Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

"aspersions"

CRAP!
That is one of Murphy's Laws, I'm sure. Make a post about about English and make a typo. I'm sure that's happened every time.

I should have kept to "nasturtiums".

Cheers.

 

[Dr Richard]

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.

Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens

 

[John Hewitt]

Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens

Not exactly a verbose posting - but interesting. They don't actually describe a replicator but in some ways it comes close.

Of course, its not how life evolved you know. The real difficulty it presents is in the first three words of the abstract -
"We have designed"

The problem is to identify replicators we didn't design.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

and

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

All righty then.

Paul, if I’ve shown you nothing else, at least I’ve shown you how to use quotes. Are you trying to be an annoying evolutionarian?

So let’s see whether you have caught me contradicting myself. In the first quote above, I contend that neither Dr Schneider’s nor Unnamed’s selection process exist in reality. Do you think this is true or not?

In the second quote, I am referring to the mathematical behavior of random point mutations and natural selection. I have long said that Dr Schneider’s selection process does not represent a realistic selection process but for the sake of discussion, I have not challenged the unreality of this selection process until recently since this issue is being discussed in more detail.

Evolutionarians have to fabricate a selection process to model mathematically since there is no observed selection process that serves as the pattern. Even with Dr Schneider’s fabricated selection process, the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that the theory of evolution is not possible.

All righty then?

 

[Dr Richard]

Not exactly a verbose posting - but interesting. They don't actually describe a replicator but in some ways it comes close.

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?

Of course, its not how life evolved you know.

Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.

The real difficulty it presents is in the first three words of the abstract -
"We have designed"

The problem is to identify replicators we didn't design.

The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....


RNA
DNA

next problem.....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From someone who heard this thread mentioned at TAM and was going to join in, it seems in 44 pages to have gone from issue to issue. So, I'll ignore all that and go with the current exchange on selection PRESSURES as they are more accurately referred to. There are multiple PROCESSES that result in genetic code variation which varying selection pressures then act upon.

I have two words, genetic science. Anyone arguing against evolution for whatever contrived reason, you lose. Genetic science has ruled out irreducible complexity and all the other nonsense proclaiming evolution theory fails for this reason or that reason. And those who believe they have the, "gotcha", xyz disproves (as if) evolution, are ignorant of at least the last decade of genetic science research. It's likely they are ignorant of the last 3 decades actually.

Even if any of the contrived faults in evolutionary theory were valid, the theory is established by such overwhelming scientific evidence, the 'fault' would only imply some tiny detail in the theory rather than the theory itself was questioned. And even then, it could just as easily be the evidence which wasn't yet clear that was the problem, rather than the theory.

For example, if the claims that random mutations didn't have time to see the extent of evolution occurring, it would likely be the mechanisms of random mutation that needed further research, rather than the principles of evolutionary theory. This is one point that seems over the head of those who think xyz makes evolutionary theory false.

Give up and educate yourself in the current scientific evidence for evolution.

But since many are clearly not prepared to give up, go ahead, make your case. I arrogantly state right now, whatever case one might have against evolution will be as absurd as still trying to argue the Earth is flat. We can OBSERVE and MANIPULATE the mechanisms of evolution just as one can circle the Earth and observe its shape.

As for the case being made in the last page or so, I'll post more tonight. Got to go to work now.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

From someone who heard this thread mentioned at TAM and was going to join in, it seems in 44 pages to have gone from issue to issue. So, I'll ignore all that and go with the current exchange on selection PRESSURES as they are more accurately referred to. There are multiple PROCESSES that result in genetic code variation which varying selection pressures then act upon.

At least Dr Schneider put some mathematics to his argument about random point mutations and natural selection. So which PROCESS is going to rescue your theory from the mathematical deficiency that is revealed by Dr Schneider’s model?

I have two words, genetic science. Anyone arguing against evolution for whatever contrived reason, you lose.

Do you stamp your foot when you say this?

Genetic science has ruled out irreducible complexity and all the other nonsense proclaiming evolution theory fails for this reason or that reason. And those who believe they have the, "gotcha", xyz disproves (as if) evolution, are ignorant of at least the last decade of genetic science research. It's likely they are ignorant of the last 3 decades actually.

So you are the evolutionarian who is going to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before this system evolved? In particular, what were helicase and gyrase doing before DNA could be replicated?

Even if any of the contrived faults in evolutionary theory were valid, the theory is established by such overwhelming scientific evidence, the 'fault' would only imply some tiny detail in the theory rather than the theory itself was questioned. And even then, it could just as easily be the evidence which wasn't yet clear that was the problem, rather than the theory.

These issues raised here are not contrived faults. Data from an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this process is profoundly slow when using realistic parameters in the model. Why don’t you give us a realistic selection process which corrects the deficiency in the model? Why don’t you describe to us a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

For example, if the claims that random mutations didn't have time to see the extent of evolution occurring, it would likely be the mechanisms of random mutation that needed further research, rather than the principles of evolutionary theory. This is one point that seems over the head of those who think xyz makes evolutionary theory false.

Skeptigirl, what you are having trouble understanding is that without random point mutations, how do you transform duplicated genes to new genes? How do you evolve a gene de novo? Random point mutations are the cornerstone for your theory. Unless you can describe a realistic selection process that allows for rapid evolution of new genes by random point mutations, your theory is a flop.

Give up and educate yourself in the current scientific evidence for evolution.

Why don’t you educate us on a selection process that would rescue your theory from the mathematical vortex that it is being sucked into.

But since many are clearly not prepared to give up, go ahead, make your case. I arrogantly state right now, whatever case one might have against evolution will be as absurd as still trying to argue the Earth is flat. We can OBSERVE and MANIPULATE the mechanisms of evolution just as one can circle the Earth and observe its shape.

Skeptigirl, this discussion is being reduced down to an accounting problem. Dr Schneider thought he had solved this problem but failed to use realistic parameters in his model. You have no way to account for the differences between the genomes of different kinds of creatures based on random point mutations and natural selection. If you think other processes will solve this mathematical deficiency, educate us. Otherwise, your interpretations of your observations will only satisfy devout evolutionarians.

 

[John Hewitt]

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?

Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.

The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....

RNA
DNA

next problem.....

I guess I would want a true replicator to use small molecular weight feedstocks, easily available feedstocks. That is not shifting the goalposts it is reminding you of the real problem.

 

[cyborg]

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).

No Mr kleinman - I want no accusations of doing it wrong. I want YOUR definitions. YOU must tell me what it is you expect cannot happen.

If I choose you will just weasel out of it by telling me it's wrong.

What's the matter? Are you afraid to put your name to some actual maths?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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).

No Mr kleinman - I want no accusations of doing it wrong. I want YOUR definitions. YOU must tell me what it is you expect cannot happen.

If I choose you will just weasel out of it by telling me it's wrong.

What's the matter? Are you afraid to put your name to some actual maths?

What a weenie. Ok, state before evolution of gene, no gene. State after evolution of gene de novo, gene exists. So, cyborg, describe to us the selection process.

 

[cyborg]

What a weenie. Ok, state before evolution of gene, no gene. State after evolution of gene de novo, gene exists.

YOU are the one claiming the transition is impossible. I merely ask you to DEFINE what it is.

So, cyborg, describe to us the selection process.

No retard. It's not a selection process. Selection is irrelevant. This is simply about defining the event.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What a weenie. Ok, state before evolution of gene, no gene. State after evolution of gene de novo, gene exists.

YOU are the one claiming the transition is impossible. I merely ask you to DEFINE what it is.

I only do this for you cyborg because you are my second or third favorite annoyee.

Definition of non-existent selection process-a selection process in which a non-existent gene evolves from the first base to the final base by a series of mutations.

As an example of this non-existent selection process, consider the gene which codes for insulin. On the evolutionarian’s favorite part of the genome, the junk area, the first base which would code for insulin appears by mutation. Of course, one base is not sufficient for coding for a single amino acid but somehow, this non-existent selection process selects for the second base in the sequence. Still not enough to code for a single amino acid but don’t let that interfere with your theory of evolution. So now the third base is selected for in the sequence for the insulin gene. Time to celebrate, you now code for a single amino acid. This amino acid is so beneficial to this lucky creature that it reproduces madly and the fourth base is now selected for. Not enough for two amino acids but be patient, we have billions of years to get there. Cyborg, I’ll let you take it from here.

So, cyborg, describe to us the selection process.

No retard. It's not a selection process. Selection is irrelevant. This is simply about defining the event.

Cyborg, you have mastered the self replicating dumb idea. If you discard selection from your theory, you have no chance at all.

Didn’t you bet your soul on the theory of evolution?

 

[cyborg]

Definition of non-existent selection process-a selection process in which a non-existent gene evolves from the first base to the final base by a series of mutations.

You are a retard.

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELECTION.

What part of that is too complex for you to understand?

Cyborg, I’ll let you take it from here.

You have failed to define it. You have merely engaged in stupid rhetoric.

What part of mathematics is it that scares you precisely? When I say DEFINE I mean DEFINE MATHEMATICALLY.

Your argument is supposedly mathematical. I expect nothing less than mathematical precision.

Cyborg, you have mastered the self replicating dumb idea. If you discard selection from your theory, you have no chance at all.

I repeat again - you are quite a retard.

Selection is irrelevant. It is only the change in state that is relevant here. HOW the change in state occurs is irrelevant. We can have divine selection or whatever it is that you think happened. HOW the gene gets there is irrelevant. The point is merely to modify the program to your parameters so you have a chance of actually proving that the program cannot have that change of state.

Didn’t you bet your soul on the theory of evolution?

No.

 

[articulett]

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.

I have a Masters of Science in Genetic Counseling, and worked in that field for several years before attending law school--during the Dover trial--that case and my first TAM meeting made me feel like I could be doing a lot more good in the world by teaching biology and critical thinking--so, I am.

And I'd really love to see a conversation between you, John, and Kleinman so I can see if you understand and agree with each other or are making sense to any one other than yourselves. Yes, I know you hate me because I pointed out that Yahtzi's assessment of your error in logic was correct--but getting all upset and taking it personally doesn't really help you learn anything.

Yes, I know very well I can be wrong. That's why I look for evidence. That's why I ask specific questions and pay careful attention to the answers. I know you think you are supporting your claims and that anyone can see it--but I don't. To me, you sound like Dann. You make unsupported claims and then sling ad homs when someone points it out. You make up little side issues so everyone is distracted from your error in logic and then try to make it look like I'm a sneer worthy person. Like Hammy you take great offense at anyone who points out your errors while claiming to be the victim of attacks that you started. By the way, I don't think you are a creationist despite your unsupported claim that I think everyone who doesn't agree with me is; and I don't think Dann is either. I just think you have poor dialog and communication skills and that you can't fathom that you could possibly be one to make logical errors. You would be a "skeptoid" to me in reference to the thread of the same title.

You guys are just annoying because you change the topic and move the goalposts and don't seem to get the same meaning from words that others do. You insult people repeatedly and then have tantrums when it comes back. You take offense at the slightest ego bruise and presume that your view of who is a "good bloke" or "a person with an agenda" is the truth that everyone sees.

Hey, I'm guilty too. I thought it was obvious that Hewitt was a creationist--hence my god reference. Apparently others hadn't reached that same conclusion as readily as I had-- I presented evidence when John asked why I believed him to be a creationist, and others seem to have reached the same conclusion. In any case, no one including you seems to know exactly what his theories are. And I still think he is a creationist--he answers questions in the same shifty way that creationists do--it works on people like you; it doesn't work on me.

And I have come to think of you as a skeptoid as defined in the skeptoid thread. It's just an opinion. No need to have a tantrum. It will only make you look like more of a skeptoid. If I am incorrect the evidence should be easily discernible in your posts. If you keep responding with ranting non-sequitars it will only confirm my conclusion to others.

So then, what are your fine references now that I've given you mine?

 

[articulett]

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?



Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.




The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....


RNA
DNA

next problem.....

Oh--this is so fun--I get to be a spectator (skeptator?) in the unending game of pinning down the creationist... You have so much more finesse than I do. They are a quarrelsome lot, but rest assured you have fans out here enjoying the verbal cat and mouse game.

 

[arthurchappell]

THE RULES OF CREATIONISM

1/. Don't take the children to see Jurassic Park - tell them it is
pornography.

2/. Don't even mention the D word.

3/. Take Adam and Eve literally.

4/. The only Darwen for you is a town in Blackburn Lancashire, England of that
name.

5/. Richard Dawkins is the Anti-Christ.

6/. Evolution is really spelt Evil-ution.

7/. Arthur Chappell will burn in Hell for writing this.

Hopefuly this year is when God comes back on the first day of the 4th month to shout 'April Fool'.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Definition of non-existent selection process-a selection process in which a non-existent gene evolves from the first base to the final base by a series of mutations.

You are a retard.

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELECTION.

What part of that is too complex for you to understand?

Poor cyborg, it appears I have confused you. Go sit in the corner and repeat to yourself-“mutation-selection”, “mutation-selection”, ... If you do this enough, I’m sure your thinking will evolve properly.

Cyborg, I’ll let you take it from here.

You have failed to define it. You have merely engaged in stupid rhetoric.

What part of mathematics is it that scares you precisely? When I say DEFINE I mean DEFINE MATHEMATICALLY.

Your argument is supposedly mathematical. I expect nothing less than mathematical precision.

Selection process to evolve a gene de novo Ç reality = f

Cyborg, you have mastered the self replicating dumb idea. If you discard selection from your theory, you have no chance at all.

I repeat again - you are quite a retard.

Selection is irrelevant. It is only the change in state that is relevant here. HOW the change in state occurs is irrelevant. We can have divine selection or whatever it is that you think happened. HOW the gene gets there is irrelevant. The point is merely to modify the program to your parameters so you have a chance of actually proving that the program cannot have that change of state.

I think you are in a state of confusion.

Didn’t you bet your soul on the theory of evolution?

No.

Maybe you are not as confused as I thought.

 

[cyborg]

Poor cyborg, it appears I have confused you. Go sit in the corner and repeat to yourself-“mutation-selection”, “mutation-selection”, ... If you do this enough, I’m sure your thinking will evolve properly.

Wouldn't I better off praying to Jesus?

process to evolve a gene de novo

I see you cannot do it.

How shocking.

I think you are in a state of confusion.

No. It's quite simple really. Let's try again.

You are banging on about how natural selection is insufficient for creating de novo - that is in non-trying-to-sound-cleverer-than-you-are-talk - NEW genes.

Defining WHAT the occurrence of a new gene entails is entirely divorced from the sequence of events that leads to it.

That is to say if you want to claim that only Jesus can make new genes then Jesus must be creating the occurrences of new genes.

Of course the point here is that you cannot catch Jesus in the act so instead you want to eliminate all other possibilities and assume Jesus did it in the absence of those possibilities being satisfactory. Fine. Let's go along with that fallacious reasoning for the moment and just ignore Zeus getting stroppy in the corner.

First you need to define the event that you are saying only Jesus can accomplish.

What part of this is causing you to reach for cross and holy water rather than algebra?

Is it the fact that you are so woefully incompetent that you think probabilities can exceed 1? Perhaps we should start from 1+1=2 and work you up from there until you reach the necessary mathematical competence to back up your astounding ability to run programs.

Maybe you are not as confused as I thought.

I have no soul to bet you idiot.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Poor cyborg, it appears I have confused you. Go sit in the corner and repeat to yourself-“mutation-selection”, “mutation-selection”, ... If you do this enough, I’m sure your thinking will evolve properly.

Wouldn't I better off praying to Jesus?

What do you think?

process to evolve a gene de novo

I see you cannot do it.

How shocking.

Only shocking to an evolutionarian.

I think you are in a state of confusion.

No. It's quite simple really. Let's try again.

Only if you want to be annoyed again.

You are banging on about how natural selection is insufficient for creating de novo - that is in non-trying-to-sound-cleverer-than-you-are-talk - NEW genes.

Not quite. What I’m banging on about is that natural selection for evolving a gene de novo is nonexistent.

Defining WHAT the occurrence of a new gene entails is entirely divorced from the sequence of events that leads to it.

The sequence of events that leads to a new gene must be of selective benefit to the creatures in which it is evolving in. Perhaps you would be willing to explain how a partially completed gene would be a selective benefit to these creatures? In particular would you explain to us how the partially completed genes which code for the DNA replicase proteins would be of benefit to the creatures in which these genes would be evolving?

That is to say if you want to claim that only Jesus can make new genes then Jesus must be creating the occurrences of new genes.

Of course the point here is that you cannot catch Jesus in the act so instead you want to eliminate all other possibilities and assume Jesus did it in the absence of those possibilities being satisfactory. Fine. Let's go along with that fallacious reasoning for the moment and just ignore Zeus getting stroppy in the corner.

First you need to define the event that you are saying only Jesus can accomplish.

What part of this is causing you to reach for cross and holy water rather than algebra?

The part you are having trouble grasping is that we are biologic machines and you are having difficulty in seeing design in these machines. You don’t seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept of an archeologist digging up a site and finding artifacts which show signs of intelligence in their construction or the SETI experiment looking for radio signals that do not appear to have a natural origin but for living things, you have rejected the concept of design even when you are confronted with the mathematical impossibility of your own theory.

Is it the fact that you are so woefully incompetent that you think probabilities can exceed 1? Perhaps we should start from 1+1=2 and work you up from there until you reach the necessary mathematical competence to back up your astounding ability to run programs.

I long ago acknowledged my error on this issue. Yet you bring it up again. You will not win this discussion with these tactics. Why don’t we tell everyone what this issue is about?

Early in the discussion of the mathematics of ev, I thought that population had an additive effect of the probability of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. That is, double the population and you double the probability of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. Myriad corrected my assumption on this point on the Evolutionisdead forum and showed that population exhibits less than an additive effect on the probability of a mutation hitting at a particular locus. It turns out this explains why the data from ev shows that increasing populations have a decreasing effect on the rate of convergence as population is increased. I appreciate Myriad correcting me on this issue.

Maybe you are not as confused as I thought.

I have no soul to bet you idiot.

What makes you so sure?

 

[kjkent1]

Dr Kleinman, Hewitt, Articulate, Cyborg, et. al.

What is the minimum genome size capable of reproduction/division/replication (or whatever other term you may deem relevant)?

I ask this question because it seems to me that unless we can specify a precise lower limit on the genetic composition of a life form, we can't calculate the odds of its developing by pure chance. However, we only need one life form to develop by chance before natural selection can start influencing future biological changes, so the simpler the initial life form can be, the more likely it can develop by chance.

Any suggestions/evidence?