Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

Maybe we are in the equilibrium part of the punctuated equilibrium.

I'd say we're waiting on a Newton to tie together in some rigorous way the actual bits of science that underlie Modern Ev Theory . I can't decide if the current just-so-story is a steaming pile waiting to collapse under it's own weight, or is just so nebulus the first strong breeze will destroy it.

 

[cyborg]

I'd say we're waiting on a Newton to tie together in some rigorous way the actual bits of science that underlie Modern Ev Theory .

No, we need software engineers and biologists, not mathematicians. Mathematicians (I hesitate to say like kleinman since he has demonstrated some quite laughable blunders) simply do not seem to be able to appreciate how different the quality of the problem is. (Hey kleinman, at least you've got a start realising that 4^G is the beginning of recognising the programming space but software is no more about formulating 2^P than genetics is 4^G). I've seen the programming they teach mathematicians at university level - man oh man, it sure does explain a few things.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I thought it would take at least a seven or eight year old to annoy evolutionarians. So you better teach your theory to infants before they have learned to say “why?”

Hmm, I thought that was the job of your camp. To stomp out questioning and to instil obedience to mysterious gods.

I think it is the responsibility of older people to teach younger people. I have no interest in stomping out questioning. I also know you can not instill obedience to God but you can teach young people the value of being obedient to God and the costs to being disobedient to God.

When you use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model, the rate of information is so profoundly slow that it disproves macroevolution by this mechanism.

So again I must ask - WHAT is macroevolution?

I know this answer annoys you so I give it again, the de novo evolution of a gene.

So I choose both.

Ah, cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Are you sure that the dissonance is in my cognition and not in your comprehension?

I keep setting up the target of de novo evolution of a gene.

7) Inadequate memory

The words 'de novo evolution of a gene' did not pass your lips until fairly recently.

This is my 241st post on this thread. I first used the words “de novo evolution of a gene” on my 4th post on this thread.

Maybe we are in the equilibrium part of the punctuated equilibrium.

I'd say we're waiting on a Newton to tie together in some rigorous way the actual bits of science that underlie Modern Ev Theory . I can't decide if the current just-so-story is a steaming pile waiting to collapse under it's own weight, or is just so nebulus the first strong breeze will destroy it.

I believe there is some truth in the modern theory of evolution. I believe that recombination and natural selection is a commonly observed phenomena and that mutations occur that cause severe genetic damage and rarely beneficial affects. Where I think the theory breaks down is when evolutionists extrapolate the very rapid changes to a population that can occur with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection. Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium makes sense if you apply the concept to recombination and natural selection but breaks down when applying the concept to mutation and natural selection as shown by ev and the evidence in the fossil record. Darwin did likewise, he confused the rapid changes that recombination and natural selection can accomplish with mutation and natural selection.

As you can see from Cyborg’s postings, he equates any challenge to his theory that I am trying to force him to believe in God. What Cyborg doesn’t understand is that you can believe in God and still be a scientist.

 

[cyborg]

I think it is the responsibility of older people to teach younger people. I have no interest in stomping out questioning. I also know you can not instill obedience to God but you can teach young people the value of being obedient to God and the costs to being disobedient to God.

That's instil - I refer you to number 5 on the list of your inadequacies.

Yahweh does not exist. Therefore it is redundant to teach value of obedience or disobedience to beings that do not exist.

Or -

You teach obedience to a false god. You will see in time how costly this mistake is when you are in Hades.

Take your pick.

I know this answer annoys you so I give it again, the de novo evolution of a gene.

Right. Now we are getting somewhere. You never gave me that answer so it can't have ever annoyed me. Could have saved a lot of trouble.

The next question then becomes what you consider to be the change of state in ev that signifies the creation of a gene.

Are you sure that the dissonance is in my cognition and not in your comprehension?

Yes. If ev is mathematically adequate to disprove evolution then it is quite irrelevant if evolution did not start out with the mathematical adequacy of ev - we have, according to you, a mathematically solid theory.

You cannot have it both ways. Is it solid or is it not? If ev is adequate to disprove evolutionary theory then it must surely be a rigorous mathematical model of it.

This is my 241st post on this thread. I first used the words “de novo evolution of a gene” on my 4th post on this thread.

Then I shall retract. Your list recedes. Lucky boy.

I believe there is some truth in the modern theory of evolution. I believe that recombination and natural selection is a commonly observed phenomena and that mutations occur that cause severe genetic damage and rarely beneficial affects.

Ah, so you are basically stating that things can only ever get worse.

Where I think the theory breaks down is when evolutionists extrapolate the very rapid changes to a population that can occur with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection.

Eh? The theory breaks down because recombination is not point mutation?

That. Is. Silly.

Darwin did likewise, he confused the rapid changes that recombination and natural selection can accomplish with mutation and natural selection.

Um, I don't think Darwin knew anything of mutation, such that genetics was unknown in his time.

As you can see from Cyborg’s postings, he equates any challenge to his theory that I am trying to force him to believe in God.

Let us say I am convinced by your arguments.

What am I to conclude now that you have demonstrated that life as we see it cannot have evolved?

Answer that and stay fashionable.

What Cyborg doesn’t understand is that you can believe in God and still be a scientist.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I understand that perfectly.

What YOU don't understand is that not everything a scientist does is automatically scientific. Bringing a god into the equation ends science dead. It is to give up on inquiry.

 

[kjkent1]

This is classic evolutionarian thinking. Speculate all you want, just don’t call this science.

Grow up, Alan.

My speculation is at least as scientific as are your scientific claims. Example:

Dr Schneider’s selection process does not have a sound scientific basis but I accept it because it demonstrates something about the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.

Here, you tell us that Schneider's modeled selection process does not have a sound scientific basis, and then you tell us that it's good enough to defeat RMNS as a scientific theory. Well, if NS is part of the theory of RMNS, and you believe NS is unsound in Schneider's model, then your claim that Schneider's model of RMNS falsifies real-world random mutation and natural selection is merely "speculation" until you actually test your theory with a "sound" selection process.

You need to work a little harder on your logical and scientific reasoning before you start condescending to others.

 

[Myriad]

The 256k case converged:
262144, 463 generations

Given that it takes more information to converge with longer genomes, this appears to be approaching the performance predicted by MacKay's statistical model for asexual reproduction, of one bit per generation (for the whole population) regardless of genome length. MacKay's model assumes a selection function that independently values each base in the genome. Ev applies less specificity to the nonbinding bases, which should reduce the rate of information gain for a given mutation rate, but that apparently also permits an increase in the allowable mutation rate above MacKay's predicted workable maximum of 1 per genome per generation.

The bad news (as Kleinman has been pointing out for months, in fact it's the whole reason he pointed me to MacKay) is that in MacKay's model, increasing the population won't make it evolve any faster. The good news is that it's obviously quite fast enough already.

The other good news is that MacKay predicts considerably higher mutation tolerances and information increase rates for reproduction with recombination.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Where I think the theory breaks down is when evolutionists extrapolate the very rapid changes to a population that can occur with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection.

Eh? The theory breaks down because recombination is not point mutation?

What you are having a hard time grasping is that you can accomplish microevolutionary changes very rapidly with recombination and natural selection. Darwin inappropriately attributed the variations in finch beaks to mutation and natural selection when what he was observing was the affects of recombination and natural selection. Recombination and natural selection can accomplish rapid morphological changes in a population. Point mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process for achieving change, ev shows this.

Darwin did likewise, he confused the rapid changes that recombination and natural selection can accomplish with mutation and natural selection.

Um, I don't think Darwin knew anything of mutation, such that genetics was unknown in his time.

He did not have the data we have now. However this same inappropriate extrapolation was made by Stephen Gould when he postulated punctuated equilibrium for mutation and natural selection. Gould knew about DNA and mutations but his hypothesis only makes sense when applied to recombination and natural selection.

As you can see from Cyborg’s postings, he equates any challenge to his theory that I am trying to force him to believe in God.

Let us say I am convinced by your arguments.

What am I to conclude now that you have demonstrated that life as we see it cannot have evolved?

Answer that and stay fashionable.

You will have to find another reason not to believe in God.

What Cyborg doesn’t understand is that you can believe in God and still be a scientist.

I understand that perfectly.

What YOU don't understand is that not everything a scientist does is automatically scientific. Bringing a god into the equation ends science dead. It is to give up on inquiry.

I try to keep this discussion on a mathematical basis. I occasionally will give my view about God but it has always been because of questioning by other posters. I don’t think you should give up on inquiry, I think you should seek the Truth.

This is classic evolutionarian thinking. Speculate all you want, just don’t call this science.

Grow up, Alan.

My speculation is at least as scientific as are your scientific claims. Example:

Dr Schneider’s selection process does not have a sound scientific basis but I accept it because it demonstrates something about the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.

Do you really think that the partial binding of a protein represents a realistic selection process for the de novo evolution of a gene or even a binding site for that matter? What benefit is there for a binding site without an associated gene? Why would a binding site evolve without a gene? So you speculate about how a hemoglobin gene can evolve and I’ll speculate on the unreality of Dr Schneider’s selection process.

Here, you tell us that Schneider's modeled selection process does not have a sound scientific basis, and then you tell us that it's good enough to defeat RMNS as a scientific theory. Well, if NS is part of the theory of RMNS, and you believe NS is unsound in Schneider's model, then your claim that Schneider's model of RMNS falsifies real-world random mutation and natural selection is merely "speculation" until you actually test your theory with a "sound" selection process.

Even with Dr Schneider’s idealized selection process, you can’t accumulate the information quickly enough to support the theory of evolution. A more realistic selection process (if one exists) only makes the theory of evolution look more ridiculous.

The 256k case converged:
262144, 463 generations

The bad news (as Kleinman has been pointing out for months, in fact it's the whole reason he pointed me to MacKay) is that in MacKay's model, increasing the population won't make it evolve any faster. The good news is that it's obviously quite fast enough already.

Now if only there were no such thing as a harmful mutation, you would have something to celebrate.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The bad news (as Kleinman has been pointing out for months, in fact it's the whole reason he pointed me to MacKay) is that in MacKay's model, increasing the population won't make it evolve any faster. The good news is that it's obviously quite fast enough already.

Interesting. What was that reference again?

Unnamed: Run all the experiments again, except with a population of 512.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... its true.

Uh oh.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

Do you really think that the partial binding of a protein represents a realistic selection process for the de novo evolution of a gene or even a binding site for that matter? What benefit is there for a binding site without an associated gene? Why would a binding site evolve without a gene? So you speculate about how a hemoglobin gene can evolve and I’ll speculate on the unreality of Dr Schneider’s selection process.

I hereby acknowledge your admission that the allegation that Schneider's ev model shows that evolution is mathematically impossible, is merely your unscientific speculation.

Even with Dr Schneider’s idealized selection process, you can’t accumulate the information quickly enough to support the theory of evolution. A more realistic selection process (if one exists) only makes the theory of evolution look more ridiculous.

Per your admission (above), your conclusion here is unscientific speculation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you speculate about how a hemoglobin gene can evolve and I’ll speculate on the unreality of Dr Schneider’s selection process.

So then you won't be using Ev to speculate about the real world any more, right?

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Cross-posted with kjkent1.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Given that it takes more information to converge with longer genomes, this appears to be approaching the performance predicted by MacKay's statistical model for asexual reproduction, of one bit per generation (for the whole population) regardless of genome length.

So what happens if we divide the generation count by Rfrequency? Do we get a constant?

genome, generations, Rfrequency, generations/Rfrequency

1024, 231, 7.0, 33
2048, 264, 8.0, 33
4096, 263, 9.0, 29.2
8192, 273, 10.0, 27.3
16384, 345, 11.0, 31.4
32768, 440, 12.0, 36.7
65536, 432, 13.0, 33.2
132072, 584, 14.0, 41.7
262144, 463, 15.0, 30.9

Ain't that interesting.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

So what happens if we divide the generation count by Rfrequency? Do we get a constant?

genome, generations, Rfrequency, generations/Rfrequency

1024, 231, 7.0, 33
2048, 264, 8.0, 33
4096, 263, 9.0, 29.2
8192, 273, 10.0, 27.3
16384, 345, 11.0, 31.4
32768, 440, 12.0, 36.7
65536, 432, 13.0, 33.2
132072, 584, 14.0, 41.7
262144, 463, 15.0, 30.9

Ain't that interesting.

~~ Paul

Can you explain why?

 

[Myriad]

Interesting. What was that reference again?

MacKay, David J.C., Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Chapter 19, pp. 269-280

Here's the chapter in PDF:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itprnn/ps/265.280.pdf

Whole book PDF here:
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~mackay/itprnn/book.pdf

Other format options here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/book.html

Cambridge book catalog entry for it here:
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521642989

Comparison with Harry Potter here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Given that it takes more information to converge with longer genomes, this appears to be approaching the performance predicted by MacKay's statistical model for asexual reproduction, of one bit per generation (for the whole population) regardless of genome length.

So what happens if we divide the generation count by Rfrequency? Do we get a constant?

genome, generations, Rfrequency, generations/Rfrequency

1024, 231, 7.0, 33
2048, 264, 8.0, 33
4096, 263, 9.0, 29.2
8192, 273, 10.0, 27.3
16384, 345, 11.0, 31.4
32768, 440, 12.0, 36.7
65536, 432, 13.0, 33.2
132072, 584, 14.0, 41.7
262144, 463, 15.0, 30.9

Ain't that interesting.

Hey Paul, what part of the evolutionary landscape is ev now modeling? Are you now going to retract your retraction about ev modeling reality?

Now that you have successfully gotten ev to converge more quickly (by ignoring harmful mutations on the nonbinding site region of the genome) are you going to the lab and prove your results?

So you speculate about how a hemoglobin gene can evolve and I’ll speculate on the unreality of Dr Schneider’s selection process.

So then you won't be using Ev to speculate about the real world any more, right?

Do you think an even more unrealistic selection process than the one used by Dr Schneider that produces clearly unrealistic results is the way to prove your point? Remember, the results I obtained from ev was with Dr Schneider’s version of the model which was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. Do you think they would accept the results generated by Unnamed’s selection process?

You are really struggling in this discussion when you have to do this.

You go down this rabbit trail for a while and I’ll check back with you later.

 

[kjkent1]

So then you won't be using Ev to speculate about the real world any more, right?

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Cross-posted with kjkent1.

LOL.

In fairness to Kleinman, I'm certain his next response will be that what he means by not "sound" is that the ev natural selection model is not "realistic." Rather it is "idealized," so it should provide better results than any possible realistic selection model.

However, this does not necessarily follow, because Alan has refused to show how no other possible selection model can overcome the problem of numbers of generations to reach convergence.

And, as "unnamed" seems to have demonstrated that his/her selection model can overcome the numbers of generations problem, the issue is now, whether this new selection method is more or less realistic than Dr. Schneider's "idealized" original method?

If we really want to solve this problem, we will need some consensus among a few geneticists who know enough about computer programming to be able to reasonably evaluate any proposed algorithms.

Hey, if this gets published, I want my name on it.

Edit: I see that Kleinman has now posted substantially as I predicted here. Now, he's simultaneously calling Schneider's original selection model "unrealistic" and "unnamed"'s model more unrealistic, while still speculating that ev proves evolution impossible.

If there were any more "speculatin'" go'in on here, we'd need a brass spittoon.

 

[John Hewitt]

LOL.

In fairness to Kleinman, I'm certain his next response will be that what he means by not "sound" is that the ev natural selection model is not "realistic." Rather it is "idealized," so it should provide better results than any possible realistic selection model.

Please, I surrender, please would somebody tell me what LOL means?

 

[Robin]

Please, I surrender, please would somebody tell me what LOL means?

I would like to know too. I have always assumed it was an emoticon gone wrong.

 

[cyborg]

What you are having a hard time grasping is that you can accomplish microevolutionary changes very rapidly with recombination and natural selection. Darwin inappropriately attributed the variations in finch beaks to mutation and natural selection when what he was observing was the affects of recombination and natural selection.

Again, I don't recall mutation ever coming up as far as Darwin is concerned. He had no knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution because genetics was unknown.

Recombination and natural selection can accomplish rapid morphological changes in a population. Point mutation and natural selection is a profoundly slow process for achieving change, ev shows this.

Which leads me to the question I did not ask last time - are you saying that recombination is somehow not a part of evolution? You keep on referring to it as if it is something that is hitherto an unconsidered effect.

]He did not have the data we have now. However this same inappropriate extrapolation was made by Stephen Gould when he postulated punctuated equilibrium for mutation and natural selection. Gould knew about DNA and mutations but his hypothesis only makes sense when applied to recombination and natural selection.

Again the above.

You will have to find another reason not to believe in God.

So are you saying I should conclude that a god (Zeus or Thor perhaps, one of those gods that is likely to exist, not like Yahweh) is responsible for the diversity of life or not?

Hmm, new list.

1) Entirely adequate at not answering simple questions

I try to keep this discussion on a mathematical basis.

Then bring on the damn maths!

I occasionally will give my view about God but it has always been because of questioning by other posters. I don’t think you should give up on inquiry, I think you should seek the Truth.

Which, in your opinion, must lead to me concluding Yahweh is the force which allows life to be what it is - evolution being unable to account for it.

Truth or truthiness?

 

[Myriad]

Please, I surrender, please would somebody tell me what LOL means?

I would like to know too. I have always assumed it was an emoticon gone wrong.

I will tell you, but think about this first: If you've been wondering this for a long time, have you ever considered searching for the answer in other ways? For instance, if you Google "Internet Abbreviations" you'll get many links that will take you right to the answer.

(Give a man the meaning of a net acronym, and you've enlightened him for an hour; teach a man to look stuff up with a search engine, and you've confused him for life. Or something like that.)

Now, do you still want me to just tell you?















It means "laughing out loud."

Disappointing, ain't it?

Respectfully,
Myriad