Annoying creationists

[Beleth]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

Counter-Creationism mantra #1:
"Abiogenesis is not evolution."

 

[joobz]

Since natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics, what selection pressure would lead to the formation of a self replicating ligase?

It's so cute when you try and sound smart. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

Counter-Creationism mantra #1:
"Abiogenesis is not evolution."

I know this; I’ve heard evolutionarians chant this frequently. The only chant that I hear more from evolutionarians is “recombination, recombination”. However, abiogenesis is still subject to both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution. Since natural selection is analogous to the 1st law of thermodynamics, I again find myself agreeing with Dr Schneider (we agree on so much). So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.

This does give a point of hope for evolutionists since self-replicating molecules are much shorter than the genomes of any known free living organism, but you introduce new complications in your argument. How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself? This approach to your argument only reveals more and more gaps in your theory of evolution.

I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards) but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.

 

[delphi_ote]

The claim was made that self replicating RNA and protein were impossible. That claim has been demonstrated to be quite false. For self replication to be a feasible explaination for the origin of life, there's no need to prove that these reactions happen in modern life. You were pointlessly moving the goalpost.

Self replication itself isn't even a necessity for abiogenesis. It's possible life arose from an autocatalytic set. As I've said over and over again, these are unanswered questions. We have good candidate solutions, each with its own supporting evidence and difficulties (No. "Poof" isn't among them.) As of today, we don't have a definite answer.

 

[delphi_ote]

This approach to your argument only reveals more and more gaps in your theory of evolution.

Right! As long as humans are ignorant of some things, your god will always have a hiding place. Just don't call him a god of truth. He's a god of ignorance.

 

[joobz]

However, abiogenesis is still subject to both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Please, do tell. I love hearing your detailed account of thermo. it's so enlightening. Tell me now, how does thermo prove that evolution takes too long?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

The claim was made that self replicating RNA and protein were impossible. That claim has been demonstrated to be quite false. For self replication to be a feasible explaination for the origin of life, there's no need to prove that these reactions happen in modern life. You were pointlessly moving the goalpost.

Self replication itself isn't even a necessity for abiogenesis. It's possible life arose from an autocatalytic set. As I've said over and over again, these are unanswered questions. We have good candidate solutions, each with its own supporting evidence and difficulties (No. "Poof" isn't among them.) As of today, we don't have a definite answer.

Delphi, I keep telling you to lay off the sterno. I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following:

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.

I guess I need to show you where the goal posts are again. Ev shows that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model, macroevolution is mathematically impossible because of the astronomically large number of generations to evolve only a few loci. Ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium because of the requirement of small populations which must evolving rapidly. Preliminary data from ev shows that huge populations do not reduce the number of generations sufficiently to make macroevolution possible. Delphi, please use a designated driver when coming to the ball park.

 

[Beleth]

I know this; I’ve heard evolutionarians chant this frequently.

And yet you still asked a question that shows that you do not understand this. Hmmm.

I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution.

Evidence that he said that? Evidence to back up his claim?

So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.

Same math, perhaps. Different parameters, almost assuredly. One does not enter parameters appropriate for a cruise ship in order to come out with a canoe.

How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself?

I anxiously await the answers to those questions which your theory provides. What was your theory, again?

I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards)

Really, it's not. And that's "unfinished", not "half-finished."

but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.

Wait, I thought you berated him into not doing it for you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution.

Evidence that he said that? Evidence to back up his claim?

Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.

So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.

Same math, perhaps. Different parameters, almost assuredly. One does not enter parameters appropriate for a cruise ship in order to come out with a canoe.

It is interesting to see how the results of ev are shaping the arguments for the theory of evolution. You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection? Every fundamental gene and control system would have to evolve on these short genome length self replicating molecule and then somehow self assemble to form more complex organisms.

How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself?

I anxiously await the answers to those questions which your theory provides. What was your theory, again?

Beleth, read the title to this thread.

I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards)

Really, it's not. And that's "unfinished", not "half-finished."

Every builder knows that if you don’t have a good foundation under your building, it will collapse. Ev has removed random point mutations and natural selection from the foundation of the theory of evolution.

but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.

Wait, I thought you berated him into not doing it for you.

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

 

[tsig]

Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists. The only victory here is showing that the theory of evolution has no mathematical basis and I believe never will.

You are welcome to belive whatever you want. You have no math. never had and didn't bring it.

 

[Beleth]

Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.

ETA for you to produce them?

It is interesting to see how the results of ev are shaping the arguments for the theory of evolution.

Well of course it is! That's science's modus operandi. New data comes in, and either the data is shown to be lacking (and therefore discarded) or the theory changes course in accordance with the data.

Beleth, read the title to this thread.

So, your answer is "goddidit"? A simple yes or no answer to this will suffice.

Every builder knows that if you don’t have a good foundation under your building, it will collapse. Ev has removed random point mutations and natural selection from the foundation of the theory of evolution.

Another common misconception among Creationists: that showing one part of the theory of evolution might need tweaking, shows that all the data and hypotheses and predictions and confirmation of predictions just magically evaporates until the only possible answer left is "goddidit".

Not so. Whatever new evidence ev might bring to the table will just push our knowledge base further away from goddidit. It can't help it. Knowledge accumulation never leads back to goddidit. Ev might give evolution a course correction, and we will all be the better for it, but it will simultaneously, unavoidably, move us further away from Creationism.

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory.

On the contrary. You are the doting old Creationist who doesn't realize that scientific theories are tempered -- a word which here means "strengthened by hardship" -- by stuff like this, and that religious hypotheses are necessarily weakened.

Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

Actually, it's gap plus evidence. The concept which is reduced to nothing but gap when all the speculation is taken out is summed up by the title of this thread.

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I keep telling you to lay off the sterno.

The funny just never stops with you, does it?

I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following:

If you look back carefully, you'll see I was initially responding to Hewitt, not you. You jumped in and moved his goalpost.

 

[John Hewitt]

I have gone to the trouble to read your "A Habit of Lies." You're obviously a very knowledgeable scientist, and apparently you believe that you have an important contribution to make to biology which has been unfairly dismissed by your peers.

I'm nowhere near well versed enough in biological science to judge the merits of your work, but I wonder if you could explain to me as a layperson, how any of this is relevant to the question of whether EV is an accurate model of what it purports to be?

As I understand it, Dr. Schneider's model was intended to demonstrate that molecular information gain is theoretically possible without extrinsic intelligent guidance -- something which apparently everyone here agrees the model demonstrates.

The remaining issue is apparently whether or not there has been sufficient time since the beginning of the universe for sufficient information gain to have produced the complexity of life found on Earth.

Now, I'm sure that I still haven't summarized the issue as well as someone with a PH.D in biology could, but if you will be so kind as to ignore any literal gaffs on my part and address the substantive issue, I'm certain that everyone here will find your comments useful.

And, if not everyone, then at least, I will.

To clarify, "A Habit of Lies" is not directly about evolutionary theory. The link is part of a signature file and appears automatically when I post to the JREF forum. You should know that my PhD is in molecular biology, not biology proper, and my first degree is in physical chemistry. The evolutionary work that has occupied my time for the past ten years or so is described in "Sex and Philosophy."
That work is entirely evolutionary and arises from "A Habit of Lies" and my reading of Popper but is now only distantly related to it. I assert that evolutionary theory should be based on the concept of data and I refer to the resulting development as bioepistemic evolution. I do think that evolution, as a process, can lead to the accumulation of selected information which, following Plotkin, I would call knowledge, and can encode that accumulating knowledge as data. Note, however, that the code needs to evolve at the same time as the knowledge.

So, the answer to your question is yes; given the right parameters, I think that any properly constructed simulation could do what you ask. I do not know whether EV is better than some other simulation - you would have to take that up with somebody who has more directly relevant expertise.

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor. I think the same of behaviour in the field, with evolutionists being, if anything, more abusive and dogmatic than their creationist opponents. In "Sex and Philosophy," where I discuss the application of bioepistemic evolution to prebiosis, abiogenesis if you prefer, I use the phrase "a plague on both your houses."
That is basically how I feel about this kind of debate. As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have a little problem with this estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation. If you take a mutation rate of 10^-7 and a genome length of 3x10^8, you should only get about 30 mutations per generation per genome. They suggest and overall mutation rate of 2.14x10^-8 which would give only about 7 mutations per generation per genome.

You have to consider how many cell divisions occur before the gametes are ready, and also the fact that the zygote is composed of two gametes.

Even if you assume their estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation is correct, some of those mutations will be harmful and that creature will be selected against, some mutations will be helpful and that creature will be selected for and some mutations will be neutral and will not be selected for or against.

For sure, the critters that were selected against are not our ancestors.

I know that Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis satisfied you until you realize he failed to attend to the details. I will only me satisfied when this job on the theory of evolution is finished.

I have run many experiments that satisfy me. If you care to present the proof that I should be dissatisfied, I'm all ears.


~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists.

And this, folks, is Dr. Kleinman's method of argumentation. His goal is clear: He wants to be able to say crap like this at Creationist sites to win points with the evolution deniers.

You won't do the work to support your thesis, but you're perfectly happy to predict the outcome.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection.

Oh, please. What a load of ********.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul posted the following URL which presents a paper that discusses the mutation rate for the human genome.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1288368
I said the following about this paper:

I have a little problem with this estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation. If you take a mutation rate of 10^-7 and a genome length of 3x10^8, you should only get about 30 mutations per generation per genome. They suggest and overall mutation rate of 2.14x10^-8 which would give only about 7 mutations per generation per genome.

I believe my calculations are correct for a genome of length 3x10^8 however, a human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length. So using their overall mutation rate of 2.14*10^-8 for a genome length of 3x10^9 would yield an average of about 70 mutations per genome per generation. This is still far short of the 128 mutations per genome per generation for the authors’ final estimate. Something is wrong with their bookkeeping.

Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.

ETA for you to produce them?

What does ETA mean? I will if it is ok with Dr Schneider, but it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.

I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following:

If you look back carefully, you'll see I was initially responding to Hewitt, not you. You jumped in and moved his goalpost.

Let’s repost the quote:

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.

That is false. Gerald F. Joyce has done many experiments in this area. While it's not yet a perfect scenario for the origin of life, to say there's "no evidence" only demonstrates your ignorance.

Proteins have been very clearly shown to be self replicating, as have some other types of molecules.

Delphi, if life arose by these self replicating molecules, why isn’t the world filled with nothing but self replicating molecules? How do you get the first self replicator? They certainly couldn’t evolve by random point mutations and natural selection, ev shows this.

Delphi, you still haven’t answered how the first self-replicator could have formed. You also haven’t explained how the self-replicator evolved into a replicator of other molecules.

You continue to accuse me of moving the goal posts when you don’t even see the goal posts.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

Just to clarify- are you saying the mathematical model of evolution is wrong, or the "theory" of evolution is wrong?
Because if it's the former, I suspect you may well have a point.
If it's the latter, I would be intrigued to know what (if any) alternative you propose.

I do apologise if you have already clarified this. I find much of the discussion quite incomprehensible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe my calculations are correct for a genome of length 3x10^8 however, a human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length. So using their overall mutation rate of 2.14*10^-8 for a genome length of 3x10^9 would yield an average of about 70 mutations per genome per generation. This is still far short of the 128 mutations per genome per generation for the authors’ final estimate. Something is wrong with their bookkeeping.

I think you want to double that to account for diploidy.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

all of the arguments Kleinman has made have ALREADY been discounted for multiple reasons.

But since he feels the need to re-hash the same old lies, I'll link to all of the posts that explain why this is just wrong.

Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.

the following links represent clear flaws in your argument against ev and why you are wrong.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432


Please try again, but with a new hypothesis.
Evolution takes to long cause ev said so has been disproven.

This post is from page 15, we are now on page 20. And I'm STILL waiting for a new hypothesis from you as to why evolution is wrong.