitful. How could you be so mean to me? What have I ever done to you?

Go back to your lower division classes and confuse your students.

 

[joobz]

Oh joozb, and you call me tricky and deceitful.

Yes, I know. I'm not proud of doing it, but it had to be done.
No scientist or rational person would presume to always be right. You've maintained a position of infallibility that I have no respect for.

How could you be so mean to me? What have I ever done to you?

You've simply missrepresented fact and truth. You continue to deny obvious evidence and respond with insults and personal attacks when your logic fails.

Go back to your lower division classes and confuse your students.

I do not know what you mean by "lower division". I can only assume it means "better education than Kleinman received."

 

[delphi_ote]

So is entropy. You need to get the Andrew’s text as well. Don’t let your head blow up, the theory of evolution is the only thing that is blowing up.

Earlier, you stated that Shannon information was the opposite of physical entropy. Now you state that they're the same thing. You've contradicted yourself on the most basic concept in all of information theory.

You need to pick up even the most basic text on information theory before you comment on the subject any further.

 

[Yahzi]

If I intelligently design a computer program that creates snowflake patterns, does that prove that snowflakes are intelligently designed?

What if you write a program that can beat you at chess?

Where did that information - the superior chess-playing ability - come from?

But of course, theology simply ignores facts it doesn't like.

(With apologies to Maxwell...) Yahzi's demon: it sits at the mouth of your proof, and only allows in facts that support your case, while effortlessly closing out facts that don't. Viola! truth from nothing!

 

[joobz]

(With apologies to Maxwell...) Yahzi's demon: it sits at the mouth of your proof, and only allows in facts that support your case, while effortlessly closing out facts that don't. Viola! truth from nothing!

Hey! The great part of Yahzi's demon is that you can ignore the facts that prove such a demon cannot exist, thereby proving it's existence!

 

[Almo]

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.

Evolution is not about "optimum". It is about "reproductive success," which may be far from optimum. The fit survive, yet the unfit may live. Read "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould. He explains the common misconception of evolution as a ladder very well in that book.

 

[fls]

Okay. I'm fairly new here, so slap me if my timing is off.

This is my favourite melt-in-your-mouth shortbread cookie recipe:

1 c. unsifted flower
1/2 c. corn starch
1/2 c. confectioners sugar
3/4 c. butter
1 tsp. vanilla

In bowl, stir together first 3 ingredients. In large bowl with mixer at medium speed, beat butter until smooth. Beat in flour mixture and vanilla until well blended. Refrigerate 1 hour. Shape into 1-inch balls and place about 1-1/2 inches apart on ungreased cookie sheet. Flatten with lightly floured fork. Place half a candied cherry on top. Bake in 375 degree oven 10 to 12 minutes or until edges are lightly browned. Makes about 3 dozen cookies.

Linda

 

[Tez]

Sorry I didn’t put a reference section in that post, I have identified the source of the statement that Shannon information is mathematically equivalent to the negative of quantum mechanical definition for entropy on other threads. If you like believing increasing the information in a system increases the randomness in the system, spread your wisdom far and wide. I can tell you are an impatient type, you don’t even have the patience to spell Paul’s last name. I have the patience to do it, it is Anagnostopoulos. Sirens and red lights used to go off in my spell checker when I entered his name into a document but something has happened, my spell checker no longer responds to his name. The amount of information in my spell checker must have increased and therefore the randomness has increased.

Andrew’s derivation is for the general definition for Shannon’s information not a special case. The mathematical relationship that Andrew’s describes between Shannon’s information and the quantum mechanical definition of entropy is general as well, not for a specific case. Interestingly, Andrews does one numerical example in that chapter and it directly relates to Dr Schneider’s model. So, Tez if you want to believe that increasing the information in a system also increases the entropy, have at it.

Both you and Dr Schneider believe that increasing the information of a system increases the randomness in the system. Why you don’t have an intuitive problem with this makes me wonder. Get Andrew’s book, you can get it at Amazon. Andrew’s does a straightforward coherent derivation.

I know what you are, you’re a Tez dispenser, somebody pushes down on your head and something pops out of your mouth.

So is entropy. You need to get the Andrew’s text as well. Don’t let your head blow up, the theory of evolution is the only thing that is blowing up.

Be careful Paul, google is watching you.

Are you ever going to post the data for your latest curve fit and then produce the next data point in that series to see how accurate your curve fit extrapolates the next point?

Any other evolutionophiles start looking at Dr Schneider’s program? Just look at this experience as a trip to the doctor’s office. The sooner you evolutionarians take your medicine the sooner you will feel better.

Well, from what you say it seems that Andrews is a completely ignorant fool, who hasnt got a clue about entropy. He obviously throws about words he doesn't understand in order to look smart - I'm sure if he was reading my posts the moron would read into them things that werent there and then make drivelous and incorrect assertions about what I'd said in them.

Fortunately this term I am actually teaching graduate students about both quantum and classical entropy, and I am also actually exploiting differences between them in one of my current research projects. People who write textbooks clearly shouldn't be trusted for a deep understanding of anything - and so I for one am very secure in the fact that I know much more about the topic than him. I bet the twit is a chemist - that would explain it. Though even if thats the case he is a fellow scientist, and so I should apologize for him having led you so far astray - if you happen to be in london you are welcome to drop by my lectures next week to actually learn what that monkey-brain should have been saying in his derivation of the relationship(s) between the entropies.

Apologies from the scientific community on his behalf once again.

Tez

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh joozb, and you call me tricky and deceitful.

Yes, I know. I'm not proud of doing it, but it had to be done.

No scientist or rational person would presume to always be right. You've maintained a position of infallibility that I have no respect for.

You haven’t run a single case with ev and you think you are prepared to offer a learned opinion. Save your drivel (Tez, I like that word too) for your evolutionist companions.

How could you be so mean to me? What have I ever done to you?

You've simply missrepresented fact and truth. You continue to deny obvious evidence and respond with insults and personal attacks when your logic fails.

When will you stop your crying and run some cases with ev?

Go back to your lower division classes and confuse your students.

I do not know what you mean by "lower division". I can only assume it means "better education than Kleinman received."

It doesn’t matter. Are you ever going to run any cases with ev?

So is entropy. You need to get the Andrew’s text as well. Don’t let your head blow up, the theory of evolution is the only thing that is blowing up.

Earlier, you stated that Shannon information was the opposite of physical entropy. Now you state that they're the same thing. You've contradicted yourself on the most basic concept in all of information theory. You need to pick up even the most basic text on information theory before you comment on the subject any further.

You need to pay better attention to the details. What I said is that the Shannon definition of information is mathematically equal to the negative of the quantum mechanical definition of entropy.

When I saw that Paul had started this thread on “annoying creationists”, I told Paul I was going to join this discussion but I was going to bring my rain coat because I expected you crybaby evolutionists to throw your pabulum. Now I’ve got to wear my rain coat because evolutionist heads are blowing up.

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.

Evolution is not about "optimum". It is about "reproductive success," which may be far from optimum. The fit survive, yet the unfit may live. Read "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould. He explains the common misconception of evolution as a ladder very well in that book.

Is there a difference between less successful, more successful and most successful?

Okay. I'm fairly new here, so slap me if my timing is off. This is my favourite melt-in-your-mouth shortbread cookie recipe:

Linda, I think you timing is perfect, however, Tez has nuts in his cookies.

Well, from what you say it seems that Andrews is a completely ignorant fool, who hasnt got a clue about entropy. He obviously throws about words he doesn't understand in order to look smart - I'm sure if he was reading my posts the moron would read into them things that werent there and then make drivelous and incorrect assertions about what I'd said in them.

Did somebody push on your head again?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay. I'm fairly new here, so slap me if my timing is off.

Nope, timing good.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

You need to pay better attention to the details. What I said is that the Shannon definition of information is mathematically equal to the negative of the quantum mechanical definition of entropy.

Sorry, but that's not all you said. In the very next sentence (you know, the one I responded to in the first place) you make a patently false claim.

Increasing the information in a system reduces the randomness and thus reduces the entropy.

This statement is incorrect. I explained why in my first response. If that's not enough, check the Wikipedia entry on information theory. Shannon entropy and self information are one and the same, and they both increase as probability distributions approach uniformity. Please be intellectually honest and admit that this statement is incorrect.

 

[joobz]

Please be intellectually honest and admit that this statement is incorrect.

Honesty? You'll not get that from Kleinman. All you can hope fore is more insults. Maybe they'll be more clever.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I did say both:

You need to pay better attention to the details. What I said is that the Shannon definition of information is mathematically equal to the negative of the quantum mechanical definition of entropy.

and

Increasing the information in a system reduces the randomness and thus reduces the entropy.

Both statements are mathematically and intuitively correct and represents what is occurring in Dr Schneider’s ev program. Remember that when we apply a coordinate system to a physical situation, plus and minus signs can be reversed depending on which way we decide to label the coordinate system. The coordinate system does not change the physical problem but in order to get proper result, you must maintain consistency throughout your calculation. When I set up a coordinate system for a physical problem, I try to set that coordinate system such that you match what intuitively happens in your calculations. Random point mutations and natural selection add information to the genome thus reducing the disorder of the genome and therefore the entropy of the genome. You are increasing the entropy and disorder of the universe in Dr Schneider’s model and thus reducing the information in the universe, however since entropy is not a conservative property, it won’t help trying to compute this value. I think if you study Dr Schneider’s model and run some cases you will start to get a sense of what I am saying.

Please be intellectually honest and admit that this statement is incorrect.

Honesty? You'll not get that from Kleinman. All you can hope fore is more insults. Maybe they'll be more clever.

Joobz, run any cases from ev or you still able to come to conclusion without the data?

I wonder what annoys you evolutionists more, the fact that I say macroevolution is mathematically impossible based on the results of ev or that I am using a computer model written by an evolutionist to do it?

 

[delphi_ote]

Honesty? You'll not get that from Kleinman. All you can hope fore is more insults. Maybe they'll be more clever.

Well, we'll see what happens. This is a fairly simple thing that could be cleared up easily with no hard feelings. I study information theory, and I think it's important to get it right.

 

[joobz]

Well, we'll see what happens. This is a fairly simple thing that could be cleared up easily with no hard feelings. I study information theory, and I think it's important to get it right.

There are several points that are important to get right. This is just one of them, and I'm glad someone with knowledge of information theory is holding him to it. My complaint is that he still fails to address why he even invokes thermo. All of his arguements describe an issue of rate. Since the program requires the input of the mutation rate, this whole thermodynamic argument is a smoke screen.

the model shows that the model trends toward information. That's the power of it. that is the equilibrium point being reached. We don't know rate here and all we can do is make assumptions.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Honesty? You'll not get that from Kleinman. All you can hope fore is more insults. Maybe they'll be more clever.

Well, we'll see what happens. This is a fairly simple thing that could be cleared up easily with no hard feelings. I study information theory, and I think it's important to get it right.

If you evolutionarians are as smart as you think you are, you would go to the Evolutionisdead web site, in particular, study the following thread:
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=f42b17926a042f8bf08e0eb2cc13c212
I have had extensive discussions with Paul and several other evolutionists. Doing this will help take you off the learning curve on this problem and you can avoid making a bunch of ignorant statements. If you examine that thread carefully you will find that I made several mistakes that I acknowledged but none affected my fundamental assertion that ev shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. Delphi, I am not going to acknowledge that I have made a mistake in my interpretation of the application of information theory to Dr Schneider’s computer model. If you believe that information and entropy are equal, fine. I find that interpretation of these words illogical and find Frank Andrews’ (the writer of the textbook that I used in graduate school that discusses this issue) interpretation and mathematical derivation much too logical to ignore.

Well, we'll see what happens. This is a fairly simple thing that could be cleared up easily with no hard feelings. I study information theory, and I think it's important to get it right.

There are several points that are important to get right. This is just one of them, and I'm glad someone with knowledge of information theory is holding him to it. My complaint is that he still fails to address why he even invokes thermo. All of his arguements describe an issue of rate. Since the program requires the input of the mutation rate, this whole thermodynamic argument is a smoke screen.

I don’t mind you holding me to it. In fact, turn up the heat. I want you to scrutinize every idea I present and parse every word because not only am I going to use Dr Schneider’s ev computer program to prove that macroevolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible, I am going to show how sloppy, superficial and hypocritical evolutionary pseudo-scientists are. If the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had done half as rigorous a review of Dr Schneider’s publication on ev as you are doing with my assertions here, we would not be having this discussion now. Once we get to a discussion of Dr Schneider’s work and you realize the preposterous way he extrapolated the data from his single published case in ev, I am going to throw these argument you are making with me right now, back into your tear stained faces. Of course you evolutionarians could never criticize a high priest of evolutionism, that would be rude. Well, this computer model was written by your high priest and you are stuck with it. Did you ever wonder why Dr Schneider is not engaging in this debate? He has always been a vigorous defender of his model in a very public way, just look at his web site. Now he is silent, leaving it to Paul and other evolutionists to try and defend your theory from this severe mathematical vise he has placed it in.

the model shows that the model trends toward information. That's the power of it. that is the equilibrium point being reached. We don't know rate here and all we can do is make assumptions.

There are measured values that enable the determination of the rates for Dr Schneider’s model. There are known measured mutation rates and known genome lengths. Dr Schneider has even proposed doing experiments to verify the results of his model.

You had better take a look at the Evolutionisdead link above so you don’t have to make so many assumptions. You also better write a keyboard macro for the words “strawman” and “irrelevant” because you won’t have any scientific arguments against what ev shows.