Annoying creationists

[RecoveringYuppy]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

I think if you see me post a link for you or Hamme you can assume it's because I thought the link would be useful to me.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

I think if you see me post a link for you or Hamme you can assume it's because I thought the link would be useful to me.

This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

 

[Dr Richard]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

Evasion noted

Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Firstly, I need to clarify a point:

You asked for a demonstration of the evolution of insulin.

I provided evidence back to the precursor from which proto insulin and proto relaxin diverged; this would seem not to be sufficient.

My contention is that natural selection does not have the capability of evolving a gene from the beginning. I will repeat my argument again here.

Evasion again noted.

May I remind you

I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin, the gene that codes for globulin, the genes that code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle, the genes that code for the proteins in the DNA replicase system and so on. Do you believe that all these genes arose during abiogenesis? Unless you can describe a sieve that would give rise to these genes from the beginning, you theory of evolution is mathematically impossible as you so correctly noted earlier

I provided you with evidence of the development of the insulin superfamily. You now try to evade this evidence by falling back on... abiogenesis, as per:

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 suggest there is a proto DNA replicase system?

Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Definition and acceptable base sequence please.

A sequence that gives benefit to the creature, something which a partially evolved gene can not do.

Oh so close, and yet so far! So, just to be straight, your definition of "insulin" is "a sequence that gives benefit to the creature"

Seriously?

 

[Kotatsu]

don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

Instead, you should follow Kleinman's example and post assertions backed up with nothing at all except displays of various stages of bewilderment and incredulity.

Oh, and reiterations of the idea that a model which models a part of reality models all of it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

Since I've noted you don't takes serious arguments as serious arguments you didn't have to point this out to me.

And I did explain the important part in my own words.

 

[Dr Richard]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

Don't bother with Scientific American, try Science:

Conservation of RET Regulatory Function from Human to Zebrafish Without Sequence Similarity

Just to reemphasise, this is not a sterile debate; RET is of importance in many human illnesses, including my own area of interest, Hirschsprung's disease

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

Since I've noted you don't takes serious arguments as serious arguments you didn't have to point this out to me.

And I did explain the important part in my own words.

Ok, so let’s follow the point you are trying to make here.

We've found parts of our genome that we didn't know were active by comparing the rate of accumulation of change in the various regions of DNA. Look back through Scientific American over the past two years for an article about the subject.

I’ll assume that what you are trying to say here is that sequences of bases that on first examination that appear not to have function in fact do have function. Do you want us to draw the conclusion that every sequence of bases has function? And if that is so, that any random sequence of bases offers selective benefit to that creature and therefore there is a selective benefit for partially completed genes?

Why don’t you expand on your point and tell us how this observation relates to a selective process for evolving a gene from the beginning?

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

Don't bother with Scientific American, try Science:

Conservation of RET Regulatory Function from Human to Zebrafish Without Sequence Similarity

Just to reemphasise, this is not a sterile debate; RET is of importance in many human illnesses, including my own area of interest, Hirschsprung's disease

Don’t you have any links which go from Human to original gene and then you can describe the how the original gene evolved from the beginning. I have acknowledged many times in this discussion that there are genetic similarities between different life forms. What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another. Think of this thread as an introductory course in evolutionary bookkeeping. Dr Schneider attempted to do this with his ev computer model and this shows that random point mutations and natural selection fails the bookkeeping test. The theory of evolution can never pass the bookkeeping test without a valid selection mechanism.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I’ll assume that what you are trying to say here is that sequences of bases that on first examination that appear not to have function in fact do have function. Do you want us to draw the conclusion that every sequence of bases has function?

No.

What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.

No one is claiming to have the selection mechanism for any "original gene". We keep pointing out that you haven't even identified an original gene nor have I seen anyone in this thread claim to know of one.

The evidence that's been cited for you is evidence that we know genes transform in to one another across species. In other words, it's evidence for what we actually claim to know and not your strawmen.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.

No one is claiming to have the selection mechanism for any "original gene". We keep pointing out that you haven't even identified an original gene nor have I seen anyone in this thread claim to know of one.

The evidence that's been cited for you is evidence that we know genes transform in to one another across species. In other words, it's evidence for what we actually claim to know and not your strawmen.

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another. You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next.

There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.

 

[Dr Richard]

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

I choose insulin, as you brought it up.

What definition and base sequence of insulin were you using in this paragraph?

I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin.....

What definition of "beginning" are you using?

What defintion of "gene" are you using?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

Earth to Klenman:The sentence you just quoted from me was pointing out that no one claims to know this.

The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another.

No, it shows a similarity consistent in several ways with modification through mutation and inheritance:

• The similarity persists across the entire genome: you will derive the same family tree relationship no matter how much or which parts of the interspecies genomes you compare.
• The number of differences are compatible with known mutation rates and times derived from fossils.
• Active areas accumulate mutations slower than inactive as you'd expect from selection pressure.

You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next.

Are you a computer program stringing phrases together?

The similarity isn't extrapolated, it's measured. We don't need to know how they arose initially to understand what they are doing now. And this is our latest test of our explanation for how the genes transform, not the original inspiration for the idea.

There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.

First half of the sentence is just a bald assertion. Second half is an assertion that's already been refuted. Repeating myself: We don't need to understand where genes come from to understand how they work now, anymore than we need to know where electrons come from to understand how electricity works now.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

I choose insulin, as you brought it up.

What definition and base sequence of insulin were you using in this paragraph?

Feel free to choose any base sequence for the gene you want and then explain the selection mechanism that would evolve that gene from the beginning. If you choose the insulin gene, then let it be the antecedent gene that you propose that gives rise to the insulin gene.

I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin.....

What definition of "beginning" are you using?

What defintion of "gene" are you using?

Unless you believe that the gene(s) that code for insulin and all its antecedent are eternal, there was a time when the first gene that coded for the proinsulin gene had to appear. What was the selection process that evolved that first gene beginning from the first base in the sequence?

Let’s keep the definition for “gene” as general as possible and say that it is a sequence of bases that performs some useful function for the creature. It may be coding for a polypeptide but let it include other possible beneficial function for the creature.

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

Earth to Klenman:The sentence you just quoted from me was pointing out that no one claims to know this.

Nobody know what this selection mechanism is but you know it exists? I think my Random House definition of natural selection said it quite well.

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.

The evolution of a gene from the beginning can not be subject to selection until it performs some useful function for the creature. Therefore the additions of bases to a partially completed gene is dependent solely on random additions without the aid of a selection process until the gene performs some useful function for the creature. Did my transmission get though to you RecoveringYuppy?

The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another.

No, it shows a similarity consistent in several ways with modification through mutation and inheritance:

• The similarity persists across the entire genome: you will derive the same family tree relationship no matter how much or which parts of the interspecies genomes you compare.
• The number of differences are compatible with known mutation rates and times derived from fossils.
• Active areas accumulate mutations slower than inactive as you'd expect from selection pressure.

You know all this but you don’t know what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Why don’t you describe for us the selection pressure that is driving these modifications through mutation and inheritance so we can put this into Dr Schneider’s ev model? Then we can do some accurate bookkeeping on the statements you have made above.

You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next.

Are you a computer program stringing phrases together?

The similarity isn't extrapolated, it's measured. We don't need to know how they arose initially to understand what they are doing now. And this is our latest test of our explanation for how the genes transform, not the original inspiration for the idea.

I don’t question the measured similarities, I question your extrapolation that these similarities are sufficient to prove evolution. Your explanation is that there is a selection process that no one knows what it is. I argue there is no selection process for partially completed genes nor a selection process that takes a gene from some initial function to a new function unless every mutation along the way gives selective benefit to the creature.

There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.

First half of the sentence is just a bald assertion. Second half is an assertion that's already been refuted. Repeating myself: We don't need to understand where genes come from to understand how they work now, anymore than we need to know where electrons come from to understand how electricity works now.

If the first half of the sentence is a bald assertion it should be easy for you to give us an example of a selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning. Oh, you already said nobody knows what it is. The second half of the sentence, well kjkent1 used string theory and 10^500 alternative universes to explain how random chemical reactions without a selection process would make life probable.

RecoveringYuppy, the days for using “mutation and natural selection” as a slogan to explain your theory of evolution are over. Dr Schneider has attempted to put mathematics into your theory and focused a spotlight on the concept of “natural selection”. Without a selection process that can evolve the myriad of complex genes seen in living things, your theory of evolution is sunk.

 

[Myriad]

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

Not to worry. I don't think one has to know any of that stuff, in order to be a hired expert witness for workman's compensation lawsuits.

Of course, my impression of what "occupational medicine" primarily consists of could be mistaken. Anyone want to set me straight, in that case?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[articulett]

Not a single one of these were ad hominem arguments, TA. Ad hom arguments link a personal feature about the arguer too why their argument was wrong. These are simply insults.

Oh no....now you will get his inane wrath.... He despises me because I pointed out he made a similar logical fallacy upon Yahzi, and I even went into detail to show him what the fallacy actually entails--but he is the proverbial buffoon in my sig link-- most people have him on ignore.

There are people on this forum who are sure they know more than everybody else and don't seem to have a clue that most people have written them off as dickheads. I don't think Atheist is actually an atheist. Creationists are always doing obfuscating and dishonest smarmy things to try and inject their viewpoints...so he may be one of those kinds of dishonest folk...or he may really be as dumb and unlikeable as he comes across to many.

And yes, they were insults. Atheist has offered nothing worthwhile to attack--and he's not even on the same page as anyone else. Hewitt is too obfuscating to pin down what he means. These are statements I'm willing to back up, but I think most have seen all the evidence they need. These are not ad homs--calling them "creationists" may be ad homs....but being a creationist affects one's ability to understand some basic things about science because such people have come to believe that their salvation depends on them believing the right unbelievable story. Creationists are like Kleinman--pages and pages of nothingness...they are unteachable and cannot engage in basic dialogue because they are so peeved that someone thinks their "intelligent designer" is a delusion.

I think it's nice to give my fellow skeptics a heads up on what they are entering into-- Plus I get a kick out of their blusteriness, self-importance, and basic impenetrable wrongheadedness. Also, I really like the smart people on this forum, and I don't want the buffoons to make such people feel unwelcome. I learn a lot here.

 

[articulett]

The simple point, in question, is that the primordial oceans, as conceived by most people, will have contained not a single molecule of q-beta replicase and virtually none of the substrates that enzyme requires. It seems to me unreasonable to post links to the kind of work innovated by Spiegelman as if they somehow explain the emergence of genes on the prebiotic earth.
Nobody sensible believes that they do and that point seems quite straightforward to me. I think you should either stop posting such links or explain their relevance.

Actually, no credible peer reviewed scientist takes anything Michael Behe says seriously...even non scientific judges can see the lies and obfuscations for what they are. You, however, subscribe to his basic, but inane idea that cells should be considered replicators--not nucleic acids. That makes you less credible. Moreover, your arguments against abiogenesis and evolution never seem to amount to anything more than an argument from incredulity--and that isn't really very good considering you can not state your hypothesis or competing "theory" in a way anyone else can understand. That makes you the person that no "sensible" person should believe.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

Not to worry. I don't think one has to know any of that stuff, in order to be a hired expert witness for workman's compensation lawsuits.

Of course, my impression of what "occupational medicine" primarily consists of could be mistaken. Anyone want to set me straight, in that case?

Myriad, weren’t you going to do some work on the selection process in ev? How is that coming? Perhaps you would be willing to give us a mathematical description of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? It appears your mathematical skills are failing you in this matter so you are falling back on your other skills.

Your impression is wrong and this isn’t the first time in our discussions.

What you evolutionarians need to consider is why RecoveringYuppy has said that nobody knows what the selection process is that would evolve a gene from the beginning. I have given a reason why and I’ll repeat it here again.

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.

The reason nobody knows what the selection process is that would evolve a gene from the beginning is that there is no selection process that would do this.

Do you see the goal posts Myriad?

 

[articulett]

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

ETA: How does this relate to the original point, anyway? You asked for the selective pressures which would lead to the formation of the first novel genes. I proved an example of one. Why, then, did you switch to abiogenesis?

Because as scientists actually explain factually the powers which he ascribes to his "intelligent designer" (he only reads outdated creationist texts from what I can tell of his "arguments")--he has to find some other role for his god...So since we can't yet know how the first self replicating DNA came to be, that means his "intelligent designer" could have done it (or at least that means it to him.) Of course, we have fantastic theories and pieces of the puzzle and we are getting a finer tuned understanding all the time--remember, we didn't know how abundant the stuff of life was--because we couldn't see it until we invented microscopes strong enough to get a glimpse of such things. It's all over...not just in the oceans--but in the air too. He has an emotional investment in us not being able to explain it to him.

Creationists are experts at moving the goal posts. However, they tend to be very poor with their dialogue skills and can't be understood very well...not even by each other it seems. It's sort of like the Christians who all think their sect is truly Christian and they'll be glad to tell you who the "pseudo Christians" are (Catholics, Mormons, fundies, anyone who doesn't belong to your sect, etc.) --Oddly enought, their "intelligent designers" all seem to have different rubrics for achieving salvation, but they'll tell you they all believe in the same "god"--for Hammy that appears to be the one in charge of making proto self replicator molecules stick to each other.

Although abiogenesis is not your field, I'm sure you can make more sense out of quote below about it. Compare that bit of understanding you can glean to anything said by Hewitt, Hammy, or Kleinman. These guys have convinced themselves that everyone is too stupid to understand them. But nobody is understanding them. Actual facts are pretty well understood by everybody--although creationists have a much harder time understanding them than those living in the reality based community.

These chains are proposed as the first, primitive forms of life. In an RNA world, different forms of RNA compete with each other for free nucleotides and are subject to natural selection. The most efficient molecules of RNA, the ones able to efficiently catalyze their own reproduction, survived and evolved, forming modern RNA.

Competition between RNA may have favored the emergence of cooperation between different RNA chains, opening the way for the formation of the first proto-cell. Eventually, RNA chains randomly developed with catalytic properties that help amino acids bind together (peptide-bonding). These amino acids could then assist with RNA synthesis, giving those RNA chains that could serve as ribozymes the selective advantage. Eventually DNA, lipids, carbohydrates, and all sorts of other chemicals were recruited into life. This led to the first prokaryotic cells, and eventually to life as we know it.



Cells are sort of like mini communities...and organisms are like communities of cells...it's all built from the bottom up via selection--just like actual communities and forum communities and ecosystems. Nobody needs to intend whatever it is communities become-- Creationists somehow see this selection process that anyone can understand as "chaos magically leading to complexity"--they just can't understand the ratcheting...the selection...no matter how many times or how many people explain it.

 

[articulett]

No, but the publicly available empirical evidence suggests to me that you're between 50 and 60 years old.

Yeah...I think he's got to be an old creationist--because the longer you seep your head in wrong beliefs, the harder it is to change--and he is absolutely impenetrable and the pedantry implies stodginess.

And I agree that there are a lot of great posters on this forum that are really intelligent. I suspect, they don't necessarily know who they are, while the one's who are sure they are geniuses are the least inspiring and densest of them all. The more incompetent one is in a given area, the more likely they are to vastly over estimate their abilities in that area...and everyone but them seems to see it. Kleinman has got to be the most egregious example of this. In their heads they seem to think of themselves as great geniuses bringing gifts of profound wisdom to us mere skeptics...They seem to have this notion that the masses are following them...or agreeing with them...while the masses have probably stopped listening.

 

[articulett]

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

But those who enjoy the benefits of science while praising invisible "intelligent designers" are obeying the "hypocritic oath."

Gee Willikers, Scientists know so much...it's so complicated....it must have been designed....a special treasure-gift from god that he forgot to mention for the first 300 million years his favorite creations were on the planet. It's way too complex to have come about through mere chance! All this great knowledge like airplanes, computers, and DNA--from chaos??!!!--it just couldn't be! (That is how creationists sound to me.)

 

[articulett]

Annual review of Genetics: structure and evolution of the insulin gene

My favorite recent paper is on the importance of the non-coding (so-called junk) DNA in the pathogenesis of Hirschsprung's disease; note the application within the paper of evolutionary theory to achieve a clinically relevant result.

So, question to Kleinman in return. What did God evolve from? Or did he just suddenly appear? What is the mathematical probability of that happening?

Geez, you can't expect Kleinman to keep current on science when he's still trying to convince himself that he's worked out the mathematical formula for disproving evolution based on the pieces of knowledge we had more than a decade ago! And surely he can't be figuring the god probability until he convinces at least one other person that his mathematical formula proves that evolution couldn't have happened without an "intelligent" (but oddly slow and wasteful), designer.