Annoying creationists

[delphi_ote]

I expected someone interested in this subject enough to talk about it so much would at least have some interest in getting it right. Instead, he's ignoring the error.

Re-reading my posts, I noticed something. To be completely correct, I should've been careful to distinguish between self information and average self information. Self information is about a single outcome. Average self information is averaged over a distribution, and is identical to Shannon information.

 

[joobz]

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.

Again, this value is constant throughout all populations, throughout all of time and represents the only way dna continues. My comment on "random sequences

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.

I understand the model well enough to see the power of it and the limitations.

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.

Ahh, and this is how evolution occured? Only certain sections evolving at a time? Hmm? This is your gotcha? You really are a silly little man.

The entire genome is random initially and only the portion with the binding site evolves the rest of the genome remains random.

There's no reason to believe this. You are just kidding yourself. I know, reality is hard to take, but once you accept it, you can move on.

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.

That's nice. Average mutation rates of a entire population with out any mutagenic stressors.... Again, you are simply wrong...

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.

Well, that's reasonable. But again I fail to see the connection to reality. there's a model that looks at one small part of the whole picture and you claim it does it all. That's delusional.

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.

and I'd agree. I think there are deviations from reality. EVEN MORE of a reason why a flaw here doesn't equal a flaw in the theory.

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?

Better than 50+ years of genetics? We've given you the facts. You've given us half truths and foolishness.

Yes, because you let this issue linger on and when you finally posted a second time you did it on a different thread.

? what? Do you know what hypocrite means?

In any case, look back over the thread and look to see who was polite and who wasn't. I stopped being polite when I realized you were meaningless.

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.

I never claimed to know shannon entropy. I deferred to Tez and delphi_ote for that. If you check, I was even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
I demonstrated that you didn't understand thermodynamics and had no real clue of it's applications. Again, that's your problem, not mine.

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.

again, you claim an 'indoctrination'. i've asked for evidence. You haven't given it. There's no indoctrination, just your inability.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Sorry, missed that. I have no credentials in the fields of biology or chemistry, but then I haven't made any major claims regarding either. I simply wanted to know who was making the claim that he was about to overturn a century and a half of biological science.

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'd still like to see what other scientists have to say about your work in a peer reviewed journal. Is that ever going to happen? Far from being unprepared for your claims, the evolutionists on this forum seem to have heard much of this sort of thing before. And they've shown that you've made many fundamental errors which you have not fully addressed.

I’ll give you time for this to soak in and then I’ll show you why I believe these claims to be true.

You promised to do this a few days ago.

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.

Really? You didn't quote the Bible did you?

I don’t consider what I have done as being the greatest discovery in the last century of biological science.

Well that's just what you'd be doing if you were to show that all of evolutionary theory has been a huge mistake.

Many scientists have said that it is mathematically impossible for life to have evolved. You can start with Francis Crick.

You mean this Francis Crick? Where did he say that?

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.

If you prove that evolution could not happen in the model you haven't shown it to be impossible in reality because the model doesn't perfectly model reality. Far from it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

I ran this model overnight. After 2.5 million generations it's gotten nowhere. I'd say we've run into the Rcapacity problem.

Just for a check, I'll run it with somewhat smaller genome sizes and see what happens.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

I added the bold face to your quote. Your theory about Rcapacity says the exact opposite. I will summarize your hypothesis:
If Rcapacity = 2 * binding site width is less than Rfrequency then ev will not converge. The mathematics of ev is saying that it is more difficult to evolve narrow binding sites on larger genomes.

I expected someone interested in this subject enough to talk about it so much would at least have some interest in getting it right. Instead, he's ignoring the error. Re-reading my posts, I noticed something. To be completely correct, I should've been careful to distinguish between self information and average self information. Self information is about a single outcome. Average self information is averaged over a distribution, and is identical to Shannon information.

If you want to understand where my view on the relationship between Shannon Information and entropy comes from, you and Tez can make a field trip to the college library where Tez teaches quantum mechanics and get the text Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics by Frank Andrews. Not only does Andrews derive Shannon’s equation and relate it to information theory, he gives a numerical example very similar to Dr Schneider’s problem. I hope the library still exists and wasn’t burned down by evolutionarians in their zeal to burn Bibles.

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.

Again, this value is constant throughout all populations, throughout all of time and represents the only way dna continues. My comment on "random sequences

Joozb, do you believe that the mutation rate for living things were much higher for primitive life forms than the values measures now? I’m not sure what you mean by “dna continures”. I will try to make my comment on your last phrase as gently as possible, you are grammatically challenged.

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.

Ahh, and this is how evolution occured? Only certain sections evolving at a time? Hmm? This is your gotcha? You really are a silly little man.

Hey, don’t get mad at me, this is Dr Schneider’s model, he’s the one who uses the data from this model to predict the evolution of a human genome.

The entire genome is random initially and only the portion with the binding site evolves the rest of the genome remains random.

There's no reason to believe this. You are just kidding yourself. I know, reality is hard to take, but once you accept it, you can move on.

I thought you said you understood this model. Paul, you need to help joozb on a few details on the ev model.

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.

That's nice. Average mutation rates of a entire population with out any mutagenic stressors.... Again, you are simply wrong...

Again, you are going to the wrong complaint window. Dr Schneider wrote the model and used average values to predict the evolution of a human genome. The only problem with his average values is they have no basis in reality.

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.

Well, that's reasonable. But again I fail to see the connection to reality. there's a model that looks at one small part of the whole picture and you claim it does it all. That's delusional.

The reason why you fail to see the connection to reality that ev has is because you think you understand the model when you don’t. You call me delusional when you believe in a theory that says the most complex molecules known came into existence by random process and your miracle worker natural selection. Sorry, but natural selection can not do miracles.

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.

Sorry, missed that. I have no credentials in the fields of biology or chemistry, but then I haven't made any major claims regarding either. I simply wanted to know who was making the claim that he was about to overturn a century and a half of biological science.

All that I am doing is taking an evolutionist’s mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and looking at the behavior of the model with realistic parameters. If you have a problem with the data from the model take it to Dr Schneider, he wrote the model. I notice that no evolutionist has ever question Dr Schneider’s claims based on his use of unrealistic parameters in his model, but when I use realistic parameters in his model, I now am overturning a century and a half of biological science. If the theory of evolution is true, it can withstand my puny efforts. Since you don’t have any scientific credentials should I immediately use the Page Down key as soon as I see your posts? I won’t do this, if you have a valid point to make, I will try to address it.

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'd still like to see what other scientists have to say about your work in a peer reviewed journal. Is that ever going to happen? Far from being unprepared for your claims, the evolutionists on this forum seem to have heard much of this sort of thing before. And they've shown that you've made many fundamental errors which you have not fully addressed.

You have a PhD chemical engineer and an instructor in quantum mechanic examining my claims. You have Dr Schneider’s coworker who wrote the online version of the computer model. I don’t think the evolutionists on this forum have seen what Dr Schneider’s model shows when realistic parameters are used unless they have been following the Evolutionisdead forum on this topic. Don’t confuse evolutionist misunderstanding of ev as my making fundamental errors. The problem you have is that you think the ev model can be explained with a sound bite. It is not a trivial calculation and requires some study to understand the model. When you do understand the model, you will understand my claims.

I’ll give you time for this to soak in and then I’ll show you why I believe these claims to be true.

You promised to do this a few days ago.

Evolutionist ground has been drying for a century and a half, it will take gentle rains for a while for this to soak in. Unfortunately, the only thing I have done so far is cause a flash flood, I’ll slow it down for you.

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.

Really? You didn't quote the Bible did you?

I didn’t quote the Bible to the editors at Nucleic Acids Research but if I thought it was appropriate, I would have. Do you have a problem with the Bible? Is that why you object to my mathematical arguments against the theory of evolution?

I don’t consider what I have done as being the greatest discovery in the last century of biological science.

Well that's just what you'd be doing if you were to show that all of evolutionary theory has been a huge mistake.

I don’t believe all aspects of the theory of evolution are wrong, only the aspects associated with macroevolution are wrong.

Many scientists have said that it is mathematically impossible for life to have evolved. You can start with Francis Crick.

You mean this Francis Crick? Where did he say that?

Check what wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Directed_Panspermia
Crick did modify his views when the RNA world hypothesis was raised, perhaps he would have modified his views again if he had seen the results of Dr Schneider’s ev model. If I had an opportunity to ask Crick a question, I would ask him how would an intelligent life form obtain the initial life to spread?

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.

If you prove that evolution could not happen in the model you haven't shown it to be impossible in reality because the model doesn't perfectly model reality. Far from it.

Dr Schneider gives a good answer to this which he posted on his site:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/truman/

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.

Dr Schneider believes his ev model simulates random point mutations and natural selection realistically and so do I.
You also ignore what evolutionist Dr Schneider, peer review author of the published ev computer model has said about his 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.

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.

I ran this model overnight. After 2.5 million generations it's gotten nowhere. I'd say we've run into the Rcapacity problem. Just for a check, I'll run it with somewhat smaller genome sizes and see what happens.

I appreciate you confirming what I said about this case. What might be of interest to you is comparing the extrapolation I made with this series and the extrapolation you made with the 100k genome, mutation rate of 10^-6 and population of 1meg and how close our extrapolated values are becoming.

 

[delphi_ote]

I hope the library still exists and wasn’t burned down by evolutionarians in their zeal to burn Bibles.

Not only do you refuse to retract your mistake, now you're accusing me of being an anti-intellectual arsonist when you know next to nothing about me. Even if you don't respect those who point out your errors, I would hope you'd have enough respect for your religion to be courteous and honest. I guess being right in this argument is more important to you than the precepts of the religion you're trying to protect.

But don't let me interrupt. I beleve you were bearing false witness against people in Jesus' name. Please continue your hypocracy. Nothing I could say could possibly undermine your argument more thoroughly.

 

[joobz]

Joozb, do you believe that the mutation rate for living things were much higher for primitive life forms than the values measures now? I’m not sure what you mean by “dna continures”. I will try to make my comment on your last phrase as gently as possible, you are grammatically challenged.

I don't "believe" that mutation rates were higher. I KNOW that there are stressors (we call them mutagens) that exist that enhance this rate. you can ignore their involvement in a simulation, but real life doesn't. So, again, you are wrong.

BTW, you are right. I'm guilty of typing fast and not proofing. But that has no bearing on the truth of all other points made. models can simply life to help understand it. But reality does what it does. We observe and develop theories. Our observations of reality support evolution. You're observation that the model has errors doesn't change that. Please try again.

Hey, don’t get mad at me, this is Dr Schneider’s model, he’s the one who uses the data from this model to predict the evolution of a human genome.

I thought you said you understood this model. Paul, you need to help joozb on a few details on the ev model.

Again, you are going to the wrong complaint window. Dr Schneider wrote the model and used average values to predict the evolution of a human genome. The only problem with his average values is they have no basis in reality.

again, I see the limitations in the theory. You are just wrong.

The reason why you fail to see the connection to reality that ev has is because you think you understand the model when you don’t. You call me delusional when you believe in a theory that says the most complex molecules known came into existence by random process and your miracle worker natural selection. Sorry, but natural selection can not do miracles.

The fact you state "random Process" shows you are foolish. There's a random driving force, but a non random selection. just in the same way that the Canyons are carved by a water running down to the sea; elegant, complex structures commonly occur in the wake of an energy potential. Your desire to pretend otherwise is not my problem.

All that I am doing is taking an evolutionist’s mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and looking at the behavior of the model with realistic parameters. If you have a problem with the data from the model take it to Dr Schneider, he wrote the model. I notice that no evolutionist has ever question Dr Schneider’s claims based on his use of unrealistic parameters in his model, but when I use realistic parameters in his model, I now am overturning a century and a half of biological science.

Because his expectations of the model and what he is trying to learn from it is not the same as your expectations. As long as he acknowledges the limitations of the model, he is making sound observations. Don't play the game that, "he did it." It doesn't work. Stand up for your own ideas.

If the theory of evolution is true, it can withstand my puny efforts.

And it has. your efforts are missled and wrong.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

But don't let me interrupt. I beleve you were bearing false witness against people in Jesus' name. Please continue your hypocracy. Nothing I could say could possibly undermine your argument more thoroughly.

Hey, an evolutionarian who knows the Bible, how did you get past GEN 1:1 before you decided it was all hogwash?

Joozb, do you believe that the mutation rate for living things were much higher for primitive life forms than the values measures now? I’m not sure what you mean by “dna continures”. I will try to make my comment on your last phrase as gently as possible, you are grammatically challenged.

I don't "believe" that mutation rates were higher. I KNOW that there are stressors (we call them mutagens) that exist that enhance this rate. you can ignore their involvement in a simulation, but real life doesn't. So, again, you are wrong.

We don’t have to ignore the effects of mutagens, how high of a mutation rate to you think can be maintained in a living organism?

All that I am doing is taking an evolutionist’s mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection and looking at the behavior of the model with realistic parameters. If you have a problem with the data from the model take it to Dr Schneider, he wrote the model. I notice that no evolutionist has ever question Dr Schneider’s claims based on his use of unrealistic parameters in his model, but when I use realistic parameters in his model, I now am overturning a century and a half of biological science.

Because his expectations of the model and what he is trying to learn from it is not the same as your expectations. As long as he acknowledges the limitations of the model, he is making sound observations. Don't play the game that, "he did it." It doesn't work. Stand up for your own ideas.

You need to read what Dr Schneider’s “expectations” of his model are, I have posted what he has said several times already on this thread, go read his web site if you want to know what his “expectations” are. Why do you get so angry when I agree with an evolutionist’s view of his computer program that it models reality?

If the theory of evolution is true, it can withstand my puny efforts.

And it has. your efforts are missled and wrong.

Hey joobz, maybe I’m right, you already have said anything is possible.

 

[joobz]

You need to read what Dr Schneider’s “expectations” of his model are, I have posted what he has said several times already on this thread, go read his web site if you want to know what his “expectations” are. Why do you get so angry when I agree with an evolutionist’s view of his computer program that it models reality?

You completely don't understand, do you? Whether or not Dr. Schneider is right or wrong has no bearing on evolution being real or not. His model works well to describe that information can occur from only point mutations and natural selection. There are boundries where this works, but that it can happen means something. Feel free to play the kinetics game again. but you'll still be wrong. The model doesn't account for everything.

Hey joobz, maybe I’m right, you already have said anything is possible.

Nice use of delibertly misquoting and missinterpreting my statements. you can't use fact, so you must use intellectual gambits. it doesn't work. Science moves on without you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Nice use of delibertly misquoting and missinterpreting my statements. you can't use fact, so you must use intellectual gambits. it doesn't work. Science moves on without you.

There is a reason why Paul calls me the “Annoying Creationist”, however I don’t look at my quoting of evolutionists as twisting their words, I look at it as illuminating your twisted words. So remember google is watching you.

Where is science going anyway?

 

[fishbob]

There is a reason why Paul calls me the “Annoying Creationist”, however I don’t look at my quoting of evolutionists as twisting their words, I look at it as illuminating your twisted words. So remember google is watching you.

Where is science going anyway?

Doesn't matter.
You can't get there from where you are.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Doesn't matter. You can't get there from where you are.

I beg to differ, I got my AAA tour guide (which happens to be a peer reviewed journal) and they clearly marked the map with an orange marker. They asked me if I wanted to visit fantasyland and I said no, there are enough evolutionists on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum for me.

 

[Yahzi]

So we have another evolutionist who figures things out with telekinesis.

Dude... you can't get anything right.

Telekinesis

 

[delphi_ote]

Hey, an evolutionarian who knows the Bible, how did you get past GEN 1:1 before you decided it was all hogwash?

That statement is almost incomprehensible, but it seems as though you're placing a few details about history above being honest and moral. If you represent Christianity, then I'll happily call it all hogwash.

 

[delphi_ote]

Where is science going anyway?

Toward the truth. Join us, won't you? It's great.

 

[Beleth]

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.

You could have started a new thread, you know. Did you choose to respond in the "Annoying Creationists" thread because you are a Creationist?

 

[Apathia]

You could have started a new thread, you know. Did you choose to respond in the "Annoying Creationists" thread because you are a Creationist?

He is, and he's volunteered to play the role of annoying. I don't agree with his conclusion (That Evolution is impossible and therefore never happened) but the more I read of him, my opinion is he is making an important contribution to evolutionary research and theory by these criticisms. I'm afraid he won't be taken seriously, and it will yet be some years before these issues will get addressed in scientific journals.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm afraid he won't be taken seriously, and it will yet be some years before these issues will get addressed in scientific journals.

Can you summarize what issues you think are being raised that aren't being addressed by the scientific community?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You could have started a new thread, you know. Did you choose to respond in the "Annoying Creationists" thread because you are a Creationist?

I’m the “Annoying Creationist” Paul Anagnostopoulos is pissed off at. How could I ignore such an honor bestowed by a moderator on this forum? The following data was in part developed by the ev program Paul ported over to the java language.

Dr. Schneider in his paper, “Evolution of biological information” published in Nucleic Acid Research and available online at http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.html, states that the transition from a random to fully evolved system is “rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.”

This rapid gain of information only occurs with unrealistically small genomes and unrealistically large mutation rates. As the genome length is increased, the number of generations necessary to complete the evolutionary process increases at an exponential rate. The mutation rate has a more linear effect on the rate of evolution but still reducing the unrealistically high mutation rate to a more realistic value reduces the rate of information gain in a more linearly proportional manner.

The significance of this mathematical behavior in the ev program demonstrates the huge number of generations necessary for any real genome to theoretically evolve by a random mutation/natural selection process. The number of generations needed to complete a single evolutionary step for a bacterium reproducing every 20 minutes with genome length of 5,000,000 base pairs exceeds the age of the earth. For a genome the length of a human, approximately 3,000,000,000 base pairs in length, his program demonstrates that the 1,000,000 generations which evolutionists propose separate us from our closest related primate relative could not occur by a random mutation point mutations and natural selection.

In addition, ev shows that huge populations do not have the needed effect to accelerate evolution by RM&NS sufficiently to make this a possible mechanism for macroevolution. As an example of this mathematical behavior of ev with increasing population, the following series were run with genome length G=256, mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation, gamma=16, site width=6. Cases marked with evpascal required the pascal version of ev due to memory limitations in the java version of the program.
Population \ Generations for Rs >= Rf
64 \ 675
128 \ 807
256 \ 481
512 \ 646
1024 \ 452
2048 \ 268
4096 \ 178
8192 \ 247
16384 \ 166
32768 \ 186
65536 \ 189 evpascal
The following series used all the same parameters except G=512.
64 \ 2925
128 \ 1858
256 \ 1508
512 \ 1157
1024 \ 1027
2048 \ 953
4096 \ 694
8192 \ 610
16384 \ 534
32768 \ 369 evpascal
65536 \ 297 evpascal
131072 \ 387 evpascal
The following series used all the same parameters except G=1024
64 \ 10108
128 \ 4446
256 \ 4095
512 \ 3896
1024 \ 2710
2048 \ 1684
4096 \ 1445
8192 \ 1702
16384 \ 1931 evpascal
32768 \ 1548 evpascal
65536 \ 1124 evpascal
131072 \ 847 evpascal
262144 \ 868 evpascal

Each one of these series show that increasing population only shows a marked effect on the rate of convergence with small populations. As the population size increases, further increases in population have a decreasing effect on the rate of convergence.

This population effect is in direct contradiction to Stephen Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium in which evolution occurs rapidly in small sub-populations. The smaller the population, the greater the number of generations required to acquire the information to evolve the genome by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model.

You all have a nice weekend.

 

[Apathia]

Can you summarize what issues you think are being raised that aren't being addressed by the scientific community?

That's bit broader than I meant. It's in regards to this model that was hailed as being an, if not complete and certainly simple, faithful simulation of the process of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. There seems to be a snag. Perhaps there isn't one after all. It's just it seems that way to me now, and I'm not a scientist, so I'm open to be corrected. I've never thought that Darwin was the last word on evolution. So it seems to me that disputes of this sort can encourage progress. If there is a real snag in the classic theory, I look forward to exciting developments. Dr. Kleinmann may be annoying in this context, but I hope he's not superficially dismissed. A pain, right? But pain often serves a purpose that that should be addressed, even if you chase it away with an advil.

I'm being a bit of a Devil's advocate here, as a "satan" as the the Book of Job put it. I'm naive enough to think that we might back away from the name calling to, if not agreeing on anything, valuing the process.