Annoying creationists

[joobz]

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=f42b17926a042f8bf08e0eb2cc13c212
I have had extensive discussions with Paul and several other evolutionists. Doing this will help take you off the learning curve on this problem and you can avoid making a bunch of ignorant statements. If you examine that thread carefully you will find that I made several mistakes that I acknowledged but none affected my fundamental assertion that ev shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. [/quote]
Really?
Than, please show how it is. do you show that the simulation blows up? Do you show that the model under some conditions doesn't trend to order? These would be interesting and thought provoking. They would demonstrate a mathmatical impossibility.

or are you going to tell me, "it takes too long..." Unless you can show me the first two are happening and that this isn't a limitation of the simulation, you are just wrong.

I don't need to review another thread of your ramblings. You haven't made even the simple case of competence here. Why would you be any better elsewhere? No, the challenge is to you to explain why it is mathmatically flawed and WHY this is true for ALL of evolution and not just the model.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I have had extensive discussions with Paul and several other evolutionists. Doing this will help take you off the learning curve on this problem and you can avoid making a bunch of ignorant statements. If you examine that thread carefully you will find that I made several mistakes that I acknowledged but none affected my fundamental assertion that ev shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

Really? Than, please show how it is. do you show that the simulation blows up? Do you show that the model under some conditions doesn't trend to order? These would be interesting and thought provoking. They would demonstrate a mathmatical impossibility.

Let the ignorant evolutionist statements continue. I have never said that the ev simulation blows up. The only thing that appears to be blowing up in this discussion is Delphi ote’s head. Now, if you are talking about the failure of ev to converge for some input parameters, perhaps you should pose that question to Paul. He seems to have an explanation for this effect. His explanation supports my contention that ev shows that macroevolution by point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

or are you going to tell me, "it takes too long..." Unless you can show me the first two are happening and that this isn't a limitation of the simulation, you are just wrong.

According to Paul’s hypothesis, ev will fail to converge if the information capacity of the binding site exceeds Rfrequency. The simulation can not locate a binding site and therefore can not convergence. I am not convinced by his arguments however if he is saying that natural selection can not work when a particular mutation no matter whether beneficial or not doesn’t give enough information for natural selection to make the selection decision then I will see how his hypothesis plays out. For those cases that do converge, the number of generations required to accomplish the evolutionary process is so profoundly large when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

Joozb, it is a fact of life that if you don’t have enough time for a certain process to occur, you have only two possible choices. Either speed up the process so you have time for it to occur or realize that the process is impossible. Dr Schneider has tried to speed up the process by using unrealistic input parameters in the model which doesn’t pass the scientific test. Maybe you ought to start thinking about increasing the age of the earth.

I don't need to review another thread of your ramblings. You haven't made even the simple case of competence here. Why would you be any better elsewhere? No, the challenge is to you to explain why it is mathmatically flawed and WHY this is true for ALL of evolution and not just the model.

With respects to your statement about my ramblings, I know where I am taking this discussion, do you know where you are going?
Now you get your information by telekinesis as well. Another sloppy evolutionarian who thinks that when he puts on a lab coat becomes a scientist. You still haven’t run any cases with ev, have you? You may think that ignorance is bliss but it isn’t science. Since you seem to be too lazy to run cases with ev, I will soon start posting results from this simulation and show why ev supports my assertions. You better warm up your keyboard macros for the words “strawman” and “irrelevant”. You are going to need them because they will be the only arguments available to you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

According to Paul’s hypothesis, ev will fail to converge if the information capacity of the binding site exceeds Rfrequency. The simulation can not locate a binding site and therefore can not convergence. I am not convinced by his arguments however if he is saying that natural selection can not work when a particular mutation no matter whether beneficial or not doesn’t give enough information for natural selection to make the selection decision then I will see how his hypothesis plays out.

The Rcapacity issue is just an Ev issue; I don't think it would show up in real life. If you specify that binding sites are 5 bases wide, then you're limiting the code that can evolve there to about 10 bits. If that is lower than Rfrequency, more or less, then you simply can't evolve the code. So when you run large experiments in Ev, you have to make sure you don't run into Rcapacity problems.

[latex]$R_{\mathrm{frequency}}=\log_2(\mathit{genomesize}/\mathit{bindingsites})$[/latex]

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

my fundamental assertion that ev shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

I keep asking this, and you keep ignoring it.

What makes you think the EV program is an accurate model of reality? What makes you think someone was able to simulate the entire history of evolution, especially given that we can't even simulate weather to more than a week in advance?

The answer, of course, is that you're just bonkers. The program was created to show that information can evolve from simple beginnings. It accomplished that. The fact that this model does not evolve information fast enough is irrelevant, because that is not what the model was intended to do.

Voodoo.

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I am not going to acknowledge that I have made a mistake in my interpretation of the application of information theory to Dr Schneider’s computer model. If you believe that information and entropy are equal, fine. I find that interpretation of these words illogical and find Frank Andrews’ (the writer of the textbook that I used in graduate school that discusses this issue) interpretation and mathematical derivation much too logical to ignore.

There's nothing to interpret or argue about here. The equation for Shannon entropy is the sum of -p*log(p). The equation for self information is the sum of -p*log(p). Shannon entropy is a measure of the uncertainty per symbol. The self information per symbol is a measure of how much you learn on average when you receive a symbol. The less even a probability distribution, the more certain I am what the outcome of the event will be before it happens. This means the entropy is lower. It also means I don't learn very much on average, so the average self information is low.

Simple example. If I'm certain of the outcome (p=1,) then the entropy is zero. I also don't learn anything at all when I learn the outcome, so the self information is zero.

This statement is incorrect.

Increasing the information in a system reduces the randomness and thus reduces the entropy.

If you have a problem with that, you should've taken it up with Claude Shannon. But please don't misrepresent his work now that he's gone.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've read enough to confirm my earlier assessment that Kleinman is, in fact, working backward from his conclusion. I'd be interested in seeing the scientific community's response to his work after being published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Until then there's little more to do here but to start posting pictures of cats.

 

[joobz]

Let the ignorant evolutionist statements continue. I have never said that the ev simulation blows up. The only thing that appears to be blowing up in this discussion is Delphi ote’s head. Now, if you are talking about the failure of ev to converge for some input parameters, perhaps you should pose that question to Paul. He seems to have an explanation for this effect. His explanation supports my contention that ev shows that macroevolution by point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

Paul has demonstrated quite well, with well reasoned responses why his view is reliable. He even admits error and mistakes when he performs them. As such, I have all reason to trust Paul's view.

You have demonstrated several times, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have little to know clue what you are talking about. The fact that you can be so wrong about such fundamental facts and not even admit them proves that you have no credibility what so ever.

According to Paul’s hypothesis, ev will fail to converge if the information capacity of the binding site exceeds Rfrequency. The simulation can not locate a binding site and therefore can not convergence. I am not convinced by his arguments however if he is saying that natural selection can not work when a particular mutation no matter whether beneficial or not doesn’t give enough information for natural selection to make the selection decision then I will see how his hypothesis plays out. For those cases that do converge, the number of generations required to accomplish the evolutionary process is so profoundly large when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

your time arguement has been reported and dissmissed. please try another approach.

Joozb, it is a fact of life that if you don’t have enough time for a certain process to occur, you have only two possible choices. Either speed up the process so you have time for it to occur or realize that the process is impossible. Dr Schneider has tried to speed up the process by using unrealistic input parameters in the model which doesn’t pass the scientific test. Maybe you ought to start thinking about increasing the age of the earth.

Pardon me if I don't consider your view as "realistic". I've already stated as everyone else had, that your assestions are wrong. there is more to life than what's in the model. Anyway, mistakes Schneider may have made have no bearing on you being right or wrong. You are wrong despite him.

With respects to your statement about my ramblings, I know where I am taking this discussion, do you know where you are going?

Instead of "taking the discussion" somewhere. Get there! did I not ask for your reasons up front? Did I not ask for your data? No respectable scientist leads the witness. Present your facts, and let them hold on thier own. If they can't, then you are wrong. Simple.

You present your view as if it was some gambit that requires careful plotting. That's the action of a con artist, not a scientist.

Now you get your information by telekinesis as well. Another sloppy evolutionarian who thinks that when he puts on a lab coat becomes a scientist. You still haven’t run any cases with ev, have you? You may think that ignorance is bliss but it isn’t science. Since you seem to be too lazy to run cases with ev, I will soon start posting results from this simulation and show why ev supports my assertions.

I've asked you to do this all along. You haven't. I'm sure though that you'll respond with some, "it takes too long." argument again.

You better warm up your keyboard macros for the words “strawman” and “irrelevant”. You are going to need them because they will be the only arguments available to you.

Let's try it now.

You have become the "strawman" that is easy to tear apart. You are "irrelevant". Yup, seems to fit quite nicely, thank you.

 

[joobz]

I've read enough to confirm my earlier assessment that Kleinman is, in fact, working backward from his conclusion. I'd be interested in seeing the scientific community's response to his work after being published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Until then there's little more to do here but to start posting pictures of cats.

Peer reviewed journals would require him to address questions with actual proof and logic. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[joobz]

There's nothing to interpret or argue about here. The equation for Shannon entropy is the sum of -p*log(p). The equation for self information is the sum of -p*log(p). Shannon entropy is a measure of the uncertainty per symbol. The self information per symbol is a measure of how much you learn on average when you receive a symbol. The less even a probability distribution, the more certain I am what the outcome of the event will be before it happens. This means the entropy is lower. It also means I don't learn very much on average, so the average self information is low.

Simple example. If I'm certain of the outcome (p=1,) then the entropy is zero. I also don't learn anything at all when I learn the outcome, so the self information is zero.

This statement is incorrect.

If you have a problem with that, you should've taken it up with Claude Shannon. But please don't misrepresent his work now that he's gone.

Why should he admit error? He's infallible. Must be the second coming.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I've read enough to confirm my earlier assessment that Kleinman is, in fact, working backward from his conclusion. I'd be interested in seeing the scientific community's response to his work after being published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. Until then there's little more to do here but to start posting pictures of cats.

So we have another evolutionist who figures things out with telekinesis. I was invited by Dr Schneider to examine his ev program. This problem wasn’t addressed with reversed engineering. I addressed this problem by doing a parametric study of ev.

Foster Zygote’s idea of a peer reviewed journal is one in which all the peers are indoctrinated in evolutionary dogma for example Nucleic Acid Research. The peer review they performed on Dr Schneider’s paper was sloppy. If they had simply question Dr Schneider about genome lengths and mutation rates in his model, they would have not allowed Dr Schneider’s unscientific extrapolations to be published.

Since none of you evolutionists have posted results from ev, I thought I would get the ball rolling. This initial series is based on Dr Schneider’s single published case. In that case, he used a genome length of G=256 bases, a mutation rate of 1 per genome per generation, the number of binding sites gamma=16, a site width of 6 bases and a population of 64. Below are the results of a series of runs based on Dr Schneider’s baseline case with the exception that the genome length G is doubled for each case in the series. The first column gives the genome length G, the second column gives the generations required to obtain a perfect creature (all binding sites identified where they should be and no binding sites identified where they shouldn’t be).
G \ generations for PC
256 \ 662
512 \ 2412
1024 \ 18030
2048 \ 35468
4096 \ 163722
8192 \ 710152
16384 \ stopped at 400,000 generations, no selection occurring
The first thing you should note is that in order to get a realistic mutation rate when using a mutation rate of 1/G per generation, you must have a genome length of G~=1,000,000. This series stopped converging at G=16,384. Up to that point, this series is showing a convergence rate proportional to ~G^2. If that rate of increase of generations could be maintained, the table would look like this:
G \ Generations for convergence
8192 \ 700,000
16,384 \ 2,800,000
32,768 \ 11,200,000
65,536 \ 44,800,000
131,072 \ 179,200,000
262,144 \ 716,800,000
524,288 \ 2,867,200,000
1,048,576 \ 11,468,800,000
2,097,152 \ 45,875,200,000
4,194,304 \ 183,500,800,000
8,388,608 \ 734,003,200,000
This data does not represent the evolution of an entire genome of the length G, it represents the evolution of 16 binding sites each 6 bases wide on that genome. Only 96 of the total G number of loci are evolving. The rest of the genome is still a random sequence of bases. Note that for a genome the size of e coli, it would take around 200 billion generations to evolve only 96 loci on a genome of that length. Dr Schneider’s case of these 16 binding sites on a 256 base genome accumulates information at 1 bit per 11 generations. Model these same 16 binding sites on a realistic genome length with a realistic mutation rate and accumulation of information slows to 1 bit per 2 billion generations, far too slow to explain how macroevolution occurs.

Evolutionarians will complain, how can you extrapolate the data when you don’t have convergence for the 16,384 base case? I give evolutionarians the benefit of the doubt. Paul has an explanation for why these cases do not converge once you exceed a certain genome length but this explanation doesn’t rescue the theory of evolution, it makes the theory of evolution less likely. It is not only increasing genome lengths that makes ev converge more slowly, there are other mathematical factors the argue against the theory of evolution.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why should he admit error? He's infallible. Must be the second coming.

And joozb said this on the “A Simple Argument against Intelligent Design” thread:

I thank you for your defense. Although, I don't doubt that my English teachers wished I had tried harder at learning spelling and grammar. I was always to busy reading my science books, encyclopedias, playing math games...

Now you crybabies have complained that I was rude to you because I told you to write an intelligible sentence. I spoke to you truthfully with some force behind it because you are supposed to be an educated person and should have a better command of the English language. Instead you and your whimpering cohorts cried about this for several days so don’t start lecturing me about admitting errors you hypocrite.

Why is it that so many of those posting lack the courage to put their real name to their words?

Why don’t you play some math games with Dr Schneider’s ev program and see whether what I am saying is true, or is that to threatening to your belief system?

 

[joobz]

Since none of you evolutionists have posted results from ev, I thought I would get the ball rolling. This initial series is based on Dr Schneider’s single published case. In that case, he used a genome length of G=256 bases, a mutation rate of 1 per genome per generation, the number of binding sites gamma=16, a site width of 6 bases and a population of 64. Below are the results of a series of runs based on Dr Schneider’s baseline case with the exception that the genome length G is doubled for each case in the series. The first column gives the genome length G, the second column gives the generations required to obtain a perfect creature (all binding sites identified where they should be and no binding sites identified where they shouldn’t be).

G \ generations for PC
256 \ 662
512 \ 2412
1024 \ 18030
2048 \ 35468
4096 \ 163722
8192 \ 710152
16384 \ stopped at 400,000 generations, no selection occurring

WOW! you are right. It's a perfect proof. We'll never evolve into the perfect creature. that makes sense.

The first thing you should note is that in order to get a realistic mutation rate when using a mutation rate of 1/G per generation, you must have a genome length of G~=1,000,000.

why? explain this assumption.

This series stopped converging at G=16,384. Up to that point, this series is showing a convergence rate proportional to ~G^2. If that rate of increase of generations could be maintained, the table would look like this:

G \ Generations for convergence
8192 \ 700,000
16,384 \ 2,800,000
32,768 \ 11,200,000
65,536 \ 44,800,000
131,072 \ 179,200,000
262,144 \ 716,800,000
524,288 \ 2,867,200,000
1,048,576 \ 11,468,800,000
2,097,152 \ 45,875,200,000
4,194,304 \ 183,500,800,000
8,388,608 \ 734,003,200,000
This data does not represent the evolution of an entire genome of the length G, it represents the evolution of 16 binding sites each 6 bases wide on that genome. Only 96 of the total G number of loci are evolving. The rest of the genome is still a random sequence of bases.

So does this model prove that our genome is entirely a random sequence of bases? That's a new one to me.

Note that for a genome the size of e coli, it would take around 200 billion generations to evolve only 96 loci on a genome of that length. Dr Schneider’s case of these 16 binding sites on a 256 base genome accumulates information at 1 bit per 11 generations. Model these same 16 binding sites on a realistic genome length with a realistic mutation rate and accumulation of information slows to 1 bit per 2 billion generations, far too slow to explain how macroevolution occurs.

I knew rate had to be here somewhere. I should remember this next time. ALL e-Coli mutate identically simultaneously. There is no variation between the E-coli species. that's an important thing to know.

Evolutionarians will complain, how can you extrapolate the data when you don’t have convergence for the 16,384 base case? I give evolutionarians the benefit of the doubt. Paul has an explanation for why these cases do not converge once you exceed a certain genome length but this explanation doesn’t rescue the theory of evolution, it makes the theory of evolution less likely.

Ah Paul, looks like we lost. He proven that extrapolation is flawless. You can always extend the data BEYOND the values measured/reported without any concern for error. man, who would have known.

It is not only increasing genome lengths that makes ev converge more slowly, there are other mathematical factors the argue against the theory of evolution.

really? like?
You've again only presented rate and I've bashed that one into the ground. So tell me. Really? Other reasons? feel free to post them.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Peer reviewed journals would require him to address questions with actual proof and logic. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point.

 

[Foster Zygote]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

[joobz]

And joozb said this on the “A Simple Argument against Intelligent Design” thread:

Now you crybabies have complained that I was rude to you because I told you to write an intelligible sentence. I spoke to you truthfully with some force behind it because you are supposed to be an educated person and should have a better command of the English language. Instead you and your whimpering cohorts cried about this for several days so don’t start lecturing me about admitting errors you hypocrite.

Really?
Here was my reply to your insult laden post:

Originally Posted by kleinman

I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.

You are correct, i had written this rapidly and late, here is the corrected form.

Originally Posted by joobz
and this matters? I deny the notion that a full human genome would poof into existence and then mutate to form binding sites.

Can you honestly call me a hypocrite? you know what that word means, right? However, why should I be suprized that you'd ignore the facts of our exchanges when you so readily ignore facts of the case you are trying to make.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

According to Paul’s hypothesis, ev will fail to converge if the information capacity of the binding site exceeds Rfrequency. The simulation can not locate a binding site and therefore can not convergence. I am not convinced by his arguments however if he is saying that natural selection can not work when a particular mutation no matter whether beneficial or not doesn’t give enough information for natural selection to make the selection decision then I will see how his hypothesis plays out.

The Rcapacity issue is just an Ev issue; I don't think it would show up in real life. If you specify that binding sites are 5 bases wide, then you're limiting the code that can evolve there to about 10 bits. If that is lower than Rfrequency, more or less, then you simply can't evolve the code. So when you run large experiments in Ev, you have to make sure you don't run into Rcapacity problems.

I am not sure whether you can say this is only a mathematical peculiarity of the ev model and not representative of a real problem for RM&NS.. Ultimately, natural selection must determine whether a mutation offers a selective advantage or not. This may be attributing a precision to natural selection that does not exist in reality. Natural selection may be able to identify a single harmful mutation easily but a single mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage but if combined with future mutations that would confer an advantage, how would natural selection select for the early bases in gene formation that does not confer an advantage? Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for this with his weight matrix. When you are talking about the de novo formation of a large gene, how would natural selection start the process?

my fundamental assertion that ev shows that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

I keep asking this, and you keep ignoring it. What makes you think the EV program is an accurate model of reality? What makes you think someone was able to simulate the entire history of evolution, especially given that we can't even simulate weather to more than a week in advance?

Sorry, I thought I already answered this. I believe that Dr Schneider properly included all the critical variables and mathematically related them in a plausible manner. In addition, I include quotes from the author of the model:
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.

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html
Dr Schneider made the following comments in response to statements made by Fred Williams about ev.

Fred Williams complains that the "program is not real-world, not even close. New information was not created naturalistically." It is not clear what he means by 'real-world' or 'naturalistically'. If you read the Ev paper carefully you will note that the model parallels the natural situation.

Dr Schneider said the following on his FAQ page at:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/faq-for-ev.html

Why don't you do a real biological experiment instead of just a computer model?

The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me.

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.

The answer, of course, is that you're just bonkers.

I may be bonkers but I do know how to do arithmetic. Dr Schneider believes the ev simulates reality. The only thing preventing him from running real laboratory experiments is he doesn’t have the laboratory to do it.

The first thing you should note is that in order to get a realistic mutation rate when using a mutation rate of 1/G per generation, you must have a genome length of G~=1,000,000.

why? explain this assumption.

It’s not an assumption, this is a measured rate. Mutation rates for prokaryotes vary between 10^-4 to 10^-12 with an average of 10^-6 to 10^-8. You can confirm this in any introductory biochemistry text, or google and confirm the information. Don’t be lazy, check this out yourself.

So does this model prove that our genome is entirely a random sequence of bases? That's a new one to me.

Actually the whole model is new to you. I’ve been discussing this model with Dr Schneider, Paul and other evolutionists for about 6 months, if you don’t want to look stupid, you probably should not jump to conclusions on what the model is simulating until you become familiar with the model. You still don’t understand the model yet but I’ll be patient with you. The model does not simulate the evolution of an entire genome, it only simulates the evolution of a small portion of the genome where the binding sites are. The entire genome is random initially and only the portion with the binding site evolves the rest of the genome remains random.

Note that for a genome the size of e coli, it would take around 200 billion generations to evolve only 96 loci on a genome of that length. Dr Schneider’s case of these 16 binding sites on a 256 base genome accumulates information at 1 bit per 11 generations. Model these same 16 binding sites on a realistic genome length with a realistic mutation rate and accumulation of information slows to 1 bit per 2 billion generations, far too slow to explain how macroevolution occurs.

I knew rate had to be here somewhere. I should remember this next time. ALL e-Coli mutate identically simultaneously. There is no variation between the E-coli species. that's an important thing to know.

Actually the mutation rate is generally slower than 10^-6. If you think you are ready, I’ll start posting the references with measured mutation rates for different e coli strains but I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Evolutionarians will complain, how can you extrapolate the data when you don’t have convergence for the 16,384 base case? I give evolutionarians the benefit of the doubt. Paul has an explanation for why these cases do not converge once you exceed a certain genome length but this explanation doesn’t rescue the theory of evolution, it makes the theory of evolution less likely.

Ah Paul, looks like we lost. He proven that extrapolation is flawless. You can always extend the data BEYOND the values measured/reported without any concern for error. man, who would have known.

I don’t believe it, I think I have found a point we can agree on. Engineers know that extrapolation outside the range of your data based on a curve fit can give very inaccurate predictions, particularly with a highly nonlinear model like ev. Dr Schneider and Paul have done this and gotten very inaccurate predictions. I think you will find that my extrapolations are very conservative and underestimate the number of generations for convergence. I have more data from ev that verifies this. As you become more familiar with ev this will become more apparent.

It is not only increasing genome lengths that makes ev converge more slowly, there are other mathematical factors the argue against the theory of evolution.

really? like? You've again only presented rate and I've bashed that one into the ground. So tell me. Really? Other reasons? feel free to post them.

Again, you are putting the cart before the horse but I’ll give you an example. Dr Schneider’s selection process is based on a weight matrix that traverses the genome that looks for a mathematical match between the matrix and base sequence. If the weight matrix does not find a match where it should it is counted as an error or if the weight matrix finds a match on the genome where there should not be a binding site, it is considered an error as well. The creatures in the population with the least number of errors are allowed to reproduce while those with the most errors are selected out. A problem with this type of selection process is that binding sites recognized in the nonbinding site region early in the evolutionary process have a smaller selective effect than later in the evolutionary process. Because of this effect, evolution proceeds more rapidly early in the process and slows down as the evolutionary process proceeds. I don’t think this accurately models the real situation.

Peer reviewed journals would require him to address questions with actual proof and logic. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point.

Of course that doesn’t apply to anything that you evolutionists post in this blog. Joozb, your anything is possible argument for proof of abiogenesis is worthy scientific proof that would pass any evolutionist peer reviewed journal. And Foster Zygote, your qualifications as master poster and defender of thin skinned evolutionist crybabies puts anything you would write on this blog above the need for peer review. James Randi might as well close down this site because unless if it isn’t published in a peer reviewed journal it can’t be true. Can’t you evolutionist mount a better case than this?

Can you honestly call me a hypocrite? you know what that word means, right? However, why should I be suprized that you'd ignore the facts of our exchanges when you so readily ignore facts of the case you are trying to make.

Yes, because you let this issue linger on and when you finally posted a second time you did it on a different thread. You are doing the same with the question about the relationship of Shannon information and entropy. You understand my description of the model but would rather engage in this debate about the minus sign. If this is the best argument you can raise to my assertions about what ev shows, don’t be surprised when those who don’t have your evolutionary indoctrination don’t believe you.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course that doesn’t apply to anything that you evolutionists post in this blog. Joozb, your anything is possible argument for proof of abiogenesis is worthy scientific proof that would pass any evolutionist peer reviewed journal. And Foster Zygote, your qualifications as master poster and defender of thin skinned evolutionist crybabies puts anything you would write on this blog above the need for peer review. James Randi might as well close down this site because unless if it isn’t published in a peer reviewed journal it can’t be true. Can’t you evolutionist mount a better case than this?

There's only one person involved in this exchange who is behaving like a thin skinned crybaby. Perhaps you could include some of your colorful language in your paper when you submit it for journal publication, I'm sure it would help you get your point across. When is that going to be, by the way? Certainly a discovery of such import needs to be presented to the world of science, not hidden away on an informal 'blog' (it's actually a forum). After all, what you are claiming to have uncovered is by far the greatest discovery in the last century of biological science.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Of course that doesn’t apply to anything that you evolutionists post in this blog. Joozb, your anything is possible argument for proof of abiogenesis is worthy scientific proof that would pass any evolutionist peer reviewed journal. And Foster Zygote, your qualifications as master poster and defender of thin skinned evolutionist crybabies puts anything you would write on this blog above the need for peer review. James Randi might as well close down this site because unless if it isn’t published in a peer reviewed journal it can’t be true. Can’t you evolutionist mount a better case than this?

There's only one person involved in this exchange who is behaving like a thin skinned crybaby. Perhaps you could include some of your colorful language in your paper when you submit it for journal publication, I'm sure it would help you get your point across. When is that going to be, by the way? Certainly a discovery of such import needs to be presented to the world of science, not hidden away on an informal 'blog' (it's actually a forum). After all, what you are claiming to have uncovered is by far the greatest discovery in the last century of biological science.

So Foster Zygote, you asked me what my credentials were and I told you what they were. When I asked you what your credentials are, you didn’t answer.

I don’t mind that I’m presenting this information on the net. I actually was content to discuss this on the Evolutionisdead forum until the evolutionists who were willing to discuss it were running short of counter arguments. Paul had asked me to raise the issue on this forum a while back and when I saw his “Annoying Creationist” thread, I took him up on the offer. I guess the evolutionists on this forum were not prepared for the claims that I am making based on the results from ev. I’ll give you time for this to soak in and then I’ll show you why I believe these claims to be true. I did try to write a letter to the editors at Nucleic Acids Research since they published the ev paper but they don’t accept letters to the editor. I don’t consider what I have done as being the greatest discovery in the last century of biological science. Many scientists have said that it is mathematically impossible for life to have evolved. You can start with Francis Crick. I am only addressing Dr Schneider’s model because of his superficial analysis of his model and the inaccurate extrapolations that he drew based on this superficial analysis. Many IDers have criticized Dr Schneider’s conclusions because of his use of an unrealistically small genome and an unrealistically high mutation rate in his single published case but Dr Schneider shrugged off these criticisms. Because of my engineering background and training with the development and application of large scale computer simulations, I simply put those skills to use on Dr Schneider’s model. I did a systematic parametric study with ev. So here we are. I don’t expect there are many readers of this site who willing to put in the effort to understand Dr Schneider’s model but there may be a few. As long as this discussion is not interrupted too much by bloggers posting about cats (don’t get me wrong, I like cats, I have two of them) then maybe a coherent discussion can be started.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

G \ generations for PC
256 \ 662
512 \ 2412
1024 \ 18030
2048 \ 35468
4096 \ 163722
8192 \ 710152
16384 \ stopped at 400,000 generations, no selection occurring

In the last case, Rfrequency is 10 bits, while Rcapacity is about 11--12 bits. Tough for the binding site code to evolve, maybe even impossible.

I'd expect that it might get somewhere after sufficient generations. From that trend, you'd expect it to take 3.5 million generations or more, so no progress after 400K generations isn't suprising.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am not sure whether you can say this is only a mathematical peculiarity of the ev model and not representative of a real problem for RM&NS.. Ultimately, natural selection must determine whether a mutation offers a selective advantage or not. This may be attributing a precision to natural selection that does not exist in reality. Natural selection may be able to identify a single harmful mutation easily but a single mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage but if combined with future mutations that would confer an advantage, how would natural selection select for the early bases in gene formation that does not confer an advantage? Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for this with his weight matrix. When you are talking about the de novo formation of a large gene, how would natural selection start the process?

The beginning of your paragraph has nothing to do with the end. Unless there is some sort of mechanism to artificially constrain the width of binding sites, real evolution does not have the Rcapacity problem. That said, I'm sure it's harder to evolve wide binding sites than narrow ones. I think typical widths are 6--12 bases, but I might be dreaming that.

Meanwhile, there probably never was any whole-cloth formation of a large gene. Same reason you've never seen an empty lot on Tuesday and a completed palace on Wednesday.

~~ Paul