Annoying creationists

[VonNeumann]

Who are the 'annoying creationists'?

Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'randomness'?
or
Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'design'?

 

[Senor_Pointy]

Who are the 'annoying creationists'?

Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'randomness'?
or
Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'design'?

Either. With the not-annoying people being those who understand the difference between "chance" and "natural selection." (Or just selection in general)

 

[Yahzi]

Who are the 'annoying creationists'?

The ones who refuse to have an honest discussion.

Nothing wrong with having a different point of view. Present your evidence and let's talk about it. But once we've shown why your argument fails, either shut up, or come up with something new. Otherwise prepare to face the opprobrium of being branded... annoying!

 

[articulett]

I think it's so cool that Paul puts up a post called "annoying creationists"--and they flock to it like moths to a flame...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Imagine a world in which the Creationists stop using the stupid, busted, debunked, ridiculous canard "evolution is random." Ah, sweet bliss. We could take the conversation to a whole new level!

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

In addition, you have no selection mechanism that would select for a gene de novo no matter what your mechanism of mutation is.

If by "gene" you mean "DNA-encoded gene found in modern life," then I suspect you are right. If you mean anything even vaguely resembling the concept of a gene, then you're just being funny.

What color paint would you like for this corner you are painting yourself into?

So you are proposing that these protospecies in this primordial soup were assembling some type of molecules (RNA strands from RNA bases?) with some type of protoselection process making some type of self replicating protogenes. Now that is protofunny.

Who are the 'annoying creationists'?

Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'randomness'?
or
Those who believe in the supernatural creative power of 'design'?

Or c) None of the above

I think it's so cool that Paul puts up a post called "annoying creationists"--and they flock to it like moths to a flame...

Shouldn’t that be “flock to it like a moth to a flame”?

Imagine a world in which the Creationists stop using the stupid, busted, debunked, ridiculous canard "evolution is random." Ah, sweet bliss. We could take the conversation to a whole new level!

Now what’s your problem? Are you tired of talking about the mathematics of ev? Or should I say the protomathematics of ev? Maybe what we have been having here is a protoconversation about the protoevolutionary theory?

Glad you survived New Year’s Eve.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you are proposing that these protospecies in this primordial soup were assembling some type of molecules (RNA strands from RNA bases?) with some type of protoselection process making some type of self replicating protogenes. Now that is protofunny.

Protospecies: Indeed, I don't know how to define species way back at the beginning of life. Do you?

Protoselection process: You don't need the prefix proto- here. Selection is selection.

Protogenes: Be careful. A gene is DNA coding for a protein. I'm not sure what the original gene-like molecules were. Are you?

The point is quite simple: You're talking out of your arse when you say "you have no selection mechanism that would select for a gene de novo."

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So you are proposing that these protospecies in this primordial soup were assembling some type of molecules (RNA strands from RNA bases?) with some type of protoselection process making some type of self replicating protogenes. Now that is protofunny.

Protospecies: Indeed, I don't know how to define species way back at the beginning of life. Do you?

Hey, you evolutionarians can’t define a species so you make up a term protospecies. So why don’t you give us a protodefinition for that term.

Protoselection process: You don't need the prefix proto- here. Selection is selection.

Protoselection-smotoselection, you don’t have any selection process in your protosoup.

Protogenes: Be careful. A gene is DNA coding for a protein. I'm not sure what the original gene-like molecules were. Are you?

You sure protogenes don’t code for protoproteins? The reason why you and I are not sure what the original gene-like molecules were is that there is no evidence for these protomolecules, but don’t let that get in the way of your belief system, it just doesn’t have any scientific basis.

The point is quite simple: You're talking out of your arse when you say "you have no selection mechanism that would select for a gene de novo."

Oh, so you are finally going to tell us what this magical selection process is that allows for evolution of genes de novo?

The point of this thread is that your own computer model shows that your own theory is mathematically impossible and you would rather talk about anything else besides what your model shows. Even with your artificial selection process in your model, you still can’t get rapid enough convergence to support your theory and you can’t tell us what your real selection process is that would evolve genes de novo. Your own computer model reveals the mush of the theory of evolution.

Speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea

 

[articulett]

So you are proposing that these protospecies in this primordial soup were assembling some type of molecules (RNA strands from RNA bases?) with some type of protoselection process making some type of self replicating protogenes. Now that is protofunny.

Shouldn’t that be “flock to it like a moth to a flame”?

Now what’s your problem? Are you tired of talking about the mathematics of ev? Or should I say the protomathematics of ev? Maybe what we have been having here is a protoconversation about the protoevolutionary theory?

A moth (singular)...doesn't "flock". "Moths" is plural: "Creationists" is plural. Kleinmann, Hewitt, VonNeumann and Hammegk are people (though I use the term loosely in case of hammy). "people" is plural.

Now that I think of it, I'm not sure moths "flock" (technically), but flames do flicker--kinda' like the photons on a computer screen...where creationists flock.

By the way...speaking of protogenes--you do remember a bit about molecules and compounds form, right--how water is comprised of 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen via a molecular bond? Ice has the same ingredients different bond. The planets we know of have a nice sort of spherical shape to them...remember that there does not anyone running things for atoms to create "stuff"--big stuff like planets and little stuff like amino acids. If you have the elements interacting with energy via a star and an environment that affects "stuff"--you can get things like water and "stuff" that grows in water--

You should see the cool stuff that they are finding in the depths of the ocean. Did you hear about the shark that walks on it's fins? The little hairy lobsteresque thing? There is a lot of weird stuff down there.
See:
http://zaxy.wordpress.com/
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2006/2006-12-11-01.asp

but we just recently discovered atoms and DNA, plus were just now getting our first peek at what's down there, but, rest assured, we already know there are tons of "proto" life in the ocean. See! http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
And check this out: http://www.physorg.com/news85857909.html
Heck, we just figured out that we are breathing life all the time: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59473

Oh, check this babe: http://rstours.com/html/gal_rosy_lipped.html

That shall be my next avatar, I think.

Instead of worrying about numbers of moths and math problems, you should get out more. Look at what you are missing. There are life forms going up your nose as you read this.

 

[articulett]

OH...and check out the pygmy elephants--just precious: http://zaxy.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/miniature-elephants-are-a-separate-and-unique-species/

You guys are missing the good stuff--all because you have purposely chosen not to understand evolution. And you live in a time when we can know stuff our ancestors would have died to know.

Bronze age texts are bad places to get scientific info. But it's probably too late to expect any kind of conversion, eh?

Ah well, appreciating what you guys miss, helps me savor the info. all the more.

 

[joobz]

The point of this thread is that your own computer model shows that your own theory is mathematically impossible and you would rather talk about anything else besides what your model shows. Even with your artificial selection process in your model, you still can’t get rapid enough convergence to support your theory and you can’t tell us what your real selection process is that would evolve genes de novo. Your own computer model reveals the mush of the theory of evolution.

It is almost sad to see you holding so tight to something so wrong. It's like watching a friend hold tight to a relationship that is over and he refuses to accept it.
"Dude, she's just not into you."

"Dude, the facts are just not with you."

 

[articulett]

It is almost sad to see you holding so tight to something so wrong. It's like watching a friend hold tight to a relationship that is over and he refuses to accept it.
"Dude, she's just not into you."

"Dude, the facts are just not with you."

Reality wants nothing to do with you either, Kleinman.
Even patience is get antsy...

Shoot--here's some old news and it will mean yet another factor in your calculations that will have to be included. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021202071449.htm

Gosh, with all this new info. coming out every day do you think it's really possible to calculate what the divisions over how many eons it took to get what we see? Why not just look at what we see and presume that however it happened--it did...and the radiometric dating is telling us over which time period. Come now...you, too, can live in the 21st century with the rest of us.

 

[articulett]

worms--another creationist conundrum...
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/ppages/jmiddelburg/downloads/1/Meysman_tree.pdf

 

[Kotatsu]

Ah, so you're not including those other mutations as point mutations. Therefore your strange idea that just single-point substitutions are the cornerstone of evolution has no basis in reality. No one else thinks that. You do have your own personal mushy soft theory of evolution. I was calling it KTPMNS, but perhaps I'll call it KOPMSTE.

I have an exam tomorrow and thus will do anything to get my mind of those horrible books for a while. Therefore, I started thinking about how similar this new term you use for Kleinman's theory is to the word "compost", and --- while I am not entirely satisfied with the results, especially the need to have a capital "O" in one place, but not in another, in order for it to work --- I suggest an alternative term to be KOMPOSTE (1), which is easier to pronounce than both KTPMNS and KOPMSTE, and, by coincindence also gives a pretty good idea about the contents and quality of the theory without knowing the meaning of any of the words in the title.

I shall now go back to reading too many course books in too little time. Please do not assume that getting rid of the "it seems you haven't posted here in a while"-message in any way motivated the writing of this message.

---
(1) Which natutally means "Kleinman's Own Mindless Pretentions Of Smashing the Theory of Evolution".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

KOMPOSTE it is, Kotatsu. Excellent acronym.

Now get back to work, you lazy acronymizer!

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I though it worthwhile to review and discuss why mathematics is so important to this discussion of the theory of evolution. I believe there are two central mechanisms that are used to support the theory of evolution and the mathematical behavior of these two mechanisms are being confused. Those two mechanisms are sexual recombination and natural selection and mutation (of any type) and natural selection. Recombination is not an error type mechanism whereas mutations are an error type mechanism. The mathematics of these two mechanisms are entirely different.

Recombination and natural selection consists of the selection of advantageous alleles from a pool of perhaps a few hundred alleles for a particular gene while mutation and natural selection consists of the selection of advantageous mutations from a pool that is the size of the population.

Again, consider the example of dog breeding. If dog breeding has been occurring for the past 10,000 years and the generation time for dogs is 1 year, you would have 10,000 generations to accomplish the wide spread diversity of the different breeds of dogs. This includes wide spread variation in numerous different properties of the different breeds all accomplished a small number of generations.

Now consider mutation and natural selection. Ev demonstrates the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. Unlike recombination and natural selection which can accomplish huge changes in a small number of generations, this particular form of evolutionary process requires billions of generations (if not more) to accomplish a very small change in a same size genome.

What I believe Darwin, Gould and other evolutionists have done is confuse the mathematical behavior of recombination and natural selection with the mathematical behavior of mutations and natural selection. Recombination and natural selection can bring about rapid microevolutionary changes but has never been shown to be able to accomplish a macroevolutionary change (eg evolve birds from reptiles) while ev shows that mutations and natural selection can accomplish occasional microevolutionary changes (eg Sickle cell mutation and drug resistance in bacteria) but is shown by ev to be profoundly slow to accomplish a macroevolutionary change (eg evolve a gene de novo).

Shouldn’t that be “flock to it like a moth to a flame”?

A moth (singular)...doesn't "flock". "Moths" is plural: "Creationists" is plural.

It appears that I am the only creationist who has “flocked” to this flame.

And I didn’t flock here, I was invited by Paul.

 

[delphi_ote]

Recombination and natural selection can bring about rapid microevolutionary changes but has never been shown to be able to accomplish a macroevolutionary change (eg evolve birds from reptiles)

If birds rapidly evolved naturally from reptiles in an observable time frame, that would be evidence against evolution. Speciation happens over time. Divergence to the degree that we would label the two species as belonging to different classes happens over a lot of time. There is evidence that reptiles accumulated adaptive changes that eventually caused their offspring to seem so different, we humans came along and called them something else. That evidence is in the fossil record, not Ev.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Recombination and natural selection can bring about rapid microevolutionary changes but has never been shown to be able to accomplish a macroevolutionary change (eg evolve birds from reptiles)

If birds rapidly evolved naturally from reptiles in an observable time frame, that would be evidence against evolution. Speciation happens over time. Divergence to the degree that we would label the two species as belonging to different classes happens over a lot of time. There is evidence that reptiles accumulated adaptive changes that eventually caused their offspring to seem so different, we humans came along and called them something else. That evidence is in the fossil record, not Ev.

Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium in order to try to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record; however I believe that Gould inappropriately extrapolated Darwin’s observations of divergence of finch beaks and similar types of recombination events and natural selection to mutation and natural selection.

The vast majority of observed adaptive events are recombination events, not mutation events. What you call evidence in the fossil record is open to interpretation. The mathematics of ev describes how random point mutation and natural selection can accumulate information in a genome. Your interpretation of the fossil record is in conflict with your mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection. You are doing what I told Dr Schneider months ago that evolutionists would do once they understood the mathematics of ev, evolutionists would discredit ev.

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium in order to try to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record; 2 - however I believe that Gould inappropriately extrapolated Darwin’s observations of divergence of finch beaks and similar types of recombination events and natural selection to mutation and natural selection.

1 - I think you got this very wrong - maybe poor phrasing on your part (if so, please clarify), or maybe a poor grasp of the concept (if so, no hope).

2 - What is the basis for your belief? In other words, why do you believe this?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

1 - Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium in order to try to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record; 2 - however I believe that Gould inappropriately extrapolated Darwin’s observations of divergence of finch beaks and similar types of recombination events and natural selection to mutation and natural selection.

1 - I think you got this very wrong - maybe poor phrasing on your part (if so, please clarify), or maybe a poor grasp of the concept (if so, no hope).

2 - What is the basis for your belief? In other words, why do you believe this?

The following is a quote of Gould that previously was posted by Paul.

A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

I added the bold face to two of the sentences. In the first bold face sentence, Gould is speaking about mutations. It is clear from the mathematics from ev that the larger the population, the more rapid the evolution (at least for random point mutations). However, if you consider a small population with advantageous alleles and recombination rather than mutations, Gould’s postulate makes sense.

The second bold faced sentence also makes sense if you are talking about recombination and natural selection. Pygmy elephants could rapidly evolve to their larger relatives that we see today by recombination and natural selection without their being much evidence in the fossil record because of the rapid transition from the small form to the large form. If you consider the analogy of dog breeding, you have the variation in size from Chihuahuas to Great Danes in fewer than 10,000 generations.

Gould should have been using the word recombination, not mutation in his postulate and then his theory would match observations.