Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Then why would you be so silly to say:

Of course he did, don't be silly.

when describing Darwin’s understanding of the complexity of living things. Darwin had no idea of these things.

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.

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:

Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.

If you examined the ev model, you would find that it is not a simple probability problem but you appear to be afflicted with the same deficiency that other evolutionarians suffer from, superficiality. Your analysis of this model Dr is inAdequate.

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

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

The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 \ 66547
8 \ 15916
16 \ 17257
32 \ 16416
64 \ 9082
128 \ 9378
256 \ 4078
512 \ 3685
1024 \ 2793
2048 \ 2080
4096 \ 2565
6000 \ 1541
8192 \ 1798
16384 \ 1001
32768 \ 743
65536 \ 633
131072 \ 483
262144 \ 702
524288 \ 642
1048576 \ 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

You evolutionarians have another problem with your theory. Stephen Gould said that evolution by punctuated equilibrium occurs in small sub-populations in short time spans. This data from ev is in direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis.

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".

You have not done an adequate job in reading Dr Schneider’s writings. I will post a third time on this thread what Dr Schneider ascribed to his single case published in Nucleic Acids Research. Myriad please note that I publish Dr Schneider’s quote in full.

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

Please feel free to do the evolutionarian twist on Dr Schneider’s statement.

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.

Maybe you should start the society for the prevention of abuse of evolutionist computer models.

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.

Joozb, is it Dr inAdequate’s argument that anything is possible at infinity or his sounds good to me argument that convinced you.

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?

Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Then why would you be so silly to say: when describing Darwin’s understanding of the complexity of living things. Darwin had no idea of these things.

Don't be silly. Of course Darwin knew that living things are complex. Of course, he did not know modern genetics.

Do you understand the difference now, or do I have to explain further?

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:

Yes, he did. And then, when I pointed out that the generation number tends to 1, he agreed with me.

If you examined the ev model, you would find that it is not a simple probability problem but you appear to be afflicted with the same deficiency that other evolutionarians suffer from, superficiality. Your analysis of this model Dr is inAdequate.

So, you don't have any actual counterarguments.

You evolutionarians have another problem with your theory. Stephen Gould said that evolution by punctuated equilibrium occurs in small sub-populations in short time spans. This data from ev is in direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis.

You're just rambling now.

Which data?

Evolution does occur in small sub-populations in short time spans. Look at the speciation of the Wood's Hole worms.

You have not done an adequate job in reading Dr Schneider’s writings. I will post a third time on this thread what Dr Schneider ascribed to his single case published in Nucleic Acids Research.

You said that he'd used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome". Your quotation does not substantiate that.

Maybe you should start the society for the prevention of abuse of evolutionist computer models.

It's more a one man operation.

Still, I'm glad you got through that post without lying about "realistic parameters".

Can you stop using that bloody stupid font, too? Cheers.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:

Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.

Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there. I mentioned a higher asymptote because in the real world, where there are not infinite creatures, there may be some practical higher asymptote. However, I don't know what it would be.

The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

You are being disingenuous here. You know that the variance in the number of generations is high. We should really run each case a half dozen times and use the mean. I will run the 2 million population case when I've got a week with nothing better to do.

I ran the 4K, 8K, 32K, and 65K populations 5 times each and got these means:

4086, 1770
8192, 1641
32768, 1288
65536, 922

Let's use those numbers along with yours for populations of 4K and higher. That data fits [latex]$12800p^{-.24}$[/latex]. Extrapolating to 100 million creatures, we get 153 generations.

I'd love to know what Myriad gets with his alternate tie-breaking scheme.

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

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.

I think that creationists ARE usually dishonest in one of two ways:

Refusal to look at facts - intellectual dishonesty through deliberate ignorance.
Misrepresentation of facts - lying.

I have had no luck in finding one that doesn't fit one of these models.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:

Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.

And

Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there. I mentioned a higher asymptote because in the real world, where there are not infinite creatures, there may be some practical higher asymptote. However, I don't know what it would be.

I’m sure joozb likes your anything is possible zero estimate. It probably even sounds good to him.

The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

You are being disingenuous here. You know that the variance in the number of generations is high. We should really run each case a half dozen times and use the mean. I will run the 2 million population case when I've got a week with nothing better to do.

Disingenuous? I take that as an improvement from you, you usually call me a liar when I quote you. So let’s look at the mean values you computed:

I ran the 4K, 8K, 32K, and 65K populations 5 times each and got these means:
4086, 1770
8192, 1641
32768, 1288
65536, 922

The trends for increasing population appear similar. Changing the random seed number may change the absolute value for the generations for convergence but the trends don’t appear to be affected.

I'd love to know what Myriad gets with his alternate tie-breaking scheme.

My wager with Myriad is still open to you as well, don’t you want to get in on it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence.

Oh, I missed this bit.

YES, OF COURSE IT'S APPROACHING THE ASYMPTOTE. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

OF COURSE YOU GET A REDUCTION IN THE GENERATIONS. THAT'S THE BLEEDIN' POINT.

Hello, Earth to stupid guy?

Sheesh.

If you rolled in male clue musk and ran naked through a field of horny female clues in the clue mating season, you still couldn't get a clue.

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.

Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there.

But wouldn't you count the first (and final) generation as being one (1) generation?

Otherwise, since Schneider starts with a randomized population, you're right.

 

[joobz]

I’m sure joozb likes your anything is possible zero estimate. It probably even sounds good to him.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. But, I'm sure it makes sense to you.

Feel free to continue your misrepresentation of my views. feel free to continue to deny the mistakes and errors you've made in your arguements and conclusions.

I'm sure god will forgive you. Afterall, he's never made a rule against lying and bearing false witness, has he? or any rules for humility? Or any rules for hypocricy? Well, I'm sure your you can work it out with him.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true. Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.

Dr inAdequate also clings to the hope that his logic will prove that the 2 meg population will converge in 1 generation. Dr inAdequate, what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them? This case from ev is for the evolution of 96 loci on a 1000 base genome and it is taking about 400 generations for a population of 1,000,000. Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, the number of generations to evolve a human length genome is inadequate according to the results from ev. I really enjoy abusing evolutionist computer programs. I think it is because it annoys evolutionists so much.

I can’t attract a horny female clue but for some reason I am able to attract frustrated and annoyed evolutionarians in abundance. Where is the logic in this Dr inAdequate?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But wouldn't you count the first (and final) generation as being one (1) generation?

Ev counts generations as those that have passed, so the initial population is created on generation 0. But it's probably fair to say that one generation has passed after initial creation.

I'll go with an asymptote of 1.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr inAdequate also clings to the hope that his logic will prove that the 2 meg population will converge in 1 generation.

I said absolutely no such thing. Are you lying again, or are you just to stupid to understand what I said? I'll be happy to explain it again using shorter words.

Dr inAdequate, what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them? This case from ev is for the evolution of 96 loci on a 1000 base genome and it is taking about 400 generations for a population of 1,000,000. Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, the number of generations to evolve a human length genome is inadequate according to the results from ev.

If you don't show your working, I can't point out your mistakes.

I really enjoy abusing evolutionist computer programs. I think it is because it annoys evolutionists so much.

Of course dishonesty irritates us. Why you enjoy irritating people by lying to them, I have no idea. Are you a childish sociopath, or is there some other reason?

I can’t attract a horny female clue but for some reason I am able to attract frustrated and annoyed evolutionarians in abundance. Where is the logic in this Dr inAdequate?

Did that mean anything?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them?

Is that when binding sites evolved?

Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, ...

Did binding sites evolve on gigabase genomes using only point mutations?

I wonder what the proportion is for Myriad's tie-breaking method?

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Ev counts generations as those that have passed, so the initial population is created on generation 0. But it's probably fair to say that one generation has passed after initial creation. I'll go with an asymptote of 1.

Paul, have you been taking classes from joozb. You are using his sounds good system of scientific proof.

... what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them?

Is that when binding sites evolved?

That’s an interesting question. Do you think that genes will evolve faster than binding sites? Or perhaps you believe all the genes and binding sites were already evolved in our primate ancestor and only recombination was required to evolve humans and chimps. You evolutionists are going to have some explaining to do if there are genes in humans that don’t exist in chimps and visa versa if you adopt this point of view.

Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, ...

Did binding sites evolve on gigabase genomes using only point mutations? I wonder what the proportion is for Myriad's tie-breaking method?

Maybe Delphi’s chromosomal duplication will explain it, of course that is for plants. Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much. How about frame shifts, evolutionists do like shifts, but it is usually into reverse gear on their previous statements. I think joozb’s method is best, just use whatever sounds good but whatever you do, do not make a computer simulation of your concept. There are creationists out there who will abuse your computer models, if only to annoy evolutionarians.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events. Hard mathematical science requires you do the accounting. Ev is not going to be much of a help for those 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes. I note this following line from their discussion section:

Some questions can be directly answered by comparing the human and chimpanzee sequences, including estimates of regional mutation rates and average selective constraints on gene classes.

They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested.

 

[joobz]

Paul, have you been taking classes from joozb. You are using his sounds good system of scientific proof.

If you call stating a hypothesis based on SOUND consistent logic, than yes, he has been. I wish you would take similar lessons instead of making insulting claims.

That’s an interesting question. Do you think that genes will evolve faster than binding sites? Or perhaps you believe all the genes and binding sites were already evolved in our primate ancestor and only recombination was required to evolve humans and chimps. You evolutionists are going to have some explaining to do if there are genes in humans that don’t exist in chimps and visa versa if you adopt this point of view.

At no point was there a coherent thought in this statement. You've presented another false dilemma. Please, tell me more.

How about gene's must become peanut butter or they must taste like chicken. If they do neither, than craetionism is right.

Maybe Delphi’s chromosomal duplication will explain it, of course that is for plants. Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much. How about frame shifts, evolutionists do like shifts, but it is usually into reverse gear on their previous statements. I think joozb’s method is best, just use whatever sounds good but whatever you do, do not make a computer simulation of your concept.

where did i say this? Hmm? Please continue to dig deep. I'm sure god loves to see his name linked to someone who's so willing to lie and slander.

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events. Hard mathematical science requires you do the accounting. Ev is not going to be much of a help for those 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes.

Wow, you said something fairly true. Ev might not be much help here. It will need to be expanded to account for more of the mutation possibilities and it will also have to start considering evolution of genes other than binding sites. Afterall, that's just one piece of the puzzle. So good job, you've actually made a statement that's about right.

Now, if I can only get you to understand what thermodyanmics is, then we'd be doing even better.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much.

You sure?

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314


~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this.

Even if the model was showing whatever it is you think it's showing, this is not evidence of creation. Your dilema is still there. What is your alternate hypothesis and where is the evidence for it? How does it account for what you find lacking in evolution? Most importantly, how does it explain all of the evidence evolution already explains?

Sorry, but you're not allowed to sit on your ass and be grumpy in science. If you present a hypothesis, you have to defend it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Goal Posts in Cement?

If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts.

Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?

 

[joobz]

Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?

I enjoy your intent here, but you are assuming kleinman is capable of honor. He hasn't in demonstrated the ability to admit error in something as simple as incorrectly defining terms. He'll NEVER actually admit error in something that could shake the foundations of his faith.

 

[articulett]

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. But, I'm sure it makes sense to you.

Feel free to continue your misrepresentation of my views. feel free to continue to deny the mistakes and errors you've made in your arguements and conclusions.

I'm sure god will forgive you. Afterall, he's never made a rule against lying and bearing false witness, has he? or any rules for humility? Or any rules for hypocricy? Well, I'm sure your you can work it out with him.

Well C.S. Lewis has read the bible and cocluded that PRIDE is the worse sin of all. (I was thinking torture, murder, and pedophilia topped pride, but what do I know; the bible makes no coherent sense to me...nor does kleinman. But genetics makes ready sense--it's like game theory on a grand scale)

I used to be like Dr. Adequate and I just thought creationists were misinformed and had the thinking muddied by having been told their salvation depended upon them believing a certain way. But I now think they are purposefully dishonest. They purposefully ignore the explanations to their queries and pretend that their obfuscations regarding certain particulars of evolution somehow means that their completely unsupported alternate theory which can be summed up as "god went poof" is true. They are dishonest, because when you give up trying to comprehend what it is they are trying to say, they use it as evidence that "scientists" and "skeptics" have no answer to this dilemma therefore "god went poof".

When I hear certain sorts of questions or arguments that contain inherent ignorance and bias, my stomach turns. I imagine someone saying to scientists past-- "why can't you say how far it is to the end of the earth?!...and don't give me 'the earth is a sphere' crap because if it was a sphere the oceans would spill out--besides, wouldn't god have mentioned it if it was spherical?!! He's omniscient, you know --plus you have to invent gravity to have a spherical planet which means this planet is supposedly spinning...but I have very sensitive motion sickeness, and I would know if it was spinning...why aren't you answering...you don't have a good answer, do you. That's because you know the earth is flat".

How is anyone supposed to answer that. And if it's not dishonest, it certainly is indicative of someone who believes they already have the answer...not of someone who actually desires to know what is known.

I have a hypothesis that when you train your brain to find deep spiritual truths is rather barbaric and arcane writings you also train your brain to perceive your dishonest "debates" as being righteous, deep, and wise.

Evolution is alive and thriving. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself and others in the name of religion. The only people who have problems with the mathematics of evolution or irreducible complexity are creationists. The scientific community has stopped giving these people the time of day.