Annoying creationists

[cyborg]

The present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life

Is this unreasonable? Organic material tends to be harvested by living organisms does it not?

My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry.

And the third option is...?

What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur.

I don't think anyone does believe this - so would you stop beating the strawman?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry.

And the third option is...?

Ok cyborg, let’s follow your logic trail. What are the possibilities? The 1. present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life, or as 2. Paul speculates below that living things are being spontaneously generated today in thermal vents, which we can’t identify yet or 3. there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.

What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur.

I don't think anyone does believe this - so would you stop beating the strawman?

Oh yea, I forgot natural selection.

 

[cyborg]

there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.

And if I choose option number 3 then what would you have me conclude about the origin of life?

Oh yea, I forgot natural selection.

I think you forgot that not all organic chemistry is complex.

 

[fishbob]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

The environment we live in is chocky jam full of life already. You wouldn't likely know if something new was created - it would be eaten or otherwise out-competed almost instantly. Why is speculating on the existence of an open niche a problem for you?

Remember: Things are more like they are now than they ever were before, and things are less like they used to be than they used to be.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.

And if I choose option number 3 then what would you have me conclude about the origin of life?

Cyborg, the title of this thread is _______ _______.

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, the title of this thread is _______ _______.

So in other words what you're saying is that your speculation is good speculation whilst any other speculation is bad speculation.

You speculate that no environment exists for the chemistry to take place. You then use a computer simulation of evolution to show this. Except that you don't because you keep on telling us that it would take too long to actually run, but your speculation from the model is valid but other's aren't.

You talk of logic but all it really comes down to is shouting us down.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?

When life started there was not much free oxygen. The environment was different.

You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.

Are you arguing with me about whether Ev starts with a random genome or not? It does. The "junk" portion of the genome must change so that it does not cause spurious bindings, and it must stay that way. This is a constraint on its randomness. On the other hand, a real organism has an entirely different set of contraints on its genome, since there are working genes all over the place. You have no idea what sort of effects this difference has.

Why do we need to run a new set of experiments? Why can't we just keep running the one we've got with increasing populations? Can you give us any idea at all why you think it's going to run into a hitch that a 10^28 population wouldn't overcome?

Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.

What would stop it from converging, assuming that there was no Rcapacity issue? Can you give us even the vaguest of hints?

Read his calculation carefully.

I did.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

Well of course. You evolutionists are obviously wrong so a prepared set of macros is perfectly sufficient without the waste of time of actually responding to what you are saying.

Wait... hang on.

You guys are saying that creationist arguments are just a pre-canned set of ideas, that are repeated ad nausem by macros.

But we have seen in the "joobz-joozb" example that these macros introduce copying errors.

The selection mechanism - evolutionists - reject such modified arguments.

But just think: if we could observe some copying errors changing the meaning of the arguments, and if those new arguments were less relentlessly rejected by evolutionists, then we could observe "macro-evolution!"

Yes, folks... the creationist argument will EVOLVE to a satistfactory response to evolution, entirely by non-intelligent, non-designed mechanics.

Thus providing a rebuttal to evolution at the same time it provides an example of it.

 

[fishbob]

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

OK. In science, beliefs are not relevant. What can be demonstrated and what can be supported by reason are the relevant bits. In creationism (and in politics, unfortunately) reality doesn't seem to matter, but belief - often in contradiction to those pesky darn facts - is what counts.

 

[John Hewitt]

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul

Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.
Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered. As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

 

[cyborg]

Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.

Yes.

They're call "creation scientists".

(Man, you walked right into that one).

As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

And so the the logical thing to do would be to go with another "Just So" story right?

Spin the roulette of "Just So"!

 

[delphi_ote]

Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.

There's only one possible conclusion for science, though: the observed outcome. You can't fake the melting point of water, the distances between stars, or genetics. If evidence is the ultimate measure, no matter how determined the someone might be, they don't necessarily reach the conclusion they want to.

Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered.

It would've been more intellectually honest for you to provide an example rather than just proclaiming this.

As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

They're falsifiable hypotheses backed by experimentation and observation. That's better than anything the creationists have to offer.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.

Yes, but as I said above, all scientists don't have the same conclusion in mind. So there is a filtering of ideas. Creationists tend to have one overarching goal. Fortunately, I'm exaggerating somewhat, so we may be spared the concensus required to enact that goal into law.

Edited to add: Oh gosh, no, I was wrong. It has been enacted into law:

http://www.theonion.com/content/nod...utm_medium=Embedded+HTML&utm_campaign=Widgets

Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered. As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

You're right. The creationist claim that "you haven't figured everything out yet" has not been answered.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But just think: if we could observe some copying errors changing the meaning of the arguments, and if those new arguments were less relentlessly rejected by evolutionists, then we could observe "macro-evolution!"

I love this guy!

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?

When life started there was not much free oxygen. The environment was different.

The presence or absence of free oxygen is not the only problem for abiogenesis.

You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.

Are you arguing with me about whether Ev starts with a random genome or not? It does. The "junk" portion of the genome must change so that it does not cause spurious bindings, and it must stay that way. This is a constraint on its randomness. On the other hand, a real organism has an entirely different set of contraints on its genome, since there are working genes all over the place. You have no idea what sort of effects this difference has.

Why do we need to run a new set of experiments? Why can't we just keep running the one we've got with increasing populations? Can you give us any idea at all why you think it's going to run into a hitch that a 10^28 population wouldn't overcome?

I am not arguing with you whether ev starts with a random genome or not, but every time you talk about binding sites evolving on random megabase or gigabase genomes, I don’t want people to think that ev simulates the evolution of a random genome. Ev only simulates the evolution of a small portion of the genome. The rest of the genome is not evolving. The constraints imposed by the evolution of binding sites for a real organism would be more stringent than those simulated in ev. Ev represents the best of all possible conditions for evolving binding sites. If you can’t evolve the binding sites quickly enough in the ev model, a more realistic simulation would only be slower. If you thought you could introduce some feature to ev to make the model converge more quickly, you would have done it months ago.

If you go back and read the discussion I had with drkitten, you would know why I don’t believe that huge populations will accelerate convergence very much. I will summarize it here. Increasing populations in the ev model increase the likelihood of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus at less than additive probability (this is because good mutations hitting a particular locus and increasing population are not mutually exclusive events). With small populations you can approximate the affects of increasing populations on the rate of convergence with the additive rule of probabilities and this is seen with the first few population doublings for the population series done with ev. However, the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus very quickly approaches 1 and further increases in population no longer increase this probability by significant amounts. Myriad and I had a long discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum. Myriad showed that in order to compute the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus, you must actually compute the probability of a good mutation not occurring at a particular locus and then take the complement of that number. Myriad did a very good job describing the application of probability theory to this situation. It is not as simple as it appears at first glance.

Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.

What would stop it from converging, assuming that there was no Rcapacity issue? Can you give us even the vaguest of hints?

Oh, I think it will converge, but very slowly. The rate of convergence will be millions of times slower than Dr Schneider’s published case.

Read his calculation carefully.

I did.

Then if you understood what he is computing, he is assuming every base substitution is selected for and retained. None of the base substitutions are selected against and are lost from the gene pool.

Paul, this is your computer model. You have written the online version to simulate evolution. Why is it that I have to drag you kicking and screaming as a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to do these cases? Do you have some type of agenda? Did Dr Schneider have some type of agenda when he published his unrealistic case when he knew that realistic parameters would take years worth of computer time and show much, much slower rates of acquisition of information? Why are you so selective on what you want shown from this model?

You all have a nice weekend.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then if you understood what he is computing, he is assuming every base substitution is selected for and retained. None of the base substitutions are selected against and are lost from the gene pool.

Imagine two humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. Imagine two other humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine those two children have a child of their own with no new mutations. How many mutations does it inherit?

Paul, this is your computer model. You have written the online version to simulate evolution. Why is it that I have to drag you kicking and screaming as a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to do these cases? Do you have some type of agenda?

Who's kicking and screaming? It's just a matter of resources, as I've repeated to you 20 times. I'm running a Pascal Ev simulation right now.

But tell me: You're the one claiming there is some kind of problem. Why aren't you responsible for doing the work to substantiate your claim?

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

And so the the logical thing to do would be to go with another "Just So" story right?

Spin the roulette of "Just So"!

No, the logical thing to do would be to so construct evolutionary theory that it is capable of making predictions rather than just telling stories. It would also be intellectually honest, not to claim to have done things that were not done.

 

[John Hewitt]

1. There's only one possible conclusion for science, though: the observed outcome. You can't fake the melting point of water, the distances between stars, or genetics. If evidence is the ultimate measure, no matter how determined the someone might be, they don't necessarily reach the conclusion they want to.

2. It would've been more intellectually honest for you to provide an example (of an unanswered creationist claim) rather than just proclaiming this.

3. They're (evolutionary just so stories) just so falsifiable hypotheses backed by experimentation and observation. That's better than anything the creationists have to offer.

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.

2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution. Here's one, tell me where genes come from.

3. In general, I don't know whether one random story is better or worse than another. My problem with this debate is that so many people seem damn sure that they do. I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.

 

[John Hewitt]

Yes, but as I said above, all scientists don't have the same conclusion in mind. So there is a filtering of ideas. Creationists tend to have one overarching goal. Fortunately, I'm exaggerating somewhat, so we may be spared the concensus required to enact that goal into law.

Edited to add: Oh gosh, no, I was wrong. It has been enacted into law:

http://www.theonion.com/content/nod...utm_medium=Embedded+HTML&utm_campaign=Widgets



You're right. The creationist claim that "you haven't figured everything out yet" has not been answered.

~~ Paul

Apart from the unnecessary Mickey taking I basically agree with the things you say but I think your slant is inappropriately kind to the evolutionary side. The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.

 

[fishbob]

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.

2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution. Here's one, tell me where genes come from.

3. In general, I don't know whether one random story is better or worse than another. My problem with this debate is that so many people seem damn sure that they do. I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.

1 - You claimed that the beliefs of scientists have some kind of effect on their findings. You were given good examples showing this claim to be invalid. Don't try to move the goalposts.

2 - You stated that creationist claims were unanswered. You were asked to provide an example of an unanswered creationist claim. What you provided above is not a creationist claim - it is a question. Don't try to move the goalposts.

3 - Oh, look - another unsupported claim. What is an 'evolutionary story'?

PS. Behe thoroughly discredited himself with his testimony at the Dover trial. You might want to look elsewhere for reference material.

The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.

Huh?