Annoying creationists

[John Hewitt]

Popper (was) an idiot.

<snip>

Evolutionary epistemology?
I do know a thing or two about epistemology, having studied it in college. I've never heard of this flavor. I don't think I can even guess what it means.

You're a little slow on the uptake, John. I quite explicitly stated that I did not read your work.
<snip>
Ah... what a brilliant response to my actual attempt to address your theory.

In my opinion, Popper was the best philosopher of the 20th century but you are free to differ.
Popper's main book on evolutionary epistemology is "Objective Knowledge."
Other well known names would include Toulmin and Plotkin.
Thank you for telling me, again, that you have not read my work. I now understand that you have not read my work and that you know nothing about the ideas which led me to it.
Perhaps that is why I find your comments trite?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth John, but I think your answers to the questions are:

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

I have not tried to get funding and have done no experiments to confirm my theory.

If not, why not?

Because I don't think anybody would give me any money.

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

I have not tried to get funding.

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

There are no results because I have not got any funding and not tested my theory at all.

Actually, I have a question for anybody to answer: Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?

So as I understand it, John's work to date is a hypothesis, not a theory, since no testing has been performed.

 

[The Atheist]

Death is the way the word works,

To fear it is to fear reality.

Correct. And there are how many theists vs how many atheists in the world?

I think you'll find quite a few people are afraid of reality, even in 2007.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, I have a question for anybody to answer: Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?

Hey, even I know that. Scientifically speaking, you're quite right.

Even Webster gets it right.

A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, but I think your answers to the questions are:I have not tried to get funding and have done no experiments to confirm my theory. Because I don't think anybody would give me any money. I have not tried to get funding. There are no results because I have not got any funding and not tested my theory at all.

<snip> Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?
So as I understand it, John's work to date is a hypothesis, not a theory, since no testing has been performed.

Yes, there is a game people play in management classes about how to say the same things pejoratively or positively. You are clearly familiar with this game and are choosing pejorative phrasing.
Your usage of the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is correct but general usage often mixes them, as I am sure you also know.
I feel that playing words games is less constructive than considering the various alternatives theories or hypotheses or whatever else you want to call them. There can be no genuine test of any theory of prebiotic evolution - short of building a new earth. In the those circumstances, one's preference falls back on issues such as parsimony and my work is by far the most parsimonious theory of prebiotic evolution yet presented. In fact, it makes no chemically or probabilistically unreasonable assumptions.

As we were discussing but a few messages ago, the main alternatives are so improbable or have such chemically unreasonable implications that they defy common sense. In the absence of a genuine ability to test mechanisms of abiogenesis, I think that one is obliged to fall back on criteria like parsimony in deciding between them. (At least, I think that is what competent scientists should do.) It is on that basis that I stand by my own analysis.

 

[John Hewitt]

Hey, even I know that. Scientifically speaking, you're quite right.

Even Webster gets it right.

No, he is only right semantically.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Professor Miller of Brown University who formulated the arguments for the Flagellum Unspun response to irreducible complexity doesn’t know what the components of the DNA replicase system could have been used for before DNA could be replicated, I doubt he knows what the components of the RNA replicase system had other uses for before RNA could be replicated. You know how to use google, find someone who knows what the components of these molecular systems were doing before DNA and RNA could be replicated. There must be some evolutionarian out there speculating an answer.

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.

There you go RecoveringYuppy, ribozymes and clay surfaces, that is as good speculation as any.

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.

The difference between Ohm’s law and the theory of evolution is that conservation of charge yields mathematically accurate predictions of the behavior of electrical systems, mutation and natural selection is not leading to mathematically accurate predictions of biological systems.

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?

I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.

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/biophysi...Szostak96.html

The following quote is the first sentence of this link. (I added the highlighting).

My laboratory has devised in vitro selection and directed evolution methods for the isolation of RNA, DNA and protein molecules with specific binding or catalytic properties.

Intelligent devisors can create many amazing things. If you think this devised selection process rescues ev and the theory of evolution, why don’t you incorporate it into your mathematical model?

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.

There is no realistic selection process that can correct the deficiency in ev and the theory of evolution that would evolve binding sites or genes de novo.

Kleinman's claim lived by the computer model, died by the computer model. And I really haven't been able to get too excited or concerned one way or another about John Hewett's theory or beliefs. Creationism and ID are important because they're politically significant in a way that can affect science education. The main reason Behe matters is that his claim can be easily conveyed to, believed by, and repeated by, local school board members: "If something is irreducibly complex it cannot have evolved." Somehow I don't see them getting any comparable political traction with "Data, not genes, is the replicator."

Are you now denying the validity of ev?

Kleinman's argument has "devolved" into the bare, unsupported speculation that:

(1) Unnamed's selection method is unrealistic, and
(2) Random mutation is too slow to ever produce a living organism which can benefit from natural selection.

For #1, Kleinman needs to produce some evidence showing what a "realistic" selection method would be, so that it can be programmed.

For #2, there needs to be some consensus as to just how small a living organism could have been at the time that life supposedly developed. Hewitt produced a post from a science conference which suggests that the minimum genome would be about 318kbits.

(1) Unnamed, Dr Schneider’s and all other selection process for evolving a genes de novo are unrealistic, and
(2) Random point mutations and natural selection is too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev program

What you evolutionarians have to face is that the mathematics of mutation and natural selection does not demonstrate the validity of your theory of evolution. Unlike the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton’s laws, or conservation of mass and the many other useful mathematical relationships for physical phenomena that yield useful predictions, the mathematics of mutation and selection lacks a valid selection process that would describe the evolution of a gene de novo. Mutation and natural selection makes for a good slogan but not a good mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

 

[kjkent1]

(1) Unnamed, Dr Schneider’s and all other selection process for evolving a genes de novo are unrealistic, and
(2) Random point mutations and natural selection is too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev program

What you evolutionarians have to face is that the mathematics of mutation and natural selection does not demonstrate the validity of your theory of evolution. Unlike the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton’s laws, or conservation of mass and the many other useful mathematical relationships for physical phenomena that yield useful predictions, the mathematics of mutation and selection lacks a valid selection process that would describe the evolution of a gene de novo. Mutation and natural selection makes for a good slogan but not a good mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

Seems to me that your posts are becoming increasingly philosophical.

And, once again -- I am not an "evolutionarian."

 

[hammegk]

Indeed it is. I demand that everyone else begin by accepting my premises. Here are my premises:

1. There is an external world.

2. It is knowable, at least in approximation.

3. We can tell the difference between approximations.

Do you know anyone who disagrees with these premises?

Define external.

Other forms of metaphysics do not reject these premises; they simply add a few of their own. Well, except for Idealism, which does reject #1. Are you saying that you think the Idealists should be taken seriously?

Of course any objective idealist accepts 1. vis-a-vis what he or she perceives as that objective idealist's "thoughts".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I was just responding to it.

Oh, you were agreeing! Sorry, I was confoosed.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

If not, why not?

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

Pay very close attention to his answer...and/or the ignoring of the questions.

Your words gush meaning nothing.

Did I miss something? John said:

Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.

Is there something controversial here?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.

You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Define external.

External: Not a product of your conscious thought.

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

From Paul
Did I miss something? John said:

Originally Posted by Hewitt
Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.

Is there something controversial here?

You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?

~~ Paul

Well you might infer that the selection process I described is worth considering. For some reason, many here do not.

 

[hammegk]

External: Not a product of your conscious thought.

Yup, I deny *I* am The Solipsist (should such exist). And for discussion purposes, agree to accept that *you* aren't She.He, either.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

(1) Unnamed, Dr Schneider’s and all other selection process for evolving a genes de novo are unrealistic, and
(2) Random point mutations and natural selection is too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev program

What you evolutionarians have to face is that the mathematics of mutation and natural selection does not demonstrate the validity of your theory of evolution. Unlike the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton’s laws, or conservation of mass and the many other useful mathematical relationships for physical phenomena that yield useful predictions, the mathematics of mutation and selection lacks a valid selection process that would describe the evolution of a gene de novo. Mutation and natural selection makes for a good slogan but not a good mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

And, once again -- I am not an "evolutionarian."

That paragraph is addressed to all with the following signs and symptoms. speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.

I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.

You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

 

[cyborg]

That paragraph is addressed to all with the following signs and symptoms. speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.

Guys! He's had us all fooled! Kleinman's an evolutionarianist!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo.

But just before you said:

What I mean is that there is no known selection process ... [emphasis mine]

Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision.

What a ridiculous statement.

This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

What on earth does the evolution of DNA/RNA have to do with Ev?

Your story changes like the wind, Alan.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

Just for argument's sake, what would you say would be the minimum requirement for any molecular structure to be able to take "selective advantage" of a random mutation?

Put another way, if you have molecule "A", and it is capable of causing copies of itself to be created, via chemical process "B", and mutation "C" occurs, which makes the molecule more capable of causing copies of itself to be created, then isn't that a "selective advantage?"

And, if you agree that the above statement is true, then you don't really need a "gene de novo" as you describe it, in order to start the process of evolution via RMNS.

Perhaps your definition of "life" may be too restrictive, because RMNS may easily function with chemical structures which are not "alive" in the conventional sense of the term?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision.

What a ridiculous statement.

Then explain to us why you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. What is really ridiculous is formulating a theory in which the cause and effect principle can not be demonstrated either mathematically or empirically in the laboratory and yet adherents still believe it is scientific.

This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

What on earth does the evolution of DNA/RNA have to do with Ev?

Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

Just for argument's sake, what would you say would be the minimum requirement for any molecular structure to be able to take "selective advantage" of a random mutation?

An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.

Perhaps your definition of "life" may be too restrictive, because RMNS may easily function with chemical structures which are not "alive" in the conventional sense of the term?

Why don’t you describe to us how this selective process that would make these chemical structures function?