Annoying creationists

[Roboramma]

I tend to agree with you conceptually that in theory enough microevolutionary steps can be combined to obtain a macroevolutionary change. Where I think we differ in this view point is that I think that natural selection will limit these microevolutionary changes and not allow an organism to diverge too far from its genetic optimum. We see this effect for example with dog breeding. Particular traits are selected for by breeders and in this process, peculiar health problems often arise from this human induced selective pressure. As soon as that pressure is removed and these “pure bred” dogs are allowed to breed with mutts, these features (and peculiar health problems) tend to disappear.

I think I see the point you're trying to make. Here's another example of it - there are populations in Africa where sickle-cell anemia has become quite prevalent. Because of the local environment, sickle-cell anemia is selected for. When those people leave that environment for one where the selective pressure is different, and there is very little malaria for instance, the gene for sickle-cell anemia is selected against.

Sure. What I don't quite get is how you decide which population - the one with a high incidence of the sickle-cell gene, or the one with a low incidence, is the one at the "optimum". Taking the former, for instance, it's entirely possible that they will continue to co-evolve with the parasite responsible for malaria for millions of years. In those millions of years, the physiology of these individuals will have changed enough that some genes might arise that can make use of this new physiology in other ways, unrelated to malaria, that are selected for. If a population carrying these genes then finds itself in an environment free of malaria, those genes that were originally selected because they conferred an advantage against malaria, but which are now relied upon for these new physiological processes (whatever they may be it makes no difference, except that they be adaptive for some reason other than conferring resistance to malaria) will not necessarily be selected against.

Looking at the latter, the opposite is also true - they could continue to evolve free of malaria for millions of years. Genes that couldn't arise in an environment in which malaria is a major danger, because their benefit is outweighed by the added danger they cause by making you even more prone to malaria (maybe some sort of change to the immune system that makes you better at fighting some diseases, but worse at fighting others, including malaria) could arise here.
After time, other genes will be arising in an environment in which this new gene already exists, and some will become dependent upon the physiology that it creates.
So that, again, if a population of individuals carrying all of these new genes is exposed to malaria, some of the genes that initially would have made individuals more prone to malaria (and perhaps still do), won't necessarily be selected against, because the benefit they confer to other new genes is now more important than the harm they confer by making you less resistant to malaria.

In dogs, I doubt there has been time for the evolution of genes that rely upon say, the genes responsible for being very large in great danes, for instance, but which themselves just code for some digestive enzyme or other, to have evolved.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They are, huge populations don’t speed up the evolutionary process markedly as shown by the results from ev,

My big experiment with population variation showed that the generations required to evolve a perfect creature varied as [latex]$p^{-.4}$[/latex] I'd say that was a marked speed up.

punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Stephen Gould is contradicted by the results from ev,

You keep lying about this. Could you site the peer-reviewed journal article where Gould stated the timeframe for punctuated equilibrium events? Quote the relevant paragraph if you can.

and macroevolution is impossible when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in ev.

This is meaningless, since you refuse to define macroevolution in anything but a slippery manner.

The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.

Yes, if you ignore all the mathematical work.

~~ Paul

 

[Roboramma]

I told Dr Schneider that when evolutionists became aware of what his program shows when realistic parameters are used that evolutionists would discredit his work. fishbob, you have just joined that crowd.

I think fishbob has a decent point. I think it's not that the simulation is meaningless. Rather, a model is only useful when it's interpretted within the confines of it's acuracy.

If I were to use a climate model designed to model the climate over the course of a century to try find an accurate description of the climate over the course of a million years, I'd be making a mistake. If I were to make conclusions based upon doing so, I'd likely make incorrect conclusions. This doesn't mean the model is "wrong", nor does it mean it's meaningless.
It just means that we have to be careful to interpret models within the parameters that they are designed for.

No model is going to be a perfect representation of the real thing. It may be a good representation of one aspect of that thing. But we have to be careful to understand how to apply that.

To that much, I can agree with fishbob. If he takes it further than that, I'll have to disagree.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The annoying part is that this particular one has decided that a simulation proves or disproves something or other. The other annoying part is that no response gets this one past this point. The really annoying part is that facts, evidence, reason, logic, observation, repetition, data - none of these mean anything because of the results of a simulation.

What is the antecedent of "this one"?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sure. What I don't quite get is how you decide which population - the one with a high incidence of the sickle-cell gene, or the one with a low incidence, is the one at the "optimum".

First thing you have to be aware of is that the sickle-cell gene represents an example of microevolution which I believe occurs. The optimum is determined by the selective pressure. What people who believe in macroevolution have failed to explain is the de novo evolution of the hemoglobin gene. What kind of selective pressure could be sustained for a long enough period of time that would cause a series of microevolutionary steps to generate such a gene, especially when virtually all the preliminary steps would not yield a molecule that can selectively bind oxygen and carbon dioxide based on the partial pressures. Random mutations and natural selection do not explain the formation of such a gene and corresponding protein. Dr Schneider’s ev computer model shows how slow random point mutations and natural selection is.

In dogs, I doubt there has been time for the evolution of genes that rely upon say, the genes responsible for being very large in great danes, for instance, but which themselves just code for some digestive enzyme or other, to have evolved.

Recombination without error can never create a new gene. Recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of alleles.

They are, huge populations don’t speed up the evolutionary process markedly as shown by the results from ev,

My big experiment with population variation showed that the generations required to evolve a perfect creature varied as p^-.4 I'd say that was a marked speed up.

Ok, Paul, let’s go down this road. Post your data that you used to arrive at your curve fit.

punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Stephen Gould is contradicted by the results from ev,

You keep lying about this. Could you site the peer-reviewed journal article where Gould stated the timeframe for punctuated equilibrium events? Quote the relevant paragraph if you can.

Paul, I already have on the Evolutionisdead web site but I guess you didn’t read it very carefully, so I’ll do it again.

Start with the following from Dr Schneider’s web page:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

Punctuated equilibrium correlates directly with information gain.

Further, punctuated equilibrium has not addressed the more specific and fundamental problem of explaining the origin of the new biological information (whether genetic or epigenetic) necessary to produce novel biological form.

This is incorrect since the Ev program demonstrates clearly the gain of biological information as a punctuated equilibrium. See Figure 2b, which shows a rapid increase in the information in binding sites up to the predicted amount of information ("punctuation") followed by noisy stability ("equilibrium").

Then we go to Dr Schneider’s publication in Nucleic Acids Research, where he said the following:

This roughly-sigmoidal rapid transition corresponds to (and the program was inspired by) the proposal that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium [18,19], with noisy `active stasis' clearly visible from generation 705 to 2000 (Fig. 2b, Fig. 3).

Reference 18 and 19 refer to these two documents:

18Gould, S. J. (1977) Is the cambrian explosion a sigmoid fraud?. In Ever Since Darwin, Reflections in Natural History N. Y.: W. W. Norton & Co. pp. 126-133.
19 Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366, 223-227.

Gould said the following on page 127 of his Ever Since Darwin publication.

Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian. (Readers must remember that geologists have a peculiar view of rapidity. By vernacular standards, it is a slow fuse indeed that burns for 10 million years. Still, 10 million years is but 1/450 of the earth's history, a mere instant to a geologist.)

Paleontologists have spent a largely fruitless century trying to explain this Cambrian "explosion"—the steep rise in diversity during the first 10 to 20 million years of the Cambrian period.

Gould said the following in his Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. publication:

As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).

Gould further adds the following:

Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations.

Later in this paper Gould applies the concept of punctuated equilibrium to Homo Sapiens:

Homo sapiens is a young species, perhaps no more than 200,000 years old. If most of our increment accrued quickly at our origin, but we then express this entirety from our origin to the present time as a darwin rate, we calculate a high value because our subsequent time of stasis has been so short. But if the same speciation event, with the same increment in the same time, had occurred two million years ago (with subsequent stasis), the darwin rate for the identical event would be much lower.

Cope's rule, the tendency for phyletic increase in body size, had generally been attributed to selective value of large size within anagenetic lineages, but is probably better interpreted 44,45 as greater propensity for speciation in smaller species, for whom increasing size is the only 'open' pathway (see Martin 46 on the negative correlation of generic species richness and body size).

From these quotes from Gould’s writings on punctuated equilibrium, it is clear that Gould is attempting to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In addition, Gould sets the upper limit on the duration of the time span for punctuated equilibrium at 20 million years. However Gould then talks about much shorter time spans for punctuated equilibrium in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years time spans.

The value for the time span according to Gould and used as a reference in Dr Schneider’s paper is much less than 20 million. Gould says that ” small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,” is his proposed time scale.

These statements are in direct contradiction to the results from ev. Not only does your estimate of 575 million years to evolve 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100k genome far exceed the upper limit of punctuated equilibrium mentioned by Gould, Gould says macroevolutionary processes can occur in time spans of tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Again, Gould says that this process occurs in small populations which is in direct contradiction to the results from ev which show that reducing population increases the generations required for evolution of binding sites.

Even though ev demonstrates a sigmoidal convergence curve, the scale of this curve far exceeds the requirements for Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. The results from ev are a direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis of macroevolution.

Paul, you keep calling me liar and I’m going to start thinking you don’t care for me.

and macroevolution is impossible when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in ev.

This is meaningless, since you refuse to define macroevolution in anything but a slippery manner.

Poor Paul, not only is the math confoosing you, now the words are confoosing you. That’s ok, I’ll continue working with you until you get it right.

The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.

Yes, if you ignore all the mathematical work.

Paul, I’m shocked, how could I ignore all the good mathematical work that you and Dr Schneider have put into ev, that would be rude.

I told Dr Schneider that when evolutionists became aware of what his program shows when realistic parameters are used that evolutionists would discredit his work. fishbob, you have just joined that crowd.

I think fishbob has a decent point. I think it's not that the simulation is meaningless. Rather, a model is only useful when it's interpretted within the confines of it's acuracy.

That’s a fair enough argument, why wasn’t this raised by evolutionists when Dr Schneider predicted the evolution of a human genome in a billion years based on unrealistic parameters in his model? If you study this model, I think you will find it difficult to find inaccuracies. Dr Schneider has been defending his model for years from arguments like this from IDers. The only thing this demonstrates is that evolutionists can not recognize their own biases. When Dr Schneider first published his results, it was welcomed without close scrutiny by other evolutionists as a mathematical proof of how evolution occurs. Now that it has been demonstrated that his model shows something completely different, evolutionists start questioning the validity of the model.

If I were to use a climate model designed to model the climate over the course of a century to try find an accurate description of the climate over the course of a million years, I'd be making a mistake. If I were to make conclusions based upon doing so, I'd likely make incorrect conclusions. This doesn't mean the model is "wrong", nor does it mean it's meaningless.

It just means that we have to be careful to interpret models within the parameters that they are designed for.

Dr Schneider used his model to predict the evolution of a human genome. This result was published in the peer reviewed journal, Nucleic Acids Research. Evolutionist Dr Schneider and his evolutionist peer reviewers have seen fit to apply the results from ev to long time spans and macroevolution. If you believe that Dr Schneider and the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research were incorrect in applying this model in this manner you should tell them.

No model is going to be a perfect representation of the real thing. It may be a good representation of one aspect of that thing. But we have to be careful to understand how to apply that.

I think I will let Dr Schneider’s defense of ev speak to this point you have raised.

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What kind of selective pressure could be sustained for a long enough period of time that would cause a series of microevolutionary steps to generate such a gene, especially when virtually all the preliminary steps would not yield a molecule that can selectively bind oxygen and carbon dioxide based on the partial pressures.

The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere?

Ok, Paul, let’s go down this road. Post your data that you used to arrive at your curve fit.

genome 1024
sites 16
widths 5/6
1 mu / genome

Population, Generations

4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1140
8192, 1180
16384, 1144
32768, 1148
46200, 1709
65536, 863
92680, 708
110000, 1177

Paul, I’m shocked, how could I ignore all the good mathematical work that you and Dr Schneider have put into ev, that would be rude.

Go ahead and ignore it. There's plenty more where that came from.

That’s a fair enough argument, why wasn’t this raised by evolutionists when Dr Schneider predicted the evolution of a human genome in a billion years based on unrealistic parameters in his model?

What he said was [emphasis mine]:

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

Did he say somewhere that he necessarily thinks the rate of evolution demonstrated by Ev is a realistic rate for the complete evolution of H. sapiens?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What kind of selective pressure could be sustained for a long enough period of time that would cause a series of microevolutionary steps to generate such a gene, especially when virtually all the preliminary steps would not yield a molecule that can selectively bind oxygen and carbon dioxide based on the partial pressures.

The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere?

Since the purpose of hemoglobin is to transport oxygen longer distances more quickly than can occur by diffusion then hemoglobin would have evolved when there were multicellular organisms. Why would a single cell organism need hemoglobin? You have also introduced a complication for abiogenesis. Doesn’t oxygen interfere with abiogenesis?

Ok, Paul, let’s go down this road. Post your data that you used to arrive at your curve fit.

genome 1024
sites 16
widths 5/6
1 mu / genome
Population, Generations
4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1140
8192, 1180
16384, 1144
32768, 1148
46200, 1709
65536, 863
92680, 708
110000, 1177

I like that data, between a population of 4096 and 110,000 there is essentially no change in the generations for convergence. The data appears to have reached a plateau after a population of 4096. Why not try your curve fit algorithm on the data between population of 4096 and 110,000? In the several population series I have done, using different parameters, the same type of trend is observed. From the population of 64 to populations up to 1,000,000 you see only about an order of magnitude decrease in the generations for convergence.

Paul, I’m shocked, how could I ignore all the good mathematical work that you and Dr Schneider have put into ev, that would be rude.

Go ahead and ignore it. There's plenty more where that came from.

Do you know of a better model for random point mutations and natural selection than Dr Schneider’s ev model? If so, point me to it, I’ll do some creationist research on it.

That’s a fair enough argument, why wasn’t this raised by evolutionists when Dr Schneider predicted the evolution of a human genome in a billion years based on unrealistic parameters in his model?

What he said was [emphasis mine]:

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.

Let do a step by step analysis of how Dr Schneider arrived at this billion year estimate for the evolution of a human genome. The full text of his extrapolation is as follows:

The ev model can also be used to succinctly address two other creationist arguments. First, the recognizer gene and its binding sites co-evolve, so they become dependent on each other and destructive mutations in either immediately lead to elimination of the organism. This situation fits Behe's [34] definition of `irreducible complexity' exactly (``a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning'', page 39), yet the molecular evolution of this `Roman arch' is straightforward and rapid, in direct contradiction to his thesis. Second, the probability of finding 16 sites averaging 4 bits each in random sequences is 2 ^(-4*16) ~= 5*10^-20 yet the sites evolved from random sequences in only ~10^3 generations, at an average rate of ~1 bit per 11 generations. Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, about 9 months [35], but it could be much faster because the enormous titer (10^10 new virions/day/person [17]) provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~ 4*10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

Dr Schneider’s rate of accumulation of ~1 bit per 11 generation is obtained from his case of the evolution of 16 binding sites on a 256 base genome with an unrealistic mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Simply the use of a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases per generation (a realistic mutation rate) in that case and the generations for convergence increases from ~1,000 generations (using the unrealistic mutation rate) goes to ~4,000,000 generations (using the realistic mutation rate). The ~1 bit per 11 generations (using the unrealistic mutation rate) goest to ~1 bit per 40,000 generations (using the realistic mutation rate). The evolution of the human genome in ~a billion years (using the unrealistic mutation rate) goes to ~4 trillion years (using the realistic mutation rate). Dr Schneider’s extrapolation becomes more preposterous when you start using a larger genome than 256 bases.

Dr Schneider’s qualifications of this extrapolation also contradict his own case of punctuated equilibrium. Large environmentally diverse populations contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium which Gould states occurs in small isolated sub-populations in short time spans. Your own data above shows that increasing population does not offer the kind of advantage that Dr Schneider is implying. Recombination without error cannot create a new gene, recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of alleles. Even interspecies gene transfers do not create new genes. The initial gene must still be formed by some mechanism. You are back to random point mutations and natural selection for forming the original gene that is somehow transferred to the human genome.

Perhaps Dr Schneider would like to clarify his statements.

Did he say somewhere that he necessarily thinks the rate of evolution demonstrated by Ev is a realistic rate for the complete evolution of H. sapiens?

Is this the depends on meaning of is is defense?
Dr Schneider did say the following:
The following quotes were taken from Dr Schneider’s blog web page: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html

The following are Dr Schneider’s responses to a critique of his paper Evolution of biological information by Dr Stephen E Jones.

"Schneider's paper is misleadingly titled: "Evolution of biological information". But it is just a *computer* simulation. No actual *biological* materials (e.g. genomes of nucleic acids, proteins, etc) were used, nor does Schneider propose that his simulation be tested with *real* genomes or proteins

Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986

It only becomes *real* biological information and random mutation and natural selection, when the simulation is tested in the *real* world, using *real* DNA, proteins, with *real* mutations and a *real* environment does the selecting. It is significant that Schneider does not propose this, presumably because he knows it wouldn't work.

You are very bad at reading my mind, I have considered doing this experiment. Given the right conditions, it WILL WORK. Do you have th gumption to do the experiment yourself? That's the way real science works! FURTHERMORE, if you read the literature, you will recognize that related experiments have been repeatedly done for 20 years. Look up SELEX.

In the rest of the paper he uses the single word "selection". I take this as a tacit admission that his model is not a simulation of *real* biological natural selection.

No. A rose is a rose by any other name. Selection is selection whether it be natural (generally meaning the environment of earth), breeding (by humans usually, though perhaps some ants select their fungi), SELEX or in a computer simulation. Of COURSE it is a simulation of natural selection! The paper would not be relevant to biology and would not have been published in a major scientific journal if it were not!

Schneider lets slip that there is another unrealistic element in his (and indeed all) computer simulations in that it (they) "does not correlate with time":

So? Run the program slower if you want. Make one generation per 20 minutes to match rapid bacterial growth. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FINIAL RESULT!

Well, when Schneider's simulation is actually tested with *real* "life" (e.g. a bacterium), and under *real* mutation and natural selection it gains information, then, and only then, would "creationists" be favourably impressed. But if they are like me, they would already be impressed (but unfavourably) that Schneider does not mention in his paper that his simulation should now be so tested in the *real* "biological" world.

1. The simulation was of phenomena in the "real" world.
2. Dr. Jones is invited yet again to do an experiment.

The following is a response Dr Schneider made to a statement made by David Berlinski.

Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

The ev program disproves this statement since it uses classical Darwinian principles and was successful.

The previous statements are clear that Dr Schneider believes that ev simulates the real world. If the simulation is appropriate for small genomes then it is appropriate for large genomes. Macroevolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

 

[fishbob]

fishbob, have you read evolutionist Dr Tom Schneider’s papers and looked at his simulation? Have you looked at his evidence, reasons, logic, observation, repetition, data - claims? This is a peer review, published computer model of random mutation and natural selection which when realistic parameters are used in the model show three things. They are, huge populations don’t speed up the evolutionary process markedly as shown by the results from ev, punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Stephen Gould is contradicted by the results from ev, and macroevolution is impossible when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in ev.

I told Dr Schneider that when evolutionists became aware of what his program shows when realistic parameters are used that evolutionists would discredit his work. fishbob, you have just joined that crowd.

The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.

A simulation is a method for visualizing data or processes. A model or a simulation is a glorified, computerized diagram.
A simulation proves or disproves nothing, so your entire effort on this thread has value only as excercise for your typing skills.

 

[fishbob]

What is the antecedent of "this one"?

~~ Paul

Creationist. Involved in this discussion.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A simulation proves or disproves nothing, so your entire effort on this thread has value only as excercise for your typing skills.

A simulation can prove something, as long as you're willing to agree that the same assumptions can be made about the real world. Ev shows that information can evolve, as long as you're willing to assume that mutations and selection happen in the real world. However, I certainly agree that it's quite easy to pile on the assumptions past a reasonable point.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I like that data, between a population of 4096 and 110,000 there is essentially no change in the generations for convergence. The data appears to have reached a plateau after a population of 4096. Why not try your curve fit algorithm on the data between population of 4096 and 110,000?

That restricted data is too noisy to fit any curve to it. I'll have to run more experiments in that population range.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I like that data, between a population of 4096 and 110,000 there is essentially no change in the generations for convergence. The data appears to have reached a plateau after a population of 4096. Why not try your curve fit algorithm on the data between population of 4096 and 110,000?

That restricted data is too noisy to fit any curve to it. I'll have to run more experiments in that population range.

What did you say? I can’t hear you, too much noise in the data.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What did you say? I can’t hear you, too much noise in the data.

If I run the same population multiple times, which generation count should I use in the curve fit? I think I'll use the minimum. Any objection?

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

A simulation can prove something, as long as you're willing to agree that the same assumptions can be made about the real world. Ev shows that information can evolve, as long as you're willing to assume that mutations and selection happen in the real world. However, I certainly agree that it's quite easy to pile on the assumptions past a reasonable point.

~~ Paul

OK - I accept that proof given that the assumptions are correct is possible. However, in the real world we often get our assumptions handed to us on a platter.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What did you say? I can’t hear you, too much noise in the data.

If I run the same population multiple times, which generation count should I use in the curve fit? I think I'll use the minimum. Any objection?

That should be alright, my first impression to this question is that when looking at population effect in the ev model, trends in convergence are more important than the absolute numbers of generations. If I think something look strange in the data, I will probably ask you to post all your runs for the series.

 

[Yahzi]

And the evolutionist interpretation of these observations fit no mathematical model, so blame the mathematician.

You have the cart before the horse.

Nobody is blaming the mathematician. It is your mathematician who is yelling at biologists - "I can't explain your observations, so they must be false!'

I doubt that, I think the way this argument will conclude is with the evolutionist saying that the random process god can do anything.

The fact that you characterize evolution as random is really all we need to know about your qualifications to discuss evolution.

Yahzi, you need to pay attention, I am the annoying creationist

Trust me. I know.

Who are you quoting?

Are you unaware of what a "literary device" is?

]Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by Platonic optimum.

You don't even understand your own argument. But that won't stop you from yammering on about it.

I don’t think you can attribute that statement about bumblebees to me.

And I did not. Perhaps you mean some other word than "attribute."

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn’t have a big enough engine. Dr Schneider thought he found the engine with his ev computer model but when you use realistic parameters in the model, the theory of evolution doesn’t get off the ground.

Given that evolution is an observed fact, ordinary people would conclude that it was the model that failed to get off the ground.

But no: your mind is of a entirely different caliber. You are one of those people who build a wind tunnel, stick a model plane in it, and when the model plane crashes... you tear down the wind tunnel and re-build it.

I can say, with all honesty, that a mind like yours is a rarity in the scientific world.

So you have to do better than blame the mathematicians for the lack of a mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

Is there a matematical basis for the stock market? I guess the stock market doesn't exist... Come to think of it, the incompleteness of String theory shows that there is no mathematical basis for reality. So I guess reality must be wrong, too!

Heck, there's no mathematical model for me, so I guess that means I don't

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

And the evolutionist interpretation of these observations fit no mathematical model, so blame the mathematician.

You have the cart before the horse. Nobody is blaming the mathematician. It is your mathematician who is yelling at biologists - "I can't explain your observations, so they must be false!'

Yahzi, it is an evolutionist’s mathematical model of random point mutation and natural selection that argues against your own theory. I figure it is going to take a month or two of these preliminaries before you will be ready to learn how this model works and why I make these claims.

I doubt that, I think the way this argument will conclude is with the evolutionist saying that the random process god can do anything.

The fact that you characterize evolution as random is really all we need to know about your qualifications to discuss evolution.

Sorry, did I miss name your god, it’s the random mutation and natural selection god.

Yahzi, you need to pay attention, I am the annoying creationist

Trust me. I know.

If you stick with this discussion, you will get beyond annoyed and become pissed off like Paul. That happens when your find out that your favorite theory not only has no mathematical foundation, when you try to apply mathematics to the theory, the theory is refuted.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn’t have a big enough engine. Dr Schneider thought he found the engine with his ev computer model but when you use realistic parameters in the model, the theory of evolution doesn’t get off the ground.

Given that evolution is an observed fact, ordinary people would conclude that it was the model that failed to get off the ground. But no: your mind is of a entirely different caliber. You are one of those people who build a wind tunnel, stick a model plane in it, and when the model plane crashes... you tear down the wind tunnel and re-build it. I can say, with all honesty, that a mind like yours is a rarity in the scientific world.

Don’t confuse your observations with your interpretations of the observations. I don’t argue with evolutionist observations, what I do argue is the contorted interpretation they have to resort to in order for their observations to fit their theory.

I have worked on wind tunnels but I have never done what you attribute to me.

So you have to do better than blame the mathematicians for the lack of a mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

Is there a matematical basis for the stock market? I guess the stock market doesn't exist... Come to think of it, the incompleteness of String theory shows that there is no mathematical basis for reality. So I guess reality must be wrong, too! Heck, there's no mathematical model for me, so I guess that means I don't

We’ll continue to do these preliminaries for a while then I’ll show how Dr Schneider’s model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection contradicts your theory of evolution.

Yahzi, you would be surprise what kind of mathematical models exist for you, I am sure you

 

[Yahzi]

I figure it is going to take a month or two of these preliminaries before you will be ready to learn how this model works and why I make these claims.

I wish I could be so optimistic. But I am quite confident that no amount of time is sufficient for you to understand your error.

I did not come to accept the theory of evolution because of this model. Thus, this model's failure to explain evolution will not matter to me. All it can do is convince me the model is flawed.

I came to accept evolution because of observations of the real world. To discredit evolution, you must demonstrate an observation of the real world that contradicts it.

What you are doing right now has a name: it is called voodoo. You are creating a model of your enemy, sticking pins in it, and fully expecting the enemy to fall over and die.

That happens when your find out that your favorite theory not only has no mathematical foundation, when you try to apply mathematics to the theory, the theory is refuted.

Remember when I cited the "bumblebee" example? You simply did not understand the point.

You seem to think that because there is no mathematical model of evolution right now, there can never be. Why do you think this?

Oh, right, for us to assert that they'll figure it out someday is "faith in science." Your position seems to be that anything that is not completely understood right now is, by definition, never understandable.

I have worked on wind tunnels but I have never done what you attribute to me.

I think this explains a lot. No, seriously, I do.

You have consistently failed to recognize or understand "literary devices." You have demonstrated a repeated inability to grasp abstractions, metaphors, and similes. And the discussion at hand is about your inability to distinguish between a simulation and the real world.

What we are dealing with here appears to be simply a cognitive deficiency.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What you are doing right now has a name: it is called voodoo. You are creating a model of your enemy, sticking pins in it, and fully expecting the enemy to fall over and die.

Uh oh. Multiple sig lines by the same person.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

A simulation can prove something, as long as you're willing to agree that the same assumptions can be made about the real world.

In that case, why don't you just use the real world? Do a lot of stuff with flys in jars.