Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

... there is no such dividing line between alive and unalive--between conscious and unconscious...between awareness and lack thereof. It's a continuum.

You finally typed something worthwhile. It's too bad you don't understand what it means.

 

[cyborg]

You finally typed something worthwhile.

Maybe you will too one day.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, that's what causes the problem ... unless you'd like to contend that 99.99=100.


In this case, you are wrong; but keep trying ... you may eventually get it.

Yes, maybe someday we'll all be as smart as you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I opened the 8 December issue of Science and what did I find? An article by Martin Nowak titled "Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation." The final sentence:

Thus, we might add "natural cooperation" as a third fundamental principle of evolution beside mutation and natural selection.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

The problem with understanding the origin of life is not that of understanding the orgin of inanimate order but that of biological complexity.

What's the difference?

Life is made out of inanimate substances, arranged in a particular order. Indeed, the sole difference between inanimacy and life is the order in which the materials are arranged.

I am sorry you are unable to understand that distinction.

I am sorry you are unaware that vitalism is really, really out of date.

I repeat that what I would like is a dialogue directed to the topic. I think you just engage in ad hominems all the time.

It's not ad hominem; it's an insult. I did not assert that your arguments were worthless because you were stupid; I concluded that you were stupid because your arguments are worthless.

I offered you a rational discourse; I presented my case with flair and clarity. I demonstrated that your use of the word "chance" was wholly inappropriate. Your response was to assert that there is some magical difference between biological order and chemical order, while insinuating that I was too stupid to respond to. This is a case of both "ad hominen" and "moving the goal posts."

 

[John Hewitt]

Yahtzi's point was merely that you are purposely and artificially making a difference between that which we call alive and that which is not

I note that you and Yahzi feel there is no difference between alive and not alive.

 

[John Hewitt]

When I search around, I seem to find a more varied selection of experiments.

So what's your first step in discovering the selection pressures that you're talking about?

~~ Paul

So do I, I was just quoting the most popular. I begin with data, the data flow from the sun. It might be best if you read what I wrote.

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm

and subsequent files, which include a review of the main existing ideas.

 

[hammegk]

Maybe you will too one day.

I'll keep watching to see if you ever understand my point. If you do, I'll probably be wrong.

Yes, maybe someday we'll all be as smart as you.

If you care to live as though 0.01=0.00 go right ahead.


Thanks for playing, though.

 

[kjkent1]

I'll keep watching to see if you ever understand my point. If you do, I'll probably be wrong.


If you care to live as though 0.01=0.00 go right ahead.


Thanks for playing, though.

Hello, Z.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You all have been very busy this weekend.

I think you are going to find that back peddling on your extrapolation of 200,000,000 generations to evolve 16 binding sites, 6 bases wide on a 100k genome with a mutation rate of 10^-6 and a population of a million is one of your few fairly accurate extrapolations and now you are retracting it.

Actually, it's an absurd extrapolation, although you like it because "ooh, it's a long time and I want evolution to take a long time."

The Rfrequency for that experiment is 13, while the Rcapacity is 12. It is quite unlikely ever to evolve a perfect creature. Either I did not notice the Rcapacity problem or I made that extrapolation before I understood Rcapacity.

You have one criterion for liking an extrapolation: It makes evolution take a long time. Of course, in other circumstances you renounce extrapolation completely. Well, here's a case where you, unlike me, could have done your homework and noted the absurdity.

That’s why I posted your series with Rcapacity of 16 which gives about the same number of generations to evolve a perfect creature. There is a small gain in doing this for the evolutionarian argument, instead of evolving only 96 loci; you are evolving 128 loci on the 100k genome. Perhaps next month you will post the data which shows how absurd these extrapolations are but I doubt it.

I have two criterions for liking an extrapolation, one is that it makes evolution take a long time and the other is that it annoys evolutionarians.

I thought ev was part of that. Maybe I am mistaken, but so far Paul has demonstrated that there is a definite parameter space within which a binding site could evolve. Meaning that as genome sizes increase, point mutations alone cannot effectively generate a wholly new binding site.

Well stated.

There doesn't seem to be a lack of evidence for evolution just a lack in putting it all together. If there was a viable contrary theory that could experimentally support all existing evidence, I would be very interested in hearing it. But ID doesn't attempt to explain any of the known data mechanistically, which makes it impossible to test and rather worthless as a counterhypothesis.

There also wasn’t a lack of evidence for the flat earth theory; however that evidence was overwhelmed by further discoveries.

Umm, yes, I'd also state 'Worthless Is As Worthless Does' is a fair charcterization the Mod. Ev. Th., today's version.

This is an unfair characterization. Modern theory has provided us the ability to predict Flu vacination effectiveness as a function of evolving mutations(see the work of Michael Deem).
ID has provided us with undue legal issues.

The field of immunology advances despite the theory of evolution, not because of the theory of evolution. Stop trying to teach grade school children the theory of evolution is truth and I think most evolutionarian legal problems would disappear.

Alternatively, Modern theory trumpets the Fact of (Mendelian) modification with descent and with great fanfare and arm-waving pretends all of the Theory has equal basis in fact.

Fair enough. Which aspects of the Theory are you most in doubt of? Specifically, which aspects of the Theory (that is taken as undoubted fact) do you consider unscientific?

It’s the mathematics joobz, the theory does not add up.

If not by evolution, then by what process which satisfies the rigorous mathematical basis which you apparently require, have the myriad of past and present lifeforms come to exist on Earth? State your hypothesis and supporting mathematics.

I have made no scientific claims to origins of life and explanation for all the different life forms we observe. It is you evolutionarians that claim you have the scientific explanation for these observations. I am showing how unscientific your explanations are and that your views are simply another faith and belief system without scientific basis despite all your claims.

If you make no scientific claims, then the alternative is that life is the product of magic, right? If that’s what you believe, then you should have the courage to state it, so that no one can mistake your position.

You decry all existing scientific investigations, you offer no other scientific hypotheses, and as an alternative, you offer nothing.

Something from nothing = magic.

I think you’ve been living out in Clovis for too long.

Don’t confuse that I am not making any scientific claims about the origin of life with a claim that it occurs by magic. Neither have I decried any scientific investigations we have been discussing. On numerous occasions I have applauded Dr Schneider’s work in developing ev. I am only critical of the superficial analysis he did with his model but I believe he did a good job applying the fundamental theories involved.

I haven’t lived in Clovis for years but now you can easily verify my medical credentials. With that piece of information and the title and publisher of my PhD thesis you can verify my engineering credentials. You are really trying to find the exit to your cubicle.

As I said before, evolutionary theory should be based on data not genes. Genes should not be considered as the fundamental unit of selection but as formatting some of the data in DNA. If data is recognised as the fundamental basis for evolution then one must also recognise other forms of data as legitimate inputs into evolutionary selection. These would include the prebiotic data, sensory data and social data that encode those levels of knowledge.

John, a synonym for the word “data” is the word “information”. I believe in order to take this discussion into the hard scientific arena, you must define your data (information) in a way which can be quantified and then apply accepted mathematical rules to this data and see whether the theory can be supported. In addition, the concept of evolutionary selection needs to be accurately defined and quantified in order to apply mathematical rules to test its validity. Dr Schneider did both of these things with his ev model.

Who can define god? I can't. You may choose to (or be forced to) as the case may be.

Why do you interject God into a scientific discussion? You're smart enough to know that God is not measurable via any scientific methodology, so how is God relevant, except as a distraction?

Hammegk wasn’t the only one to interject God into a scientific discussion. You did this yourself when you said:

I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

You can not aggressively challenge the theory of evolution without having evolutionarians accusing the opposition of being religious fanatics.

... there is no such dividing line between alive and unalive--between conscious and unconscious...between awareness and lack thereof. It's a continuum.

Don’t you know that we live in a quantized world?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have two criterions for liking an extrapolation, one is that it makes evolution take a long time and the other is that it annoys evolutionarians.

I stand corrected.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

I note that you and Yahzi feel there is no difference between alive and not alive.

Um.

It's not just me and Articulett.

It's the entire scientific establishment.

Vitalism is dead, dude.

Perhaps the rest of the people in this thread could explicitly state whether they endorse the vitalist principle or not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'll keep watching to see if you ever understand my point. If you do, I'll probably be wrong.


If you care to live as though 0.01=0.00 go right ahead.


Thanks for playing, though.

You may read the following as an ad hominem if you like, but it is not intended as such. It is simply an honest appraisal of your forum behavior based on my observations.

When it comes right down to it you're not much different from Lifegazer. Your motive for participation in this forum seems to be little more than ego-masturbation. I've noticed that you are deliberately vague about your own position while demanding others define their's with great precision. I suspect this is because you are simply a troll who wishes to belittle others intellect (and imply the superiority of your own) without having to defend your own dubious position. If this game amuses you you are welcome to it. I'm sure there will always be those who will be willing to play it with you. I, however, find it puerile and boring. Have a nice life.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, a synonym for the word “data” is the word “information”. I believe in order to take this discussion into the hard scientific arena, you must define your data (information) in a way which can be quantified and then apply accepted mathematical rules to this data and see whether the theory can be supported. In addition, the concept of evolutionary selection needs to be accurately defined and quantified in order to apply mathematical rules to test its validity. Dr Schneider did both of these things with his ev model.

Data and information are no longer synonymous. Information is "interpreted data," or that is the definition taught in schools. However, you are correct in implying that a great many people treat them as synonymous and they were indeed so treated in Shannon's day. It would certainly help to define selection rigidly and treat it quantitatively but I think that is easier to say than do. It would be much easier in computer simulations than in models that attempt to mimic the real world.

 

[John Hewitt]

Um.

It's not just me and Articulett.

It's the entire scientific establishment.

Vitalism is dead, dude.

Perhaps the rest of the people in this thread could explicitly state whether they endorse the vitalist principle or not.

I, like most people, believe that living things are subject to the laws of chemistry and physics but that does not mean or even imply that there is no difference between alive and dead.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I note that you and Yahzi feel there is no difference between alive and not alive.

Um.

It's not just me and Articulett.

It's the entire scientific establishment.

Vitalism is dead, dude.

Perhaps the rest of the people in this thread could explicitly state whether they endorse the vitalist principle or not.

Yahzi, I guess the medical, legal and insurance community has not been informed of this scientific breakthrough. If you like, when you die, I’ll fill out your death certificate and under cause of death, I’ll put “Not dead, rapidly devolving”.

Calling someone “dude” really dates you. You aren’t a 60’s hippie are you? If you have any hair left, do you still wear a head band? The theory of evolution is really a bad trip man, heavy dude, heavy.

John, a synonym for the word “data” is the word “information”. I believe in order to take this discussion into the hard scientific arena, you must define your data (information) in a way which can be quantified and then apply accepted mathematical rules to this data and see whether the theory can be supported. In addition, the concept of evolutionary selection needs to be accurately defined and quantified in order to apply mathematical rules to test its validity. Dr Schneider did both of these things with his ev model.

Data and information are no longer synonymous. Information is "interpreted data," or that is the definition taught in schools. However, you are correct in implying that a great many people treat them as synonymous and they were indeed so treated in Shannon's day. It would certainly help to define selection rigidly and treat it quantitatively but I think that is easier to say than do. It would be much easier in computer simulations than in models that attempt to mimic the real world.

If you want to engage in a scientific discussion on this topic, you have to come up with a workable definition that people can agree on. I think I see the distinction you are making between the words “data” and “information”. For example data could be the measured state of a system while the degree of order of the data would represent the information content.

If selection is as powerful as to be able to organize atoms and molecules to create the genetic molecules and proteins necessary for life and then evolve these complex molecules to the life forms we observe today you should be able to mathematically model such a profound force. Dr Schneider’s use of a binding protein (weight matrix) which imposes a very stringent selection process yet is still profoundly slow in evolving binding sites.

 

[hammegk]

You may read the following as an ad hominem if you like ....

Nah, I read it as useless psycobabble posted by a useless nobody.

Have a nice life.

I do, thanks.

 

[kjkent1]

Don’t confuse that I am not making any scientific claims about the origin of life with a claim that it occurs by magic.

Why not? You refuse to state your hypothesis. If not by magic and not by evolution, then by what? Either life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions or it's the product of some supernatural force.

And, if you have developed some third alternative, then tell us all what it is.Otherwise, I will assume that you are just dodging the issue, so you don't have to reveal that you do indeed believe in magic. Which is juvenile.

Neither have I decried any scientific investigations we have been discussing. On numerous occasions I have applauded Dr Schneider’s work in developing ev. I am only critical of the superficial analysis he did with his model but I believe he did a good job applying the fundamental theories involved.

You have yet to answer his three responses posted on his blog. You won't model anything further to see if it affects the outcome of EV. You're content to merely pound on your one point as if it is self evident that no selection mechanism, other than the artificial mechanism found in EV, has any effect on information gain.

Schneider doesn't think it's self evident. So if you actually respect him, then prove he's wrong. Until you do, you're just demanding that the evolutionary proponents exclude all possible alternatives to God, before you will concede that God is not the cause. Also juvenile.

I haven’t lived in Clovis for years but now you can easily verify my medical credentials. With that piece of information and the title and publisher of my PhD thesis you can verify my engineering credentials. You are really trying to find the exit to your cubicle.

I just needed to identify your county of residence. Thanks for making it so easy, by taking the bait and admitting you're licensed to practice in California. Doubtless your PO Box is located in the same county.

As for the exit to my cubical, I know where that is, too.

Hammegk wasn’t the only one to interject God into a scientific discussion. You did this yourself...

Your statement demonstrates your disingenuousness. You're smart enough to know that I only raised the God issue to question why someone else would raise it. So, what you're really doing is nothing more than juvenile baiting. Try to stick to what you know, and leave sarcasm to the professional comedians.

 

[I less than three logic]

Nah, I read it as useless psycobabble posted by a useless nobody.

So you're saying it reads the same as most of your posts.

 

[hammegk]

So you're saying it reads the same as most of your posts.

Actually, no I didn't.

Sorry your ability to comprehend failed you. Happen often?