A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[Mercutio]

No. One can ask why there is something rather than nothing even if there is no "reason".

Depending, of course, on which "why" you are after. "Why" has many uses; "why do things change?" can mean "by what mechanism?" or "for what purpose?" Answering one does not answer the other.

If "there is no 'reason'", then of course one can ask why, but one will never get an answer, for that particular definition of "why". It is a pointless question. Which was Paul's point.

 

[CFLarsen]

Please try and attempt to focus on the issue rather than personalities.

You hypocrite. If anyone has ignored the issues and focused on personalities, it is you.

If you're building buildings, wouldn't it make sense to use similar blueprints?

Do we build the same way today as the Ancient Egyptians did?

No. Because things evolve.

A designer might be god(s) or aliens, and maybe some other choices.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or fairies.

The fact that there is waste, pain, etc... why do you believe such things would be evidence against a designer? Take any design... one can always find improvements in it.

So, why believe in an intelligent designer? If design isn't intelligent?

And extra-drippy ice-cream cones, don't forget those!

Cuz we all gotta eat? A better question is why sentience in the first place?

That's a very good question, T'ai. What do you think the answer is?

Complexity is a human term that is relative to intelligence.

It is? How do you figure that?

Birds are generally not very intelligent, yet they have wings, which are very complex. I don't see wings on humans.

But let's look at you're belief system: ccording to you, the orgin of the universe is the simplest thing ever (I'm thinking it is pretty complex myself). Fine. It should be a piece of cake for you to explain, in detail, not in the form of a creative short story, the orgin.

Ah, yes, the old Creationist Argument: If we can't explain everything that ever happened, all we have is faith (and, therefore, are no better than blind believers).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is it an intelligently designed program?

I like to think so. Why? Are you rejecting every simulation of natural processes just on principle?

No. One can ask why there is something rather than nothing even if there is no "reason".

Not according to my dictionary:

why : for what cause, reason, or purpose

If there is no cause, reason, or purpose, then it is misleading to ask for the cause, reason, or purpose.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

A better question is why sentience in the first place?

Must there be a "why"?

Thank you for illustrating my previous point. In this case, one version of "why" would ask what the mechanism might be which led to sentience. This question is reasonable... Another version of "why" would ask what the purpose of sentience is in the universe--the ultimate reason for reason, if you will. This question only makes sense if there is a reason; if there is no plan, no design, there is no reason, no "why" of this sort to ask about. The very question presupposes a designer. As Paul suggested, to ask this question is to have already decided upon your answer; the better question is to ask whether there is reason to ask the question.

 

[kleinman]

Joobz isn't one to blow his own horn, but I think what he does is pretty cool so I'll blow it for him. Joobz is a Ph.D. professor working in organic and biochem. What are your credentials? What courses in organic and biochemistry have you taken? Knowing this would help me to evaluate your claims.

I have a Phd in mechanical engineering, major field was thermodynamics, minor field dynamics, Phd thesis was on mathematical modeling of a biological system, I hold an active state license as an engineer. I have also taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in thermodynamics and worked in the aerospace industry. However, I was impulsive when I was younger, instead of staying in engineering, I got an urge to go to medical school, which I did and I am now a licensed practicing physician but I still employ my engineering skills to medicine.

It doesn’t surprise me that joobz doesn’t want to claim these credentials and abiogenesis in the same post.

You are proposing a series of chemical reactions that are extremely difficult in the controlled environment of a laboratory. You now want these chemical reactions to occur randomly in an uncontrolled environment in something you call a soup. I don’t have to ask very many questions before you would say “I don’t know”.

You're just claiming a God-of-the-gaps victory. Biologists are not afraid to say "we don't know, but we're working on it". What you're trying to do is look for gaps in scientific knowledge, imply that the unknown is unknowable, and say "Goddidit!" Physicists are yet baffled by the mechanism of gravity. Do you think they will never find a functional, testable theory of gravity? Or should we assume that God does gravity as well?

Yes

I am not posting here to try to prove ID, I am doing the much easier task of disproving the theory of evolution.

So what do you propose to replace the theory of evolution with? A 6000 year old Earth? Is it turtles all the way down?

You could start with the truth.

The science behind these techniques is called pattern recognition. If you want to learn about these techniques, google the terms archeology & “pattern recognition” or seti & “pattern recognition”. You can even involve yourself in the SETI@home project and analyze some radio signals yourself for signs of intelligence.

I fail to see what SETI and pattern recognition have to do with your claim to be able to prove abiogenesis impossible. Please explain.

I wasn’t using pattern recognition as an argument abiogenesis. My arguments against abiogenesis are based on the impossibility of the chemical reactions required.

Foster Zygote, you should reconsider your name, there are a lot of people out there who want to kill zygotes.

I’d love to hear an explanation from an evolutionist with rather in depth knowledge of organic and biochemistry why some bacteria use d-amino acids.

I was purely challenging your "only l-lactic acid" presumption. I can't answer where d-amino acids were being used and when it started.

It was an only L-amino acid presumption but fair enough. It only makes abiogenesis seem stranger when most polypeptides use L-amino acids yet there are still a few R-amino acids around. There are other instances when R-amino acids can be found in living things (humans included). For example, the L-aspartate in the dentine of teeth spontaneously racemizes at about 0.1% per year. The amount of R-aspartate in a tooth can be used to estimate the age of the tooth. The fact the stereoisomers will spontaneously racemize is another argument against abiogenesis. Even if you can somehow manage to nonezymatically generate a string of L-amino acids, that string will rapidly racemize denaturing the protein. Proteins will not sit around for billions of years waiting for just the right mixture to start life. You have to get a huge number of short lived complex molecules in the same location at the same time to get your first life form. This is irrational thinking Professor joobz, not suitable for a Phd in this field.

While you are at it, why don’t you explain what you mean by these reactions occurred in a cooperative manner.

Envision a system of millions of forming and destructive chemical reactions. Now, envision that intermediates of there reactions associate through non-covalent means and that this complex becomes protected against the destructive reactive pathway, perhaps by a reversible precipitation. These new complexes result in a localized increased of new chemical species. These chemical species then progress in a new series of reaction... that is what I mean through cooperative means. I acknowledge this is complete speculation, but well within the range of chemical possibility. As long as there was enough free energy for these reaction to occur.

Consider combustion chemistry. It's an oxidative process which predominately oxidizes fuels into smaller MW products, CO and CO2. Yet, larger mw products can and typically do form during this process due to the excess energy present. And during the mapping of it's pathways, intermediates have been shown to combine to form new compounds. Granted these are transient and thermodynamically unstable, but highlight the shear complexity of something as benignly simple as burning. If you wish to know more, look into Phil Westmoreland and combustion.

With regard to your first paragraph, do you really believe this?

With regard to your second paragraph, is it the excess energy present which form the larger mw products or is combustion in an oxygen lean environment that cause the formation of the larger mw products?

I'm saying no such thing. There can certainly be a research program to find the direct evidence for intelligent design, just as biologists are finding direct evidence for evolution. Is there such a research program?

Of course there is no such research program, and Kleinman must know that. There is no substance in the ID organizations.

No research, no experimentation, no observation, no testing. Nothing.

Certainly there are research programs for ID, they just aren’t funded by taxpayers. Now are you going to claim that the theory of evolution is true because it is taxpayer funded?

. . . Paul, there are research programs to identify intelligent design.

Really?

Please name some.
One, even.

How about my research program on evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published computer model on evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. If we ever get beyond these preliminary discussions, we can examine what his mathematical model shows and you blogicidal maniacs can get a chance to say how ignorant I am about your theory.

I'm saying the obvious; that you're attempting to argue against intelligent design by employing a program that was intelligently designed.

I'm not using Ev as an argument against intelligent design. I'm using it as an argument in support of evolution. The fact that it is a computer program has nothing to do with whether it demonstrates increase in information by mutation and selection.

Paul, you wouldn’t want to comment on the rate of increase in information by mutation and selection that ev shows?

So quit looking for some design flaw that disproves ID, and start using the actual argument, ID is based on the premise of irreducible complexity and IR has been thoroughly refuted.

There you have it, my friends. Next argument for ID, please.

Skeptigirl, Paul usually stamps his foot when he makes these types of arguments. Since you brought up irreducible complexity, perhaps you would tell us what helicase and gyrase were making before the DNA replicase system self assembled. Then you can tell us how helicase and gyrase were made without DNA. Professor joozb has already suggested prions maybe you have a better idea.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I like to think so. Why? Are you rejecting every simulation of natural processes just on principle?

I'm pointing out the fact that your arguments for evolution are based on things that are intelligently designed. Isn't that a little odd?

If there is no cause, reason, or purpose, then it is misleading to ask for the cause, reason, or purpose.

That is false. It is inquiry, science, and curiousity to explore orgins.

But to think it is misleading, you must believe in causation... except for the orgin of the universe and believe in the laws of physics, except for the orgin of the universe. MAgic just happened.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm pointing out the fact that your arguments for evolution are based on things that are intelligently designed. Isn't that a little odd?

I don't see why. Perhaps if it was the only argument for evolution, but it is simply a demonstration that the fundamental "forces" in evolution can produce information.

That is false. It is inquiry, science, and curiousity to explore orgins.

But to think it is misleading, you must believe in causation... except for the orgin of the universe and believe in the laws of physics, except for the orgin of the universe. MAgic just happened.

Only when there is an origin. In the case we are discussing, it is not clear whether there is an origin. Just because you want to have one, that doesn't mean your question is meaningful. And I'm perfectly happy to believe there are ongoing processes that are not caused. Quantum background noise, for example?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Skeptigirl, Paul usually stamps his foot when he makes these types of arguments. Since you brought up irreducible complexity, perhaps you would tell us what helicase and gyrase were making before the DNA replicase system self assembled.

You don't seem to understand. Just because we might not be able to sketch the evolution of some particular biological function does not imply that it is IC. In order to show that something is IC, you have to produce a mathematical proof that it could not possibly have evolved. Otherwise you're just making an assumption about a gap in knowledge.

This is why Dembski tried to produce a mathematical proof about the flagellum. He failed, but at least he tried.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Skeptigirl, Paul usually stamps his foot when he makes these types of arguments. Since you brought up irreducible complexity, perhaps you would tell us what helicase and gyrase were making before the DNA replicase system self assembled.

You don't seem to understand. Just because we might not be able to sketch the evolution of some particular biological function does not imply that it is IC. In order to show that something is IC, you have to produce a mathematical proof that it could not possibly have evolved. Otherwise you're just making an assumption about a gap in knowledge. This is why Dembski tried to produce a mathematical proof about the flagellum. He failed, but at least he tried.

The only reason I bring up IC in this discussion is the Dr Schneider says that the results of ev refute this hypothesis. I bring up the example of the DNA replicase system and helicase and gyrase only because I am an annoying creationist. What this example illustrates is as Foster Zygote calls it the “God-of-the-gaps”.

Why you keep bringing up Dembski is beyond me. I haven’t read his work so I can’t comment on what he is trying to prove. I have read Dr Schneider’s work and studied his computer model. I am willing to comment on this. Dr Schneider’s ev model shows that punctuated equilibrium is impossible and macroevolution is impossible when you use realistic parameters.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am willing to comment on this. Dr Schneider’s ev model shows that punctuated equilibrium is impossible and macroevolution is impossible when you use realistic parameters.

Could you list the realistic parameters in real evolution? That is, could you give us an exhaustive list of the parameters controlling evolution, how they relate to Ev's parameters, and what values you're using to determine that the undefined terms macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium are impossible?

~~ Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

I have a Phd in mechanical engineering, major field was thermodynamics, minor field dynamics, Phd thesis was on mathematical modeling of a biological system, I hold an active state license as an engineer. I have also taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in thermodynamics and worked in the aerospace industry. However, I was impulsive when I was younger, instead of staying in engineering, I got an urge to go to medical school, which I did and I am now a licensed practicing physician but I still employ my engineering skills to medicine.

I'm not belittling engineering (my wife is a materials engineer), but I fail to see how being a mechanical engineer and a practicing physician qualify you as an expert in biochemistry. Thus I am inclined to grant much greater weight to the authority of biochemists like Joobz than to you. I'm also inclined to consider your apparent bias in the matter. Most scientists form an hypothesis then conduct experiments to find an answer. You appear to be going backward: You have an answer (evolution is false and Goddidit) and you are working back to the question.

It doesn’t surprise me that joobz doesn’t want to claim these credentials and abiogenesis in the same post.

Has Joobz actually indicated this? Or are you assuming something favorable to your position?

You're just claiming a God-of-the-gaps victory. Biologists are not afraid to say "we don't know, but we're working on it". What you're trying to do is look for gaps in scientific knowledge, imply that the unknown is unknowable, and say "Goddidit!" Physicists are yet baffled by the mechanism of gravity. Do you think they will never find a functional, testable theory of gravity? Or should we assume that God does gravity as well?

Yes

Really? What evidence do you have that science has found all there is to find and that it is now safe to squeeze God into the remaining gaps without fear that they will shrink further?

You could start with the truth.

You mean that the theory of evolution by natural selection is by far the best explanation for biodiversity that we have, that everything we've learned since Darwin has reinforced that theory, that there are still gaps in scientific knowledge but we should wait until we have answers for those questions rather than imposing the answers we desire?

What is the truth as you see it?

I wasn’t using pattern recognition as an argument abiogenesis. My arguments against abiogenesis are based on the impossibility of the chemical reactions required.

So what are you going to spend that Nobel Prize money on?

Foster Zygote, you should reconsider your name, there are a lot of people out there who want to kill zygotes.

Yeah, then I'll take down the Stars And Stripes from the front of my house because there are a lot of people out there who want to kill Americans.

 

[Iamme]

As has been said, a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. My answer to your question is that I personally see no other purpose. If there is another purpose, I can find absolutely no evidence that such exists or what that purpose might be. Without further information, I believe the wisest course is to act on the information available and keep an eye out for any new data that might come in.



I see absolutely no logic in jumping from the statement that there might be a purpose to the conclusion that only God could have been responsible for such a purpose. As John Glover in the new Twilight Zone episode "A Small Talent for War" indicated, perhaps we were bred by aliens to be a race of soldiers. Your leap of faith from "purpose" to "God" is unwarranted.

................................................

I have never learned how to do this: Can anyone tell me how to bring up someone else's quote, with their reply...so that when I respond the next time, both are in gray?

........................................

Loss Leaders post is in reply to one of my posts and I will respond.

You, Loss Leader, see no purpose? Well, I won't argue with you. Currently I have no definitive proof of 'purpose', but I have some gut-inkling that it is there, but I have to find it, just like scientists try to show they have found the missing link. But I also believe in keeping my mind open to new data.

You say in your last paragraph that even if there were 'purpose', that that would not necessarily mean that God caused the purpose. Hmmm. I have to argure with that. To have purpose, I can't see how you can argue that a 'mind' is not behind it. But at the same time, I can understand how one can think that what APPEARS to be prurpose is not purpose at all, but is occuring anyway because of survival and mutation, and that there is a chance there is no 'purpose'. Rather, it just DOES this. I don't think you can argue that because it does it, that that is the same as it having a 'purpose' to do it. To have purpose requires something to have an 'intent', I do believe. And only some kind of brain can have an intent.

Every day, I ponder if everything complex simply came from the simple, because that is the only possible way things could have gone. So, to try to prove otherwise, one must try to show substantilal proof that this couldn't have happened without devine intervention. But even if I were to say that the odds are really against it occuring... that first there would be a universe, then a star, then have a planet develop, then have the planet get caught up by the star, then to have the planet at just the right distance (to the point that even the eclipse is perfect), and for the planet to be 'active' and contain volcanoes that release life-building ingredients from down in it's bowels, and for the planet to contain water, and for the planet to have raised land masses, and for the planet to have underground water, and for the planet to have a rain cycle, and for the planet to have rivers, and for the planet to have all the ingredients to start life, and for the earth to have all the stuff that not only evolves a sophisticated creature (us) for surviving, and just so happens to be that we are the only such creature, and the planet happens by good fortune to have all the ingredieints so that the sophisticated creature can have pleasure and have less work to do because of cars, jets, eyeglasses, fancy jewelry/watches, nightclubs/drinks, vacatiion spots...(well, you've all read my lists of splendor before....)...that even to many of you (posters), such great odds of any of this occuring still is not proof enough, of some creator, because.... if there are trillions upon trillions of interactions going on in the universe and on our earth, every second, that perhaps all the things I think are marvelous had to occur simply because they had to because they would not have gone the direction of anhialation, if what started all this was very simple. Meaning... since the forces starting with the simple were dynamic, where everything that was subsequently 'built' (up) from the preceedingly simple, which then in turn became more complex, etc., that complexity would have had to arise..the way it has.

Currently I have no answer, but I try to think of more stuff, that may be overlooked, every day. Personally, I believe it is all too marvelous to just have occured. And I believe there is some full-circle tie-in between some God force effect and our own 'being', that somehow there was a God that was, and we are not just created by this God, but are becoming this God, because we are part of this God, ourselves, all in one, by going full circle. One day we ARE (if we don't anhialate ourselves first) will regrow limbs, teeth, hair, regenerate lost eyesight, cure disease, perhaps cure dying by regenerating new clone-life within our own body that will not be rejected, so that our brain will go on and never recognize when part of us dies and when the replacemnt part takes over, without us having to to reproduce in order to recreate us humans. From my current knowldedge of things, and guessing at reasonable possibilities, based on current knowledge in medical and science, I believe that this is going to be possible. And if it is...then we would have to say we have became as Gods. And if we ever lay claim to this, yet we knew that our original roots were simple in nature...then what would we call the force that enabled us to become Gods unless there was a God to begin with that allowed this full-circle event to occur?

The other day I was pondering what forces, including selection for survival and also mutation, that could have created a hard skeleton, with joints, to get inside of a soft pliable creature (fish, birds, reptiles, mammals). I think the argument to this goes that it started as cartlidge (think shark) and somehow got harder or something. But even if that were true, then what would make a creature develop a joint in the bone? Even if a simple joint came along, it would have had to immediately jumped out to becoming a joint, with no intermediary step. What could be the intermediary step between just a piece of cartlidge or bone, that had no hinges, to one that developed them?

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - Certainly there are research programs for ID, they just aren’t funded by taxpayers. Now are you going to claim that the theory of evolution is true because it is taxpayer funded?

2 - How about my research program on evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published computer model on evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. If we ever get beyond these preliminary discussions, we can examine what his mathematical model shows and you blogicidal maniacs can get a chance to say how ignorant I am about your theory.

1 - Like I said, present the information. Your vague claims mean nothing.

2 - You have a research program on some other guy's computer model?
How nice for you. Too bad this is completely irrelevant.
A model is a method of visualizing data or processes, just like a chart or a table - an aid to understanding or discussion. Nothing more.

 

[Iamme]

Must there be a "why"?

Thank you for illustrating my previous point. In this case, one version of "why" would ask what the mechanism might be which led to sentience. This question is reasonable... Another version of "why" would ask what the purpose of sentience is in the universe--the ultimate reason for reason, if you will. This question only makes sense if there is a reason; if there is no plan, no design, there is no reason, no "why" of this sort to ask about. The very question presupposes a designer. As Paul suggested, to ask this question is to have already decided upon your answer; the better question is to ask whether there is reason to ask the question.

And I think there is. Our reasons are based on other things that we observe happen. We observe that watches or buildings don't make thmeselves. But we DO observe that every single thing, which includes farmers planting organic seeds, are evidence that it took something else (a mind with a purpose) to create something else into the design for which it was sowed or created. (Yes, seeds would grow plants on their own, but not in the obviously structured rows how they are when done so by a mind with a purpose)

But in general, not counting farmers planting crops by rows,...It is only with the biological world, that we have scrapped the need for the designer- rule, and have considered and actually accepted the notion that biological forces are dynamic and can and do create themselves better than their predecessors. It's possible this theory is correct, because nobody to date has been able to give conclusive (religioious) evidence to the contrary. But my point is in answering the question to show why man has the reason to ask the question, as you so stated.

 

[Iamme]

..., you have to produce a mathematical proof that it could not possibly have evolved. Otherwise you're just making an assumption about a gap in knowledge.

And I could require of someone that they give mathematical proof that ghosts could not have possibly...made the noise in the house, gave of an apparition of themselves, caused furnishings to rearrange themselves, to make a room feel cold, to give off a presence that ghost experts say show the presence of a ghost, etc.

Silly? No evidence of ghosts?... like that for evolution (without there even being a creator that guided the evolution)?. Why would the ghost analogy be silly in light of the fact that many witnesses are out there who claim to have seen and heard ghosts?

Please do not try to sell us on that oft used "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In light of the fact there are thousands of sane, rational witnesses world wide to ghosts, you cannot say the claim is any more extraordinary than claiming things made themselves complex by themselves with no superior mind having a hand in it. *I* could actually say to you that it is the claim of a mindless evolution that is the more extraordinary.

 

[kleinman]

I am willing to comment on this. Dr Schneider’s ev model shows that punctuated equilibrium is impossible and macroevolution is impossible when you use realistic parameters.

Could you list the realistic parameters in real evolution? That is, could you give us an exhaustive list of the parameters controlling evolution, how they relate to Ev's parameters, and what values you're using to determine that the undefined terms macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium are impossible?

Start with mutation rates of 10^-4 to 10^-12 for prokaryotes with an average of about 10^-6, not the 4*10^-3 value that Dr Schneider used in his single published case. The mutation rate affects the rate of convergence approximately on a linear basis, however when mutation rates get too high, ev will not converge. It happens that the optimum value for the mutation rate is near the value Dr Schneider used in his published case. Then you can go on to a minimum genome length for a free living organism of about 500,000 bases, not the 256 bases that Dr Schneider used. The effect of genome length on the rate of convergence is at least proportional to the genome length to the second power. Since the largest genome used in ev has only been 100,000 bases, this proportionality may demonstrate an even high power. Population values can be huge, easily over 10^10 for bacterial colonies, however your own data shows that the effects of population on the rate of convergence decreases rapidly. For the evolution of human populations you would have much smaller populations. Gould states in his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium that evolution occurs in small isolated sub-populations in a short period of time, this is nonsense according to the results from ev. Paul, your own estimate of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome in 200,000,000 generations strongly argues against point mutations and natural selection as the mechanism for macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium. I prefer the use of the word impossible to describe this.

I have a Phd in mechanical engineering, major field was thermodynamics, minor field dynamics, Phd thesis was on mathematical modeling of a biological system, I hold an active state license as an engineer. I have also taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in thermodynamics and worked in the aerospace industry. However, I was impulsive when I was younger, instead of staying in engineering, I got an urge to go to medical school, which I did and I am now a licensed practicing physician but I still employ my engineering skills to medicine.

I'm not belittling engineering (my wife is a materials engineer), but I fail to see how being a mechanical engineer and a practicing physician qualify you as an expert in biochemistry. Thus I am inclined to grant much greater weight to the authority of biochemists like Joobz than to you. I'm also inclined to consider your apparent bias in the matter. Most scientists form an hypothesis then conduct experiments to find an answer. You appear to be going backward: You have an answer (evolution is false and Goddidit) and you are working back to the question.

Dr Schneider used information theory to develop his computer model. Information theory is exactly analogous to the second law of thermodynamics. If fact Shannon’s definition for information is mathematically equal to the negative of entropy. I am sure that Dr Schneider does not have a good understanding of thermodynamics. He doesn’t even understand the difference between intensive and extensive variables, a basic concept you learn in an introductory thermodynamics course. You can see this in the way he has written the second law of thermodynamics on his web site. I asked him about this and he didn’t understand my question. I also have years of experience in mathematical modeling using computers and how to do parametric studies with these models. It is true that I only took a one year course in organic chemistry and a one year course in biochemistry as well as physiology, histology, anatomy, pathology and a variety of other courses that are required for the practice of medicine. I don’t claim to be either an organic or biochemist but I do know enough about these subjects to draw a learned opinion about what Dr Schneider has postulated. I do know what a realistic mutation rate is and what a realistic genome length is.

I did not go about this backward. I have always been skeptical of the theory of evolution but when Dr Schneider asked me to look at his computer model of random point mutations and natural selection, I did what my engineering training led me to do. I took Dr Schneider’s computer model and started doing a systematic parametric study. It quickly became apparent that Dr Schneider had used his single published case to draw a completely unrealistic conclusion. When realistic parameters are used in his model, it shows that both punctuated equilibrium and macroevolution are mathematically impossible. You simply do not have enough time to accumulate the correct mutations to accomplish the evolution.

Really? What evidence do you have that science has found all there is to find and that it is now safe to squeeze God into the remaining gaps without fear that they will shrink further?

You put much more faith in science than I do.

You could start with the truth.

You mean that the theory of evolution by natural selection is by far the best explanation for biodiversity that we have, that everything we've learned since Darwin has reinforced that theory, that there are still gaps in scientific knowledge but we should wait until we have answers for those questions rather than imposing the answers we desire?
What is the truth as you see it?

There are elements of truth in the theory of evolution. Mendelian genetics is part of the truthful portion of entire theory. Biodiversity by natural selection such as the observations that Darwin made about finch beaks I don’t argue with. Where the theory of evolution enters the fantasy world is when you try to extrapolate this biodiversity to the evolution of reptiles to birds or even humans from a primate ancestor. You simply have no mechanism that can accomplish the number of genetic changes in the time available.

Abiogenesis should never be taken seriously by anyone who has ever taken a organic chemistry lab class where you have to bind a side group to a particular site on a toluene molecule. Attaching an aglycone to the number 1 position of D-ribose or D-2-deoxyribose nonezymatically makes the previous lab exercise seem trivial.

Foster Zygote, you should reconsider your name, there are a lot of people out there who want to kill zygotes.

Yeah, then I'll take down the Stars And Stripes from the front of my house because there are a lot of people out there who want to kill Americans.

An American and a zygote, any more risk factors and you will only be able to by life insurance form Lloyd’s of London.

 

[kleinman]

1 - Certainly there are research programs for ID, they just aren’t funded by taxpayers. Now are you going to claim that the theory of evolution is true because it is taxpayer funded?
2 - How about my research program on evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider’s peer reviewed and published computer model on evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. If we ever get beyond these preliminary discussions, we can examine what his mathematical model shows and you blogicidal maniacs can get a chance to say how ignorant I am about your theory.

1 - Like I said, present the information. Your vague claims mean nothing.
2 - You have a research program on some other guy's computer model?
How nice for you. Too bad this is completely irrelevant.
A model is a method of visualizing data or processes, just like a chart or a table - an aid to understanding or discussion. Nothing more.

1, This is not a trivial explanation that can be done with one line. Be patient and you will understand the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection puts your theory of evolution in.
2. Oh no fishbob, I have my own computer and I have discovered it is an extremely effective tool to annoy evolutionists. Your statement that computer models are only a method of visualizing data or processes and nothing more show a lack of understanding how extensively these tools are used for making decisions. Next time you step on the brakes in your car, the abs system has a computer algorithm that decides how much braking to be applied to each wheel. When you make a telephone call, a computer algorithm decides the switching sequence, when you post on this web site a computer algorithm is handling the book keeping for the chore. You can’t diminish the results from Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection with your inaccurate slogans.

 

[articulett]

Lofty goal...
Are you in the running for a Nobel Prize, or having delusions of grandeur?

Indeed. Doesn't he know that pointing out things not yet understood doesn't disprove a theory (with increasing mounds of evidence of absolutely unparalleled support, I might aid.) We don't have to know everything about gravity to say gravity is a fact. And we don't have to know everything about atoms to say atomism is a fact. Disproving evolution would require a single example of a life form that must have come about without evolution (or rabbits in the pre-Cambian per Goulds (?) example. Or even an unmistakable god or alien coming down and showing that how life can be "poofed" into existence. Darwin never saw a Chromosome...never saw DNA...he could only describe what he observed. We live in a time where we can see his theory in utterly illustrated in amazing and unmistakable detail...and he was more right than even he could have guessed.

 

[fishbob]

1, This is not a trivial explanation that can be done with one line. Be patient and you will understand the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider’s model of random point mutations and natural selection puts your theory of evolution in.
2. Oh no fishbob, I have my own computer and I have discovered it is an extremely effective tool to annoy evolutionists. Your statement that computer models are only a method of visualizing data or processes and nothing more show a lack of understanding how extensively these tools are used for making decisions. Next time you step on the brakes in your car, the abs system has a computer algorithm that decides how much braking to be applied to each wheel. When you make a telephone call, a computer algorithm decides the switching sequence, when you post on this web site a computer algorithm is handling the book keeping for the chore. You can’t diminish the results from Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection with your inaccurate slogans.

1 - Like I said, present the information. Your vague claims still mean nothing.
2 - Why would you misrepresent that a computerized model and a computerized control system are equivalent? My past experiences with creationists lead me to characterize this type of tactic as dishonest. Is there any reason I should view this particular example any differently?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, your own estimate of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome in 200,000,000 generations strongly argues against point mutations and natural selection as the mechanism for macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium. I prefer the use of the word impossible to describe this.

Again, what is the problem with 200,000,000 generations? At one per day, that's a measly 548,000 years. (Noting again that I don't know how you define macroevolution or punctuated equilibrium.

~~ Paul