Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So how does complex chemistry select for a particular random point mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage?

Perhaps it does offer an immediate advantage, if the binding controls some gene expression in a more optimal fashion. Or supresses some other molecule that in turn controls a function. Or, maybe it doesn't offer an immediate advantage, but doesn't cause any harm either.

If the mutation does confer an immediate advantage it should select for that organism and will increase the likelihood that this mutation will be passed to future generations whether it improves function of the gene or improves control of the gene. The frequency of occurrence of a helpful mutation should increase in the population. If the mutation doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage and neither helps nor harms the reproduction of that organism, the frequency of occurrence of that mutation should not be increasing in the population. If the mutation is harmful to the organism, the organism will be selected out of the population and the frequency of that mutation will decrease in the population. Neutral mutations by their very nature can not be acted on by natural selection. You don’t have selective pressure to increase their frequency in the population in order to make more complex genetic structures. Wasn’t it Richard Dawkins who said natural selection doesn’t have any long term plans?

Dr Schneider has demonstrated how binding sites can be formed, albeit it occurs at a profoundly slow rate, how do you form the ancestral single-function molecule that gives rise to the descending molecule? What is the selection process that would allow random point mutations to generate such a gene? What form can natural selection take that would allow bases to be assembled to form this ancestral single-function molecule? In the early stages of the formation of this ancestral gene, what would select for the first 200 bases of this gene without there being a selective advantage for this sequence of bases?

Why do random point mutations have to create the gene? How do you even know whether the gene or molecule came first? And why did you skip this part:

Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.

If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein?

The compromise was a chemical one. It appears that the apparatus that sequesters oxygen in cells, possibly to protect them, is almost identical to the one that, in different contexts, exploits oxygen for its energy-generating potential. At first this apparatus was quite primitive, probably limited to a caged metal atom capable of binding oxygen or tearing away its electrons, which are used in metabolism. But this basic chemical apparatus grew increasingly complex through time and evolution. At some point the metal atom was fixed inside a kind of flat molecular cage called a porphyrin ring, and later that porphyrin ring became embedded in larger organic compounds called proteins.

Bolding was added by Paul. Ross Hardison is speculating on the function of Hemoglobin. Hemoglobin does much more than bind oxygen, it also binds carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and perhaps other molecules as well. The binding of theses molecules is dependent on their respective partial pressures. If Hardison’s speculations have any reasonable basis, then how many amino acids are required in the primitive protein that caged the metal atom? And how do you select for the bases to form this first gene to make this primitive protein?

Paul, are you ever going to post your data that shows the generations for convergence increases linearly with genome length when you use a mutation rate fixed to a given number of bases?

Would somebody give that whimpering crybaby Adequate a bottle, maybe that will calm him down? (Not you Delphi)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Incidentally, is there a technical term for it? We've had a few of these on the forums. I'm thinking Peter "Failed Dowser" Morris, Mark "Available For Children's Parties" Lewis, that sort of thing?

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi

Delphi

Go ahead... make my millenium.

 

[joobz]

Go ahead... make my millenium.

DAYYY Oh!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

 

[thaiboxerken]

T'ai.. why do you insist on playing such a stupid game? Is this where your god lives, in ignorance? Do you worship the god of the gaps?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.

Nature has no obligation to behave in a way that you don't find contorted.

If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein?

I have no idea.

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

Nope.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

Step 1: Type "www.google.com" into your browser.
Step 2: Type "hemoglobin evolution"
Step 3: Read

It's not hard to find information.

 

[joobz]

Step 1: Type "www.google.com" into your browser.
Step 2: Type "hemoglobin evolution"
Step 3: Read

It's not hard to find information.

Those sources can't be accurate. I can't find "god did it" anywhere in the text.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Delphi

Delphi

Go ahead... make my millenium.

Now stop that Delphi! You are not to get any joy from what I post, you are only to be annoyed. By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.

Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.

Nature has no obligation to behave in a way that you don't find contorted.

It is not nature that I find contorted; it is your interpretation of nature that I find contorted.

If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein?

I have no idea.

That is a response that evolutionists should use more often.

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

Nope.

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Wow, a post entirely without content.

You know there's a quicker way to achieve the same effect?

 

[Dr Adequate]

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

Kleinman, could you give this thread an extremely detailed description of how God made hemoglobin?

No?

Oh well.

How about matching the level of detail given in the papers cited?

No?

No.

No details? None? None at all?

If courtesy were not my very watchword, I might stoop to call that "superficial".

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Wow, a post entirely without content.

You know there's a quicker way to achieve the same effect?

My first impulse was to ask you to show me how but then I decided any post I that make that annoys an evolutionist I consider a successful post. As long as you follow this thread, I’m assured success.

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

Kleinman, could you give this thread an extremely detailed description of how God made hemoglobin?

Stop trying to change the subject. We are discussing ev.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The creationists think they have a clever tactic in asking questions about evolution until someone says "well, I don't know." at which point they say "Ah HA!! Therefore god did it!!."

Little do they realize that they are simply appealing to ignorance and not being clever at all.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.

Like my company, Windfall Software, it was Y2K complacent.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi

That's my name! Now, come on, give me two more!

Delphi

Yeah!

Delphi!

It's SHOWTIME!

ETA Sorry. I really like that movie.

 

[articulett]

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions. The faith based believers are not a lot you can reason with. Read Dawkin's hatemail (at his good/bad/ugly link) at his website to get a glimpse of such people...your fellow believers--

I don't think it's wise to make yourself a target of the delusional, frankly. I feel sorry for those people who actually believe that evolution has been proven false. If you knew a smattering of the evidence and understood the astronomical information in support of evolution that only grows more every day, then you would understand that the site Paul linked to start this thread is spreading misinformation and lies. There isn't a respected scientist in the world that doesn't accept evolution. Some might be religious--but they just say that god is "outside science". And their numbers are decreasing. I know you believe very much in your god and your theory about intelligent design--but if you want someone else to take it seriously you'd have to offer evidence in support of whatever it was you are claiming--and your math example where you use a mathematical concept that doesn't even figure in known facts about evolution and how information changes into an equation which leads you to believe that humans couldn't have evolved without design is not proof of anything at all except maybe a need on your part to believe that goddidit.

Your beliefs are useless outside your own head. Do you have any facts? Your mathematical problem fails as a model of evolution on so many fronts (though you seem to be unable to comprehend the many people carefully explaining that to you.) Moreover, I think you have a need to believe in your god, but why would you think we should care. Why would any honest person promote the notion that evolution is a dying theory when every scientific institution of integrity across the world accepts it as obvious. If we didn't, we wouldn't have made the great strides we have-- there'd be no paternity testing or test tube babies or prenatal test or forensic tests...National Geographic and Scientific American would be sued for lying or half their content would disappear.

Shame on you for trying to pass off your misinformation here. Why don't you actually read a book on evolution--read Darwin even--and at least get a clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I dislike the dishonesty of religion--the way it proffers unsubstantiated claims as "higher truths" and tells people it's wrong to ask questions and that it's presumptuous to even think they can understand--and if that wasn't enough, they tell you that believing a certain way will make you live happily ever after and those that try to sway your beliefs are "evil" and could make you suffer for eternity.

Science is far more useful than any religion, and the facts aren't afraid of being probed--science welcomes questions--it's how we figure out the truth, hone our knowledge, and build a world that would be a true miracle to people who lived a mere hundred years ago.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

Unlike creatonarians, who confuse attending to details with knowing all the details. This is not surprising, since they have no details at all.

By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?

Here is my data for a genome size of 1000 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per million bases:

population, generations
2, 29037000
4, 72555000
8, 44261000
16, 32561000
32, 14806000
64, 12845000
128, 8005000
256, 9388000
512, 10319000
1024, 4040000
2048, 3300000
4096, 3400000
8192, 2231000
16384, 2004000
32768, (running now)

Rcapacity has nothing to do with this experiment.

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions. The faith based believers are not a lot you can reason with. Read Dawkin's hatemail (at his good/bad/ugly link) at his website to get a glimpse of such people...your fellow believers--

I can understand being cautious about privacy on the internet, especially regarding a topic like this. I didn't reveal my identity because I thought it proved anything. My name is so common, you're better off trying to track me down by my web alias anyway. I was just proud to be a part of the paper I linked. Then Kleinman started this crusade about names.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My first impulse was to ask you to show me how but then I decided any post I that make that annoys an evolutionist I consider a successful post. As long as you follow this thread, I’m assured success.

But what about posts that make us laugh? I love playing poke-the-creationist-with-a-stick, when the creationist has a character as deformed as yours.

--

I notice that once again you tried to change the subject, I answered you, and now you're trying to pretend that it was I who changed the subject, when everyone on this thread can see that you're a snivelling little liar.

What is sad is that you wish to be a liar, just as you wish to insult people. And you come off as a pathetic stupid braggart telling ridiculous fibs to bolster your little temper tantrum. You are a failed lying little ****.

---

If you're too scared to talk about ev, then let's talk about hemoglobin. If you're too scared to talk about hemoglobin, then let's talk about ev. If you run away when asked for details on any particular point, then we can draw our own conclusions.