Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?

Hmm, so by this logic if I construct a program called, "Bi" everything it does must accurately reflect god.

Have you heard of my new program 'Bi' which mathematically disproves god? There is no mathematics for your theory of god and I have proved the being impossible with Bi.
 
Kleinman said:
Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?
They do not stand for "evolution of DNA/RNA."

An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.
If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!

~~ Paul
Absolutely. Now, if the gene emerged from some other evolution, genes can't be the basis for all evolution, can they?
And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?

Just remember, Logick r00lZ!
 
Why don’t you describe to us how this selective process that would make these chemical structures function?
I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but you know what a "prion" is, right?

Prions have no problem reproducing themselves to the extreme detriment of other molecules with which the prion comes in contact.

So, if a prion were to receive a subatomic particle hit which caused a small change to the prion's chemical structure, and that change just happened to make the prion even more capable of detrimental reproduction, wouldn't that be a "selective advantage," to a non-life form?

And, if the above is possible, then why is a similar change any less possible for some other chemical structure?

The key to me seems to be the point where a molecule "A" can effect molecular changes in other molecules, which cause those molecules to resemble the "A" molecule. As soon as this happens, by whatever mechanism, then the "A" molecule's successors can benefit from a mutation -- and thus selection is born.
 
Hewitt said:
Absolutely. Now, if the gene emerged from some other evolution, genes can't be the basis for all evolution, can they?
And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?
Common to the evolution of the gene and to random mutation and natural selection? I'm not sure what that means when the former is a product of the latter.

Chemistry?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but you know what a "prion" is, right?

Prions have no problem reproducing themselves to the extreme detriment of other molecules with which the prion comes in contact.

So, if a prion were to receive a subatomic particle hit which caused a small change to the prion's chemical structure, and that change just happened to make the prion even more capable of detrimental reproduction, wouldn't that be a "selective advantage," to a non-life form?

And, if the above is possible, then why is a similar change any less possible for some other chemical structure?

The key to me seems to be the point where a molecule "A" can effect molecular changes in other molecules, which cause those molecules to resemble the "A" molecule. As soon as this happens, by whatever mechanism, then the "A" molecule's successors can benefit from a mutation -- and thus selection is born.

I know a bit about viruses but I have not gone into prions in any detail so I am willing to be corrected about them. I believe they are things like the infectious agent of scrapie, kuru, BSE or new variant CJD. I am not sure they qualify as replicating agents in their own right.

I belive they are coded on the genome of the organism and the coded protien can exist in two forms, say A and B. B catlyses the conversion of A into B so that the conversion is autocatalytic. This means that the rate at which B is produced is exponential and many of its other properties also mimic those of a true organism, in the sense of having a separate genome. For example, if you take protein B and inject it into another host, it proceeds to "infect" the host - the concentration of B rises exponentially from the injected level.

Nonetheless, it is different in that the protein is coded on the host and also in the sense that there is no immune response, the protein being recognized as self by the immune system - which is why those diseases are so dangerous. I don't know what the biological function of those proteins is for the host.
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?
Paul said:
They do not stand for "evolution of DNA/RNA."
Then could you explain to us where the simulation of the evolution of binding sites in ev is supposed to be taking place?
Kleinman said:
An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.
Paul said:
If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!
If you don’t have a sequence of bases that codes for some type of polypeptide, how will you have selection for that creature? Apparently logick does not rool for evolutionarians.
 
Kleinman said:
Then could you explain to us where the simulation of the evolution of binding sites in ev is supposed to be taking place?
In simulated DNA. However, Ev has nothing to do with the evolution of DNA de novo/ex nihilo. That is still what you're talking about, right?

If you don’t have a sequence of bases that codes for some type of polypeptide, how will you have selection for that creature? Apparently logick does not rool for evolutionarians.
Via a selection process that operates on something other than DNA and proteins.

This is getting silly. Here is Minsky's theorem of evolution:
The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Note how it doesn't mention DNA, RNA, or proteins. Evolution is not restricted to a DNA/RNA/protein context.

~~ Paul
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
Then could you explain to us where the simulation of the evolution of binding sites in ev is supposed to be taking place?
Paul said:
In simulated DNA. However, Ev has nothing to do with the evolution of DNA de novo/ex nihilo. That is still what you're talking about, right?
What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?
Kleinman said:
If you don’t have a sequence of bases that codes for some type of polypeptide, how will you have selection for that creature? Apparently logick does not rool for evolutionarians.
Paul said:
Via a selection process that operates on something other than DNA and proteins.
Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.
Paul said:
This is getting silly. Here is Minsky's theorem of evolution:
The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.

Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?
Paul said:
Note how it doesn't mention DNA, RNA, or proteins. Evolution is not restricted to a DNA/RNA/protein context.
Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.
 
And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?
Common to the evolution of the gene and to random mutation and natural selection? I'm not sure what that means when the former is a product of the latter.

Chemistry?

~~ Paul

Not chemistry exactly but chemicals, yes. But do you think chemicals would start evolving all on their own, or do do you think something would need to happen to them to make them evolve? If so, what do you think that something might be? What would need to happen to a mixture of chemicals to cause them to become genes?
 
I know a bit about viruses but I have not gone into prions in any detail so I am willing to be corrected about them. I believe they are things like the infectious agent of scrapie, kuru, BSE or new variant CJD. I am not sure they qualify as replicating agents in their own right.

I belive they are coded on the genome of the organism and the coded protien can exist in two forms, say A and B. B catlyses the conversion of A into B so that the conversion is autocatalytic. This means that the rate at which B is produced is exponential and many of its other properties also mimic those of a true organism, in the sense of having a separate genome. For example, if you take protein B and inject it into another host, it proceeds to "infect" the host - the concentration of B rises exponentially from the injected level.

Nonetheless, it is different in that the protein is coded on the host and also in the sense that there is no immune response, the protein being recognized as self by the immune system - which is why those diseases are so dangerous. I don't know what the biological function of those proteins is for the host.

From the little I've read at Wikipedia, prion replication is still a somewhat mysterious process, which some scientists suggest violates the "central dogma of molecular biology."

So, the point is, and it seems to back your own point, that some molecular structures may be capable of reproducing even though they are not based on RNA/DNA.

If so, then the prion falsifies Kleinman's hypothesis that you need a gene to get RMNS started.
 
Kleiman said:
What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?
Yes, the initial formation of DNA is a totally different trip, which is why I asked what Ev has to do with it.

Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.
Agreed. And?

Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.
But you just said above that Ev is not realistic, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?
Minsky said nothing about genes whatsoever.

Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.
Agreed.

Is this going somewhere?

~~ Paul
 
Hewitt said:
Not chemistry exactly but chemicals, yes. But do you think chemicals would start evolving all on their own, or do do you think something would need to happen to them to make them evolve? If so, what do you think that something might be? What would need to happen to a mixture of chemicals to cause them to become genes?
I think the right sorts of chemicals would start evolving all on their own. How gene precursors became genes I have no idea.

~~ Paul
 
Annoying Creationists

kjkent1 said:
If so, then the prion falsifies Kleinman's hypothesis that you need a gene to get RMNS started.

You need to work a little more on your argument. It doesn’t matter what polymer you are proposing that is evolving, whether it be DNA/RNA/protein etc. In order to have a selection process that selects for a particular creature, that creature must produce a beneficial molecule. Perhaps Paul will show you why the theory of evolution without a selection processes is mathematically irrational.

In addition, random mutations can not cause an existing gene to diverge too far from it’s functional state so that it becomes non-functional, otherwise that creature will be selected against.
Kleinman said:
What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?
Paul said:
Yes, the initial formation of DNA is a totally different trip, which is why I asked what Ev has to do with it.
Ev demonstrates nicely the requirements for the de novo evolution of binding sites and reveals the difficulty in modeling a realistic selection process that what would be required for the de novo evolution of a gene.
Kleinman said:
Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.
Paul said:
Agreed. And?
And you have no plausible selection process for any polymer to evolve a functional molecule de novo.
Kleinman said:
Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.
Paul said:
But you just said above that Ev is not realistic, so your conclusion doesn't follow.
I have always said that ev is a plausible representation of random point mutations and natural selection. The reality that ev models is that random point mutations and natural selection can not lead to macroevolution. This is shown despite Dr Schneider’s contrived unrealistic selection process.

I could propose to you that you could fly anywhere in the universe in a space craft given enough time. Conceptually this may be true but it is a practical unreality. Minsky’s theorem is analogous to this.
Kleinman said:
Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?
Paul said:
Minsky said nothing about genes whatsoever.
So what is the selection process that gave rise to the non-genetic life forms?
Kleinman said:
Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.
Paul said:
Agreed.

Is this going somewhere?
It is the theory of evolution that is going nowhere. Without a selection process for whatever polymer you are trying to evolve, the mathematics of random mutations without selection makes the convergence of ev with realistic genome lengths and mutation rates look supersonic, no, I take that back, it looks like warp speed.
 
You need to work a little more on your argument. It doesn’t matter what polymer you are proposing that is evolving, whether it be DNA/RNA/protein etc. In order to have a selection process that selects for a particular creature, that creature must produce a beneficial molecule. Perhaps Paul will show you why the theory of evolution without a selection processes is mathematically irrational.
Unless I misunderstand (which is possible):

1. Prions don't have genes.
2. A prion is not a "creature."
3. Prions attack proteins, not genetic material.
4. Prions do mutate from benign to infectious, and when they do, they replicate more effectively -- sufficient to kill a host if it's alive.
5. Prions can't be killed because they're not alive.
6. Prions have been incinerated and remain viable in the recovered ashes.

If I have the above elements correct, then your premise is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that the prion be capable of benefiting from a mutation. If this is possible, then the selection part of RMNS is satisfied.
 
...Then explain to us why you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. What is really ridiculous is formulating a theory in which the cause and effect principle can not be demonstrated either mathematically or empirically in the laboratory and yet adherents still believe it is scientific....
The natural selection pressures have been explained to you a number of times here but you keep repeating the completely false claim no such explanation exists. You insist you have some mathematical evidence for your false claim but no scientists agree outside of a few rogues who operate on the unsupportable premise the Bible is literal, and if evidence or conclusions disagree, the evidence or conclusions must be wrong.

I often wonder how evolution deniers fail to see the enormity of the role the theory of evolution, now so well understood by genetic scientists, plays in our lives. For whatever reason, evolution deniers seem to think (or maybe are unaware of) genetic science and the theory of evolution are two separate things. But genetic science is evolution science. We know how genes arise de novo because we know so much about genes and the evolution of genes.

The theory of evolution has revolutionalized medical research. No one argues if scientific advances based on genetic research can be done, they argue if they ethically should be done. People around the world are protesting genetically modified foods while others are hailing the benefits. The map of human migration out of Africa has been redrawn based on what we know about genetic trails. Where once there was some doubt that mitochondrial DNA was a valid means of determining human migration patterns, there is no longer significant doubt. DNA has been recovered from Neanderthal bones and compared to human DNA, resolving the long held question of whether Neanderthals died out or whether they intermingled with humans. The evidence indicates they died out.

To maintain your position that the theory of evolution is not consistent with the evidence and/or that it isn't clear yet just how a new gene arises, or if macro-evolution takes place, you have to assume all the scientific advances that relied on the theory of evolution are either tenuous, or made without a clear understanding of the science that led to their discoveries. Kleinman, that is simply preposterous.

Here is just a sample of what you seem to think is based on a questionable theory:

Image of the glowing tobacco plant genetically engineered with a gene from fireflies

There is an International Society of Nurses in Genetics. They have a Position Statement: Access to Genomic Healthcare: The Role of the Nurse. They have a PRACTICE-BASED GENETICS CURRICULUM FOR NURSE EDUCATORS

A Decade of Genomics: NHGRI Celebrates 10th Anniversary. This month, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) celebrates its 10th anniversary as an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), marking a decade that saw genomics emerge as a powerful research tool and looking ahead to an era in which genomics will transform medical care.
A look at the history of The National Human Genome Research Institute contains almost 20 years of milestones for you to consider.

Conversations about the Meaning of the Genetics Revolution
The complexity of genetics

As a medical student, I am currently in the process of learning a lot more about genetics than I had ever thought existed. The sheer complexity and volume of information we are being taught (and we’re barely scratching the surface) is almost enough to make me give up on ever really understanding genetics. There is so much knowledge to gain on the subject - and the rate at which more knowledge is being added to the pool is astounding - that it may seem to be too much.

How can I attempt to understand this large pool of information with clarity and confidence enough to form an opinion about the use of genetic technology? Furthermore, I am required to try and learn this information because, as a student, it is all I really have to do; almost all of my time is spent in this learning. How can people with a basic working knowledge of the sciences, but also with families, hobbies, and jobs of their own, really take the time to understand the complex and ever-changing world of genetics?

There is a seemingly insurmountable mountain of information to learn, and yet, we must climb this mountain to become informed enough to know about genetics, think about genetics, and become active in our society with respect to genetic issues. How should we approach this? How can we frame it so that even those with little time can have the opportunity and motivation to learn at least a little about this growing field which will (and already has) affected us all?

What do you suppose they do at all these research institutes? Think any of them would buy your claim that natural selection can't account for all the life we see on Earth today? Or perhaps you think you have some observational or analytical skill that allows you to see the one thing that makes the theory of evolution wrong and all the researchers in all the research facilities and universities in all the towns in all the countries on all the continents on the planet weren't clever enough to see what you see? Or perhaps you think they understand genetic science well enough to transfer genes from an insect to a plant or a rabbit to an insect, but they really don't know if macro-evolution occurs? Do you think the researchers in the following institutes would agree we only know micro-evolution occurs?

I think not, kleinman.


Genetics or genomics research institutions listed in Wiki
Companies
* Affymetrix, UK [1]
* Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA [2]
* Celera Genomics
* Genentech, San Francisco, CA [3]
* Applera Norwalk, CT [4]
* Genetix, Hampshire, UK [5]

Research institutes
Americas
o Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix founded in July of 2002 [6]
o Whitetail Genetic Research Institute, Jerusalem, [7]
o Genetic Information Research Institute, Mountain View founded 1994 [8]
o Stanford University, Stanford, California [9]
o University of Florida Genetics Institute, Miami [10]
o The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), founded in 1992 by Craig Venter
o Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase [11]
o Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research, Cambridge, USA, 12]
o Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, [13]
o Center for Functional Genomics, SUNY Albany, Rensselaer, NY, [14]
o Research Institute for Genetic and Human Therapy - Instituto di Ricerca per la Terapia Genetica Umana, [15]
o Center for the Advancement of Genomics
o National Human Genome Research Institute founded 1989 [16]
o Washington University, St. Louis, [17]

Europe
o Institut für Forstgenetik, Vienna [18]
o Zentrum für genetische Forschung, (part of Max-Planck-Institute für Psychiatrie und Biochemie) München
o Institut für Humangenetik, Hamburg [19]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Klinikum der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg), Heidelberg [20]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität), Erlangen-Nürnberg [21]
o Institut für Humangenetik (Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität), Bonn [22]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Universität Lübeck), Lübeck [23]
o Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin [24]
o European Molecular Biology Lab (EMBL), Heidelberg
o International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Maccarese (Fiumicino) [25]

Global Crop Diversity Trust www.croptrust.org
o Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge [26]
o Imperial College Genetics and Genomics Research Institute, Hammersmith Hospital, London [27]

Asia/Pacific
o Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [28]
o Chinese University of Hong Kong, [29]
o Hong Kong Institute of Biotechnology, [30]
o Institute of Molecular Biology, Hong Kong, [31]
o Beijing Genomics Institute, Beijing, Beijing Genomics Institute website
o The National Human Genome Centre in Southern China, Shanghai
o The National Human Genome Centre in Northern China, Beijing
o Huada Human Genome Research Centre
o Bio Island Haizhu, Guangzhou [32]
o The Human Genome Centre of the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS)
o Biopolis, Singapore [33]
o Genome Institute of Singapore [34]
o Bioinformatik Institute, Singapore [35]
o Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology [36]
o Bioinformatics Center, Singapore [37]

Africa
o International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, [38]

Genetic research watchdog organizations
* GeneWatch [39], UK
* Council for Responsible Genetics [40], US
* Smallpox Bio Security [41] Conference 21-22 Oct 2003, Geneva, Switzerland
* Sunshine Project [42], Hamburg, Germany and Austin, Texas
 
Annoying Creationists

Paul said:
Wake me when something happens.
Paul, something has happened while you were sleeping, the theory of evolution has been refuted mathematically and it was done with your own computer model.
Kleinman said:
You need to work a little more on your argument. It doesn’t matter what polymer you are proposing that is evolving, whether it be DNA/RNA/protein etc. In order to have a selection process that selects for a particular creature, that creature must produce a beneficial molecule. Perhaps Paul will show you why the theory of evolution without a selection processes is mathematically irrational.
kjkent1 said:
Unless I misunderstand (which is possible): …
Are you proposing that life arose from prions which are composed of amino acids? If so, there goes the RNA world hypothesis.
Kleinman said:
...Then explain to us why you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. What is really ridiculous is formulating a theory in which the cause and effect principle can not be demonstrated either mathematically or empirically in the laboratory and yet adherents still believe it is scientific....
skeptigirl said:
The natural selection pressures have been explained to you a number of times here but you keep repeating the completely false claim no such explanation exists.
I must have missed that explanation of the selection pressure that would lead to the evolution of a gene de novo, do you mind repeating it?
 
Are you proposing that life arose from prions which are composed of amino acids? If so, there goes the RNA world hypothesis.
No, I'm proposing that there is at least one present day naturally occurring molecular construction which is capable of replicating without either RNA or DNA. So, if this exists today, then it may have existed in some early predecessor of RNA.

The point is that a "gene de novo" is not a barrier to a replicating molecule. The fact that we don't know what preceded RNA doesn't mean that the default answer must be "God." Other natural possibilities could have existed.

And, in fact something else did exist, because we are here, as are plants. So, unless you're prepared to whip out a magic wand and conjure up a supernatural spell, then there was some other natural predecessor to RNA, and we have yet to figure out what it was.

Your answer is apparently that the predecessor was God. Which begs the question, who created God?

So, who created God, Alan? And, is God merely super-technological, or is God supernatural?
 
...I must have missed that explanation of the selection pressure that would lead to the evolution of a gene de novo, do you mind repeating it?
Right! Just ignore the world, k. Ignore the whole rest of my post. Ignore everything in the thread. Ignore the attempts to teach you a little about genetics which you have made no attempts to even grasp let alone master.

And repeat your false belief. Repeat it to yourself 1,000 times. That will make your belief come true.

But be careful. Don't read any new medical research. Don't read anything about GMFs. Don't watch the National Geographic Channel, no anthropology discoveries for you.

That's an awful lot of science to ignore, about 30 years worth. And with science moving so fast now and all.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "I know more than thousands of scientists. I know more than doctors, biologists, and thousands of researchers who have studied genetic science for decades. Yep, I'm smart."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom