Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

The False Witness

Oh, little he cares he's been proven in error;
it's happened before, so it holds little terror:
do scientists really suppose
that by proving him wrong they can prove that he's wrong?
For the facts are just feeble, but falsehood is strong,
as a faithful creationist knows.

In pursuit of the truth though the scientists plod,
he's refuted their findings by lying for God
(it's a course He approves of as wise).
He pities biologists bound by veracity;
better by far to have faith in mendacity:
that's why he'll stick to his lies.

Confronted with proven and verified things
he need only riposte that all pigs have got wings,
and recite the same falsehood for hours;
for as he'll explain to the folks who dispute him,
just proving him wrong is no way to refute him,
but lying has magical powers.

When faced with the facts he will place his reliance
on lying concerning the content of science,
and stick to his lies come what may.
No matter what basic biology tells you,
he answers: "The power of lying compels you!"
and then all the facts go away.

So the verified facts are the least of his fears:
he just closes his eyes and he plugs up his ears,
and he carefully shuts off his brain.
When all of the lies that he loves to recite
have been proved to be wrong, he can prove that they're right
by reciting them over again.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.

Alan, you are really over the top with your comments above. I strongly recommend you consider a retraction and an apology to Paul.Unless, that is, you actually want Paul to sue you, so that you can prove ev and evolution mathematically impossible in a court of law. That would be a pretty interesting case.

Maybe you can find one of Clarence Darrow’s descendants to take the case.

What you are missing here kjkent1 is that RMNS is only observed to occur on a very limited basis. An existing virus can have a base substitution which gives it drug resistance, or a substitution can occur in hemoglobin that conveys malarial resistance under certain environmental conditions. The problem you evolutionarians have is that you extrapolate these very limited cases of RMNS to massive genome transformations. You have no selection process that would do this. Without a selection process, the transformations are subject to probability principles.

I'm not missing anything, Alan, and that includes your increasing tendency toward defamatory statements.

You whining crybabies take any disagreement with your mushy theory of evolution as defamatory. Hundreds of posts ago you thought my goal was a pyrrhic victory. All I am doing is putting a little heat on a rusty old theory that is supported with religious fervor by its adherents.

You are extrapolating "ev" to be the entire science behind evolution, rather than only a demonstration of information gain. You keep insisting on a total mathematical exposition of the entire scope of evolutionary processes -- as if to say that evolution is the only natural process which defies such a methodical mathematical breakdown.

Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

However, the world economy and the weather, as examples, do not permit such perfect modeling, and each routinely defies attempts to predict or mathematically explain their behavior.

The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev. Unless one of you evolutionarians can come up with a realistic selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you’ve got a theory that is dependent on a metaphysical explanation.

And, yet, the economy and the weather exist, and neither receives quite the same scrutiny from fundamental theists as does evolution. Why is that, I wonder?

I guess your theory of evolution has just had a stock market crash.

Hey, weren’t you going to explain string theory to us? I want to hear about the 10^500 alternative universes.

I provided you with a link to a recent lecture from Dr. Leonard Susskind on the subject. Evidently, you chose to avoid reviewing it.

I wanted to hear the story from someone who has the heart of a litigator.

 

[kjkent1]

Explaining? No, I'd say the best one can manage is finding a worldview that can be logically defended. And the attributes your worldview allows in your definition of material is where the problem lies.

How do you defend your worldview as logical, given that it apparently includes God as a natural actor who is entirely unmeasurable?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Maybe you can find one of Clarence Darrow’s descendants to take the case.

You whining crybabies take any disagreement with your mushy theory of evolution as defamatory. Hundreds of posts ago you thought my goal was a pyrrhic victory. All I am doing is putting a little heat on a rusty old theory that is supported with religious fervor by its adherents.

Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev. Unless one of you evolutionarians can come up with a realistic selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you’ve got a theory that is dependent on a metaphysical explanation.

I guess your theory of evolution has just had a stock market crash.

I wanted to hear the story from someone who has the heart of a litigator.

You make Baby Jesus cry.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Explaining? No, I'd say the best one can manage is finding a worldview that can be logically defended. And the attributes your worldview allows in your definition of material is where the problem lies.

How do you defend your worldview as logical, given that it apparently includes God as a natural actor who is entirely unmeasurable?

That’s a good one kjkent1, blame God for your inability to defend your worldview.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That’s a good one kjkent1, blame God for your inability to defend your worldview.

... and you make the Holy Ghost barf with disgust.

Kjkent did not "blame God" for anything whatsoever. He asked you: "How do you defend your worldview as logical, given that it apparently includes God as a natural actor who is entirely unmeasurable?"

If you are unable to answer him, then lying about what he said is no substitute for an answer. It just makes you look like a disgusting liar crawling away from reality and leaving a trail of filthy slime behind him.

 

[kjkent1]

You whining crybabies take any disagreement with your mushy theory of evolution as defamatory. Hundreds of posts ago you thought my goal was a pyrrhic victory. All I am doing is putting a little heat on a rusty old theory that is supported with religious fervor by its adherents.

No, it's the "two faced hypocrite" part that's defamatory. "Two faced means "dishonest/deceitful." I don't think you can legally prove that Paul has been deceitful, because it implies that his intention is to induce a concrete injury to others.

If that's what you believe, then kindly show everyone how Paul intends to injure others by his deceitful/dishonest behavior.

It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

String theory (and/or the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), can lower the mathematical improbability of self-replicating molecules occurring by random chance to a near certainty.

You may not like this response. But, it satisfies your requirements whether you like it or not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You whining crybabies take any disagreement with your mushy theory of evolution as defamatory. Hundreds of posts ago you thought my goal was a pyrrhic victory. All I am doing is putting a little heat on a rusty old theory that is supported with religious fervor by its adherents.

No, it's the "two faced hypocrite" part that's defamatory. "Two faced means "dishonest/deceitful." I don't think you can legally prove that Paul has been deceitful, because it implies that his intention is to induce a concrete injury to others.

If that's what you believe, then kindly show everyone how Paul intends to injure others by his deceitful/dishonest behavior.

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates. It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.

It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

String theory (and/or the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), can lower the mathematical improbability of self-replicating molecules occurring by random chance to a near certainty.

You may not like this response. But, it satisfies your requirements whether you like it or not.

I love that response. I hope evolutionarians far and wide embrace your explanation.

 

[kjkent1]

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates. It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.

Your post above is entirely non-responsive. I ask you to show how Paul's actions are deceitful/dishonest, and I said nothing about Dr. Schneider. I have no idea why you think the above statement addresses the request.

I love that response. I hope evolutionarians far and wide embrace your explanation.

Great, then you can stop your complaining now and perhaps attend to a few more patients.

 

[articulett]

That's really all I needed to see. Bye now.

ETA: what a productive thread this has been.

Yeppers...the skeptoids are obvious to everyone but themselves. It never occurs to them, that most people have them on ignore. It never seems to dawn on them that no one is engaging in dialogue with them--but, oh what brilliant people they imagine themselves to be in their own minds! You have to admit that they are amusing when they get all blustery and self important though--(that irony thing)

I, of course, have him on ignore for obvious reasons--

 

[articulett]

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks )

 

[articulett]

I tutor kids who attend religious Jewish schools. Evolution chapters are torn out of their bio books. We were working on a chapter about bryophytes, for Pete's sake.... early PLANTS! The statement in the book involved info about the plants being 245 milliion years old. The numbers were blacked out with a marker and the word "many" replaced it.

The school is not extreme Orthodox.... but surely 'religious.' They offer a lot of learning, and no real education. It's all around us.....

Strangely, the last Pope accepted the teaching of evolution. How gracious.

No wonder we're 29th in education in the WORLD...

Yep...it's disturbing, but what can you expect from a group of people told that their salvation depends on them believing the right unbelievable story. You get a world where clergy men tell their people what they can and can't believe.

I'm with Dawkins on this--"what is so damn special about belief?" It's changeable, hard to measure, and not particularly useful for finding the truth.
I don't know what it's good for except that it appears to be a major ingredient in making "annoying creationists" (the title of this thread). And, boy is it resistant to education and factual information.

 

[kjkent1]

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks )

Very cool research -- but nothing less than self-replicating chemicals from a bathtub full of sterile saline will satisfy kleinman, I'll wager.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates. It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.

Your post above is entirely non-responsive. I ask you to show how Paul's actions are deceitful/dishonest, and I said nothing about Dr. Schneider. I have no idea why you think the above statement addresses the request.

You may not like this response. But, it satisfies your requirements whether you like it or not.

I love that response. I hope evolutionarians far and wide embrace your explanation.

Great, then you can stop your complaining now and perhaps attend to a few more patients.

I’m not complaining, I find your explanation worthy truly evolutionary. Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning? Your string theory argument is leaving me in stitches.

I, of course, have him on ignore for obvious reasons--

Who are you ignoring? Anybody I know?

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks)

Articulett, when building a mansion, you need to produce the foundation first. Paul is working on the landscaping, you are working on the roof. Your links about interspecies gene transfer neglects the issue of how did you get the genes to begin with in order to have the interspecies gene transfers. Did I forget to ask you to describe the selection process for evolving a gene from the beginning?

Randi, it seems I just saved you a million bucks.

Very cool research -- but nothing less than self-replicating chemicals from a bathtub full of sterile saline will satisfy kleinman, I'll wager.

I’m not so hard to satisfy. Just describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.

Well, actually, I didn't know Schneider at that point in time. However, you'll remember that he says "at this rate" when he makes his sweeping conclusion.

You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.

Aha, so you have simply proven, perhaps, that point mutation and a certain form of natural selection is not fast enough. This is a far cry from "disprov[ing] evolutionism mathematically," isn't it?

de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.

No, novo means to make anew, refresh, revive, change, alter. I don't think "from the beginning" is a good translation.

There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

But that is not what we are discussing. You said " Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain."

If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?

The gene is used immediately, on generation 0, to match the binding sites. The gene is already present, it just happens to be a random sequence. It is not evolved from nothing, nor is evolved anew.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For you, how would I know? What I do know is that "supernatural" is meaningless in my worldview.

I think it may be meaningless, period.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

This is nothing more than an unsupported statement from you, yet you say "disproves evolutionism mathematically." Doesn't this big leap bother you?

The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev.

Alan, you flatter yourself. I still don't think your "realistic" mutation rates and genome lengths are a problem, because you ignore populations. This is not to mention that you have no idea what realistic mutation rates and genome lengths actually are. The issue with Ev, as I stated from the beginning, is that it does not model the full evolutionary landscape.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates.

I shall do so when you quote exactly the passage you think was inappropriate. Meanwhile, what does this have to do with me being a "two faced hypocrite"?

It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.

Do you have a mathematical proof of this claim?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.

Well, actually, I didn't know Schneider at that point in time. However, you'll remember that he says "at this rate" when he makes his sweeping conclusion.

Ok, so what’s the problem with my claim that ev shows the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection?

You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.

Aha, so you have simply proven, perhaps, that point mutation and a certain form of natural selection is not fast enough. This is a far cry from "disprov[ing] evolutionism mathematically," isn't it?

What you continue to have difficulty grasping is the importance of point mutations to your theory but this issue takes the back seat when you have to consider the problem you have with a realistic selection process. In studying ev, it has become apparent that the selection process is what will make or break your theory mathematically. If you can not produce a selection process that will evolve a gene from the beginning, you are stuck with the simple probabilities and that is a losing argument. You would need to use kjkent1’s string theory argument.

de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.

No, novo means to make anew, refresh, revive, change, alter. I don't think "from the beginning" is a good translation.

I will stop using the terminology de novo just for you. You might as well get used to seeing the phrase “from the beginning” about a jillion times, because that is the Achilles heel of your theory.

There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

But that is not what we are discussing. You said " Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain."

You can pile all the adjectives onto the word “selection” you want but your theory is based on the concept of mutation and selection. This is what ev is modeling and this is the issue you have to explain. Stop trying to squirm out of this issue, it’s not becoming for a moderator on the James Randi educational forum.

If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?

The gene is used immediately, on generation 0, to match the binding sites. The gene is already present, it just happens to be a random sequence. It is not evolved from nothing, nor is evolved anew.

Do you realize how tortured your argument sounds? So how are you going to explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning when you are not even evolving binding sites from the beginning?

Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.

This is nothing more than an unsupported statement from you, yet you say "disproves evolutionism mathematically." Doesn't this big leap bother you?

Doesn’t it bother you that your theory of evolution based on mutation and selection has nothing more than a mythical selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning?

The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev.

Alan, you flatter yourself. I still don't think your "realistic" mutation rates and genome lengths are a problem, because you ignore populations. This is not to mention that you have no idea what realistic mutation rates and genome lengths actually are. The issue with Ev, as I stated from the beginning, is that it does not model the full evolutionary landscape

Genome lengths and mutation rates are the least of your problems. Without a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you have nothing other than landscaping for you mansion, no foundation whatsoever. Population will do nothing for you without a selection process. Anyway, ev is already giving preliminary data that shows population doesn’t help your argument much.

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates.

I shall do so when you quote exactly the passage you think was inappropriate. Meanwhile, what does this have to do with me being a "two faced hypocrite"?

What makes you a “two faced hypocrite” is your response that ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. You did this to my claim that the rate of information acquisition in ev when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection. When Dr Schneider made his claim about the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and mutation rate of 1 per 256 bases per generation to compute the evolution of a human genome, was he using a “realistic” version of ev? You evolutionarians did a sloppy and superficial analysis of your computer model and now you know there is no selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You should have stuck with landscaping because mathematics is showing the fatal flaws in the foundation of your theory.

It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.

Do you have a mathematical proof of this claim?

Sure do! Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = f

I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.

Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Of course, if you believe that every gene formed by abiogenesis then your statement is accurate. Anyway, kjkent1 has already solved your abiogenesis problem with string theory.