Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You think I would stoop so low to call you a sneak when you really aren’t? So why would you post one of your curve fits for a series of points when you know that the next point in the series would not even converge? So now you are a disingenuous sneak. I guess that makes me a dishonest liar. Hey joozb, does the grammatical rule of double negatives apply here?

I didn't post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generations data, did I? Nor did I extrapolate in either direction, did I? I simply pointed out that, within a range that makes sense, the generations appear to be approximately linear in the mutation rate.

I guess you're not a liar. You just don't seem to pay attention.

No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak.

What extrapolations are you talking about?

Regarding population, we have run experiments up to 1 million critters and the generations to perfection keep on dropping. You won't let me extrapolate past 1 million, so on what basis to you claim that increased populations won't result in lower generation counts?

Regarding genome size, I've run experiments up to 92K genomes with population 36 and 1 mutation per 512 bases. The generations to perfection fits g=7.8G^.98. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations?

The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues.

This debate we are having is not going to be settled with curve fits. It is going to require generating the data with ev.

I assure you, I do pay attention but I am addressing a lot of bloggers and might miss a point someone is trying to make. I don’t think this was one of those instances.

It doesn’t take very large populations and genome lengths to make the memory requirements and cpu times to become huge with ev. Remember the good old days when you had 256 base genomes and 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation mutation rates and when the run times were about 5 seconds? Those were the days when a superficial analysis of ev showed the theory of evolution was mathematically true.

This is so convoluted I'm not sure what to call it. I guess it's "proof by enjoyment of fast simulations."

Let’s see if I can put this in simpler terms. CPU times for runs of ev are a reflection of the rate of information gain.

You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. May I suggest super computers at 10 paces?

I decline. You'll have to prove your extrapolations peacefully.

Beleth thought I was throwing rocks through the windows of the half finished evolutionary mansion. I told him I was only throwing mathematical data. I’ll make sure the super computer is not connected to any nuclear warheads.

If joobz wants to believe that there were life forms with genome lengths much small than exist today that could sustain mutation rates much higher than living things are able to now, he is free to believe this, however he has no scientific evidence to back this up.

But, you see, if the genomes were a few orders of magnitude smaller, then the mutation rates didn't have to be higher. There is plenty of time for things to happen.

Now it seems obvious to me that early genomes were much smaller. Why? Because there is no way everything could evolve at once. First there had to be a few functions, then more, then a few more, and then duplications allowed the repertoire to expand significantly. I'd be willing to bet that there were no more than a couple hundred fundamental mechanisms from which the rest evolved by duplication and divergence.

You might as well accept this hypothesis, since you don't believe that anything important evolved anyway. So what the hell, why not?

I've run 92K genomes in 700K generations with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 512 bases. If we slow the rate by a factor of 200, to 1 mutation per 100K bases, then the generations becomes about 140 million. Heck, let's say 300 million. No problem. And that was with an absurd population of 36.

I don’t know how many fundamental mechanisms there are. What I do believe is that every base change is subject to natural selection and therefore the transformation of one fundamental mechanism to a different mechanism requires a path that always selects for that organism. Any harmful mutation in that path will select against that organism and any neutral mutation will not increase the frequency of that genetic sequence in the gene pool. I see a logical and mathematical problem with this concept.

I don’t object to you playing “what if” games with ev. That’s part of the value of a mathematical model. You can ask the question, what size genome would be needed in order to evolve your binding sites in a time consistent with evolutionary theory? You can also consider what would be the mutation rate necessary for ev to support the theory of evolution but this is a long way from what Dr Schneider has published with ev. Like I have said from the beginning of these discussions, I believe that ev is a plausible model for random point mutations and natural selection and I don’t object to your using the model in the way you have suggested. However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.

All hail the great Pelagibacter ubique. Free living. Only 1,354 genes. A mere 1,308,506 base pairs. And there are an estimated of them in the oceans. No pseudogenes, extrachromosomal elements, transposons, or introns. You gotta love this little fella.

Good, there’s your target for ev.

 

[John Hewitt]

And, as usual, your "point" is wrong -- both factually inaccurate and philosphically incoherent.

I suppose I should give you points for consistency, though. Even a blind squirrel can normally find a nut once in a while, just by chance.

And, as usual, your comments are empty of real content. In what respects do you claim that my comments on Popper are wrong?

 

[John Hewitt]

100% wrong.

Creationist critique of evolution is empty, vapid, and illogical. What the creationists believe is not relevant.

The Creationist critiques of evolution I have seen are based either on ignorance or deceit. Or sometimes a combination of the two.

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

Edit, and in reference to you other post, I should make it clear that I claim no credit at all for the achievements of religion. Monopolising resources is not, in itself, an admirable achievement. When nothing constructive is done with those resources I agree that it is to be deplored - in both religion and in science.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak.

You called me a sneak because you think I'm using the Rcapacity problem as an excuse. But I addressed your comment by noting that I could adjust parameters so Rcapacity is not a problem. Then you started giving me trouble about the mutation rate. But I'm extrapolating from high rates to lower rates, so mutation overload isn't an issue.

The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues.

Actually, I can continue with that experiment, because I increased the binding site width precisely to handle the Rcapacity problem.

However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.

I believe you'll find an explanation for that in this thread or one of the other ones.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul

They aren't immune to logic, they just use a different kind of logic: Cut and Paste Macros.

For a detailed account, see kleinman's ENTIRE debate.

 

[cyborg]

They aren't immune to logic, they just use a different kind of logic: Cut and Paste Macros.

Well of course. You evolutionists are obviously wrong so a prepared set of macros is perfectly sufficient without the waste of time of actually responding to what you are saying. There are more important things to be doing like preparing for the next life.

 

[Cuddles]

Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur.

So what you're saying is that you don't think it's possible that a world practically without life could have a different environment from one that is absolutely stuffed with life and has evolved for billions of years. I declared it recipie time long ago, I think it's very nearly time for the cats.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak.

You called me a sneak because you think I'm using the Rcapacity problem as an excuse. But I addressed your comment by noting that I could adjust parameters so Rcapacity is not a problem. Then you started giving me trouble about the mutation rate. But I'm extrapolating from high rates to lower rates, so mutation overload isn't an issue.

Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.

The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues.

Actually, I can continue with that experiment, because I increased the binding site width precisely to handle the Rcapacity problem.

Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?

However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.

I believe you'll find an explanation for that in this thread or one of the other ones.

There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination?

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

The answers presented to the claims I have made about ev would only satisfy a devout evolutionist. Paul, your argument that anyone who doesn’t believe the theory of evolution is not true, are not scientists is a worn out argument. You need some new plays in your playbook.

I assure you I have no political agenda. I got involved in this discussion for totally different reasons. I do think it is a waste of time to teach your stupid theory to grade school children who would be better served by learning how to read, write and do arithmetic but I never got politically involved in this issue. I could say the same about evolutionists that you say about creationists that you have a political agenda and are immune to logic. We will see what happens as I drag you kicking and screaming though the logic of your own computer model. There is so little that comes out of the theory of evolution that is worthy of being co-opted, macroevolution, ev and Adequate’s mutation rate of 1.7^-8.

Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur.

So what you're saying is that you don't think it's possible that a world practically without life could have a different environment from one that is absolutely stuffed with life and has evolved for billions of years. I declared it recipie time long ago, I think it's very nearly time for the cats.

Of course there are other types of environments that could exist. Consider the variety of different environments that exist in our solar system which have been investigated. It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

You aren’t going to give a recipe for cats are you?

 

[cyborg]

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

It supports life. Does it support the CREATION of life?

You seem to have decided these environments should be the same for some reason - but that's about as sensible as saying I should be able to live in the ocean because it supports life.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.

Yes, please, run this series of experiments. However, find out what the mutation rate for P. ubique was a couple of billion years ago. What's with 96 loci? Just pick a real mechanism and find out how many binding sites it has.

So let's use the figure of 10^-6 mutations per gene per generation. With about 1,000 genes, our little friend will have 10^-3 mutations per genome per generation. That's 1 mutation every 1,000 generations, or about 1 mutation every 4 years in the lineage of 1 critter. Let's keep it simple and say 1 mutation every 10 years. That's 10^27 mutations per year in the entire population. That means every gene is mutated 10^24 times per year (since there is hardly any junk). That's a lot of experiments.

Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?

I increased it from the standard width when I started the series. Of course you can't increase it in the middle.

There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination?

In some thread, Dr. Adequate did the math on this.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

It supports life. Does it support the CREATION of life?

You seem to have decided these environments should be the same for some reason - but that's about as sensible as saying I should be able to live in the ocean because it supports life.

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?

Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.

Yes, please, run this series of experiments. However, find out what the mutation rate for P. ubique was a couple of billion years ago. What's with 96 loci? Just pick a real mechanism and find out how many binding sites it has.

So let's use the figure of 10^-6 mutations per gene per generation. With about 1,000 genes, our little friend will have 10^-3 mutations per genome per generation. That's 1 mutation every 1,000 generations, or about 1 mutation every 4 years in the lineage of 1 critter. Let's keep it simple and say 1 mutation every 10 years. That's 10^27 mutations per year in the entire population. That means every gene is mutated 10^24 times per year (since there is hardly any junk). That's a lot of experiments.

I understand that this is a tough mathematical problem with many unknowns. That is why I suggest starting with a simple case. Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome.

Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?

I increased it from the standard width when I started the series. Of course you can't increase it in the middle.

But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.

There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination?

In some thread, Dr. Adequate did the math on this.

Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes. Many if not most mutations will be selected against or are neutral and Adequate did not include this in his arithmetic.

 

[cyborg]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

Right - but it's not just speculation because we can see how the action of life clearly affects the environment.

It is certain that life affects the environment. Assuming you agree the environment was quite different in the Earth's early life (of which I have no specific idea although I am assuming there is some 'faith based' thrust to your arguments) it is certain that life has transformed it. The question then becomes what that environment was, how it was possible for life to develop from it etc...

Otherwise your alternative speculation would be...?

I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

What conclusion would you like me to draw?

It hardly seems strange to me that proto-life would have a hard time trying to do anything in an environment full of modern lifeforms.

Why is it odd to you?

 

[hammegk]

... Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul

And thank Ed scientists are immune to political agendas, and have none of their own!

ROTFLMGDFAO.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

Well, at least not that we've noticed. Been down in any thermal vents recently? We're not forced to speculate on some other environment for the creation of life. It is absolutely clear that there was some other environment.

Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome.

But Ev starts with a random genome. No organism starts with a random 1.3 megabase genome. And what population do we use? Say we pick some parameters and come up with 1 billion generations. What possible conclusion could you draw from that?

But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.

Of course I didn't. P. ubique just came up yesterday, for crying out loud!

Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes.

I don't think that assumption was implicit in the calculation.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And thank Ed scientists are immune to political agendas, and have none of their own!

ROTFLMGDFAO.

Yes, of course some scientists have political agendas. The trick to science, though, is that not all scientists have the same agenda.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.

That's okay, because people are fickle enough that the power structure changes with time.

~~ Paul

 

[tsig]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.

So whoever is runing the country is controlling reality?

Well with Bush you may have a point.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

Right - but it's not just speculation because we can see how the action of life clearly affects the environment.

It is certain that life affects the environment. Assuming you agree the environment was quite different in the Earth's early life (of which I have no specific idea although I am assuming there is some 'faith based' thrust to your arguments) it is certain that life has transformed it. The question then becomes what that environment was, how it was possible for life to develop from it etc...

Otherwise your alternative speculation would be...?

Ok cyborg, let’s follow your logic trail. What are the possibilities? The present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life, or as Paul speculates below that living things are being spontaneously generated today in thermal vents, which we can’t identify yet or there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life. My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry. Now joobz thinks anything is possible especially with cooperative chemistry.

I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

What conclusion would you like me to draw?

It hardly seems strange to me that proto-life would have a hard time trying to do anything in an environment full of modern lifeforms.

Why is it odd to you?

What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur. Especially when virtually every one of these chemical reactions are catalyzed by a complex biologic enzyme. But then I think it is foolish to buy lottery tickets, yet millions of people do this every day.

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

Well, at least not that we've noticed. Been down in any thermal vents recently? We're not forced to speculate on some other environment for the creation of life. It is absolutely clear that there was some other environment.

Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?

Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome.

But Ev starts with a random genome. No organism starts with a random 1.3 megabase genome. And what population do we use? Say we pick some parameters and come up with 1 billion generations. What possible conclusion could you draw from that?

You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.

But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.

Of course I didn't. P. ubique just came up yesterday, for crying out loud!

Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.

Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes.

I don't think that assumption was implicit in the calculation.

Read his calculation carefully.