Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Ignoring a slew of points that others have already addressed here, but...

How can you preclude that losing alleles can't lead to a new species?

I have only ignored a slew of speculations.

Evolutionarians believe that the most complicated molecules known can occur by random processes directed by this miraculous force of natural selection so why not create new species by the loss of information. If you are going to define new species by this mechanism, you probably should call this devolution.

In case you haven’t noticed, your arguments are becoming more and more illogical.

What are you recovering from anyway? Apparently you still need to recover from evolutionism. I’ll help you with this cure.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So you can't preclude it. Thanks.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So you can't preclude it. Thanks.

In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t try to preclude every speculation that comes across this forum. I have focused specifically on the mathematics of ev and the results it shows for random point mutation and natural selection. I will diverge slightly and discuss irreducible complexity and punctuated equilibrium because Dr Schneider raised these issues in his publication on ev.

Ev points out a serious mathematical defect in your theory of evolution. Rather than addressing this mathematical defect in your theory, you try to change the subject to what you feel does prove your theory. I have already acknowledged that there are superficial similarities in the genetic structures of different living things. The problem you evolutionarians have is that you have no way of mathematically explaining how these genomes can transform from one to another or how you could form the genes de novo that make up these genomes. These are more than gaps in your theory; ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection can not accomplish these tasks.

Don’t expect me to respond to every speculation raised on this forum. If you have a mathematical argument, I will attempt to respond.

 

[kjkent1]

Don’t expect me to respond to every speculation raised on this forum. If you have a mathematical argument, I will attempt to respond.

Please respond to my last post in this thread. If my understanding of the science involved is inaccurate, then feel free to educate me.

 

[hammegk]

...

Assuming such fusions are accidental and non-fatal, then this suggests that smaller portions of a genome could be slowly evolving as per the ev model, and then a fusion of material could carry that existing information towards a suddenly very different and unexpected future, which is not currently modeled by ev, and which might speed up the evolutionary process by the order of magnitude which you suggest is mathematically impossible.

Who could argue with all those 'what-ifs'?

... If you can't provide an immediate mathematically precise answer to explain how my above-proposed selection modification will effect ev’s performance, then you cannot conclude unequivocally that the problem with ev is not in the selection process – nor can you conclude that evolution is mathematically impossible.

We can agree no model exists including that effect(sfaik). Unfortunately, the question remains un-answered.

And, at least for me as I understand the situation, the efficacy of ev as a robust explanatory mechanism, particularly for macroev as seen in the fossil record, seems doubtful.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have already acknowledged that there are superficial similarities in the genetic structures of different living things.

One of us does not understand what the word superficial means. And I mean really doesn't understand.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Don’t expect me to respond to every speculation raised on this forum. If you have a mathematical argument, I will attempt to respond.

Please respond to my last post in this thread. If my understanding of the science involved is inaccurate, then feel free to educate me.

Your speculations generate more questions than answers. Consider this speculation your have made.

There is an apparent fusion in the human genome, of the still-separate 1st and 2nd chromosomes found in the modern troglodyte chimpanzee. Now, one could argue that this fusion is either by design or by accident, but let’s continue to steer clear of this issue.

The obvious first question is that if this evolutionary genetic event occurred, how is homology maintained between the first two members of the human line? If this fusion was purely accidental, you would have had to have the same fusion occur twice, once in a male and once in a female in order to maintain homology between the two genomes. You are now off and running down your speculation trail.

Why don’t you do some homework and pick up a genetics text and see what kind of genetic diseases are caused by fusion and translocation errors in the meiotic process? When you do, you will understand why I see your speculations as so illogical.

And, at least for me as I understand the situation, the efficacy of ev as a robust explanatory mechanism, particularly for macroev as seen in the fossil record, seems doubtful.

Hey, Dr Schneider used ev to predict the evolution of a human genome and the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research felt this was worthy of being published. So if you are going to argue the validity of ev for modeling macroevolution, take it up with the evolutionarians who wrote and published this model.

 

[kleinman]

I have already acknowledged that there are superficial similarities in the genetic structures of different living things.

One of us does not understand what the word superficial means. And I mean really doesn't understand.

Let me help you out with this Paul. There is a bit of similarity in the genetic landscape.

 

[kjkent1]

Your speculations generate more questions than answers. Consider this speculation your have made.

The obvious first question is that if this evolutionary genetic event occurred, how is homology maintained between the first two members of the human line? If this fusion was purely accidental, you would have had to have the same fusion occur twice, once in a male and once in a female in order to maintain homology between the two genomes. You are now off and running down your speculation trail.

Why don’t you do some homework and pick up a genetics text and see what kind of genetic diseases are caused by fusion and translocation errors in the meiotic process? When you do, you will understand why I see your speculations as so illogical..

You only responded to the first question in my post. Furthermore, I asked that we steer clear of the speculation of how the event took place, and just assume it for the sake of argument.

I will come back to this first issue, but please respond to the second question.

 

[cyborg]

If you are going to define new species by this mechanism, you probably should call this devolution.

Kleinman made a funny! Look, look, he so funny!

Apparently you still need to recover from evolutionism. I’ll help you with this cure.

What would that be, one bronze age myth taken twice daily?

 

[joobz]

Hey, Dr Schneider used ev to predict the evolution of a human genome and the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research felt this was worthy of being published. So if you are going to argue the validity of ev for modeling macroevolution, take it up with the evolutionarians who wrote and published this model.

Statements like these are what perlexes me most about you.
You've published. (twice) but still, you've published your work. You know what it means and you know what was approved in the publishing of the work. There is no claim that it models ALL of evolution. Yet you hide behind the guise of appealing to authority as though it supports your claim.

You know better than this. You've published. Therefore, We are back to the fact that you will just lie to prove you case.

 

[joobz]

Paul, if you paid closer attention to my arguments you would know that time is not the only barrier to macroevolution. I have also proposed that natural selection is also a barrier to macroevolution. Every microevolutionary step needed to accomplish the macroevolutionary process would have to provide a selective advantage to the creature.

And it does. That's the point. If it is causes harms to the organism, it dies and doesn't propogate that mutation.
eventually you'll understand this point, but for the time being I'll wait for you to continue your claims of impossible without any evidence.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Apparently you still need to recover from evolutionism. I’ll help you with this cure.

What would that be, one bronze age myth taken twice daily?

Oh no, this disease is much more serious, it requires a continuous infusion of the truth, something which evolutionarians are not used to.

 

[cyborg]

Oh no, this disease is much more serious, it requires a continuous infusion of the truth, something which evolutionarians are not used to.

Oh, and I suppose you have The Truth?

Why don't you just call us Falsites instead of ridiculously mangling the word 'evolution' then? It would encompass the full scale of how wrong we are about everything and how right you are about it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The obvious first question is that if this evolutionary genetic event occurred, how is homology maintained between the first two members of the human line? If this fusion was purely accidental, you would have had to have the same fusion occur twice, once in a male and once in a female in order to maintain homology between the two genomes. You are now off and running down your speculation trail.

Surely you don't think of that as really very speculative at all, do you? (or, shhh ... Przewalski's horse)

Why don’t you do some homework and pick up a genetics text and see what kind of genetic diseases are caused by fusion and translocation errors in the meiotic process? When you do, you will understand why I see your speculations as so illogical.

Hang on. Are you suggesting that this event did not actually occur? The extra telomere was just tossed in by the designer for jollies?

Hey, Dr Schneider used ev to predict the evolution of a human genome and the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research felt this was worthy of being published.

He did? Can you quote him?

Let me help you out with this Paul. There is a bit of similarity in the genetic landscape.

One of us does not understand what "a bit of" means.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

Kleinman made a funny! Look, look, he so funny!



What would that be, one bronze age myth taken twice daily?

That's hysterical. You probably need to wash it down with some holy water (which is regular water that you boil the hell out of).

Sometimes it seems like an intelligent designer put them here just to amuse us, doesn't it?

 

[articulett]

And it does. That's the point. If it is causes harms to the organism, it dies and doesn't propogate that mutation.
eventually you'll understand this point, but for the time being I'll wait for you to continue your claims of impossible without any evidence.

And his argument is actually weaker than that--because a "microevolution" event CAN get passed on just so long as it's not deleterious (reduces reproductive success)--moreso if it sorts with a beneficial allele (it sits next to a highly conserved gene such as a hox gene). And this neutral mutation becomes part of the "tool box" in the gene pool that might be used to benefit some organism in the future.

So a mutation doesn't even have to be beneficial to an organism--just so long as it's not detrimental--and this gives it the opportunity to become beneficial to some organism in the future. Genomes are being tweaked all the time and you never know which mutations (among the "survivers") will be beneficial nor when.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, look: "Hypothesis: First-Degree Inbreeding Facilitates Chromosomal Speciation"

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/11/hypothesis-first-degree-inbreeding.html

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

Sigh, it's as if you didn't read my prior post? Why do you still insist on redefining complexity as order? Do you understand the concept of complexity? Do you understand that you are not substituting an equivalent term when you use the word "order"?

Hewitt's argument does not depend on the difference between order and complexity.

Hewitt is not arguing that inanimate things have order, and animate things have complexity. Even without knowing what arcane definitions you are pretending to adhere to, I know that's just silly.

Your sheer inability to grasp Hewitt's point is, quite frankly, only slightly more astounding than your inability to grasp my point.

I have shown that order can arise from simple mechanics and energy - which proves that complexity can arise from simple mechanics and energy. The pedantic differences between order and complexity are simply irrelvant to the discussion at hand. Nobody cares - except for you, as a way to demonstrate your lofty superiority, and Hewitt, as a fig leaf to hide the nakedness of his argument behind.

If you would care to skip over your reading problems, and address the point directly, you could explain why the selection and accrual of ordered states is inadequate to produce complexity. Or, to phrase in the original terms: if granola can produce order from simple mechanics, why can't life?

 

[Yahzi]

I have stated previously that the informational difference between animate and inanimate is not order, it is complexity.

Are you saying that inanimate things cannot ever be complex?

Are you saying that life is defined by complexity? Does that mean the space shuttle is alive? Or the weather system?

I just argued to Matt that you couldn't possibly be arguing anything quite so silly. But then, I am always prepared to be proven wrong.

Dawkins, in the Selfish gene. This proposal is quite widely considered.

You're wrong.

Does the granola sort itself by chance? It's a simple question. Perhaps you could answer it. Does granola sort itself by chance?

If the answer is no, then you already understand that evolution does not work by chance. If the answer is yes, then you are dumber than a box of cereal.

Read Chance and necessity, by Monod

I'm not asking you to read a book to be educated... I am asking you to shake a box of granola.

No you can't reduce complex systems to fractals in that way.

Yes, you can.

When I talked about compression, I was talking about data compression, not about compressing physical objects.

Do you keep red herrings in your pockets, where they leap out upon your keyboard at uncontrollable intervals? Or do you just have severe reading comprehension problems?

Nobody, anywhere, at any point in this thread, for any reason, mentioned physically compressing objects. This concept did not exist in this thread until you introduced in the above sentence. I have no idea why you introduced it. I suspect you don't, either.

I am not sufficiently au fait with this topic to go into details. You will have to ask someone else for that.

Someone like... say... for instance...

me?

I would add that dv82matt seems to me a thoughtful and intelligent person. You should consider his comments carefully.

I can't tell if you're really that much of a suck-up, or if dv82matt is just a sock-puppet.