Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry. Those statements don't compute, or dare I say ... are ill-behaved.

Something is maintaining the consistency of the external world, and it's not your conscious thoughts. You don't know what it is. So when you say "[my] thought exists" you are, at best, saying "thought, at least, exists." But that statement is so unprofound that it's hardly worth saying.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Something is maintaining the consistency of the external world, and it's not your conscious thoughts. You don't know what it is. So when you say "[my] thought exists" you are, at best, saying "thought, at least, exists." But that statement is so unprofound that it's hardly worth saying.

But perhaps you mean to say "thought is the only thing I'm sure exists." That's somewhat more profound, but still not all that exciting, since you know that there is something else you can't explain.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

See, here you go again. Firing off rounds, even though your gun is only half-cocked.

John didn't post that! I explained that the post was made by an Australian.

Thanks, however, for proving beyond any shadow of doubt that you read half of something, decide "creationist" and jump on in.

Good work.

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.

And it's true, I've stopped reading you, and apparently most other people have as well--it seems like you are the one firing rounds with your gun half cocked.

 

[articulett]

Not enough time? Why, that's jess' plain silly, Alan. There's more than enough time, because under my definition, where everything that can happen, must happen in one universe or another, the mere probability, however unlikely, that 3 billion base pairs can come together at random to produce the entire human genome, means that the event, will absolutely happen in some universe somewhere.

And, if we're here talkin' about it, then we just happen to inhabit that happy little universe (or, one of those happy universes).

This sort of thinking, bothered Einstein. But, it didn't bother Heisenberg, and it doesn't bother Leonard Susskind -- nor me (not that I'm including myself in that category of elite theoretical physicists).

No, you can't say that just as easily, because if God/Jesus is limitless, then he is unmeasurable by any scientific process, and therefore impossible. And, if God is impossible, then no matter how much time, probability or universes are available, God ain't gonna happen -- under my theory, that is.

Humans, however, are an absolutel certainty.

And evolution isn't just random--mutations have a randomness component, but fitness is selected--the opposite of random and built upon. Kleinman is trying to get us to plug in his formula to prove that the earth is flat, even though the rest of the world has been living in a spherical world just fine.

Quacks want you to disprove their "disproof of evolution". Actual scientists present facts in support of their theories which are open to falsification. Since there are no facts to support "goddidit", creationists turn gaps in knowledge (often long since filled) into "evolution can't be true", and then promptly insert their nonsense, non-testable, non-theory and tell everyone the scientists can't answer their (insert babble)-- they insinuate this is because scientists are cheating liars who haven't got a clue. Meanwhile, scientists are busy decoding genomes and filling in the details of one of the most profoundly supported theories of all time and learning the facts about how life evolved on this planet.

Alan is fun to toy with, but temper all expectations. Creationist thinking seldom evolves. When you teach people that faith is a good way to know something, you end up with some pretty ignorant individuals who are arrogant beyond belief while crying that everyone is abusing them. Kleinman cannot compute.

 

[The Atheist]

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.

Rather be gullible than plain stupid.

If you'd even read it before you jumped to the wrong conclusion - just for a change - you would have seen that the comment was posted by an Aussie after he had cut and pasted from John's site.

Who's posting assertions without facts? Let's play "spot the teacher"!

 

[John Hewitt]

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.

And it's true, I've stopped reading you, and apparently most other people have as well--it seems like you are the one firing rounds with your gun half cocked.

No, Atheist is quite right, I didn't put that post to the Dembski blog but that would only have been through lack of time or initiative or whatever on my part. I would have had no objection to doing so in principle. As I have said before, the ID critigue of evolutionary theory seems to me much more valid than the scientific community is willing to acknowledge. I do think evolutionary theory would be improved if their arguments were more sensibly addressed.
Incidentally, I do not accept that I make unsupported assertions - my web sites document my assertions in some detail. You, on the other hand, document nothing, preferring to gush endless and repeated ad hominems that address nothing sensibly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

So that's why you post so much nonsense. You are hiding.

You couldn't name one thing I have posted in this thread that you can show with supporting evidence is wrong let alone indefensible. In fact, I don't recall a single post of yours that has ever had a logical argument or a citation.

Your posts remind me of lint. It shows up on things but has no relevance other than it can be annoying if it becomes too frequent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well this thread has certainly deteriorated again. But some of the quips are quite clever.

Klienman do you even know what a gene is? Humor me here.

There are ~3 Billion base pairs, (nucleotides) in the human genome.

Base pairs have been discovered to be in codons which constitute "Three bases in a DNA or RNA sequence which specify a single amino acid". Genes are then divided into exons which contain the expressive codons and introns which have an unknown function. Though the introns don't have an identified function, it is believed they do something because they are conserved from generation to generation. If they had no function, you might expect to see lots of random variation. Something is selecting for consistent patterns.

And the genes are contained in chromosomes of which humans have 23 pairs.

This site says, "researchers have confirmed the existence of 19,599 protein-coding genes in the human genome and identified another 2,188 DNA segments that are predicted to be protein-coding genes."

So, with 25,000 genes divided on to 46 chromosomes, just what is it you think happens as an organism evolves? Do you think a whole gene must form and be added on? Genes are merely sequences of DNA. There are triggers which signal the end and beginning of a segment of DNA that will constitute a gene. But a single mutation which involves adding or losing base pairs can change codons in a cascade effect. The results however, turn out to be very robust, meaning there is a lot of give in the system. If you take the time to look at the work that refutes Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis, you'd see that the precursor was some completely different function.

It really isn't miraculous that DNA and RNA strands can pick up new base pairs. Everything isn't merely one for one mutation exchanges.

I'm pretty sure genetic scientists understand exactly how a new gene arises, or if not exactly, they have a pretty good idea. You seem to prefer avoiding educating yourself in the scientific advances in this field. What are you afraid of? Will it really shake the foundations of your faith to find out Genesis is a myth? Aren't you curious to see if the one concept you are clinging to stands up to scrutiny?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.

The reason I came up with the quote “Grand theory of everything” theory of evolution is because of the generality of it. Most scientists focus on narrow (today extremely narrow) aspects included in it, such as social psychology or genetics. What are you hoping for? A new area of study to be created based on your theory?

Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't genes contain the data your theory is based on? So once genes turned up (however that may have occurred), they became the fundamental units of data that can practically be used to understand evolution.

So your theory, as far as I understand, would only have use before genes came to exist or if you could find a life form that reproduces without genes.

As for people lying in science, don't worry. If they've lied and are wrong, it will eventually be corrected. If they've lied and are correct, they'll get a Nobel prize.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh! You mean to say you haven’t mastered the selection process for evolving a gene de novo? Thank you for correcting my error. Somebody check scatequate’s diaper, I think it is time for it to be changed.

So, did you not read the links, or did you not understand them?

 

[cyborg]

Is that what you are having trouble understanding, my use of the term “de novo”?

Yes clearly. Because Latin is so hard.

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning.

Irrelevant. I am assuming your Jesus based selection mechanism.

Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things.

Qualitative argument again. I could care less.

Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

Qualitative argument again. I could care less.

There is no mathematics of evolving a gene de novo because there is no selection process to evolve genes from the beginning.

Provide proof by contradiction then.

I'll even explain how this works:

1) Assume there is a mathematics of evolving a gene de novo - don't worry, Jesus won't hate you for doing this; so you can suspend your loathing hate for a few seconds at least I assume
2) Show that it cannot be constructed in a logically consistent way

I was invited by this scientist to study his model and I did what I have been trained to do with computer simulations.

And I have invited myself to provide you with the actual possibility of showing mathematical impossibility. You clearly wouldn't have a clue where to start - I think 4^G is just about the limit of your cognition here.

The mathematics is there for anyone who wants to look for it. After all, you found my error about the effect of population on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at a particular locus.

No I didn't. I was just being an annoying evolutionist.

So study these threads and learn why your theory has at least two fatal mathematical flaws which makes your theory impossible.

It's not my theory.

Now when are you going to explain Jesus based selection?

I agree that mathematics is precise, this is why I don’t allow this discussion to diverge too far from the mathematics.

Haha. Very funny.

Most people can understand balancing a checkbook.

Some people can even understand that evolution isn't economics.

Argument by analogy is the refuge of the creationist.

 

[Kotatsu]

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

And all Brassica are still Brassica...?

 

[John Hewitt]

The reason I came up with the quote “Grand theory of everything” theory of evolution is because of the generality of it. Most scientists focus on narrow (today extremely narrow) aspects included in it, such as social psychology or genetics. What are you hoping for? A new area of study to be created based on your theory?

Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't genes contain the data your theory is based on? So once genes turned up (however that may have occurred), they became the fundamental units of data that can practically be used to understand evolution.

So your theory, as far as I understand, would only have use before genes came to exist or if you could find a life form that reproduces without genes.

As for people lying in science, don't worry. If they've lied and are wrong, it will eventually be corrected. If they've lied and are correct, they'll get a Nobel prize.

I do not claim my work as a grand theory of everything. However, and as a general principle, scientific theories should be expressed in their most general available form. Fisher notwithstanding, genetics is not and cannot be the most general expression of evolution as a theory. Even in Darwin's time people talked about social evolution which does not depend upon genetic change.
That being so, the question arises as to what "thing" is necessarily present in all forms of evolution. I argue that that "thing" is data. Data is about pattern or arrangement and I do not see how evolution could ever apply without data. Evolution is about how data can be selectively changed and about the processes that bring about those selective changes. Data is present in social evolution, in knowledge (linked to evolutionary epistemology), in immune responses (linked to the Darwinian machine of clonal selection), in sensory processing (where data from the senses are processed by the Darwinian machine that is the brain), and in genetic (more correctly evolutionary) algorithms, which you, as an engineer, may have come across.
So, when I look at genetic evolution, I note that genetics has problems describing even biology. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Fisher's analysis is capable of telling anyone why genes are arranged in the order they are, or why they are located on one chormosome rather than another. My point is that genetics, as described in terms of Fishers atoms of evolution does not contain that kind of "gene arrangement" data. Even so, such data does have biological consequences. Sensory data, social data and ethically selected data (professional knowledge if you like) are simply not in genetics at all.

So, I set out to describe evolution in terms of data. Bioepistemic evolution, which is a multilevel system of evolution, is the result and it takes each cycle of evolution as beginning with data. In my analysis of prebiotic evolution, I simply took the the most powerful data source on the prebiotic earth - the sun - and endeavoured to analyse its consequences in terms of organic chemistry, using bioepistemic evolution as a guide.


Finally, I take exception to your comments about scientific lying. As I said to skeptigirl earlier "fraud is a crime and scientific fraud is not a victimless crime;" implying otherwise merely adds insult to injury. The victims of crime are entitled to express their anger and I make no apology expressing my own, justified anger. I suggest that there is more to responding to scientific fraud than patronizing the victims by telling them that one day science will get it right.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The crucial part of your statement is “given enough time”. Without a selection process to accelerate the random mutation process you don’t have enough time. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, it reveals how slow random point mutations and natural selection is for accumulating information. The evolutionarians on this site are slow to understand this principle but I am patient. This does not represent a minor gap in the theory of evolution, this goes to the core of the theory. Notice how the evolutionarians that inhabit this site are not willing to address this issue. I read all the links that scatequate posted and not one addresses the issue of a selection process for evolving a gene de novo.

Not enough time? Why, that's jess' plain silly, Alan. There's more than enough time, because under my definition, where everything that can happen, must happen in one universe or another, the mere probability, however unlikely, that 3 billion base pairs can come together at random to produce the entire human genome, means that the event, will absolutely happen in some universe somewhere.

It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.

I can just as easily say that our existence is proof of creationism but I don’t because I don’t believe this qualifies as a scientific proof.

No, you can't say that just as easily, because if God/Jesus is limitless, then he is unmeasurable by any scientific process, and therefore impossible. And, if God is impossible, then no matter how much time, probability or universes are available, God ain't gonna happen -- under my theory, that is.

We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.

Perhaps when Kleinman says "evolve a gene de novo," he really means "evolve a gene ex nihilo." Is he talking about the evolution of the very first gene? Maybe that's why he keeps mentioning gyrase and helicase.

It's an appeal to ignorance, Alan. By the way, DNA helicase IV can unwind both DNA and RNA.

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

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.

Alan, give it up, man. You're saying "I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process." It just sounds plain dumb.

How about if I phrase it like this? 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 despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.

Klienman do you even know what a gene is? Humor me here.

You have blue, faded and if your old enough, you will remember bell bottoms.

Oh! You mean to say you haven’t mastered the selection process for evolving a gene de novo? Thank you for correcting my error. Somebody check scatequate’s diaper, I think it is time for it to be changed.

So, did you not read the links, or did you not understand them?

I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection.

You all have a good weekend.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

Don't know. Can you prove that they components, or similar, have no other uses?

P.S. Given your track record, I'm not ruling out that someone already knows of alternative uses.

 

[John Hewitt]

Kleinman has remarked

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.
Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

Don't know. Can you prove that they components, or similar, have no other uses?

P.S. Given your track record, I'm not ruling out that someone already knows of alternative uses.

In answer I suggest that this is a question about prebiotic evolution. There are suggestions about how genes or other data carrying molecules emerged. You might look up words like "ribozymes," "the RNA world," "Cairns Smith" and they often involve catalysis on clay surfaces etc. However, I cannot grace those suggestions by applying words such as "theory" or "hypothesis" to them. Neither, for that matter, can I honestly try to defend them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Could be, but my points to Kleinman would be these: Not knowing now is not the same not ever knowing; and nothing I'm familiar with in current evolutionary theory depends on knowing how the RNA replicase system evolved. Not knowing where the RNA replicase system came from is no more a problem for evolutionary theory than not knowing where electrons came from is a problem for Ohm's law. If we were to find out today that the RNA replicase system was invented by God we'd have to change nothing in the theory of evolution.

I've looked up those keywords before and have at least one Cairns Smith book. Thanks.

 

[kjkent1]

It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.

Au contraire. We are here in this universe, therefore it absolutely happened.

We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.

Doesn't matter. You can never scientifically prove any act of God, without limiting his almighty power and thereby rendering God, not almighty.

However, as I've shown, we can scientifically exclude God from any possible probability of existence, and simultaneously prove the evolution of human life. The only required assumption is an acceptance of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

We are here, and God is not. Therefore, no matter how improbable our existence may seem, we must have been produced by some natural process -- otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that DNA is a "designer" molecule created by some superintelligent alien. But, that answer always begs the question of who designed the designer. So, at some point, we are back to an intelligence formed via a natural process.

Assuming you accept modern quantum mechanics, the conclusion is unavoidable, and mathematically certain.

We evolved.

 

[The Atheist]

Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Are you claiming there is no path by which genes as we know them could evolve ex nihilo?

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

Other things. Or similar things. Simpler related things.

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/biophysics/faculty/Szostak96.html

How about if I phrase it like this? 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 despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.

Sorry, sounds the same to me: I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process.

~~ Paul