Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why on earth would we assume that?

Well, I thought I give him the benefit of the doubt, at least for a few minutes. Is that foolish of me?

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

On macro vs micro evolution:

I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings.

A prevalent example of creationist dishonesty - the weasels pirated and misrepresented what were at one time useful descriptive terms.

 

[Myriad]

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 * 10^9 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. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
(emphasis added)

"This rate" refers to the rate of information increase per generation shown by the ev model with the low-valued parameters that Kleinman is complaining about.

I just wanted to point out that not only did Dr. Schneider not claim that the ev model simulates all important factors in evolution, he explicitly stated the contrary. Kleinman usually leaves out the boldfaced sentence when he quotes this passage.

Myriad, I went back and looked at where I have quoted the above text written by Dr Schneider. I have quoted this text 11 times on the Evolutionisdead forum and 2 times on this forum and in all cases I have included the boldfaced sentence. So stop being a jackass. If you are going to attribute something to me, post the quote.

For the record, just in case some correspondents have any lingering doubt about Kleinman's credibility...

In the relevant thread in the EvolutionIsDead forum, he did indeed directly quote (by "directly" I mean he was not requoting the text as part of quoting another post) the text in question 11 times. Two of those cases he quoted the entire Discussion section from Dr. Schneider's paper; the other nine were more specifcally focused on the paragraph in question. In six of those nine cases (or, if you prefer, six of the eleven cases total), he did not include the boldfaced portion. Those six cases occurred on pages 2, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 29 of that thread. (The quotes that did include the boldfaced sentence are on pages 1, 3, 14, 17, and 21.)

In this forum, in this thread, of the three times he quoted this Schneider passage prior to when I raised the issue, twice it was without the boldfaced sentence. And in the A Simple Argument Against Intelligent Design thread, he quoted it once, again without the boldfaced sentence.

And then later, in this thread (on pages 8 and 11, using default posts-per-page), he did it again, twice, both times mentioning me and explicitly stating that he was quoting Dr. Schneider's whole statement in full.

Total score:
With the boldfaced text: 6 times
Without the boldfaced text: 11 times

But as to more important matters... I don't think I could ever be a closet duelist. It's too dark to aim your pistol and there's not enough room for fencing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.

Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis. You did realize this was sarcastic, right?

I can’t tell whether your complacent/compliant line was a pun. I told you to put a smiley face next to your jokes so we all can tell that’s what they are. Are you going to put a smiley face next to the theory of evolution because it really looks like a joke to me.

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.

I believe I said I would run it when I had a week with nothing better to do.

Unless you are using your computer 24 hours a day, you can run the pascal version of ev in pieces unlike the java version when your system would otherwise be sitting idle. I don’t mind if you drag this out, I’m having fun.

Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum.

For crying out loud! We want you to present the mathematical proof that macroevolution, whatever the hell that is, is impossible due to some constraint that you apparently feel you've gotten from Ev. You could start by defining macroevolution. If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now.

Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition, that doesn’t make you happy, when you asked me if the evolution of binding sites was an example of macroevolution, I said yes. Crying out loud is something evolutionarians are doing a lot of these days.

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:

You've done nothing! Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model. You peer review my work, that’s a laugh, you don’t even peer review your own evolutionarian writings. The peer review Dr Schneider obtained from the editors at Nucleic Acids Research qualifies that journal to be sold at supermarket checkout stands, right next to the alien abduction tabloids.

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

I'll Write it for him:
Abstract: Thermodynamically, evolution and ev takes to long. So, god did it. The end. Stop asking questions. It's mathematical!!!!

Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.

For the record, just in case some correspondents have any lingering doubt about Kleinman's credibility...Total score:
With the boldfaced text: 6 times
Without the boldfaced text: 11 times

Myriad, do any jiggling of the threshold in ev? It will make us giggle.

 

[Yahzi]

Why do they keep hammering at this notion to an audience

One fact will make it all clear.

We are not their audience.

They are their audience: the performance that HammThaiKlein puts on is for their own benefit. Hammy repeats "closet dualist" like a mantra, his own secret words of power that keep him on the straight and narrow whenever a stray thought threatens to blow apart his house of cards. Tai always asks; never answers; this allows him to continue thinking of himself as wise (aka Socrates) without actually facing the issues. Indeed, if Tai didn't come here and bait us, he might eventually have to answer his own questions - and then where would he be?

Klein resorts to name-calling, which frankly looks weak. I don't think he'll last much longer.

But the point is that the single most important concept in psychology is "projection." The creationiods are arguing against themselves; by externalizing their own doubts, they can shout them down, they can hate them, they can identify them as the other and thus dangerous, subversive, taboo. You can't taboo yourself; you can't use that handy biological machinery that keeps you from playing in manure on yourself. You have to externalize the target, so your innate hard-wired circutry can make avoiding it automatic and reflexive.

Of course, we skeptics are human, so we are just as guilty of projection as anyone else. For instance, I constantly assume that other people are honest (at least with themselves), aware that truth is the best way to get what you want, and thus interested in the truth. Because I cannot help but project these attitudes onto others, I am constantly being surprised.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition, that doesn’t make you happy...

Oh, a new lie! Well done!

Paul's point is, of course, that if we use the wikipedia definition of macroevolution^WP, then it's game, set and match to us, since speciation has been observed. This is why he said "If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now."

 

[John Hewitt]

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.

Well, I always find Dawkins very preachy and the recent meeting, reported in New Scientist, came across as similar to a convocation of Bishops.

The failings in religion, at least when Holy books are interpreted literally, are perfectly clear and seem to be acknowledged by the majority of religious believers who debate the issue - Answers in Genesis excepted.

The fact is that science can never answer or disprove every possible variation of religious faith but still it is quite clear that faith wil never just go away. It seems to me that Dawkins and his followers are dominated by efforts to reply to faith, rather than constructing evolutionary theory in a more sensible and compelling way. Thus they are not improving the theory of evolution just converting it into another branch of faith to which all members of the scientific community are expected to give obeisance. That is entirely wrong.

What they should be doing is recognizing some of the failings in evolutionary theory and using that recognition as a platform from which to improve it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can’t tell whether your complacent/compliant line was a pun. I told you to put a smiley face next to your jokes so we all can tell that’s what they are. Are you going to put a smiley face next to the theory of evolution because it really looks like a joke to me.

I wasn't refering to my pun, which is utterly irrelevant to this conversation anyway. I was referring to this, right here:

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

That was sarcastic. Obviously.

Unless you are using your computer 24 hours a day, you can run the pascal version of ev in pieces unlike the java version when your system would otherwise be sitting idle. I don’t mind if you drag this out, I’m having fun.

I can run either of them any time, because I have multiple processors. I just don't feel like running the long simulation right now.

Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition [of macroevolution], that doesn’t make you happy, ...

Oh, it makes me happy. It makes me laugh right out loud.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.

What does this have to do with your proof that macroevolution is impossible? Are you retracting your claim that you have proved that macroevolution is impossible?

Here: Ev represents reality, just not in its entirety.

Here: Schneider still has pages about Ev: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.

Only if you have something to say that requires more than a first grade edumacation.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Indeed. Keep on calling me names, calling me a liar, and demanding apologies for a comment I made on another forum that is clearly and proveably true. I'm sure it's building you credit in heaven. Or somewhere.

Myriad, I owe you an apology for not seeing the hair that you are splitting. I now realize what the point is that you are trying to make. Even though my initial post, 3rd and 5th posts included the notorius boldfaced text, you want this text to included every time I post Dr Schneider on this topic.

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of 4*10^9 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. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

The minimum that I quote of Dr Schneider’s text on this topic is the following:

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of 4*10^9 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.

On some occasions I have left off the following line.

However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

Perhaps Dr Schneider would be willing to explain how worldwide populations accelerate evolution when ev appears to approach an asymptote at much smaller populations. Or how worldwide populations contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Or Dr Schneider can explain to us how sexual recombination increases information in the gene pool, or how interspecies gene transfers account for human evolution.

When I post this text from Dr Schneider’s publication without your boldfaced text, it is not because I am trying to artificially reinforce my case, I want to talk about this line from Dr Schneider’s text. Maybe you want to explain how these mechanisms account for human evolution.

You have no science or mathematics to defend against what ev shows about your theory of evolution so you have taken to parsing words to look for a defense to your theory. If this is the only way you can argue your case, it is apparent how weak your case for evolution really is.

Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition [of macroevolution], that doesn’t make you happy, ...

Oh, it makes me happy. It makes me laugh right out loud.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

A creationist has also co-opted ev as well, doesn’t that annoy you.

Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.

What does this have to do with your proof that macroevolution is impossible? Are you retracting your claim that you have proved that macroevolution is impossible?

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.

Here: Ev represents reality, just not in its entirety.

Here: Schneider still has pages about Ev: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?

 

[joobz]

Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.
.

Have you presented anything that requires a higher reading level?

So far, your entire argument has been
1.) Takes to long-(it's thermodynamics!)
2.) Macroevolution doesn't exist (well, at least not how I define it)
3.) joobz can't write (it's joobz, btw....not joozb, which is probably some clever insult that I don't get)
4.) Delphi drinks sterno. (I'll just pretend that he didn't completely call me out on entropy and java programming)
5.) Paul is a crybaby (because he gets annoyed at me missrepresenting his program. jeez, what child.)
6.) Dr. inAdequate, since he irritatingly holds me to my lies
7.) Oh, and If I keep saying that EV is a perfect simulation of evolution and show how it couldn't work, then I disprove evolution! yeah, And if I wish really really hard, I can be a real boy.

Just remember Pinocchio, Your nose grows when you lie.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Myriad, I owe you an apology for not seeing the hair that you are splitting. I now realize what the point is that you are trying to make. Even though my initial post, 3rd and 5th posts included the notorius boldfaced text, you want this text to included every time I post Dr Schneider on this topic.
The minimum that I quote of Dr Schneider’s text on this topic is the following:

On some occasions I have left off the following line.

Perhaps Dr Schneider would be willing to explain how worldwide populations accelerate evolution when ev appears to approach an asymptote at much smaller populations. Or how worldwide populations contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Or Dr Schneider can explain to us how sexual recombination increases information in the gene pool, or how interspecies gene transfers account for human evolution.

When I post this text from Dr Schneider’s publication without your boldfaced text, it is not because I am trying to artificially reinforce my case, I want to talk about this line from Dr Schneider’s text. Maybe you want to explain how these mechanisms account for human evolution.

You have no science or mathematics to defend against what ev shows about your theory of evolution so you have taken to parsing words to look for a defense to your theory. If this is the only way you can argue your case, it is apparent how weak your case for evolution really is.

A creationist has also co-opted ev as well, doesn’t that annoy you.

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.

I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?

So, no new lies, then?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.

So you plan on simply repeating your mantra until we all come around?

I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?

It is a simulation of the generic process of reproduction, mutation, and selection. It certainly doesn't simulate any specific real-life situation. To use it to disprove macroevolution, you must:

1. Define macroevolution.
2. Map the functions of Ev onto the process of real evolution, specifically the process of macroevolution.
3. Do the math on Ev that shows that the real-life process can't produce whatever macroevolution requires.

I recommend you start with the simplest case of macroevolution you can find. What would that be?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.

So you plan on simply repeating your mantra until we all come around?

My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better than your mantra “recombination, recombination” any day. Some nuts won’t come loose no matter how much WD40 and heat you use on them. My plan goes beyond just repeating “mathematically impossible”. As computing resources become available, I’ll do larger population cases to determine whether ev is approaching an asymptote or not and also do larger genome cases as well to see whether the generations for convergence increases at power greater than 2. As time goes on, we can see how things evolve.

I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?

It is a simulation of the generic process of reproduction, mutation, and selection. It certainly doesn't simulate any specific real-life situation. To use it to disprove macroevolution, you must:

1. Define macroevolution.
2. Map the functions of Ev onto the process of real evolution, specifically the process of macroevolution.
3. Do the math on Ev that shows that the real-life process can't produce whatever macroevolution requires.

I recommend you start with the simplest case of macroevolution you can find. What would that be?

1. We will have to live with the fact that you will not be satisfied with any definition of macroevolution I give. You aren’t going to take your ball and go home because of this, but wait, ev is public domain, you can’t take it home.
2. I already think that ev maps random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner to the real situation. The author of the program seems to think this as well with what he has posted on his web site. Perhaps he will restate his position if he ever will talk about his program publicly again.
3. I think that doing the math on random point mutations and natural selection is a good start. I agree with evolutionists that there are other mechanisms to vary a genome and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but without random point mutations and natural selection, evolutionists are going to have a very difficult time explaining genetic evolution without this mechanism.

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable. The binding site model represents only a small number of loci which have to evolve, Dr Schneider has already defined a selection mechanism that has been peer reviewed and published and these represent real, known sites on genomes. Even though I don’t believe Dr Schneider’s selection mechanism is realistic and gives a degree of precision to the selection process that does not exist in reality, I’m willing to live with this selection mechanism despite that I believe it allows the model to converge more quickly than would occur in reality. In addition, no gene is evolving with the binding site which again favors much faster convergence. If the model can not converge quickly enough with these unrealistic assumptions aiding the model, then how would it converge more quickly with a more stringent selection process and including gene evolution with the binding site evolution?

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection especially since organisms with gigabase genomes are going to have much smaller populations and much longer generation times than prokaryotes?

Paul, ev gives the theory of evolution a very bad accounting problem. The auditors are coming to check the books.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable.

No, sorry, you have to start with a real-life case of macroevolution. What would that be?

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection ...

And this has exactly what to do with real life?

~~ Paul

 

[thaiboxerken]

My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better...

Feel free to show us the peer-reviewed scientific article that supports your mantra.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better than your mantra “recombination, recombination” any day. Some nuts won’t come loose no matter how much WD40 and heat you use on them. My plan goes beyond just repeating “mathematically impossible”. As computing resources become available, I’ll do larger population cases to determine whether ev is approaching an asymptote or not and also do larger genome cases as well to see whether the generations for convergence increases at power greater than 2. As time goes on, we can see how things evolve.

1. We will have to live with the fact that you will not be satisfied with any definition of macroevolution I give. You aren’t going to take your ball and go home because of this, but wait, ev is public domain, you can’t take it home.
2. I already think that ev maps random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner to the real situation. The author of the program seems to think this as well with what he has posted on his web site. Perhaps he will restate his position if he ever will talk about his program publicly again.
3. I think that doing the math on random point mutations and natural selection is a good start. I agree with evolutionists that there are other mechanisms to vary a genome and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but without random point mutations and natural selection, evolutionists are going to have a very difficult time explaining genetic evolution without this mechanism.

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable. The binding site model represents only a small number of loci which have to evolve, Dr Schneider has already defined a selection mechanism that has been peer reviewed and published and these represent real, known sites on genomes. Even though I don’t believe Dr Schneider’s selection mechanism is realistic and gives a degree of precision to the selection process that does not exist in reality, I’m willing to live with this selection mechanism despite that I believe it allows the model to converge more quickly than would occur in reality. In addition, no gene is evolving with the binding site which again favors much faster convergence. If the model can not converge quickly enough with these unrealistic assumptions aiding the model, then how would it converge more quickly with a more stringent selection process and including gene evolution with the binding site evolution?

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection especially since organisms with gigabase genomes are going to have much smaller populations and much longer generation times than prokaryotes?

Paul, ev gives the theory of evolution a very bad accounting problem. The auditors are coming to check the books.

Nothing new here.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable.

No, sorry, you have to start with a real-life case of macroevolution. What would that be?

Dr Schneider said the following about his model:

Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986

And

The simulation was of phenomena in the "real" world.

And

Since the Ev simulation corresponds point-for-point to the natural situation, the Ev model shows how information can be gained in binding sites in nature by mutation and natural selection.

And

Mutations are not evolution, but are most of the basis for it.

And

Fred Williams complains that the "program is not real-world, not even close. New information was not created naturalistically." It is not clear what he means by 'real-world' or 'naturalistically'. If you read the Ev paper carefully you will note that the model parallels the natural situation.

And

Why don't you do a real biological experiment instead of just a computer model?

The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me.

And

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.

And for good measure:

This gauntlet was thrown on the ground on 2005 May 15.

Notice that, since creatioinists stop complaining when defeated, the most extremely difficult part of the challenge above is "do a scientific test of your own ideas"!

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection ...

And this has exactly what to do with real life?

Why Paul, this is mathematical proof from your own computer model that your soft theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible.

 

[hammegk]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

You are wrong (overlooking the "creationoids" nastiness); that definition is more in line with one of several of the choices modern ev theory presents for "speciation".

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

That's one of the few actually factual statements Modern Theory can make with our current knowledge.

BTW, that does not translate to "Modern Evolutionary Theory is a Fact" although that's how many here want it presented in the educational process.


Unfortunately for all concerned macroevolution can as yet be demonstrated as a fact only in the fossil record (and the plethora of lifeforms we have). Modern Theorists say, why gee, just more micro-ev; others like myself wonder at the lack of catastrophism inherent in that concept.

The present is not necessarily the "key to the past".

 

[Timble]

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

He probably doesn't even know about your poncing around and posturing and it's all on "just another message board", so why should he care?

 

[kjkent1]

He probably doesn't even know about your pouncing around and posturing and it's all on "just another message board", so why should he care?

This really is the truth of it. The Internet is great for ad hoc arguments, but it is no substitute for real peer-review. Kleinmann should submit his findings and conclusions for publication as a rebuttal to Schneider's original EV work, and sink or swim with the rest of the scientific community.

Excuses such as "the ordinary publishing process is too slow," and "the system is rigged against evolution's opponents," are just excuses.

There is always room at the top.