Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

He does? Where did he say that?

~~ Paul

Articulett? Back up an assertion? No way.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, don't make me plow through his pages of obfuscations again.

Like I said. No way.

Hard to find evidence to back up lies.

 

[Trying2Bopen]

The link to which you refer is most probably in
www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
under the prebiotic evolution link, chapters three or four.

The cyclic chemical processes to which I refer will, I suggest, arise from and be driven by cyclic variations of temperature due to the sun's day night cycle. Other oscillatory energy sources could have similar effects but, since the sun was, even then, by far the largest, it is my favorite candidate. Chafe suggested cyclic drying out in small ponds as a possibility but not in this context. (He argued that cyclic drying out of nucleotides would to lead to their polymerization.)

Oscillations in temperature will lead to oscillations in the position of any chemical equilibrium reaction in the organic soup. It is those oscillations that I propose to be subject to evolution. According to the scenario I describe, their evolutionary selection will lead, eventually to self-oscillating pathways of chemicals resembling both metabolic pathways and hypercycles. Thus the model suggests a mechanism whereby all biochemical pathways could have emerged in an essentially complete form. Further selection of pathways would then merge them into protocells. Data carrying molecules would emerge later.

It is true that the sun would have been less bright during that era than it is now - about 50-60% as bright. Nonetheless, the earth was warmer then. This is partly because the earth itself was still hot due to the gravitational energy releaesed during its formation and from impacts. Also, as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere from volcanic outgassing, it provided a greenhouse effect. Hence water is thought to have been liquid then and for almost all the earth's history. (I believe that episodes of snowball earth occurred later and were due to removal of greenhouse CO2 by life.)

Thanks for the link and for clarifying

 

[kjkent1]

Consider that there is no known selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo that could be used in this model and you will understand why your theory of evolution has no mathematical basis. In fact, the mathematics of mutations and natural selection shows that this process is impossible.

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?

 

[articulett]

Another page of Hewitt obfuscating on the question of natural processes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67385&page=43&highlight=naturalism

I think everyone else's position on this topic is clear. Why not his? Why the obfuscation? He was similarly oblique when asked about whether he believed in a intelligent design. I think most people interested in an honest conversation would just answer the question with a yes or no. But creationists like Behe, obfuscate....and I've pointed out links and trial transcripts that show exactly how they do so.

Also, Paul, he immediately dismissed your Popper book link just like the abiogenesis link above--like they weren't worth discussing...he did something similar on the meme thread. Why aren't they worth discussing? Because these are views that threaten his own. Why do you think he's a Popper Fan? He also seems to be a Behe fan--a fan of his book, Darwin's Black Box anyhow, and thinks Intelligent Design theorists have some strong arguments but other than the "cell being the unit of replication" he hasn't told us what they are--only that scientists are cheaters and liars, oh, and by the way, you can buy his book at his readily proffered website...

To me John's prebiotic oscillation hypothesis and discussion therein sounds pretty much like Behe being cross examined about "irreducible complexity." Of course, I'm still waiting for some bright person to show me I'm wrong by explaining what exactly John is saying other than telling me the way I'm terrible as are most scientists and everyone who disagrees or thinks someone is a creationist based on their obfuscations. Such a simple thing to ask for. I even gave a nice example from Science News Daily. Or maybe someone can show me how he's not like Behe.

What does it matter what I think? If I'm wrong, he can readily correct it. He could say, "My theory relies completely on naturalism...I posit no "immeasurable sources" or intelligences". Right? He could get another intelligent person to tell us what he's saying so that it's clear to more than just himself, right? He could submit his paper to peer review. Test it. Expand upon it. Get funding for it. Win a Nobel prize. Instead he ignores, obfuscates, tries to pander his book, and resorts to ad homs while pretending he's above such things.

 

[Trying2Bopen]

Kleinman and everyone: First: Hello. I am jumping into the middle of a raging debate as a rather ignorant student, so I figure the least I can do is present a proper introduction. Okay, as the name suggests I am going to be open to what you have to say, but I have some questions. In “googling” ev I came across a post of yours from anther website:

"These are long threads and not easy to read through. However, I believe there are some important mathematical principles that are demonstrated by the ev model which show that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection)."
-kleinman
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000384-p-6.html

Would you be willing to explain a few things to me? First, I do not have a lot of background in comp. programming etc. so I request you try not to talk over my head.

Okay, now that this disclaimer is out of the way, I am confused about your quote. Point mutations are not the only mutation, and of the “one nucleotide only” mutations there are several kinds. Which kind(s) does this program utilize? Does it use substitution mutations? Or does it also include insertions and deletions (which have a much more drastic effect on the genome). For those that don’t know, let me demonstrate:

Normal: THE CAT SAW THE DOG
Point mutation: THE BAT SAW THE DOG
.......................THE CAT SAW THE HOG
.......................THE CAT SAT THE DOG
Deletion: THE ATS AWT HED OG
..................Loss of C
Insertion: THE CMA TSA WTH EDO G
..................Insertion of M

The way I understand it, point mutations are generally tolerated more easily because often the essence of the “sentence” may still be intact (i.e. the scaffolding and active sites of the proteins they encode). The other two types can result in drastic changes in meaning.

How does the program deal with other types of mutations? Such as polyploidy through non-disjunction in meiosis (i.e. instead of getting one chromosome from your mom you get two because they don’t separate properly when the egg is forming)? What about transposable genetic elements? The duplication of whole segments of chromosomes? Loss of whole segments of a chromosome? Trinucleotide repeats?

Also, you say “random point mutations”, but mutations can be induced environmentally. X-linked recessive lethals have been positively correlated with x-ray dose. And what about base analogs (things that look like AGC&T but are not and are accidentally incorporated), UV light and others? If you say that “macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations...)”? I would say that perhaps you are right, perhaps it is not possible for macroevolution to occur at the rate is has been suggested based on point mutations alone, but what about all the other genomic alterations that can occur?


(reference for all genetic info: Essentials of Genetics, 5th Edition by William S. Klug & Michael R. Cummings)

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Consider that there is no known selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo that could be used in this model and you will understand why your theory of evolution has no mathematical basis. In fact, the mathematics of mutations and natural selection shows that this process is impossible.

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Lest I be accused of obfuscation, the name of this thread is ________ ________. Fill in the blanks.

 

[The Atheist]

Another page of Hewitt obfuscating on the question of natural processes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67385&page=43&highlight=naturalism

I think everyone else's position on this topic is clear. Why not his? Why the obfuscation? He was similarly oblique when asked about whether he believed in a intelligent design. I think most people interested in an honest conversation would just answer the question with a yes or no. But creationists like Behe, obfuscate....and I've pointed out links and trial transcripts that show exactly how they do so.

I believe that this is what John is doing. To me, his prebiotic oscillation theory and discussion therein sounds pretty much like Behe being cross examined about "irreducible complexity."

Yep, just as I thought. A vain attempt to back up your lies. Nowhere does John say anything about natural processes being insufficient. Most of that page is tripe from your keyboard!

Failed. (Again^8)

Look at your post, woman! "I think", "I think", "I believe", "To me", "sounds like".

Never use facts when a little speculation, assertion and lying will do. Good scientist.

Oh, that's right. I'm on ignore. Lucky break, huh?

 

[articulett]

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?

Goddidit, silly. Now you've finally realized what Kleinman has been trying to show you. It couldn't have happened naturally per Kleinman's math; therefore, it must have happened supernaturally--and scientists are just trying to cover up this fact!

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Okay, now that this disclaimer is out of the way, I am confused about your quote. Point mutations are not the only mutation, and of the “one nucleotide only” mutations there are several kinds. Which kind(s) does this program utilize? Does it use substitution mutations? Or does it also include insertions and deletions (which have a much more drastic effect on the genome).

The ev program only utilizes random base substitutions. Frame shifts, inversions, duplications and other forms of mutations as well as recombination are not used in the model.

How does the program deal with other types of mutations? Such as polyploidy through non-disjunction in meiosis (i.e. instead of getting one chromosome from your mom you get two because they don’t separate properly when the egg is forming)? What about transposable genetic elements? The duplication of whole segments of chromosomes? Loss of whole segments of a chromosome? Trinucleotide repeats?

None of these mechanisms are included in Dr Schneider’s computer model.

Also, you say “random point mutations”, but mutations can be induced environmentally. X-linked recessive lethals have been positively correlated with x-ray dose. And what about base analogs (things that look like AGC&T but are not and are accidentally incorporated), UV light and others?

The mutation rate in the model can be varied but base analogs are not included in the model.

If you say that “macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations...)”? I would say that perhaps you are right, perhaps it is not possible for macroevolution to occur at the rate is has been suggested based on point mutations alone, but what about all the other genomic alterations that can occur?

Other mechanisms of mutations have been suggested that somehow rescue the theory of evolution but without random point mutations and natural selection, how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection? Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory.

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?

Goddidit, silly. Now you've finally realized what Kleinman has been trying to show you. It couldn't have happened naturally per Kleinman's math; therefore, it must have happened supernaturally--and scientists are just trying to cover up this fact!

I can’t take credit for the math. This is Dr Tom Schneider’s computer model. Dr Schneider is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. This model has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. Paul Anagnostopoulos, a moderator for this forum wrote the online version of the program.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution.

NB: This is a lie.

Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

NB: This is a lie.

I can’t take credit for the math.

NB: Although kleinman intends this to be a lie, it is in fact, taken literally, the truth: he cannot take credit for the halfwitted mess he's made of the math. His attempt to blame others for his idiotic mistakes, however, is a lie.

 

[Trying2Bopen]

Kleinman: Hmmm, okay, thanks for answering my questions. If you don’t mind, I have a few more.

I am not totally clear on how you go from point mutation to natural selection. I don’t mean the evolutionary mechanism, I mean in your argument. I would agree that random point mutations and natural selection are important parts of the theory. I have not heard one claiming “point mutations” as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, just mutation in general, but natural selection is surely an important part. I guess I am not totally clear on ev’s selective process. How is natural selection simulated by ev (sorry, I tried to run the program but my computer is crammed too full of pics and music and such (I am a college student ))? And how does this simulation demonstrate that natural selection could not be a driving mechanism in this process? And even if it does, you are limiting random variation to the most benign of mutation types; doesn’t that make it difficult to draw conclusions?

I was wondering if you could clarify this please:

how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection?

Are you referring to how life first arose, how life has progressed or where life currently is now? The formation of gene families, etc.? What do you mean by “transform”, do you mean alter via mutation? And why does it have to be a point mutation? And again, the natural selection part I do not currently get.

You also said: “If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory”. I always kinda thought that it is the job of everyone invested to get try and get to the heart of something (like whether or not a model is accurate). Evolutionary biologists are not the only ones with invested interest; proponents of ID seem deeply involved. Aren’t you curious to see what would happen if other types of mutation are included?

 

[kjkent1]

Other mechanisms of mutations have been suggested that somehow rescue the theory of evolution but without random point mutations and natural selection, how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection? Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory.

Not everything that occurs in nature is necessarily susceptible to some simple and elegant mathematical equation which perfectly describes the natural occurrence.

You are fighting the same war that Einstein fought and lost 80 years ago. When things are really small, they are affected by the energy of random photon collisions, and the ordinary Newtonian laws, with which you are so familiar as a mechanical engineer, fall to pieces.

The simple fact is that the genes which you claim are mathematically impossible are routinely found everywhere on our little orb, and they are either here because they were produced by the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup, or they were produced by pure magic.

I think that your mundane probability rules, and Schneider's ev model, are both far too simple to accurately describe the "equations" of creation, and that the true answer will be something quite different, and likely every bit as complex as 11-dimensional string theory.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Kleinman: Hmmm, okay, thanks for answering my questions. If you don’t mind, I have a few more.

I am not totally clear on how you go from point mutation to natural selection. I don’t mean the evolutionary mechanism, I mean in your argument. I would agree that random point mutations and natural selection are important parts of the theory. I have not heard one claiming “point mutations” as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory...

You just have heard "one", one and only one, claim this. This "one" was a halfwitted creationist bleating out lies.

If you mean that you've never heard a scientist claiming this, then of course you haven't, and of course you never will. Like all creationists, kleinman has to invent his own "theory of evolution" before he can attack it. Because he's too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ scared to attack the actual theory of evolution as found in any standard biology textbook.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not everything that occurs in nature is necessarily susceptible to some simple and elegant mathematical equation which perfectly describes the natural occurrence.

You are fighting the same war that Einstein fought and lost 80 years ago. When things are really small, they are affected by the energy of random photon collisions, and the ordinary Newtonian laws, with which you are so familiar as a mechanical engineer, fall to pieces.

The simple fact is that the genes which you claim are mathematically impossible are routinely found everywhere on our little orb, and they are either here because they were produced by the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup, or they were produced by pure magic.

I think that your mundane probability rules, and Schneider's ev model, are both far too simple to accurately describe the "equations" of creation, and that the true answer will be something quite different, and likely every bit as complex as 11-dimensional string theory.

Well, if we're talking about the origins of the whole universe, then yes, you're right, the laws known to biologists will never account for it. That's not what biologists do. If you merely want to know about the origin of species, then the laws of evolution will do just fine.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, do you think that there forces other than nature or naturalism that account for replication in life forms?

Also, can you give a quick description as to why you insist that the cell is the true replicator, not the DNA/RNA?

I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them. Neither do I consider myself bound on such matters by your faith system.

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

I trust that is now clear.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you kidding or am I reading this question wrong?

As I understand it, evolution is a process. In biological organisms, genes are an essential component to allow evolution to take place.

Evolution is the theory of how living organisms change over time. Genetic change is the process. The genes are the "theory" if I may distort things a bit for simplicity.

I would say evolution is the process; genetic change is what happens when an organism evolves.

Genes are part of the DNA (and RNA for some viruses) blueprint by which living organisms reproduce and changes in DNA and RNA are the mechanism of evolution.

I'd agree with that.

How on Earth do you see evolution without genetic changes or are you imagining genes as something different from the DNA?

I don't see why a system requires anything as complicated as a gene to evolve. Clearly it doesn’t or we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. All is required is a place to store information, along with the other items I gave on my list earlier.

I just don't get this question at all.

Clearly I wasn't being as clear as I thought I was.

We are beyond implicit. Genes are observed directly. That's what codons are all about.

I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?

Maybe this is the disconnect. You are talking about evolution of something besides the organism itself? We have a lot to learn about how genes control behavior but we know they do. I didn't teach my dogs to hunt but they certainly have an instinct to chase small animals and kill them if they catch them.

I was trying to make the point that an analysis should be performed at an appropriate level. Sure you could argue that genes determine everything about an organism, but you could also argue it was all decided the moment the universe came into existence, neither of which to me are useful for explaining or predicting most phenomenon.

Behaviors, just like the physical body can be modified in addition to the genetic contribution.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

It already has coalesced. There are thousands of studies completed and ongoing on the physiological factors in behavior from neurotransmitters to hormones to brain structure. Some factors are genetically determined some are not.

Again, I would say it's all about the level of analysis. Obviously genes have an impact on behavior. For example IQ appears to be ~50% determined by a person's genes. To me, the interesting work in psychology is how to affect the other 50%. That will not involve genetics. Evolution may be involved, but not to do with genes. Call it mematics if you like. (Robert takes cover while John explodes) .

Joyce, at the Scripps Institute forced the equivalent of a few thousand years or something in lab experiments with RNA. I don't remember the details so don't quote the numbers.

I don't understand your point though.

Just so I don't get accused of being a creationist, let me explicitly state I do not believe in God or supernatural explanations. My point is the really useful stuff in genetics is done with genes that exist today. I see little application in hypothesizing how genes came about.

Your point about finding alien life and us all finally realizing we’re more human than American, Iraqi, French, German etc., that’s a nice idea. I don’t believe it will ever happen (the bonding, not finding alien life) so long as greed remains a motivation for some (all?) of us. I wonder how genes affect that personality trait?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.

 

[Kotatsu]

I could most likely convince myself that mustard and cabbage plants are mustard and cabbage plants, yes.

And if the progeny between a certain mustard plant and a certain cabbage plant is found to be neither, but something else --- as is the case with Song's et al. study --- then what?

Using their terminology (A = Brassica rapa, B = B. nigra, and C = B. oleracea), recall that the AB and BA genomes do not represent either the A genome, nor the B genome, but instead represent the genome of B. juncea. Similarly, the AC and CA genomes do not represent either the A genome, nor the C genome, but rather the genome of B. napus.

Further, all of these five nominal species were first described by Linnaeus, long before it was discovered that three of them were naturally occurring hybrids. I believe it is reasonable for me, being no botanist, to assume that at least Linnaeus found the differences between the diploid parent plants and their polyploid progeny plants to be sufficient.

Thus, while the F5 progeny is certainly Brassica, and would certainly --- if encountered in the wild --- be called "mustard" or "cabbage" of some sort, they are no longer the same as the parent species from which they are derived. And that, as I see it, is all that is required of speciation. Or are you suggesting that the progeny need to be --- justifiably --- assigned to another genus, tribe, or family than the parent species for speciation to have occurred?

(Also, as an aside in case of semantics, inasmush as Wikipedia can be trusted, B. napus is actually neither called "mustard" nor "cabbage" but Oilseed rape, Canola, Rutabaga, or Swede Turnip. The AB/BA genome is thus, one could argue, a case where two species of mustard has produced something which is not a mustard. However, I assume this is irrelevant.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, that is a nice reply to hammy, but I still want to know about the creature which can walk on land, but which he still deemed to be a whale.

C'mon, hammy, don't you have any excuses left?