Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

Nope.

Well, Kleinman just stated unequviocally above that his answer to biological creation is found in Genesis 1:1, so I don't know how you can include him in a group of persons not invoking God as the answer.

 

[hammegk]

Well, Kleinman just stated unequviocally above that his answer to biological creation is found in Genesis 1:1, so I don't know how you can include him in a group of persons not invoking God as the answer.

Indeed he did; I took it as a joke. YMMV.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

Yeah right hammy. He told me at least once I'd have to, "find another reason to disbelieve in God."

But feel free to live in your delusional little world.

And

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

You must be reading a different thread than me.

The point you evolutionarians are missing is that I am using mathematical arguments against your theory. I am not claiming that creationism is a scientific while you are claiming that evolutionism is scientific.

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible. So stop whimpering you cry babies and either prove your theory or stop teaching it to young children who don’t have the skills to challenge your hog wash.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

 

[kjkent1]

And

The point you evolutionarians are missing is that I am using mathematical arguments against your theory. I am not claiming that creationism is a scientific while you are claiming that evolutionism is scientific.

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible. So stop whimpering you cry babies and either prove your theory or stop teaching it to young children who don’t have the skills to challenge your hog wash.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.

Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?

 

[kjkent1]

I don't know enough about detailed theories in high energy physics to say much but parallel universes seem untestable to me. I find it hard to see how a few tracks in a bubble chamber could convince anyone about them.

I looked up the anthropic principle and I rather object to it. I find it hard to articulate why - but I do. I think I would rather talk of another principle, something analogous to Vygotsky's educational ideas on "zones of proximal development." His idea was that one extends knowledge from zones one already understands into zones that are proximate to those zones of knowledge you already grasp. My extension to his ideas, which one might call "the rule of proximate explanation" would state that epistemic explanations should be constructed from zones of knowledge that are logically proximate to the subject to be explained.

High energy physics is very far removed from biology and, in my opinion, explanations constructed from it will never be compelling. It seems to me that the areas of knowledge that are closest to the problem of the origins of biology are astronomy, insofar as it bears on conditions on early earth, some parts of physics, mostly classical physics since few *very* high energy processes occur on a planet, and chemistry - the last being the most immediately relevant.

String theory, quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, particle physics, relativity, The God Particle - I am sure they are all very interesting subjects. For all I know, they may all be totally true but I just don't see them as potential contributors to a theory of the origin of life.

I understand your quandary. The Anthropic argument appears circular. But, quantum wave function collapse depends on whether the quantum event is being observed, so there is a scientific precedent for this sort of reasoning.

We are the indisputable proof of our own existence. If you subtract out God/intelligent design as a possible creative force, then there must be some other natural answer. Admittedly, at the moment, the evidence of alternate universes is a matter of speculation. But, something weird does happen when a quantum event occurs, and one interpretation is the split of one universe into two. So, the speculation about multiple universes is not completely without scientific support.

Dr. Kleinman is speculating that probability theory prevents abiogenesis and evolution from naturally occurring. He doesn't dismiss the possibility of random chance entirely -- he just suggests that it's damn unlikely. So, string theory is a viable explanation for the reason why Kleinman's probability calculation is incorrect.

If there's only one universe, then I can't easily argue with Kleinman's numbers -- although I can certainly argue that life exists, so maybe the unlikely outcome occurred.

But, if I subtract out God, then the only reasonable explanation is that the unlikely outcome did occur -- regardless of Kleinman's numbers.

Kleinman views this as absurd. You view it as possible but unacceptable. I don't know what the rest of the crowd thinks, but I do know what Dr. Susskind thinks, because I've asked him myself.

My point is simply that there are credible scientists who "are" proposing a connection between string theory and organic life, so the postulate is worth not dismissing out of hand. And, while the planet's bulge brains are thinking their wild thoughts and trying to prove them in a high energy experiment, the rest of us can continue to search for more traditional answers.

One thing at least -- our discussion here hasn't devolved into a flame war.

 

[kjkent1]

Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?

It's not "my" string theory -- it's a theory which is presently held in high regard by a large number of the finest minds on Earth.

Do you admit that string theory provides sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

If not, then there's little point in discussing the second step.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?

It's not "my" string theory -- it's a theory which is presently held in high regard by a large number of the finest minds on Earth.

Do you admit that string theory provides sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

If not, then there's little point in discussing the second step.

Don’t let what I do or don’t admit to prevent you from telling your story. Let’s hear what you have to say.

 

[kjkent1]

Don’t let what I do or don’t admit to prevent you from telling your story. Let’s hear what you have to say.

Your question is irrelevant, because your argument is not based on natural selection. In fact you have taken great pains to divorce yourself from that part of the argument ever since Unnamed produced a selection method which was fast enough to permit RMNS to evolve organisms well within the available time since the formation of Earth.

Your current argument, which you now claim as your entire argument, is that selection by whatever method is meaningless, because no gene can arise de novo, due to its improbability. And, the improbability is due to your claim that a gene de novo has no organism to which any selective advantage would be of use. Thus, by your probability calculations, a gene is too improbable to arise as a product of random chance.

So, we don't need to talk about selection, do we, Alan? We only need to talk about probability. And, the bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that string theory demonstrates a probability space which turns the improbability of a gene de novo's occurrence via random chance, into a near certainty.

Now, answer my question: do you admit that string theory provides a sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

And, if you answer no, then kindly provide your new mathematical proof for your conclusion, or a reference thereto.

 

[John Hewitt]

One thing at least -- our discussion here hasn't devolved into a flame war.

No, it hasn't; it has been interesting and constructive and I have enjoyed it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Now, answer my question: do you admit that string theory provides a sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

And, if you answer no, then kindly provide your new mathematical proof for your conclusion, or a reference thereto.

I’ve never studied string theory so I can’t give you an answer to your question. So it is up to you to teach us why string theory permits a gene to arise de novo by random chance without any selection mechanism.

Everybody is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for your answer how this happens. Wait a minute, I want to get a bag of popcorn before the show starts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Scatequate, you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the truth and a lie.

No, I can still tell the difference, and reciting magical words won't make it otherwise.

Perhaps this would also be a good time to mention that however often you call me "Scatequate", this will not magically make the facts go away, since reciting idiotic words does not actually change reality. You remember how I explained this to you?

I am a little flattered, however, to find that I personally can drive you into the same state of hysteria that the plain facts of biology can. I've managed to infuriate a creationist as much as truth itself infuriates him. If only your judgement had any weight, I'd feel proud.

Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

And yet it happens.

So it turns out that your "mathematics" was wrong, as was explained to you about thirty pages ago, but you still keep lying about it.

I do indeed value logic, and logic tells me that things which actually happen are not impossible.

Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero?

Of course, since the de novo evolution of a genome has been actually observed, I don't need to give some hypothetical "mathematical" description of it, I've given you a description of it. Several of them, in fact, all published in peer-reviewed journals. If I wanted to prove to you that elephants exist, I wouldn't give you a "mathematical representation" of an elephant, I'd show you an elephant. In the same way, I have shown you the de novo origin of a genome.

If, after seeing the elephant, you went on whining that although I'd shown you an elephant, I hadn't shown you a "mathematical representation" of an elephant, I'd conclude that you were crawling away from reality just as fast as your hands and knees could take you.

Why don’t you post a couple of links (which you haven’t read). You might as well throw in a couple of gifs and jpegs since that appears to be the limit of your debating skills.

Hey Paul, is this the best mathematical skills that the members of the James Randi Forum have to offer? Scatequate's contribution to this discussion is pathetic.

Ah, more lies.

You remember I explained to you how lying won't make facts go away?

This is still true.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

Righty-o.

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

Kleinman has not invoked God? You gotta pay more attention, Hammegk.

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically.

Lovely. Please do so.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

I’ve never studied string theory so I can’t give you an answer to your question. So it is up to you to teach us why string theory permits a gene to arise de novo by random chance without any selection mechanism.

Everybody is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for your answer how this happens. Wait a minute, I want to get a bag of popcorn before the show starts.

Oh goody, I get to play Perry Mason now!

Evidently your God approves of your, shall we say, massaging the truth. I can prove, from your prior posts, that you have, in fact studied string theory, at least well enough to understand the debate, and my argument.

If we were in court, and this thread were the record, you would be just inches away from a perjury charge, right now.

Would you like me to demonstrate your knowledge of string theory, or would you prefer to just answer my question?

 

[articulett]

Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying.

Now that is beautiful irony.

I, and no doubt many others, think Dr. A. is perfectly clear. What I want to know is this: Does anyone know what John Hewitt's hypothesis actually is? Anyone? So much verbiage; so little content.

 

[articulett]

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

Oh, they are all including an "intelligent designer"--it's just that they are being deceptive and obfuscating as all creationists are. It's fine to question a theory, but, first it would be a good idea to understand it. Kleinman proposes a mathematical model that only takes into account one of a myriad of ways genes and genomes can mutate--the least efficient way, in fact....and yet, we are discovering more and more ways it occurs all the time...read the horizontal gene transfer between viruses and bacteria link above. Find out just how many viruses we have in that primordial soup called the ocean. Of course Dr. A's links are useless--all current knowledge is readily discarded by creationists...they are still working on past gaps that have long been filled in regards to evolution. They pin their everything on these gaps, because it means their "theory" (which they never seem to state...at least not in a way that is useful, testable, or understood by anyone else) might serve as an explanation to fill the gap--at least for the ignorant...and then you 3 stooges can go on believing that your "intelligent designer" is real.

Oh, and Hammy, I find it flattering to be amongst your enemies--such people seem to be a very intelligent crowd--and we are far more honest and clear than you self-important creationoids. In fact, I bet you guys don't even understand each other. None of you can sum up the others "hypothesis" much less your own big bugaboo with evolution.

tsk tsk Go crawl back in your hole.

 

[cyborg]

Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory,

You have done the least mathematics of anyone here.

4^G? Profound!

you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

Perhaps you could explain the logic of creating evolution as a 'faith' system. There are obvious reasons why the traditional 'faith' systems exist. Any good reasons you can think of why we're all deluding ourselves if you're not going to conclude that I'll have to find another reason to disbelieve in (your) god?

Because I can sure as hell think of some good reasons why YOU want to call it a faith system that have nothing to do with scientific outrage.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible.

Operative word being 'can' here.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

As I have pointed out many times I could simply modify the program to prove your assertion that the EVENT cannot happen. I refuse to do so until you provide a sufficiently mathematically rigorous definition of it. I will not be accused of fudging things.

You cannot of course which makes your claims that it is impossible totally wrong - you are a very poor mathematician if you thing 'improbable' is good enough when 'impossible' is actually possible.

The fact that you realise this of course is why you won't do it. I don't really know who the hell you think you are going to fool here by pretending otherwise.

 

[Kotatsu]

Read the thread lazy evolutionarian. Wait, evolutionarians don’t have to read. They can jump to conclusions without reading the arguments.

As you may be unaware of this, I shall tell you plainly: insults and ignorance are not arguments.

You are not proving yourself stupid, you are proving yourself to be lazy.

Man, what a comeback!
Kleinman 2 - Kotatsu 0.

Then read the thread and understand the arguments.

I have read the thread (though not all of the Articulett-Hewitt exchange, as it does not interest me). It has lead me to the conclusion that you are likely correct: if random point mutation and natural selection was the only forces operating in the real world, it is likely that too little time would have elapsed for humans to evolve.

However, as I had previously chosen not to limit my knowledge to matters explicitly stated in this thread, I also understand that in the real world, several other mechanisms are also known to be operating, which means that Ev does not acurately model all of reality, and hence it is preposterous to draw conclusions based on it as if it did.

Well now, since you can do mathematics, here is your opportunity to rescue Dr Schneider’s model, which Dr Schneider claims represents reality.

"To please Kleinman" is not sufficient motivation, as I have more pressing matters to attend to. I am not being paid for doing maths, I am being paid for sequencing birds, wasps and oligochaetes.

Are you sure it is something you can’t do?

I have no idea. Any possible lack of ability to do so I may possess is vastly eclipsed by my bulging disinclination to do so.

And how does that relate to the statement you made:

It is linked by the way that the statement you quote does not mention or concern the evolution of a gene de novo, which is further stressed in the latter post to which you are responding.

Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?

No, because with or without a valid selection process, "all known mechanisms" are not sufficient to gain sufficient results. However, I'd like to think that including more than one known mechanism may, at the very least, give more accurate results.

Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.

How do you know that?

 

[Kotatsu]

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

Remind me, as I seem to have forgotten your reply:
Do you accept a case of speciation only if the resulting progeny is different enough from its parent species to form, at least, a new genus? Or do you prefer to stick with the more common form of speciation where the resulting progeny is only a new species?