Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now that is an in depth analysis. Imagine two humans who have a child with 100 mutations, 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation and it dies. Imagine two other humans have a child with 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation, and it dies. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine that no children that suffer 100 mutations survive. How many mutations are passed on?

But you cannot imagine your final scenario, because we know that the typical live human has about 100 mutations. Now, you can argue with this particular number; be my guest. I've seen estimates up to 200.

Edited to add: Here's a paper that estimates 128. Note one of the author's names.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1288368

I have a little problem with this estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation. If you take a mutation rate of 10^-7 and a genome length of 3x10^8, you should only get about 30 mutations per generation per genome. They suggest and overall mutation rate of 2.14x10^-8 which would give only about 7 mutations per generation per genome.

The also are seeking a mutation rate that would satisfy evolutionist assumptions when they say the following:

From the sequence-divergence data, the following rates of mutations per base per year can be obtained for the X chromosome (

table 3), if it is assumed that there has been 5 million years of separation between the two species (White et al. 1994) and, hence, a combined 10 million years of mutation accumulation during divergence: 5.15×10-9 transitions at CpG sites, 3.92×10-10 transitions at non-CpG sites, 2.36×10-10 transversions, 6.94×10-10 base substitutions, 2.86×10-11 small deletions/insertions, and 7.23×10-10 for small deletions/insertions and base substitutions combined.

Even if you assume their estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation is correct, some of those mutations will be harmful and that creature will be selected against, some mutations will be helpful and that creature will be selected for and some mutations will be neutral and will not be selected for or against. What does ev show when selection is turned off? There was a very interesting name in this paper, “Green”, and a very unusual name and difficult to spell.

Why Paul, it’s you who is kicking and screaming. Your computer with 1gig of memory will do the 2meg population case but none larger for the 1k genome length. I doubt it will resolve the population issue. I think it will take a super computer with at least 1000gig, perhaps more of memory before this issue will be resolve to your satisfaction.

The issue is resolved to my satisfaction. It appears that you are one who is dissatisfied.

I know that Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis satisfied you until you realize he failed to attend to the details. I will only me satisfied when this job on the theory of evolution is finished.

Paul, your designer that “pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction” is really, really slow, ev shows this.

So you're saying the designer set things up from the beginning? In that case, something preplanned but extraordinary must have happened at some point in the past to make things go quickly. Surely we can find evidence of this event in the genomes of extant organisms? Surely we can come up with hypotheses to explain why there would be a sudden spurt of evolution that would then ease up again?

Paul, I have not move this goal post either, from the very beginning of out discussions, as Delphi said, “poof” Goddidit. I’m sure evolutionarians can come up with some other story; you just won’t have a mathematical explanation of how it happened.

People, life is too short to read 19 pages of this.
As I understand, someone wrote a computer program to model evolution and the results are open to interpretation.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you lack an attention span of more than one sound bite.

Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate.

The folks working on self-replicating RNA vaccines are going to be unhappy to hear this.

Paul, feel free to join the sloppy use of language club.

You are the one who opened your mouth first about this. Get your own signatures for your own marketing plan. Do you expect me to do your work?

If this is an example of how you make friends and influence people, you're gonna have a bitter and lonely existence.

I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't so much rn and run as trickle and drip.

 

[kjkent1]

I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money.

I said, "make friends 'and influence people'..."

I am offering you an opportunity to prove your hypothesis. This requires neither my friendship, nor the friendship of my supercomputer ("Open the pod bay door HAL."). It does require that you influence me (i.e., the supercomputer is not subject to emotional or even pecuniary appeals).

However, you are quickly achieving the exact opposite influence which you purportedly seek to accomplish.

Or, perhaps foreclosing the possibility of testing your theory is the "real" goal?

Food 4 thought.

 

[delphi_ote]

Actually, one person on this thread seems to think that a gene equals a molecule and that is not the only misunderstanding floating around here.

You're now misrepresenting what I've said. Genes are composed of molecules. I never said a gene was a molecule.

Nobody does experiments with self-replicating nucleic acids.

I'm very disappointed in you now. I already linked to someone (Joyce) who does and has had great success. Either you're not paying attention or you're not being honest.

Dishonesty seems to be a trend here. First you come in pretending not to be a creationist. Now you're misrepresenting facts and your opponents' words. Whatever religion you come from, you're not setting a very good example.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It doesn't so much rn and run as trickle and drip.

Adequate, I thought we lost you. I need you. I know that when I am having a bad day, at least I can always annoy you. Anyway, don’t you want to find out if ev ever makes it to 1 generation?

I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money.

I said, "make friends 'and influence people'..."

If you are looking for a drinking buddy, try Delphi ote, maybe he’ll toss back a couple with you.

I am offering you an opportunity to prove your hypothesis. This requires neither my friendship, nor the friendship of my supercomputer ("Open the pod bay door HAL."). It does require that you influence me (i.e., the supercomputer is not subject to emotional or even pecuniary appeals).

You are quickly tuning into a greedy version of Dilbert trying to make his way out of his cubicle into an office, maybe even with windows. You are trying to use this issue to advance your career. You work for a company that can make the kind of computers that can solve computational intensive problem like this. This issue already has huge amounts of interest but don’t expect any support from evolutionists now that they have a better understanding of what their model predicts. I’m content to drip on Adequate’s parade for now. If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

However, you are quickly achieving the exact opposite influence which you purportedly seek to accomplish.

I proudly wear the badge of annoying creationist, annoyer of evolutionarians from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.

Or, perhaps foreclosing the possibility of testing your theory is the "real" goal?

Why don’t you call my bluff Dilbert?

Food 4 thought.

This doesn’t even qualify as a snack.

 

[sphenisc]

I never said a gene was a molecule.

Genes are molecules.

I think your words are open to that interpretation..

 

[kjkent1]

Nobody does experiments with self-replicating nucleic acids. Here I write purely from memory but the first studies to make that kind of claim came from Spiegelman's laboratory. He worked on Qbeta, a phage that produces a RNA directed RNA polymerase. So he took his polymerase, some RNA, I think from the phage, and the necessary chemical substrates then he let it run and in that test tube it evolved. As I recall, it selected smaller molecular weight RNAs but that detail is not important.

What is important is that he provided the necessary enyme and substrates, no nucleic acid can do without such hand-holding and this kind of thing is not workable as a theory for evolution. Crick tried to calculate the probability of such self-contained systems arising by chance and he surrendered, eventually proposing, as a MORE realistic alternative, that life must have come to earth in spaceships.

I have gone to the trouble to read your "A Habit of Lies." You're obviously a very knowledgeable scientist, and apparently you believe that you have an important contribution to make to biology which has been unfairly dismissed by your peers.

I'm nowhere near well versed enough in biological science to judge the merits of your work, but I wonder if you could explain to me as a layperson, how any of this is relevant to the question of whether EV is an accurate model of what it purports to be?

As I understand it, Dr. Schneider's model was intended to demonstrate that molecular information gain is theoretically possible without extrinsic intelligent guidance -- something which apparently everyone here agrees the model demonstrates.

The remaining issue is apparently whether or not there has been sufficient time since the beginning of the universe for sufficient information gain to have produced the complexity of life found on Earth.

Now, I'm sure that I still haven't summarized the issue as well as someone with a PH.D in biology could, but if you will be so kind as to ignore any literal gaffs on my part and address the substantive issue, I'm certain that everyone here will find your comments useful.

And, if not everyone, then at least, I will.

 

[kjkent1]

You are quickly tuning into a greedy version of Dilbert trying to make his way out of his cubicle into an office, maybe even with windows. You are trying to use this issue to advance your career. You work for a company that can make the kind of computers that can solve computational intensive problem like this. This issue already has huge amounts of interest but don’t expect any support from evolutionists now that they have a better understanding of what their model predicts. I’m content to drip on Adequate’s parade for now. If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

I proudly wear the badge of annoying creationist, annoyer of revolutionariness from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.

I'm not annoyed by you. So, if a pyrrhic victory is your goal, then you be my guest.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I'm not annoyed by you. So, if a pyrrhic victory is your goal, then you be my guest.

Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists. The only victory here is showing that the theory of evolution has no mathematical basis and I believe never will.

 

[Yahzi]

As I understand, someone wrote a computer program to model evolution and the results are open to interpretation.

The results showed that an adequate supply of information had enough time to evolve.

Klienman changed the parameters of the simulation, and now claims that proves evolution is impossible.

Did I miss anything?

My insanely clever comment comparing him to a voodoo doctor.

Otherwise, no.

 

[I less than three logic]

Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists. The only victory here is showing that the theory of evolution has no mathematical basis and I believe never will.

Don’t be alarmed by that whistle you just heard. It was only kjkent1’s comment soaring well over your head.

 

[Unnamed]

If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

Computer time costs money. kjkent1's proposal was completely reasonable and your refusal says a lot about yourself. I thought about using some of time allocated to me in my research group's cluster to do it, but I won't offer it anymore. Why should anyone else?

 

[delphi_ote]

I think your words are open to that interpretation..

If you want to play semantic games, I suppose. In context, my meaning is clear enough (especially in the response!)

In the future, I guess I'll have to guard more stringently against intellectually dishonest quote mining. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[joobz]

Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate.

If you say so. I was admittedly being sarcastic. However, my claim is far less "sloppy" than your claim of "mathematical proof against evolution." I've noticed you haven't provided it yet. We are still waiting.

Joobz are you ever going to run a single case with ev or are you going to make all your judgments with your superficial sound good to me type of analysis.

I have. Why do you think i haven't?

 

[joobz]

Thus base sequence is not the only data on a genome that is biologically significant. The choice of bases and determinants of the code are also important. At a grosser level, so is the sequence of genes on a genome.

What is the distinction you are trying to make here? Please clarify.

Finally, Paul, I am sure there are some exceptions but nucleic acids are not generally immunogenic and are therefore unlikely to be of value as a vaccines. In the main, it is proteins and complex carbohydrates, such as the sidechains on glycoproteins and glycolipids, that generate immune responses. I therefore think your comments on vaccines must be wide of the mark.

I must interject that this is totally false.
DNA and RNA can adopt recognition domains through folding similar to protein tertiary structures. This is the basis behind aptamer binding and targeting. As such, ANYTHING that can generate a recognizable binding domain can also trigger an immune response. However, it is believed that they may be less immunogenic than proteins but this doesn't mean non-immunogenic.

 

[joobz]

You are quickly tuning into a greedy version of Dilbert trying to make his way out of his cubicle into an office, maybe even with windows. You are trying to use this issue to advance your career. You work for a company that can make the kind of computers that can solve computational intensive problem like this. This issue already has huge amounts of interest but don’t expect any support from evolutionists now that they have a better understanding of what their model predicts. I’m content to drip on Adequate’s parade for now. If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

I proudly wear the badge of annoying creationist, annoyer of evolutionarians from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.

Why don’t you call my bluff Dilbert?

This doesn’t even qualify as a snack.

this is by far one of the most insane things you've done. Someone is actually willing to offer you a chance to prove your (insanely wrong) hypothesis. However, instead of taking that opportunity to prove yourself, you insult the person and belittle them.

As everyone said here. it either proves you as
1.) Incredibly lazy (as your cut and paste argument style suggests)
2.) Incredibly huge liar (as your perpetual need to missquote and deny facts suggest)
3.) pathologically insane (which all of the above suggest)

 

[delphi_ote]

I'd just like to point out the absurdity that creationists are now denying facts that have been directly observed in laboratories. For years, the argument out of that camp has been that evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. "Unless you can show me, how can you prove it happened?" Apparently, even a direct test isn't enough to convince them of something these days. Denial is a strong force, no?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

Computer time costs money. kjkent1's proposal was completely reasonable and your refusal says a lot about yourself. I thought about using some of time allocated to me in my research group's cluster to do it, but I won't offer it anymore. Why should anyone else?

kjkent1’s proposal is all about marketing his company’s computer system and using a politically charged issue to do it. So Unnamed, why would you want to run ev? All you will get out of doing this is mathematical evidence that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. Do you think Nucleic Acids Research will publish these results?

Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate.

If you say so. I was admittedly being sarcastic. However, my claim is far less "sloppy" than your claim of "mathematical proof against evolution." I've noticed you haven't provided it yet. We are still waiting.

Just think of your waiting for mathematical proof against the theory of evolution as waiting for ev to converge with a realistic mutation rate and realistic genome length.

Joobz are you ever going to run a single case with ev or are you going to make all your judgments with your superficial sound good to me type of analysis.

I have. Why do you think i haven't?

If you have run any more than the base line case with ev then you would realize what my “mathematical proof against evolution” is. Why don’t you post the results from your runs to counter my arguments?

I'd just like to point out the absurdity that creationists are now denying facts that have been directly observed in laboratories. For years, the argument out of that camp has been that evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. "Unless you can show me, how can you prove it happened?" Apparently, even a direct test isn't enough to convince them of something these days. Denial is a strong force, no?

Delphi, what are you doing? Have you become an advocate for intelligent design? Your reference is about scientists who intelligently redesigned an existing ligase. Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

 

[delphi_ote]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

And Delphi responds with the jpg:

Poor Delphi is complaining that I am moving the goal posts. However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. Since natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics, what selection pressure would lead to the formation of a self replicating ligase?

Delphi, perhaps you would give us a reference for a self-replicating molecule in any living thing.