Annoying creationists

[John Hewitt]

Dr. A: a wonderful summery, thank you.

Actually, I feel that Dr. Adequate has an irritating habit of posting links with no associated explanation of why he finds them relevant and no inclination to explain when their apparent irrelevance is pointed out to him.

Would somebody please explain to this chap that a carefully choreographed mixture of enzymes and nucleotide precursors is not some random bucketful of chemicals.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What’s your definition of “argument”?

You must first ask the proper question.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

I understand, your scientific arguments require nothing.

So, to your usual lies, you seem to have added the pretence that you don't know what "argument" means. Whom do you hope to fool?

ar·gu·ment

n.

A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" (Shakespeare).

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: "presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life."
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: "The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now."
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: "You and love are still my argument" (Shakespeare).

Logic. The minor premise in a syllogism.
Mathematics. An independent variable of a function.
The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.
Computer Science. A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.
Linguistics. In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence.

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.

If you are genuinely interested, rather than (as I suspect) bleating out another halfwitted lie then you will need:

(a) Some sort of textbook on the mathematics of evolution.
(b) Some knowledge of mathematics.

But you might start here.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, I feel that Dr. Adequate has an irritating habit of posting links with no associated explanation of why he finds them relevant and no inclination to explain when their apparent irrelevance is pointed out to him.

I have pointed out their relevance; moreover, you can, I presume, read them.

If you cannot understand the results or their significance, then, to quote someone or other: "I have found you an argument, I am not obliged to find you an understanding".

Would somebody please explain to this chap that a carefully choreographed mixture of enzymes and nucleotide precursors is not some random bucketful of chemicals.

Would someone explain to this chap that one cannot "carefully choreograph" what a bucketful of chemicals do, and that I did not claim that such reactions take place in a "random" bucketful of chemicals.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

But you might start here.

As usual, your links are totally useless for giving a mathematical description for natural selection to evolve a gene from the beginning. Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death. This seems to be your only effective debating tool. Have you given up on gifs and jpegs?

 

[Dr Adequate]

As usual, your links are totally useless for giving a mathematical description for natural selection to evolve a gene from the beginning.

That is because you didn't ask for such a thing. You wrote:

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.

So I told you. It's no use pretending you wrote anything else, your statement is there for all to read.

In answer to your new question, "natural selection" does not "evolve a gene from the beginning", as you would know if you knew the first darn thing about the theory of evolution. If you want to know how a gene evolves from the beginning, I have already posted several links explaining this.

Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death.

Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.

This seems to be your only effective debating tool.

Presenting you with facts which you find "boring"? Yes, it seems I have no other.

Have you given up on gifs and jpegs?

No, I think I have one which fits your present case:

 

[Kotatsu]

You must first ask the proper question.

Here, let me try:

"Pretty please?"

Was I correct?

 

[hammegk]

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.

If you tried, there might be a syllogism lurking in there.

To your first point, who knows? I don't.

You can certainly define god to be tricky, or whatever you choose. Or in your case, as a good materialist/naturalist/atheist, as your prior experiences and current programming dictates.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death.

Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.

It is not biology that I find boring, it is your incoherent, sloppy, poorly thought out and illogical arguments that I find boring. For someone with a PhD in mathematics, you are demonstrating a striking deficiency in being able to describe natural selection mathematically for evolving a gene from the beginning.

Good to see you using graphics again. However, didn’t I give you directions to the ball park about 40 pages ago so that at least you could see the goal posts?

You must first ask the proper question.

Here, let me try:

"Pretty please?"

Was I correct?

Ok, your feigned courtesy warrants me telling you the proper question for this discussion.

What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? If you have some mathematical skills, feel free to describe this selection process mathematically. If you have no idea of this selection process, feel free to post totally unrelated links, gifs, jpegs or attempt to change the subject.

Paul, ev does use a selection process, right?

 

[John Hewitt]

I have pointed out their relevance; moreover, you can, I presume, read them.
If you cannot understand the results or their significance, then, to quote someone or other: "I have found you an argument, I am not obliged to find you an understanding".

I do not think you have and I do not think you have tried.
I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

Would someone explain to this chap that one cannot "carefully choreograph" what a bucketful of chemicals do, and that I did not claim that such reactions take place in a "random" bucketful of chemicals.

Scientists do carefully control the chemicals in their mixtures. Please stop talking as if they do not.

 

[kjkent1]

If you tried, there might be a syllogism lurking in there.

To your first point, who knows? I don't.

You can certainly define god to be tricky, or whatever you choose. Or in your case, as a good materialist/naturalist/atheist, as your prior experiences and current programming dictates.

I don't feel like dancing anymore. And, I'm not an atheist.

 

[Schneibster]

Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.

ETA: That's so good, I'm adding it to my signature.

 

[kjkent1]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?

 

[articulett]

I do not think you have and I do not think you have tried.

I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

Scientists do carefully control the chemicals in their mixtures. Please stop talking as if they do not.

You gotta love the irony. No one but you is perceiving Dr. A to be claiming that scientists don't control the chemicals in their mixtures but that doesn't mean some intelligence is necessary to do the "mixing" in the real world. Furthermore, you are not a scientist...you are a philosopher who has stated that you think scientists explaining evolution leads to an "infinite egress". Moreover, you use "epistemology" and data streams rather than facts to try and pass off some hypothesis which no one but you seems to understand. In fact, the only supporter you seem to have is a single person who cannot sum up or paraphrase what you say and who is widely regarded as a buffoon.

All these pages and complaints and writing and links by you (to your own writings)--and still no one can paraphrase or grasp what your basic problem with evolution is? (or your problem with Dr. A?) Or even what "the dogma scientists adhere to" is?? Moreover, no one seems to grasp your hypothesis or explanation at all--we don't know how it fits in with the facts, how it can be tested, nor why you are so incurious as to new developments on scientific frontiers. You've convinced yourself that no-one is grasping what you say, because of your depth. But no one is responding to what you say, because you aren't really saying anything at all.

You add nothing to anyone's understanding of the subject of evolution while deriding Dr. A., me, Paul, Dawkins, "cheating scientists" in general and a world of people eager to share new information...and expand understanding on the topic.

I understand the technique--what else are you to do when the facts don't support your beliefs? But how long are you going to be fighting this losing battle? And why? Why not learn some more actual facts? Why is evolution and abiogenesis so threatening to you? And what do you make of the fact that Yahzi can't tell you from Kleinman? And I can't tell you from Michael Behe. Can you tell us how you're different? Or is it more insults and obfuscations and oblique commentary with links to your book that you're selling and your cause in support of "maverick scientists" or whatever you imagine yourself to be?

Here's another simple question you can avoid yet again: Does your hypothesis involve the notion of "intelligent design"? (I know I asked before, but you never really answer--just obliquely at best)

...Is that why you are pretending that Dr. A. confused natural selection with chaos and randomness? I suspect your hypothesis has to do with an argument from incredulity, but like all creationists you are slippery and never really say anything amidst all your pontificating and pedantry. If you want to pretend to be a "maverick scientist" at least stick to the facts--and be honest.

A lot of bright people have waded through your BS writings and tried to make sense of it. The least you can do is stop the insults and tell the truth about your beliefs instead of claiming naivete about the meaning of the word naturalism. You may think that your beliefs don't affect your work. But I submit that they are the reason no scientist can actually grasp what you are saying. Many of us read all types of scientific articles and have no problems grasping what is being said. Why can't anyone grasp your "theory"?

You are harder to make sense of than the bible.

 

[Myriad]

Hi kjkent1,

Not quite. Work it step by step this way:

chance that one roulette wheel with 1,000,000,000 slots will hit:
1/1,000,000,000

chance that one roulette wheel with 1,000,000,000 slots will fail to hit:
(1 - 1/1,000,000,000)

chance that all of 1,000,000,000 such roulette wheels will fail to hit:
(1 - 1/1,000,000,000) ^ 1,000,000,000

chance that at least one of the roulette wheels will hit:
1 - ((1 - 1/1,000,000,000) ^ 1,000,000,000) = 0.632120551....

also:

limit_{n -> infinity} (1 - 1/n)^n = 1/e
limit_{n -> infinity} 1.0 - (1 - 1/n)^n = 1 - 1/e = 0.632120559...

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?

I think that's the probability of something NOT falling in to a particular slot.

ETA: and apparently Myriad agrees.

 

[articulett]

John,

Here is something scientifically credible that you might actually apply your oscillating data hypothesis towards:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070204162541.htm

Here are even more scientists involved with actual oscillating data: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070204162541.htm

Say, I can understand these folks just fine! I bet most of the people on this forum can too. And it's brand new info. Plus it all involves a naturalistic explanation.

So why can't anyone sum up your oscillating-data-epistemology-cells-are-the true-replicators-free-will-cheating-scientist-theory as readily given all the time you've spent supposedly trying to explain it? Could it be because you are the one who is off base and not Dr. A and everyone else who understands evolution and the fact that nucleic acids are considered the basis of replication??

You can actually use your intelligence to add to understanding rather than wasting your time trying to find flaws in evolution. Look at Kleinman's writing and get a clue: Pedantry is really off-putting when you're just plain wrong.

 

[Schneibster]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?

OK, first, Poisson distribution.
Second, a "trial" is one spin of each wheel; so, a trillion spins.
Third, for a trillion spins where the probability is one in a trillion, the expected value is one; that is, the most likely outcome, if you examine a trillion random events looking for a particular configuration with a probability of one in a trillion, is one.

There is a 37% chance that you will see zero, and a 37% chance that you will see one; and an 18% chance you will see two. There is a 6% chance you will see three, and a 1.5% chance you will see four.

What you're trying to do is say that there is only a slightly more than 1/3 chance of seeing a particular configuration of an event in a trial if the number of events in the trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of that configuration; but that is incorrect. What you REALLY want to know is, "if the number of events in a trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of a particular configuration of an event, what are the chances that I will see NO such events in a particular trial?" And the answer to THAT question is, 37%. There is therefore a 63% chance that you will see AT LEAST ONE such event in any given trial.

ETA: and apparently Myriad and RecoveringYuppie agree.

And here is a nice little calculator to play with.

 

[articulett]

ETA: That's so good, I'm adding it to my signature.

I know... it IS good. (Damn, I wish I thought of it.)

Dr. A. does have a way with words.

 

[articulett]

I think that's the probability of something NOT falling in to a particular slot.

ETA: and apparently Myriad agrees.

Yep, that seems to be the consensus. It reminds me of the Birthday problem:

How many random people do you have to have in a group so that it is more likely that 2 people share a birthday (p>.5) than no one sharing a birthday. The answer is 23. You have to have a group of people where there is 23 (or more) members with presumably random birthdays.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BirthdayProblem.html

It's an easy one to demonstrate, because my classes usually have between 25 and 30 students, and there are always 2 who share a birthday unbeknownst to them.

There was a good non-fiction book on the best seller list for a while called Fooled by Randomness that brings the inability to comprehend large numbers and probability to mind. It seems to be a common theme in creationist arguments: "This can't have all come about by chance!" Chance is just a piece of the equation--huge numbers, long periods of time, and natural selection are the parts of the equation they seem to be a little shaky on. Sometimes it's referred to as the "Goldilocks Hypothesis" of life-- "Gee, we humans fit so well in this world, this world must have been made to bring forth us"...

I suppose the bacteria on our skin can make the same claim.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070206095816.htm

 

[kjkent1]

OK, first, Poisson distribution.
Second, a "trial" is one spin of each wheel; so, a trillion spins.
Third, for a trillion spins where the probability is one in a trillion, the expected value is one; that is, the most likely outcome, if you examine a trillion random events looking for a particular configuration with a probability of one in a trillion, is one.

There is a 37% chance that you will see zero, and a 37% chance that you will see one; and an 18% chance you will see two. There is a 6% chance you will see three, and a 1.5% chance you will see four.

What you're trying to do is say that there is only a slightly more than 1/3 chance of seeing a particular configuration of an event in a trial if the number of events in the trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of that configuration; but that is incorrect. What you REALLY want to know is, "if the number of events in a trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of a particular configuration of an event, what are the chances that I will see NO such events in a particular trial?" And the answer to THAT question is, 37%. There is therefore a 63% chance that you will see AT LEAST ONE such event in any given trial.

ETA: and apparently Myriad and RecoveringYuppie agree.

And here is a nice little calculator to play with.

Thanks to all of you for the quick probability lesson. Does anyone think that my little thought experiment might reasonably relate to the the probability of the creation of a self-replicating molecule, by random chance, in a sea filled with prebiotic chemicals?