Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

So write your letter to the editors of the journal--as carefully and well-supported as you would write it to them--and post it here. As is, I see at least two potential problems with your criticism--one a matter of the effects of population size, the other a much more fundamental misunderstanding that presumes a directed evolution aiming for a particular outcome. But without your well-stated argument, it is impossible to evaluate.

And please do not use the construction "a gene is to evolve...". That paragraph, copied and pasted as many times as you have already, has gotten you nowhere. It is that argument that makes me suspect that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. But of course, I could be wrong (it has happened once before, a few years ago); if you focus on your argument, not on the personal sniping, perhaps you can phrase it in such an idiot-proof manner that even I will understand.

If you are willing to do that, I am willing to set aside my request that we evaluate the evidence for your god hypothesis. We can always return to that later.

Your suggestions are entirely rational. Why in the world would you try something like that here?

 

[kjkent1]

All righty then.

~~ Paul

I talk to the trees, but they never listen to me... -- Alan J. Lerner, "Paint your Wagon" (1969).

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

How big were the genomes of organisms back when ancient genes were evolving? The populations were certainly many orders of magnitude bigger than a million, but how big?

I’ll leave this type of fantasizing to you evolutionists.

...
What I know is that ev shows that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used, the rate of information acquisition is profoundly slow, too slow to explain the theory of information. [emphasis Paul’s]

All righty then.

Paul, you’ve squeeze out a gnat sized point. Using ev to compute the rate of information acquisition on a 100k genome does not represent a realistic genome length for a free living creature. Do you think the rate of information gain on a 500k genome would be faster or slower than that on a 100k genome? What ev is forcing you to do is take the position that billions of years ago, there were free living organisms with tiny genomes that no longer exist today. As Mercutio said, a mudskipper ate them. This is nothing more than raw speculation. There is no evidence that any such creatures ever existed. How would such creatures carry on metabolic activities and reproduce? How would they code for all the peptides necessary for life? The gap theory strikes again.

If you are willing to do that, I am willing to set aside my request that we evaluate the evidence for your god hypothesis. We can always return to that later.

Your suggestions are entirely rational. Why in the world would you try to advance rational suggestions in this forum?

Kjkent1, just how many alternative universes does your string cheese theory of evolution call for?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you’ve squeeze out a gnat sized point. Using ev to compute the rate of information acquisition on a 100k genome does not represent a realistic genome length for a free living creature. Do you think the rate of information gain on a 500k genome would be faster or slower than that on a 100k genome? What ev is forcing you to do is take the position that billions of years ago, there were free living organisms with tiny genomes that no longer exist today. As Mercutio said, a mudskipper ate them. This is nothing more than raw speculation. There is no evidence that any such creatures ever existed. How would such creatures carry on metabolic activities and reproduce? How would they code for all the peptides necessary for life? The gap theory strikes again.

As opposed to the theory that fully-evolved, modern organisms just poofed into existence? Yes, there are gaps in the theory, but at least people are working on it, which is more than we can say for the competing theory.

Do you think that Ev proves that a 500K genome can't evolve a new function, regardless of population and time? If so, could you show us the math?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul, you’ve squeeze out a gnat sized point. Using ev to compute the rate of information acquisition on a 100k genome does not represent a realistic genome length for a free living creature. Do you think the rate of information gain on a 500k genome would be faster or slower than that on a 100k genome? What ev is forcing you to do is take the position that billions of years ago, there were free living organisms with tiny genomes that no longer exist today. As Mercutio said, a mudskipper ate them. This is nothing more than raw speculation. There is no evidence that any such creatures ever existed. How would such creatures carry on metabolic activities and reproduce? How would they code for all the peptides necessary for life? The gap theory strikes again.

As opposed to the theory that fully-evolved, modern organisms just poofed into existence? Yes, there are gaps in the theory, but at least people are working on it, which is more than we can say for the competing theory.

Let’s see if we can figure out your logic. Your own computer model shows your theory to be mathematically impossible but because taxpayers have bamboozled into paying for research into an impossible theory, it makes it a better theory. I wonder how much private money is put into researching your ridiculous theory.

Do you think that Ev proves that a 500K genome can't evolve a new function, regardless of population and time? If so, could you show us the math?

Yes. The mathematical proof is:
Selection process to evolve a new gene from the beginning = f

 

[kjkent1]

Paul, you’ve squeeze out a gnat sized point. Using ev to compute the rate of information acquisition on a 100k genome does not represent a realistic genome length for a free living creature. Do you think the rate of information gain on a 500k genome would be faster or slower than that on a 100k genome? What ev is forcing you to do is take the position that billions of years ago, there were free living organisms with tiny genomes that no longer exist today. As Mercutio said, a mudskipper ate them. This is nothing more than raw speculation. There is no evidence that any such creatures ever existed. How would such creatures carry on metabolic activities and reproduce? How would they code for all the peptides necessary for life? The gap theory strikes again.

Kjkent1, just how many alternative universes does your string cheese theory of evolution call for?

It's not my theory. The theory is proposed by Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D, of Stanford University. It is shared by a large number of the most esteemed high energy physicists and cosmologists on Earth.

To my knowledge, the only person who has adopted your theory of "The failure of the EV program to converge from a random DNA sequence to a human being in under 500,000 generations," is you.

If you want respect from your peers, then you should try to treat their positions with the same respect as you demand of your own. But, you don't. Instead, you make fun of anyone who has an argument which challenges yours. You don't acknowledge that you can't defeat some other reasonable argument, but that you prefer your own. Instead, you pretend that the opposing argument is flat wrong.

I understand why, and so does everyone else. It's because you "know" that God is the only truth, therefore any contradictory argument must be false no matter how well it fits with the facts.

This simply doesn't work when you're arguing with a reasonable opponent, because a reasonable opponent sees through your argument to the reason why you cannot possibly credit anyone else who doesn't see things from your view.

You have no proof of God, and you never will. Using science to prove God is impossible. We all know it, and you know it. The difference is that for those of us who believe in God, we don't interject it into a scientific debate.

You do -- not by expressly stating that God is the truth -- but rather by treating contrary arguments with sarcasm as if you know something that no one else does.

Well, you don't. We're all on the same page, and we find your theory lacking in 100 different ways -- all of which you are content to either avoid, or make fun of.

Yes, this is the annoying creationist thread, and you are the annoying creationist. But, not in the way that someone with a great idea is annoying to someone whose idea is threatened. Rather you are annoying in the way that a 4-year old is annoying when he grabs an egg full of Silly Putty(r) off the "impulse buy" shelf of the checkout counter in the grocery store, and then he cries to high heaven in an effort to avoid any attempt to rationalize with him.

If this is the picture you want to present to your peers, then you have achieved your goal. But, it ain't a pretty picture, Alan.

It's just annoying.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let’s see if we can figure out your logic. Your own computer model shows your theory to be mathematically impossible but because taxpayers have bamboozled into paying for research into an impossible theory, it makes it a better theory. I wonder how much private money is put into researching your ridiculous theory.

As opposed to the coffers of religious organizations, you mean?

Yes. The mathematical proof is:
Selection process to evolve a new gene from the beginning = f

Before you were claiming a mathematical proof based on an incomplete model of evolution. Now you're claiming a mathematical proof based on a gap.

Is there some point where you claim a mathematical proof based on mathematics?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Let’s see if we can figure out your logic. Your own computer model shows your theory to be mathematically impossible but because taxpayers have bamboozled into paying for research into an impossible theory, it makes it a better theory. I wonder how much private money is put into researching your ridiculous theory.

As opposed to the coffers of religious organizations, you mean?

Paul, is this the best defense of your theory you can muster?

Yes. The mathematical proof is:

Selection process to evolve a new gene from the beginning = f

Before you were claiming a mathematical proof based on an incomplete model of evolution. Now you're claiming a mathematical proof based on a gap.

Now you are defending your theory with the gaps. I guess the more gaps your theory has the better it is. What makes you think you can fill the gap of no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning? What makes you think you can find a way to speed up the rate of convergence of ev? Do you think modeling multiple simultaneous selection processes in the model will speed up the rate of information gain? Paul you are in denial about the results your computer model show.

Is there some point where you claim a mathematical proof based on mathematics?

Paul, it is Dr Schneider’s and your mathematics upon which my proof is based. Your model reveals the effects of multiple selection process. Your model reveals the flaw in the selection process. It is your model that reveals the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution. Now if you want to make a counter argument, change or add features to your model which refute my claims.

 

[Mercutio]

What is the point of doing this? All I would be doing is reiterating what I have posted on this thread and the Evolutionisdead forum.

Then it should be fairly straightforward for you. The point would be that you would have, in one place, the distillation of your argument, honed by criticism by others here and there, in one place where any could see it. If it is worthwhile, at least some here will recognize that; if it is not, you will get more complete criticism. Science progresses this way, not by shying away and coddling your theory.

With respects to the population issue, if you examine this data, you would see that only the first few doublings of the population decrease the generations for convergence markedly. The data appears to be rapidly approach an asymptote. This a far stretch from the conclusion Dr Schneider made about the effects of huge populations on the rates of information acquisition, a conclusion he drew with only a single data point. To get a more conclusive answer on this issue requires far more memory than I have on my computer. A G=1000, population=1meg case takes the entire memory available on my PC (1/2 gigabyte). Any realistic genome size with populations of 10^10 would take millions of gigabytes of memory. That said, you can see trends with the smaller genomes and smaller populations that does not bode well for your theory.

If and when you support this, you will put the burden of proof on the other guy. As is, it is as much speculation as assertion. In particular, it may be (I have not seen your argument laid out) that your complaint is easily addressed. After all, you are claiming to have found something that escaped Schneider, his peer reviewers, and the editors. It is possible that something else has escaped you.

If you studied ev, in particular the selection process that Dr Schneider used, you would understand my “a gene is to evolve…” argument. Your theory stands or falls on this definition. I don’t know of a valid definition for selection that would do this and so far no evolutionist has been able to describe such a selection process. Unless you or some other evolutionist can do this, your theory will fail mathematically.

See, this is why I want to see the "best, polished for publication" version of your argument. I see a broad expectation of teleology in this argument, and as such dismiss it immediately. Obviously, you must not think it is thus flawed, or you would not continue to present it. One of us is mistaken. If you present it the exact same way each time, I cannot but read it the exact same way. Examine your assumptions--lay them bare, admit them (no theory is without them) so that your readers do not have to assign them.

By my reading of your "a gene is to evolve..." argument, your understanding of natural selection is flawed. Re-write it in such a way that it is clear that it is not your understanding, but natural selection itself, that is flawed.

I think you should evaluate the evidence for God, especially since your own mathematics shows your theory to be impossible.

*sigh* ... for several posts now, I have been asking you *for* the evidence. I am happy to evaluate it. I am even a former born-again christian, so you won't even have to explain your terms. Please, please, give me the evidence in favor of the god hypothesis of abiogenesis.

 

[Mercutio]

Your suggestions are entirely rational. Why in the world would you try something like that here?

There is a word defining my suggestions. Ask Tricky; he coined it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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.

Paul, is what Alan saying here true? In a large population, when different genes in the same organism duplicate and mutate in parallel, does evolution, as simulated by Ev, slow down?

 

[Mr. Scott]

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

You are the one with the burden of proof for your hypothesis that evolution is mathematically impossible. You have not met it. I'm quite comfortable with the theory of evolution myself, considering the mountain of consistent evidence that supports it.

The problem with your thesis that evolution is mathematically impossible is that you depend on Ev, which is not a complete simulation of evolution.

I'll give an example to help you understand the fallacy of your procedure:

Suppose I write a computer simulation of bipedal walking, it performs beautifully, and it is well regarded. You take it and change some parameters to try to make it simulate running, and it falls down. You conclude that bipedal motion is therefore mathematically impossible, crow that you used a bipedlist's very program to prove it, and imply that bipedal motion therefore requires divine intervention.

Now, doesn't that sound dumb? Perhaps now you can see how dumb you sound to evolutionists (and, I would surmise, most computer scientists).

BTW: Have you discussed your procedure with any computer scientists who are neutral about evolution? I'd like to know their opinion.

 

[SomeGuy]

You are the one with the burden of proof for your hypothesis that evolution is mathematically impossible. You have not met it. I'm quite comfortable with the theory of evolution myself, considering the mountain of consistent evidence that supports it.

The problem with your thesis that evolution is mathematically impossible is that you depend on Ev, which is not a complete simulation of evolution.

Well I partially disagree, if there would be a reason to doubt the mathematical possibility of the theory of evolution, the burden of proof would be on us, evolutionists.

However your second argument is spot on, there is no reason to doubt the theory of evolution, but all the more reason to assume Ev doesn't take everything into account that it should.

Naturally this no more invalidates Ev as a helpful tool than the General Theory of Relativity invalidates Newtonian Mechanics as a helpful tool to solve day to day mechanical issues.

editted for omission.

 

[Taffer]

Kleinmann, I agree with Mercutio. Please provide, in one clear post, your argument along with any evidence you have to support it. As far as I can tell, from reading your posts off and on since the initiation of this thread, your argument goes as follows:

P1) Either evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis is correct, or God is the origin of all life on earth.
P2) The ev simulation shows evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
C) Therefore, God is the origin of all life on earth.

Now, that is a sound argument. If P1 and P2 are both true, then C must be true. However, I have grave problems with both the premises. And no matter how much I read this thread, you are not making yourself any clearer. If you could please provide, in one post, your entire argument and supporting data, I would gladly critically analyse it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, is this the best defense of your theory you can muster?

It's not a defense of any theory, you silly git. It's a sarcastic remark in response to your sarcastic remark:

I wonder how much private money is put into researching your ridiculous theory.

Paul, it is Dr Schneider’s and your mathematics upon which my proof is based.

You have no proof, you silly git. Mathematicians everywhere are gagging at your misuse of the term.

~~ Paul

 

[Cuddles]

My goodness, is this still here?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, is what Alan saying here true? In a large population, when different genes in the same organism duplicate and mutate in parallel, does evolution, as simulated by Ev, slow down?

Ev does not simulate gene duplication. You said:

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.

And Alan replied:

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.

Since Ev only models one mutation/selection process, I'm not sure what Alan means.

~~ Paul

 

[Mr. Scott]

Well I partially disagree, if there would be a reason to doubt the mathematical possibility of the theory of evolution, the burden of proof would be on us, evolutionists.

Not having a complete mathematical model of bee flight does not mean we have to prove mathematically that bees can fly. We can see they fly.

We have a mountain of physical evidence that confirms evolution is correct. We can see the fact of evolution in the geologic and genetic records. The burden of proof of the claim that goes against this mountain of evidence, that evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore rests with its claimant.

I think only a complete mathematical model of evolution would do that. The burden of developing that model is on the good Doctor Kleinman.

We await his presentation of that model.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What is the point of doing this? All I would be doing is reiterating what I have posted on this thread and the Evolutionisdead forum.

Then it should be fairly straightforward for you. The point would be that you would have, in one place, the distillation of your argument, honed by criticism by others here and there, in one place where any could see it. If it is worthwhile, at least some here will recognize that; if it is not, you will get more complete criticism. Science progresses this way, not by shying away and coddling your theory.

I think I will do what you suggest. Dr Schneider’s work is too important to not be carefully analyzed, something which evolutionists have failed to do.

With respects to the population issue, if you examine this data, you would see that only the first few doublings of the population decrease the generations for convergence markedly. The data appears to be rapidly approach an asymptote. This a far stretch from the conclusion Dr Schneider made about the effects of huge populations on the rates of information acquisition, a conclusion he drew with only a single data point. To get a more conclusive answer on this issue requires far more memory than I have on my computer. A G=1000, population=1meg case takes the entire memory available on my PC (1/2 gigabyte). Any realistic genome size with populations of 10^10 would take millions of gigabytes of memory. That said, you can see trends with the smaller genomes and smaller populations that does not bode well for your theory.

If and when you support this, you will put the burden of proof on the other guy. As is, it is as much speculation as assertion. In particular, it may be (I have not seen your argument laid out) that your complaint is easily addressed. After all, you are claiming to have found something that escaped Schneider, his peer reviewers, and the editors. It is possible that something else has escaped you.

Oh, the population data that can be generated with ev obtained by Paul, Myriad and my computer runs has been posted both on this thread and the Evolutionisdead forum. This information would be easier to understand if put in report form rather than this debate format.

If you studied ev, in particular the selection process that Dr Schneider used, you would understand my “a gene is to evolve…” argument. Your theory stands or falls on this definition. I don’t know of a valid definition for selection that would do this and so far no evolutionist has been able to describe such a selection process. Unless you or some other evolutionist can do this, your theory will fail mathematically.

See, this is why I want to see the "best, polished for publication" version of your argument. I see a broad expectation of teleology in this argument, and as such dismiss it immediately. Obviously, you must not think it is thus flawed, or you would not continue to present it. One of us is mistaken. If you present it the exact same way each time, I cannot but read it the exact same way. Examine your assumptions--lay them bare, admit them (no theory is without them) so that your readers do not have to assign them.

If you read this thread carefully, you would see my arguments about ev based purely on mathematics. So what if I believe in God? Does that mean 2+2 no longer equals 4? You have got a big mathematical problem with your theory. Ev reveals this.

By my reading of your "a gene is to evolve..." argument, your understanding of natural selection is flawed. Re-write it in such a way that it is clear that it is not your understanding, but natural selection itself, that is flawed.

My “a gene is to evolve…” argument is not the problem. The problem is that you evolutionists have no precise description for selection when using the slogan “mutation and natural selection” for your theory of evolution. You like to say “mutation and selection” when describing how evolution works, well describe selection such that you can put it in ev and evolve a gene from the beginning. Otherwise, your terminology is no more than vague ambiguous hand waving that you try to claim is scientific.

I think you should evaluate the evidence for God, especially since your own mathematics shows your theory to be impossible.

*sigh* ... for several posts now, I have been asking you *for* the evidence. I am happy to evaluate it. I am even a former born-again christian, so you won't even have to explain your terms. Please, please, give me the evidence in favor of the god hypothesis of abiogenesis.

Don’t worry, the “Cliff notes” version of this thread will come out so even you can understand that you have embraced a mathematically impossible theory of evolution. Anyone who has studied a basic course in organic chemistry should recognize the impossibility of the evolutionist concept of abiogenesis.

Your suggestions are entirely rational. Why in the world would you try something like that here?

There is a word defining my suggestions. Ask Tricky; he coined it.

I said your theory of evolution is irrational and in addition, mathematically unsound. Your suggestion to compile this thread into a coherent report is rational but will take some time. I have 500 pages of discussion in my word processor. Of course if I remove the evolutionists’ whining and complaining, especially about moving goalposts and just discuss the mathematics of ev, that would reduce the volume in half. I do think I should include kjkent1’s string cheese theory of evolution.

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.

Paul, is what Alan saying here true? In a large population, when different genes in the same organism duplicate and mutate in parallel, does evolution, as simulated by Ev, slow down?

Mr Scott, perhaps Paul will address your question below, but if you read back in the thread, Paul proposes a concept of Rcapacity for why ev does not converge when you exceed a certain length of genome. The failure to converge occurs because there are two competing selection processes. One selection condition is the failure to identify a binding site where there should be a binding site and the other condition is locating a binding site where there shouldn’t be a binding site. As you lengthen the genome, the second condition becomes the dominant selection condition and binding sites stop evolving.

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

You are the one with the burden of proof for your hypothesis that evolution is mathematically impossible. You have not met it. I'm quite comfortable with the theory of evolution myself, considering the mountain of consistent evidence that supports it.

It is plain from the results of ev that random point mutations and natural selection can evolve nothing in a reasonable length of time (the age of the universe) on a realistic genome length with a realistic mutation rate. Without a selection process nothing can evolve ever, even if you have duplications, insertions, deletions or whatever mechanism of mutation you want. Perhaps you would offer a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning?

The problem with your thesis that evolution is mathematically impossible is that you depend on Ev, which is not a complete simulation of evolution.

And the fact that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. How do you select for something that doesn’t exist?

Suppose I write a computer simulation of bipedal walking, it performs beautifully, and it is well regarded. You take it and change some parameters to try to make it simulate running, and it falls down. You conclude that bipedal motion is therefore mathematically impossible, crow that you used a bipedlist's very program to prove it, and imply that bipedal motion therefore requires divine intervention.

The problem with your analogy is that I think Dr Schneider’s model of mutation and selection is basically correct except his selection process is contrived. If you think you can correct Dr Schneider’s model and take it from walking to running, add the selection process that would do this.

Now, doesn't that sound dumb? Perhaps now you can see how dumb you sound to evolutionists (and, I would surmise, most computer scientists).

What sounds dumb is your failure to understand that the results from ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection is a mathematically impossible and yet you think that duplications, insertions, deletions and other mutation mechanisms without a selection process will somehow accomplish mathematically what you claim.

BTW: Have you discussed your procedure with any computer scientists who are neutral about evolution? I'd like to know their opinion.

What question would you have me ask a computer scientist? I think that Dr Schneider properly captured the mathematics of random point mutation and selection (except for the contrived selection process).

Well I partially disagree, if there would be a reason to doubt the mathematical possibility of the theory of evolution, the burden of proof would be on us, evolutionists.

However your second argument is spot on, there is no reason to doubt the theory of evolution, but all the more reason to assume Ev doesn't take everything into account that it should.

What part don’t you agree with that it is evolutionists’ responsibility to prove your own theory?

You are dreaming if you think your theory can stand without an accurate description for selection process that would correct the deficiency that ev reveals.

Naturally this no more invalidates Ev as a helpful tool than the General Theory of Relativity invalidates Newtonian Mechanics as a helpful tool to solve day to day mechanical issues.

Relativity extends Newtonian Mechanics; ev turns the theory of evolution upside down.

Kleinmann, I agree with Mercutio. Please provide, in one clear post, your argument along with any evidence you have to support it. As far as I can tell, from reading your posts off and on since the initiation of this thread, your argument goes as follows:

I will compile these threads into a single document but it will take some time.

P1) Either evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis is correct, or God is the origin of all life on earth.
P2) The ev simulation shows evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
C) Therefore, God is the origin of all life on earth.

I’ll let you work on P2 for a while so that you can convince yourself that this is the case.

Now, that is a sound argument. If P1 and P2 are both true, then C must be true. However, I have grave problems with both the premises. And no matter how much I read this thread, you are not making yourself any clearer. If you could please provide, in one post, your entire argument and supporting data, I would gladly critically analyse it.

I realize that these threads are not easy to wade through and I will produce a single document that summarizes what has already been presented. While I am doing this, I suggest you familiarize yourself with ev and Dr Schneider’s writings.

Paul, is this the best defense of your theory you can muster?

It's not a defense of any theory, you silly git. It's a sarcastic remark in response to your sarcastic remark:

I see, you can’t defend the mathematics of your theory so you resort to sarcasm, Mr Rcapacity.

I wonder how much private money is put into researching your ridiculous theory.

Paul, it is Dr Schneider’s and your mathematics upon which my proof is based.

You have no proof, you silly git. Mathematicians everywhere are gagging at your misuse of the term.

Oh really, no proof, Mr Ev represents reality but now Mr Ev represents a stylized model of mutation and selection. I think you are going to have to do some work on your evolutionary landscaping. It is starting to look like an evolutionary moonscape; nothing but craters and gaps.

My goodness, is this still here?

Certainly, ev is one of those gifts that keeps on giving.

Paul, is what Alan saying here true? In a large population, when different genes in the same organism duplicate and mutate in parallel, does evolution, as simulated by Ev, slow down?

Ev does not simulate gene duplication.

That’s not a very good answer to his question Mr Rcapacity.

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.

And Alan replied:

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.

Since Ev only models one mutation/selection process, I'm not sure what Alan means.

Let’s see if I can explain this to you Mr Rcapacity. When the genome is lengthened beyond a certain point in ev, the errors in the non-binding site region dominate the selection process and stops the evolution of binding sites. So what you call a “one mutation/selection process” in actuality is two selection conditions. One condition is the selection for binding sites on the binding site region of the genome and the other condition is selection for no binding sites on the non-binding site region of the genome. Do you understand what I mean Mr Rcapacity?

We have a mountain of physical evidence that confirms evolution is correct. We can see the fact of evolution in the geologic and genetic records. The burden of proof of the claim that goes against this mountain of evidence, that evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore rests with its claimant.

Too bad that mountain doesn’t include evidence from ev.

I think only a complete mathematical model of evolution would do that. The burden of developing that model is on the good Doctor Kleinman.

Do you think that including gene duplication, insertions and deletions and other forms of mutations in ev is going to correct the problem of now selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning? Describe the selection process and I’ll write the model. I doubt I’ll ever have to do any programming on this problem.

 

[Taffer]

Thank you, kleinmann. I await your compiled argument. I will look more in depth into ev, when I have time.