Annoying creationists

[joobz]

The present is key to the past seems to require adustments to include catastrophism.


Where do you see that in modern ev theory ... other than in the fossil record as writ, I mean.

I apologize, but i don't understand this question?
Again, my ignorance shines through.

Actual Science (physics & chemistry) seems to be reasonably current rather than 500 years in the past.

to my primitive year 2006 brain, they do seem quite current. But will this hold true in the noncatastrophic future?
We're still missing what gravity is, What a wavefunction is, what the orbitals really are.
On the up shot, we do know enough to do some pretty cool stuff.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

He states that microevolution occurs, then what prevents microevolution from going too far? What barriers must be encountered that will prevent the natural selection process?

The only barrier he has talked about so far is time. Apparently, there is time for microevolution, but not for macroevolution. This means that macroevolution is defined as "any change in allele frequency that cannot occur due to time constraints," thus clearly defining macroevolution as impossible. If it's impossible, why do we even have a name for it?

Obviously, such a definition won't do for Creationists. It has to have happened, just not naturalistically. So we sit back and wait for a definition that makes sense, and then for the evidence supporting that definition. Obviously, any black-and-white definition like "macroevolution is speciation" can't possibly be correct.





~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So which is ev simulating, the small segment of the ancestral population which is rapidly evolving or the large, stable central populations that exert a strong homogenizing influence which is diluting new and favorable mutations?

Neither, because Ev starts with a random genome.

And ev finishes with a random genome except for the binding site region. Does ev simulate anything other than the evolution of binding sites? What good are binding sites without a gene associated with the binding site? Is ev simply a mathematical curiosity that doesn’t say anything about the theory of evolution?

I say that ev is describing something very important about the mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. It is a profoundly slow process when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. Whether you are describing the evolution of binding sites or entire genes, this process is far to slow to support the theory of evolution.

Then why do you withdraw your extrapolations so quickly?

Which extrapolation did I withdraw? Are you talking about the 200,000,000 guess I made?

That extrapolation (guess) as well as your modified extrapolation (guess) of 65,000,000 generations and your numerous statements that you have made about ev.

Paul, you must know by now that I don’t want or need to make up quotes by you or any one else. You evolutionarians produce more than enough annoyobilia for me to work with.

Okay then, your claim that I said that Ev models the totality of the evolutionary landscape is just a lie.

Paul, I never claimed you said this. What I did was quote your following statement:

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

Ev does not rankle me, you have back peddled so quickly on ev modeling actual life that is where you got your whiplash and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model. I have neither need nor desire to lie about what you say.

What you don’t seem to comprehend is that ev works very rapidly with small genomes and high mutation rates. The selection process Dr Schneider designed works extremely well under these circumstances. What happens is the search space increases by 4^G as you lengthen the genome in the model and overwhelms the selection process. Even with this artificially precise selection process, random point mutation and natural selection is still profoundly slow when using larger genomes. The problem in the model is not the selection process; the problem in the model (and for the theory of evolution) is the underlying mathematics.

1. Please explain to me why the target gnome must evolve as the result of one long process, rather than as the result of the concatenation of several/many smaller/faster processes.

Are you proposing that half a binding site evolves one genome and the other half evolves on another genome and they somehow combine to make an entire binding site? If you think that different genetic components can evolve on a variety of different life forms then mix and match to give higher life forms, propose a plausible model. Otherwise, this concept is only suitable for the sci-fi channel.

2. You say that the problem is not in the selection process, but rather in the underlying math. This doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Example: ev conducts its selection process by overwriting one half of a population with a duplicate of the better half. What would happen if ev were modified overwrite the population with the top 1% of the better half?

Feel free to try this and see whether this increases the convergence rate sufficiently to support your theory. What I suspect would happen is that this type of selection process would have a similar effect to increasing population. It would help a little but not enough to rescue your theory.

If you can't provide an immediate mathematically precise answer to the above question, then you cannot conclude unequivocally that the problem with ev is not in the selection process.

Feel free to believe whatever you want about ev.

2. You say that the problem is not in the selection process, but rather in the underlying math. This dpesn't seem obvious to me at all. Example: ev conducts its selection process by overwriting one half of a population with a duplicate of the better half. What would happen if ev were modified overwrrite the population with the top 1% of the better half?

I fooled around with this aspect of Ev awhile back. Myriad has experimented with a selection method that does finer selection between critters with the same mistake counts. Apparently it speeds up evolution. I'm going to add something like this to Ev when I get a chance.

There you go kjkent1, Paul and Myriad are going to correct the mathematics of ev and rescue your theory. Of course they have not posted any data.

He states that microevolution occurs, then what prevents microevolution from going too far? What barriers must be encountered that will prevent the natural selection process?

The only barrier he has talked about so far is time. Apparently, there is time for microevolution, but not for macroevolution. This means that macroevolution is defined as "any change in allele frequency that cannot occur due to time constraints," thus clearly defining macroevolution as impossible. If it's impossible, why do we even have a name for it?

Paul, if you paid closer attention to my arguments you would know that time is not the only barrier to macroevolution. I have also proposed that natural selection is also a barrier to macroevolution. Every microevolutionary step needed to accomplish the macroevolutionary process would have to provide a selective advantage to the creature. If you consider this concept on the genetic level, every mutation required to generate a gene de novo would have to provide a selective advantage to that creature. What selective advantage is there to half a hemoglobin gene? Your theory requires nonexistent forces to overcome impossible mathematics.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What selective advantage is there to half a hemoglobin gene?

Hemoglobin is not created by one gene. And if you look it up you will find that the subunits of hemoglobin (heme and globin) have a variety of uses in other proteins. In fact, half of some hemoglobins would still be hemoglobins themselves.

 

[delphi_ote]

Hemoglobin is not created by one gene. And if you look it up you will find that the subunits of hemoglobin (heme and globin) have a variety of uses in other proteins. In fact, half of some hemoglobins would still be hemoglobins themselves.

I'm really suprised to see a creationist hitching their wagon to this horse after the beating Behe took at the Dover trial. When will they learn that molecular biologists work so fast these days, by the time a creationist understands how a particular system behaves well enough to declare, "Aha! But you can't explain this!", there is already a pile of literature just waiting to be plopped down in front of them? You'd think they'd learn to at least do an exhaustive literature search first before declaring something unexplained and impossible without molecular divine intervention.

 

[fishbob]

Paul, if you paid closer attention to my arguments you would know that time is not the only barrier to macroevolution. I have also proposed that natural selection is also a barrier to macroevolution. Every microevolutionary step needed to accomplish the macroevolutionary process would have to provide a selective advantage to the creature. If you consider this concept on the genetic level, every mutation required to generate a gene de novo would have to provide a selective advantage to that creature. What selective advantage is there to half a hemoglobin gene? Your theory requires nonexistent forces to overcome impossible mathematics.

Underlying all Kleinman's big sciency sounding arguments, we find some very familiar bunk.

Previously Kleinman had let slip that he buys into Dembski's discredited statistics, and now we see that he also buys into Behe's discredited 'irreducible complexity'.

 

[kjkent1]

Please explain to me why the target gnome must evolve as the result of one long process, rather than as the result of the concatenation of several/many smaller/faster processes.

Are you proposing that half a binding site evolves one genome and the other half evolves on another genome and they somehow combine to make an entire binding site? If you think that different genetic components can evolve on a variety of different life forms then mix and match to give higher life forms, propose a plausible model. Otherwise, this concept is only suitable for the sci-fi channel.

There is an apparent fusion in the human genome, of the still-separate 1st and 2nd chromosomes found in the modern troglodyte chimpanzee. Now, one could argue that this fusion is either by design or by accident, but let’s continue to steer clear of this issue.

Assuming such fusions are accidental and non-fatal, then this suggests that smaller portions of a genome could be slowly evolving as per the ev model, and then a fusion of material could carry that existing information towards a suddenly very different and unexpected future, which is not currently modeled by ev, and which might speed up the evolutionary process by the order of magnitude which you suggest is mathematically impossible.

Now, if you admit that the process I’m suggesting is possible (n.b., it apparently actually happened in the past), and that it can be mathematically modeled, then you can no longer conclude that evolution is mathematically impossible (although you can certainly contend that evolution, exclusively using the ev model is mathematically impossible).

You say that the problem is not in the selection process, but rather in the underlying math. This doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Example: ev conducts its selection process by overwriting one half of a population with a duplicate of the better half. What would happen if ev were modified overwrite the population with the top 1% of the better half?

Feel free to try this and see whether this increases the convergence rate sufficiently to support your theory. What I suspect would happen is that this type of selection process would have a similar effect to increasing population. It would help a little but not enough to rescue your theory.

Pardon me, but you “suspect” that it would help a little? This indicates that you don’t “know” what will happen.

With all due respect, your position is that evolution is mathematically impossible, and yet you are now admitting that you don’t “know” for certain what the effect of my proposed selection modification would be. Thus, you don’t really know if evolution is mathematically impossible – rather you only suspect that it is.

You realize that if we were in a courtroom, that the judge would be forced to rule your expert analysis inadmissible because your are permitting your personal bias to influence you?

So, let me repeat my challenge to you, so it’s not lost in the rhetoric: If you can't provide an immediate mathematically precise answer to explain how my above-proposed selection modification will effect ev’s performance, then you cannot conclude unequivocally that the problem with ev is not in the selection process – nor can you conclude that evolution is mathematically impossible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And ev finishes with a random genome except for the binding site region. Does ev simulate anything other than the evolution of binding sites? What good are binding sites without a gene associated with the binding site? Is ev simply a mathematical curiosity that doesn’t say anything about the theory of evolution?

Attention all brain cells! Ev demonstrates that evolution can produce information in DNA.

That extrapolation (guess) as well as your modified extrapolation (guess) of 65,000,000 generations and your numerous statements that you have made about ev.

Did I withdraw the 65 million generation estimate?

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

Yup, I should have said "is a model of a bit of actual life." Did you take me to mean that it models the totality of the evolutionary landscape?

Ev does not rankle me, you have back peddled so quickly on ev modeling actual life that is where you got your whiplash and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.

He has? Checking Web site ...

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/

What selective advantage is there to half a hemoglobin gene?

Now that the flagellum and eye are no longer the poster children of irreducible complexity, I guess it's hemoglobin.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=717

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005071327.htm

http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/reprint/78/9/2165

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8587498&dopt=Citation

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

And ev finishes with a random genome except for the binding site region. Does ev simulate anything other than the evolution of binding sites? What good are binding sites without a gene associated with the binding site? Is ev simply a mathematical curiosity that doesn’t say anything about the theory of evolution?

Attention all brain cells! Ev demonstrates that evolution can produce information in DNA.

When you finish waking up from your nap, tell all your brain cells that the production of information by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in your ev model.

That extrapolation (guess) as well as your modified extrapolation (guess) of 65,000,000 generations and your numerous statements that you have made about ev.

Did I withdraw the 65 million generation estimate?

Oh, I guess I was mistaken. So you are holding to this value for the evolution of 8 binding sites, each 10 bases wide, with a mutation rate of 10^-6 and a population of 1 meg? This is a far slower rate of acquisition of information than the case Dr Schneider published in Nucleic Acids Research. Do you care to redo his estimate of the amount of time it would require to evolve a human genome by random point mutations and natural selection based on this rate of acquisition of information?

I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

Yup, I should have said "is a model of a bit of actual life." Did you take me to mean that it models the totality of the evolutionary landscape?

Is that bit a zero or a one?

Ev does not rankle me, you have back peddled so quickly on ev modeling actual life that is where you got your whiplash and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.

He has? Checking Web site ...

I check his site regularly. In particular I am looking for an opportunity when he is going to do another public presentation on ev. I would like to attend and hear his answers to these issues we have been talking about here. At one time, Dr Schneider was willing to engage in internet discussions on his model, he no longer does this. By the way, how is your whiplash?

What selective advantage is there to half a hemoglobin gene?

Now that the flagellum and eye are no longer the poster children of irreducible complexity, I guess it's hemoglobin.

I’m not talking about multiple component biologic systems; I’m talking about any single gene, whether it be hemoglobin, myoglobin or any other gene. What selective advantage is there to any half completed gene?

Not only is time working against your theory, you have no selective process that would direct the evolution of a gene de novo.

If you want to discuss irreducible complexity, why don’t you tell us what gyrase and helicase were doing before the DNA replicase system evolved, especially since you can’t replicate DNA without this system.

My poster child for this debate about evolution is your very own ev computer model. Such a lovely child you have made.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Look at this. A useful gene evolved out of junk DNA:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/sfeb-esc033106.php

And a model for one way new exons can appear:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/9/7/5218

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Look at this. A useful gene evolved out of junk DNA:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-esc033106.php

And a model for one way new exons can appear:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/scie.../2006/9/7/5218

Can evolutionarians ever post a URL that doesn’t contain the text “appear(s) to be”?

That first URL takes fish stories to a new level. Did you hear the story about the one armed fisherman? He caught one that long!

Anyway, that gene could not have evolved by random point mutations and natural selection, ev shows that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can evolutionarians ever post a URL that doesn’t contain the text “appear(s) to be”?

Not until they are pretty damn sure, no. Would it matter to your confidence in evolution?

Anyway, that gene could not have evolved by random point mutations and natural selection, ev shows that.

You're a kick, Kleinman.

~~ Paul

 

[Schneibster]

Can evolutionarians ever post a URL that doesn’t contain the text “appear(s) to be”?

Oh! Oh! Look! They admit it's "just a theory!" They might be wrong! Jeebus might triumph yet!

What's the matter, kleinman, having trouble with the fact that your opponents are honest and you suffer by the comparison you invite?

 

[joobz]

Look at this. A useful gene evolved out of junk DNA:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/sfeb-esc033106.php

And a model for one way new exons can appear:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/9/7/5218

~~ Paul

What are you doing, presenting data the contridicts the entire claim that Kleinman makes?!?! But but, this couldn't have been point mutations and natural selection only. Kleinman said so. He hasn't shown it, but he says so. What more do you need?

 

[The Atheist]

In defense of fairness, Kleinman has a while back in this thread posted his PhD thesis topic.

Cheers, I just wondered about the reality as he seems more like KuriousKathy than a scientist. He has the same circularity of argument and inability to open his eyes. No matter, he's keeping you guys amused. Personally, I have better things to do.

 

[cyborg]

Can evolutionarians ever post a URL that doesn’t contain the text “appear(s) to be”?

This isn't Bible time kleinman.

We leave the arrogance to of dogma to people such as your self.

Keep on fappin'. Disgusting.

 

[fishbob]

If you want to discuss irreducible complexity, why don’t you tell us what gyrase and helicase were doing before the DNA replicase system evolved, especially since you can’t replicate DNA without this system.

Shifting the burden? Ducking your responsibility?
You want consideration of irreducible complexity, you need to explain how it works.
Behe couldn't. Bet you can't either.

 

[articulett]

Attention all brain cells! Ev demonstrates that evolution can produce information in DNA.


Did I withdraw the 65 million generation estimate?


Yup, I should have said "is a model of a bit of actual life." Did you take me to mean that it models the totality of the evolutionary landscape?


He has? Checking Web site ...

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/


Now that the flagellum and eye are no longer the poster children of irreducible complexity, I guess it's hemoglobin.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=717

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005071327.htm

http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/reprint/78/9/2165

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8587498&dopt=Citation

~~ Paul

And hemoglobin genes die out on occasion too:

With fervor and clarity, Carroll amasses a glut of facts to refute the twisted logic of the anti-Darwinist camp. Proponents of intelligent design, for example, argue that some supreme being created the first cell four billion years ago with all of its complex biochemical systems complete, including those that were to be used later, say for blood clotting. This, says Carroll, "is utter nonsense that disregards fundamentals of genetics." The rule is "use it or lose it," and indeed, unused DNA code is eroded by constant mutation. For example, the Antarctic icefish, a pale, near-transparent inhabitant of the frigid South Atlantic Ocean, has not only lost its ancestors' power to make oxygen-binding red hemoglobin (which it does not need in the cold oxygen-rich waters) but the two genes that code for hemoglobin have also gone extinct: one has disappeared, and the other remains as a non-coding "molecular fossil," a useless remnant that hints at past use but still resides in the icefish DNA. http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/carrollinterview/

Hemoglobin molecular fossils!--Now that is something Behe, er... Kleinman didn't expect.

And even more for kleinman to ignore in regards to evolution:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116084058.htm
When a gene normally found to be active in liver tissue is switched on in muscle tissue--muscle development occurs. That's not even a point mutation--that's just the turning on of a gene that is normally inactive. That is why your model is so bad, Kleinman. It just misses so many avenues for evolutionary change. And we don't need a math formula--we have the DNA--we can decode it (have you heard?)--We can see for ourselves what happened. Darwin could only hypothesize about what the units of inheritance in gametes might be-- We see it--read it--analyze it--decode it. We don't waste our time on math problems proving that it couldn't have happened via point mutations because we already know that it has happened--and point mutations don't have a whole lot to do with it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Since Paul has quoted Stephen Gould about his concept of punctuated equilibrium, I thought it worthwhile to discuss this hypothesis a little more. Is there any truth in the concept of punctuated equilibrium and if so, what truth is there? Again, here is the quote Paul posted:

A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

I believe that Gould has made the same inappropriate extrapolation that Darwin made. Darwin observed variations in the beaks of finches. What Darwin was seeing was the diversity a species can have by recombination and natural selection. The recombination and natural selection mechanism is a far more rapid mechanism for altering a gene pool than is random point mutation and natural selection. The difference between the two mechanism is that recombination without error can not create new information in the gene pool nor can it alter the homology of a genome, but recombination can rapidly alter the appearance of a species in a relatively short period of time. A few finches with the appropriate shaped beak on the edge of an ecological niche favorable to that beak shape would quickly favor those genetic properties. Darwin and Gould extrapolated this rapid recombination and natural selection phenomena to the evolution of new species.

Ev demonstrates that the concept of punctuated equilibrium can not be applied to random point mutations and natural selection. Two crucial parameters to this mechanism (time and population size) are limited by the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

The concept of punctuated equilibrium is applicable to recombination and natural selection. You can start with small subpopulations with particular genetic characteristics that could be quickly propagated through this subpopulation. It fits Darwin’s observations of the variation of finch beaks. Recombination and natural selection is a rapid phenomenon that can be replicated in the laboratory. What recombination and natural selection does not fit is the capability of transforming one species to another species. Recombination does not have the capability of generating new information in the gene pool however; recombination with natural selection does have the capability of losing alleles from the gene pool.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ignoring a slew of points that others have already addressed here, but...

How can you preclude that losing alleles can't lead to a new species?