Annoying creationists

[Yahzi]

It is true that I cannot give you a precise definition of "complex".

But you can bust my chops over the precise difference between order and complexity?

 

[hammegk]

The ability/luck/whatever that terran bioactive stuff we call life has to correctly form chemical bonds of the correct chirality -- that choice being a 50/50 chance skaik-- an uncountable number of times in a row is one separator.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Cyborg, here are the four cardinal signs and symptoms that enable you to diagnosis evolutionism, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea. Evolutionarian also tend to be cranky and foul mouthed especially when someone co-opts evolutionarian attempts at mathematics and shows them the flaws in their belief system.

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?

Paul, you know this is one of my favorite quotes from Dr Schneider’s paper so I will again oblige you.

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.

Since we are already in the process of addressing worldwide populations and ev is calling into question whether this parameter would accelerate evolution sufficiently and sexual recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool, that leaves interspecies gene transfers. Since you are Dr Schneider’s coworker, perhaps you would explain to us what he means by interspecies gene transfers? I still think he should have included intergalactic gene transfers as well.

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.

Let’s see, random point mutations and natural selection represents a bit of the evolutionary landscape and there is a bit of similarity in the genetic landscape. Hmmm.

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, here are the four cardinal signs and symptoms that enable you to diagnosis evolutionism, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.

So when am I get the mathematics of Jesus? Come on Kleinman, you're not even trying. If you will waste your time trying to debunk a false theory then you'll never have the time to elevate the truth now will you?

Evolutionarian also tend to be cranky and foul mouthed

No, f-ck nut, I tend to be cranky and foul mouthed. How dare you devalue me by assuming everyone else shares these awesome qualities automagically.

especially when someone co-opts evolutionarian attempts at mathematics and shows them the flaws in their belief system.

Well if it's a belief system then mathematics can go to hell.

STEP OFF MY FAITH OR BE CRUSHED HEATHEN.

Dumbass.

You should stick to working with probabilities greater than 1.

 

[hammegk]

No, f-ck nut, I tend to be cranky and foul mouthed.

True. And that and the off-topic gibberish on computer hardware you sometimes post are so far your most endearing qualities.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Cyborg, here are the four cardinal signs and symptoms that enable you to diagnosis evolutionism, speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.

So when am I get the mathematics of Jesus? Come on Kleinman, you're not even trying. If you will waste your time trying to debunk a false theory then you'll never have the time to elevate the truth now will you?

How do you know if you are not already getting the mathematics of Jesus? Don’t you remember when you said?

This is some serious ****! Souls are at stake here - right kleinman?

Evolutionarian also tend to be cranky and foul mouthed.

No, f-ck nut, I tend to be cranky and foul mouthed. How dare you devalue me by assuming everyone else shares these awesome qualities automagically.

Quick, nurse this is a critical case of evolutionism. Start a large bore iv and infuse 10 million units of truth stat.

especially when someone co-opts evolutionarian attempts at mathematics and shows them the flaws in their belief system.

Well if it's a belief system then mathematics can go to hell.

STEP OFF MY FAITH OR BE CRUSHED HEATHEN.

Dumbass.

You should stick to working with probabilities greater than 1.

Cyborg, your have moved up on my list as number two or three favorite annoyees, but you need to know that I have no interest in crushing you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, Dr Schneider used ev to predict the evolution of a human genome ...

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.

Oh, that quote.

Since we are already in the process of addressing worldwide populations and ev is calling into question whether this parameter would accelerate evolution sufficiently and sexual recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool, that leaves interspecies gene transfers.

Sexual recombination without error? What fantasy world does that occur in?

Since you are Dr Schneider’s coworker, perhaps you would explain to us what he means by interspecies gene transfers?

I think he means something like this:

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

Let’s see, random point mutations and natural selection represents a bit of the evolutionary landscape and there is a bit of similarity in the genetic landscape. Hmmm.

A bit of similarity in the genetic landscape? I still think we have a different definition of "a bit."

How do you know if you are not already getting the mathematics of Jesus?

And a different definition of mathematics.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kleinman, would it be helpful if I stipulate that a complete lack of change (error) in the reproduction of genomes would, indeed, disallow an increase in information? Cuz, like, I'm happy to do that.

~~ Paul

 

[cyborg]

How do you know if you are not already getting the mathematics of Jesus? Don’t you remember when you said?

You didn't answer the question.

Quick, nurse this is a critical case of evolutionism. Start a large bore iv and infuse 10 million units of truth stat.

Now you're getting it Kleinman.

I have no interest in crushing you.

Good. You know not to bother where you can't succeed in one area at least. Now you just need to realise your abject failures elsewhere.

 

[cyborg]

True. And that and the off-topic gibberish on computer hardware you sometimes post are so far your most endearing qualities.

Yeah, off-topic. That's it. Only other people are allowed to post computer hardware gibberish - or at least if you like it it's not gibberish. It's your kind of gibberish.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sexual recombination without error? What fantasy world does that occur in?

Don't be bitter. Surely you don't regret all of your ex'es.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Since we are already in the process of addressing worldwide populations and ev is calling into question whether this parameter would accelerate evolution sufficiently and sexual recombination without error can not increase information in the gene pool, that leaves interspecies gene transfers.

Sexual recombination without error? What fantasy world does that occur in?

So you think that recombination errors are your solution to your mathematical dilemma. Do you think that recombination errors and natural selection won’t be subject to the same 4^G increase in the search space that random point mutation and natural selection is subject to? What fantasy world does that occur in?

Since you are Dr Schneider’s coworker, perhaps you would explain to us what he means by interspecies gene transfers?

I think he means something like this:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...nbreeding.html

[/quote]
Have you run out of your own speculations so soon that you now have to post URLs with other evolutionarian speculations? Tell us what you think these interspecies gene transfers are? Do you think it was interspecies gene transfers that caused the evolution of the human species from its primate ancestor?

Let’s see, random point mutations and natural selection represents a bit of the evolutionary landscape and there is a bit of similarity in the genetic landscape. Hmmm.

A bit of similarity in the genetic landscape? I still think we have a different definition of "a bit."

Well, we can file this next to our definitions for species and macro/microevolution.

How do you know if you are not already getting the mathematics of Jesus?

And a different definition of mathematics.

I think you should read the Bible; you would be surprised at how much Jesus Christ talks about mathematics.

Kleinman, would it be helpful if I stipulate that a complete lack of change (error) in the reproduction of genomes would, indeed, disallow an increase in information? Cuz, like, I'm happy to do that.

I don’t know if you would get complete agreement with other evolutionarians. Munch_e_cracker on the EvolutionisDead forum postulated that recombination without error might affect the way a gene could be expressed. Whether this represents an increase in information in the Shannon sense, I don’t know. However, if I were trying to defend the evolutionarian position, I would not abandon any version of gene modification whether it is considered a normal biological process or an error in a biological process in order to try an explain macroevolution. I happen to think this is one of the better speculations for the theory of evolution. In this case, you don’t need new genes; you only need to alter the way existing genes are expressed in order to get new species. I see many problems in this concept but that is a discussion for another thread.

If you are asking me to stipulate to the DNA replicase system making a perfect duplicate of a genome disallows an increase in information, that’s ok with me.

 

[articulett]

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?

He can't due to mind blindness-- http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html

They do (see ice fish example above).

 

[articulett]

So when am I get the mathematics of Jesus? Come on Kleinman, you're not even trying. If you will waste your time trying to debunk a false theory then you'll never have the time to elevate the truth now will you?



No, f-ck nut, I tend to be cranky and foul mouthed. How dare you devalue me by assuming everyone else shares these awesome qualities automagically.

Well if it's a belief system then mathematics can go to hell.

STEP OFF MY FAITH OR BE CRUSHED HEATHEN.

Dumbass.

You should stick to working with probabilities greater than 1.

I didn't know we could say dumbass. (jots note to self: "dumbass-- A-OK")

And, not to sound self important--but I also share the awesome qualities, just not as amusingly--but still...

 

[joobz]

Over the past 10+pages, many of us have presented new data, new information. Supporting evidence that evolution fits our world view. That evolution explains things well. It isn't perfect, there are holes, but it does the best job.

During these same pages, Kleinman has presented the same wrong evidence over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm going to side with the facts. Let me know, when Kleinman starts to present some.

 

[articulett]

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

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

~~ Paul

That was a great article Paul--and it makes sense...especially in speciation such as between us and the apes where fusions or translocations occur--close relatives are likely to share the same freaky gene mutation. On occasion, this is just what a new species needs to get a jump start, plus, as the article indicates, it weeds out those pesky recessive alleles that might lead to problems later. Sure, it's not flattering of thinking of oneself begat via incest, but it must be true--such is the case for each and every individual on the tree of life once sexual reproduction took off--

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

During these same pages, Kleinman has presented the same wrong evidence over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Were those stutter errors or deletion errors?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you think that recombination errors are your solution to your mathematical dilemma. Do you think that recombination errors and natural selection won’t be subject to the same 4^G increase in the search space that random point mutation and natural selection is subject to?

But you see, Alan, it is the recombination errors (among others) that result in the increase in the size of the genome. The enlarged genome is not random to begin with, so your 4^G search problem is even more irrelevant than it already was.

Have you run out of your own speculations so soon that you now have to post URLs with other evolutionarian speculations? Tell us what you think these interspecies gene transfers are? Do you think it was interspecies gene transfers that caused the evolution of the human species from its primate ancestor?

So we are criticized for speculating, and criticized when we don't speculate. I'll make a deal with you: If you will post one coherent paragraph about what you think is going on, then I will post a paragraph about interspecies gene transfers.

I don’t know if you would get complete agreement with other evolutionarians. Munch_e_cracker on the EvolutionisDead forum postulated that recombination without error might affect the way a gene could be expressed. Whether this represents an increase in information in the Shannon sense, I don’t know.

I don't know what he's talking about.

If you are asking me to stipulate to the DNA replicase system making a perfect duplicate of a genome disallows an increase in information, that’s ok with me.

It there were no mechanisms for change at all, so that every creature were a perfect copy of its parent(s), then evolution would not exist.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So you think that recombination errors are your solution to your mathematical dilemma. Do you think that recombination errors and natural selection won’t be subject to the same 4^G increase in the search space that random point mutation and natural selection is subject to?

But you see, Alan, it is the recombination errors (among others) that result in the increase in the size of the genome. The enlarged genome is not random to begin with, so your 4^G search problem is even more irrelevant than it already was.

So that’s the fantasy world your theory resides in. You should pay more attention to the way ev converges. As ev gets closer and closer to the perfect creature, the rate of convergence becomes slower and slower. Those nonrandom portions of the newly lengthen genome due to the recombination errors still have to be transformed into new functional genes, unless you are proposing that those new nonrandom portions are already the new functional genes. In addition, this still doesn’t solve your problem of the de novo evolution of genes.

Have you run out of your own speculations so soon that you now have to post URLs with other evolutionarian speculations? Tell us what you think these interspecies gene transfers are? Do you think it was interspecies gene transfers that caused the evolution of the human species from its primate ancestor?

So we are criticized for speculating, and criticized when we don't speculate. I'll make a deal with you: If you will post one coherent paragraph about what you think is going on, then I will post a paragraph about interspecies gene transfers.

That’s not quite the point that I am trying to make. What I am saying is that I am not willing to reply to every evolutionarian speculation that is posted on this thread. That includes ones that are posted in person and ones posted in the form of URLs. If you think you can make an argument from something you have read on a web site, distill down what you have read and put it in your words to make your point.

If you want a jump start on interspecies gene transfers, I can think of several possibilities. You can have interspecies gene transfers by viruses and phages to a host. You may also be able to have an interspecies gene transfer by some form of phagocytosis of genetic material that is somehow incorporated into the host cell. Another possible mechanism for interspecies gene transfer would be for nonhomologous life forms having successful recombination.

I don’t know if you would get complete agreement with other evolutionarians. Munch_e_cracker on the EvolutionisDead forum postulated that recombination without error might affect the way a gene could be expressed. Whether this represents an increase in information in the Shannon sense, I don’t know.

I don't know what he's talking about.

I think what munch_e_cracker was trying to say is that the development of a creature is dependent on how genes are expressed. For example if the gene(s) that controls the production of growth hormone are somehow selected by recombination to produce more growth hormone, you would get larger organisms without evolving any new genes.

If you are asking me to stipulate to the DNA replicase system making a perfect duplicate of a genome disallows an increase in information, that’s ok with me.

It there were no mechanisms for change at all, so that every creature were a perfect copy of its parent(s), then evolution would not exist.

Recombination (without error) and natural selection is clearly a mechanism for change, and a rapid mechanism for change at that. It is this phenomenon which I think has misled evolutionarians to believe that mutations and natural selection could also occur rapidly.

 

[kjkent1]

Paul, as moderator, would you please clarify the purpose of this thread. Did you set this forum up so that kleinman would have a single locale within which you and he could continue to argue about ev, or were you hoping to brainstorm about methods of refining Dr. Schneider's model or both or something else or what?