Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

There you go, you are actually thinking about the mathematics of ev. I think if you want to challenge this issue of the selection process, you will need to model reality more closely. As I suggested a while back, instead of modeling a random genome and look for the evolution of binding sites as the source of errors, model an evolved genome with a portion set aside for the evolution of binding sites. Mutations to the non-binding site region would have to be evaluated as harmful or neutral and mutations to the binding site region as beneficial, neutral or harmful. Selection then is made based on these results.

Don’t forget, as you attempt to model the real situation more accurately, you will have competing selection processes. This could be simulated by evolving two or more sets of binding sites simultaneously as previously suggested.

Ultimately, you will still encounter the problem of evolving a gene from the beginning. There is no selection process that will select for a sequence that doesn’t exist or produce a functioning molecule.

I commend you for studying the mathematics of ev.

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.

You can’t assume that frame shifts, and other more complex mutation mechanisms will speed up the evolutionary process. In fact it is probably more likely that frame shift mutations will slow the evolutionary process. What do you think happens to a functioning gene when there is a frame shift?

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.

As you compare Dr Schneider’s selection mechanism with the real situation, I think you will find that his mechanism gives over optimistic rates of convergence. How would you extend Dr Schneider’s concept to the evolution of a gene. There is no such selection mechanism. The insulin gene is 12,000 bases long. What kind of weight matrix can you use to simulate a partial match in this type of situation? Consider this, when would a gene like the insulin gene evolve? Would it evolve in the primordial soup? Probably not since insulin is a signaling hormone to signal cells to take up glucose and therefore only be useful in multi-cellular organisms.

I encourage you to study this model and the associated concepts in detail.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Still a false dichotomy. You are assuming life came about either by supernatural events or by evolution as currently explained. There might be another naturalistic explanation.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

This feature exists only in the Java version. It was added as a result of a conversation with another creationist, who insisted that equal mistake points for all three situations was artificial.

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.

The feature was intended to allow different mistake points for the three situations, not specifically to allow situations to be ignored.

So let's see what happens when evolving a perfect creature. The three parameters assign mistake points for the following situations:

1. Missed binding site
2. Spurious binding within the gene
3. Spurious binding outside the gene

0,0,0: immediate pause; always 0 mistakes
0,0,1: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings outside gene
0,1,0: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings within gene
0,1,1: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings anywhere
1,0,0: almost immediate pause as soon as bindings everywhere
1,0,1: typical run; spurious bindings remain within gene
1,1,0: typical run; spurious bindings remain outside gene
1,1,1: standard run

So I'm not sure what you were seeing.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Still a false dichotomy. You are assuming life came about either by supernatural events or by evolution as currently explained. There might be another naturalistic explanation.

I’m not sure what other naturalistic explanation you are talking about, perhaps its panspermia. If panspermia is what you are talking about, you still had to have life arise in some manner on some other planet. If it was not panspermia that you are talking about, what other naturalistic explanation for the occurrence of life are you talking about since your own computer model makes the theory of evolution kaput?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I’m not sure what other naturalistic explanation you are talking about, perhaps its panspermia. If panspermia is what you are talking about, you still had to have life arise in some manner on some other planet. If it was not panspermia that you are talking about, what other naturalistic explanation for the occurrence of life are you talking about since your own computer model makes the theory of evolution kaput?

I do not have another explanation in mind, but that does not alter the fact that you have a false dichotomy. You don't get to leap to God just because you don't like evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I’m not sure what other naturalistic explanation you are talking about, perhaps its panspermia. If panspermia is what you are talking about, you still had to have life arise in some manner on some other planet. If it was not panspermia that you are talking about, what other naturalistic explanation for the occurrence of life are you talking about since your own computer model makes the theory of evolution kaput?

I do not have another explanation in mind, but that does not alter the fact that you have a false dichotomy. You don't get to leap to God just because you don't like evolution.

It is not whether I like evolution or not, it is that evolution does not have a sound mathematical scientific basis. Your own computer model shows this. I don’t know how many times I have been required to offer an alternative explanation for life since I have shown using your computer model that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. Now that you understand the mathematical problems that your theory has, what other naturalistic explanation is available? Like the lack of a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, there is no other naturalistic explanation for the occurrence of life. The occurrence of life is a supernatural event and this is why you can’t give a mathematical scientific naturalistic explanation, but that doesn’t stop evolutionists from trying to impose your belief system on everyone.

 

[Mercutio]

I do not have another explanation in mind, but that does not alter the fact that you have a false dichotomy. You don't get to leap to God just because you don't like evolution.

~~ Paul

This is why I was trying to explore his evidence *for* a god; so far he cannot support the descriptor "omnipotent"; I doubt he will find any for omniscience, either.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I do not have another explanation in mind, but that does not alter the fact that you have a false dichotomy. You don't get to leap to God just because you don't like evolution.

This is why I was trying to explore his evidence *for* a god; so far he cannot support the descriptor "omnipotent"; I doubt he will find any for omniscience, either.

Descriptor for Mercutio for omnipotence=all powerful. Example of what someone who is omnipotent can do=create life. Example of failure of naturalistic explanation for life=theory of evolution. Of course God already knew this because He is omniscient.

 

[Mercutio]

Descriptor for Mercutio for omnipotence=all powerful. Example of what someone who is omnipotent can do=create life. Example of failure of naturalistic explanation for life=theory of evolution. Of course God already knew this because He is omniscient.

Oh, I have no problem with the definition of omnipotent. What I have asked you, though, is whether you (or any person) has the ability to differentiate, based on the evidence you have seen, between an omnipotent being and a very very powerful non-omnipotent one. Again, my trivial example is of an entity that can create life but cannot make a decent cup of espresso. Not omnipotent, yet still fits your example of what an omnipotent entity can do.

It is clear that you cannot differentiate between "sufficiently powerful to fool a human's perceptual systems" from omnipotence. Indeed, it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that there are any number of sufficiently powerful, non-omnipotent theoretical entities that the concept of having evidence for an omnipotent being is beyond human capability.

Simply being able to define omnipotence is not enough, not nearly. You need to be able to demonstrate that you, or any human, can tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. As long as you have human sensory and perceptual abilities, you simply cannot.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Descriptor for Mercutio for omnipotence=all powerful. Example of what someone who is omnipotent can do=create life. Example of failure of naturalistic explanation for life=theory of evolution. Of course God already knew this because He is omniscient.

Oh, I have no problem with the definition of omnipotent. What I have asked you, though, is whether you (or any person) has the ability to differentiate, based on the evidence you have seen, between an omnipotent being and a very very powerful non-omnipotent one. Again, my trivial example is of an entity that can create life but cannot make a decent cup of espresso. Not omnipotent, yet still fits your example of what an omnipotent entity can do.

Not only have I given you a definition for an omnipotent being, I have given you an example of how to differentiate between that being and a very, very powerful non-omnipotent being.

It is clear that you cannot differentiate between "sufficiently powerful to fool a human's perceptual systems" from omnipotence. Indeed, it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that there are any number of sufficiently powerful, non-omnipotent theoretical entities that the concept of having evidence for an omnipotent being is beyond human capability.

You have been fooled into thinking that life has come to be as we see it now by random mutations and natural selection. You know that natural selection we are talking about. That’s the natural selection that can not evolve a gene from the beginning. So your perceptual systems have failed you with the theory of evolution, this has been shown to you mathematically using the ev computer model.

Simply being able to define omnipotence is not enough, not nearly. You need to be able to demonstrate that you, or any human, can tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. As long as you have human sensory and perceptual abilities, you simply cannot.

When you get tired of looking at the supernatural event of the creation of life, you can look at the supernatural creation of the universe and wonder where the energy for the big bang came from.

 

[kjkent1]

This feature exists only in the Java version. It was added as a result of a conversation with another creationist, who insisted that equal mistake points for all three situations was artificial.


The feature was intended to allow different mistake points for the three situations, not specifically to allow situations to be ignored.

So let's see what happens when evolving a perfect creature. The three parameters assign mistake points for the following situations:

1. Missed binding site
2. Spurious binding within the gene
3. Spurious binding outside the gene

0,0,0: immediate pause; always 0 mistakes
0,0,1: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings outside gene
0,1,0: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings within gene
0,1,1: fast pause as soon as no spurious bindings anywhere
1,0,0: almost immediate pause as soon as bindings everywhere
1,0,1: typical run; spurious bindings remain within gene
1,1,0: typical run; spurious bindings remain outside gene
1,1,1: standard run

So I'm not sure what you were seeing.

~~ Paul

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ev, but it seems to me that the only fair measure of whether any evolution is taking place is the convergence of Rseq to Rfreq. The point of ev is to demonstrate information gain, and that only happens where Rseq converges to Rfreq.

If you pause on a perfect creature, then there is no real qualitative selection occuring, unless the premise is that filling all the binding sites with random bindings or a lack of spurious bindings, by itself, creates a viable life form.

Assuming you agree with my premise, then set the program to only pause on convergence, not on a "perfect" creature, and you should see the same thing that I'm seeing.

If you don't agree, then please explain why, so we're all on the same page.

 

[Mercutio]

Not only have I given you a definition for an omnipotent being, I have given you an example of how to differentiate between that being and a very, very powerful non-omnipotent being.

Gee, I must have missed it. The example you gave could have been performed by a non-omnipotent being. (My trivial counterexample shows that.) You have defined one, but in no way whatsoever have you shown that you have the ability to perceive one. Besides, the example that you gave is clearly not one you have witnessed yourself. "Creating life" happened long before your life got here. If Victor Frankenstein succeeds in doing it again, you may call him a god if you like, but I will wait to see if he can brew espresso.

You have been fooled into thinking that life has come to be as we see it now by random mutations and natural selection. You know that natural selection we are talking about. That’s the natural selection that can not evolve a gene from the beginning. So your perceptual systems have failed you with the theory of evolution, this has been shown to you mathematically using the ev computer model.

I can see why you chose not to address what I actually said.

Gee, Kleinie, you have me all wrong! You have convinced me of the error of my ways; never more an evolutionist, I. Why, your devastating attack on ev as being incapable of modeling abiogenesis has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was mistaken! Evolution is for idiots! Dolts! Fools with no understanding of math or logic!

Now, can we get on with the evidence *for* your god? Remember, what I said was "It is clear that you cannot differentiate "sufficiently powerful to fool a human's perceptual systems" from omnipotence. Indeed, it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that there are any number of sufficiently powerful, non-omnipotent theoretical entities that the concept of having evidence for an omnipotent being is beyond human capability."

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, so there is no need to try to misdirect. Can you provide me with evidence that you *can* differentiate (in practice, not in definition) between omnipotence and anything less?

When you get tired of looking at the supernatural event of the creation of life, you can look at the supernatural creation of the universe and wonder where the energy for the big bang came from.

And you can tell me how you, a human, can differentiate between an entity powerful enough to create one big bang but not two, from an entity powerful enough to create one or two but not three, from an entity powerful enough to create one, two, or three but not four.... from an omnipotent entity. I am certain you can convince me that the scientists are wrong, but can you convince me that you are right?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I doubt he will find any for omniscience, either.

Ooh, let's try! I want to know how something can be omniscient, have free will, and endow its creations with free will.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ev, but it seems to me that the only fair measure of whether any evolution is taking place is the convergence of Rseq to Rfreq. The point of ev is to demonstrate information gain, and that only happens where Rseq converges to Rfreq.

But there is no selective pressure to reach Rfreq, only to evolve a perfect creature. The convergence of Rseq to Rfreq is simply a measure of the information gain during the evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Not only have I given you a definition for an omnipotent being, I have given you an example of how to differentiate between that being and a very, very powerful non-omnipotent being.

Gee, I must have missed it. The example you gave could have been performed by a non-omnipotent being. (My trivial counterexample shows that.) You have defined one, but in no way whatsoever have you shown that you have the ability to perceive one. Besides, the example that you gave is clearly not one you have witnessed yourself. "Creating life" happened long before your life got here. If Victor Frankenstein succeeds in doing it again, you may call him a god if you like, but I will wait to see if he can brew espresso.

I guess you did miss the examples I gave. Have your non-omnipotent being create life and the universe.

You have been fooled into thinking that life has come to be as we see it now by random mutations and natural selection. You know that natural selection we are talking about. That’s the natural selection that can not evolve a gene from the beginning. So your perceptual systems have failed you with the theory of evolution, this has been shown to you mathematically using the ev computer model.

I can see why you chose not to address what I actually said.

I can see why you choose not to accept my response.

Gee, Kleinie, you have me all wrong! You have convinced me of the error of my ways; never more an evolutionist, I. Why, your devastating attack on ev as being incapable of modeling abiogenesis has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was mistaken! Evolution is for idiots! Dolts! Fools with no understanding of math or logic!

Gee Murky, I mistakenly thought that you were discrediting the results from your own evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model of random point mutations and natural selection. But now I understand that you would never discredit anything that disagrees with your belief system.

Now, can we get on with the evidence *for* your god? Remember, what I said was "It is clear that you cannot differentiate "sufficiently powerful to fool a human's perceptual systems" from omnipotence. Indeed, it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that there are any number of sufficiently powerful, non-omnipotent theoretical entities that the concept of having evidence for an omnipotent being is beyond human capability."

What is clear is that you cannot differentiate the creation of life and the universe as events that transcend natural scientific laws.

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, so there is no need to try to misdirect. Can you provide me with evidence that you *can* differentiate (in practice, not in definition) between omnipotence and anything less?

Life and the universe, Murky.

When you get tired of looking at the supernatural event of the creation of life, you can look at the supernatural creation of the universe and wonder where the energy for the big bang came from.

And you can tell me how you, a human, can differentiate between an entity powerful enough to create one big bang but not two, from an entity powerful enough to create one or two but not three, from an entity powerful enough to create one, two, or three but not four.... from an omnipotent entity. I am certain you can convince me that the scientists are wrong, but can you convince me that you are right?

You need to ask God those questions.

I doubt he will find any for omniscience, either.

Ooh, let's try! I want to know how something can be omniscient, have free will, and endow its creations with free will.

Paul, you are confused about this. God can not and does not do things that are inconsistent with His nature. God did not create us with completely free wills.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry to come to this thread so late, I never come to the religion subforum.

But I'd like to ask a few questions for creationists if you don't mind.

Why does humans have four limbs, a complete nervous and sensory system, a digestive track and are standing upwards if they are created in God's image?

Does God have all these things too? If so, why does he need them for?

Thanks.

(sorry if it's been adressed before)

ETA; I've just noticed this is not the religion subforum. Well, I don't post in the science forum either, but for totally different reasons.

 

[Mercutio]

I guess you did miss the examples I gave. Have your non-omnipotent being create life and the universe.

Ok, these posts are getting much too large. Let's stay simple, and come back to the other points if and when needed.

You are still answering a different question than the one I have asked. Let us suppose that you (you, yourself, personally) actually *could* witness an entity creating life and the universe. (Have you? Or have you merely inferred that it *must* have happened?) By what criteria could you be certain that there was not a more powerful entity that created this first one that you witnessed creating the universe? How do you know that this entity is not simply powerful enough to create life and the universe, but not powerful enough to do anything more than that, like the other entities on his block (who tease him mercilessly--sad, but true).

You were the one who specified omnipotence, not I. But now, it seems you are settling for the mere ability to create life and the universe. What is more, you are inferring this "creating entity" from the mere existence of life and the universe itself, which is of course begging the question. You have taught me to challenge these assumptions, and have given the example of how they fail in evolution. You must have something more than circular reasoning to support your god, mustn't you?

In response to your challenge (quoted above), there is every bit as much evidence of my non-omnipotent universe-and-life-creator as there is for your omnipotent one. Life and the universe are here, ergo something had to create them. My theory fits, without the added baggage of being more powerful than the evidence (life and the universe) can support. Occam says my entity is to be preferred over yours, unless you have additional evidence to bring to bear. Which, being human and confined to this life and this universe, you do not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why does humans have four limbs, a complete nervous and sensory system, a digestive track and are standing upwards if they are created in God's image?

Does God have all these things too? If so, why does he need them for?

I think it was a manifestation of God’s goodness that we were created this way. I don’t believe that being created in God’s image means that we are exactly like God any more than a photograph is an exact image of what is photographed.

God does not need any of our physical attributes we have but did take on these things for other reasons.

I guess you did miss the examples I gave. Have your non-omnipotent being create life and the universe.

You are still answering a different question than the one I have asked. Let us suppose that you (you, yourself, personally) actually *could* witness an entity creating life and the universe. (Have you? Or have you merely inferred that it *must* have happened?) By what criteria could you be certain that there was not a more powerful entity that created this first one that you witnessed creating the universe? How do you know that this entity is not simply powerful enough to create life and the universe, but not powerful enough to do anything more than that, like the other entities on his block (who tease him mercilessly--sad, but true).

Neither you nor I were there when life and the universe were formed so your supposition that God can’t do more than this has no logical or scientific basis. I don’t know what God’s limits are but I believe they are far greater than anything we can imagine.

In response to your challenge (quoted above), there is every bit as much evidence of my non-omnipotent universe-and-life-creator as there is for your omnipotent one. Life and the universe are here, ergo something had to create them. My theory fits, without the added baggage of being more powerful than the evidence (life and the universe) can support. Occam says my entity is to be preferred over yours, unless you have additional evidence to bring to bear. Which, being human and confined to this life and this universe, you do not.

I take it that your evidence of your non-omnipotent universe no longer includes ev computer model.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you are confused about this. God can not and does not do things that are inconsistent with His nature. God did not create us with completely free wills.

If either God or humans have any free will whatsoever, then God cannot be omniscient. Either that, or, along the lines of Mercutio's point, God is really just kinda quasi-omniscient. How would we know, anyway?

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

But there is no selective pressure to reach Rfreq, only to evolve a perfect creature. The convergence of Rseq to Rfreq is simply a measure of the information gain during the evolution.

~~ Paul

According to Schneider's published NAR paper, "The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Rsequence can indeed evolve to match Rfrequency.¹²"

The notion of a "perfect creature" is found nowhere in the article. So, now I'm completely lost.