Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Here is a description of a realistic selection process. This is the closest I can get to such a process and it is the reason why I think the theory of evolution is impossible.

Even if you disagree that evolution produced the diversity of life from a common ancestor, you really can't argue that evolution and natural selection themselves are impossible. You're talking about a computer model that demonstrates exactly those concepts. You've watched it happen right in front of your eyes when you ran the simulation.

If you recall from earlier in this thread that I acknowledged and agreed that microevolutionary processes can and do occur however macroevolutionary process do not occur. We spent some time trying to come up with definitions for micro and macroevolution that were agreeable to both sides in this debate. Since Paul and other evolutionists hold to the position that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I postulated that the evolution of a gene from the beginning is a representation of macroevolution. I believe that recombination and selection can and does produce a diversity of life forms and give dog breeding and Darwin’s observations on the diversity of finch beaks as examples. I consider recombination and natural selection as microevolutionary process since homology is maintained. I suspect that the varied fossils found are the result of recombination and natural selection and not mutation and selection. Likewise, I believe that Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is only applicable to recombination and selection and not mutation and selection. The evolution that is mathematically impossible and that is demonstrated so by ev is macroevolution. Selection of mutations to evolve a new gene from the beginning can not happen because there is no selective advantage to a partially completed gene and transformation of genes from one form to another is interfered with by competing selection processes.

You know the concept of evolution is possible, but you keep saying you think evolution is "impossible." Why? Is there some kind of disconnect between what you witness and what you type? When you're making up your arguments here, is there a point where you stop to consider reality? Does evidence even give you pause, or is scoring points for Jesus more important than pondering obvious facts?

I entered this discussion with an open mind. I don’t know of any other creationist or IDer who felt that ev represented a plausible model of random point mutation and natural selection. What I did was study the behavior of the model using varied input parameters and tabulated the results. What I’m am trying to do here is sort out what is truthful and what is inappropriate extrapolation or invalid interpretation of observations. I asked the question whether natural selection can perform what evolutionists attribute to this phenomena. Ev gives a platform to test these concepts. Evolutionists were content with the result that Dr Schneider obtained with his single published case because it fit your world view. I scratched a little deeper and saw something different in ev.

 

[John Hewitt]

Sigh. Data? Just once?

Fine. What evolves, John?

More precisely, when evolution has occurred, what has changed?

Data, just once? Are you seriously disputing that temperature driven oscillations will have existed on the prebiotic earth? If you are asking me to provide evidence in support of the laws of chemical equilibrium, or how they shift when the temperature changes, I would refer you to high school chemistry texts.
The oscillation is the entity that evolves. It is not a physical object, it is a replicating data pattern. There will have been many such, consequent upon their being many organic equilibria in a random mixture. Each oscillation exists as an independent entity in "chemical space" not, initially, in physical space. These oscillations compete with one another and are subject to selection and even to variation.
Eventually they evolve to self-oscillating biochemical pathways that resemble Eigen's hypercycles; and yes Schneibster, biochemical pathways do self-oscillate - not widely known that but they do.

Ear lobes? You haven't me yet told me how ear lobes come into this?

 

[The Atheist]

You know how some people's personality radically changes when they get behind the wheel of a car? A similar thing appears to be happening to people on this forum.

It must be encoded in their genes. So there's no point thinking they may be able to bring in new knowledge and produce a different output. Because a phenotype can't evolve. The books say so you see, so it must be true.

Just because you don't agree with one idea a person has proposed, is not a sensible reason to ignore all their ideas.

I've read some of what John has written on his sex&philosophy site and while I don't agree with or know enough to argue with some of what he's proposing, some of it I do agree with and do know enough to evaluate it reasonably.

Articulett: Ha! You're a creationist!

Me: Ivor, great stuff - extremely well said.

 

[The Atheist]

Ear lobes? You haven't me yet told me how ear lobes come into this?

John! You call your site sexandphilosophy and you ask that question???

 

[The Atheist]

And what should we do with the knowledge that free will is an illusion on a day to day basis?

Or to put it another way, what tasks can you perform better by incorporating that knowledge?

And that's one of the best two-liners I've seen.

Notice there haven't been any answers either. The only use on a daily basis would be if you wanted to become a fatalist.

 

[The Atheist]

Go ahead, noobie.

Well, you're still here!

You being outside the US and an avowed atheist bought you membership in the clique ... Lovers' quarrels even occur among insiders.

Lovers' quarrel????

You seen my sig?

And your meaningless attacks in this thread certainly helped provide a derail.

I thought the standard has risen immeasurably since Paul suggested everyone take a deep breath.

If your title was The Theist and you were a US poster you'd have been suspended long ago.

Well, I find it hard to believe, but as you note, I haven't been here that long. If it ever happens, I will certainly be speaking up - I'm a christian apologist!

 

[The Atheist]

So you're admitting that you don't let facts get in the way a of a good rant.

You're an engineer, you live and die on facts - they're your way of life.

I'm a salesman. Facts are anathema.

But you wonder why people dismiss you as troublemaker with nothing signficant to say.

Completely incorrect. I have never wondered why, in fact, I'm pretty sure I've been honest right from the start - N.B the "Train Wreck" above my avatar.

So many times in life, I find the choices other people make to be so utterly mystifying.

You need to get out more.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Mercutio: I've fixed it for you

I refer you to 30 years and 39 years, respectively, of publication of the peer-reviewed journals Behavior Modification and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. More recently we can include 15 years of the journal Behavior and Society, and of course decades of scholarly books. Remember that any attempt to scientifically study our behavior must rely on our behavior acting lawfully. Advances in education, behavioral medicine, industrial/organizational applications, clinical Behavior Modification, all (tacitly or explicitly) depend upon assumptions that their exists at least some determined behavior.

Cyborg:

I’d agree that if you could find a time machine and travel back to a time when language and our wide range of social nuances were less developed, then yes, you could be a “completely successful human animal”. However, people without these skills in the present day are not “completely successful human animals”, with my understanding of the words ‘completely’ and ‘successful’.

But perhaps you have a really low standard for your sexual partners?

 

[Kotatsu]

Contrast:

This is typical for an evolutionarian proof, superficial slogans.

With:

mathematics shows that the theory of evolution to be impossible

,

you want to describe how the self replicating RNA molecule that is described in Delphi’s link could have evolved from the beginning?

,

Feel free to tell us all how the first gene arose from the beginning

,

the ev computer program shows that the process random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used in the model that macroevolution by this mechanism is mathematically impossible.

,

there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning

,

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency

,

You can refute my argument by describing a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

,

Ev shows that random point mutations and selection is profoundly slow, too slow to accomplish the evolution and transformation of these molecules you see as being so similar.

,

The ev computer simulation shows that when there is more than one selection process operating at a time, this profoundly slows the evolutionary process.

,

Not only does this model demonstrate how profoundly slow random point mutations and natural selection is at accumulating information when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates, it shows how important the selection process is.

,

There is no realistic selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and ev shows that with more than a single selection condition, evolution slows profoundly.

,

The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and continues that way. The theory of evolution is nothing more than a slogan “mutation and selection”.

,

No one said science is finished, only that the theory of evolution is finished, it is mathematically impossible, your own (stylized) computer model shows this.

and

Not only is there no selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning, the model also shows a severe difficulty for the theory of evolution in that competing selection processes markedly slow the rate of information gain.

You can't buy this stuff.

 

[Kotatsu]

I don’t question your observation, I question your interpretation of your arguments. Recombination and selection can accomplish rapid changes in a species. Are you saying that recombination and selection is how speciation occurs?

I would say that, yes, recombination and selection may be one way for speciation to occur, but there are certainly others. Autopolyploidization, for example.

 

[Dr Richard]

All chemical equilibria that are not thermoneutral (which means virtually all chemical equilibria) shift position in response to changes in temperature. This is school level chemistry. The resulting multiplicity of oscillations are interpretations of the sun's data input and are subject to evolutionary selection.

They do not need to inherit their data, the sun does the inherit bit for them. Selection is discussed at length on my site. I cannot repeat it here.

I have looked at you website John, but it it gives NO hypothetical examples, as all. All of your proposed "chemical reactions" are of the form

dA1 < > iA1 < > jA1 < > nA1

I wanted to see what actual chemicals could oscillate in this way. Surely you must have some reactions in mind? Some proposed chemical pathways?

There is some truth to that but, more substantially, I would say the RNA world has always been outright science fiction. The problem I find with the people in the RNA world field is the same as with so many scientists, including cell motility - they aggrandise the evidence "for" their ideas and diminish or suppress the evidence that contradicts them. Ridiculous behaviour - some of them should just switch careers and move into advertising.

But the "evidence" for your own hypothesis is utterly non-existent. You have no proposed reaction schemes and no evidence that they would oscillate in the manner you propose.

I am afraid that as it stands, your website is one big advertisement for your idea with not one shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[cyborg]

I’d agree that if you could find a time machine and travel back to a time when language and our wide range of social nuances were less developed, then yes, you could be a “completely successful human animal”. However, people without these skills in the present day are not “completely successful human animals”, with my understanding of the words ‘completely’ and ‘successful’.

Well not withstanding I don't have a real clue what 'social nuances' you think are so vital that without them people couldn't cope - using the wrong fork or something I guess - I see some pretty rude mofos who seem to do quite fine not just ignoring but completely destroying social nuances. In short I think you're basically talking nonsense and giving humans far more credit than they deserve.

Why don't you just admit it was a silly thing to say it doesn't matter if 'free-will' is an illusion or not because it 'won't get you laid' ,on a science forum?

But perhaps you have a really low standard for your sexual partners?

Maybe I don't need to talk. Besides I don't even have a clue what standards you are proposing - is it important that you sleep with people who know which fork to use?

You might at least attempt some precision if you're going to keep digging that hole.

 

[Cuddles]

Autopolyploidization, for example.

My mother said that makes you go blind.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio: I've fixed it for you

Depending on how strict you are, that "fix" would apply equally well to any science. Do you suggest that the unexplained in physics is due to the free will of inert matter?

I humbly suggest, then, that yours is a "free will of the gaps". Everywhere we look, we find causal influences on our behavior, and we do not find evidence for anything at all like the "free will" cherished by the philosophers. The gaps are shrinking.

In science, as a general rule, when we tighten controls, what is artifact fades away; what is real stands out more sharply. We have looked at consciousness, we have looked for free will, for over a century (scientifically--longer than that less strictly), and the gaps are still shrinking.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No one said science is finished, only that the theory of evolution is finished, it is mathematically impossible, your own (stylized) computer model shows this.

Gee, if I'd known you were going to start adding "stylized," I would have said "stylized to demonstrate one particular thing." Then you would say:

No one said science is finished, only that the theory of evolution is finished, it is mathematically impossible, your own (stylized to demonstrate one particular thing) computer model shows this.

Then your statement would be even more clearly and self-evidently ludicrous.

~~ Paul

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well not withstanding I don't have a real clue what 'social nuances' you think are so vital that without them people couldn't cope - using the wrong fork or something I guess - I see some pretty rude mofos who seem to do quite fine not just ignoring but completely destroying social nuances. In short I think you're basically talking nonsense and giving humans far more credit than they deserve.

Why don't you just admit it was a silly thing to say it doesn't matter if 'free-will' is an illusion or not because it 'won't get you laid' ,on a science forum?

I won't admit it because I didn't say that. Perhaps you should review the posts so you don’t have to totally fabricate my comments to win a rather pointless argument you appear to want to have?

My original two questions were:

And what should we do with the knowledge that free will is an illusion on a day to day basis?

Or to put it another way, what tasks can you perform better by incorporating that knowledge?

You appear to have sex on the brain because I fail to see how the above to questions are limited to procreation.

At least Mercutio gave a relevant answer.

Maybe I don't need to talk. Besides I don't even have a clue what standards you are proposing - is it important that you sleep with people who know which fork to use?

You might at least attempt some precision if you're going to keep digging that hole.

Precision is good. You should try it sometime.

Let’s try a little thought experiment:

You have a “choice” of pursuing two human sexual partners. One has a good grasp of language and grammar and knows how to behave in common social situations. The other has a very limited grasp of language and behaves in inappropriate ways in various common social situations.

Who would you “choose” to procreate with? Do you think they both have similar chances of passing on their genes?

N.B: Quotes used around the word ‘choice’ so I don’t get accused of believing in free-will.

 

[John Hewitt]

I have looked at you website John, but it it gives NO hypothetical examples, as all. <snip>
I wanted to see what actual chemicals could oscillate in this way. Surely you must have some reactions in mind? Some proposed chemical pathways?

But the "evidence" for your own hypothesis is utterly non-existent. You have no proposed reaction schemes and no evidence that they would oscillate in the manner you propose.

I think you are rather missing the point. Virtually all equilibrium reactions will have oscillated.

Equilibrium reactions include ester formation from acids plus alcohols; aldehyde polymerisations reactions, for example the very complex polymerization reactions of methanal that lead to sugars (among a great many other things) or aldol condensations to produce long carbon chains. Ammonia-carbonyl addition elimination reactions are mostly equilibria and these can lead to heterocyclic ring formation reactions, potentially leading to purines and pyrimidines.

In general, if a chemical equation has an equilibrium sign in it, then the position of that equlibrium will normally shift in response to changes in temperature. Since the earth's temperature oscillates, all those equilibrium reactions will have been oscillating on the early earth. This is simple thermodynamics and I don't need to prove it. Why do I need to specify one of those reactions and say, "look that will oscillate?"

Trying to do so seems pointless to me. Specifying more detailed chemistry needs model experiments and people who are funded to do them. I aim simply to lay down the architecture of the approach.

Also, remember that the early earth was warm, so some reactions, which we now think of as static, would have been in dynamic equlibrium on the early earth.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Depending on how strict you are, that "fix" would apply equally well to any science. Do you suggest that the unexplained in physics is due to the free will of inert matter?

No.

I humbly suggest, then, that yours is a "free will of the gaps". Everywhere we look, we find causal influences on our behavior, and we do not find evidence for anything at all like the "free will" cherished by the philosophers. The gaps are shrinking.

Yes, they are.

In science, as a general rule, when we tighten controls, what is artifact fades away; what is real stands out more sharply. We have looked at consciousness, we have looked for free will, for over a century (scientifically--longer than that less strictly), and the gaps are still shrinking.

I agree 100%.

But I still feel I had a choice if I answered this post, just as I feel I have choices about what I’m going to cook for dinner tonight and what I’m going to watch on TV.

Perhaps you are a more committed Determinist than I?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I don’t question your observation, I question your interpretation of your arguments. Recombination and selection can accomplish rapid changes in a species. Are you saying that recombination and selection is how speciation occurs?

I would say that, yes, recombination and selection may be one way for speciation to occur, but there are certainly others. Autopolyploidization, for example.

Are you proposing that humans and chimpanzees evolved from the primate precursor by these mechanisms?

No one said science is finished, only that the theory of evolution is finished, it is mathematically impossible, your own (stylized) computer model shows this.

Gee, if I'd known you were going to start adding "stylized," I would have said "stylized to demonstrate one particular thing." Then you would say:

No one said science is finished, only that the theory of evolution is finished, it is mathematically impossible, your own (stylized to demonstrate one particular thing) computer model shows this.

Then your statement would be even more clearly and self-evidently ludicrous.

Let’s see, if I use your terminology to describe your computer model, it is ludicrous. Is there any terminology of yours that you use to describe your computer model and I can use and not sound ludicrous? So let’s consider what else your stylized to demonstrate one particular thing computer model shows.

This point has only been briefly touched on. When selection is turned off, the binding site region reverts to a random sequences. Is there any significance to this? I believe there is. What this says is that natural selection restrains the transformation of genes and that according to the results from ev, natural selection pressures must be maintained in order for information content in the genome to be maintained. Not only must there be selection pressures to evolve genes from the beginning, these pressures must be maintained in order for the gene to remain in their states.

Is that the one thing that your stylize to demonstrate one particular thing computer model shows? Or will you continue to devalue Dr Schneider’s and your computer model?

 

[cyborg]

I won't admit it because I didn't say that.

Didn't say you did. It was paraphrasing the thrust of your argument which is that discussing the concept and actuality of free-will is a waste of time because it is not practical in everyday terms - well neither is quantum physics for the most part but damn it if I want to discuss it in a science forum I will.

Perhaps you should review the posts so you don’t have to totally fabricate my comments to win a rather pointless argument you appear to want to have?

You started the pointless argument when you asked what the point of decomposing the concept of free-will had. That was a stupid thing to say.

You appear to have sex on the brain because I fail to see how the above to questions are limited to procreation.

As far as evolution is concerned not having sex is a fairly unsuccessful thing for a genetic entity that sexual reproduces.

You do remember that this topic is about evolution and not forks right?

Who would you “choose” to procreate with? Do you think they both have similar chances of passing on their genes?

Your situation fails to capture any actual relevant information - since the qualities you seem to think are so important are not anywhere near as genetically influenced as you seem to be implying. Since I mix with all types of people I find your attitude incredibly condescending. I do not judge the quality of people as a function of arbitrary human constructs. Why does choosing the right fork matter so much to you?

Besides why would I have to choose? I don't believe monogamy was noted as a necessity anywhere here.

N.B: Quotes used around the word ‘choice’ so I don’t get accused of believing in free-will.

You're being accused of saying that discussing the issue is a waste of time - nothing else.