Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

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.


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

I'm a little concerned about the pseudo-random number generator. I know that the variance of outcomes for a particular random seed can be considerable, however, I ran the program using 1,1,0, first with a seed of 0, where it never converged after 1,000,000 generations, and then with 3, where it converged after 106,559. Assuming that the random generator is reasonably well-behaved, it doesn't seem possible to me that a variance of 621 to 1,000,000 is likely.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.


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.

I'm a little concerned about the pseudo-random number generator. I know that the variance of outcomes for a particular random seed can be considerable, however, I ran the program using 1,1,0, first with a seed of 0, where it never converged after 1,000,000 generations, and then with 3, where it converged after 106,559. Assuming that the random generator is reasonably well-behaved, it doesn't seem possible to me that a variance of 621 to 1,000,000 is likely.

You are not the first to consider this issue.
The following is taken from Dr Schneider’s web page at:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

2006 Jun 27. Alan Kleinman stated:

Some people may start questioning the validity of ev based on the marked variations of the generations for Rs->Rf simply by changing the random seed to start the calculation. Given that Evj is a stochastic process, we expect variation in the generation time. To investigate this, I ran Ev (the original Pascal program) 1000 times and got this distribution. Clearly it is not a Gaussian but it is a defined distribution. (The full analysis is available.)

 

[kjkent1]

You are not the first to consider this issue.
The following is taken from Dr Schneider’s web page at:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

Schneider's frequency distribution shows a variance of ~29,000. No convergence at 1,000,000 is WAY outside any normalized distribution.

I wish Paul would create an option to use www.random.org, or some other source to create a string of undeniably random numbers, prior to an ev run. Then we would know for certain if results were an artifact of the pseudo-random number generator, or something in ev.

Results could still be repeatable, because once the program pulled a fixed string of random numbers, the program could store it in a file for a subsequent run under identical conditions.

I've seen this sort of pseudo-random number problem appear in certain C and Pascal compliers over the years. Sometimes pseudo-random is just not good enough. And, if this one is not, then it would mean that all results from ev are suspect, including yours, Alan.

 

[Mercutio]

You evolutionists can’t come up with a coherent argument so you retreat behind your moving goalposts complaint.

Um... the goalpost moving happens only after your previous goalposts have been conquered. Don't complain about the "moving goalpost complaint"--specify the correct definitions the first time.

The theory of evolution and the concept of abiogenesis are tightly intertwined. Without abiogenesis, you have no theory of evolution.

Um... Duh. True. But evolution by natural selection does not require any particular method of abiogenesis.

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.

Um...no. Abiogenesis requires (by some theories) polymerization (which does not require selection at all, but simple chemistry), then replicating polymers (not hundreds, but dozens of units long--these are not even close to the simplest bacteria yet), which most would not call "life" but which will compete... eventually you get to the equivalent of the simplest bacteria, but please do not suggest that the pre-replicant processes "require selection processes"; until they replicate, they cannot be subject to selection.

When do genes arise? Does it happen during abiogenesis and only during abiogenesis?

No. Well, "no" by the definition of gene you gave a while ago. By the definition where you get to say "de novo" a lot, only one gene has ever arisen, and that defined abiogenesis. If you think that sounds ludicrous, I suggest you rethink your definitions of "gene" and "beginning". (I liked the ones you gave earlier, but it does not appear that you do.)

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.

True. If it weren't for the evidence, I doubt anyone would. And as for irrational and illogical, how is that God hypothesis working out?

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”.

Sure. Modern genes have been built upon billions of years of previous genes. To suggest that the simplest current organisms are identical to the earliest replicants is disingenuous at best. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that our current simple life is as simple as it gets. But... if genes are defined functionally, and the function is replication, we can get much much simpler for our early genes.

Were genes produced during abiogenesis reproduced using the DNA replicase system?

I doubt it very much, but I am not an expert. There is no requirement that they are.

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.

I just needed to highlight this sentence, given your alternative theory.

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.

The neat thing is, these theories are testable. Lots and lots of flasks. Speaking of which, could you estimate the difference in volume between all the flasks used in this research ... and (just for fun) the volume of tidal pools? (I know, there are many more places than tide pools where such reactions could take place, but I am on your side here...)

The high point for the concept of abiogenesis occurred in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment.

Please, could you tell me the historic high point for the God hypothesis? I suggest that an honest accounting would place it considerably earlier than the Miller experiment. (I will take your 1950's estimate at face value, although whenever I look for sources, I have a really tough time finding anything prior to 1990; I admit, perhaps I am at a handicap, looking out of my field. It seems odd, though, that I would find only more recent sources...)

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?

I do not. Do you know that this is necessary for replication? Could you cite sources to support that if it is the case?

Hey, I never said that I could prove to you scientifically the existence of God.

You did, though, say there was "more than enough evidence in the creation to prove God is right."

It is you evolutionists who say you have the scientific explanation for life.

Well, the explanation for variation.

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.

And exactly where does "Goddidit" fit in this parade of slogans?

"Mutation and natural selection" is a testable idea, and I am certain you are aware of the literature available to evaluate this hypothesis. "Abiogenesis", of course, includes a number of hypotheses, including your "god" hypothesis. Why you call it irrational is a bit of a puzzle--unless you think life always existed, then abiogenesis must have happened. (Do you think that your god created life at the same time everything else was created? I ask seriously.) It is the particular explanation of abiogenesis that is the bone of contention.

An unrelated question--have you, yourself, personally, subjected your own belief system to the type of scrutiny you are trying to apply to other people's beliefs? Could you describe this process? Feel free to open another thread to do so--I know it is not the main point here.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You are not the first to consider this issue.

The following is taken from Dr Schneider’s web page at:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

Schneider's frequency distribution shows a variance of ~29,000. No convergence at 1,000,000 is WAY outside any normalized distribution.

I wish Paul would create an option to use www.random.org, or some other source to create a string of undeniably random numbers, prior to an ev run. Then we would know for certain if results were an artifact of the pseudo-random number generator, or something in ev.

Results could still be repeatable, because once the program pulled a fixed string of random numbers, the program could store it in a file for a subsequent run under identical conditions.

I've seen this sort of pseudo-random number problem appear in certain C and Pascal compliers over the years. Sometimes pseudo-random is just not good enough. And, if this one is not, then it would mean that all results from ev are suspect, including yours, Alan.

The results from ev already are repeatable but do your analysis because we don’t need another issue for you to whine about. Do you think the random number generator will correct the issue that you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning? Perhaps the random number generator will correct the irrationality of the concept of abiogenesis.

You evolutionists can’t come up with a coherent argument so you retreat behind your moving goalposts complaint.

Um... the goalpost moving happens only after your previous goalposts have been conquered. Don't complain about the "moving goalpost complaint"--specify the correct definitions the first time.

Mercutio, all the posts are out there to read, there are no moving goalposts.

The theory of evolution and the concept of abiogenesis are tightly intertwined. Without abiogenesis, you have no theory of evolution.

Um... Duh. True. But evolution by natural selection does not require any particular method of abiogenesis.

There is no particular method of abiogenesis. Take a course in organic chemistry and you will understand why there is no abiogenesis. You can’t form ribose inorganically let alone RNA bases. Even if you could form the RNA bases, you can’t get the bases to link without enzymes. Even if you could get RNA bases to link without enzymes, you won’t get the sequences to form functional ribozymes and on and on… People who believe in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution have a form of hysteria.

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.

True. If it weren't for the evidence, I doubt anyone would. And as for irrational and illogical, how is that God hypothesis working out?

Oh yes, we all see the evidence, the experiments with genes arising de novo, the test tubes with life arising abiogenically. How could such evidence be refuted?

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”.

Sure. Modern genes have been built upon billions of years of previous genes. To suggest that the simplest current organisms are identical to the earliest replicants is disingenuous at best. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that our current simple life is as simple as it gets. But... if genes are defined functionally, and the function is replication, we can get much much simpler for our early genes.

Really? Modern bacteria have totally different genes than the one celled creatures that arose out of the non-existent primordial soup? Save these stories for devout evolutionists and naïve school children. Your idea of evidence is concocted stories. What ev gives is hard mathematical science, so save your stories to tell around the camp fire at evolutionist summer camp.

 

[kjkent1]

The results from ev already are repeatable but do your analysis because we don’t need another issue for you to whine about. Do you think the random number generator will correct the issue that you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning? Perhaps the random number generator will correct the irrationality of the concept of abiogenesis.

You have provided the answer for the gene from the beginning question. Ev selects for nothing more meaningful than accurate chemical bindings. The only thing required, according to Paul, is a transcription factor, which averages 6 - 12 bases in length. Evolving a transcription factor by random chance is thus a relatively trivial issue as there are a maximum of 16,777,216 combinations, and we know for a certainty that there are many possible transcription factor sequences, so the odds of a randomly produced TF is much lower than 1 in 17 million.

After the TF is produced at random, ev can select for the accurate bindings using its ordinary selection mechanism.

Having dispensed with your first insurmountable problem, we are faced with the second, i.e., your claim that ev is unreasonably slow, generationally speaking. And, here, frankly, I agree with you -- it's too slow. However, where we part is that I'm reasonably certain that the gene shifts and fusions which you claim would not produce faster evolutionary process, will do just that. And, while I admit that I can't prove it without completely reprogramming ev's mutation mechanism, the evidence of such "macro-evolutionary" events creating an enormous change in an organism is observed from examining the genomes of existing organisms.

Your counter, of course, is that most gene shifts and fusions produce "disease." My rebuttal is that no one with a beneficial gene shift or fusion would ever present to a physician for treatment, because there would be nothing to treat.

This leads us to the final question: where do these rare and remarkable positive changes come from -- because they are clearly far less prevalent than than an ordinary point mutation.

And, the answer is random accident, of course. Are these random accidents caused by God, or by quantum uncertainty?

Well, that, my friend, is and always will be determined solely by faith. Faith that the universe is controlled by an omniscient and omnipresent creator, who cares for His creations and helps them toward their ultimate reward -- or, faith that uncertainty is all that is required, and that we humans have a unique opportunity to chart our own future, without suffering eternal bondage to a judgmental master.

Some have chosen the former -- some, the latter. And, that's what makes a horse race.

 

[Mr. Scott]

My first question for you is how did you get the original gene?

You mean gene #1, the first gene of all of life on Earth? We don't know that yet. The evidence has been obscured by the genes that it evolved into. But we're working on it.

My second question is what is the selection process that transforms the copy of the gene to an entirely new function?

I explained that quite clearly. It mutates until it performs a new function.

Each mutation in the transformation must either be beneficial or at least neutral; otherwise that creature will be selected against.

Exactly what I said. Read my post again.

My third question is how do you get this transformation to occur when you have many competing selection processes occurring simultaneously?

I don't see the problem with this. In fact, many competing mutation/selection processes makes evolution go even faster because parallel changes are happening within individual organisms. Thanks for pointing this out.

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.

Well, sure, you duplicate a knob, then modify its function until it performs a function that no previous knob performed. That's the definition of a new knob. Like a "pedal split" function -- a type de novo knob transformation that a program like Ev may not implement.

Your example could be coded into ev.

Well, since it wasn't, and you depend on Ev to show evolution is mathematically impossible, then you've refuted your own conclusion.

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 "original gene" in that context I think you mean the gene that duplicated and then its duplicate mutated. If so, the "original gene" may very well have come about the same way as the new gene. Go backwards gene by gene to the beginning of life and you will find the first gene, perhaps an RNA gene that accidentally doubled-up, that assembled more generations previously out of other pieces of replicating molecules that were mutated and selected for. We don't know how all this started, but that doesn't prove god did it. Not having an answer to any question should never be construed as proof of the intervention of a divine entity.

 

[Mr. Scott]

...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.

You know, Dr. Kleinman, I don't think you are correct about this. Ev has never shown that evolution is mathematically impossible, because Ev is not a complete simulation of all processes involved.

The theory of evolution does have a mountain of observational data to support it, like the fossil record and the tracing of genetic changes. A huge mountain. An absolutely tremendous, overwhelming mass of consistent evidence. That it has yet to be fully explained to the first or last molecule or simulated in today's computers should not be construed as proof life came about through divine intervention. There is an enormous amount of consistent evidence that evolution is correct -- an absolutely vast amount.

There is no evidence at all for the god hypothesis. None whatsoever.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So he hasn't thought of any new lies to tell?

Say, kleinman, you could save yourself a lot of time by just numbering them. Then instead of having to type all this halfwitted drivel, you could just type: "Lie #1, Lie #4, Lie #5, and Lie #1 again". You only have about half-a-dozen lies, so it shouldn't take long.

I think this should be Lie #1:

I have shown using your computer model that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Next time, just type "Lie #1" and we'll know what you mean.

I too could save a little time.

Truth #1: You have "shown" nothing of the sort; your stupid childish mistakes were exposed many pages ago; and drooling out your dull-witted lies will not change reality.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm a little concerned about the pseudo-random number generator. I know that the variance of outcomes for a particular random seed can be considerable, however, I ran the program using 1,1,0, first with a seed of 0, where it never converged after 1,000,000 generations, and then with 3, where it converged after 106,559. Assuming that the random generator is reasonably well-behaved, it doesn't seem possible to me that a variance of 621 to 1,000,000 is likely.

You're still using convergence to Rfreq rather than perfect creature. There is no selective pressure to converge. Furthermore, because you have eliminated selective pressure for accurate binding (spurious bindings are allowed outside the gene), a perfect creature can evolve with a lower Rseq. This is because the binding site motif only has to be unique enough to eliminate spurious bindings within the gene, rather than throughout the entire genome. You are essentially watching for this convergence:

Rseq-allowing-spurious-bindings ==> Rfreq-assuming-perfect-bindings

So it's unlikely to converge, even while evolving a perfect creature.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The results from ev already are repeatable but do your analysis because we don’t need another issue for you to whine about. Do you think the random number generator will correct the issue that you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning? Perhaps the random number generator will correct the irrationality of the concept of abiogenesis.

You have provided the answer for the gene from the beginning question. Ev selects for nothing more meaningful than accurate chemical bindings. The only thing required, according to Paul, is a transcription factor, which averages 6 - 12 bases in length. Evolving a transcription factor by random chance is thus a relatively trivial issue as there are a maximum of 16,777,216 combinations, and we know for a certainty that there are many possible transcription factor sequences, so the odds of a randomly produced TF is much lower than 1 in 17 million.

What good is a binding site without an associated gene?

My first question for you is how did you get the original gene?

You mean gene #1, the first gene of all of life on Earth? We don't know that yet. The evidence has been obscured by the genes that it evolved into. But we're working on it.

Oh, that’s right, the gap theory.

My second question is what is the selection process that transforms the copy of the gene to an entirely new function?

I explained that quite clearly. It mutates until it performs a new function.

Paul, take Mr Scott’s explanation, put it in ev and transform some genes.

Each mutation in the transformation must either be beneficial or at least neutral; otherwise that creature will be selected against.

Exactly what I said. Read my post again.

No gaps in that explanation!

My third question is how do you get this transformation to occur when you have many competing selection processes occurring simultaneously?

I don't see the problem with this. In fact, many competing mutation/selection processes makes evolution go even faster because parallel changes are happening within individual organisms. Thanks for pointing this out.

Now if ev only showed what you are proposing. In fact, Dr Schneider’s computer simulation shows the exact opposite of what you are 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.

Well, sure, you duplicate a knob, then modify its function until it performs a function that no previous knob performed. That's the definition of a new knob. Like a "pedal split" function -- a type de novo knob transformation that a program like Ev may not implement.

Could you review the selection process again that would do this so Paul can put this in ev and demonstrate what you propose?

Your example could be coded into ev.

Well, since it wasn't, and you depend on Ev to show evolution is mathematically impossible, then you've refuted your own conclusion.

No, you have just demonstrated another example of amathematica sciencea.

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 "original gene" in that context I think you mean the gene that duplicated and then its duplicate mutated. If so, the "original gene" may very well have come about the same way as the new gene. Go backwards gene by gene to the beginning of life and you will find the first gene, perhaps an RNA gene that accidentally doubled-up, that assembled more generations previously out of other pieces of replicating molecules that were mutated and selected for. We don't know how all this started, but that doesn't prove god did it. Not having an answer to any question should never be construed as proof of the intervention of a divine entity.

You have now demonstrated speculitis and hyperextraplopia. Your denialophila of the results from ev and your previous demonstration of amathematica sciencea completes the diagnostic criteria for evolutionism.

...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.

You know, Dr. Kleinman, I don't think you are correct about this. Ev has never shown that evolution is mathematically impossible, because Ev is not a complete simulation of all processes involved.

Add your gene duplication concept to ev and prove me wrong. Do you see the goalposts?

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio, all the posts are out there to read, there are no moving goalposts.

The posts are indeed out there. I invite the readers to make their own conclusions about movement.

There is no particular method of abiogenesis. Take a course in organic chemistry and you will understand why there is no abiogenesis. You can’t form ribose inorganically let alone RNA bases. Even if you could form the RNA bases, you can’t get the bases to link without enzymes. Even if you could get RNA bases to link without enzymes, you won’t get the sequences to form functional ribozymes and on and on… People who believe in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution have a form of hysteria.

Please, Kleinman; you asked earlier whether the first genes were formed using the modern DNA replicase system, and were told that there is no requirement that this be the case. As long as you are asking for how modern structures arose spontaneously from primordial ooze, you will be frustrated. You are quite simply asking the wrong questions.

Oh yes, we all see the evidence, the experiments with genes arising de novo, the test tubes with life arising abiogenically. How could such evidence be refuted?

Despite your claim of the Miller experiments as the zenith of abiogenesis research, there is quite a bit of ongoing research (with competing views and everything--my goodness, it's almost like science!). In truth, I must thank you; this is not my area, so I have had to actually go out and read things I was not familiar with. You have opened my eyes to how much is actually known, how much of the chemistry tested, how rapidly the gaps in which your god lives are closing.

Really? Modern bacteria have totally different genes than the one celled creatures that arose out of the non-existent primordial soup? Save these stories for devout evolutionists and naïve school children. Your idea of evidence is concocted stories. What ev gives is hard mathematical science, so save your stories to tell around the camp fire at evolutionist summer camp.

Yes, modern bacteria have totally different genes, and you are assuming quite a bit when you speak of "the one celled creatures that arose..." By the time there was a cell membrane as we currently know it, quite a bit of change had already taken place. A fatty acid globule (one hypothesized cell-precursor--the molecular structure of fatty acids allows them to spontaneously form globules) is quite different from a cell membrane, after all. Since your definition of "gene" is functional, the genes forming cell walls are already different from their ancestors. I suppose you could quibble on "totally" different; since your own cellular mechanisms share quite a bit with...well, with any living cells, you are not "totally" different from amoeba.

So...anyway, since there actually is research ongoing into possible abiogenesis mechanisms, suppose you share with us the ongoing research into the god hypothesis?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You have now demonstrated speculitis and hyperextraplopia. Your denialophila of the results from ev and your previous demonstration of amathematica sciencea completes the diagnostic criteria for evolutionism.

Oh look, kleinman's invented some new magic words!

I notice that like his old magic words, they are not in fact magical and don't really make the facts disappear in a puff of smoke.

Poor little man.

 

[Dr Richard]

Mercutio, all the posts are out there to read, there are no moving goalposts.

link to Kleinman's goalposts on the definition of macroevolution

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

There is no particular method of abiogenesis. Take a course in organic chemistry and you will understand why there is no abiogenesis. You can’t form ribose inorganically let alone RNA bases. Even if you could form the RNA bases, you can’t get the bases to link without enzymes. Even if you could get RNA bases to link without enzymes, you won’t get the sequences to form functional ribozymes and on and on… People who believe in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution have a form of hysteria.

Please, Kleinman; you asked earlier whether the first genes were formed using the modern DNA replicase system, and were told that there is no requirement that this be the case. As long as you are asking for how modern structures arose spontaneously from primordial ooze, you will be frustrated. You are quite simply asking the wrong questions.

So the nonsensical response that evolutionists give to how the first genes formed without the DNA replicase system is “billions and billions of years”. You have no science, no mathematics, only slogans to support your theory.

Oh yes, we all see the evidence, the experiments with genes arising de novo, the test tubes with life arising abiogenically. How could such evidence be refuted?

Despite your claim of the Miller experiments as the zenith of abiogenesis research, there is quite a bit of ongoing research (with competing views and everything--my goodness, it's almost like science!). In truth, I must thank you; this is not my area, so I have had to actually go out and read things I was not familiar with. You have opened my eyes to how much is actually known, how much of the chemistry tested, how rapidly the gaps in which your god lives are closing.

There are no experiments that demonstrate how the basic components of life formed nonezymatically. Your theory is nothing but gaps.

Really? Modern bacteria have totally different genes than the one celled creatures that arose out of the non-existent primordial soup? Save these stories for devout evolutionists and naïve school children. Your idea of evidence is concocted stories. What ev gives is hard mathematical science, so save your stories to tell around the camp fire at evolutionist summer camp.

Yes, modern bacteria have totally different genes, and you are assuming quite a bit when you speak of "the one celled creatures that arose..." By the time there was a cell membrane as we currently know it, quite a bit of change had already taken place. A fatty acid globule (one hypothesized cell-precursor--the molecular structure of fatty acids allows them to spontaneously form globules) is quite different from a cell membrane, after all. Since your definition of "gene" is functional, the genes forming cell walls are already different from their ancestors. I suppose you could quibble on "totally" different; since your own cellular mechanisms share quite a bit with...well, with any living cells, you are not "totally" different from amoeba.

The only thing you evolutionists have proved is that if you trot out one speculation after another, you start to believe these things as true. The theory of evolution and abiogenesis really should be discussed on the paranormal forum, that is if you can raise a sufficient amount of mathematical scientific proof to qualify for that forum.

So...anyway, since there actually is research ongoing into possible abiogenesis mechanisms, suppose you share with us the ongoing research into the god hypothesis?

Too bad you and other evolutionists don’t accept the results of Dr Schneider’s research, then research money could go to something worthwhile, not your silly, irrational concept of abiogenesis.

Mercutio, all the posts are out there to read, there are no moving goalposts.

link to Kleinman's goalposts on the definition of macroevolution

Why Dr Richard, our own Sesame Street drop-out. Since you dropped out of Sesame Street before you learned how to count, we will review that topic for you. The number you are to learn today is “0”. “0” is the number of selection processes that evolve a gene from the beginning. “0” is the amount of mathematics you have that supports your theory of evolution. And “0” is the possibility that your theory of evolution is true. So remember the number “0” because that is what your theory of evolution is.

Once you learn the number “0”, we will start you on reading since you think that the only information in a publication is in the figures.

 

[kjkent1]

What good is a binding site without an associated gene?

Hey, you're the one relying on ev's model as disproving evolutionary theory. If you're position is that the ev model is impossible from the beginning, then you can't assert that an ev program run proves anything, because you are starting from the premise that the ev model is a fantasy.

So, make up your mind -- either the ev model is viable or it's not. If it is, then my description works and resolves your question re the gene from the beginning. If not, then my description doesn't work -- but neither does yours, and this entire thread has been a gross waste of time for everyone.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What good is a binding site without an associated gene?

Hey, you're the one relying on ev's model as disproving evolutionary theory. If you're position is that the ev model is impossible from the beginning, then you can't assert that an ev program run proves anything, because you are starting from the premise that the ev model is a fantasy.

In case you haven’t noticed, it takes billions of generations to evolve the binding sites in ev on a realistic length genome with realistic mutation rates. Do you think that evolving the gene that goes with the binding site is going to speed up this process, especially when you don’t have a selection process to do this?

So, make up your mind -- either the ev model is viable or it's not. If it is, then my description works and resolves your question re the gene from the beginning. If not, then my description doesn't work -- but neither does yours, and this entire thread has been a gross waste of time for everyone.

Of course ev is a plausible model. This simplified model show how profoundly slow the evolution of binding sites is. You think by making the model more complex, the evolutionary process will speed up. Well, show us.

 

[Mercutio]

So the nonsensical response that evolutionists give to how the first genes formed without the DNA replicase system is “billions and billions of years”. You have no science, no mathematics, only slogans to support your theory.

Oh, you are a hoot! You got that out of what I wrote? (well, no, you didn't--but that didn't stop you.)

There are no experiments that demonstrate how the basic components of life formed nonezymatically. Your theory is nothing but gaps.

1) Could you please list what you mean here by "basic components of life"? I am curious as to whether you are simply asking the wrong things again, or whether you are making an actual point. 2) Nothing but gaps? Is this one of those deals where, when a gap is filled in, you get to claim that we have merely created two more gaps? These gaps you speak of are shrinking rapidly; soon there may be nowhere left for your god to hide.

The only thing you evolutionists have proved is that if you trot out one speculation after another, you start to believe these things as true. The theory of evolution and abiogenesis really should be discussed on the paranormal forum, that is if you can raise a sufficient amount of mathematical scientific proof to qualify for that forum.

Note once again that you conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Oh, and lest I quote your first sentence here right back at you (with one minor change--let's see if you can guess it!), how's that evidence for your god hypothesis coming along?

Too bad you and other evolutionists don’t accept the results of Dr Schneider’s research, then research money could go to something worthwhile, not your silly, irrational concept of abiogenesis.

Hey, "evolutionists" can work just fine with a god-created abiogenesis (and it is not difficult to find examples of evolutionists admitting this; as an aside, my very first school exposure to natural selection was by a visiting entomologist who said that, in his opinion, "god touched the earth" and created life, which then proceeded via natural selection). When you speak of a "silly, irrational concept of abiogenesis", remember that the term applies to your god hypothesis every bit as much as to the tidal pool hypothesis, the thermal vent hypothesis, the volcanic gas hypothesis, Odin's tears, and the Great Green Arkleseizure.

So please, in your continuing conflation of natural selection and abiogenesis, be careful which targets you think you are aiming at. Sloppy use of vocabulary might lead some to believe that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[kjkent1]

You're still using convergence to Rfreq rather than perfect creature. There is no selective pressure to converge. Furthermore, because you have eliminated selective pressure for accurate binding (spurious bindings are allowed outside the gene), a perfect creature can evolve with a lower Rseq. This is because the binding site motif only has to be unique enough to eliminate spurious bindings within the gene, rather than throughout the entire genome. You are essentially watching for this convergence:

Rseq-allowing-spurious-bindings ==> Rfreq-assuming-perfect-bindings

So it's unlikely to converge, even while evolving a perfect creature.

~~ Paul

OK, fair enough. So if I understand correctly (and, I probably don't), then with ev's default settings, a perfect creature can arise by chance during nearly any generation, and if it does, that's really the end of the experiment, regardless of the amount of convergence which may have already occured.

 

[kjkent1]

In case you haven’t noticed, it takes billions of generations to evolve the binding sites in ev on a realistic length genome with realistic mutation rates. Do you think that evolving the gene that goes with the binding site is going to speed up this process, especially when you don’t have a selection process to do this?

You're being disingenuous. My description resolves your gene from the beginning is impossible argument. So, all that remains is to speed up the ev selection method.

And, Unnamed produced a different selection method which does speed up ev sufficiently. The fact that you don't like that method is really irrelevant. All that matters is that it has already been demonstrated that other selection methods can speed up ev.

Moreover, your complaint about Unnamed's method was that it largely ignored non-binding site region errors. But, as I've recently shown, ignoring non-binding site errors actually slows down the convergence of Rseq to Rfreq. This suggests that you are misunderstanding how Unnamed's selection process works.

I'm not saying that Unnamed's method is more realistic than the ev default selection method. I'm just saying that until we have a selection method which is realistic, reliance on ev's slowness to demonstrate that evolution is impossible is not reasonable, because you don't know whether the default ev model is a more reasonable model of evolution than is some other version with a different selection method.

So, we're back to the selection method and its realism. I don't know enough about genetics to declare that the default ev method is better or worse than Unnamed's, or some other, as yet unproposed selection mechanism.

But, until there's some consensus as to the realism of the ev selection method, you cannot reasonably conclude that ev shows evolution as mathematically impossible, because you don't have all the required components to draw such a conclusion.