Annoying creationists

[Taffer]

Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.

Play semantic games all you like. I have described how there could be selective pressure of something which is not alive. Perhaps it should not be labelled 'natural selection', to avoid confusion, but it most certainly is a form of selective pressure.

Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.

I'm afraid I am only a lowly post-grad student. However, you are claiming that such an account is impossible. This field of evolutionary genetics is very new, and new discoveries are being made all the time. The current hypotheses are being tested as we speak. As Paul C. has explained many times to you, the lack of a current working model, as I am unaware of any completed experiments into the various hypotheses yet, does not mean that it didn't happen. Unless you have some compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?

Also, please note that the generation of self replicating RNA has nothing to do with evolution.

The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?

This is a very interesting question, one which is only now beginning to be answered. There are been found various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes which do have a benificial role to play to an organisms genome. Things like the greater DNA structure (i.e. folding, loops, etc), enhanced binding sites, gene regulation and more are starting to be shown to be carried out by what was once thought of as 'junk' DNA.

You also completely missed the point of my analogy. Self replication is enough for selective pressures to work. Anything is enough for selective pressures to work, as long as there is some variation in the population of objects, and some forms of this variation are more benificial then others.

You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.

I know, but calling it "recombination" is a misleading use of the word.

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.

This is a non-answer. You seem to understand and know what the 'soul' is. Please describe it to me.

 

[Taffer]

Kleinman, please see my post responding to you earlier reguarding one hypothesis of a selection procedure. You have not answered why this could not happen.

Also, please note that you are entirely out of the range of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the evolution of organisms. You are dealing with abiogenesis if you are arguing against the first gene formation.

Also, saying "the evolution of a gene from the beginning" is a convoluted way of saying things. I suggest "the formation of the first novel gene", as this is what you are really arguing against, not the formation of a novel gene at all, as the latter has already been shown on this thread to have occured.

 

[The Atheist]

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 )

Classic! The problem's been solved. Thanks, Arti.

Oh, you just forgot to include this phrase from the report (yes REPORT, singular - you give two links to identical articles!):

New studies by Rice University scientists suggest a possible answer

Not exactly done and dusted, but Arti's not going to let a little speculation obscure her facts. Not when those "facts" agree with her position, anyway!.

John:

I notice there's some bits in the link about sexual selection. Might be worth a look. Be quite funny if Arti inadvertantly placed links to work which is moving down your street. Personally, I don't see the studies at Rice University interfering with your theory anyway.

 

[kjkent1]

Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning?

Yes, and you know exactly what it is: random chance.

 

[articulett]

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

Those creationists are a slippery sort--playing the everlasting game of "move the goalposts." Kleinman claims to have a mathematical equation that shows evolution couldn't happen by point mutation alone--everyone agrees...we are just learning all the ways DNA becomes genes and genes become genomes. Kleinman's math hypothesis is the equivalent of saying--"the vastness of the internet is impossible because it takes "x" amount of time to hook up a computer and more time to write things down... therefore it must have been planned in it's entirety in advance by an invisible dude!"

So now Kleinman is like Hewitt-- Because, scientists can't yet say for certain how life started (though we have a plethora of pieces to the puzzle)--"intelligent design proponents" use this murkiness to obfuscate further and pretend that they have the magical true answer--the one that proves it must be "intelligently designed" and that evolution is a sham--a faith that people have bought into willy nilly--while evil scientists keep the brilliant theories of creationist from ever being heard.

As science discovers more and more facts, their intelligent designer gets murkier and more nebulous and is reduced to semantic games and "epistemology". You can spot them by the way they seem to muck up understanding rather than facilitate it. If they understood each other or were on the same page regarding their problems with evolution and their alternative hypothesis they would seem more credible--

 

[John Hewitt]

I notice there's some bits in the link about sexual selection. Might be worth a look. Be quite funny if Arti inadvertantly placed links to work which is moving down your street. Personally, I don't see the studies at Rice University interfering with your theory anyway.

Yes, this will be a press release from Rice, which is why the two reports are identical.
Both sexual selection and horizontal gene transfer are generally accepted. Sexual selection was described by Darwin, but largely ignored until the last 30 or 40 years. Horiziontal gene transfer has been demonstrable for at least 30 years (As Brian Hartley used to say about serine protease studies, "It seems that the cow has infected a bacterium") and there was a quire recent report about HGT among bacteria being very widespread. We have also had bacteriophage etc. for a long time which could carry host genes with them.
From the point of view of my work, I am very happy with such developments.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think, as other people have now stated, that this discussion has drifted away from evolution per se, and onto abiogenesis. The answer to the question of how genes came about does little to dent the theory of evolution. We know (i.e. have observed) that genes do mutate, exchange information and grow longer.

Kleinman:

With all your talk of foundations and mansions, I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of a scientific model. A model is used to explain observed phenomenon. The test of the models validity/scope is its ability to predict, either forward or backward in time, phenomenon which its proponents claim it models. Even when a model fails to accurately predict everything it should be able to, this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong, merely incomplete.

Before you reply that evolution would take too long or can’t explain abiogenesis, think, for example, about the development of the various models of the atom. Would you claim some (still very useful) models are wrong because they cannot explain how the first sub-atomic particles came about? Also think about what has happened to models of the atom over time – they have generally been added to or modified, rather than thrown out completely. Please also note that at no time has ‘goddidit’ been added to a model.

While you are entitled to your belief of souls being ‘inserted’ into human(1) embryos, I think Occam’s razor should be applied to this hypothesis. If other animals can get by without souls being added to their embryos why can’t we?

(1) I’m assuming you believe only humans have souls.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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 do not know what realistic rates, genome lengths, and populations are.

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.

Again, you do not know anything more than that the selection method has significant effect on the rate. "Make or break" is too strong.

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.

Now you've switched subjects. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

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.

Or you could use "from scratch."

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.

Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two. You are conflating them because your only evidence is Ev, yet the crux of your argument is abiogenesis. Unfortunately, they gots nothing to do with each other.

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?

It's not my argument, it's your conflating Ev with abiogenesis that is the torture. Ev is not creating a gene from scratch, because the function of the gene is preprogrammed.

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?

Avoidance of my question duly noted.

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.

But this has nothing to do with Ev. Would you like to discuss the mathematics of abiogenesis, because that is what you're claiming that you have shown to be untenable.

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.

Okay, let me clarify: Ev models a stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. I don't think your genome length and mutation rate claims are well thought out.

Better?

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?

No, he was not. That's why he said "at this rate."

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

What is the variable f? Or is it a function?

Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

Indeed, but Ev does not model the totality of that scenario.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.

I find it deliciously appealing that if there is existence after death, nonbelievers will have to eat their words when they die. But if there is no existence after death, believers will simply never know.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

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

Should god exist, measuring his effects/affects may from time to time be what science does, although and as yet any such effects/affects remain unidentified sfaik.

I think it may be meaningless, period.

Me too. I wonder why so many cite it as a possibility, other than to obfuscate, that is. Or to demonstrate unknowingly they remain mired in dualism.

PS. I admit my error in that kleinman does appear to be a theist.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Me too. I wonder why so many cite it as a possibility, other than to obfuscate, that is. Or to demonstrate unknowingly they remain mired in dualism.

I think people are usually using the word supernatural as a convenient tag for some unsual aspect of a claim. Most descriptions of god sound supernatural. Synchronicity sounds supernatural, as does libertarian free will. Various aspects of psi, too. A better word would be "non-naturalistic."

But it doesn't mean that I think there really is a supernatural realm.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Congratulations. "Non-Naturalistic"; another meaningless weasel word fit for a dualist.

 

[kjkent1]

Should god exist, measuring his effects/affects may from time to time be what science does, although and as yet any such effects/affects remain unidentified sfaik.

Should science conclude that it has experimentally measured God, can God change the experiment so that the measurement never occurred?

If so, then science can never know with any certainty that it has measured God.

Thus, it can never be logical that God is natural, because only the natural can be measured, and God is unmeasurable.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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?

The main problem with your claim is that it's a lie.

A subsiduary problem is that everyone who's read this thread knows that it's a lie, so even qua lie, it's a really crappy lie, since surely the whole point of a lie is to deceive people.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How kleinman screwed up with ev:

* snip *

The mistake Kleinman has made, or one of them, is to take a realistic value for p (the probability of a point mutation for a given base) but not for n (the population). This gives a totally unrealistic value for the probability that a given substition will occur in the gene pool per generation, which is given by:

q = 1 - (1 - p/3)ⁿ
If, for example, we take a realistic value for p of 10^-8, then for a measly million organisms, q is 0.3%. For a lousy billion, it's 96.4%.

If we use a more realistic order of magnitude for the bacteria, say something like the 10¹⁴ present in a single human gut, then my calculator isn't accurate enough to tell us the difference between q and 1.

Schneider is forced by practical constraints to take n to be small, and has compensated for this by using an unrealistic value for p to give himself a realistic value for q. This is eminently sensible, since it is the amount of variation within the gene pool, rather than the variation between individuals per generation, that determines the rate of evolution.

Kleinman, on the other hand, has chosen his numbers so that the value for q is wildly unrealistic; this is why his estimate of the time the process would take is also wildly unrealistic.

New genes:

Evolution of novel genes

The origin of new genes

Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster

* snip *

RNA species from a bucket of chemicals:

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

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

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase

* snip *

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

* snip *

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.

* snip *

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.

Ah well, I guess you can't teach a pig to sing. However, the guy who thought up that proverb should have added a codicil to the effect that one can sometimes get a little quiet amusement out of annoying a pig.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.

Play semantic games all you like. I have described how there could be selective pressure of something which is not alive. Perhaps it should not be labelled 'natural selection', to avoid confusion, but it most certainly is a form of selective pressure.

You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.

Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.

I'm afraid I am only a lowly post-grad student. However, you are claiming that such an account is impossible. This field of evolutionary genetics is very new, and new discoveries are being made all the time. The current hypotheses are being tested as we speak. As Paul C. has explained many times to you, the lack of a current working model, as I am unaware of any completed experiments into the various hypotheses yet, does not mean that it didn't happen. Unless you have some compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?

There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

Also, please note that the generation of self replicating RNA has nothing to do with evolution.

So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?

The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?

This is a very interesting question, one which is only now beginning to be answered. There are been found various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes which do have a benificial role to play to an organisms genome. Things like the greater DNA structure (i.e. folding, loops, etc), enhanced binding sites, gene regulation and more are starting to be shown to be carried out by what was once thought of as 'junk' DNA.

So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.

You also completely missed the point of my analogy. Self replication is enough for selective pressures to work. Anything is enough for selective pressures to work, as long as there is some variation in the population of objects, and some forms of this variation are more benificial then others.

So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.

You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.

I know, but calling it "recombination" is a misleading use of the word.

Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.

This is a non-answer. You seem to understand and know what the 'soul' is. Please describe it to me.

You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.

Kleinman, please see my post responding to you earlier reguarding one hypothesis of a selection procedure. You have not answered why this could not happen.

You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.

Also, please note that you are entirely out of the range of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the evolution of organisms. You are dealing with abiogenesis if you are arguing against the first gene formation.

Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?

Also, saying "the evolution of a gene from the beginning" is a convoluted way of saying things. I suggest "the formation of the first novel gene", as this is what you are really arguing against, not the formation of a novel gene at all, as the latter has already been shown on this thread to have occured.

Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning?

Yes, and you know exactly what it is: random chance.

Hey Paul, forget about teaching children to read, write and do arithmetic, let’s start teaching them string theory.

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.

Those creationists are a slippery sort--playing the everlasting game of "move the goalposts." Kleinman claims to have a mathematical equation that shows evolution couldn't happen by point mutation alone--everyone agrees...we are just learning all the ways DNA becomes genes and genes become genomes. Kleinman's math hypothesis is the equivalent of saying--"the vastness of the internet is impossible because it takes "x" amount of time to hook up a computer and more time to write things down... therefore it must have been planned in it's entirety in advance by an invisible dude!"

The reason why you evolutionarians have a hard time seeing the goal posts is that you don’t know where the ball park is. Let me remind you where the ball park is. Your mantra is “mutation and natural selection” but you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

I think, as other people have now stated, that this discussion has drifted away from evolution per se, and onto abiogenesis. The answer to the question of how genes came about does little to dent the theory of evolution. We know (i.e. have observed) that genes do mutate, exchange information and grow longer.

The reason the discussion has drifted this direction is that both abiogenesis and evolution require a selection process in order to increase information in molecules or genomes. No selection process exists for either. What ev demonstrates is that random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow at acquiring information. Far too slow to support the theory of evolution. If you believe that other forms of mutation show the theory of evolution to be true, include it in the model, show the results and end this discussion.

With all your talk of foundations and mansions, I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of a scientific model. A model is used to explain observed phenomenon. The test of the models validity/scope is its ability to predict, either forward or backward in time, phenomenon which its proponents claim it models. Even when a model fails to accurately predict everything it should be able to, this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong, merely incomplete.

This discussion of foundations and mansion was inspired by a post by Beleth. If you haven’t read the thread carefully, you won’t understand my usage of this analogy.

Let’s see if we can understand what is being done with ev. You start out with a random genome. You allow random point mutations to occur on the genome and apply a selective process to these mutations. If the mutations are beneficial, you select for the creature, if detrimental, you select against the creature. When you have evolved a creature that has no errors, your model has converged.

What I did with Dr Schneider’s model was do a parametric study. I varied individual parameters and tabulated the number of generations to convergence. What this study shows is that the number of generations becomes huge when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. To get a sense of how slow this process is, on a 100k genome with a population of a million, it takes more than 100,000,000 generations to evolve 128 loci on this 100k genome. This is all done with a contrived selective process. There is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The key part of this model is the selective process. Without a valid selective process this model will always be incomplete. With an invalid selective process, this model will always be wrong.

Before you reply that evolution would take too long or can’t explain abiogenesis, think, for example, about the development of the various models of the atom. Would you claim some (still very useful) models are wrong because they cannot explain how the first sub-atomic particles came about? Also think about what has happened to models of the atom over time – they have generally been added to or modified, rather than thrown out completely. Please also note that at no time has ‘goddidit’ been added to a model.

The fundamental mechanism for driving the theory of evolution is mutation and natural selection. In order for this theory to have a hard mathematical scientific basis, you need to describe both mutation and natural selection mathematically. Mutation rates have been measured and described for years. Natural selection has not been mathematically described very often. Dr Schneider did this with the ev model and put a spot light on this concept. It shows how important it is to be able to describe natural selection mathematically in order to have a valid mathematical model. You evolutionarians don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

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 do not know what realistic rates, genome lengths, and populations are.

I suppose you think a genome length of 256 bases and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation is realistic.

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.

Again, you do not know anything more than that the selection method has significant effect on the rate. "Make or break" is too strong.

If you can’t come up with a selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning, your theory is broke. What more can you say about natural selection than if a particular property is beneficial it is selected for and if it is detrimental, it is selected against? You are trying to attribute to natural selection a capability that does not exist.

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.

Now you've switched subjects. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Unless you take the position that all genes were formed during abiogenesis, the theory of evolution must allow for evolution of new genes from the beginning. Either way, both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution requires a selection process to evolve new genetic components from the beginning. You have no selection process that can do this.

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.

Or you could use "from scratch."

I prefer the terminology “from the beginning” because using the terminology “from scratch” implies to me from nothing and that is not what I am trying to communicate.

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.

Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two. You are conflating them because your only evidence is Ev, yet the crux of your argument is abiogenesis. Unfortunately, they gots nothing to do with each other.

Ev is not a model of abiogenesis but ev does show the importance of a valid selection process. Neither abiogenesis nor the ev model have a valid selection process that allows the generation of a gene from the beginning.

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?

It's not my argument, it's your conflating Ev with abiogenesis that is the torture. Ev is not creating a gene from scratch, because the function of the gene is preprogrammed.

However, ev demonstrates the importance of the selection process for evolving anything. Without a valid selection mechanism, you can evolve nothing.

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?

Avoidance of my question duly noted.

The proper question to ask is what is the selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. Unless you can answer this question, your theory is nothing more than modern mythology.

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.

But this has nothing to do with Ev. Would you like to discuss the mathematics of abiogenesis, because that is what you're claiming that you have shown to be untenable.

Are you saying a valid selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning is not part of the evolutionary landscape? Use whatever mutation mechanism you want and describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

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.

Okay, let me clarify: Ev models a stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. I don't think your genome length and mutation rate claims are well thought out.

Better?

I’ve always said I would be patient with you. You are showing slight improvement but still have a long way to go.

Feel free to post what you believe are realistic genome lengths and mutation rates and we can run series in ev based on those parameters.

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?

No, he was not. That's why he said "at this rate."

Let me make sure I understand what you have just said here. You are saying that Dr Schneider did not use a realistic model of random point mutation and natural selection to compute the rate of evolution of a human genome but it is ok to compute this anyway because he said “at this rate”?

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

What is the variable f? Or is it a function?

Sorry, the screen editor changed my symbol Ø to an f.

The equation should read:
Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = Ø

Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

Indeed, but Ev does not model the totality of that scenario.

Ev certainly doesn’t model natural selection such that a gene can evolve from the beginning and that is the crucial part of the scenario.

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.

I find it deliciously appealing that if there is existence after death, nonbelievers will have to eat their words when they die. But if there is no existence after death, believers will simply never know.

You are right Paul! If I am wrong, it doesn’t matter, if you are wrong, well you figure it out.

 

[delphi_ote]

Congratulations. "Non-Naturalistic"; another meaningless weasel word fit for a dualist.

Is it really necessary to attempt to derail every interesting thread about evolution on this board with this nonsense about "dualists", hammy? If you want to talk about it so much, why not start your very own thread on the subject?

 

[Taffer]

You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.

Um, then it is you playing a semantic game. You are making an argument by definition, which is a fallacy.

There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

This doesn't answer my question.

So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?

I don't know, I do not deal with abiogenesis.

So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.

As I've already explained, at the very least some affect genome folding, binding inhibition and attraction, and gene regulation.

So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.

Yes, and no. All you said was that there were no selective pressures to evolve a novel gene. We have shown this is false. You are now also claiming that not even self replicators could come about. This is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis, then that is another matter entirely.

Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?

Excuse me? What does this have to do with anything?

You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.

Science has told us so far that there is no soul. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can't, just come out and admit it.

You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.

There doesn't need to be. You are now dealing with abiogenesis, not evolution.

Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?

No, they don't. Abiogenesis requires nothing, and does not deal with the first formation of genes, but the first formation of life. I have given one hypothesis as to selective pressures which would lead to a discrete gene from self replicating RNA molecules. If you take issue with that hypothesis, then address that hypothesis. Stop making straw man arguments about what evolution does not deal with.

Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

You just show you do not understand genetics. A 'gene' need not be transcribed to affect a genome, nor need a self replicating molecule produce a protein before it could be considered a gene. Look at transposons for examples of non-protein producing, replicating, genes.

 

[Taffer]

Dr. A: a wonderful summery, thank you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.

Um, then it is you playing a semantic game. You are making an argument by definition, which is a fallacy.

What’s your definition of “argument”?

There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

This doesn't answer my question.

You must first ask the proper question.

So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?

I don't know, I do not deal with abiogenesis.

So what is your sieve for generating a gene from the beginning, or do all genes arise through abiogenesis?

So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.

As I've already explained, at the very least some affect genome folding, binding inhibition and attraction, and gene regulation.

If these genes have effect, it doesn’t sound like they are silent, inactivated or incomplete.

So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.

Yes, and no. All you said was that there were no selective pressures to evolve a novel gene. We have shown this is false. You are now also claiming that not even self replicators could come about. This is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis, then that is another matter entirely.

Do you believe that all genes were formed during abiogenesis? Explain to us what this sieve is that you are talking about that forms molecules whether is be in abiogenesis or for the theory of evolution.

Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?

Excuse me? What does this have to do with anything?

I’m not sure. You are the one who raised the issue of recombination during prophase and that the recombination that occurs during fertilization somehow is not recombination. I was wondering if you would walk us through the process and explain how these different processes affect evolution. Do either of these processes affect the information content of the gene pool?

You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.

Science has told us so far that there is no soul. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can't, just come out and admit it.

Science has told us so far that there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can’t, just come out and admit it. On the other hand, I do not claim there is a soul based on science so I owe you no scientific explanation.

You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.

There doesn't need to be. You are now dealing with abiogenesis, not evolution.

Without a selection process, neither abiogenesis nor the theory of evolution are mathematically possible.

Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?

No, they don't. Abiogenesis requires nothing, and does not deal with the first formation of genes, but the first formation of life. I have given one hypothesis as to selective pressures which would lead to a discrete gene from self replicating RNA molecules. If you take issue with that hypothesis, then address that hypothesis. Stop making straw man arguments about what evolution does not deal with.

I understand, your scientific arguments require nothing.

Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

You just show you do not understand genetics. A 'gene' need not be transcribed to affect a genome, nor need a self replicating molecule produce a protein before it could be considered a gene. Look at transposons for examples of non-protein producing, replicating, genes.

Ok, put together your hypothesis into a coherent mathematical model and explain the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you only have mush here. I’m particularly interested in seeing how you describe natural selection mathematically.