Annoying creationists

[Mercutio]

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.

Neither you nor I were there when life and the universe were formed so your supposition that God *can* do more than this has no logical or scientific basis. (Or even this much, actually. Since we were not there, we have no direct evidence that god was involved at all.)

ETA--I also did not posit that it was god that did the creating; you asked for a non-omnipotent entity in my example, and that was what I provided. It does not have to be god--just indistinguishable to us puny humans.

I don’t know what God’s limits are but I believe they are far greater than anything we can imagine.[/FONT]

Thank you for your honesty. I assume, then, that "omnipotence" is no longer a necessary characteristic of your god. Would you agree that the same reasoning holds true for omniscience?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Neither you nor I were there when life and the universe were formed so your supposition that God *can* do more than this has no logical or scientific basis. (Or even this much, actually. Since we were not there, we have no direct evidence that god was involved at all.)

However, we do have direct evidence that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. That evidence is in the ev computer model. You know that model. It is the evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection.

 

[Pardalis]

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.

Why did he decide to create us in this particular format?

Why mammalian? Why not gelly fish, or bird? What is so good about this primate format?

 

[Mercutio]

However, we do have direct evidence that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. That evidence is in the ev computer model. You know that model. It is the evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection.

Well, we have proof that a program not designed to model abiogenesis does not, in fact, model abiogenesis.

But that is not nearly enough--remember, you have already convinced me that evolution is wrong. Now we must prove that god is right. As Paul said, there may be many other possible explanations. Unless you can show that the only two possibilities are evolution and god (and we already know that at least two possibilities remain--some powerful entity and some omnipotent god), then disproving natural selection is only the first step. This is the science forum, after all--logic, mathematics, evidence! I am perfectly comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer until one acquires sufficient evidence.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Why did he decide to create us in this particular format?

Why mammalian? Why not gelly fish, or bird? What is so good about this primate format?

I don’t know. God did not create us in primate format. We may have some superficial similarities to primates but the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes is showing how different we really are from chimpanzees and any other primates for that matter. What I do know is that God does it right.

However, we do have direct evidence that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. That evidence is in the ev computer model. You know that model. It is the evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection.

Well, we have proof that a program not designed to model abiogenesis does not, in fact, model abiogenesis.

Unless you take the position that all genes originated during abiogenesis, ev is a fine example of why there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Now I think it’s a good idea for you evolutionists to write a computer simulation of abiogenesis. I would love to see you make a systematic simulation of how life arose in this so-called primordial soup. That would be hilarious.

But that is not nearly enough--remember, you have already convinced me that evolution is wrong. Now we must prove that god is right. As Paul said, there may be many other possible explanations. Unless you can show that the only two possibilities are evolution and god (and we already know that at least two possibilities remain--some powerful entity and some omnipotent god), then disproving natural selection is only the first step. This is the science forum, after all--logic, mathematics, evidence! I am perfectly comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer until one acquires sufficient evidence.

There is more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right. But since I doubt your sincerity that you are convinced that evolution is wrong, I must content myself with showing you that your own mathematics proves your theory wrong. Paul can say that there are many other explanations for life and the universe, it just so happens that the explanation you believe in can be proved wrong mathematically.

 

[Pardalis]

What I do know is that God does it right.

Everytime I hit my ulnar nerve I'm saying: that's not right...

 

[Mr. Scott]

Example of De Novo Evolution of a Gene

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

There is a great article on flower evolution in the June 2006 Natural History (pp 34 Origins of Floral Diversity) that quite clearly explains how a gene can evolve de novo: something you claim can't happen except by divine intervention.

It happens by duplication of an existing gene and then subsequent mutation until the duplicate endows an advantage to the organism and becomes a new gene.

I'll create an illustrative example:

We begin with a successfully reproducing flower. In a genetic accident, a gene becomes duplicated in the next generation (known to happen). This may be inconsequential at first, but when one of the duplicates mutations (e.g. by point mutation), one of four things can occur:

1) It does something harmful, and that plant fails to reproduce;
2) It makes no difference and the plant reproduces because it still has a good copy of the gene;
3) The modified duplicate causes a neutral change in the plant;
4) The modified duplicate causes an advantageous reproductive change.

#2 can happen repeatedly until #1, #3, or #4 can happen. When #1 happens there is little consequence: one plant, out of perhaps millions like it, just doesn't reproduce.

However, #2 and #3 can occur repeatedly without negative consequence until #4 occurs: an advantageous mutation to what then becomes a unique new gene.

Suppose that new gene causes each of the flower's pedals to split in two right down the middle. Our flower species already has a symbiotic bee which finds these pedals quite attractive. Now the bee suddenly sees a flower with twice the number of pedals, and it is doubly attracted to it over the unmutated flowers. In very little time, the bees vigorously pollinate the mutated flowers, and the flower's unmutated bretheren die off. They may die off so thoroughly that the origin of the new gene may be completely obscured as the new gene is perfected through further mutations.

This scenario could easily be applied to the flower's pigment composition, pattern, pedal shape, size, etc.

The problem with applying Ev to de novo gene creation is one that, I believe, all computer models suffer. We can model something with a number of pre-programmed "knobs" to adjust, say, a flower's pedal count, size, spacing, or intensity of pigmentation. However, a gene evolving de novo may require, in a simulation, the spontaneous creation of a "new knob." The last time I studied computer simulations, we knew of no way to implement a knob that, when turned, makes novel knobs form. It is easily shown that evolution, as in my illustrative example, comes up with new knobs.

This is just one instance, and I think a critical one, of how your use of Ev cannot prove what you think it proves: that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Dr. Kleinman, I await your refutation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

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

Yes, that was the purpose of Ev: To show that evolution results in information gain in the genome, and that the gain is predictable according to information theory. But the model has no selection pressure "make Rseq approach Rfreq." The selective pressure is "reduce the number of mistakes."

Schneider didn't use the term "perfect creature," but the notion is certainly there. From the abstract:

The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. [emphasis mine]

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The problem with applying Ev to de novo gene creation is one that, I believe, all computer models suffer. We can model something with a number of pre-programmed "knobs" to adjust, say, a flower's pedal count, size, spacing, or intensity of pigmentation. However, a gene evolving de novo may require in a simulation the creation of a "new knob." The last time I studied computer simulations, we knew of no way to implement a knob that, when turned, allowed new, novel knobs to form. It is easily shown that evolution, as in my illustrative example, comes up with new knobs.

Some of the simulations that use instruction sets to represent genes can evolve novel functions. What I haven't seen yet is a simulation at the level of chemistry, which could evolve entirely new chemical pathways.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What I do know is that God does it right.

Everytime I hit my ulnar nerve I'm saying: that's not right...

That’s a very common misconception. What do you think life without pain would be like? Ask a diabetic with neuropathy and a gangrenous foot.

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

There is a great article on flower evolution in the June 2006 Natural History (pp 34 Origins of Floral Diversity) that quite clearly explains how a gene can evolve de novo: something you claim can't happen except by divine intervention.

It happens by duplication of an existing gene and then subsequent mutation until the duplicate endows an advantage to the organism and becomes a new gene.

This is Delphi_ote’s argument from about a million pages ago in this thread.

My first question for you is how did you get the original gene? My second question is what is the selection process that transforms the copy of the gene to an entirely new function? Each mutation in the transformation must either be beneficial or at least neutral; otherwise that creature will be selected against. My third question is how do you get this transformation to occur when you have many competing selection processes occurring simultaneously?

The problem with applying Ev to de novo gene creation is one that, I believe, all computer models suffer. We can model something with a number of pre-programmed "knobs" to adjust, say, a flower's pedal count, size, spacing, or intensity of pigmentation. However, a gene evolving de novo may require, in a simulation, the spontaneous creation of a "new knob." The last time I studied computer simulations, we knew of no way to implement a knob that, when turned, makes novel knobs form. It is easily shown that evolution, as in my illustrative example, comes up with new knobs.

Your example does not simulate the evolution of a new knob. What your example is of the copying of a knob and then somehow modifying this copy to some new function.

This is just one instance, and I think a critical one, of how your use of Ev cannot prove what you think it proves: that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Your example could be coded into ev. You would still be faced with the same problem as previous. What is the selection process that evolved the original gene and what is the selection process that transforms the gene to a new function. The known examples of modifications of genes have only a very small number of mutations (microbial antibiotic resistance and sickle cell hemoglobin for example). There is no selection process that allows for large numbers of changes in bases to create new genes with new functions.

Dr. Kleinman, I await your refutation.

I hope I didn’t make you wait too long.

 

[kjkent1]

Yes, that was the purpose of Ev: To show that evolution results in information gain in the genome, and that the gain is predictable according to information theory. But the model has no selection pressure "make Rseq approach Rfreq." The selective pressure is "reduce the number of mistakes."

~~ Paul

But, if the program stumbles on a perfect creature before any information gain, then the creature is the product of a random accident, rather than "evolution" of the genome via RMNS. So, if we turn off a mistake/selective pressure, and the creature fails to generate any information gain, this means that the particular mistake/selective pressure is necessary to evolution. Whereas if we turn off a mistake/selective pressure and it has no effect on the information gain, then that mistake is irrelevant to evolution.

Bringing this back to my results (missed bindings, spurious inside, spurious outside):

0,0,0: no convergence -- some mistakes are required for evolution.
1,0,0: no convergence -- spurious bindings inside and/or outside are necessary to evolution.
0,1,0: no convergence -- missed bindings and/or spurious outside are necessary to evolution.
1,1,0: no convergence -- spurious bindings outside are necessary to evolution.
0,0,1: no convergence -- missed bindings and/or spurious inside are necessary to evolution.
1,0,1: convergence -- spurious bindings inside are unnecessary to evolution.
0,1,1: no convergence -- missed bindings are necessary to evolution.
1,1,1 convergence -- all mistakes are sufficient for evolution.

To summarize:

In order for convergence to occur, both missed binding sites and spurious bindings outside the binding site region must be enabled. If true (and not a program bug), then the questions are:

1. why are both of these mistakes simultaneously necessary to ev's evolutionary process? Why can't they work alone?

2. Why are spurious mistakes inside the binding site region irrelevant to ev's evolutionary process?

3. What other basic chemical mistakes can occur which are not modeled by ev, but which would effect its evolutionary process? If other errors could cause a dramatic performance improvement, then this would simultaneously explain both why ev is slow and how evolution occurs.

 

[kjkent1]

Dr. Kleinman:

Danial Tammet is a different sort of genius. He was born with congenital epilepsy. However if his "diseased" genes were to be reproduced, his successors would have a HUGE advantage over the rest of homo sapiens. I regard Mr. Tammet as a major evolutionary leap forward, assuming he produces offspring with his rather incredible intellectual powers. Those offspring would skew all standardized test curves right off the page.

Of course, it's possible that Tammet's beneficial genetic change will not be passed on, as Tammet is apparently homosexual. But, assuming that he does eventually have children, how would you evaluate Tammet and his offspring? Just a bunch of incredibly smart kids -- or something more?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet.

 

[Mercutio]

Unless you take the position that all genes originated during abiogenesis, ev is a fine example of why there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Oh, but there is, when "the beginning" is defined as a new function. The trouble is, whenever this happens you move "the beginning" back further, saying "Your example does not simulate the evolution of a new knob. What your example is of the copying of a knob and then somehow modifying this copy to some new function." But when I asked you to define "the beginning" and "gene", the definitions you gave me are answered by Mr. Scott's example. You then move the goalpost to "What is the selection process that evolved the original gene and what is the selection process that transforms the gene to a new function."

If you insist on moving the goalpost whenever a new gene is demonstrated, your end point must be abiogenesis. Using the definitions of "gene" and "beginning" that you gave me earlier, your question is already answered. Using "abiogenesis" as "the beginning" and "the modern version of a specific gene" as "gene", and you may be safe. I see, though, that I was right and that you have laid the groundwork for requiring the Big Bang explained in addition.

There is more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right. But since I doubt your sincerity that you are convinced that evolution is wrong, I must content myself with showing you that your own mathematics proves your theory wrong. Paul can say that there are many other explanations for life and the universe, it just so happens that the explanation you believe in can be proved wrong mathematically.

I am absolutely serious that evolution by natural selection does not explain abiogenesis. I don't see how it could. Natural selection starts with a replicant, and abiogenesis results in one. It is impossible to have natural selection unless abiogenesis has already happened. Mind you, the instant you have a replicant, natural selection is viable.

I have seen some pretty neat attempts at explaining abiogenesis. One involves an omnipotent entity; others do not. Some are testable; at least one is not. I do not make any claim whatsoever about which is "the explanation believe in"; the question is still out.

So please be assured that I am utterly serious that I do not believe that natural selection explains abiogenesis. Now, what is your evidence that god explains it? The existence of life is evidence of abiogenesis, but not of any particular explanation of it. You, though, claim that "[t]here is more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right." Wonderful. I look forward to seeing it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Danial Tammet is a different sort of genius. He was born with congenital epilepsy. However if his "diseased" genes were to be reproduced, his successors would have a HUGE advantage over the rest of homo sapiens. I regard Mr. Tammet as a major evolutionary leap forward, assuming he produces offspring with his rather incredible intellectual powers. Those offspring would skew all standardized test curves right off the page.

You evolutionists see everything in the world through your evolutionist lens. If this savant has such a selective advantage, his offspring should rapidly take over the population.

Unless you take the position that all genes originated during abiogenesis, ev is a fine example of why there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Oh, but there is, when "the beginning" is defined as a new function. The trouble is, whenever this happens you move "the beginning" back further, saying "Your example does not simulate the evolution of a new knob. What your example is of the copying of a knob and then somehow modifying this copy to some new function." But when I asked you to define "the beginning" and "gene", the definitions you gave me are answered by Mr. Scott's example. You then move the goalpost to "What is the selection process that evolved the original gene and what is the selection process that transforms the gene to a new function."

You evolutionists can’t come up with a coherent argument so you retreat behind your moving goalposts complaint. The theory of evolution and the concept of abiogenesis are tightly intertwined. Without abiogenesis, you have no theory of evolution. You have no way of making the transition from the abiogenesis concept to the theory of evolution but both require selection processes to have any mathematical possibility of occurring. When do genes arise? Does it happen during abiogenesis and only during abiogenesis? Does gene formation happen both in abiogenesis and when life has arisen? Your concepts are so irrational and illogical, it is a wonder that anyone believes them to be true.

If you insist on moving the goalpost whenever a new gene is demonstrated, your end point must be abiogenesis. Using the definitions of "gene" and "beginning" that you gave me earlier, your question is already answered. Using "abiogenesis" as "the beginning" and "the modern version of a specific gene" as "gene", and you may be safe. I see, though, that I was right and that you have laid the groundwork for requiring the Big Bang explained in addition.

Do you think whining about moving goalposts somehow makes your arguments more convincing? Do you want to explain the difference between a gene produced during abiogenesis and a “modern version of a specific gene”. Were genes produced during abiogenesis reproduced using the DNA replicase system?

There is more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right. But since I doubt your sincerity that you are convinced that evolution is wrong, I must content myself with showing you that your own mathematics proves your theory wrong. Paul can say that there are many other explanations for life and the universe, it just so happens that the explanation you believe in can be proved wrong mathematically.

I am absolutely serious that evolution by natural selection does not explain abiogenesis. I don't see how it could. Natural selection starts with a replicant, and abiogenesis results in one. It is impossible to have natural selection unless abiogenesis has already happened. Mind you, the instant you have a replicant, natural selection is viable.

Oh, I see, we are now back talking about self replicators. Care to describe these self replicators? Care to try to describe the primordial soup? If you are a subscriber to the RNA world hypothesis, care to describe how ribose came into being non-enzymatically? The only thing more unscientific than the theory of evolution is the concept of abiogenesis. The most difficult chemical reactions to be done in a laboratory, evolutionists think occurred in a puddle with sunlight driving the reaction. This is how low the field of biology has sunk. I wonder how long these ridiculous ideas will dominate the field of biology.

I have seen some pretty neat attempts at explaining abiogenesis. One involves an omnipotent entity; others do not. Some are testable; at least one is not. I do not make any claim whatsoever about which is "the explanation believe in"; the question is still out.

The high point for the concept of abiogenesis occurred in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. At least Miller showed that some amino acids could be formed non-enzymatically. Do you know of any experiment where ribose is formed non-enzymatically and then RNA bases were formed?

So please be assured that I am utterly serious that I do not believe that natural selection explains abiogenesis. Now, what is your evidence that god explains it? The existence of life is evidence of abiogenesis, but not of any particular explanation of it. You, though, claim that "[t]here is more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right." Wonderful. I look forward to seeing it.

Hey, I never said that I could prove to you scientifically the existence of God. It is you evolutionists who say you have the scientific explanation for life. Your scientific proof comes down to two slogans, “mutation and natural selection” and “abiogenesis”, two of the most illogical and irrational concepts to hit the field of science in all of history.

 

[kjkent1]

You evolutionists see everything in the world through your evolutionist lens. If this savant has such a selective advantage, his offspring should rapidly take over the population.

So, is this your evaluation, or are you attempting to assert what you think my view is?

I know what my view is -- I was asking for your evaluation.

 

[kjkent1]

Hey, I never said that I could prove to you scientifically the existence of God. It is you evolutionists who say you have the scientific explanation for life. Your scientific proof comes down to two slogans, “mutation and natural selection” and “abiogenesis”, two of the most illogical and irrational concepts to hit the field of science in all of history.

The concept of God is infinitely less rational.

Simultaneous observation of both the speed and location of a quantum particle is mathematically and scientifically impossible. One wonders how God is omniscient in view of this minor obsticle.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Hey, I never said that I could prove to you scientifically the existence of God. It is you evolutionists who say you have the scientific explanation for life. Your scientific proof comes down to two slogans, “mutation and natural selection” and “abiogenesis”, two of the most illogical and irrational concepts to hit the field of science in all of history.

The concept of God is infinitely less rational.

Simultaneous observation of both the speed and location of a quantum particle is mathematically and scientifically impossible. One wonders how God is omniscient in view of this minor obsticle.

Now if only the theory of evolution was mathematically possible, then you would have an argument to work with.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But, if the program stumbles on a perfect creature before any information gain, then the creature is the product of a random accident, rather than "evolution" of the genome via RMNS. So, if we turn off a mistake/selective pressure, and the creature fails to generate any information gain, this means that the particular mistake/selective pressure is necessary to evolution. Whereas if we turn off a mistake/selective pressure and it has no effect on the information gain, then that mistake is irrelevant to evolution.

Correct. Just be careful that you don't assume the only choices are full information gain or no information gain.

I have the feeling we're talking past each other.

1,1,0: no convergence -- spurious bindings outside are necessary to evolution.

You ran it with random seed 0, which doesn't converge in 10,000 generations. Try it with seed 1: it converges in 621 generations, before the perfect creature even evolves.

There is great variance in the results depending on the random seed. And perfect binding can occur even before Rseq >= Rfreq.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

Now if only the theory of evolution was mathematically possible, then you would have an argument to work with.

Oh, but I do. Quantum uncertainty proves the non-involvment of God in our universe, regardless if his existence or non-existence, because for God to allow quantum uncertainty, he must intentionally shield himself from the knowledge of the outcome of all events in our universe. Otherwise, there would be no uncertainty, or conversely, both science and math are fraudulent deceptions of God, because they do not function correctly. And, if the latter is the case, then your attempts to demonstrate that evolution is impossible is built on the foundation of the illusion that your calculations are correct, no matter how accurate they may appear.

Having proven that God is either not involved in the universe, or math/science is a fraud, there remains only two other theories for the existence of life:

(1) evolution
(2) anthropic principle

Either way, God is not the answer, no matter how badly you would like to believe it to be true.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now if only the theory of evolution was mathematically possible, then you would have an argument to work with.

Oh, but I do. Quantum uncertainty proves the non-involvment of God in our universe, regardless if his existence or non-existence, because for God to allow quantum uncertainty, he must intentionally shield himself from the knowledge of the outcome of all events in our universe. Otherwise, there would be no uncertainty, or conversely, both science and math are fraudulent deceptions of God, because they do not function correctly. And, if the latter is the case, then your attempts to demonstrate that evolution is impossible is built on the foundation of the illusion that your calculations are correct, no matter how accurate they may appear.

Now if you only code this logic into ev.