Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Question for Paul: Has Ev been peer reviewed and verified as an accurate simulation in regards to its prediction of the absolute rate of real world evolution?

I can guarantee you it makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident.

Hey Paul, did Dr Schneider make an accident when he published this in his peer reviewed publication about ev?

Second, the probability of finding 16 sites averaging 4 bits each in random sequences is 2^(-4x16)

@5x10^-20 yet the sites evolved from random sequences in only ~10^3 generations, at an average rate of ~1 bit per 11 generations. Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, about 9 months [

35], but it could be much faster because the enormous titer (10^10 new virions/day/person [17]) provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

Mr Scott, Dr Schneider and the peer reviewers at the Oxford University Press Journal, Nucleic Acids Research used the rate of information acquisition from ev to estimate the evolution of a human genome. This rate of information acquisition was based on a genome length of 256 bases and a mutation rate 100 times higher than seen in the HIV virus (not 10 times higher as Dr Schneider published in his article) with a population of 64 creatures. Just use a realistic mutation rate of 10^-6 in Dr Schneider’s case and his calculation returns 4 trillion years to evolve a human genome. Use a realistic genome length and his estimate becomes billions of times larger. Now Mr Scott, Paul whines that huge populations will make this estimate decline. It does perhaps 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. If you are lucky (and you evolutionists are not lucky) that gets the estimate down to maybe a few quadrillion years to accumulate the information to evolve a human genome.

Paul, I’m wondering how far you are going to back pedal on ev? Have you turn the seat around on your bicycle yet?

You keep grabbing at this straw Paul but it won’t rescue your theory. It is easy to show with your computer model that 1 selection pressure converges much more rapidly than 2 selection pressures.

I'm not trying to rescue any theory. I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing magic about three or more pressures.

So 2 selection pressures are sufficient to slow down evolution profoundly?

EXCELLENT!!!! you've recognized my example for what it is. According to you, magnitude doesn't matter. yet, high concentrations will kill, yet mild forms of this kind of stress generate stress risistant strains. According to you, we could never generate a strain resistant to stresses like freezing, oxidative injury, ethanol levels becuase each of these represent "Multiple selection pressures".

Are you suggesting that Kleinman may have to move the goalpost yet again?

Paul, you are the expert at moving goalposts. Let’s summarize what you have said about ev, ev started out representing reality, then it became a model of a small part of the evolutionary landscape, then it became a stylized model of mutation and selection and now you can guarantee it makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident. You are the one slipping and sliding all over the evolutionary landscape. My goalposts have never moved, those goalposts are that ev shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible and the reason is that competing selection conditions slow the evolutionary process. Ev shows this, the real world shows this, Delphi’s link to Wikipedia and the description of the fitness landscape shows this.

Paul, why don’t you take up joobz’s suggestion that less severe selection conditions cause evolution to go more quickly. I don’t know what joobz thinks of Dr Schneider’s selection since these conditions can not cause extinction. Or take up Ichneumonwasp’s suggestion to turn selection on and off and see whether that speeds up evolution in ev. I tried to tell Ichneumonwasp that turning selection off causes the loss of information in ev but I don’t think Ichneumonwasp was listening.

The distorted and unscientific view that evolutionists hold of how mutation and selection works impedes the understanding of how this phenomenon works. Evolutionists block the advancement of science.

 

[joobz]

Evolutionists block the advancement of science.

Priceless.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Evolutionists block the advancement of science.

Priceless.

However, joobz does a marvelous job of advancing the pseudoscience of alchemical engineering.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, have you been paid to undermine evolution, or has it all been volunteer work?

 

[kjkent1]

A bit of chit-chat on Rfrequency and Rsequence:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986/latex/node26.html

And some more:

http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/gcb01/poster/kim_et_al.html

And some real world discussion:

http://www.inb.uni-luebeck.de/research/bsad/

~~ Paul

That was informative. Apparently, I am incorrect on an important issue (and, so is Kleinman, who, when discussing the behavior of zero mistake weights, asserted that he didn't know whether Rseq approaching Rfreq was anything other than a coincidence, and then proceeded to argue as if it wasn't required).

According to Dr. Martinez's website:

"The binding sites for a given protein on the genome are characterized by the positional information Rfreq and the sequence information Rseq. We have investigated the relation between Rfreq and Rseq on the basis of maximum entropy analysis. By modelling co-evolution between the genome and the DNA-binding protein, we obtained the key result that the equality Rfreq = Rseq holds approximately for all biological systems which are genetically autonomous, i.e. which encode all their DNA-binding proteins within their own genome."

Note: there is no cite provided for the science paper which confirms the above quote. However, as the author of the quote is also apparently the author of a large number of peer-reviewed papers on the subject matter, I'm assuming the quote is accurate.

Paul, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but if the above quote is true, then convergence of Rseq to Rfreq seems to be a fundamental property of DNA. (y/n)

If yes, then it's pretty damn important, because it suggests that ev needs a more realistic selection algorithm (which is what I've been arguing all along).

If no, then just ignore my post. LOL!

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Dr. Kleinman, have you been paid to undermine evolution, or has it all been volunteer work?

If you paid closer attention to this thread, you would know the answer to this question. Does it matter what the answer is anyway. The appropriate question to ask is what does the mathematics of ev show and does it model reality. The answer to this question is that ev does properly model the mathematics of mutation and selection and that ev shows that multiple selection pressures interfere with the evolutionary process. Does this model reality? The answer is yes, there are numerous examples of this phenomenon. Does this find show that the theory of evolution is impossible? The answer to this question is again yes, because unless you hold to the view that macroevolution occurs by serial single selection processes, you can not accumulate information rapidly enough to achieve the large genetic transformations that the theory of evolution calls for.

Mutation and selection simply does not work the way evolutionists allege. When mutation and selection is properly understood, this principle can be used to fight disease in a systematic and coordinated manner. Multiple selection conditions slow the evolutionary process because these multiple conditions confound the walk on the fitness landscape. Single selection conditions allow for more rapid evolution of resistant strains of microbes. Ev shows this mathematically, and the therapy employed for the treatment of HIV, TB and other diseases shows this in reality.

So this is a good news/bad new story. The good news is that understanding mutation and selection has clinical medical benefit (as well as pest management and crop management), the bad news (for evolutionists) is that it proves your theory wrong.

Ev is a valuable computer model, now if Paul could only understand what his model shows.

If yes, then it's pretty damn important, because it suggests that ev needs a more realistic selection algorithm (which is what I've been arguing all along).

If no, then just ignore my post. LOL!

There are no selection processes that overcome the affect of multiple selection conditions slowing evolution. There are no selection processes at all that evolve a gene from the beginning.

 

[joobz]

However, joobz does a marvelous job of advancing the pseudoscience of alchemical engineering.

You sound like a man standing on a beach screaming at the ocean for being too dry.

interesting to observe, but obviously out of touch with reality.


But I'll wait patiently for you too address the multiple points i've made.
Do you still hold to your "maths" claim?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

However, joobz does a marvelous job of advancing the pseudoscience of alchemical engineering.

You sound like a man standing on a beach screaming at the ocean for being too dry.

interesting to observe, but obviously out of touch with reality.

And you sound like a man with no mathematical training trying to argue about the mathematics of mutation and selection. This is not very interesting to observe but it seems to be the only effective debating tactic evolutionists have, that is boring me to death.

But I'll wait patiently for you too address the multiple points i've made.

Do you still hold to your "maths" claim?

What points are you talking about? Is it the one where you can’t explain how to produce ribose nonenzymatically yet you argue abiogenesis is true? Or is the one where you argue that less than fatal selection conditions acting simultaneously speed up the evolutionary process even though ev shows the exact opposite and you haven’t posted any data to support your hypothesis? Or is it the nonfunctional link that you provide? If you think your link counters my argument, post a quote from the link that you think supports your hypothesis.

With respects to holding to my “maths” claim, with your devastating lack of data in your posts, your lack of a chemical explanation for abiogenesis and your nonfunctional link, how could I continue to hold to my “maths” claim?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey Paul, did Dr Schneider make an accident when he published this in his peer reviewed publication about ev?

As he said, if Ev's rate is realistic, then certain consequences follow. Note that the final sentence you quoted suggests the rate is not realistic.

Paul, I’m wondering how far you are going to back pedal on ev? Have you turn the seat around on your bicycle yet?

I must have missed the part where I said that Ev represents a realistic simulation of the complete evolutionary landscape.

So 2 selection pressures are sufficient to slow down evolution profoundly?

No, I didn't say that. What I said was there is nothing magic about three or more pressures, even in your bizarre world of competing selection pressures.

Paul, you are the expert at moving goalposts. Let’s summarize what you have said about ev, ev started out representing reality, then it became a model of a small part of the evolutionary landscape, then it became a stylized model of mutation and selection and now you can guarantee it makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident.

Oh, it does represent reality, exactly as much as required to show that information can evolve in a world with basic evolutionary processes. My other three statements are entirely compatible with one another.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

There are no selection processes that overcome the affect of multiple selection conditions slowing evolution.

Let's see your math, Alan. The constant whine is really boring.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but if the above quote is true, then convergence of Rseq to Rfreq seems to be a fundamental property of DNA. (y/n)

I believe so, yes. In fact, it is a fundamental property of any information system that "evolves" a sequence in which certain subsequences are distinguished from all other subsequences by some sort of pattern matching.

If yes, then it's pretty damn important, because it suggests that ev needs a more realistic selection algorithm (which is what I've been arguing all along).

Why do you say this?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are no selection processes that overcome the affect of multiple selection conditions slowing evolution.

As Mercutio and others have tried to tell you, this statement assumes that there is a predetermined goal toward which evolution is heading. Only then does the concept of the "speed of evolution" make any sense. Ev has a predetermined goal. Real life does not.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

I understand functional notation. I also have some training and experience is solving multidimensional nonlinear functional equations. This is why when you presented the link to Wikipedia fitness landscapes, I immediately recognized the relationship and significance to the results from ev.

But you did not. You mangled the article into complete gibberish. You didn't understand the first thing about it. You cited an article saying that evolutionary algorithms were "particularly successful" as proof that they weren't; you claimed they would have difficulty coping with the Travelling Salesman Problem if it only had three routes, when they are routinely applied to billions and trillions of routes; your stupid mistake was pointed out by a mathematician with experience of using evolutionary algorithms ... and now ...

And now you produce this windy boasting about how you "immediately recognized the significance" of the article --- as proof of your mathematical acumen?

Whom do you hope to fool?

---

P.S: I suspect the whimpering little coward has me on ignore. If anyone would like to quote this post, feel free.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And you sound like a man with no mathematical training trying to argue about the mathematics of mutation and selection. This is not very interesting to observe but it seems to be the only effective debating tactic evolutionists have, that is boring me to death.

The standard example of chutzpah is the man who, having murdered both his parents, asks for clemency from the court on the grounds that he is an orphan; but I think we have a new contender.

 

[joobz]

But you did not. You mangled the article into complete gibberish. You didn't understand the first thing about it. You cited an article saying that evolutionary algorithms were "particularly successful" as proof that they weren't; you claimed they would have difficulty coping with the Travelling Salesman Problem if it only had three routes, when they are routinely applied to billions and trillions of routes; your stupid mistake was pointed out by a mathematician with experience of using evolutionary algorithms ... and now ...

And now you produce this windy boasting about how you "immediately recognized the significance" of the article --- as proof of your mathematical acumen?

Whom do you hope to fool?

---

P.S: I suspect the whimpering little coward has me on ignore. If anyone would like to quote this post, feel free.

I do not believe he has you on ignore, but i'll quote this regardless.

I enjoy the fact that he keeps feeling the need to remind us of his "mathematical competence" of his "engineering competence" and his "thermodynamic competence". It's almost as though he thinks we don't believe his abilities?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Hey Paul, did Dr Schneider make an accident when he published this in his peer reviewed publication about ev?

As he said, if Ev's rate is realistic, then certain consequences follow. Note that the final sentence you quoted suggests the rate is not realistic.

That’s a bit of an understatement. So what is Ev’s realistic rate of information acquisition?

Paul, I’m wondering how far you are going to back pedal on ev? Have you turn the seat around on your bicycle yet?

I must have missed the part where I said that Ev represents a realistic simulation of the complete evolutionary landscape.

It’s not what you haven’t said about ev that causes you problems in this debate, it is what you have said. I think Dr Schneider has the same problem but even more extreme than you have. If Dr Schneider ever discusses his program publicly again, how is he going to address his numerous claims that ev simulates reality? I happen to think it does and it shows why the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. I believe Dr Schneider did his computation properly, you programmed the online version properly but you completely misinterpreted your limited investigation of the behavior of the model.

So 2 selection pressures are sufficient to slow down evolution profoundly?

No, I didn't say that. What I said was there is nothing magic about three or more pressures, even in your bizarre world of competing selection pressures.

Reality happens to be bizarre for evolutionists because you live in a world of misinterpretations. Your own computer model shows that Dr Schneider’s 2 (or 3) selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. This is an obvious finding when you consider what happens with any type of data sorting or optimization problem. Well, in your world of misinterpretation this is going to seem bizarre.

Paul, you are the expert at moving goalposts. Let’s summarize what you have said about ev, ev started out representing reality, then it became a model of a small part of the evolutionary landscape, then it became a stylized model of mutation and selection and now you can guarantee it makes no prediction about the rate of real world evolution, except possibly by accident.

Oh, it does represent reality, exactly as much as required to show that information can evolve in a world with basic evolutionary processes. My other three statements are entirely compatible with one another.

And here again are the goalposts Paul, the rate which information evolves by mutation and selection is profoundly slow as shown by your ev model, too slow to support the theory of evolution. And why is this rate of at which information evolves so slow? It is because the multiple selection processes interfere with the acquisition of information.

There are no selection processes that overcome the affect of multiple selection conditions slowing evolution.

Let's see your math, Alan. The constant whine is really boring.

Hey, didn’t I tell you about the evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection. It was written by a really smart guy at the National Cancer Institute and the online version of the model was written by a moderator on this forum. Do you want to hear more about the model?

I was really hoping my constant whine was annoying you. Just think of my whine as like the screeching of chalk on a chalk board. Microsoft needs to put that sound effect in Powerpoint, if for nothing else to keep evolutionists awake in their biology lectures.

There are no selection processes that overcome the affect of multiple selection conditions slowing evolution.

As Mercutio and others have tried to tell you, this statement assumes that there is a predetermined goal toward which evolution is heading. Only then does the concept of the "speed of evolution" make any sense. Ev has a predetermined goal. Real life does not.

Now I understand your logic, if you have a predetermined goal, evolution goes profoundly slow, if you have no goal at all, it goes faster. Wow! How could anyone doubt this kind of logic?

You kids have a good weekend; try not to get subjected to too many selection pressures.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now I understand your logic...

You think? Would you care to wager a little money on that proposition?

 

[joobz]

You kids have a good weekend;

Thank you.

When you get back, remember to answer the following questions.
Why doesn't magnitude matter in modeling?
How come only point mutations matter?
Why does running a simulation = doing maths?
What is magical about 3 selection pressures?
Which selection pressure posed by Delphi would take less time?
Why do the yeast strains in the paper I posted develop resistance to the multiple selection pressures when you claim it would take too long to occur?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman, you're busted. The Ev model is not peer-reviewed as a model of the speed of evolution. Further repetition of your claim, that it is, constitutes willful intent to deceive. It fascinates me that deception is proven to be an integral strategy in creationists' playbooks (e.g. Dover trial testimony). It just doesn't seem very Christian.

He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all. - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

 

[delphi_ote]

Your f(x)=y, where x is a vector in your multidimensional functional equation describing a fitness landscape. In this case, the vector x defines points on the surface of the fitness landscape and the selection pressures, x1, x2, x3,… to the number of selection pressures define a direction for the walk on the fitness landscape. y is the fitness of the creature to reproduce. The optimum solution to this equation represents a value y which gives optimum reproduction.

No no no no no no no no! Slow down. We're already way off the tracks.

Fitness only has meaning with respect to a specific genotype. To make this computation even close to reality, x must be a variable length string of characters from an alphabet (like a DNA sequence.) Multiple independent selection pressures could be represented as multiple functions on the genotype, which could then combined to form the organism's overall fitness. The total fitness represents that genotype's ability to produce offspring in a particular enviornment.

Unless we're talking about a very trivial fitness function on trivial genomes, describing the surface of a fitness landscape is very difficult. Visualizing it in any meaningful way is almost impossible, as the "distance" between points is proportional to the probability of mutations between two genotypes.

Unless you are willing to be patient and read carefully without making assumptions, this thread is going to keep repeating itself.

P.S. If anyone reading this has evolutionary algorithms and kernel methods experience, do you think there's a hint of an idea in that next to last paragraph? If so, PM me!