Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We have been talking about a supernatural event for months. The creation of life is a supernatural event. Why do you think you are having so much trouble describing this with natural laws? You can still measure the consequences of a supernatural event. This is done all the time with the sequencing of genomes and genes but your hypothesis of mutation and natural selection does not explain how the genome formed. You have two possibilities here, either life is the result of a supernatural event or you don’t know all the natural laws.

Complete evasion of my questions about supernatural laws duly noted. Also noted is your bizarre claim that sequencing genomes is measuring supernatural events.

By the way, both of the possibilities you list here are equivalent to "we don't know." However, the "supernatural event" excuse is a permanent abdication of scientific pursuit.

Why is that? You understand all the natural laws and are able to explain everything in terms of these laws? If that be the case, you have done a lousy job with ev.

Of course we don't understand all the natural laws, but what does that have to do with the logical problems associated with the concept of supernatural laws?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So let’s see if we can understand what you are saying.

Oh, perhaps we had better not let you try this.

Why not?

All genes initially formed during abiogenesis without the benefit of any selection process, then once these randomly formed genes assembled to form the first life forms, mutation and natural selection started to function. Joobz won’t even tell us how ribose forms in the primordial soup and you already have genes forming. Any of those genes include the DNA replicase system?

Ok, so far I have not said any of this. I don't know who you are confusing me with, or if you just really have a tough time with this.

When I asked you to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning you said the following:

"From the beginning" is your strawman conflation of natural selection and abiogenesis. That is clearly in the poem.

So when did/do genes form?

You have trouble understanding the obvious results from your own mathematics and you want me to explain to you how to differentiate between events caused by God and events caused by some lesser power than God but greater than our power.

The blue "and" serves to separate your misunderstanding of what I have and have not said. After the blue "and", you finally mention my question. Let's see how you do with it.

Well, let’s see if I can answer your question by example. The creation of the universe, that takes the power of God, the creation of life, that takes the power of God. All other power ultimately stems from God. So any power you have is something from God and you should consider carefully how you use it.

Well, you don't answer it, but we can see from what you do say that "omnipotence" is not a requirement for your answer. So unless you correct me later, I will assume that your answer is "no, you cannot tell the difference between your god and a powerful enough non-god." I will wait here for a bit before continuing, to see if you do agree with that.

It is you who thinks that some non-god created life and the universe. The problem is your view is not supported by your own mathematics. Ev shows this.

Can you describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

Not to your satisfaction. If you would like to provide adequate definitions of "gene" and "beginning", I could try.

Why don’t you try to describe selection so it would work in ev? This is an evolutionist model of random point mutation and natural selection. I’ll help you with the definitions for gene-the functional unit of heredity and beginning-the point of time or space at which anything starts.

Do you think that all genes formed in the primordial soup?

No. Do you?

I don’t believe genes formed in the primordial soup, I don’t believe a primordial soup ever existed. The primordial soup is a concocted fantasy that evolutionists have come up with to fill a huge gap in your unscientific theory.

So if genes form on living things, do you want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?

What do you think of the failure of ev to evolve binding sites when you have only two conflicting selection processes?

I think that this is an oversimplification. What would you predict if two or more selection processes were involved that were not "conflicting"? Do you suggest that all selection pressures are mutually incompatible?

Certainly two conflicting selection processes is an oversimplification, in reality as Paul said previously there would be millions of selection processes in action. The only way you can get two or more selection processes not to conflict is that all mutations for a given creature would have to be beneficial, otherwise any good mutations a creature might have would be interfered with by harmful mutations. Selection processes by their very nature conflict. This is demonstrated mathematically in ev when selection to reduce errors in the non-binding site region dominates and prevents binding sites from evolving in the binding site region. This effect is also demonstrated in the real world when double or triple antimicrobials are used to treat infectious diseases and prevent the emergence of resistant microbes.

You evolutionist really need a new playbook, moving goalposts and strawmen. Why don’t you come up with some real arguments like a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning, or are you going to adopt cruftborg’s argument that genes just appear without selection. All you need is cruft.

Or you need to understand more about selection by consequences.

Oh, I think I understand selection by consequences, ev is a very good model to learn from and I also have used multiple antimicrobials to treat infections.

Which question? Are you talking about what is the function of a perfect creature in ev? It is to annoy evolutionists.

No, you answered the question above (have you forgotten already?) Well, technically you did not answer it, but the answer you did give did not require your god to be omnipotent. Remember, I paraphrased your position as "no, you cannot tell the difference between your god and a powerful enough non-god." Rather than do as poor a job representing your position as you have mine, I await your confimation or denial that this is your position before pursuing that line any further.

I understand your desire to abandon this discussion about the mathematics of ev. It is such a wonderful tool to reveal the irrationality of your theory of evolution. You have no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and multiple selection process conflict to prevent evolution. So complain about imagined moving goalposts and cry strawman because you have no science or mathematics to support your fundamental slogan for your theory.

...the theory of evolution ... is mathematically impossible.

I don't think you've presented a proof that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

The Ev program was designed to simulate only a subset of known features of evolution, so it can't be of any use to prove evolution is impossible. It can be used to prove that evolution is impossible if evolution only uses the principles that Ev simulates. Ev does not simulate all the processes known to be involved in evolution, so it is not useful as a proof that evolution is impossible. It was designed to answer some questions about how life evolved, but it was never designed to answer all questions about how life evolved.

Please, Dr. Kleinman, present your mathematical proof that evolution is impossible.

You are correct that ev only simulates a subset of the known forms of mutations (random point mutations), but ev does includes the concept of natural selection. Dr Schneider’s version of a selection process using a weight matrix to determine if mutations are beneficial or not is contrived. However, even with this contrived selection process, random point mutations and this contrived selection process is profoundly slow. In fact, under certain circumstances, the selection process actually prevents evolution of the binding sites. What makes the theory of evolution mathematically impossible despite the form of mutation mechanism is the lack of a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. In addition, ev shows that selection processes can and do conflict preventing evolution. This effect is seen in the real world and is used to prevent the evolution of drug resistant organisms. Without a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you are left with random mutations (of any form) in order to generate the initial genes that living things require. The probabilities of doing this are infinitesimally small.

How about a valid question? What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?

The process would likely involve any or all of several mechanisms which have been described to you previously (multiple times, even), as well as several as yet undiscovered mechanisms, and which we can sum up with the phrase "modifications of the genome".

Kotatsu, what this thread is about is the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. “modifications of the genome” does not qualify as a mathematical description of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

I see you decided to ingore the rest of my post entirely. Was this because it was an "[example] of [a] rare beneficial mutation which in the real world provide[d] a creature with enormous advantage over its competitors?", or because you didn't understand it?

Unless you can explain how carotene relates to the mathematics of mutation and natural selection, I have decided to ignore this portion of your post. Of course I know there are rare beneficial mutations that confer an enormous advantage for a creature over its competitors. I have given examples of this in my posts as well. What you can’t do is extrapolate these rare beneficial mutations to the transformation of reptiles to birds or humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor. You have no way to account for the huge number of genetic changes required and more importantly, you have no selection process that can accomplish the task.

a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning,

Already explained that the definition you provide precludes selection without foreknowledge of future mutations.

Cyborg, we are not talking about future mutations. We are talking about mutations that have already occurred and evolutionists contend have given rise to the life as we see today.

genes just appear without selection.

But you are too stupid to understand why this is necessarily so.

I understand your hypothesis cruftborg.

We have been talking about a supernatural event for months. The creation of life is a supernatural event. Why do you think you are having so much trouble describing this with natural laws? You can still measure the consequences of a supernatural event. This is done all the time with the sequencing of genomes and genes but your hypothesis of mutation and natural selection does not explain how the genome formed. You have two possibilities here, either life is the result of a supernatural event or you don’t know all the natural laws.

Complete evasion of my questions about supernatural laws duly noted. Also noted is your bizarre claim that sequencing genomes is measuring supernatural events.

Sequencing genomes is not measuring a supernatural event; it is measuring the consequence of a supernatural event. What I find strange is that you can look at all these complicated genes and think that they arose from random events. Oh yes, let’s not forget natural selection, you know that mechanism, the one which you can’t describe for evolving a gene from the beginning.

By the way, both of the possibilities you list here are equivalent to "we don't know." However, the "supernatural event" excuse is a permanent abdication of scientific pursuit.

What we do know is that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; your own computer model shows this. But don’t let that get in the way of your belief system. Just make sure you teach this to every naïve child you can and tell them that the theory of evolution is scientifically true.

Why is that? You understand all the natural laws and are able to explain everything in terms of these laws? If that be the case, you have done a lousy job with ev.

Of course we don't understand all the natural laws, but what does that have to do with the logical problems associated with the concept of supernatural laws?

Your own mathematical model shows that the theory of evolution violates what is known about natural law. Natural selection can not and does not do what you propose. You don’t get the accumulation of microevolutionary steps to achieve a macroevolutionary change; your mathematical model shows this. Natural selection does not allow for this.

For someone who puts so much faith in science and mathematics, you abandon these things when they reveal something you don’t believe in.

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, we are not talking about future mutations. We are talking about mutations that have already occurred and evolutionists contend have given rise to the life as we see today.

You do not even understand your own contentions.

You defined 'de novo' gene creation as a macroevolutionary event. However your contention is that microevolution cannot lead to this event. You contend this is the case because the macroevolutionary event has no selection mechanism. It has no selection mechanism because selecting for such NOW requires future knowledge. It however doesn't need a selection mechanism because microevolutionary events are sufficient to lead to the occurence of the event. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate otherwise. You certainly cannot show it is impossible - because it is not. ev absolutely demonstrates that this is so. Your entire reasoning to the contrary is based on many flawed assumptions. You have been told these many times yet refuse to acknowledge them.

You cannot understand that evolution is not goal based - I posit this is due to stupidity. It cannot be ignorance because you have been told this enough times.

You want us to start from time t1, trace back the mutation events to t0 and then provide the selection mechanism that was aiming for the state at time t1 starting from t0 for all the states inbetween.

That you are asking for this shows the depth of how much you do not get what you are arguing against.

Since you have been told this enough times it cannot be ignorance. I posit stupidity.

I understand your hypothesis cruftborg.

If you understood it you wouldn't keep repeating the same incorrect nonsense repeatidly.

 

[Kotatsu]

Kotatsu, what this thread is about is the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. “modifications of the genome” does not qualify as a mathematical description of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

But you didn't ask for a mathematical description of the selection process. You asked for a selection process, and I quickly summed up the process in a short phrase.

Unless you can explain how carotene relates to the mathematics of mutation and natural selection, I have decided to ignore this portion of your post. Of course I know there are rare beneficial mutations that confer an enormous advantage for a creature over its competitors. I have given examples of this in my posts as well.

Then why did you ask for them?

What you can’t do is extrapolate these rare beneficial mutations to the transformation of reptiles to birds or humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor. You have no way to account for the huge number of genetic changes required and more importantly, you have no selection process that can accomplish the task.

How huge are actually the number of genetic changes needed to go to either a human or a chimp/bonobo from the last common ancestor?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Cyborg, we are not talking about future mutations. We are talking about mutations that have already occurred and evolutionists contend have given rise to the life as we see today.

You do not even understand your own contentions.

Cyborg, certainly I understand my contentions. This is an accounting problem. If the theory of evolution is true by mutation and natural selection, can you account for all the genetic information that we have today by this mechanism. Ev shows that you can’t when you take into account random point mutations alone. In addition, without a selection process to evolve genes from the beginning, no mutation mechanism will accomplish the task you propose. The theory of evolution has failed its audit.

You defined 'de novo' gene creation as a macroevolutionary event. However your contention is that microevolution cannot lead to this event. You contend this is the case because the macroevolutionary event has no selection mechanism. It has no selection mechanism because selecting for such NOW requires future knowledge. It however doesn't need a selection mechanism because microevolutionary events are sufficient to lead to the occurence of the event. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate otherwise. You certainly cannot show it is impossible - because it is not. ev absolutely demonstrates that this is so. Your entire reasoning to the contrary is based on many flawed assumptions. You have been told these many times yet refuse to acknowledge them.

Cyborg, life exists, living things have genes, your theory of evolution fails to explain how these things came about. In fact, the mathematics of your theory says it is impossible.

You cannot understand that evolution is not goal based - I posit this is due to stupidity. It cannot be ignorance because you have been told this enough times.

Cyborg, your evolutionary mathematics when applied retrospectively to observations made today shows that theory of evolution by random mutations and natural selection is impossible.

You want us to start from time t1, trace back the mutation events to t0 and then provide the selection mechanism that was aiming for the state at time t1 starting from t0 for all the states inbetween.

Now you are getting it. There is no selection process to explain how you get from state 0 at t0 to state 1 at t1.

That you are asking for this shows the depth of how much you do not get what you are arguing against.

I know exactly what I am arguing against. I am arguing against a theory whose proponents can not explain the basic cause and effect mechanism yet think that their theory is scientific. People who believe this way are irrational.

Kotatsu, what this thread is about is the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. “modifications of the genome” does not qualify as a mathematical description of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

But you didn't ask for a mathematical description of the selection process. You asked for a selection process, and I quickly summed up the process in a short phrase.

The reason I like the ev computer model is that it removes the vague and ambiguous statements the evolutionists are required to make to argue for your theory. How do you use the phrase “modifications of the genome” in ev. What type of conditional statements to you use to determine what a beneficial or detrimental mutation is? Your summation is at best vague and ambiguous, it describes nothing.

Unless you can explain how carotene relates to the mathematics of mutation and natural selection, I have decided to ignore this portion of your post. Of course I know there are rare beneficial mutations that confer an enormous advantage for a creature over its competitors. I have given examples of this in my posts as well.

Then why did you ask for them?

There are many examples of beneficial mutations which can be selected for and give advantage to a creature. Do you want to explain how microevolutionary processes like these can accumulate to transform reptiles to birds? What is the selection process that can do this.

What you can’t do is extrapolate these rare beneficial mutations to the transformation of reptiles to birds or humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor. You have no way to account for the huge number of genetic changes required and more importantly, you have no selection process that can accomplish the task.

How huge are actually the number of genetic changes needed to go to either a human or a chimp/bonobo from the last common ancestor?

There are at least 35,000,000 base differences between humans and chimps and that just in the portion of the genomes that are homologous. You have 500,000 generations to accomplish all these changes and remember multiple selection process compete against each other. If you read this thread carefully, you would see that this is not the first time this issue has been raised.

 

[cyborg]

This is an accounting problem.

No it is not.

If the theory of evolution is true by mutation and natural selection, can you account for all the genetic information that we have today by this mechanism. Ev shows that you can’t when you take into account random point mutations alone.

No it does not. You have told many times why ev shows no such thing.

In addition, without a selection process to evolve genes from the beginning, no mutation mechanism will accomplish the task you propose.

Wrong. You have been shown why repeatedly.

The theory of evolution has failed its audit.

No. You haved failed.

Cyborg, life exists, living things have genes, your theory of evolution fails to explain how these things came about.

Yes. That is a different theory.

This is what it means to move the goal-posts.

In fact, the mathematics of your theory says it is impossible.

There is no mathematics for abiogenetic events here. You are wrong again.

Cyborg, your evolutionary mathematics when applied retrospectively to observations made today shows that theory of evolution by random mutations and natural selection is impossible.

No it does not. Improbable is not, and never will be, impossible. Mathematics can actually show impossibilities. Since you have been told this repeatidly you are not ignorant of this. I posit stupidity.

Because you insist on viewing evolution as goal based you also fail to take into account all the other possible valid iterations. As such you are insisting the cards be dealt one way when many hands are valid.

You are far, far too stupid to possible comprehend this though. I expect you will simply say something witty like 'cardborg'. Oh how I will laugh at the village idiot.

Now you are getting it. There is no selection process to explain how you get from state 0 at t0 to state 1 at t1.

I understood this approximately a million years ago when this thread started.

You have still failed to explain how you are going to stop G increasing.

I know exactly what I am arguing against.

It is evident you have no clue.

I am arguing against a theory whose proponents can not explain the basic cause and effect mechanism yet think that their theory is scientific.

It is not our problem that you lack the ability to understand when people explain it to you.

People who believe this way are irrational.

No, people who believe people rise from the dead are irrational.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

This is an accounting problem.

No it is not.

Now it become obvious why you don’t understand this discussion. Hard mathematical science consists of applying mathematical accounting principles to physical cause and effect natural laws. Ev is an example of this type of hard mathematical science and it is this hard mathematical science that reveals why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. If you think that the accounting rules are being applied improperly, show how the rules should be modified in ev and then you can make your case.

If the theory of evolution is true by mutation and natural selection, can you account for all the genetic information that we have today by this mechanism. Ev shows that you can’t when you take into account random point mutations alone.

No it does not. You have told many times why ev shows no such thing.

You are correct here that there are no such selection mechanisms that can evolve genes from the beginning. So how do you account for the appearance of the hundreds of genes that are required for the simplest living things?

In addition, without a selection process to evolve genes from the beginning, no mutation mechanism will accomplish the task you propose.

Wrong. You have been shown why repeatedly.

If the original genes did not come about by mutation and selection, how did they come about?

The theory of evolution has failed its audit.

No. You haved failed.

I have the results form ev to support my case, what results do you have?

Cyborg, life exists, living things have genes, your theory of evolution fails to explain how these things came about.

Yes. That is a different theory.

This is what it means to move the goal-posts.

Explain how the original genes came about whether they occur by abiogenesis or mutation and natural selection. How do you account for the origin of the original genes?

In fact, the mathematics of your theory says it is impossible.

There is no mathematics for abiogenetic events here. You are wrong again.

How did the original genes arise in abiogenesis?

Cyborg, your evolutionary mathematics when applied retrospectively to observations made today shows that theory of evolution by random mutations and natural selection is impossible.

No it does not. Improbable is not, and never will be, impossible. Mathematics can actually show impossibilities. Since you have been told this repeatidly you are not ignorant of this. I posit stupidity.

There is no selective process that can accomplish a macroevolutionary process. Without a selection process, your theory is mathematically impossible.

Because you insist on viewing evolution as goal based you also fail to take into account all the other possible valid iterations. As such you are insisting the cards be dealt one way when many hands are valid.

You see this as goal based, I see this as a matter of the accounting of the cause and effect principle of random mutations and natural selection. You can not accomplish what living things require by this mechanism. Mutations occur but there is no selection mechanism that can bring about macroevolution.

Now you are getting it. There is no selection process to explain how you get from state 0 at t0 to state 1 at t1.

I understood this approximately a million years ago when this thread started.

Yet you still hold to the unscientific view that genes still arise without any selection process. What is the cause and effect mechanism that leads to the formation of genes?

You have still failed to explain how you are going to stop G increasing.

Would you explain how increasing G creates new genes?

I know exactly what I am arguing against.

It is evident you have no clue.

Ask Paul and Dr Schneider if what I am saying about ev is accurate or not. I am going to keep this discussion in front of your face long enough so that you will understand it.

I am arguing against a theory whose proponents can not explain the basic cause and effect mechanism yet think that their theory is scientific.

It is not our problem that you lack the ability to understand when people explain it to you.

Understand this Cyborg, if evolutionists had an explanation for the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning, this would have been coded into ev and this discussion put to rest. So, if I can’t understand your evolutionist explanation, neither does Paul or Dr Schneider.

People who believe this way are irrational.

No, people who believe people rise from the dead are irrational.

I am not the one claiming this as a scientific proof; it is you evolutionists who claim your theory is scientific fact when your own mathematics refutes your theory.

 

[kjkent1]

No, people who believe people rise from the dead are irrational.

This really does sum it up, very well.

The evolution argument depends on the observed proof of random mutations, single-point, gene shift, fusion, deletion, ERVs etc., and the mathematically demonstrable capability of information gain starting with a random system and using nothing but a mechanism which creates single point mutations and a selection mechanism which prefers nothing more than an accurate and complete set of chemical bindings over an inaccurate and incomplete set.

The theological argument depends on all of the observed and mathematical proofs of evolution being unable to overcome the very low mathematical probability of accomplishing the present observed state of evolutionary development of life within the available generational span -- and instead, prefers the mathematically IMPOSSIBLE probability of the existence of God as the obvious answer.

In sum, the theist's position is:

1. Evolution is observed, but mathematically unlikely, therefore "Evolution did it" is false.

2. God is unobserved, and mathematically impossible, therefore "God did it" is true.

The frivolity of the above argument is self-evident.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sequencing genomes is not measuring a supernatural event; it is measuring the consequence of a supernatural event. What I find strange is that you can look at all these complicated genes and think that they arose from random events. Oh yes, let’s not forget natural selection, you know that mechanism, the one which you can’t describe for evolving a gene from the beginning.

False dichotomy.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In sum, the theist's position is:

1. Evolution is observed, but mathematically unlikely, therefore "Evolution did it" is false.

2. God is unobserved, and mathematically impossible, therefore "God did it" is true.

Brilliant!

It's so much easier to attribute something to an unobservable, illogical, magical, no-holds-barred agent than it is to attribute it to a really, really complex natural process.

Science: hard. Magic conquers all.

~~ Paul

 

[cyborg]

Now it become obvious why you don’t understand this discussion. Hard mathematical science consists of applying mathematical accounting principles

No, a million times no. You are talking nonsense.

Maths is maths. Maths is the model. Maths is not the reality of the situtation. We use maths to understand and predict. Doing maths is not doing science.

'Accouting principles' is just meaningless jingoism. Say 'statistical analysis' if that is what you mean. This ain't business hour.

to physical cause and effect natural laws.

You want to talk physics, talk physics.

Ev is an example of this type of hard mathematical science and it is this hard mathematical science that reveals why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Except it does not - quite the opposite infact. It shows it is entirely mathematically possible.

What you are actually claiming is that ev demonstrates evolution did not happen in this reality because when, to paraphrase yourself, 'realistic' parameters are used things don't converge to a perfect creature.

You do not even understand your own contentions.

If you think that the accounting rules are being applied improperly, show how the rules should be modified in ev and then you can make your case.

My case is made. I need to modify nothing. Your analysis is simply wrong.

You are correct here that there are no such selection mechanisms that can evolve genes from the beginning.

Yes I am. But you still don't get the point.

So how do you account for the appearance of the hundreds of genes that are required for the simplest living things?

I do not. You are asking about abiogenesis.

You have moved the goalposts. The question is whether or not the macroevolutionary events you describes can occur from microevolution. As such we start from a working system, not an uninitialised one.

If the original genes did not come about by mutation and selection, how did they come about?

The tears of Odin.

Keep the goal posts where they were. You cannot make abiogenetic claims with ev.

I have the results form ev to support my case, what results do you have?

The fact that ev demonstrates evolution is possible.

That it also demonstrates that the system breaks down under certain parameters is irrelevant - you claim impossibility. Impossible means impossible, not "does not happen under these circumstances".

As I said, you do not even understand what you are contending. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'impossible'.

How do you account for the origin of the original genes?

I don't.

Keep those goal posts where they were.

How did the original genes arise in abiogenesis?

The tears of Odin.

Keep the goal posts where they were.

There is no selective process that can accomplish a macroevolutionary process.

Yes there is. There is no selection mechanism, but there is a selective process. That selective process is the same one that causes microevolution - you know, that bit that you accept but want to insist cannot lead to macroevolution.

Without a selection process, your theory is mathematically impossible.

No. The claim is that microevolutionary events preclude macroevolution. I have trivially demonstrated that this is mathematically possible.

Buy a dictionary.

You see this as goal based,

YOU see this as goal based.

I see this as a matter of the accounting

This is not a business forum.

You can not accomplish what living things require by this mechanism.

What do living things require?

Mutations occur but there is no selection mechanism that can bring about macroevolution.

Yes there is. It is the selection mechanism that allows microevolution. There is no selection mechanism that can aim for macroevolution.

Of course you do not understand what this means. This is because you are stupid.

Yet you still hold to the unscientific view that genes still arise without any selection process.

No. You hold the unmathematical view that genes won't arise without any selection process.

What is the cause and effect mechanism that leads to the formation of genes?

Mutation + time -> increasing genetic sequences.

Would you explain how increasing G creates new genes?

Again? Would there be any point in doing so? You don't seem to understand the simplest of concepts.

Ask Paul and Dr Schneider if what I am saying about ev is accurate or not.

Paul and Dr Schneider is what he is saying about ev is accurate or not?

I am going to keep this discussion in front of your face long enough so that you will understand it.

Wow. The irony.

Understand this Cyborg, if evolutionists had an explanation for the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning, this would have been coded into ev and this discussion put to rest.

Understand this kleinman, genes are going to happen whether or not they are wanted. What is it about the basic premise that benefits to organisms are happy accidents don't you get? New genes are accidents of mutation.

So, if I can’t understand your evolutionist explanation, neither does Paul or Dr Schneider.

If he can't understand my reality-based explanation, do you Paul or Dr Scheider?

I am not the one claiming this as a scientific proof;

Yet you have already told me to fnid another reason not to believe in Jesus boy.

it is you evolutionists who claim your theory is scientific fact when your own mathematics refutes your theory.

No it doesn't.

 

[Mercutio]

When I asked you to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning you said the following:

Which I stand by. "Evolve a gene from the beginning" is your conflation of natural selection and abiogenesis.

So when did/do genes form?

Then and now, of course; life is a continuous process. Incremental changes happen constantly, at a low level. "A gene" is our artificial category which encompasses quite a huge fuzzy set of things. When a particular gene "begins" is thus not a clear case (as the case of ring species makes abundantly clear). This is why you have been asked for your definition of both "gene" and "beginning". By reasonable definitions, you have been shown the evolution of "the gene for insulin" from something which did not produce insulin. If you have some other definition of "beginning", or of "gene", please provide and defend them.

It is you who thinks that some non-god created life and the universe. The problem is your view is not supported by your own mathematics. Ev shows this.

Ev does not model abiogenesis; it is not supposed to. As you say below, ev does what it is supposed to do very well; that it does not model every aspect of natural selection is a function of its being...wait for it...a model.

More to the point, I understand that you think that a god created the universe and life. I am simply trying to understand why you believe this is so. Your own evidence thus far does not support the notion that you can even tell that your god-candidate is omnipotent. You chose that word, so I think it must be important. Suppose you have a being powerful enough to create life, but which cannot make a decent cup of espresso. Such an entity would fit your "evidence", but not be omnipotent. I see nothing in your answer that leads me to believe you are qualified to tell omnipotence from simple power. Given that, I am trying my best to see why you go all the way to "omnipotence", when all the evidence you have implies "powerful".

The gap between the power that you are able to witness (with your human sensory and perceptual systems) and "omnipotence" is far, far greater than the huge gap between your "large" population size and the population of bacteria in your gut. I understand that you are willing to believe in your omnipotent god; I just find it odd that you reject a much much smaller gap as being so improbable that you are willing to call it "impossible".

Why don’t you try to describe selection so it would work in ev? This is an evolutionist model of random point mutation and natural selection. I’ll help you with the definitions for gene-the functional unit of heredity and beginning-the point of time or space at which anything starts.

So the first change in function is enough? Just wanting to be sure here.

I don’t believe genes formed in the primordial soup, I don’t believe a primordial soup ever existed. The primordial soup is a concocted fantasy that evolutionists have come up with to fill a huge gap in your unscientific theory.

And god is...?

So if genes form on living things, do you want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?

"On"? By your definition, any change in function is the "beginning" of a new gene, yes? By that definition, your question has been answered several times over in this thread.

Certainly two conflicting selection processes is an oversimplification, in reality as Paul said previously there would be millions of selection processes in action. The only way you can get two or more selection processes not to conflict is that all mutations for a given creature would have to be beneficial, otherwise any good mutations a creature might have would be interfered with by harmful mutations. Selection processes by their very nature conflict. This is demonstrated mathematically in ev when selection to reduce errors in the non-binding site region dominates and prevents binding sites from evolving in the binding site region. This effect is also demonstrated in the real world when double or triple antimicrobials are used to treat infectious diseases and prevent the emergence of resistant microbes.

"Beneficial" should be "beneficial, neutral, or simply better than the competition". And yes, combinations that are harmful, even if one mutation is good, will end up in the scrapheap. That is why it is called "selection" rather than "design". And in the real world, we are very worried because we are down to our last few antibiotics. Microbes have died off in unfathomable numbers, and yet there is concern about overuse of antibiotics in cattle because we want to reserve the remaining effective antibiotics for humans. Why? Because even with the selection pressure of triple antibiotics, with a large enough population (and the cattle industry provides this) there will be resistant strains. Or do you have no fear of this?

Oh, I think I understand selection by consequences, ev is a very good model to learn from and I also have used multiple antimicrobials to treat infections.

First, I note again that you admit that ev is a very good model at what it is intended to model. Secondly, have you heard of the new resistant strains of MRSA?

I understand your desire to abandon this discussion about the mathematics of ev. It is such a wonderful tool to reveal the irrationality of your theory of evolution. You have no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and multiple selection process conflict to prevent evolution. So complain about imagined moving goalposts and cry strawman because you have no science or mathematics to support your fundamental slogan for your theory.

If the worst you can complain about ev is that it does not work for what it is not designed for, keep pounding that drum. Meanwhile, I note you do not deny that you cannot perceive omnipotence, nor do you provide any evidence of special abilities or evidence that would allow for same. The gap in your explanation is substantial; I can see why you are running from it rather than defending it.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

In sum, the theist's position is:

1. Evolution is observed, but mathematically unlikely, therefore "Evolution did it" is false.

2. God is unobserved, and mathematically impossible, therefore "God did it" is true.

The frivolity of the above argument is self-evident.

Oooh nice… Pavlov’s dog had its response; mine was as follows (howl, howl):


The only possibility for an agnostic to acknowledge the existence of a traditional god-like force in the universe is when the universe becomes a closed system where everything is known; i.e. it is fully deterministic and all the determinants are known and understood. Only then, when everything is known in the scientific sense, and something would happen that defies every possible law in the universe, would/should the traditional “God” be a serious contender for the explanation.

Of course, we do not know or understand everything so we have to put “God-did-it” on hold during our journey towards knowing and understanding. Moreover, we would probability never even realize that we know everything if we in fact knew everything. Nevertheless, the deeper we go via scientific understanding the more clutter can be removed from current religious belief systems that seem to have hijacked the prerogative of explaining “God”. “God” might eventually show up, but probably not in the form any current religious dogma now proclaims. It might be as simple as: “God really is everything”, which would mean almost ‘nothing’ in a religious-systemic context, but ironically, ‘everything’ in a scientific context (albeit “God” then being redundant as a term).

Now, I know many religions already proclaim “God” to be everything, yet they seem to be preoccupied with infantile worship of that everything by a specific method… almost as if the method of worship is more important that “God” itself. Why proclaim that “God” is everything and then throw away the notion straight away; almost forbidding further examination of that everything? It just happens that science appears to be more reliable that bronze age scriptures when it comes to the particular.

Science or evolution theory is no threat to “God” (whatever that is); it’s a threat to infantile methodological dogma.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sequencing genomes is not measuring a supernatural event; it is measuring the consequence of a supernatural event. What I find strange is that you can look at all these complicated genes and think that they arose from random events. Oh yes, let’s not forget natural selection, you know that mechanism, the one which you can’t describe for evolving a gene from the beginning.

False dichotomy.

You only have two possibilities, either the creation of life was a supernatural event or it can be explained by natural laws and you don’t know what these natural laws are. You have chosen the later alternative but the application of natural laws shows it could not have happened this way. I happen to believe that Dr Schneider basically has applied the natural laws appropriately. The results of Dr Schneider’s computer model show that the theory of evolution is impossible mathematically. No selection process, no theory of evolution.

In sum, the theist's position is:

1. Evolution is observed, but mathematically unlikely, therefore "Evolution did it" is false.

2. God is unobserved, and mathematically impossible, therefore "God did it" is true.

Brilliant!

It's so much easier to attribute something to an unobservable, illogical, magical, no-holds-barred agent than it is to attribute it to a really, really complex natural process.

Science: hard. Magic conquers all.

Paul, in case the results of your own computer model slipped past you unnoticed, your own computer model shows that your theory of evolution is illogical and mathematically impossible. Regardless of my personal view of how life came to be, this has no bearing on the impossibility of your theory. Where is Myriad and Dr Schneider, the only other evolutionists who have run cases with ev, to refute the results of what ev has shown. Hard mathematical science shows that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Now it become obvious why you don’t understand this discussion. Hard mathematical science consists of applying mathematical accounting principles

No, a million times no. You are talking nonsense.

You are talking like someone who has no experience in modern science.

Maths is maths. Maths is the model. Maths is not the reality of the situtation. We use maths to understand and predict. Doing maths is not doing science.

Of course we use math to understand and predict. This is what Dr Schneider has done with ev. What ev predicts is that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is far too slow to explain the theory. The lack of a selection process explains that the theory is mathematically impossible.

'Accouting principles' is just meaningless jingoism. Say 'statistical analysis' if that is what you mean. This ain't business hour.

This is not statistical analysis. Ev is the accounting of random point mutations and natural selection. Ev models the rate at which information can be accumulated in a genome by this mechanism. This is not a statistical analysis, this is a bookkeeping problem. If you studied the model a bit, you would understand this.

to physical cause and effect natural laws.

You want to talk physics, talk physics.

This is a discussion of the accounting of the physical laws of mutation and natural selection. What this mathematical accounting shows is that evolutionists have extrapolated this principle far beyond what actually happens.

Ev is an example of this type of hard mathematical science and it is this hard mathematical science that reveals why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Except it does not - quite the opposite infact. It shows it is entirely mathematically possible.

I must have missed your post of the data from ev that supports your contention. Do you want to repost that data?

What you are actually claiming is that ev demonstrates evolution did not happen in this reality because when, to paraphrase yourself, 'realistic' parameters are used things don't converge to a perfect creature.

That’s a fairly accurate paraphrase but don’t stop there, include the fact that there are no selection processes that can evolve a gene from the beginning. The later point is the death blow to the theory of evolution. And if that was not enough, ev shows that conflicting selection processes interfere with evolution. This effect is observed in reality and is used in the practice of clinical medicine.

You do not even understand your own contentions.

Cyborg, you do not understand my contentions but I will be patient with you and until you do.

If you think that the accounting rules are being applied improperly, show how the rules should be modified in ev and then you can make your case.

My case is made. I need to modify nothing. Your analysis is simply wrong.

I have the results from ev to support my case. This is a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection written by the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. What mathematical data have you presented that supports your case?

You are correct here that there are no such selection mechanisms that can evolve genes from the beginning.

Yes I am. But you still don't get the point.

I get your point, genes came about without a selection process.

So how do you account for the appearance of the hundreds of genes that are required for the simplest living things?

I do not. You are asking about abiogenesis.

Are you talking about the abiogenesis that evolutionists say occurred in the nonexistent primordial soup?

You have moved the goalposts. The question is whether or not the macroevolutionary events you describes can occur from microevolution. As such we start from a working system, not an uninitialised one.

Cyborg, you are still looking for the ballpark, how would you know if the goalposts have been moved.

If the original genes did not come about by mutation and selection, how did they come about?

The tears of Odin.

I think Odin has some cruft on his eyelids. I think he needs some eye drops.

Keep the goal posts where they were. You cannot make abiogenetic claims with ev.

Did all genes arise by abiogenesis?

I have the results form ev to support my case, what results do you have?

The fact that ev demonstrates evolution is possible.

Did you post that data from ev that shows this?

That it also demonstrates that the system breaks down under certain parameters is irrelevant - you claim impossibility. Impossible means impossible, not "does not happen under these circumstances".

Just because those parameters are the realistic ones that show that the system breaks down, don’t let that interfere with your belief system.

As I said, you do not even understand what you are contending. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'impossible'.

Without a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is impossible.

How do you account for the origin of the original genes?

I don't.

Keep those goal posts where they were.

That’s smart; avoid the question that gives the death blow to the theory of evolution. Since neither you nor any other evolutionist has the answer to this question, it doesn’t matter where the goalposts are.

There is no selective process that can accomplish a macroevolutionary process.

Yes there is. There is no selection mechanism, but there is a selective process. That selective process is the same one that causes microevolution - you know, that bit that you accept but want to insist cannot lead to macroevolution.

Fair enough, describe the process and put it into ev and show us how it happens.

Without a selection process, your theory is mathematically impossible.

No. The claim is that microevolutionary events preclude macroevolution. I have trivially demonstrated that this is mathematically possible.

Slogans don’t cut it on this thread, you have to produce the data.

I see this as a matter of the accounting

This is not a business forum.

Sure it is, just don’t buy any stock in the theory of evolution.

You can not accomplish what living things require by this mechanism.

What do living things require?

At a minimum, living things require hundreds of genes to carry on the chemistry of metabolism and reproduction. Among those genes are the genes for the DNA replicase system. Sound irreducibly complex, doesn’t it.

Mutations occur but there is no selection mechanism that can bring about macroevolution.

Yes there is. It is the selection mechanism that allows microevolution. There is no selection mechanism that can aim for macroevolution.

Cyborg, I believe you are correct here. So do you want to show us how a series of microevolutionary events can lead to a macroevolutionary change?

Yet you still hold to the unscientific view that genes still arise without any selection process.

No. You hold the unmathematical view that genes won't arise without any selection process.

Oh no! There is a mathematical view why genes won’t arise without a selection process.

What is the cause and effect mechanism that leads to the formation of genes?

Mutation + time -> increasing genetic sequences.

Paul, Dr Schneider, look! Cyborg has solved your problem.

Would you explain how increasing G creates new genes?

Again? Would there be any point in doing so? You don't seem to understand the simplest of concepts.

Come on. I’ll try my hardest. G wiz.

Ask Paul and Dr Schneider if what I am saying about ev is accurate or not.

Paul and Dr Schneider is what he is saying about ev is accurate or not?

Well Paul, there’s your question. Maybe Dr Schneider is willing to answer as well. Oh, I forgot, Dr Schneider has moved on after more than 20 years work on this model.

I am going to keep this discussion in front of your face long enough so that you will understand it.

Wow. The irony.

Well, maybe I’m wrong about this, you may be so mathematically challenged that you never understand ev.

Understand this Cyborg, if evolutionists had an explanation for the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning, this would have been coded into ev and this discussion put to rest.

Understand this kleinman, genes are going to happen whether or not they are wanted. What is it about the basic premise that benefits to organisms are happy accidents don't you get? New genes are accidents of mutation.

What you still don’t understand is that ev shows that the accidents of mutation are far too slow to explain the theory of evolution.

So, if I can’t understand your evolutionist explanation, neither does Paul or Dr Schneider.

If he can't understand my reality-based explanation, do you Paul or Dr Scheider?

There you go Paul, are you going to answer Cyborg’s question? Why don’t you put Cyborg’s suggestion into ev and show how the theory of evolution works.

it is you evolutionists who claim your theory is scientific fact when your own mathematics refutes your theory.

No it doesn't.

I’ve posted the data from ev that supports my contention, what data have you posted to support your contention.

When I asked you to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning you said the following:

Which I stand by. "Evolve a gene from the beginning" is your conflation of natural selection and abiogenesis.

Quit hiding from this question. Genes had to arise somehow. How did the first genes arise?

So when did/do genes form?

Then and now, of course; life is a continuous process. Incremental changes happen constantly, at a low level. "A gene" is our artificial category which encompasses quite a huge fuzzy set of things. When a particular gene "begins" is thus not a clear case (as the case of ring species makes abundantly clear). This is why you have been asked for your definition of both "gene" and "beginning". By reasonable definitions, you have been shown the evolution of "the gene for insulin" from something which did not produce insulin. If you have some other definition of "beginning", or of "gene", please provide and defend them.

Why Mercutio, you are moving the goalposts for the definition of a gene. You think this amorphous, vague evolutionist jargon you are giving here is convincing? What is the selection process that takes the incremental changes from a gene that does not produce insulin to a gene that produces insulin?

It is you who thinks that some non-god created life and the universe. The problem is your view is not supported by your own mathematics. Ev shows this.

Ev does not model abiogenesis; it is not supposed to. As you say below, ev does what it is supposed to do very well; that it does not model every aspect of natural selection is a function of its being...wait for it...a model.

What ev models is random point mutation and natural selection. Are you going to join Cyborg and say that the original genes arose in the nonexistent primordial soup without selection?

Why don’t you try to describe selection so it would work in ev? This is an evolutionist model of random point mutation and natural selection. I’ll help you with the definitions for gene-the functional unit of heredity and beginning-the point of time or space at which anything starts.

So the first change in function is enough? Just wanting to be sure here.

Why Mercutio, I gave you the definitions you requested then you don’t answer the question. Tsk, tsk, how unfair. Let me speculate a bit here, you don’t have the answer. Let me speculate a bit more here, no evolutionist has the answer.

So if genes form on living things, do you want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?

"On"? By your definition, any change in function is the "beginning" of a new gene, yes? By that definition, your question has been answered several times over in this thread.

Really? Why don’t you repost those answers? Let’s clarify something, there is no selection until a sequence of bases has function. I repost the argument why there is no selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning.

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.

Certainly two conflicting selection processes is an oversimplification, in reality as Paul said previously there would be millions of selection processes in action. The only way you can get two or more selection processes not to conflict is that all mutations for a given creature would have to be beneficial, otherwise any good mutations a creature might have would be interfered with by harmful mutations. Selection processes by their very nature conflict. This is demonstrated mathematically in ev when selection to reduce errors in the non-binding site region dominates and prevents binding sites from evolving in the binding site region. This effect is also demonstrated in the real world when double or triple antimicrobials are used to treat infectious diseases and prevent the emergence of resistant microbes.

"Beneficial" should be "beneficial, neutral, or simply better than the competition". And yes, combinations that are harmful, even if one mutation is good, will end up in the scrapheap. That is why it is called "selection" rather than "design". And in the real world, we are very worried because we are down to our last few antibiotics. Microbes have died off in unfathomable numbers, and yet there is concern about overuse of antibiotics in cattle because we want to reserve the remaining effective antibiotics for humans. Why? Because even with the selection pressure of triple antibiotics, with a large enough population (and the cattle industry provides this) there will be resistant strains. Or do you have no fear of this?

What still hasn’t registered with you is that ev shows that competing selection processes stop evolution. I have already suggested to Paul that in order to make ev more realistic, evolve two sets of binding sites simultaneously and see what happens to the generations for convergence. Paul already has a sense of what would happen and I doubt he would add this feature to ev. It would only make the theory of evolution appear more ridiculous.

Oh, I think I understand selection by consequences, ev is a very good model to learn from and I also have used multiple antimicrobials to treat infections.

First, I note again that you admit that ev is a very good model at what it is intended to model. Secondly, have you heard of the new resistant strains of MRSA?

I think that ev is as Paul’s latest evaluation of ev is a stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection. Resistant strains of MRSA have been around for more than 20 years. Many of these strains are sensitive to sulfa drugs and tetracycline class drugs as well as Vancomycin and gentamicin. Use of multiple drug regimes can reduce the emergence of multiple drug resistant strains. Applying multiple selective pressures to infectious agents reduces the likelihood of evolving drug resistant strains. Using single agents greatly increases the likelihood of evolving drug resistant strains. This same strategy is used with treatment of HIV where triple drug therapy is now standard of care.

I understand your desire to abandon this discussion about the mathematics of ev. It is such a wonderful tool to reveal the irrationality of your theory of evolution. You have no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and multiple selection process conflict to prevent evolution. So complain about imagined moving goalposts and cry strawman because you have no science or mathematics to support your fundamental slogan for your theory.

If the worst you can complain about ev is that it does not work for what it is not designed for, keep pounding that drum. Meanwhile, I note you do not deny that you cannot perceive omnipotence, nor do you provide any evidence of special abilities or evidence that would allow for same. The gap in your explanation is substantial; I can see why you are running from it rather than defending it.

I did exactly what ev was designed for. So don’t complain about the results. Here is what Dr Schneider intended for ev:

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.

In the process of doing the parametric study that Dr Schneider suggested, two things became apparent about the selection process he used. The first is that his selection process is contrived and the second is that his competing selection process can prevent evolution of binding sites when errors in the non-binding site region dominate the selection process. The first problem with Dr Schneider’s selection process illustrates the fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, which is that there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, the second problem that Dr Schneider’s selection process illustrates is that competing selection process stop the evolutionary process. Dr Schneider’s application of mathematics to the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection shows why the theory is mathematically impossible.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It is you who thinks that some non-god created life and the universe. The problem is your view is not supported by your own mathematics. Ev shows this.

No, it's been clearly explained that Ev does not show this.

I understand your desire to abandon this discussion about the mathematics of ev. It is such a wonderful tool to reveal the irrationality of your theory of evolution.

There is no desire to abandon the discussion about the mathematics of Ev. You have not proven that Ev proves evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Indeed, by your reasoning, the lack of a computer model for god would prove god mathematically impossible.

What we do know is that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; your own computer model shows this.

No, it doesn't, because Ev does not model all characteristics of evolution.

Your own mathematical model shows that the theory of evolution violates what is known about natural law.

Your insistence on repeating this indicates you are woefully ignorant about modeling natural systems in computer programs. Why don't you pick up a few books on it from Amazon?

When "Computer Modeling of Natural Systems For Dummies" comes out I'll buy you a copy.

 

[cyborg]

Just because those parameters are the realistic ones that show that the system breaks down, don’t let that interfere with your belief system.

Impossible means IMPOSSIBLE ALWAYS.

I am done with you. You are a total moron.

On ignore you go.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I happen to believe that Dr Schneider basically has applied the natural laws appropriately. The results of Dr Schneider’s computer model show that the theory of evolution is impossible mathematically. No selection process, no theory of evolution.

Well, no one who actually understands computer models happens to agree with you.

Paul, in case the results of your own computer model slipped past you unnoticed, your own computer model shows that your theory of evolution is illogical and mathematically impossible.

No, it actually doesn't show that.

What you still don’t understand is that ev shows that the accidents of mutation are far too slow to explain the theory of evolution.

But this is false, because Ev doesn't model every facet of the evolutionary process.

Dr Schneider’s application of mathematics to the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection shows why the theory is mathematically impossible.

Naw, I think you are mistaken about that. Ev was not designed to be that comprehensive a model of evolution.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, you evaded my question. Where is your mathematical proof that evolution of species on this planet was impossible?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It is you who thinks that some non-god created life and the universe. The problem is your view is not supported by your own mathematics. Ev shows this.

No, it's been clearly explained that Ev does not show this.

Really? I’ve posted the results from hundreds of cases from ev that shows this. How many cases from ev have you posted?

I understand your desire to abandon this discussion about the mathematics of ev. It is such a wonderful tool to reveal the irrationality of your theory of evolution.

There is no desire to abandon the discussion about the mathematics of Ev. You have not proven that Ev proves evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Read the thread Mr Scott. How many cases from ev have you posted?

Indeed, by your reasoning, the lack of a computer model for god would prove god mathematically impossible.

I’ve never reasoned like this. What we do have is a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection that shows that the theory of evolution is impossible by this mechanism. Further more, this model reveals the importance of a selection process in order for evolution to proceed. There is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. What I find interesting about this debate is that evolutionists would much rather talk about religion than the mathematics of your own theory. I guess you evolutionists don’t have much to say about your theory mathematically.

What we do know is that your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible; your own computer model shows this.

No, it doesn't, because Ev does not model all characteristics of evolution.

What ev does not model is a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. The reason is that no such selection process exists. Without such a selection process, your theory is mathematically impossible no matter what mutation mechanism you want to consider.

Your own mathematical model shows that the theory of evolution violates what is known about natural law.

Your insistence on repeating this indicates you are woefully ignorant about modeling natural systems in computer programs. Why don't you pick up a few books on it from Amazon?

We have a mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection that has been made available to us by the good programming skills of Paul. Why don’t you study this model and do some cases with it so you won’t speak out of ignorance of this model.

When "Computer Modeling of Natural Systems For Dummies" comes out I'll buy you a copy.

I don’t need to write this computer model. We already have Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model. You have shown that your mind was already made up before you ever looked at this model. It is enough that other scientists and mathematicians who are not evolutionist dogmatists learn what Dr Schneider’s model really shows about the theory of evolution.

On ignore you go.

Kjkent1 said good bye pages ago. I will miss your cruft.

 

[kjkent1]

Paul:

I think I have found an interesting artifact contained within ev's published selection mechanism, assuming that your Java version operates using the same algorithms as the original. In the Java version, there are three variables with which to weight the various mutation errors/mistakes that ev makes for the purposes of selection. They are:

1. Missing bindings.
2. Spurious bindings within the binding-site region.
3. Spurious bindings outside the binding-site region.

Although the program allows for a weight between 0 - 100 for each variable, if we assume that the choices for each setting is either on or off (1 or 0), this yields only eight possible (binary) mistake settings.

Using the default settings for all of the other program settings, and then running the program through each one of the eight possible mistake settings, I find that only two settings permit any convergence toward a perfect creature (the other settings just wander around aimlessly forever). The working settings are:

1. Missed binding sites, and spurious bindings outside the binding-site region (1, 0, 1).
2. All three settings turned on (1, 1, 1).

Assuming that the ev selection method is a reasonable model of a possible evolutionary selection process, this proves that the type(s) of mistakes and their locations absolutely effects the speed at which evolution takes place.

This conclusion completely refutes kleinman's position that no possible selection mechanism exists which can possibly cause real-world evolution to occur, because it's clear that even with only the three random point mistakes allowed by ev, that the choice of those mistakes has a profound effect on ev's evolutionary abilities.

kleinman's argument has been that ev's selection mechanism demonstrates that conflicting selective processes will inhibit evolution. Changing these settings demonstrates the contrary, because by enabling only one of the three mistakes and disabling the other two, so that there can be no conflict, there is no convergence at all.

To be fair, however, I must include the other possibility: ev's default selection method is defective, and the defect is causing this observed behavior.

However, if ev's selection method is not defective, then my test demonstrates that if gene shifts, fusions, deletions, additions, were all modeled, one can assume that these different and more complex mistake mechanisms would have very different and perhaps very profound effects on the evolutionary process.

Either way, until the current selection method is confirmed as functioning correctly, results from ev may not be a reasonable measure of the possible outcomes for natural evolution.