Annoying creationists

[John Hewitt]

But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.

I have looked at some of your links. Non of them described DNA or RNA functioning as a replicator. Some such studies describe autocatalytic reactions but you do not need the complexity of biochemistry to achieve that.

 

[hammegk]

Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?

I wouldn't doubt it.

Their second picture is based on what was found in the first dig. The first picture is based on what scientists found in subsequent digs.

Cites? A listing of bones actually found would be a start. Which museum/university/wherever has the originals would be another. I admit my google-fu fails.

Oh, one more thing for hammy, where the heck do you suppose they got those reconstructions from? Creationists don't do science, do they? You know this as well as I do.

Some of 'em try. The "re-construction" business has been, and is yet, a problem for all concerned, sfaik.

They got them both from scientists, they just put 'em in inverse chronological order.

Sorry. What?

 

[kjkent1]

Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.

Like I said, humor is a funny thing -- but don't quit your day job.

PS. How many patient consults can you squeeze in between posts?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.

I have looked at some of your links. Non of them described DNA or RNA functioning as a replicator. Some such studies describe autocatalytic reactions but you do not need the complexity of biochemistry to achieve that.

Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.

Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.

Like I said, humor is a funny thing -- but don't quit your day job.

PS. How many patient consults can you squeeze in between posts?

I was just stringing you along.

Depends on how far apart the posts are.

 

[Kotatsu]

Then as usual we are back to imaginary lines on taxonomy charts vs imaginary lines on cladograms all purporting to demonstrate "speciation".

This is a splendid retreat! If differences between species can be dismissed as imaginary lines on taxonomy charts and cladograms, then we may as well continue to the extreme and declare all species to be one species, divided only in the mind of the taxonomist. Of course, under those conditions there will be no speciation, as any progeny produced by any means will of course belong to the same species as the parent(s) --- by definition there is no alternative!

While I can agree that the lines taxonomists and systematicists draw between some species may be tenuous and/or ambiguous (overly influenced by some of my peers, perhaps, I tend to hold the genus Phagodrilus to be one of these cases, for instance, and I burst out laughing the first time I heard that a taxonomist wanted to divide Hieraceum into well over 5.000 species in Northern Europe alone), this is not always the case when polyploidization is involved, as this often creates a very real barrier to successful reproduction between the diploid parent and the polyploid progeny.

 

[Kotatsu]

Dr Schneider doesn’t seem to agree with this view. He used his program to estimate the time it would take to evolve a human genome.

Personally, I care not one iota what Dr. Schneider may think or not think. However, as you know, he also mentioned (1) that the rate he used to calculate that time was an overestimate, and that other factors not included in the model also played a part.

The model, to accurately reflect all known parts of the phenomenon, must include representations of all known parts of the phenomenon. My understanding is that Ev does not seek to model all aspects of the phenomenon, but is limited to some of them. Your conclusion about the impossibility of the evolution of the human genome given a certain timeframe is applicable only to a world in which the model represents all possible methods of genome change and evolution. In the present world, this is not true, and, as I said above, your conclusion is reversed.

---
(1) Based on quotations earlier in this thread; I have not read his paper.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Gee, whenever I came up with a simulation that didn't match the real world, I kept trying to find the error in the simulation.

I didn't realize I could just declare that reality is in error!

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't realize I could just declare that reality is in error!

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Dr Schneider doesn’t seem to agree with this view. He used his program to estimate the time it would take to evolve a human genome.

Personally, I care not one iota what Dr. Schneider may think or not think. However, as you know, he also mentioned (1) that the rate he used to calculate that time was an overestimate, and that other factors not included in the model also played a part.

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

The model, to accurately reflect all known parts of the phenomenon, must include representations of all known parts of the phenomenon. My understanding is that Ev does not seek to model all aspects of the phenomenon, but is limited to some of them. Your conclusion about the impossibility of the evolution of the human genome given a certain timeframe is applicable only to a world in which the model represents all possible methods of genome change and evolution. In the present world, this is not true, and, as I said above, your conclusion is reversed.

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.

I'm afraid to try. Doing so might cause an exception in the simulation software which creates our reality.

 

[hammegk]

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.

LOL.

Have you decided to become an objective idealist?

Your question makes no sense from the viewpoint of 100% materialism/naturalism.

 

[kjkent1]

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

 

[John Hewitt]

As I understand it, evolution is a process. In biological organisms, genes are an essential component to allow evolution to take place.

I would say evolution is the process; genetic change is what happens when an organism evolves.

<snip>

I don't see why a system requires anything as complicated as a gene to evolve. Clearly it doesn’t or we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. All is required is a place to store information, along with the other items I gave on my list earlier.

Clearly I wasn't being as clear as I thought I was.

I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?

I was trying to make the point that an analysis should be performed at an appropriate level. Sure you could argue that genes determine everything about an organism, but you could also argue it was all decided the moment the universe came into existence, neither of which to me are useful for explaining or predicting most phenomenon.

Yes, you seem to be going for a systems description of evolution with multiple levels of systems and subsystems - very good.

Again, I would say it's all about the level of analysis. Obviously genes have an impact on behavior. For example IQ appears to be ~50% determined by a person's genes. To me, the interesting work in psychology is how to affect the other 50%. That will not involve genetics. Evolution may be involved, but not to do with genes. Call it mematics if you like. (Robert takes cover while John explodes) .

Or, instead of calling it memetics, you could call it a mouldy cauliflower - after all, a rose by any other name woulds't smell as sweet.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm afraid to try. Doing so might cause an exception in the simulation software which creates our reality.

I knew it! YOU'RE the programmer. I saw all those computer languages you speak, next you're in the evolution thread, THEN you mention reality.

Ha! You've been found out. Now, I just have to figure out what to do about it...

 

[The Atheist]

LOL.

Have you decided to become an objective idealist?

Your question makes no sense from the viewpoint of 100% materialism/naturalism.

Since when was making sense a criterion for posting in this [or any] thread?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.

 

[hammegk]

Since when was making sense a criterion for posting in this [or any] thread?

You usually make sense, hence my comment.

 

[kjkent1]

Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.

Why would I tell them about a worthless plan?

Seriously, Alan, do you realize that you are turning science and math on their respective heads? You entire argument comes down to advocating that if something which is observed doesn't follow existing mathematical principles, that the observations are wrong, rather than the math.

The probabilities may say, for example, that my horse should win the next race -- but if it doesn't, does that mean that I only imagined that the horse lost?

You are literally putting the cart(esian) before the horse.

So, let's assume that you're correct, and the creation of a gene de novo is mathematically impossible. You have yet to give us your alternative theory. However, I have read in a past post of yours (although I can't remember where, at the moment), that the more you have looked into things, the more you believe that the existence of God is mathematically certain.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really like you read your hypotheses on this issue. Regardless of the name of this thread, everyone has given you a huge amount of opportunity to make your negative case, and it's only fair that you start presenting an affirmative one.

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?

And please, I'm begging you, before you start: define gene and tell us whether you mean de novo or ex nihilo.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.

Why would I tell them about a worthless plan?

It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.

Seriously, Alan, do you realize that you are turning science and math on their respective heads? You entire argument comes down to advocating that if something which is observed doesn't follow existing mathematical principles, that the observations are wrong, rather than the math.

I don’t argue about evolutionarian observations, I argue about the evolutionarian interpretation of the observations.

The probabilities may say, for example, that my horse should win the next race -- but if it doesn't, does that mean that I only imagined that the horse lost?

Your evolutionarian horse is proving to be a nag. It has lost the mutation and natural selection race. You are just slow in acknowledging this.

So, let's assume that you're correct, and the creation of a gene de novo is mathematically impossible. You have yet to give us your alternative theory. However, I have read in a past post of yours (although I can't remember where, at the moment), that the more you have looked into things, the more you believe that the existence of God is mathematically certain.

The name of this thread is ________ _________. Anyway, why am I obliged to give you an alternative theory? You are so heavily indoctrinated in evolutionism that you have lost the ability at making of objective interpretation of observations. I never said that the existence of God is mathematically certain. What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really like you read your hypotheses on this issue. Regardless of the name of this thread, everyone has given you a huge amount of opportunity to make your negative case, and it's only fair that you start presenting an affirmative one.

I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity. I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations. However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?

GEN 1:1

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?

And please, I'm begging you, before you start: define gene and tell us whether you mean de novo or ex nihilo.

The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later.