• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annoying Creationists

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)
 
I know Dr. Adequate's name.

The strength of his arguments does not depend on his credentials. The weakness of yours is not remedied by knowledge of your name.
 
kleinman said:
Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)
Click to expand...
How is this at all relevant?
 
Annoying Creationists

Mercutio said:
I know Dr. Adequate's name.

The strength of his arguments does not depend on his credentials. The weakness of yours is not remedied by knowledge of your name.
Click to expand...
Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak, why do you waste your time reading this thread or are you another defender of crybaby evolutionists? The whino-meter just keeps going up.
Kleinman said:
Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)
Click to expand...
Kleinman said:
bob kark said:
How is this at all relevant?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Not much, just gives us something to do while we wait for something to happen.
 
bob_kark said:
How is this at all relevant?
Click to expand...
It helps distract from his poor claims against ev. He can't refute a single item that Dr. A has clearly laid out. He can't refute Paul's calcuations on the scaling trends in the ev model. He can't accept his incorrect use of entropy that Delphi called him on. He can't refute his incorrect use of thermodynamics in the analysis of the model that I called him on.

No, He's all kinds of wrong. And when that happens, all you can do is resort to personal attacks and childish behavior.
 
kleinman said:
Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak, why do you waste your time reading this thread or are you another defender of crybaby evolutionists? The whino-meter just keeps going up.

Not much, just gives us something to do while we wait for something to happen.
Click to expand...
I suppose, technically, calling me a coward does count as a "new lie", but you are meant to be lying about ev, remember?

Have you got any new lies about ev?
 
Dr Adequate said:
Where would it be incorporated into the phylogenetic tree? I'm fascinated.

Which six-limbed tetrapod (er? ... yes, quite ...) would it be descended from?

Where are the intermediate forms?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. He's been rambling on about how it would be ex post facto said to be descended from the LCA therapsid and diapsid dinosaurs and to have convergently evoloved a beak, feathers, wings, fur, talons and claws, and a long sinuous tail.

We've been asking him where the wings would come from, but he claims we'd just find a way to make it fit. As yet, he hasn't drawn either a cladogram or a working phylogenetic tree to show where a Gryphon would fit.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that a Gryphon is more than just swapped modules, it's a true chimera and if you really look at how they're protrayed, they're an Eagle with it's butt chopped off, and a lions rear torso sewn on. That's why I asked him about the Centaurs.

15 Pages of every evolution advocate telling him lists of discoveries that would falsify evolution, and him insisting we'd just find room for them in the phylogenies somewhere.
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
What do you think that ev simulates?
Paul said:
I think it simulates an idealized model of chromosomes, binding sites, point mutations, populations, and natural selection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since I agree with Paul (and Paul is one of the very few evolutionists who has taken the time to do any cases with the model) on his description of what ev is simulating, I think this is a good place to continue the discussion on ev.

I now propose that Dr Schneider’s natural selection process is not so natural and gives an artificially fast (if you can call the rate of convergence of ev fast when using realistic parameters) rate of convergence. Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically.

How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region. What would be the selection process that would determine which random point mutations would be selected for in this region before the gene becomes functional and offers selective advantage? I believe that natural selection is much better selecting out harmful point mutations than selecting in potentially useful point mutations that do not offer immediate selective advantage until combined with further point mutations which make the gene useful. Dr Schneider’s selection process in ev is an over generous approximation of natural selection.
 
Kleinman said:
Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically.
Click to expand...
The weight matrix is a simple equivalent of the complex chemistry that goes on when one molecule binds to another. The fact that the entire genome is searched isn't particularly strange, since molecules bump into other molecules at random.

How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region.
Click to expand...
Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ution+of+hemoglobin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14

~~ Paul
 
Woe is me! My Internet Acess is now limited to the library till I can find a new home. So I'm missing this amazing ongoing debacle! Hammy is even at it!
I'll have to pick it up again later. Keep at it Dr. K. Whether you are right or wrong, this is an educational experience and entertaining as well.
 
Annoying Creationists

Kleinman said:
Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically.
Paul said:
The weight matrix is a simple equivalent of the complex chemistry that goes on when one molecule binds to another. The fact that the entire genome is searched isn't particularly strange, since molecules bump into other molecules at random.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So how does complex chemistry select for a particular random point mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage?
Kleinman said:
How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region.
Paul said:
Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Kleinman said:
Paul said:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=14
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s run with what this author says and start with his first sentence in his abstract:
Ross Hardison said:
A comparative study of hemoglobin was conducted to explain how an ancestral single-function molecule gave rise to descending molecules with varied functions.
Click to expand...
Then this author says later in his paper:
Ross Hardison said:
Such studies are carried out by comparing the genes that code for the hemoglobins and their chemical relatives in a range of organisms from bacteria to people to see how the genes have changed through time. Typically research in molecular evolution has focused on portions of the gene responsible for alterations in protein structure. So it came as a great surprise that the changes in hemoglobin have not been merely structural. In fact, the three-dimensional structure of hemoglobin - its shape, with folds, pockets and surfaces - has been fairly well conserved over the protein’s evolutionary history. Rather, some of the most rapid and dramatic changes in hemoglobin proteins have been in the ways these molecules are regulated - the when and how of their manufacture inside the cell. The hemoglobins and their relatives continue to evolve rapidly in subtle ways, and the changes continue to come in the genetic regulation of the proteins.
Click to expand...
This author states that the hemoglobin molecule has changed little.

Dr Schneider has demonstrated how binding sites can be formed, albeit it occurs at a profoundly slow rate, how do you form the ancestral single-function molecule that gives rise to the descending molecule? What is the selection process that would allow random point mutations to generate such a gene? What form can natural selection take that would allow bases to be assembled to form this ancestral single-function molecule? In the early stages of the formation of this ancestral gene, what would select for the first 200 bases of this gene without there being a selective advantage for this sequence of bases?

Hyparxis said:
Woe is me! My Internet Acess is now limited to the library till I can find a new home. So I'm missing this amazing ongoing debacle! Hammy is even at it! I'll have to pick it up again later. Keep at it Dr. K. Whether you are right or wrong, this is an educational experience and entertaining as well.
Click to expand...
My aim is not to bore Paul, it is to annoy him. The fact that I can annoy a bunch of other evolutionists at the same time is icing on the cake. Just make sure to wear a raincoat to this party so you can easily clean up after these crybaby evolutionists throw their pabulum.
 
Kleinman said:
So how does complex chemistry select for a particular random point mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it does offer an immediate advantage, if the binding controls some gene expression in a more optimal fashion. Or supresses some other molecule that in turn controls a function. Or, maybe it doesn't offer an immediate advantage, but doesn't cause any harm either.

Dr Schneider has demonstrated how binding sites can be formed, albeit it occurs at a profoundly slow rate, how do you form the ancestral single-function molecule that gives rise to the descending molecule? What is the selection process that would allow random point mutations to generate such a gene? What form can natural selection take that would allow bases to be assembled to form this ancestral single-function molecule? In the early stages of the formation of this ancestral gene, what would select for the first 200 bases of this gene without there being a selective advantage for this sequence of bases?
Click to expand...
Why do random point mutations have to create the gene? How do you even know whether the gene or molecule came first? And why did you skip this part:
The compromise was a chemical one. It appears that the
apparatus that sequesters oxygen in cells, possibly to
protect them, is almost identical to the one that, in different
contexts, exploits oxygen for its energy-generating
potential. At first this apparatus was quite primitive,
probably limited to a caged metal atom capable of binding
oxygen or tearing away its electrons, which are used in
metabolism. But this basic chemical apparatus grew
increasingly complex through time and evolution. At some
point the metal atom was fixed inside a kind of flat
molecular cage called a porphyrin ring, and later that
porphyrin ring became embedded in larger organic
compounds called proteins. [bolding mine]
Click to expand...

~~ Paul
 
kleinman said:
My aim is not to bore Paul, it is to annoy him. The fact that I can annoy a bunch of other evolutionists at the same time is icing on the cake. Just make sure to wear a raincoat to this party so you can easily clean up after these crybaby evolutionists throw their pabulum.
Click to expand...
Hello? You've already convinced us that you have a grotesque personality disorder. We are already well aware that you comfort yourself for your failure and impotence with bizarre, childish wish-fulfillment fantasies. You don't need to keep reminding us.

Indeed, I would advise you to keep your humiliating psychiatric problems to yourself. Do you realise how funny it is to hear a grown man sob and sniffle and blubber out the word ... "crybaby"? It's not the least amusing thing to shriek when you're throwing a tantrum.

Anyway, do carry on. I believe you were constructing an argument from ignorance. Indeed, three, by my count. You don't know how evolution works, you don't know how ev works, and you don't know how haemoglobin evolved. What a lot of ignorance. Well done!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom