Annoying creationists

[Kotatsu]

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

If so, all extrapolations as to the possibility of anything happening within a given timeframe made from the program where these mechanisms are not included to the real world where they are seem to be invalid.

It is like proclaiming that there are no possible prime numbers and then admitting that the program on which you base this claim only uses even numbers higher than 4.

It is like using a program on hydrogen bonding to disprove the existance of proteins, because hydrogen bonding, according to the program, is insufficient to account for the flexibility and integrity of something as complex and as large as a protein, ignoring that other known types of bonding may be relevant for the structure and function of a protein, rendering the computer program, not necessarily flawed, but too limited in scope as to the selection of applicable and available types of bondings, to be of any use other than as an exclusively mental exercise for people with small budgets who cannot afford more sophisticated programs (if such exist).

In each of these cases, it is the limitations of the program and its user that results in the strange conclusions. I believe the conclusion is simply reversed. It shouldn't be "Proteins cannot exist because hydrogen bonding is insufficient to maintain them", but rather "If hydrogen bonding was the only kind of chemical bond, proteins would not be able to be maintained". Similarly, not "Genes cannot have evolved to where they are today because point mutations are too slow", but rather "If using only point mutations, there is too little time in which to evolve the genes we see today".

Luckily, this sort of misapprehension can be corrected by a greater understanding and fuller inclusion of --- at least --- all known mechanism which influence the phenomenon.

 

[cyborg]

Luckily, this sort of misapprehension can be corrected by a greater understanding and fuller inclusion of --- at least --- all known mechanism which influence the phenomenon.

Rubbish. ev proves evolution is a nonsense because it is the best mathematical simulation for amathemtical evolutionary theory. kleinman has superbly proved the impossibility of selection for creating de novo by stating that there is no selection mechanism that would work because 4^G is a really big number for really big G.

We can only conclude Jesus creates genes. Why do you hate Jesus so much?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the other means would be????????

Any other medium that supports an evolution-like process. RNA perhaps.

Evolution is not defined in terms of DNA-based genes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, don't make me plow through his pages of obfuscations again. Let's just ask him and you may have to look at what he doesn't say or how he says things.

Actually, I'd rather not have to obtain a degree in psychoanalysis in order to understand what he's saying.

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.

Well, this is quite obfuscatory, I must admit. Could you give us more details of your thoughts on this?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

I think the word gene is defined as the functional unit of inheritance. This means that the gene is the repository of the "memory" of some biological structure.

~~ Paul

 

[Kotatsu]

Rubbish. ev proves evolution is a nonsense because it is the best mathematical simulation for amathemtical evolutionary theory. kleinman has superbly proved the impossibility of selection for creating de novo by stating that there is no selection mechanism that would work because 4^G is a really big number for really big G.

We can only conclude Jesus creates genes. Why do you hate Jesus so much?

A Christian bit me when I was a child, and I have been traumatized by the event ever since.

 

[delphi_ote]

However, I'm still not excited by the idea of creatures a million light-years away, as I can't possibly examine or communicate with them.

We might observe some communications from a species that evolved millions of years ago. Wouldn't it be very interesting to learn about an entirely different branch of evolutionary history and what course it took, even if we couldn't directly contact them?

The only life of interest is that which can be reached by man, our scientific instruments or our two-way communications. So why not just go and find it?

It might help us look if we knew just what kinds of circumstances to expect to see life.

As for what it means to be alive: not dead

Your definition includes everything non-living.

True, but if I want to demonstrate a bunch of chemicals changing from not-alive to alive, or even non-replicating to replicating, I see no other method viable than an actual experiment with similar conditions to that on earth when life appeared here. Perhaps I was exaggerating the timescales: it would only take hundreds of thousands of years to perform.

Accurate computer simulations, direct observation of chemical phenomina that somehow obviously lead us to life, or perhaps even some kind of fossil-like evidence we have yet to uncover of could all be evidence that directs us toward a realistic hypothesis about the origin of life. It's possible we'll get there without thousands of years of test tube experiments.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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?

It is not how I go from point mutations to natural selection, it is how Dr Schneider and other evolutionarians go from point mutations to natural selection. In Dr Schneider’s case, he uses a weight matrix which approximates a matches between the matrix and positions on the genome. If the weight matrix fails to find a match where one should exist, it is considered an error, if the weight matrix finds a match where one should not exist, it is considered an error. Selection is based on allowing the genomes with the fewest errors to reproduce while the others are selected out. What becomes apparent is that as the genome length is increased, the number of generations for convergence becomes huge, much too large to support the theory of evolution. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory from this mathematical sink hole, it is up to evolutionarians to prove this. Articulett is already calling Dr Schneider’s model my mathematics in order to try to devalue the results obtained from his model. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and remains that way.

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.

All three cases. The available data shows that the simplest free living life form must have at least 200 genes. So abiogenesis must explain how these genes arose and assembled to make the first simple life forms. Then once these life forms arose, how did the tens of thousands or more different genes came about. If evolutionarians are going to argue that gene duplication gives the raw material to form new genes, how do you “transform” these genes to new genes. It doesn’t have to be by point mutations but evolutionarians need to demonstrate how other forms of mutations can give rise to genes. You are not the only one who does not get the natural selection part. There is no form of natural selection that give rise to a gene de novo (from the beginning). I have given the following example of what would be required of natural selection in order to evolve a gene de novo.

Let say the a gene which codes for globin is to evolve. You start with the first base that would code for this gene. One base forms nothing so give no selective benefit for the creature so you are dependent on random additions to extend this gene. So you win the lottery and the second base to the gene is added. This partially completed gene still codes for nothing so you are still dependent on random additions to extend this gene. You win the lottery again and the third base is added to the gene and now finally you can code for a single amino acid. What benefit to that creature is a gene that codes for a single amino acid? None! So you are still dependent on random additions without any selection until you finally have a gene which codes for some useful polypeptide that is beneficial for that creature. Without selection, the probabilities for forming genes by random additions of base is infinitesimally small.

So far in this discussion, no evolutionarian has been able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. The reason is that none exists.

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?

Evolutionarians don’t believe their own mathematical models when it contradicts their belief system. Why would they believe any mathematical model I develop? Let evolutionarians prove their own theory. If more evolutionarians with mathematical skills start looking at this problem, they will understand the fallacy of their theory.

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.

I never said ev was simple and it not a single mathematical equation. I think there are ways of including other mechanisms of mutations in this model. For example, frame shifts could be includes but would require some empirical measurements to determine how often these happen and survival rate for those creatures who suffer such mutations. The big problem though for evolutionarians is to describe a selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.

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.

Yours is a nice story for the Scifi channel but has no mathematical or scientific basis. If anything, the concept of abiogenesis has gone downhill since the Miller experiment in the 1950’s.

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.

Probability theory are not my mundane rules. Dr Schneider’s publications do not indicate that he thinks his model is too simple to accurately describe the “equations” of creation. You are correct, the true answer is something quite different.

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?

You don’t read your own links, why should anyone else? We are still waiting for your mathematical wisdom in describing natural selection mathematically.

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

If so, all extrapolations as to the possibility of anything happening within a given timeframe made from the program where these mechanisms are not included to the real world where they are seem to be invalid.

Dr Schneider doesn’t seem to agree with this view. He used his program to estimate the time it would take to evolve a human genome.

And the other means would be????????

Any other medium that supports an evolution-like process. RNA perhaps.

Evolution is not defined in terms of DNA-based genes.

There are no genes on retroviruses? How would the mathematics of DNA mutation and selection differ from RNA mutation and selection?

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?

I think the word gene is defined as the functional unit of inheritance. This means that the gene is the repository of the "memory" of some biological structure.

How do you inherit a gene until it exists? Dr Schneider postulates a mechanism for evolving binding sites de novo. How do you form a gene de novo? Until you do that, there is nothing to inherit.

 

[kjkent1]

Yours is a nice story for the Scifi channel but has no mathematical or scientific basis. If anything, the concept of abiogenesis has gone downhill since the Miller experiment in the 1950’s.

Leonard Susskind, and a number of other string theorists would disagree with you about the lack of mathematical basis. As for scientific bases, we will have to wait until after the CERN accelerator is finished to see if we can get some results which will further help confirm Susskind's theory.

 

[articulett]

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.

Yes, but as John Points out, that is just due to "dogmatic faith" in science. Creationists do love to put faith and facts on the same level--it helps with obfuscation of course. And they love to play the "what is naturalism" game too.

 

[hammegk]

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?

..

 

[articulett]

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.

Science is not a "faith" system, it's a fact system. I guess it's clear to you--so has anyone been any one with a basic understanding of evolution been able to sum up your hypothesis with clarity so that others might understand it? Or only those who don't practice the "faith" of scientific naturalism? Or can even one our creationist buddies or anyone clarify what you are saying, how it differs from evolution, and what your big beefs about evolution are. I understand that it's about Popper and lying scientists, and faith, and people like me, and free will and sex and humour and oscillations and data streams. I think we all understand that. But no one has stated what your hypotheses actually are, do you realize that? Not a single person. You think you are saying what it is I imagine, but unless someone can paraphrase it and understand it--it's as untestable and useless and Kleinman's mathematical theory that he believes disproves evolution by discounting the very things we can see when we look at what has happened to genomes through time.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Yours is a nice story for the Scifi channel but has no mathematical or scientific basis. If anything, the concept of abiogenesis has gone downhill since the Miller experiment in the 1950’s.

Leonard Susskind, and a number of other string theorists would disagree with you about the lack of mathematical basis. As for scientific bases, we will have to wait until after the CERN accelerator is finished to see if we can get some results which will further help confirm Susskind's theory.

I wasn’t referring to string theory, I was referring to your theory that life arose in "the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup". Tell me, if you stir the soup more quickly do you get life more quickly? My empirical evidence shows that if you allow the soup to sit quietly, life appears more quickly as you can see if you forget something in your refrigerator too long.

 

[hammegk]

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?

Then as usual we are back to imaginary lines on taxonomy charts vs imaginary lines on cladograms all purporting to demonstrate "speciation".

 

[kjkent1]

I wasn’t referring to string theory, I was referring to your theory that life arose in "the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup". Tell me, if you stir the soup more quickly do you get life more quickly? My empirical evidence shows that if you allow the soup to sit quietly, life appears more quickly as you can see if you forget something in your refrigerator too long.

Humor is a funny thing (don't quit your day job).

String theory mathematically demonstrates that there are a sufficient number of alternative universes available in which the highly improbable event of life arising as the product of random chance could occur, and that because we are here discussing the issue, that we just happen to inhabit one of those alternative universes (aka anthropic principle).

Thus, no matter how infinitesimally improbable you may believe the existence of organic life, string theory makes this existence not just probable, but almost certain to occur.

Dr. Kenneth Miller discussed this notion from a different viewpoint at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. He discussed the idea of shuffling a deck of cards and then dealing them out. The order of the cards is an incredibly improbable event -- but there they are, actually dealt out in this incredibly improbable order.

So, if string theory is correct, then you cannot use ordinary probability calculations to show that life could not have arisen by random chance, unless you increase the "odds" by the number of possible alternative universes in which life could haven arisen.

 

[sphenisc]

Humor is a funny thing (don't quit your day job).

String theory mathematically demonstrates that there are a sufficient number of alternative universes available in which the highly improbable event of life arising as the product of random chance could occur.

can you provide a reference, which includes the maths.

thanks

 

[kjkent1]

can you provide a reference, which includes the maths.

thanks

Here's a list (some may not be completely relevant):

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+susskind/0/1/0/2003,2004,2005,2006,2007/0/1

I think that this article is a pretty good starting point:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219

 

[Dr Adequate]

..

Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?

Their second picture is based on what was found in the first dig. The first picture is based on what scientists found in subsequent digs.

They've found the bones, but of course the creationist liars don't change their websites, because mere facts ... well, you know about creationists and facts.

You may not know this, but the crap you just cited is one of the best examples we have of creationists telling a downright lie --- because they've been told about the facts, but they won't change their websites. They go on citing the reconstruction from the first dig as though it contradicts subsequent digs, just as they go on quoting Darwin about there being no intermediate forms in the fossil record (from the first edition of his book) when it's nearly 150 years since the first intermediate forms were produced.

They are liars, stop citing them.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, one more thing for hammy, where the heck do you suppose they got those reconstructions from? Creationists don't do science, do they? You know this as well as I do.

They got them both from scientists, they just put 'em in inverse chronological order.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I wasn’t referring to string theory, I was referring to your theory that life arose in "the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup". Tell me, if you stir the soup more quickly do you get life more quickly? My empirical evidence shows that if you allow the soup to sit quietly, life appears more quickly as you can see if you forget something in your refrigerator too long.

String theory mathematically demonstrates that there are a sufficient number of alternative universes available in which the highly improbable event of life arising as the product of random chance could occur, and that because we are here discussing the issue, that we just happen to inhabit one of those alternative universes (aka anthropic principle).

Travelocity is having a sale on tours to alternative universes. Do you want some travel brochures?

Thus, no matter how infinitesimally improbable you may believe the existence of organic life, string theory makes this existence not just probable, but almost certain to occur.

Of course string theory makes the existence of life certain to occur. You have string beans which empirically show the theory to be true. Some people also believe that string cheese is a self replicating life form but there is controversy here. It has been proposed that string cheese evolved from Mozzarella balls which has give rise to the ball of strings cheese theory.

Dr. Kenneth Miller discussed this notion from a different viewpoint at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. He discussed the idea of shuffling a deck of cards and then dealing them out. The order of the cards is an incredibly improbable event -- but there they are, actually dealt out in this incredibly improbable order.

The order of the cards is not an incredibly improbable event, it is one ensemble in an incredibly large number of ensembles. Did Dr Miller try on any gloves in the trial?

I’m still waiting for Dr Miller to tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. (For Paul, it is the RNA replicase system).

So, if string theory is correct, then you cannot use ordinary probability calculations to show that life could not have arisen by random chance, unless you increase the "odds" by the number of possible alternative universes in which life could haven arisen.

Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.

..

Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?

Hammegk, if you really want to annoy scatequate, ask him to explain natural selection for the de novo evolution of a gene mathematically. It appears that scatequate has abandoned mathematics for paleontology.