Annoying creationists

[cyborg]

What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?

You don't have to design a pattern for it to occur anyway.

If one is going to argue design what is more sensible:

1) The periodic table was designed and then atoms designed with rules to make them fit it
2) Atoms were designed with certain rules which lead to a pattern that can be described by the periodic table

Just about any system with rules can have patterns occurring in it - I'd even venture to say it's just about inevitable. That doesn't say anything as to whether or not the rules which lead to the patterns have any design to them - they don't have to at all.

 

[joobz]

You don't have to design a pattern for it to occur anyway.

If one is going to argue design what is more sensible:

1) The periodic table was designed and then atoms designed with rules to make them fit it
2) Atoms were designed with certain rules which lead to a pattern that can be described by the periodic table

Just about any system with rules can have patterns occurring in it - I'd even venture to say it's just about inevitable. That doesn't say anything as to whether or not the rules which lead to the patterns have any design to them - they don't have to at all.

It always seems that id-ers and evolutioners aren't even arguing the same issue.
It's how(the process) vs. why (meaning of life). Evolutionists don't ask why. Don't care about why. They just want to know how. Iders only ask why and (most of the time) have preconceived answers for that already. Yet both seem to take an affront at the others question and answer.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

OK, Professor Kleinman, I've done my homework now (and, I've pasted a gold star in the "Wednesday" calendar box displayed on the refrigerator, too). ;-)

I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?

I'm in no position to argue the science of your contentions. I wish that weren't the case, but my math/science education stopped with first year calculus and that was 20 years ago.

However, I am a pretty good judge of what it takes to get someone to a bargaining table in the mood to negotiate. And my observation is that your communication skills show a distinct lack of diplomacy.

And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.

A person who "wants" a fight, almost always gets his/her wish. If you really wanted to get Dr. Schneider's attention, you will stop "throwing down" the "gauntlet," because that's pretty much like telling your opponent that you find him a complete moron and that you are available at his convenience to beat him into submission.

Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.

And, my comment here is irrespective of the fact that Dr. Schneider may have used a similar phrase to describe his own challenge. Just because your opponent "may" have a chip on his shoulder, doesn't mean that you should immediately strike out to knock it off.

Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.

That's how arms get broken and wars start. However, in the end most of the combatants are dead or seriously injured, rather than better educated (although admittedly the scientists are usually safe in some bunker building more sophisticated weapons to continue the unending cycle).

Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.

Now, since I personally have no dog in this fight, other than a distinct amateur interest in the evolution v. design debate, when you write to me in a condescending tone, I just shrug it off. But, I'm trained to do that (i.e., unless/until I see a legally actionable claim with a positive property or liberty expectation) -- whereas the other scientists with whom you are jousting do not. Instead, they get defensive, and the conversation devolves into a lot of people shouting but no one doing much listening.

Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.

So, if your true goal is to actually get your opponent to concede that his science is deficient, then you should consider an approach that's a little more conciliatory.

On the other hand, if you prefer to be merely annoying, then just keep on with your current Don Quixote approach, and I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.

It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.

John, if anything my estimate is a great underestimate. There are more than 20 amino acids. There are L and R stereoisomers of the 20 amino acids found in living things. Since the vast majority of amino acids in living things are composed of L amino acids that gives you 40 amino acids that can randomly combine only half of which are found in living things. If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds. Even with a selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows how profoundly slow this process is. You have the same mathematical problem if you propose the RNA world.

Yes, I'm sorry, I do realise the real probability is much lower. I misspoke myself. I should have said that the number on that negative exponential was much higher.

At the risk of being pesky, the number of amino acids (and other chemical reactants) affects the base number and the number of mers in the molecule affects the exponent when estimating the probabilities of forming a particular molecule. Hey, I’m already annoying, so why not expand my skill set and be pesky as well.

What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?

Yes, I am. If there is no reason to propose a mysterious designer, then there is no reason to propose it.

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.

Don’t forget to tell the media that there is no known selection process that would reduce these impossible odds.

Hey media! We don't understand abiogenesis yet. Shocking, no?

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

 

[John Hewitt]

So, as a practical matter how would you change EV to accomodate your theoretical model?

Maybe you should consider discussing your theory with Dr. Schneider. He's probably one of the few people who would be likely to understand the hypothesis.

I am not far enough into programming to write simulations of the process I have in mind, so I shall merely state the chemistry I have in mind.

The sun is both an energy source and also a data source - it switches on and off each day. The resulting daily change in temperature will cause will cause chemical equilibria in the primordial soup to shift backward and forward. You will thus have primordial, chemical oscillations.

I point out that those chemical oscillations will be subject to evolution. They will compete with one another for environments that are protected from high energy processes, such as UV exposure. As these oscillations evolve, they will come more and more to resemble biochemical pathways which will eventually merge into protocells etc.

As a mechanism, that is quite parsimonious, because it is evolutionary from the outset but it does depend on a high energy input data source, the sun.
As I say, I wouldn't know how to write a simulation of such a process and it does not fit directly into an EV type program, which deals in base sequence. Still, telling Shneider about it might be a good idea.

 

[kjkent1]

I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?

And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.

Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.

Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.

Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.

Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.

It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.

<Shrug>

1. How exactly do you define a "greedy Dilbert?"

2. Do you own your home or rent?

3. Back on the substantive issue, Dr. Schneider states in his blog: "Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model."

Have you accounted for all of these other mechanisms being able to increase the speed of evolutionary change? If not, why not?

 

[Yahzi]

I simply said that Gods and aliens might both be capable of inputting intelligent design into "daughter" organisms.

Your inability to recognize that Gods are not conceptually equivalent to aliens is the point.

Why not look for design from fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites, and unicorns?

Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.

 

[Yahzi]

I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.

That's the goal.

If it got noticed, it might conclusively addressed, and then where would he be?

Better to have an argument that goes nowhere than one that gets refuted. This is the same kind of logic that says it's better to have a wrong answer than no answer at all. That is, religious logic.

 

[tsig]

I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?

And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.

Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.

Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.

Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.

Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.

It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.

At the risk of being pesky, the number of amino acids (and other chemical reactants) affects the base number and the number of mers in the molecule affects the exponent when estimating the probabilities of forming a particular molecule. Hey, I’m already annoying, so why not expand my skill set and be pesky as well.

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

GIGO

 

[John Hewitt]

Your inability to recognize that Gods are not conceptually equivalent to aliens is the point.

Why not look for design from fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites, and unicorns?

Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.

I said nothing at all about fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites or unicorns and I will leave to you the task of speculating about the properties of these entities.
I did not suggest that aliens and Gods are conceptually equivalent, I said that both might be capable of inputting intelligent design into daughter organisms. I do not know what difference you might perceive between Gods and aliens and, unless it becomes relevant to my own interests, I do not suppose that I will ever really care.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

1. How exactly do you define a "greedy Dilbert?"

I’ll let your own word give the definition.

I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.

Do you have any idea of how to do something just because you think it is the right thing to do even if you don’t make any money out of it?

2. Do you own your home or rent?

This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion and is none of your business to boot.

3. Back on the substantive issue, Dr. Schneider states in his blog: "Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model."

Have you accounted for all of these other mechanisms being able to increase the speed of evolutionary change? If not, why not?

If you had read the threads you would have some idea what has been discussed. Go back and do your homework properly and stop making telemarketing phone calls in the middle of dinner.

I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.

That's the goal.

Set your publishing goals low enough and even Yahzi will read it.

 

[joobz]

kjkent1, I do not doubt that you've read the thread, but to provide a summary of events

These are the reasons why Kleinman is 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 has been Kleinman's only argument. His entire debate takes the following forumla.

All evidence in this thread indicates you’ll be waiting for quite some time. It seems the last 16 or so pages have taken the same shape.

Kleinman makes claim A.
Random poster (X) says claim A is wrong for reasons Y and Z.
Kleinman responds to X with B and C.
X show B and C are irrelevant to X's claim and that Y and Z have been left unaddressed.
Kleinman makes witless insult of X, pats self on the back, and makes claim A.
Repeat ad nauseam.

We are still waiting for a new hypothesis from him. A new critique. But he can't provide one. he doesn't have one. There's nothing new here.

 

[kjkent1]

If you had read the threads you would have some idea what has been discussed. Go back and do your homework properly and stop making telemarketing phone calls in the middle of dinner.

OK, is it fair to say that your hypothesis is that random point mutation and selection are the only mechanisms which contribute to meaningful evolutionary change, because other mechanisms lack sufficient gradualism and the result is likely fatal to the host?

And, because EV can't gradually evolve a complex creature in the time available since the formation of the Earth, that rules out evolution?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Is this effect now common consensus even among micro-biologists? That is, environmental pressure does increase mutation rates?

Hammegk- I cannot answer your question, being no biologist- but I think the question misses my point, which is that while mutation supplies the raw material for natural selection, it need not (and probably does not) set the rate of evolution, unless we define that rate purely as a function of the mutation rate, which would be a circular definition.

Could you be a bit more specific? Or is 'evolutionary style' what your next comments are meant to address?

By changes in evolutionary style, I mean the real developments which have emerged (and may still be emerging) as time passes. Examples would include (but not be limited to);-
The switch from non cellular to cellular biota.
The development of multicellular cooperatives and the integration of previously independent organisms within one another.
The related development of parasitic and symbiotic lifestyles at molecular and phenotypic levels and the development of counter measures to parasitism.
The development of plasmid , or other DNA exchange, including the invention of sex.
The development of photosynthesis and the O2 shift in the atmosphere.
The invention of exoskeletons.
The invention of the species - insofar as they exist at all.
There are thousands of such steps- probably gradual enough in reality, but "sudden transitions" seen through the wrong end of the geological telescope. (And we only know about the ones that left fossil evidence).
Each change involved positive feedback into the biosphere in terms of number and type of phenotype. The increase in variety forces more increase in variety. It's an accelerating system, with the main braking agents being tectonic and the odd asteroid. It seems obvious that a model which does not cope with these order of magnitude changes must be incomplete.

And now you've moved to arm-waving with a just so story. Sorry.

Hammegk, nobody knows the truth about what went on way back when. I'm speculating, yes. You think I'm the only one here doing that? If I have arms to wave, it's because I'm less fish-like than my ancestors. (I'll tell you about great-uncle Cedric some day).

Except the times isolation has been nominated as playing a good part.

In macroscopic speciation. Who was talking about that?

Or not ...

Like I say, we're all way out on thin ice here. Pretending we have a mathematical model for a process we barely have begun to understand is wildly speculative. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we all realise it is.

Kleinmann- Yes, I'm sure the creators of the software will improve it if they can, but the way to improve a model of reality is to adapt it till it yields a result that resembles reality. I applaud the idea of such a model- we have to start somewhere- but I'd be astonished if it was in any sense " right" at such an early stage- and stunned if it had any claim to completeness. So I'm profoundly unsurprised that it gives apparently "wrong" results if we vary the input data.
I think people will still be improving it in a century or so, by which time we may have more complete data for them to model.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Kleinmann- Yes, I'm sure the creators of the software will improve it if they can, but the way to improve a model of reality is to adapt it till it yields a result that resembles reality. I applaud the idea of such a model- we have to start somewhere- but I'd be astonished if it was in any sense " right" at such an early stage- and stunned if it had any claim to completeness. So I'm profoundly unsurprised that it gives apparently "wrong" results if we vary the input data.
I think people will still be improving it in a century or so, by which time we may have more complete data for them to model.

I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.

Please don't annoy me with this gambit. Certain types of patterns are taken as indicative of human design. There are gobs of patterns that are not.

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

I disagree. I believe you are conflating understanding with reproducing.

Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.

I think Hammegk would call this a category error.

I did not suggest that aliens and Gods are conceptually equivalent, I said that both might be capable of inputting intelligent design into daughter organisms.

Can you propose a mechanism whereby god would do this?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.

Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

~~ Paul

It's quite simple, Paul. It's starts with natural selection, which is just a restatement of the first law of thermo....

 

[fishbob]

I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.

You don't get to have it both ways:
"Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection"
- and -
"The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so"
can not exist in the same logical framework.

And of course the math won't change, but the calculations most likely will.
2 + 2 will always equal 4, but maybe we won't be adding 2 + 2.

And your rude arrogance, along with your failed logic, provides convincing evidence for my theory of creationist dishonesty.
Thank you for your support.

 

[John Hewitt]

Can you propose a mechanism whereby god would do this? (Impart intelligently designed content to a dauhter organism.)

~~ Paul

By moving in mysterious ways.
By contrast, an alien would use an intelligentifier beam, though he would need to have his inertial dampers switched on.

 

[delphi_ote]

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.