Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

I'm 100% certain Thought Exists.

I think you're right.

 

[articulett]

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?

There's none here.

But I'm putting "Atheist" on my "does not compute" list. It's nice to know which people to put on ignore.

 

[articulett]

Then want must be your master.

This is the same guy who said that the evolution of land animals to whales was "microevolution".



John Hewitt is kind of interesting, and if kleinman has finished making a fool of himself, I might post more regularly on this thread.

Please do! Even if Kleinman is not done (those creationists are never done with making fools of themselves are they?)

I wished I could you could have been at TAM! And I'd love to watch you parry with Hewitt--

 

[articulett]

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.

Yep--the more they say, the less you understand. Questions are never answered, claims are never supported, and you end up in endless tangential conversational non-sequitars...

 

[articulett]

All I've done so far is state that I think you (and others) are obnoxiously demanding that he answer questions which he's already answered. I

Great--you've stated this several times now. So you'll be cutting and pasting at least one instance where I and/or others obnoxiously demanded an answer from John Hewitt--along with John's previously supplied answer? Then we can all see see what only you seem to see so far. If you don't or can't do so, and don't apologize, then we can conclude you are just a loud mouthed Bozo, right?

Plus you've asserted that he said he wasn't a creationist a couple of times too. Can you cut and paste where he said this? Or are you going to post more non-sequitars about how obnoxious the people who ask questions are.

Are you noticing that no-one other than you seems to be following you?
Back up your claims with easily cut and pasted evidence, please. Or enjoy being on ignore. I suspect you are coming across as a lot more offensive than I am, and I'd be glad to cut and paste should anyone be interested in the evidence.

It seems the creationists can't even follow each others' arguments; why don't you engage John and illustrate how one should go about discussing these things, so that we can all learn from your expertise.

 

[kjkent1]

Can you sum up what you asked and what he said? He answered the question oddly. Why? And you think he said that he doesn't let his beliefs factor in his science--but that is not what he said. He is bs-ing you. Why? Why are is answers so unclear? You seem fine with answers that aren't answers at all.

This is not a court of law. I cannot force a witness to answer a direct question via a contempt motion. So, I must accept the answers I am given and then ask more questions until, hopefully, only one answer remains, i.e., the one which I originally sought by direct interrogation.

There is nothing to be gained, in my view, by creating an atmosphere which drives out all dissent. John Hewitt may be a fundamentalist Bible thumper, but what of it? I'm still interested in his views.

Unless a poster uses ad hominem as a means of avoiding answers, I'm not going to get annoyed.

 

[The Atheist]

Great--you've stated this several times now. So you'll be cutting and pasting at least one instance where I and/or others obnoxiously demanded an answer from John Hewitt--

Just to give you an idea of the magnitude of thing I'm talking about, this is culled from just three of your posts on the subject. The two long ones are nothing but a rhetorical attack on the strawman of John's god.

You read these and tell me who has the problem:

"And therefore my God is True" by John Hewitt.

Well, this thread is entitled "annoying creationists"--annoying creationists tend to have something in common. They're not really like the YEC's who are readily laughed off...They, in fact, seem rather intelligent and grasp some of the basics of science, logic, and math--except when it somehow conflicts with their god belief. If it conflicts with their god belief, their logic stops at the door and they start playing crazy semantic games similar rather the way people squeeze supposed insightful platitudes and "higher truths" from primitive and barbaric texts clearly written by human without a dash of anything divine or even prescient. These people often believe themselve to be compassionate and open minded without having a clue as to how close minded and didactic they sound when it comes to their pet theories. They are weirdly brainwashed because they believe that some invisible guy killed his kid (who was really him) for some sin long ago that no-one is really quite certain about--and they've been told that this happened for them-because someone loved them so much. They've been told that it's arrogant to even question the story. And they are so easy to spot after a while. They just have very rigid standards of "proof" for a very narrow area (and no proof will ever be enough) and absolutely no need for proof when it comes to believing in the divinity of some primitive texts authors and meanings and interpretations.

What can I say--when you've had it inculcated in you from childhood that you get to live happily ever after for believing insane things, you sometimes grow into an annoying creationist. To me, you guys always argue the same pet point over and over--the one that somehow convinced you--or the theory that keeps your personal version of what god is alive.

All your arguments boil down to "my god is real" to me. And, I think you'd understand it if someone was a Scientologist or Muslim extremists and all their posts seemed to be a means of supporting whatever it is they had come to believe--you'd see how futile conversation was--you'd feel sort of bad that a bright person was so brainwashed by their beliefs that they were missing some really cool facts. You'd marvel at how they couldn't seem to see in themselves that which is so transparent to others. You'd roll your eyes at the way they hold themselves up to be objective arbitors of truth that was so clearly confirmation bias for the "truth" they wanted. It's sort of like if you wanted to show an Amish kid all the cool technology and stuff they could do with the computer--but you couldn't...and it all boils down to "because I'm Amish"...Nobody wants to be an evil temptress (temptor) scaring someone into thinking the devil is trying to get them to bite from the tree of knowledge--but that's exactly what biologists have become to certain Christians. If actual non-religious scientists had problems with evolution, it would lend an aura of credibility to your case. But if the only ones having a problem are the ones who believe in a certain kind of god--then it's very clear why you guys are so persistent and unyielding and seemingly unaware of how you come across on the topic no matter how carefully the information is laid out for you. Rather than feeling frustration for more wasted time with those who have a strong motive for not comprehending, sometimes it's just easier to make fun. You guys have impervious egos anyhow...I don't think it's particularly harmful.

To me, you guys all sound sort of like Behe at the trial when no amount of evidence disproving his irreducibile complexity theory would ever be enough to make him let go of it. Faith is just a very tenacious little bugger to get rid of.
And most of us have to show some amount of deference to "it" in our regularly daily lives because rationality and tolerance isn't really a strong point of those who adhere to any particular dogma--moreso, when they believe their eternity is affected by such beliefs.

So, I think we can all stop pretending that the problems you guys have with evolution is about "facts"--it's not. It's about your beliefs. It's about the fact that whatever it is you think god is or does--he surely would have picked something more miraculous then evolution to bring the likes of you about.

Is there a single creationist who isn't a strong theist? Are there any dogmatic and seemingly educated non-theists playing semantic games about Turing Machines or "closet dualism" or "memes don't exist" or "math makes evolution an impossibility" theory? Are there any non-theists who use terms like scientism, evolutionarian, and proudly point out thesis' that only make sense to fellow theists? Are there any non-theists who have such an angry visceral reaction to outspoken atheists like Dawkins that seem unconnected to facts?

See, science and facts and truth are the same for everybody. Tests and facts and info. I learn is the same as being taught to students of all languages all over the world. It's easy to "see". But your theories only make sense to people who have been immersed in a certain belief system. It doesn't matter what the humans mapping genomes believe--the info. is all the same and readily interpreted by others mapping genomes. Physics in China is the same as in India. Biology in America is the same as in Denmark. But none of that is true for anything you say nor Kleinman says. You tell yourselves that we skeptics can't follow because your thinking is beyond ours--so advanced. But why is it that you need to believe in a certain version of creator in order for your info. to be comprehensible? Why are you so blind to very specific facts and types of knowledge? Why don't you see that which is obvious, I'm guessing, to everyone who doesn't share your version of God?

Why is hammy so ready with ad homs rather than facts or answers to questions? Because you guys have a strong need to believe in something that doesn't jive with the facts. What else should we conclude. The only evidence of your brilliant logic and scholarship seems to exist in your own head. But to non-believers that is about as relevant as Tom Cruises claims about Scientology. Every believer believes that fhis ellow believers are smarter, righter and more moral than those who believe differently, don't they?

Yes. Tom Cruise's religion teaches that there is no such thing as "chemical imbalances"--so he has his atennae tuned into anything that supports that bias and can't seem to even comprehend the data that negates it. He seemingly has no study on the subject and yet has concluded that he is an expert. Clearly, it would be difficult to teach him about imbalances involved in manic depressiveness or even diabetes--since that, too, is a chemical imbalance. He's closed himself off from learning the very thing he thinks that he's an expert in.

And yes, I think you are a creationist. The meme thread only makes it more obvious to me.

There are creationists like Francis Collins--and he understands evolution, accepts it as a fact (the more you know, the harder it is to deny it), but his way of keeping his belief in god alive is to believe that god is behind it all--evolution was part of god's plan and god is outside of human understanding. This is pretty cool, because then he can learn and appreciate new info. as it comes in. But to me, creationists have very specific areas where they just don't seem to "hear" or see or be curious about the information that is being discovered. They dismiss it or igore. This information is always about a specific belief that have which is a necessary ingredient for them to keep believing in their god. On the flip side they can be very knowledgeable in other areas and show no problem with comprehension of simple facts--sometimes they will even show curiosity towards new info. But their main focus is always to disprove the part of evolution that they have the biggest problem with--the part that threatens their god belief. It's not like they are really trying to find out the answer--it's more like they are obsessed with showing that the answers others have come up with is wrong.

Annoying creationists tend to attack Dawkins often without reading him or even understanding the basics no matter how carefully explained. You've done that a bit--if not here, then on the meme thread...and I think it's because he doesn't believe in your god. Because the arguments you use just don't make sense--I mean they seem to to you--and maybe they do to other believers--but they just sound similar to kleinman's statments to me--like if you dismiss him and refuse to compute the information then evolution never has to make sense to you and that somehow protects the belief you want to have.

You get dodgy when it comes to religion, but all creationists do. It's why the term "intelligent design" was invented--to pretend it's all about a sincere discovery for truth...when it's really about a sincere attempt at disproving evolution so that you can insert god (or whatever it is you believe in regards to creation...that it must have been pre-planned or whatever.) Wowbagger gave a pretty good analysis of your website--but you just skimmed over the really important points.

Maybe I'm wrong. But let me ask you about Behe. As I'm sure you know, at the Dover trial he kept using his irreducible complexity model--clearly to him, this is the key to disproving evolution--just like Kleinman's math model is. And no matter how many papers he was presented with that showed exactly how the flagellum or blood clotting cascade or whatever could have and probably did evolve--it wasn't enough--nothing will ever be enough... but even before we knew that flagellum could evolve the information in those papers was true. Even if we could not prove that the flagellum was not irreducibly complex--that never ever means that it was, indeed, irreducibly complex. It only means that we didn't understand it's complexity yet. Right?
Perhaps, it is a smidgen of evidence in favor of a designer--but it's not anything that negates evolution. But to Behe it is--it has to be--because he thinks his salvation depends on believing in his god and he needs a reason to believe and his reason is irreducible complexity.

You have lots of problems with evolution--the very same kinds of problems that Behe has. You have no real alternative explanation or data yet you are highly critical of those who have data in favor of evolution--particularly if those people don't believe in your god. I don't know of anyone who has this trait who doesn't believe in some sort of god that "requires a certain belief to have salvation". Maybe I'm completely mistaken. Maybe lots of non-religious people have problems with evolution or for whom the data is not convincing. But I know a plethora of non-religious people. It's only those with certain beliefs who have this rabid obsession with pointing out the gaps in evolutionary theory. Often times it seems to be the only threads they participate in. And I just presume it's for the same reasons that Tom Cruise confidently states "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance".

Biologists are generally excited about new discoveries and finding out more clues--but the creationists never even seem interested in them. They're so focused on proving that evolution cannot be true, that they make it impossible to learn of the great discoveries which only strengthen the notion that it is.

Anyhow--if you want me to cut and paste I'd be glad to show you all the statements that convince me you are a creationist and that your beliefs about god are what motivates your posts, understanding, and lack thereof. And I'd be glad to learn that I am wrong. Would a creationist ever say the same? Would you want to know if you were wrong or do you just think you cannot be?

And that's just three of a very large number of very large posts. If you don't think that's an obnoxious way to carry on with someone who has repeatedly stated that he has no god in his plans, I suggest you look up "obsession" and "obnoxious" in the nearest dictionary.

Then you carry on...

--along with John's previously supplied answer? Then we can all see see what only you seem to see so far. If you don't or can't do so, and don't apologize, then we can conclude you are just a loud mouthed Bozo, right? '

No apology forthcoming here. I would class this as unequivocal

The question at issue is "Are you an IDer or creationist." My answer is ...
7. My scientific work does not involve ID or creationism or God or fairies or unicorns or little green men or pixies or leprochauns or the world of Narnia or .....

I have no idea how those answers could be considered unclear.

Me neither, John.

See that, Articulett? "NO GOD", "NO CREATIONISM", "NO ID". Could that be any clearer?

Plus you've asserted that he said he wasn't a creationist a couple of times too. Can you cut and paste where he said this? Or are you going to post more non-sequitars about how obnoxious the people who ask questions are.

See above. In all seriousness, how can you be attacking someone, and at the same time be blind to answers as linked?

Cut and paste is easier than reading, maybe?

Are you noticing that no-one other than you seems to be following you?

Oh goody, an appeal to authority and the masses! The fact that I'm swimming against the stream worries me not at all. This is nothing I have a vested interest in and I've said that I'll go with the flow, once the flow is established.

Back up your claims with easily cut and pasted evidence, please.

How many times is that you've asked in one post?

I've done it already!

Or enjoy being on ignore.

LOL! That's like that "not collecting stamps is a hobby" idea is it? If I'm on ignore, I wouldn't know, or care.

I suspect you are coming across as a lot more offensive than I am, and I'd be glad to cut and paste should anyone be interested in the evidence.

AAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!~ I am dead-set going to have nightmares about cutting and pasting. You're not Dorothy Hare are you?

It seems the creationists can't even follow each others' arguments; why don't you engage John and illustrate how one should go about discussing these things, so that we can all learn from your expertise.

I've had a couple of discussions with John and found him to be a good bloke so far. He has time to spend on ignoramuses like me and is clearly not a christian. Hell, what do I have to lose having a look?

To me, the essence of all evolution is abiogenesis. It's the question which needs to be answered as it's the last bastion of ID/creationism. I see no evidence of a god in John's theory, just a different way of looking at things. It may all boil down to Lamarckism - there are hints of it in his work, I think - but it also might not be. He has stated many times that his findings fit in with evolution through genes. Can't be all that harmful can it? You're clearly a dedicated materialist (thanks hammegk!) and have great trouble with any thinking which is outside that.

Anything else at this stage? (Please, no more cut-and-paste!)

 

[articulett]

This is not a court of law. I cannot force a witness to answer a direct question via a contempt motion. So, I must accept the answers I am given and then ask more questions until, hopefully, only one answer remains, i.e., the one which I originally sought by direct interrogation.

There is nothing to be gained, in my view, by creating an atmosphere which drives out all dissent. John Hewitt may be a fundamentalist Bible thumper, but what of it? I'm still interested in his views.

Unless a poster uses ad hominem as a means of avoiding answers, I'm not going to get annoyed.

I agree. He's not a fundamentalist bible thumper. I just thought you interpreted his answer as though it answered the question. But I see you are accumulating data. Carry on. I am enjoying your posts, I might add.

 

[Kotatsu]

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

I haven't been able to read all the posts in this thread recently, but as I recall, you made no response to my last post on the Brassica experiments of Song et al., in which --- as you may recall --- extensive genetic differences, differences in reproductive success, and differences in at least five morphological characters were observed between the three parent plants and four kinds of fifth generation allopolyploid progeny plants. Is this, too, moving goalposts, arm-waiving, and pseudo-science, and if so: How do you reach that conclusion. In what way does this experiment fail? Understand that I am curious only because, if the problems with the paper are described to me, I remain certain that I could find another paper in which these problems are addressed more appropriately (though I am open to the possibility that finding such paper is impossible).

I hardly think the fact that Song et al. didn't call the process speciation should disqualify it from being a --- to me --- adequate example of said process.

 

[John Hewitt]

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.

I have never heard of him but I shall look for his work. If your firewall starts behaving, please post a link.

 

[articulett]

Atheist--you posted my answers to John's questions. I asked you to post evidence in support of your claims that I (and possibly others) asked obnoxious questions that John had already answered. I think my answers were very clear in response to John's very simplistic questions. And John did not say he was not a creationist in that post where you think he does. Is English your second language by chance? Actually, don't answer...pretend I never even tried to communicate with you--we are clearly not on the same page.

I'm just one of those lying cheating scientists who won't let John Hewitt's brilliant and astonishing insights be heard...I have a secret agenda to call people creationists because they don't agree with me (as you carefully ferreted out earlier in this thread--of course, by this theory of yours, I should be calling you a creationist, right?).

Since you understand John so brilliantly, and seem to think DNA cannot be replicated outside of a cell....

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb492/lectures/DNAI.html

--it will be scintillating reading the exciting evidence of why a cell is the true replicator and how Johns' oscillating theory trumps all other abiogenesis theories. I will gratefully sit back as you reveal that which I am too biased to possible understand and hopefully someone will explain (if possible) what exactly his sex paper is saying and including what is meant by "free will". I am able to understand various other theories of abiogenesis, but not Johns.

Surely your character assessment of him being a "good bloke" and me being someone with an agenda will become apparent to all. Then, of course, I will apologize, (though we know that creationists never will--and I suspect you never do either.) Just because I think you have poor argument skills, doesn't mean I'm your enemy, so there is no need to take this personally. And just because I am convinced of John's creationist leanings, doesn't mean I'm not open to evidence proving otherwise. But you have only provided that for yourself. And, as Richard Feynman noted, oneself is the easiest person to fool.

 

[articulett]

I haven't been able to read all the posts in this thread recently, but as I recall, you made no response to my last post on the Brassica experiments of Song et al., in which --- as you may recall --- extensive genetic differences, differences in reproductive success, and differences in at least five morphological characters were observed between the three parent plants and four kinds of fifth generation allopolyploid progeny plants. Is this, too, moving goalposts, arm-waiving, and pseudo-science, and if so: How do you reach that conclusion. In what way does this experiment fail? Understand that I am curious only because, if the problems with the paper are described to me, I remain certain that I could find another paper in which these problems are addressed more appropriately (though I am open to the possibility that finding such paper is impossible).

I hardly think the fact that Song et al. didn't call the process speciation should disqualify it from being a --- to me --- adequate example of said process.

I suspect that nothing will be an adequate example of speciation to John Hewitt, in the same way that nothing is a good example of how "irreducible complexity" evolves for Behe. What he avoids acknowledging says more than the many words he uses to state his case. (Of course Atheist has determined that I like to call all people creationists when they don't agree with me, so look askance at any tidbits I might offer.)

 

[John Hewitt]

I'm just one of those lying cheating scientists who won't let John Hewitt's brilliant and astonishing insights be heard...I have a secret agenda to call people creationists because they don't agree with me (as you carefully ferreted out earlier in this thread--of course, by this theory of yours, I should be calling you a creationist, right?).

Since you understand John so brilliantly, and seem to think DNA cannot be replicated outside of a cell....

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb492/lectures/DNAI.html

--it will be scintillating reading the exciting evidence of why a cell is the true replicator and how Johns' oscillating theory trumps all other abiogenesis theories. I will gratefully sit back as you reveal that which I am too biased to possible understand and hopefully someone will explain (if possible) what exactly his sex paper is saying and including what is meant by "free will". I am able to understand various other theories of abiogenesis, but not Johns.

Thank you for the link to a page on nucleic acid polymerases. I am reasonably familiar with such things.

If an enzyme copies a piece of DNA, then the enzyme may be said to have replicated that DNA only in the sense that the enzyme has copied the DNA. Replicate means something similar to copy but replicate is a much more reflexive verb than copy, so that replicate might be said to mean copy oneself. Replicate has connotations of an object copying itself. Perhaps it is for this reason that these enzymes are not, usually, called replicases but polymerases.

In any event, the link to which you have directed our attention does not describe DNA replicating but being copied by exogenously provided enzymes. I believe that point has been made to you on a number of occasions already so could you please try to understand it. If in doubt, try replacing the word relpicate with the phrase "copy itself" and see if the situation still works. I know of know no example of a nucleic acid replicating itself, that is copying itself.

 

[John Hewitt]

From Articulett about me -
Can you sum up what you asked and what he said? He answered the question oddly. Why? And you think he said that he doesn't let his beliefs factor in his science--but that is not what he said. He is bs-ing you. Why? Why are is answers so unclear? You seem fine with answers that aren't answers at all.

It seems to me that I have made my position perfectly clear on the question of God. I have stated that, to the best of my belief and understanding, my work does not make any reference to God or to any other supernatural being.
I do not feel that I have any duty to declare a commitment to your personal faith, whether that faith is in your own personal God or in some commitment to the writings of Richard Dawkins.

This is not a court of law. I cannot force a witness to answer a direct question via a contempt motion. So, I must accept the answers I am given and then ask more questions until, hopefully, only one answer remains, i.e., the one which I originally sought by direct interrogation.

There is nothing to be gained, in my view, by creating an atmosphere which drives out all dissent. John Hewitt may be a fundamentalist Bible thumper, but what of it? I'm still interested in his views.

Unless a poster uses ad hominem as a means of avoiding answers, I'm not going to get annoyed.

I do not recall banging any bibles. What I bang on about is the structure of evolutionary theory which, in my opinion, is incorrectly expressed at the present time. Scientific theories should be expressed in their most general available form and, in my opinion, evolutionary theory is not being so expressed. Evolutionary theory should, in my opinion, be expressed from a basis in data rather than genes. That, I suggest leads to a different structure for evolutionary theory and a number of new interpretations of human nature. I feel it would be more interesting to discuss those new interpretations than Articulett's personal struggles with God.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Kjkent1, it is not sufficient to formulate a mathematical selection mechanism that has no basis in reality in order to try to prove your theory. Evolutionarians have no realistic selection mechanism to evolve a gene de novo and are forced to go to the lengths that Unnamed has done to try and rescue your theory. It reveals the lack of a scientific and mathematical basis of your theory.

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

Ev is not my mathematical hypothesis. This is an example of evolutionarian mathematics which reveals the fatal flaws in your theory.

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.

That’s not quite what I am saying. The point I am trying to make here is that a single mutation to an otherwise healthy genome can be fatal while your theory requires the accumulation of large numbers of non-fatal mutations in order to evolve a new gene. Not only do I contend that there is no real selection process that would allow for the evolution of such a gene, you are forced to define an unrealistic selection process as done by Unnamed to ignore the possibility of fatal mutations so that the evolutionary process can occur with sufficient rapidity.

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

So let’s stick to the arithmetic.

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.

I think Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutation and natural selection is a plausible representation of this process. It is not my desire to defeat ev. I believe ev appropriately demonstrates the mathematics of this process. It is Unnamed’s selection process which needs to be demonstrated as having no basis in reality. There are at least two problems with Unnamed’s selection process. The first is that his process almost completely ignores mutations in the non-binding site region and the second is the step wise selection of binding sites has no basis in reality.

I have already suggest a more realistic selection process (which I don’t think will work) but it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their own theory.

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.

There is no step wise selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. Without a selection process you are stuck with infinitesimally small probabilities for forming genes by random additions of bases.

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.

I am not speculating when I say there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.

 

[cyborg]

There is no step wise selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.

Again Kleinman I offer: define the states that are before the new gene and after the new gene. Define this and the simulation can be run to simply find this situation - or rather not if your hypothesis is correct. Use some goddamn mathematics for once.

It is simple. You say there is no step wise process for the evolution of a gene de novo. I am telling you how you can go about showing this quite conclusively. Do you want to do this or not?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

There is no step wise selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.

Again Kleinman I offer: define the states that are before the new gene and after the new gene. Define this and the simulation can be run to simply find this situation - or rather not if your hypothesis is correct. Use some goddamn mathematics for once.

It is simple. You say there is no step wise process for the evolution of a gene de novo. I am telling you how you can go about showing this quite conclusively. Do you want to do this or not?

Sure cyborg, let’s go down this rabbit trail. Tell us how a gene can evolve de novo. Use whatever definitions you want for the states before and after the formation of the new gene, but don’t speculate, kjkent1 doesn’t like that (unless it supports your hopeless theory).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

I think Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutation and natural selection is a plausible representation of this process.

All righty then.

~~ Paul

 

[The Atheist]

Atheist--you posted my answers to John's questions. I asked you to post evidence in support of your claims that I (and possibly others) asked obnoxious questions that John had already answered.

Hate to rain on your parade, but I did just that. If I could be bothered, I can find plenty more.

I think my answers were very clear in response to John's very simplistic questions. And John did not say he was not a creationist in that post where you think he does. Is English your second language by chance? Actually, don't answer...pretend I never even tried to communicate with you--we are clearly not on the same page.

Oh boy, that is precious. You want to discuss English; let's get it on! Your posts are poorly written, repetitive drivel. Incoherent thought piling on top of utter baloney, wrapped up in aspersions and assertions.

I'm just one of those lying cheating scientists who won't let John Hewitt's brilliant and astonishing insights be heard...I have a secret agenda to call people creationists because they don't agree with me (as you carefully ferreted out earlier in this thread--of course, by this theory of yours, I should be calling you a creationist, right?).

Well, you've already tried to, so that'd be nothing new.

Since you understand John so brilliantly, and seem to think DNA cannot be replicated outside of a cell....

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb492/lectures/DNAI.html

See John's post.

--it will be scintillating reading the exciting evidence of why a cell is the true replicator and how Johns' oscillating theory trumps all other abiogenesis theories.

You can add to my English critique that you have a propensity for hyperbole. When have iI ever stated that John's theory trumps all other theories?

I have said that currently nothing is a plausible explanation of abiogenesis. To me, it seems very much of theories which dove-tail nicely into other theories, but without solid basis. John's may well be the same, but in the meantime, the jury is out. Unless you're going to claim that you alone know the secret of abiogenesis.

And, as Richard Feynman noted, oneself is the easiest person to fool.

I do hope you realise that can refer to anyone...

I have said many times, and I'll repeat it again, that I'm pushing no barrow, other than the one which demands a fair hearing.

To date, John's been honest in the face of concerted attack on him personally. We all know what his credentials are - fill me in on yours.

So far we have "scientist" as your description of yourself, while your profile says "Biology Teacher". Please enlighten us, with the same honesty that John has shown regarding his experience, qualifications and studies....

Thanks.

 

[sphenisc]

Oh boy, that is precious. You want to discuss English; let's get it on! Your posts are poorly written, repetitive drivel. Incoherent thought piling on top of utter baloney, wrapped up in aspertions and assertions.

"aspersions"