Annoying creationists

[joobz]

It's disingenuous to say evolution is a just so story as there is plenty of evidence that it is real. Are you referring to a particular aspect of evolution, or are you of the persuasion that since we don't know everything we don't know anything?

nicely stated, I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

 

[John Hewitt]

It's disingenuous to say evolution is a just so story as there is plenty of evidence that it is real. Are you referring to a particular aspect of evolution, or are you of the persuasion that since we don't know everything we don't know anything?

It is not, of course, for me to speak for Hammegk, but I do not have the impression that he doubts evolution as a historical fact, I certainly do not. The problem people have with evolutionary explanation is that so many such explanations are not really amenable to test. Hence, people pursue the alternative of rudeness, presumably to avoid answering embarrassing questions.
I, personally, am unhappy with the general structure of evolutionary theory. I would like to hope that applying a more logically structured theory might reduce the number of those just so stories.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul has extrapolated a value for the case of a 100k genome with 16 binding sites each 6 bases wide and a population of 1,000,000 to take 200,000,000 generations to evolve.

If I said that, I was an idiot. Rfrequency > Rcapacity in that situation, so I doubt it would ever converge.

I'm currently running a series of experiments varying the genome size, but with wide binding sites that will allow a million base genome. I estimate it will take about a month to run the experiments. Stay tuned.

I wouldn’t judge you so harshly. You published the following series previously using a wider site width.

Here's some data I collected:

population 36
site width 8
1 mutation per 512 bases

genome size, generations
512, 3763
722, 4950
1024, 9866
1448, 11446
2048, 11189
2887, 13037
4096, 38731
5775, 34424
8192, 61365
11550, 68696
16384, 73915
23101, 136762
32768, 177424
46202, 344124
65536, 526545
92406, 707871

If you assume that the mutation rate affects the generations for convergence linearly (which it does not), then your generations for convergence for the last point in this series using a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases would take about 2000 times as many generations or about 1.4 billion generations. If you then increase the population to 1,000,000, you should get about 140 million generations which is still in the same ball park as your previous extrapolation. I think you are going to find that back peddling on your extrapolation of 200,000,000 generations to evolve 16 binding sites, 6 bases wide on a 100k genome with a mutation rate of 10^-6 and a population of a million is one of your few fairly accurate extrapolations and now you are retracting it. Your other fairly accurate extrapolation was that ev models reality and then you retracted that as well. The only extrapolations you make that I agree with you retract. When are you going to retract the entire ev program?

What parameters are you using anyway? Do we really have to wait a month? Well, it will give joobz a chance to increase his insult vocabulary. For someone so grammatically challenged, any increase in his vocabulary we have to look on as progress. Now if we could only have him apply his skills as an alchemist to showing us how ribose is formed in the primordial world.

You all have a fun weekend.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

FYI to those who don't already know; drkitten & articulette are 'jerkettes' rather than 'jerks'.

I think you may be wrong about at least one of them.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Evidence?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you are going to find that back peddling on your extrapolation of 200,000,000 generations to evolve 16 binding sites, 6 bases wide on a 100k genome with a mutation rate of 10^-6 and a population of a million is one of your few fairly accurate extrapolations and now you are retracting it.

Actually, it's an absurd extrapolation, although you like it because "ooh, it's a long time and I want evolution to take a long time."

The Rfrequency for that experiment is 13, while the Rcapacity is 12. It is quite unlikely ever to evolve a perfect creature. Either I did not notice the Rcapacity problem or I made that extrapolation before I understood Rcapacity.

You have one criterion for liking an extrapolation: It makes evolution take a long time. Of course, in other circumstances you renounce extrapolation completely. Well, here's a case where you, unlike me, could have done your homework and noted the absurdity.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evidence?

Right, like I'm going to state publicly how I know the gender of an anonymous poster.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Nothing like a good Paulie-The-Greek anecdote substituted for fact.

 

[dv82matt]

nicely stated, I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

Thanks. Fun thread.

It is not, of course, for me to speak for Hammegk, but I do not have the impression that he doubts evolution as a historical fact, I certainly do not. The problem people have with evolutionary explanation is that so many such explanations are not really amenable to test. Hence, people pursue the alternative of rudeness, presumably to avoid answering embarrassing questions.
I, personally, am unhappy with the general structure of evolutionary theory. I would like to hope that applying a more logically structured theory might reduce the number of those just so stories.

There are certainly some practical difficulties with testing evolution directly, however, as you are probably aware many predictions (or retrodictions if you prefer) of evolution have been tested. In cases where predictions are not feasible we may need to be content, at least temporarily, with the explanation that best explains the available evidence.

There is plenty of guesswork and hypothesizing on the cutting edge of evolutionary research as there is in any active scientific discipline. Many of these speculative theories will eventually be found wanting and discarded regardless of the esteem they are held in today.

I certainly agree that any human endeavor including science is vulnerable human foibles and that science depends on the free exchange of ideas as much as it does on evidence and reason.

Could you provide an example of an evolutionary explanation that you feel lacks convincing evidence yet is unquestioned by experts in the field?

 

[joobz]

Actually, evolution being the theory (lots & lots of hypotheses -- no doubt about that) with proponents here, it would be appropriate for them to provide 'supporting mathematics' to add needed rigour to the current just-so-story.

I thought ev was part of that. Maybe I am mistaken, but so far Paul has demonstrated that there is a definite parameter space within which a binding site could evolve. Meaning that as genome sizes increase, point mutations alone cannot effectively generate a wholly new binding site.

There doesn't seem to be a lack of evidence for evolution just a lack in putting it all together. If there was a viable contrary theory that could experimentally support all existing evidence, I would be very interested in hearing it. But ID doesn't attempt to explain any of the known data mechanistically, which makes it impossible to test and rather worthless as a counterhypothesis.

 

[hammegk]

Maybe I am mistaken, but so far Paul has demonstrated that there is a definite parameter space within which a binding site could evolve. Meaning that as genome sizes increase, point mutations alone cannot effectively generate a wholly new binding site.

Or we could stick with Sh.it Happens as being equally informative ...

There doesn't seem to be a lack of evidence for evolution just a lack in putting it all together.

See, we agree after all. In few more decades we may bring Modern Evolutionary Theory up to pre-Newtonion preciseness.

If there was a viable contrary theory that could experimentally support all existing evidence, I would be very interested in hearing it. But ID doesn't attempt to explain any of the known data mechanistically, which makes it impossible to test and rather worthless as a counterhypothesis.

Umm, yes, I'd also state 'Worthless Is As Worthless Does' is a fair charcterization the Mod. Ev. Th., today's version.

 

[joobz]

Or we could stick with Sh.it Happens as being equally informative ...

Really? I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

See, we agree after all. In few more decades we may bring Modern Evolutionary Theory up to pre-Newtonion preciseness.

I think we're more at the Boyle's Law, charle's Law state in the development of equations of state. We have aspects and theories in evolution and genetics that provide useful, predictive relationships. But there is obviously more to the story.

Umm, yes, I'd also state 'Worthless Is As Worthless Does' is a fair charcterization the Mod. Ev. Th., today's version.

This is an unfair characterization. Modern theory has provided us the ability to predict Flu vacination effectiveness as a function of evolving mutations(see the work of Michael Deem).
ID has provided us with undue legal issues.

 

[hammegk]

Alternatively, Modern theory trumpets the Fact of (Mendelian) modification with descent and with great fanfare and arm-waving pretends all of the Theory has equal basis in fact.

 

[dv82matt]

Or we could stick with Sh.it Happens as being equally informative ...

So you don't think evolution is informative. Do you hold this position because in comparison to physics evolution is a less exact predictor of future events?

See, we agree after all. In few more decades we may bring Modern Evolutionary Theory up to pre-Newtonion preciseness.

All that this means is that simple physical processes are more easily modeled than complex ones.

Umm, yes, I'd also state 'Worthless Is As Worthless Does' is a fair charcterization the Mod. Ev. Th., today's version.

So you don't think evolution is useful for describing the changes in the traits of a population over successive generations, right?

I'm still not completely clear on your position. Do you believe that evolution is:
a: false
b: reserve judgement
c: true but completly useless
d: trivially true, a tautology
e: other, please describe

If you could nail it down for me it wouldn't seem so much like a moving target, thanks.

 

[joobz]

Alternatively, Modern theory trumpets the Fact of (Mendelian) modification with descent and with great fanfare and arm-waving pretends all of the Theory has equal basis in fact.

Mendelian modification, DNA/RNA genetic theory, inter and intraspecies protein polymorphisms... But who's counting?

Fair enough. Which aspects of the Theory are you most in doubt of? Specifically, which aspects of the Theory (that is taken as undoubted fact) do you consider unscientific?

BTW, I hold you and your comments with the highest respect. I've seen you egg people on, but i have yet to you to be down right offensive.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nothing like a good Paulie-The-Greek anecdote substituted for fact.

Hammy, I really don't give a crap whether you take my warning seriously or not. I was simply pointing out that your fact-filled statement "FYI to those who don't already know; drkitten & articulette are 'jerkettes' rather than 'jerks'." might not be accurate in spite of the mass quantity of evidence contained therein.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Alternatively, Modern theory trumpets the Fact of (Mendelian) modification with descent and with great fanfare and arm-waving pretends all of the Theory has equal basis in fact.

Hmm. Why do scientists keep working on it, then? I never understand that. I also don't understand why scientists keep working when science is just a social construct with established hegemonic dogma.

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

There are certainly some practical difficulties with testing evolution directly, however, as you are probably aware many predictions (or retrodictions if you prefer) of evolution have been tested. In cases where predictions are not feasible we may need to be content, at least temporarily, with the explanation that best explains the available evidence.

There is plenty of guesswork and hypothesizing on the cutting edge of evolutionary research as there is in any active scientific discipline. Many of these speculative theories will eventually be found wanting and discarded regardless of the esteem they are held in today.
<snip>
Could you provide an example of an evolutionary explanation that you feel lacks convincing evidence yet is unquestioned by experts in the field?

"Yet is unquestioned by experts?" I am tempted to say their own theories - there are a great many DrKittens in science. However, to be more serious, I would say most of the subject matter of evolutionary psychology, (excepting my own work on sexuality and humour) most of social evolution (including all of memetics), most ideas about the origins of sense organs and nervous systems and all theories about the origin of life - apart my own work.

Really, the only evolutionary fields in which I find the reasoning and supportive data compelling are those that concern the relatedness between species. There you have serious evidence from the correlations between sequence data, Linnaean classification, geology and biological functions. One could not deny the quality of those results but so much of the rest is handwaving and it can never be more than handwaving because evolutionary theory gives no guide - predictively, it is a very weak theory.

The reasons for the weaknesses, as I said, I consider to be the erroneous construction that is placed on evolutionary theory itself. Evolutionary theory should be based on data, not genes, and should recognise all data pools, not just the data in DNA sequence. Construct it properly and I believe evolutionary theory would do better.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The reasons for the weaknesses, as I said, I consider to be the erroneous construction that is placed on evolutionary theory itself. Evolutionary theory should be based on data, not genes, and should recognise all data pools, not just the data in DNA sequence. Construct it properly and I believe evolutionary theory would do better.

As you said, the origin of species does rely on multiple data pools. What data pools are the evo psych, memetics, sensory systems, nervous system, and origins scientists overlooking? Are the evo devo folks overlooking any data pools?

Let's take the origins scientists as an example. Clearly they are looking at fossils, at clues in genomes (DNA, RNA, and proteins), at chemistry, at crystals, at early environments, at existing extreme environments, and at extraterrestrial possibilities. What are they overlooking?

... and it can never be more than handwaving because evolutionary theory gives no guide - predictively, it is a very weak theory.

Wait a minute, now you appear to be saying they have no hope anyway.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

If not by evolution, then by what process which satisfies the rigorous mathematical basis which you apparently require, have the myriad of past and present lifeforms come to exist on Earth? State your hypothesis and supporting mathematics.

I have made no scientific claims to origins of life and explanation for all the different life forms we observe. It is you evolutionarians that claim you have the scientific explanation for these observations. I am showing how unscientific your explanations are and that your views are simply another faith and belief system without scientific basis despite all your claims.

If you make no scientific claims, then the alternative is that life is the product of magic, right? If that’s what you believe, then you should have the courage to state it, so that no one can mistake your position.

You decry all existing scientific investigations, you offer no other scientific hypotheses, and as an alternative, you offer nothing.

Something from nothing = magic.

I think you’ve been living out in Clovis for too long.