Annoying creationists

[articulett]

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase.

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase

De novo DNA synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase I associated with primase activity.

De Novo synthesis of DNA-like molecules by polynucleotide phosphorylase in vitro

De Novo Initiation of RNA Synthesis by the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (NS5B) of Hepatitis C Virus

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis by a recombinant classical swine fever virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis catalyzed by HCV RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

Template-free, polymerase-free DNA polymerization

Template-Free Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by Bacterial DNA Polymerases I Using the DnaB Protein from Escherichia coli

Oopsy--while Kleinman has been doing his math and Hewitt has been obfuscating, Dr. Adequate has posted refutations of both Kleinman's de novo claims and Hewitts--"cells are the true replicators" claim...Will it register--somehow, I think not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no wish to attack you but I do want to make it clear that my work, as described in "A Habit of Lies" is one thing and my work as described in "Sex and Philosophy" is another.

So far as the former is concerned - that is not the topic I discuss on this thread but neither does accusing me of anger reply to or invalidate the points I make. Reporting three as two in the scientific literature is false reporting - it is not the expression of an opinion that is worthy of discussion. Continuing to so report the field into the teeth of protest is deliberate lying. I began by trying to be persuasive with such people but I stopped some time ago. I now just think that lying is an endemic fact of scientific life and that it should be acknowledged and recognized for what it is.

So far as my work on evolution is concerned, I have never accused anyone of lying in that field. I do think there are some exaggerated reputations around and a lot of claims that do not stand up to even a simple examination - such as the RNA world.

Your web site paints with a broad brush and it uses words which imply immoral motive and behavior rather than just not seeing things your way. I might be less skeptical if you had addressed specific incidents with specific people rather than the plural "scientists".

The points you make are irrelevant if no one reads the material. And the method of presenting your points closes the book before it is read. That's just another reflection on human nature. Sometimes I write stuff and never send it. I feel better. But I persuaded no one I was right.

Lying is not an endemic fact except with young children. People selectively believe some things over others and can also look for facts which support their beliefs. We ALL do it but to varying degrees. It's extreme when one denies all the research supporting evolution or the evidence supported age estimates for the Earth and Universe. I doubt anyone is free from this aspect of human nature completely.

Why, if you failed to persuade do you resort to rationalizing "scientists" are liars and lying is endemic? Are these people somehow abnormal? If so, why and more importantly why homogeneously across the board?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dr A's citations are very nice examples of the level of complexity genetic research has reached. My money is still on Kleinman fading away rather than addressing those or my post and citations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A further look at your bio, John paints a rather bitter picture of someone with impressive credentials who changed at some point in his life.

I've had experiences with people lying about me at work. It can be quite a bizarre experience. And there are always researchers here and there who fake their work or steal credit for someone else's. But I have a hard time buying it to be as widespread as your paper implies. What makes that field so problematic?

 

[John Hewitt]

Your web site paints with a broad brush and it uses words which imply immoral motive and behavior rather than just not seeing things your way. I might be less skeptical if you had addressed specific incidents with specific people rather than the plural "scientists".

I am unsure which site you are referring to. My site on scientific lying deals, in referenced detail, with individuals and individual incidents.

The points you make are irrelevant if no one reads the material. And the method of presenting your points closes the book before it is read. That's just another reflection on human nature. Sometimes I write stuff and never send it. I feel better. But I persuaded no one I was right.

Lying is not an endemic fact except with young children. People selectively believe some things over others and can also look for facts which support their beliefs. We ALL do it but to varying degrees. It's extreme when one denies all the research supporting evolution or the evidence supported age estimates for the Earth and Universe. I doubt anyone is free from this aspect of human nature completely.

I consider that lying is an endemic fact of adult behaviour. I do not understand how you can believe otherwise and I do include scientific behaviour. From an evolutionary point of view, the idea that lying is a natural phenomenon is supported by ideas such as "Machiavellian Intelligence." Also, I believe Robert Trivers is currently writing a book on deception.

Why, if you failed to persuade do you resort to rationalizing "scientists" are liars and lying is endemic? Are these people somehow abnormal? If so, why and more importantly why homogeneously across the board?

As I said before, I don't think I should need to persuade somebody about the difference between two and three.
There are a great many documented examples of scientific deception and such facts should be accepted, not denied. You seem to be, if I may coin a phrase, a "deception denier." If the question is, "is lying abormal?" I think probably not. If the question is, "should examples of scientific lying be recognized and corrected?" I invite you to give your own answer.

I think this is sort of off-topic. Do you want to move it elsewhere?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's hard to get a handle on this, John. Your book titled, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat" appears to make claims that you are correct and everyone else is lying, making your work look incorrect.

If you read my post, you see no statement denying lying. And I could understand a book that discussed the habit of taking credit for work done by juniors at Cambridge, or perhaps within many university systems. Certainly physicians have an "old boys club" where they refuse to address serious breaches among peers and whatnot.

Where I find your paper suspect is in the personal nature of the criticisms. If your hypotheses were valid and supportable, why is there no avenue outside of the Cambridge system? Are you claiming every editor of every peer reviewed journal to be in on the conspiracy? Has publicizing your data or position on the Internet found its way to any other scientists not subject to the same biases as a scientist in competition with you or in cahoots with them might be?

As far as a thread topic, I don't plan to make a long discussion of this. I'm curious and wonder how it does impact your thread comments.

 

[articulett]

I have some troubling understanding what Articulett is going on about since she basically just calls me names all the time or provides irrelevant links and references.
So far as I can understand her claims, it is
1. Evolution is an inviolable truth.
2. All evolution is based on replicators.
3. Anyone who doesn't accept her view of evolution is a "creationist."
4. She is free to abuse anyone she deems a "creationist."

My position is
1. I do think evolution is correct but I do not consider any one articulation of it to be inviolable.
2. A correct view of evolution should not be based on replicators, it should be based on replicating data flows. Replicating data can be achieved by an actual replicator but that could not have been the situation in prebiosis. In that instance, the sun provides a much more reliable and plausible replicating data source that can lead to a purely chemical evolution and so produce early life forms.
3. Many other forms of evolution also do not involve replicators, for example social evolution, where memes are a figment of Dawkins imagination.

1. No, I don't think evolution is an invioable truth; it's just the theory which is gaining massive amounts of supporting evidence daily. We see what Darwin could only imagine.

2. I never said all evolution is based on replicators; that's another one of your weird wordings. I said the replicator is DNA/RNA--you said repeatedly it's the "cell" as described Behe's Black Box.

3. No, I don't think people who don't accept my views are creationists--I only note that those who seem to have problems with evolution (that are poorly defined) and an equally poorly defined alternate theory are creationists. It's only creationists that see the problems with evolution. The rest of us understand it just fine.

4. Words are not abuse. Lying and obfuscating for your intelligent designer are unethical. You asked me why I brought God into the equation--I answered. That is not abuse. You need to thicken your skin if you want to hear peoples opinions about your opinions.

As for you--

1. You have already stated that you have problems with evolution, speciation, Dawkins, and the idea of DNA/RNA being the replicator. Moreover, you note that evolution can't account for "ethics" and "free will". When asked point blank if you are a creationist, you obfuscate. You post on a noted Creationists Forum, namely William Demski sulking about lying cheating scientists without offering the slightest bit of proof.

2. I can't decode what you mean by #2, but maybe someone else can. If not, then you might want to tighten your explanations a bit.

3. Yes, there are social replicators--memes are not a figment of Dawkins imagination, but your knee jerk attacks of him are common for creationists. Memes are a tool for understanding the passing of social information. They make more sense than your sex and humor theory that invokes the idea that humans have something beyond other animals that can't be described naturalistically--"free will". Just say it. You believe humans have souls--your theory is trying to account for something that scientists can't account for because it's a "philosophy" outside the "infinite egress" of evolved creatures discussing evolution. Moreover, they are unethical for reasons you never nail down.

Here are more questions to dodge.

1. What is your main problem with evolution? Could any amount or type of evidence clear that problem up for you?
2. Do you believe that consciousness can exist outside of a non-living brain--whether it be in data streams, souls, gods, or some other nebulous immeasurable entity?
3. Why would a scientist be posting at a known creationists site to complain about scientists exhibiting "groupthink"?
4. How exactly am I abusing you?
5. Can you sum up your theory or theories since no-one else has?
6. Is there a way to falsify your claims?
7. How does your claims fit in with what we know about prebiotic life as in the recent links?
8. Why do you find Darwin's Black Box a credible source?
9. Why would you mention "free will" without any further explanation in a supposed scientific treatise?
10. How can you keep insisting that the cell is the main replicator, not the DNA after multiple posts showing quite clearly that is not the case--in fact, viruses may have been the first pre-life. What about Dr. Adequate's posts. It is just such a weird claim--like saying "memes don't exist". It's like it could sort of be true, but it's more of a semantic game. Why the obfuscation instead of clarity?
11. You have your website and theory--do people seem to understand it? Can anyone sum it up. See we can sum up evolution pretty readily--and even the best contenders for abiogenesis--we are just getting the pieces, but they are falling into place rather extraordinarily. Where does your theory fit and how is it better than what we have? It certainly isn't more clear?
12. What do you mean that there is information not accounted for in the genes. Remember, genes direct phenotype, including the brain development via interaction with the environment? Social behavior is accounted for in evolution--it's just that you can't seem to register that fact while promoting your far more confusing data stream theory.

If you think I'm abusing you, you aren't quite ready for any peer review. Because there would be the above questions that need to be addressed, and ignoring questions or giving answers that only confuse people more is rather frowned upon. Sure, you can use that as a sign that scientists are against you, but that would be another lie you are telling yourself.

 

[hammegk]

Look Ham, I can post like you do.What's your point?

That's not what you asked. And you took this sentence out of context.

I didn't ask your opinion.

We agree, wow!

Good for you.


I answered that.


"It happened" was the quote of mine you disputed. Did you have "faith" in my quote or not?


What part of the Biblical claims do you have faith I reject?


Perhaps analogies are a mystery to you?


What's your point?

I agree that smoke screens are the best defense of your position available to you.

 

[hammegk]

.... the allopolyploid progeny --- which represent the karyotypes of three forms of Brassica previously described as species in their own right, distinct from the parent Brassica species of the experiment --- showed extensive genetic differences, differences in fertility and differences in at least five morphological characters after just five generations, when compared to the original parent plants. Also: if you do not consider it to be such, for what reason do you come to that conslusion?

For the same reason I consider great danes and chihuahuas to be dogs, and all corn plants corn.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm 100% certain thought exists.

You should be 100% certain that the "external world" exists, too. When you look at a tree and think about it, then go away for awhile, then come back, the tree is still there, in a consistent state. You did not think about the tree when you were gone. Therefore, there is something over and above your thoughts about the tree.

~~ Paul

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

A continuous, repetitive signal e.g. sine wave, square wave (...010101...), night/day etc. transmits no information. For most intents and purposes they can be considered infinite energy sources. They are therefore classed as power (energy per unit time) signals.

I suppose clouds and other atmospheric disturbances, along with variations in the earths rotation would randomly modulate the signal, but how you could reasonably tie that into evolution, other than providing the energy for chemical reactions to take place, I have no idea.

Some time ago, while I was searching for sex (and philosophy) on the internet, I read a few sections of Johns work and got the impression his theory is more about social psychology than evolution.

Or are you going for a "grand theory of everything" theory of life?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You should be 100% certain that the "external world" exists, too. When you look at a tree and think about it, then go away for awhile, then come back, the tree is still there, in a consistent state. You did not think about the tree when you were gone. Therefore, there is something over and above your thoughts about the tree.

~~ Paul

Don't forget about the evil scientist...

 

[Dr Adequate]

For the same reason I consider great danes and chihuahuas to be dogs, and all corn plants corn.

Would that be the same reason why you consider this to be a whale?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.

Don't forget Nanoarchaeum equitans at 491,000 bases.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

You should be 100% certain that the "external world" exists, too. When you look at a tree and think about it, then go away for awhile, then come back, the tree is still there, in a consistent state. You did not think about the tree when you were gone. Therefore, there is something over and above your thoughts about the tree.

~~ Paul

Nothing was said about "my" thought ... or "your" thought, either. But *I* think *you* knew that.

 

[hammegk]

Would that be the same reason why you consider this to be a whale?

I consider it to be a nice reconstruction, and for all either of us know it could be a whale. A bit more extreme change in phentotype than Eohippus to Percheron, I agree. Er, are those both still touted as horses?

How many good examples of Ambulocetus did you say are available for study?

 

[John Hewitt]

A continuous, repetitive signal e.g. sine wave, square wave (...010101...), night/day etc. transmits no information. For most intents and purposes they can be considered infinite energy sources. They are therefore classed as power (energy per unit time) signals.

I suppose clouds and other atmospheric disturbances, along with variations in the earths rotation would randomly modulate the signal, but how you could reasonably tie that into evolution, other than providing the energy for chemical reactions to take place, I have no idea.

Some time ago, while I was searching for sex (and philosophy) on the internet, I read a few sections of Johns work and got the impression his theory is more about social psychology than evolution.

Or are you going for a "grand theory of everything" theory of life?

The sun's signal 0,1,0,1 etc. is a data signal, not an information signal (whatever you might interpret that to be). The sun transmits very little data. If a signal transmits little energy its is a weak, low powered, data signal and if it transmits a lot of energy, then it is a strong, high powered data signal.
The sun delivers a very high powered data signal. The spin of the earth will generate a very regular modulation, stable enough to have evolutionary effects. Atmospheric effects will be somewhat randomizing but I see no reason why that should nullify my argument.

There are aspects of my work that touch on social psychology but that is because my work is a more general theory of evolution than is usually discussed. As a theory, bioepistemic evolution is a superset of genetics and I am basically looking for phenomena that do not fit into the genetic framework and therefore link to other ranks of evolution besides genetics. I chased prebiotic evolution specifically because it could not fit into the genetic mould. The prebiotic evolution work has been on my site for only a few months, so you may not have seen it when you last visited.

I do not understand your last question. For what must be the tenth time of saying, I am going for a theory of evolution based on data, not genes.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I consider it to be a nice reconstruction, and for all either of us know it could be a whale.

With functioning legs? A whale that walks?

A bit more extreme change in phentotype than Eohippus to Percheron, I agree. Er, are those both still touted as horses?

Eohippus is an equid, not a horse.

How many good examples of Ambulocetus did you say are available for study?

I don't know. How many do we need? (Hint: 1).

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Micro evolution only nonsense is one of the weakest arguments of the evolution deniers' debate. It was a last ditch effort. "Oh yeah, well prove this then." "Umm, OK, then prove this." and on and on. Micro evolution only arguments arose when it was clear evolution in real time was indeed observable.

You evolutionarians are always whining about my supposed moving of goal posts, so I set up the de novo evolution of a gene as an example of macroevolution. Show us the selection process that would take a series of microevolutionary steps to produce a gene de novo.

I told you, the genomes trace a map from the earliest organisms (and we know they are early because their genomes are the smallest) to all the other genomes on the tree. A pattern has emerged which shows how Behe's infamous flagellum argument is wrong. The pattern shows exactly how one goes from one species to the next. Just where are your invisible divisions in this

tree of Life diagram?

You see what you want to see in your evolutionarian Rorschach test. Show us the pattern for the evolution of the DNA replicase system.

There's nothing in any mathematical calculation that contradicts what is clearly visible in the DNA and RNA of every living thing on the planet. You are wrong, and outnumbered by the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians. For whatever reason, (I assume it to be you are invested in the outcome of denying evolution because it challenges your existing beliefs), you continue to only look at selective evidence.

You must be another evolutionarian who went to MathIsHard University. If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs even with Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process. You have no selection process that would evolve the thousands of genes required to evolve a living creature.

No evolution mechanism for de novo gene in your knowledge base, the math fails in your limited selection of evidence, (I'm not even sure I agree with that since there is a lot of rebuttal you are ignoring in the talk origins and Panda's thumb web sites). You keep going on with your selected random point mutations ignoring all the observed mechanisms for gene mixing, gene transfer, segmentation of function which allows a single mutation to produce 6 fully formed and functioning digits instead of 5, and a rabbit embryo 'eye growth initiating gene' to be exchanged with the corresponding gene of a a fruit fly larva resulting in a perfectly normal fruit fly compound eye, and lastly the robustness of function which included the discovery the reason Behe's flagellum precursor was hard to find was the precursor wasn't similar. The flagellum arose from some completely different gene function.

There is no evolution mechanism for the de novo formation of gene in your knowledge base either, otherwise you would have presented it to end this discussion.

I contacted Professor Miller at Brown University who formulated the Flagellum Unspun argument and asked him to apply this argument to the DNA replicase system and what were the purpose for gyrase and helicase before DNA could replicate. His response, “It’s a great question”, do you care to answer it?

Your single point mutation math was all for naught. "The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism," because it isn't anything close to the complete process by which evolution occurs. "...formulate the mathematics and correct your theory." No need to, you haven't accounted in your model, or should I say Schneider's model, for the mechanisms which result in genetic change I have already documented. You have a flawed model which the folks at or similar to the folks at the Discovery Institute and AIG have selected (punny) in order to produce a straw argument supporting their preconceived conclusion.

I do not take credit for this math. This is the mathematics of devout evolutionarian Dr Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute. He is the author of the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Your very own moderator on this forum, Paul Anagnostopoulos, wrote the online java version of this computer simulation. Paul used to call this computer simulation realistic until close scrutiny revealed it produces data that shows the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection.

So, I take no credit for the formulation of this evolutionarian mathematical model. I only plugged in realistic values in the model and out popped the results. I do like co-opting evolutionarian ideas though, the problem is there are so few worth co-opting.

Evolution is observable.

Microevolution is observable. You evolutionarians love to extrapolate these microevolutionary processes to macroevolution.

Going on that last point, it comes back to my two words, genetic science. If you had a better understanding of genetic science, you would already know that

To bad you don’t have a better understanding of mathematics. If you did, you would understand my arguments. Your theory has a bad bookkeeping problem.

The HIV virus didn't arise de novo, if you had done your homework you'd know the origin has been traced back to a place where the SIV and the HIV viruses diverged.

What was the selection process for the precursor virus for SIV and HIV?

The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.

No, none of the genes involved in hemoglobin (and it's not just two as you may be implying) has to evolve "de novo". All the genes involved have close relatives. There are many, many globins.

What was the selection process for the precursor gene(s) for hemoglobin?

For kleinman re de novo gene emergence:

Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas.

Skeptigirl, how do you get the original gene to be duplicated?

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. …

So you have proved that you can plug “de novo” and “RNA” into google. Too bad that none of these links have anything to do with the de novo evolution of a gene. Perhaps you can use your skills as a PhD in scatematics to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. …

Oopsy--while Kleinman has been doing his math and Hewitt has been obfuscating, Dr. Adequate has posted refutations of both Kleinman's de novo claims and Hewitts--"cells are the true replicators" claim...Will it register--somehow, I think not.

Obviously you didn’t read any of these links. You evolutionarians think that posting a URL constitutes an argument. Read the links that scatequate has posted and tell me which one address the de novo evolution of a gene.

Dr A's citations are very nice examples of the level of complexity genetic research has reached. My money is still on Kleinman fading away rather than addressing those or my post and citations.

Your depth of analysis of these links is as thorough as articullet’s (nonexistent). Did you even read one of these links? You and articullet are so verbose, I feel like I’ve been slimed when I try to wade through your posts. Try some brevity so I don’t have to struggle so much to get through your convoluted thinking.

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.

Don't forget Nanoarchaeum equitans at 491,000 bases.

Paul, you are an expert at telling half a story. The following is taken from the URL: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/archaea/Nanoarchaeum_equitans.html

It has also been discovered that Nanoarchaeum equitans lives in co-culture with the microbe Ignicoccus, it is parasitic and entirely dependent on its host for survival.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do not take credit for this math. This is the mathematics of devout evolutionarian Dr Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute. He is the author of the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Your very own moderator on this forum, Paul Anagnostopoulos, wrote the online java version of this computer simulation. Paul used to call this computer simulation realistic until close scrutiny revealed it produces data that shows the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection.

So, I take no credit for the formulation of this evolutionarian mathematical model. I only plugged in realistic values in the model and out popped the results. I do like co-opting evolutionarian ideas though, the problem is there are so few worth co-opting.

Why don't you just have the word "liar" tattooed on your forehead and have done with it?

It would save a lot of time.

So you have proved that you can plug “de novo” and “RNA” into google. Too bad that none of these links have anything to do with the de novo evolution of a gene. .

Hello? These are examples of entire replicating environmentally adapted genomes being produced de novo.