Annoying creationists

[Ichneumonwasp]

The reason why this is not an issue of serial vs parallel processing is that you have to assume that life forms are only subject to single selection pressures and that somehow the results of these evolutionary events can somehow be combined to make more complex creatures. The analogy with ev is to take a single selection condition at a time, allow that condition to evolve and then allow the next condition to evolve. Life and selection do not work this way. Multiple selection conditions interfere with each other. This is what the mathematics of ev shows. This is what the example of triple antiviral agents for the treatment of HIV shows. This is how mutation and selection works. It is mathematically impossible for evolution to do what you evolutionists allege.

OK, I'm going to try this one last time, then I'm giving up like the other folks who show more sense than me.

For most selection pressures, conditions differ across a population and over time. That is why I asked about serial processing. HIV triple therapy is a special situation in which the selection condition is profound and affects all virus particles exposed to it. A reality closer to natural occurrences is what we actually see with HIV triple therapy in the real world -- some people take their meds on a regular basis and some do not. With particular types of therapy, it is the regular administration of these meds that results in drug resistance. These are typically less potent drugs that do not completely supress viral loads, and this occurs even when they are used in combination. With more potent drugs and drug combinations we see the opposite effect and what we would expect -- profound selection pressure means less chance of drug resistance when the drug cocktails are taken regularly and compliantly. When they are not taken in that way, then drug resistance occurs. This is what the real world looks like. Selection pressures vary over time and space. They do not typically affect every member of a population in the same way.

That is why I asked earlier if the selection pressures in ev could be altered over time and about parallel processing -- that is what we see in nature, not typically constant pressure across an entire population.

Frankly (correct me if I'm wrong here, Paul), since ev only seems to model selection pressures that are constant across the entire population and remain constant over time, I think it shows exactly the opposite of what you think it shows. The fact that anything evolves in that model is freaking amazing and demonstrates just how incredibly robust evolution really is.

 

[Mercutio]

Er, you still have to use a limit. 1/infinity is undefined.

[latex]$\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x} = 0$[/latex]

~~ Paul

Thus my use of the word "approach"



...the second time, after being corrected on the matter...

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul, you miss a lot in this discussion. Combine the two spurious selection conditions and what you will find is that two selection conditions evolve more slowly than a single selection condition. This is why your theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Can you ever address the points being made? My point was that there is nothing special about three or more pressures. I was not commenting on the absurdity of your overall claim, just on the three or more aspect.

Sure there is something special about three selection pressures, that case evolves more slowly than two selection pressures which evolves slower than one selection pressure. Ev shows this in case you missed this.

Hey Paul, your solution is parallel processing.

Yes, the population is an important factor, one that you constantly ignore.

I’m not ignoring this factor. In fact I’m waiting for you to post that population series you said you would do last week. You remember that series don’t you? This series will again demonstrate a common error that evolutionist make, that is the assumption that huge populations will markedly accelerate evolution.

There you go Paul, Delphi has solved your problem for you.

The only problem here is your lack of comprehension, and it seems we still haven't solved it.

Oh, I can assure you I comprehend the mathematics that ev is demonstrating, and I assure you that you haven’t solved the mathematical problem that ev reveals for you theory of evolution. But I do appreciate the links you post, they help make my case.

I can explain thermodynamics far better than you can explain abiogenesis.

Shall we revist our conversation on this ~2000posts ago? I would have to say your grasp of simple engineering is tenuous at best.

There is no need to show everyone again that you are grammatically challenged.

You can’t even explain how ribose can form nonenzymatically. How is the RNA world going to come about without ribose?

Got me, I couldn't. Reactions can occur to form them. This I've seen. But can I explain exactly how to would have occured billions of years ago? Nope. Wow, this must mean we chuck the whole theory... Oh wait.
Does the Gibb's Paradox mean we abandon classical Thermo?

Chuck the gap theory because there is no way ribose could form in the primordial world? No need to, the mathematics of mutation and selection is enough to chuck the gap theory.

At least I know how to spell thermodynamics.

that's the least of my grammar and spelling errors. I've noticed I also did an "Are" instead of "our" and omitted some "to be" verbs. But what does this have to do with the content?

Your defense of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is without content. I defend my arguments with data from ev, physical examples of this data and with the assistance of Delphi’s link to Wikipedia, fitness landscape. Thanks Delphi.

Oh yes, “multinodal cell signal modeling” and your “parallel processing” solves the problem that multiple selection conditions slow evolution as shown by ev. .

This is my favorite of your abuses and lies.
Dismiss a clearly explained concept by quoting random words from said concept in a contemptable manner.

Stop whining joobz, it is not becoming for someone with a PhD in alchemical engineering. Paul knows that the only parallel processing you can do with the theory of evolution is increasing population. What Paul still doesn’t understand is that increasing population affects the mathematics in less than an additive manner. He will understand this when he does his population series that he seems to be ignoring.

What you and other evolutionists are slow to understand is that you can only make the mathematics of three selection conditions work on unrealistically short genomes. Try your experiment on a realistic length genome and you will understand why your theory is mathematically impossible.

So, you are expecting the three mistakes test to eventually become slower than the spurious bindings test?

At what genome/potential sites length?

You didn’t get this quite correct. What ev shows that with all three selection conditions enabled, the evolution of binding sites becomes profoundly slow as you increase the genome length.

Take Dr Schneider’s basic case and start doubling the genome length. You will see that the generations for perfect creature and the rate of accumulation of information becomes profoundly slow as you increase the genome length. This is analogous to sorting a database with three sort conditions. As the database gets larger and larger, the sorting process becomes slower and slower. Try a 32k genome length instead of your 2k genome length. That genome length is still greater than 10 times smaller than the genome length for the smallest genome for a free living organism.

The reason why this is not an issue of serial vs parallel processing is that you have to assume that life forms are only subject to single selection pressures and that somehow the results of these evolutionary events can somehow be combined to make more complex creatures. The analogy with ev is to take a single selection condition at a time, allow that condition to evolve and then allow the next condition to evolve. Life and selection do not work this way. Multiple selection conditions interfere with each other. This is what the mathematics of ev shows. This is what the example of triple antiviral agents for the treatment of HIV shows. This is how mutation and selection works. It is mathematically impossible for evolution to do what you evolutionists allege.

OK, I'm going to try this one last time, then I'm giving up like the other folks who show more sense than me.

For most selection pressures, conditions differ across a population and over time. That is why I asked about serial processing. HIV triple therapy is a special situation in which the selection condition is profound and affects all virus particles exposed to it. A reality closer to natural occurrences is what we actually see with HIV triple therapy in the real world -- some people take their meds on a regular basis and some do not. With particular types of therapy, it is the regular administration of these meds that results in drug resistance. These are typically less potent drugs that do not completely supress viral loads, and this occurs even when they are used in combination. With more potent drugs and drug combinations we see the opposite effect and what we would expect -- profound selection pressure means less chance of drug resistance when the drug cocktails are taken regularly and compliantly. When they are not taken in that way, then drug resistance occurs. This is what the real world looks like. Selection pressures vary over time and space. They do not typically affect every member of a population in the same way.

Ev represents a best case scenario for the theory of evolution. All creatures are affected equally and there is no extinction. Even with this best case scenario, the evolutionary process is profoundly slow with three selection conditions on realistic length genomes. How will fine tuning whether the selection pressure is turned on and off and some part of the population is not subjected to the selection pressure. These type of fine tuning will only slow the evolutionary process.

There is only one way to achieve limited parallel processing for mutation and selection and that is by increasing population. There is already data available from ev that shows that increasing population does not markedly increase the rate of evolution and there is a theoretical explanation why this occurs.

That is why I asked earlier if the selection pressures in ev could be altered over time and about parallel processing -- that is what we see in nature, not typically constant pressure across an entire population.

You can only vary the weights for the particular errors caused by the selection conditions. One of the most interesting affects in the ev model occurs when you set two of the three weight factors to 0. Ev converges the non-zero selection condition very rapidly, even for very large genomes.

Frankly (correct me if I'm wrong here, Paul), since ev only seems to model selection pressures that are constant across the entire population and remain constant over time, I think it shows exactly the opposite of what you think it shows. The fact that anything evolves in that model is freaking amazing and demonstrates just how incredibly robust evolution really is.

Ichneumonwasp, if you run ev a little, you will get an education of the mathematics of mutation and selection. Varying the selection pressure slows evolution. Try turning off selection in ev in the middle of a run and you will see that any information gained while selection is turned on is lost.

 

[joobz]

Oh, I can assure you I comprehend the mathematics that ev is demonstrating,

I needed a laugh, thank you.

I defend my arguments with data from ev, physical examples of this data and with the assistance of Delphi’s link to Wikipedia, fitness landscape.

Lie#0, Lie#1, Lie#2, Lie#3, Lie#4, lie#5 aren't very good arguments for your case.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh, I can assure you I comprehend the mathematics that ev is demonstrating,

I needed a laugh, thank you.

I didn’t think it was possible that anyone could be more boring than Adequate but joobz, you have succeeded. The same old gifs and jpegs.

Since your expertise in alchemical engineering can’t explain how ribose appeared in the primordial RNA world, perhaps you could tell us what the selection process that gave rise to the first gene is. Make it easy on yourself, give us the selection process that would give rise to any gene.

 

[kjkent1]

You didn’t get this quite correct. What ev shows that with all three selection conditions enabled, the evolution of binding sites becomes profoundly slow as you increase the genome length.

Pardon me, but you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest with your response.

You have been alleging that multiple selective pressures slows down evolution. However, all of the experimental evidence produced by ev shows the opposite. So, either explain why the evidence is wrong or incomplete, or admit you're wrong on this issue.

Or, continue to be intellectually dishonest. However, if you take this route, then it's no wonder that Dr. Schneider ceased communicating with you. There's nothing to be gained from interacting with you if you won't objectively evaluate the evidence.

Take Dr Schneider’s basic case and start doubling the genome length. You will see that the generations for perfect creature and the rate of accumulation of information becomes profoundly slow as you increase the genome length. This is analogous to sorting a database with three sort conditions. As the database gets larger and larger, the sorting process becomes slower and slower. Try a 32k genome length instead of your 2k genome length. That genome length is still greater than 10 times smaller than the genome length for the smallest genome for a free living organism.

I have been in this discussion long enough to be completely conversant on the above. You're talking to me as if I just joined.

If you want to argue that ev is too slow, then we have nothing to argue about, because I generally agree that ev is too slow, as originally designed.

Where we differ is on the issue of whether or not a different selection method can speed ev up. Unnamed demonstrated a selection method which did just that. You didn't like that method, because you argued that it ignored the non-binding site region.

Your opinion is flat wrong on this issue. Unnamed's method gives more weight to the effect of any ev "mistake" by adding the genetic weights of individual mistakes rather than merely counting those mistakes. Consequently, a creature with more mistakes than average will be killed off more quickly, and a creature with less mistakes than average will survive longer. In short, Unnamed's process is more competitive.

The result is a much faster evolutionary process -- which of course, you despise.

But, if you would put away your emotional bias in favor of God for a moment, and simply accepted the fact that ev can be increased by other selective methods, then you might be able to contribute a way to test Unnamed's process to see if it mimics reality.

Dr. Schneider didn't consider the aggregate strength of mistakes in determining selection. He only considered the number of mistakes. I don't know if either method is a reasonable selective process.

It would be nice if some genetics gurus here could discuss how we might quantify the power of a genetic mistake -- either good or bad. Then, maybe someone could develop a more authentic selection mechanism for ev.

One of the most interesting affects in the ev model occurs when you set two of the three weight factors to 0. Ev converges the non-zero selection condition very rapidly, even for very large genomes.

Now you're back to arguing nonsense. Your examples using zero selection weights are based on Paul's arbitrary definition of a "perfect creature." With all three selective weights set to zero, the definition of perfect becomes a completely random genome. Which is nonsense. With one or two selective weights set to zero, the definition of perfect becomes either a genome with randomly missed bindings, or a genome with random spurious bindings.

These zero weight conditions are nonsensical. They don't represent an evolutionary process which would be likely to cause Rseq to approach Rfreq, because the process ignores circumstances which are not present in a real genome in wihch Rseq is actually measured to approach Rfreq.

Stop discussing zero mistake weights -- the discussion is meaningless.

Work on identifying a more accurate selection method at the most basic genetic level. Until this is accomplished, all of your conclusions are based on a model which is not sufficient to measure the actual genetic evolution of a real-world organism

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thus my use of the word "approach"

Ah yes, I was still stuck back on your first post:

... then the odds of taking any particular route are a priori 1/infinity, or zero?

Approach it is!

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

I didn’t think it was possible that anyone could be more boring than Adequate but joobz, you have succeeded. The same old gifs and jpegs.

I'm sorry I'm boring you. But, you are entertaining me greatly. It's amuses me to see 3 months later, you're nothing more than what you were;woefully and willfully wrong.

Since your expertise in alchemical engineering can’t explain how ribose appeared in the primordial RNA world, perhaps you could tell us what the selection process that gave rise to the first gene is. Make it easy on yourself, give us the selection process that would give rise to any gene.

I'm still waiting for a good reason why
model takes too long= evolution does not exist.

A MD simulation of 1 ml of water would take an extremely long time to acheive equilibrium (a thermodynamic equivilent to your perfect creature), does this mean that water doesn't exist?

I feel the universe arround us beginning to unravel.

 

[delphi_ote]

Is kleinman really giving joobz crap for repeating himself?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's really creepy, del.

 

[delphi_ote]

That's really creepy, del.

Never seen Scanners? Don't worry. It's not real.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I didn’t think it was possible that anyone could be more boring than Adequate but joobz, you have succeeded. The same old gifs and jpegs.

I'm sorry I'm boring you. But, you are entertaining me greatly. It's amuses me to see 3 months later, you're nothing more than what you were;woefully and willfully wrong.

All that data you have posted from ev is overwhelming. Whoops, you haven’t posted any data from ev. Your description of how ribose forms in the primordial RNA world is overwhelmingly scientific and logical. Whoops, you can’t describe how ribose could be created in the primordial RNA world. All those old and often repeated gifs and jpegs form an overwhelming argument in favor of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. There it is, your counter evidence for the results from ev. Joobz, how can anyone withstand your gif and jpeg onslaught. You may very well win this debate by boring me to death.

Since your expertise in alchemical engineering can’t explain how ribose appeared in the primordial RNA world, perhaps you could tell us what the selection process that gave rise to the first gene is. Make it easy on yourself, give us the selection process that would give rise to any gene.

I'm still waiting for a good reason why model takes too long= evolution does not exist.

Well joobz, you have a couple options here. If the model accurately simulates reality then the rate of information acquisition gives an accurate estimate of the amount of time required to evolve life as we know it today. As ev stands right now, the amount of time required even Dr Schneider’s simple binding sites takes far too many generations to support the theory. The reason this occurs is that the competing selection conditions profoundly slow the acquisition of information. Now if you hold to the view that ev does not model important mechanisms of evolution that would speed up this process, add these mechanisms and prove me wrong.

A MD simulation of 1 ml of water would take an extremely long time to acheive equilibrium (a thermodynamic equivilent to your perfect creature), does this mean that water doesn't exist?

No, it means that your analogy doesn’t make sense. The evolution of the perfect creature is not an equilibrium state. It is not even a steady state.

I feel the universe arround us beginning to unravel.

Don’t worry joobz, it is just the concepts of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution that are unraveling.

Is kleinman really giving joobz crap for repeating himself?

Don’t confuse repeating oneself with being boring.

That's really creepy, del.

That isn’t the first time Delphi has posted an image like this. Evolutionists don’t have a coherent argument to defend against the results that ev shows and the real examples of these results. So what do you do? Post a gif or a jpeg. I give Delphi a lot of slack, after all, he is the one who pointed to the Wikipedia description of fitness landscape. That link gives an excellent description of why ev is so slow converging.

 

[delphi_ote]

I give Delphi a lot of slack, after all, he is the one who pointed to the Wikipedia description of fitness landscape.

Are you abandoning your hypothesis about the number of selection pressures?

 

[mijopaalmc]

[...]Whoops, you can’t describe how ribose could be created in the primordial RNA world[...]

I am going to assume that, given that this thread has gone on for 3492 posts, anything that I have to say will not make kleinmann suddenly renounce his denial of evolution. However, I couldn't pass up an opportunity to pass up how utterly incorrect this statement is. I will not try to summarize the vast corpus on pre-biotic chemistry because it has already been done for me by Leslie Orgel in a masterful review published in 2004. Suffice it to say, if kleimann deigns to read it, it should answer many of his questions of how many of the simple biological molecules could have been formed from the formation of sugars by the condensation of formaldehyde in the formose reaction to the formation of nitrogenous bases by the condensation of hydrogen cyanide with itself and various other simpler nitrogenous compounds to a proposal of a simpler system than RNA (i.e, threose nucleic acid [TNA]) as a stepping stone from the formose reaction and the various HCN condensations to RNA. This review is meant to be a supplement to the oft mentioned Miller-Urey experiment because the main focus on these forums seems to on the creation of amino acid, but here we also have another explanation of the formation of nucleotides.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I give Delphi a lot of slack, after all, he is the one who pointed to the Wikipedia description of fitness landscape.

Are you abandoning your hypothesis about the number of selection pressures?

How did you make that connection? The Wikipedia description of fitness landscape gives a precise description of why multiple selection pressures slows evolution. It was already apparent that it is the multiple selection conditions which slows evolution in ev. It is nice to know that some evolutionists have an understanding of this phenomena. The real example of the slowing of the evolution of drug resistant strains of HIV by using triple antiviral agents is icing on the cake. So we have ev, the mathematical model of mutation and natural selection which produces results that is consistent with Wikipedia description of fitness landscape and we have a real example of this mathematical simulation. I think that is a good argument of why the theory of evolution can not accomplish what evolutionist allege.

No, I am not abandoning my hypothesis about the number of selection pressures. The only thing I have abandoned in this debate is calling evolutionist-evolutionarians. Now if you can demonstrate either mathematically or by a real example where multiple selection conditions speeds up evolution, you would have a point.

 

[articulett]

Never seen Scanners? Don't worry. It's not real.

I loved scanners!...and I often have that exact mental imagery when talking with creationists.

 

[delphi_ote]

The Wikipedia description of fitness landscape gives a precise description of why multiple selection pressures slows evolution.

Even though I explicity wrote two fitness functions in Java-like code that demonstrate precisely the opposite? What you're saying here is a blunder equivalent to "the more integers you add, the bigger the result."

I'm really trying to spoon feed you here. Help me help you. How can I mathematically represent calculations on strings in a way you'll understand?

 

[Mobyseven]

[derail]Joobz: I know I've seen your sig somewhere before, and my head is going to go all Scanners on me if I don't figure this out. Where is it from???[/derail]

 

[Mr. Scott]

Hey! I said that over 4 months ago:

I know, but Dr. Kleinman doesn't seem to get it. Why, I'm not sure, but I think it's A) He's not educated in computer models and simulations, and B) a bronze age holy book has disabled half of his gray matter.

If there are, for example, 10 processes that enable evolution, and a computer simulation models 8 of them, then it's not valid to draw a conclusion like "evolution is too slow" unless the other two are also modeled. Ev does not model gene duplication, and the concensus is it's a critical process in "speeding up" evolution compared to evolution without duplication.

It's as if Kleinman is saying that, because a 4-cylinder car is shown to not be able to reach a destination in time, it's proven an 8-cylinder car couldn't. Real world evolution runs on many more cylinders than Ev models, and we are still discovering more as science continues to penetrate the beautiful, open-ended clockwork of evolution.

This is the fatal error in Dr. Kleinman's reasoning. He has not refuted it, so it's necessary to repeat it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ev represents a best case scenario for the theory of evolution. All creatures are affected equally and there is no extinction.

How is that a best case scenario for evolution? That looks to me like an equilibrium scenario -- all creatures affected equally over space and time. That isn't how evolution works.