Annoying creationists

[cyborg]

You may be the only person on this forum that can see the maddening similarities...

In the end it's always about a big non-sequitur.

I don't have any anthrocentric tendencies. You can't persuade me by appeals to humanity.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're right, it is. The whole post is a mess - haste makes waste.

Oh no, I'm not referring to your posts, which are always clear. I'm referring to John Hewitt's writing style. Dreadful. Simultaneously tediously didactic and pointlessly oblique.

Have you read through the whole thing? Might be worth your while.
see above.

I skimmed through it. I can't see anything worthwhile; perhaps you can point out something?

You've missed the point here. Of course it's falsifiable.

The scary part comes in it being falsifiable by someone else's positive result. Note the negativity about John's claims! You're dying for him to fall over, even before you understand what he's saying. Falsify his theory then. I guess the simple way to do that is to get a gene to replicate outside the cell. That's all it takes to blow him right out of the water.

Anyone tried to do that yet?

Huh? This is a standard lab technique that is used all over the world every day. I don't see how that falsifies John's claims, because I don't see a coherent hypothesis, but if you believe that is sufficient, then his claims are false.

 

[PixyMisa]

Tiny little fragments are not replicating molecules.

You asked about genes being replicated outside the cell. This is done all the time.

If you have a different question, ask your question.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sorry I haven’t been able to give any attention to the thread for the past week but I’ll try to pick up where I left off. This post start with comments made on page 40.

You are splitting hairs using the word “potential”. What do you think the probability is that the number of spurious bindings decrease or stay the same as the genome size increases?

I suspect it increases, but in a quite complex manner. We see creatures with ages of 6000 generations.

Since your theory of evolution is dependent on a selection process, it is important to unravel the complexity of this issue. I don’t believe either Dr Schneider’s or Unnamed’s selection process represents any real selection process. However, Dr Schneider’s selection process gives greater weight to mistakes in the non-binding site region than does Unnamed’s selection process causing the generations for convergence to increase with increasing genome lengths.

Really? Does your concept of Rcapacity depend on mutation rate and population when using Dr Schneider’s selection method? Any selection method that diminishes the effects of harmful mutations in the non-binding site region will converge more quickly. If you completely ignore harmful mutations in the non-binding region, you uncouple the evolution of the binding sites in the binding site region from the length of the genome. There just isn’t any basis in reality for such a selection method.

In the real world, a spurious binding in pure junk DNA would be harmless. There appears to be a basis for selection of weak and strong bindings. You can't simply dismiss it, although I agree that we don't know how the various Ev models relate to reality.

I hear the terminology “pure junk DNA” and am not prepared to accept this description of the portion of the genome that is not obviously coding polypeptides as being junk. The problem you need to address mathematically is formulating a realistic selection process. I don’t believe you can do this for evolving a gene de novo.

The valuation of a match binding site does not contribute to the sort value but a close to threshold but failed match in the binding site region will have a large value of valuation[p].

And a small distance from the threshold, which is what contributes to the sort value.

Too bad this doesn’t represent reality.

If gamma=16 and you start with 16 mistakes in the binding site region, you get 16*valuation[p] in the binding site region that outweighs the small number of mistakes in the non-binding site region.

It is not the valuation that is added to the sort value, but the distance between the valuation and the threshold. These distances will start out large and then diminish as the binding site valuations creep toward the threshold. They will certainly swamp a single spurious binding, but so does the current selection method. They will not swamp a swarm of spurious bindings, such as might arise from a mutation in the gene.

But I agree with you that Unnamed's selection method is weighing missing bindings more heavily than spurious bindings, as does my experiments with the missing binding mistake points set to 10. See my post #1594. This speeds up evolution by favoring a creature with, say, 2 missing bindings and 5 spurious bindings over a creature with 3 missing bindings and 0 spurious bindings. Do you think something like that can't occur in nature?

I believe that natural selection will select out a creature with an almost perfect genome if it has a single fatal mutation. Both Dr Schneider and Unnamed’s selection process ignore this real observable phenomena. On the other hand, it is rare that a single mutation will give a real survival benefit. I think antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the sickle cell mutation of hemoglobin are examples of this but neither represent macroevolutionary events.

What is the mutation rate assigned to the weight matrix? How does the threshold evolve?

The mutation rate is constant across the entire chromosome. Mutations are randomly applied to the entire chromsome.

Now it make sense that when a mutation occurs to the binding protein sequence (weight matrix) that there would be a large jump in the number of mistakes.

This scheme does allow you to argue that you are not pre-specifying your evolutionary process but how would could you apply this concept to the de novo evolution of a gene?

All this discussion on the selection process is simply an academic exercise since there is no selection process as formulated by Unnamed and for that matter Dr Schneider’s selection method that are seen in reality.

Then you have lost your mathematical argument against evolution.

You wish! You are already aware that you need a selection process of some type to explain the theory of evolution (and abiogenesis as well). Without a selection process, the probability of the formation of the complex molecules of life becomes infinitesimally small. Dr Schneider’s selection process (as unrealistic as it is) is worth considering if only to show how slow the process of point mutation and selection is. This discussion we are going through is more accurately defining the fatal flaw in your theory, that is a lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.

Then you have lost your mathematical argument against evolution.

Bish, bosh, job done. Now for stage two : the frantic row-back. I don't see this guy as a quitter. He has far too high an opinion of himself.

The mistake you kids are making in this discussion is that you think a clever response wins the day. I hope you are preparing yourselves for a reality check. There is no selection process that evolves a gene de novo. You evolutionarians have extrapolated mutation and natural selection far beyond what this process is capable of doing. This mathematical exercise with ev has shown how unrealistic your thinking has become. If anyone is doing a frantic row-back, it is you evolutionarians who are looking for a selection process that somehow can rescue your theory.

 

[Yahzi]

Dunno! Do you think it has been so far?

Remember the discussion we had about how not answering direct questions is evidence of evasion?

How much more evasive can you get?

After this, why is there even a shred of doubt?

 

[PixyMisa]

Damn, your comments sound like .... "Extremely cruel or hateful content directed toward another user".

Oh, no, not at all. If I ever write something "extremely cruel or hateful", you'll know.

Talk is cheap, and if my relevant knowledge can be shown to be contrary to facts

What relevant knowledge?

I will adjust my position to include those facts

Why start now?

Please cite one or more examples to demonstrate your unsustainable slur.

I have made no "unsustainable slur", but nonetheless:

Nah, I think something in the lab a bit more malleable than mammals might be a place to start ... oh, iirc, you evolutionarians have been trying in the labs since the early 50's?

Demonstrating your ignorance of or unwillingness to admit the fact that speciation has been observed on a number of occasions.

What you have done is move the goalposts on wheels to define "speciation" and then pretend you've demonstrated how speciation occurs -- there are cats & dogs, species, and we all know basically what I mean by species.

Demonstrating your complete incomprehension of taxonomy.

A speciation event has not been demonstarted in labs, models, or nature.

A simple falsehood.

And please spare us a re-gurgitation of the pap that demonstrates -- in the lab and in nature -- the bacteria that remain bacteria, birds that remain birds, plants that remain the same plant, ring species that remain the same species.

Again demonstrating your total lack of understanding of taxonomy.

Remain, that is, until the appropriate and needed re-definition of species has been provided to cover each specific case.

Now that, Hammy, is what an unsustainable slur looks like.

 

[Yahzi]

Help me!

I shall endeavor too.

At the outset let me explain that experience is the best teacher. My karate instructor can place his right hand on your shoulder, and you cannot hit him with your right hand. Because he can tell, just by the motion in your left shoulder, where your right hand is going. He can tell this because he has years of experience. The rest of us have to wait until the facts become more evident. But that's our limitation, not his.

1. Is Science the metaphysical position of Materialism & Reductionism?

Yes. Science posits that only the material, observable world is necessary or sufficient for explaining the material, observable world. Science is defined by reductionism, insomuch as the process of understanding is virtually defined as reducing phenomona is reduced to its parts.

Were you actually unaware of this?

2. Is a "woo" someone who doesn't hold that philosophical position?

Yes. A woo is someone who believes in the supernatural; i.e., does not believe that the material, observable world can be explained by the material and the observable.

What else would a "woo" be? Do you think there is a third position between "naturalism" and "non-naturalism?"

3. Is any woo a creationist?

As I made it quite clear in my posts, which I can see you did not bother to actually read, a woo who goes on about how evolutionary scientists are liars is almost certainly a creationist.

Woos are defined by the exceptions they champion. Hewitt is championing an exception evolution. Ergo...

4. Is a creationist someone who believes in evolution but has a somewhat altermate theory on the process?

If his alternate theory requires supernatural intervention, then yes.

My question was designed to determine whether Hewitt's theories require supernatural intervention. As you can see, he chose to answer the question with evasion.

I'm a naturalist myself. I don't subscribe to any supernatural agencies. But since I'm open to the possibility that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection may need some tweaking and perhaps some additional natural process could be involved, does this make me a woo and a creationist?

How is the above paragraph incompatible with a "Yes" answer to my question? Indeed, you go out of your way to repeat the caveat of "natural process." Which was the only thing my question was trying to establish: Are natural processes sufficient?

Philosophically speaking, Materialism has a number of different flavors. If mine doesn't accord with yours, would that make me a creationist?

Do you consider the wholesale rejection of materialism as just a different "flavor?" If not, perhaps you could point to any text I wrote that would justify the above comment.

Are you unable to read the comments I actually type, or are you just addicted to strawmen arguments?

 

[hammegk]

Oh, no, not at all. If I ever write something "extremely cruel or hateful", you'll know.

The only question is "Will D'Ratpack understand it?".


On your diatribe: Do we need another go-around on the moving goalposts evolutionarians require as they wave their arms touting their pseudo-science?

 

[John Hewitt]

You asked about genes being replicated outside the cell. This is done all the time.

If you have a different question, ask your question.

I think perhaps you should trying to distinguish between "replicating molecules," in the sense of molecules that replicate themselves, and "molecules being replicated" in the sense of experimenters replicating pieces of RNA or DNA during recombinant DNA studies. The latter molecules are not replicators in the evolutionary sense. The former are unknown - unless you could cite an example. The Atheist has this point quite clear.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes. Science posits that only the material, observable world is necessary or sufficient for explaining the material, observable world. Science is defined by reductionism, insomuch as the process of understanding is virtually defined as reducing phenomona is reduced to its parts.

Technically, I think that's naturalism rather than materialism. Science only deals with observed behaviours (or potentially observable behaviours), so something that looks and acts like materialism is just as good as the real thing.

 

[Yahzi]

I agree with the content and tone of your comments but I feel you are taking Yahzi's question more seriously than it deserves.

The creation of strawmen is necesary for people who have no logical position to advance.

Question "Do you agree with me?"

Me? Am I the only metaphysical naturalist in the world? Am I the only person who thinks that metaphysical naturalism is necessary to the conduct of science?

Why did you find it necessary to so badly mischaracterize my argument? Oh, that's right... because otherwise you cannot respond to it.

But kudos to you - not only have you avoided answering a simple question, you managed to fool a few other people. In pure honesty, however, I must admit that I suspect that victory to be product of their own carelessness and argumentativeness, not your cleverness.

Now, perhaps, you would like to answer the question as your erstwhile supporter paraphrased it:

Are natural processes sufficient?

 

[Yahzi]

so something that looks and acts like materialism is just as good as the real thing.

I have a firm principle: if a thing is indistinguishable from another thing, in all ways, shapes, and manners, save only for a few philosophical blatherings that are themselves indistinguishable from fiction, then I say those two things are the same.

Or, to put it another way, "If it looks like a duck, and it swims like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it's indistinguishable from a duck on the molecular level... it is a duck."

However, your point of procedure is well-placed: given the context of this discussion, I should have made my contentious and controversial prejudices clear.

 

[PixyMisa]

On your diatribe: Do we need another go-around on the moving goalposts evolutionarians require as they wave their arms touting their pseudo-science?

Your assertions on the supposed "moving goalposts" regarding speciation are entirely false, and are based on your lack of knowledge of biology.

Once again: There are several definitions of species that are accepted as scientifically valid and useful. For each and every one of those definitions, we have directly observed speciation.

This is the opposite of moving the goalposts. Whichever of the definitions you choose to examine, speciation has been observed.

 

[kjkent1]

I believe that natural selection will select out a creature with an almost perfect genome if it has a single fatal mutation. Both Dr Schneider and Unnamed’s selection process ignore this real observable phenomena. On the other hand, it is rare that a single mutation will give a real survival benefit. I think antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the sickle cell mutation of hemoglobin are examples of this but neither represent macroevolutionary events.

Actually, a reasonably objective review of this thread, shows that as soon as unnamed exposed a selection mechanism which defeated your main argument of the unreasonable slowness of RMNS, you have changed your argument to include liberal use of the word "believe," as a means of justifying that argument, rather than using math -- which was your original strong suit.

In short, your mathematical hypothesis has been falsified. Period.

Now, you can say you believe that one mutation is overwhelmingly more detrimental than beneficial, but your opponent can respond that he/she believes that one beneficial mutation is overwhelmingly more beneficial than all of the detrimental mutations.

In the end, the argument devolves into philosophy, rather than science.

If you want to soundly defeat ev, which was your original purpose, then you will need to make a reasonable attempt to model the actual evolutionary selection mechanism -- something which you have steadfastly claimed is not your responsibility.

And, for a while, you had a valid argument, because you were able to impeach your opponent's proof with a credible reason why ev doesn't work the way it should. However, ev has been rehabilitated by an alternative selection mechanism. And, so now it falls back to you to prove mathematically why this selection method is invalid, or alternatively, to affirmatively prove some other selection method which is "more" valid.

Until this occurs, everything which follows is just speculation -- and admittedly, some speculation exists on both sides. But the burden is now back on you to improve your argument to the point where it presents credible impeachment evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have a firm principle: if a thing is indistinguishable from another thing, in all ways, shapes, and manners, save only for a few philosophical blatherings that are themselves indistinguishable from fiction, then I say those two things are the same.

Or, to put it another way, "If it looks like a duck, and it swims like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it's indistinguishable from a duck on the molecular level... it is a duck."

And very tasty.

However, your point of procedure is well-placed: given the context of this discussion, I should have made my contentious and controversial prejudices clear.

No worries. When we wander into metaphysics, materialism and naturalism are distinct, and we need to be clear on that, but for science, for the real world, for anything useful, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

I think that may have been part of Hyparxis' point, since he clearly says he's a naturalist, which is why I butted in.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think perhaps you should trying to distinguish between "replicating molecules," in the sense of molecules that replicate themselves, and "molecules being replicated" in the sense of experimenters replicating pieces of RNA or DNA during recombinant DNA studies. The latter molecules are not replicators in the evolutionary sense. The former are unknown - unless you could cite an example. The Atheist has this point quite clear.

My firewall at work seems to be blocking every link I don't already have bookmarked today, but are you familiar with Julius Rebek? He's credited with finding replicating molecules. I'll post some links later if you need them.

 

[John Hewitt]

Yes. Science posits that only the material, observable world is necessary or sufficient for explaining the material, observable world. Science is defined by reductionism, insomuch as the process of understanding is virtually defined as reducing phenomona is reduced to its parts.

Were you actually unaware of this?

Does it? Is it? If Hyparxis was unaware of this, he is not alone.

Yes. A woo is someone who believes in the supernatural; i.e., does not believe that the material, observable world can be explained by the material and the observable.

What else would a "woo" be? Do you think there is a third position between "naturalism" and "non-naturalism?"

How about "dunno?" Would that be a middle ground?

As I made it quite clear in my posts, which I can see you did not bother to actually read, a woo who goes on about how evolutionary scientists are liars is almost certainly a creationist.

Woos are defined by the exceptions they champion. Hewitt is championing an exception evolution. Ergo...

Am I? Which exception is that?

If his alternate theory requires supernatural intervention, then yes.

My question was designed to determine whether Hewitt's theories require supernatural intervention. As you can see, he chose to answer the question with evasion.

How is the above paragraph incompatible with a "Yes" answer to my question? Indeed, you go out of your way to repeat the caveat of "natural process." Which was the only thing my question was trying to establish: Are natural processes sufficient?

I have the impression that you are asking me to recite and conform to your personal dogma. If you feel that my work entails or implies supernatural intervention, then please point out how it does so.

 

[hammegk]

Your assertions on the supposed "moving goalposts" regarding speciation are entirely false, and are based on your lack of knowledge of biology.

Your opinion is noted, and filed appropriately.

Once again: There are several definitions of species that are accepted as scientifically valid and useful. For each and every one of those definitions, we have directly observed speciation.

Yeah, that's my point. The definitions are post-hoc and subject to infinite revision to keep the just-so-story on the tracks.

This is the opposite of moving the goalposts. Whichever of the definitions you choose to examine, speciation has been observed.

Your opinion is noted, and filed appropriately.

Are you ready to jump on the bandwagon real evolutionarians are pushing? It's easy, just type, and mean: "I, PixyMisa am 100% certain that god does not exist.". And no, you don't need my definition. Use any you prefer.

I'm 100% certain Thought Exists.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So what definition of species do you accept? (Why do I expect I'm not the first to ask you this?)

 

[The Atheist]

You asked about genes being replicated outside the cell. This is done all the time.

If you have a different question, ask your question.

Sorry, again, haste making waste - I meant DNA.

You've also mistaken what I said about John's falsifiability. He's picked a task where if current theory is right, he is going to be shown to be wrong and badly so. IDists have the escape clause of "god made it so". John hasn't given himself that out.