Annoying creationists

[Mr. Scott]

Prove Your Faith, Kleinman

I just want to ask bluntly -- has anyone involved in making or promoting Ev claimed that it is a comprehensive model of all possible processes behind evolution? I suspect not.

My broad-brush understanding of the Ev story is that creationists claimed something was impossible, Ev showed it was possible, and the creationists moved the goalposts and claimed Ev couldn't show some other thing was possible.

This moving of goalposts has been going on since Copernicus and continues with the ongoing discoveries of missing links creationists claim have yet to be discovered. I have no doubt the goalposts will continue their journeys forever. No one willingly gives up the fairy tales they learned as children.

So, Mr. Kleinman, is there some testable claim that you will make for which you will promise not to move the goalpost and, if evolutionismistiesariansists prove you wrong, you will throw the bible into the trash heap of exposed hoaxes? I'm sure that evolutionismistiesarians have enough faith in their view to do that with Darwin. Can you draw a line in the sand at a reasonable point where, if crossed by evolutionismistiesariansists, you would not draw a new line, but announce the defeat of creationism?

If so, then do it. Hold the snake and let's see if you are bitten. Refuse, and you reveal to all of us your lack of faith.

 

[drkitten]

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"

No.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex.

Of course he did, don't be silly.

Dr Schneider came close but no prize, only refutation of the theory when realistic parameters are used in his model.

As I have pointed out, you have not used realistic parameters. In particular, your value for q is wrong.

If you are trying to get an idea of what Dr Schneider ev model is simulating by looking at his model as a simplified probabilistic model, then you will find population has less than an additive affect on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at the proper locus.

Of course. To be precise, as population size tends to infinity, the number of generations required tends to 1. The relationship can't be linear because you can't achieve the desired result in a negative number of mutations.

Similarly the relationship of q to n is non-linear, and tends to 1 as n tends to infinity.

I’m not sure what probabilities you are trying to compute.

Ah, an argument from incomprehension.

Could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand? It's really very simple; perhaps you should read my post again until you get it.

---

What you've done is what computer scientists call GIGO --- "garbage in, garbage out". By using completely unrealistic assumptions, you've got a completely unrealistic answer. Well done.

 

[sphenisc]

No.

Is it possible to reformulate my query so that it is sufficiently analogous to Monty Hall problem, so that the answer would be "Yes"?

And, in order to forestall your monosyllabic grunt; how so?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.

1. The universe does not revolve around you. Ask Yagyu.

2. Quite frankly, I don't see how some people can miss out on the hope that evolution and the understanding of evolution bring to mankind.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Keinman, I notice you're still looking at ridiculously small populations. 2 meg is nothing to bacteria.

You ignored that point earlier.

I didn’t ignore that point, you ignored the population data series I posted earlier on this thread.

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations.

Actually, I only have to posit three explainations to prove that yours was a false dilemma. And the third doesn't even have to be plausible, as I don't find your explaination to be very likely and you're not requiring evidence.

So, a third possibility: we are all one consiousness dreaming itself.

Actually, I am not the one with the dilemma. You evolutionarians have a mathematical model written by one of your own high priests which has been peer reviewed, confirmed and published in the center of your belief system (Oxford) and when realistic values are used in this model, it refutes your own theory. Your squirming with these types of arguments you try to present here demonstrates the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider has put your theory in, you have no direct evidence to refute the points presented here from ev.

Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link?

In the first post that mentioned the paper!

Thank you for pointing out that link. Once we have finished scratching at the ev scratching post, we can start scratching at your publication. The thought that I can annoy a hundred evolutionists at a time causes chills to go up and down my spine. By the way, this is the first time I have lied in these postings on ev, your statements really are contradictory. You evolutionarians think the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth.

What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled.

The adjective that best describes such a God, a God Who allows pontine tumors to painfully kill innocent children, is "evil." If that is what your interpretation of the Bible leads you to, and that you find a message of hope in that, then I have to wonder whether you have really put much thought into it.

That is a common view that many people take. When God blesses you with a child, did you ever think to thank God for this blessing? However, when a child is ill, we are so quick to curse God when things don’t work out the way we want. These types of events can fill the rest of your life with bitterness; do you think this is what your child would want to happen to you? Godly love is not cheap, it costs you everything.

Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.

You've only proven this limited assertion in your own mind until you present the proof. Are you ever going to present the proof to us?

Paul, you may call this a limited assertion only proven in my own mind but when you said the following:

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

You slammed into reverse gear on the first part of your quote once you realized what ev shows but we never really talked about the second part of the quote. It doesn’t seem that Dr Schneider has been doing any recent advertising of his model. Perhaps my proof goes beyond my own mind?

Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.

You have seen Myriad's new selection method, right?

P.S. I've been playing around with the model. The curve of generations to convergence depends on the details of the selection mechanism. Change it so that ties are won by the bug whose worst mistake (greatest absolute value of the difference between the binding strength value from the weight matrix and the threshold) is less than the other bug's worst mistake, and the convergence time becomes (at least approximately) linear with respect to the genome length.

Sure I saw his quote, Myriad and I have talked about this a little of the Evolutionisdead forum. In fact, we have a wager on this and I am looking forward to him posting the data. Maybe you want to get in on the bet?

Trimble, you are correct in your analysis. So how do you distinguish which if any is true? Is it Islam which believes that your good deeds outweigh your bad deed you make to heaven or you get an express ticket to heaven with 70 virgins if you commit suicide while killing infidels? No wonder there are so few female Islamic suicide bombers. I have never met a woman who thought having sex with 70 virgin males was heaven. If you are female and do think that is heaven, don’t bother telling me, I am not a Moslem cleric. Or is it the orthodox Jewish belief that following Talmudic law leads to righteousness. Somehow by good deeds we can make ourselves acceptable to God. Or any of the myriad of other religions that says if you do the right thing or good deeds, you will make it to heaven or nirvana or eternal peace. What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.

So we can tell which the correct religion is based on it merits? And we should judge its merits based on the morality that came from the religion in the first place (well I'll assume that you think morality comes from religion, I don't know that for sure).

Not the method I would use, that is for sure.

LLH, that is not what I am saying, in fact I am saying the exact opposite.

 

[Timble]

....Godly love is not cheap, it costs you everything...

This is where you begin to see that Lucifer had a point and feel some sympathy for the Devil.

Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

 

[fishbob]

Selected statements, numbered for my convenience:

1 - Don’t forget, I’m annoying as well.

2 - I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically. I will prove to you that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least my random point mutations and natural selection) using an evolutionist’s model.

3 - Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex. If he had, I don’t think he would have extrapolated his observations the way he did.

4 -
a) I am using Biblical arguments against the theory of evolution.
b) I am using the many Biblical admonitions to measure and weigh to determine what is true.
c) The mathematical arguments I raise here is measuring and weighing your theory.
d) The measurements shown from ev show that the theory of evolution is lacking when placed on the mathematical scale.

1 - No need to comment.

2 - Nobody cares what you believe, what can you show?

3 - Darwin apparently knew quite well the complexity of living things, he just didn't know as much detail as we do today. As some of us know today.

Of course he didn't know anything about irreducible complexity since that is a much newer, non-scientific, fabricated with faulty reasoning from false assumptions, and thoroughly discredited concept.

4a - Pointlessly.
4b - Ad nauseumly.
4c - Bushismly (Meaninglessly)
4d - Incorrectly.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So, Mr. Kleinman, is there some testable claim that you will make for which you will promise not to move the goalpost and, if evolutionismistiesariansists prove you wrong, you will throw the bible into the trash heap of exposed hoaxes? I'm sure that evolutionismistiesarians have enough faith in their view to do that with Darwin. Can you draw a line in the sand at a reasonable point where, if crossed by evolutionismistiesariansists, you would not draw a new line, but announce the defeat of creationism?

If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts. It is you evolutionarians who are changing your position on what ev represents. If you want to read my initial position on this debate, you can find it at: http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=1434cf179889b7b9d23dc99e61d4fbdb Feel free to quote me and show where I have moved the goal posts.

Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex.

Of course he did, don't be silly.

How could I be so silly, Darwin knew all about DNA, RNA, enzymes and structural proteins, cofactors, metabolic pathways…

Dr Schneider came close but no prize, only refutation of the theory when realistic parameters are used in his model.

As I have pointed out, you have not used realistic parameters. In particular, your value for q is wrong.

qcuse me.

If you are trying to get an idea of what Dr Schneider ev model is simulating by looking at his model as a simplified probabilistic model, then you will find population has less than an additive affect on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at the proper locus.

Of course. To be precise, as population size tends to infinity, the number of generations required tends to 1. The relationship can't be linear because you can't achieve the desired result in a negative number of mutations. Similarly the relationship of q to n is non-linear, and tends to 1 as n tends to infinity.

You better go back to your abacus on this calculation, because Dr Schneider’s model is showing something completely different. If you think that you can evolve the binding sites that Dr Schneider is simulating in a single generation with an infinite population, I think you will find even Paul doesn’t agree with this. Even so, as large as bacterial populations can get, they will never be infinite.

I’m not sure what probabilities you are trying to compute.

Ah, an argument from incomprehension. Could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand? It's really very simple; perhaps you should read my post again until you get it.

I don’t see how you are applying your simple probabilistic model to Dr Schneider’s model. Start by defining the variables in your calculations and then describe the rules of probability that you are applying in your computation.

What you've done is what computer scientists call GIGO --- "garbage in, garbage out". By using completely unrealistic assumptions, you've got a completely unrealistic answer. Well done.

I have made no assumptions about Dr Schneider’s model, what I have done is taken Dr Schneider’s model and assumptions and applied realistic parameters to the model. I take it that you believe that Dr Schneider’s use of unrealistic parameters in his model to predict the evolution of a human genome is an appropriate application of his model and my use of realistic parameters in his model to show how slow random point mutation and natural selection is an inappropriate application of his model. Your analogy Dr is inAdequate.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How could I be so silly, Darwin knew all about DNA, RNA, enzymes and structural proteins, cofactors, metabolic pathways…

Of course he didn't. Don't be silly.

You better go back to your abacus on this calculation, because Dr Schneider’s model is showing something completely different. If you think that you can evolve the binding sites that Dr Schneider is simulating in a single generation with an infinite population, I think you will find even Paul doesn’t agree with this.

I think you'll find he does.

Yes, that's the obvious asymptote.

I think you'll find that anyone with the most basic competence in probability theory will also do so.

Even so, as large as bacterial populations can get, they will never be infinite.

No. But they are much larger than the figure you're using.

I don’t see how you are applying your simple probabilistic model to Dr Schneider’s model. Start by defining the variables in your calculations

I have done so.

and then describe the rules of probability that you are applying in your computation.

Er, the usual ones. There is, so far as I know, only one set of laws of probability.

I have made no assumptions about Dr Schneider’s model, what I have done is taken Dr Schneider’s model and assumptions and applied realistic parameters to the model.

No you haven't. And saying it won't make it so.

In particular, your figure for population size is unrealistic by a dozen or so orders of magnitude. Hello?

I take it that you believe that Dr Schneider’s use of unrealistic parameters in his model to predict the evolution of a human genome is an appropriate application of his model...

No. In particular, Dr Schneider has not used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome".

and my use of realistic parameters in his model to show how slow random point mutation and natural selection is an inappropriate application of his model.

I believe that your use of totally unrealistic parameters to get a totally unrealistic answer is an abuse of the model.

 

[joobz]

Of course he didn't. Don't be silly.

I think you'll find he does.

No. But they are much larger than the figure you're using.

I have done so.

Er, the usual ones. There is, so far as I know, only one set of laws of probability.

No you haven't. And saying it won't make it so.

In particular, your figure for population size is unrealistic by a dozen or so orders of magnitude. Hello?

No. In particular, Dr Schneider has not used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome".

I believe that your use of totally unrealistic parameters to get a totally unrealistic answer is an abuse of the model.

Dr. Adequate,
You've done a very nice job in explaining your position and the flaws that kleinman has made. Unfortunately, he doesn't use logic or reason and is completely happy using intellectually dishonesty. Many flaws in his argument have been demonstrated, yet he refuses to acknowledge these. He'll stick to his "takes too long" story. For that is all it is, a story.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think creationists are usually dishonest, I think they're just misinformed.

However, this guy keeps reciting his rubbish about how he's used "realistic parameters" when one of his parameters is a dozen or so orders of magnitude too small and he knows it.

 

[delphi_ote]

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"

No. Because there are always more explanations possible. In general, evidence against one hypothesis is not evidence for a different hypothesis. In the end, a hypothesis stands and falls based on its own merits.

 

[delphi_ote]

Actually, I am not the one with the dilemma.

No. You have the dilemma. You assume evolution is false. How do you then decide between your hypothesis, "Goddidit" and my hypothesis that the universe is one consciousness dreaming itself?

 

[joobz]

I don't think creationists are usually dishonest, I think they're just misinformed.

I agree. That was the reason I orignally responded to his questions and comments. However, once I learned his true intent was to missquote, lie, refuse to admit mistakes and deny facts to make his case, he lost any respect I would hold for him.

 

[Jekyll]

Is it possible to reformulate my query so that it is sufficiently analogous to Monty Hall problem, so that the answer would be "Yes"?

And, in order to forestall your monosyllabic grunt; how so?

You could always say "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become relatively more likely?"

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

 

[Dr Adequate]

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Alas, creationists don't eliminate the impossible.

Imagine if Sherlock Holmes reasoned like a creationist.

"I don't know who murdered Lord Ponsonby. So God did it. I think a talking snake may also have been involved. Case closed."

 

[Jekyll]

Alas, creationists don't eliminate the impossible.

Imagine if Sherlock Holmes reasoned like a creationist.

"I don't know who murdered Lord Ponsonby. So God did it. I think a talking snake may also have been involved. Case closed."

In many respects he did, he'd take a few odd unrelated facts, throw together some tenuous hypothesis, not bother to check for confirmation or refutation, and then lay down his conclusion as incontrovertible scientific fact.

I much preferred Father Brown, oddly enough.

 

[Yahzi]

So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter?

When I first read this sentence, I thought you were talking about the Bible.

 

[Yahzi]

I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.

Why didn't you say that in the beginning?

Instead, you concealed your real motives and goals, and pretended to care about scientific facts.

If you would have us respect you, then you must respect us enough to tell us the truth.

Next time you want to argue about evolution, start with your real reasons. You'll find that people won't be quite so harsh on your character if you don't start out by lying to them.