Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I hope you all had a nice weekend.

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.

If we're going for an entirely accurate model, that's going to be extremely difficult, maybe even impossible. But people are definitely working on these problems in bioinformatics and evolutionary computation. If our friend has something interesting to say, I'm certain people in those fields would listen.

Delphi, I have tried to be clear about my claims and I will repeat them again so you won’t be confused about what I am saying. I assert that Dr Schneider’s ev computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection shows that when realistic parameters are used in the model that this mechanism is profoundly slow, too slow to explain macroevolution. This model also refutes key points of Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and also that huge populations such as those seen with bacterial colonies do not appear to have large impact in accelerating the evolutionary process.

I have acknowledged many times that ev does not include other possible mechanisms to explain genetic evolution such as recombinations, inversions, frame shift mutations and so on. However, the mathematical fact that ev removes random point mutations and natural selection as the key mechanism for macroevolution will undermine all other possible mechanisms. It is not impossible to mathematically model these other mechanisms. The most difficult part would be measuring accurate parametric data for use in such models such as numbers of frame shifts which are helpful and harmful and number of inversions which are helpful and harmful and so on and defining plausible selection mechanisms.

I'm being a bit of a Devil's advocate here, as "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.

I was more than willing to hear the man out until he proved he couldn't retract a very simple error.

Delphi, there is a difference between you and me. When Dr Schneider made his claims about ev, I went ahead and did analysis of what he said and specifically point out the flaws in his analysis. Now you want to harp on this issue with Shannon information is mathematically equivalent to entropy or the negative of entropy. I told you to get the text Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics by Frank Andrews which is the source of my view. In that text, Andrews does an example very similar to Dr Schneider’s problem. If you study what Andrews is saying, you might have a better understanding of what I am saying. Delphi, you are getting close to understanding this point when you said:

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.

The conclusion that kleinman generalizes it to real life is the problem.

Dr Schneider believes his model simulates real life, so do the peer review editors at Nucleic Acids Research who published Dr Schneider’s extrapolation of the ev model to the evolution of a human genome. Are you trying to say that ev only simulates reality when unrealistic parameters are used in the model and should not be applied to reality when realistic parameters are used in the model?

No, kleinman is just a noisy gong. loud and clangy but devoid of substance. He is of no use to anyone.

Don’t forget, I’m annoying as well.

I’m the “Annoying Creationist” Paul Anagnostopoulos is pissed off at.

I'll take that as a Yes. How did you arrive at the Creationist conclusion?

I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically. I will prove to you that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least my random point mutations and natural selection) using an evolutionist’s model.

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?

I don't know, but perhaps we have sex to show for it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...sexorigin.html

People on this forum have accused me of going about my proof backwards but this link you have posted has it sdrawkcab. They realize that it requires a high mutation rate in order to get sufficient numbers of genetic changes to explain the theory of evolution so they postulate this occurrence. There are a couple of obvious problems, the first is how do you get prokaryotic evolution and the second is that high mutation rates kill living things. But don’t let my arguments stop you, produce the laboratory data, add this affect to your mathematical model and show how macroevolution occurs mathematically.

What snag? The one where we agree that the diversity of life cannot arise solely from point mutations on random gigabase genomes in a few million years?

Now Paul, you know that ev does not simulate the evolution of a random gigabase genome. Why don’t you start ev with the genome from e coli except allow for 96 loci with a random distribution and then evolve your 16 binding sites using that initial condition and see whether ev converges more quickly.

I think that you will find that point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of your theory. You have no other mechanism to explain the de novo evolution of a gene.

What classic theory? The one where we agree that Darwin didn't have the whole story 150 years ago?

Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex. If he had, I don’t think he would have extrapolated his observations the way he did.

By all means, Kleinman should make his case. I've been talking to him since June and I'm still waiting for the case.

I believe Dr Schneider understands my case, this is why he won’t discuss this issue publicly. To the rest of you devout evolutionarians, this mathematical science that I am presenting to you will soak in over time.

The one where we agree that the diversity of life cannot arise solely from point mutations on random gigabase genomes in a few million years?

That's just the thing. Recent research has shown point mutation isn't the the only way genes get shifted around in natural evolution.

I look forward to you proving the theory of evolution mathematically. Perhaps you will be the one to change the theory of evolution from a soft science of show and tell into a hard mathematical science. Dr Schneider came close but no prize, only refutation of the theory when realistic parameters are used in his model.

What is kleinman's answer? What does he think the underlying mechanisms are which produced the "endless forms most beautiful"? "Godddidit" is just an excuse for ignorance. How exactly did it happen?

Delphi, I’m the “Annoying creationist” so use your skills in deductive logic to figure out what I believe is the mechanism which produced the "endless forms most beautiful". You have put your faith in mutation and natural selection as the explanation for this yet your view has huge mathematical scientific gaps.

I'm R. Cunningham.

Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone. By the way, having a drink won’t help you deal with reality.

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.

"This rate" refers to the rate of information increase per generation shown by the ev model with the low-valued parameters that Kleinman is complaining about.

I just wanted to point out that not only did Dr. Schneider not claim that the ev model simulates all important factors in evolution, he explicitly stated the contrary. Kleinman usually leaves out the boldfaced sentence when he quotes this passage.

Welcome Myriad. It should be pointed out to the readers that Myriad is one of the few evolutionists who post on the Evolutionisdead forum who had the curiosity and intellectual courage to investigate what Dr Schneider model shows.

I have never claimed that random point mutations and natural selection is the only mechanism that can be used to explain macroevolution. I have only asserted that this mechanism is the cornerstone for the theory and that this mechanism is far too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by the results from this model when realistic parameters are used. I have also asserted that Dr Schneider’s claim of the evolution of the human genome in one billion years by the rate of information acquisition from his single published case of the evolution of 16 binding sites on a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation is a preposterous extrapolation that does not warrant publication in any serious scientific journal.

P.S. I've been playing around with the model. The curve of generations to convergence depends on the details of the selection mechanism. Change it so that ties are won by the bug whose worst mistake (greatest absolute value of the difference between the binding strength value from the weight matrix and the threshold) is less than the other bug's worst mistake, and the convergence time becomes (at least approximately) linear with respect to the genome length.

How long are you going to talk about do this before you actually do it? Is our friendly wager about jiggling the threshold and increasing the rate of convergence still on?

Kleinman usually leaves out the boldfaced sentence when he quotes this passage.

Myriad, I went back and looked at where I have quoted the above text written by Dr Schneider. I have quoted this text 11 times on the Evolutionisdead forum and 2 times on this forum and in all cases I have included the boldfaced sentence. So stop being a jackass. If you are going to attribute something to me, post the quote.

We don't know this, because we haven't modeled more than a measly million creatures. You won't let me extrapolate using that fitted curve, but if I did extrapolate to a lousy billion creatures, it would require 103 generations; to a trillion creatures, 21 generations. Of course, there is some asymptote it's approaching, although I haven't the slightest idea what that is.

The mistake Kleinman has made, or one of them, is to take a realistic value for p (the probability of a point mutation for a given base) but not for n (the population). This gives a totally unrealistic value for the probability that a given substition will occur in the gene pool per generation, which is given by:

I’m not sure what probabilities you are trying to compute. If you are trying to get an idea of what Dr Schneider ev model is simulating by looking at his model as a simplified probabilistic model, then you will find population has less than an additive affect on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at the proper locus. Genome length has a multiplicative effect on the probabilities involved in this problem and mutation rate has at best an additive affect. Genome length is the dominant parameter in this probability problem.

Paul, the only problem I have with your extrapolations is that they are extremely inaccurate. Your extrapolations have improved but I have had to drag you kicking and screaming the whole way. That’s ok though, I have promised to be patient with you.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

I think you guys are great but at the end of the day you are talking to yourselves. Creationists are not arguing from a position of intellectual integrity where they might ever be wrong if you provided evidence.

I happen to agree with the above quote but I also know that there are many different ways people interpret the Scriptures. Even evolutionists who believe very little in the Bible think that when they quote it, they got it right.

I am using Biblical arguments against the theory of evolution. I am using the many Biblical admonitions to measure and weigh to determine what is true. The mathematical arguments I raise here is measuring and weighing your theory. The measurements shown from ev show that the theory of evolution is lacking when placed on the mathematical scale.

 

[gopi]

I think you guys are great but at the end of the day you are talking to yourselves. Creationists are not arguing from a position of intellectual integrity where they might ever be wrong if you provided evidence.

Not all people who believe in the Bible believe that it is perfect and correct in a literal sense throughout. Also, not all people who have questions about possible holes in the theory of evolution are definitively creationists.

Personally, I don't have much biology knowledge. I've found the discussion here to be reasonably enlightening, and I think that it will help me if I get into a discussion of the scientific basis for evolution.

Back on the topic of Ev vs. kleinmann, I'm still waiting for kleinmann's justification of Ev's accuracy _for_his_purposes_. So far, it sounds like he's doing the equivalent of using a Newtonian physics simulator, and showing how it doesn't accurately match high speed particle movement observations - and then claiming this disproves relativity.

 

[gopi]

However, the mathematical fact that ev removes random point mutations and natural selection as the key mechanism for macroevolution will undermine all other possible mechanisms.

Excellent. This is clear and concise. Since your entire argument depends on this statement, can you elaborate as to why you argue that the other possible mechanisms don't have a significant enough impact?

 

[joobz]

Back on the topic of Ev vs. kleinmann, I'm still waiting for kleinmann's justification of Ev's accuracy _for_his_purposes_. So far, it sounds like he's doing the equivalent of using a Newtonian physics simulator, and showing how it doesn't accurately match high speed particle movement observations - and then claiming this disproves relativity.

While not knowing the modeling you describe, it sounds like an accurate comparison.

The issue here is model vs. reality. many models that simulate reality don't have logical features built into them but are there to make approximate views. For instance, many of the models that describe the binding of white blood cells onto inflammed blood vessels in circulation actually use gravity as a driving force. But considering that hardly any of our vessels are perpendicular to gravity, this parameter is just wrong. What the gravity term really is is just a driving force to vessel walls that isn't clearly identified. But this didn't destroy the models ability to provide some insights into scaling issues.

The problem is that when ever you have a model vs. observation problem, you have to go with the observed phenomenon. It's what's actually happening. You have to bow to reality when doing the math. If Paul was to defend the model as a perfect representation of evolution, I'd attack him as well. But He has stated well the limitations to what the model shows.

Kleinman has a wish to see fullfilled and he'll do any intellecutally dishonest act to see that his wish is granted.

 

[Beleth]

I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically.

Don't worry, I will not ask you to prove it mathematically. I just want to know what convinced you of the believability and trustworthiness of the Bible.

I will prove to you that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least my random point mutations and natural selection) using an evolutionist’s model.

You certainly do seem earnest about that. And yet you mention that there are other methods that would lead to macroevolution besides random point mutations. I'm wondering if those, or perhaps an as-yet-unimagined mechanism, could be the cause of macroevolution. It just seems premature to me, frankly, to jump straight to Creationism at this point.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

However, the mathematical fact that ev removes random point mutations and natural selection as the key mechanism for macroevolution will undermine all other possible mechanisms.

Excellent. This is clear and concise. Since your entire argument depends on this statement, can you elaborate as to why you argue that the other possible mechanisms don't have a significant enough impact?

My pleasure, I enjoy bringing clarity to the muddled concepts associated with theory of evolution. Let’s start with sexual recombination. This mechanism when it occurs without errors can not create a new gene. This mechanism can only cause a rearrangement of existing genes in the gene pool. When you combine the concept of recombination with the concept of natural selection, you can actually lose alleles from the gene pool. You can actually lose information in the gene pool by this mechanism. Gene duplication and chromosomal duplication has been proposed as an important mechanism of evolution. However, in order to duplicate a gene or chromosome, you must initially have a gene or chromosome to duplicate, you need the initial gene(s). You must have some mechanism to created the initial gene(s) to duplicate. You are dependent on random point mutations and natural selection in order to create the new gene. In addition, you need random point mutations in order to convert the duplicated gene to a new gene. Interspecies gene transfers requires the existence of the original gene and is therefore subject to the same type of argument as gene duplication, you still need the original gene. In addition, you have the difficulty of explaining how an interspecies gene transfer finds its way to the gametes. Gene inversions also require an existing gene to be inverted. Insertion and deletions require an existing gene. Choose your mechanism, I believe if you consider each mechanism, you will find that point mutations must be the cornerstone to the theory of evolution.

One particularly difficult issue when using mechanisms other than random point mutations as the mechanism for evolution is that these other mechanisms lead to large number of base changes in a single generation. If any one of these base changes is fatal to the organism, it doesn’t matter how many helpful mutations may have occurred. Every base change must either be beneficial or at a minimum neutral. If any of these base changes are harmful, this organism will be selected against.

Joozb has chosen to quote gopi, what’s happening joozb, you running out of ideas already?

Back on the topic of Ev vs. kleinmann, I'm still waiting for kleinmann's justification of Ev's accuracy _for_his_purposes_. So far, it sounds like he's doing the equivalent of using a Newtonian physics simulator, and showing how it doesn't accurately match high speed particle movement observations - and then claiming this disproves relativity.

Gopi, if you are going to make this type of analogy, it is not I who ignores the speed of light in a physics simulator. It is Dr Schneider who ignores realistic parameters in his model. Dr Schneider has used unrealistic parameters in his model, this is equivalent to Dr Schneider putting in a particle speed greater than the speed of light in his mathematical model and then extrapolating that behavior to the real situation. I believe that Dr Schneider has essentially related the parameters in his model correctly but that is only half the story. In order to predict behavior with his model, it requires the use of realistic, known, measured parameter values.

While not knowing the modeling you describe, it sounds like an accurate comparison.

Joozb, your analysis of gopi’s model shows as much scientific rigor as your analysis of Dr Schneider’s ev model. How could anyone deny such impressive analysis?

I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically.

Don't worry, I will not ask you to prove it mathematically. I just want to know what convinced you of the believability and trustworthiness of the Bible.

My suggestion to you is read the Bible (more than once) and you might understand.

 

[Beleth]

My suggestion to you is read the Bible (more than once) and you might understand.

Is reading the Bible more than once what convinced you?

 

[Yahzi]

Is reading the Bible more than once what convinced you?

It never ceases to amaze me. These fundies will harangue all day long with "logic" and "reason." Then you ask them, "Did that convince you?"

And when they say no, they always seem surprised that you get upset.

"Why do you think I would be convinced by something that didn't convince you?"

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

My suggestion to you is read the Bible (more than once) and you might understand.

Is reading the Bible more than once what convinced you?

The more I read the Bible, the more I am convinced it is true. I recommend you read it more than once because it is difficult to read the Bible like a novel. Until you understand that part of the book is Biblical law, part of the book is historical, part of the book is a song book, part of the book is prophetical, part of the book is instructional. These different parts are woven into a tapestry that can be difficult to understand until you read this book several times. Many people if they have any knowledge of the Bible, it is limited to a couple small segments of the book, for example the Noah flood story or the story of David and Goliath or maybe the Christmas story.

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.

 

[Timble]

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.

A Moslem would say the same about the Koran, a Jew about the Torah, and so on....you can't all be right, or possibly you can't all be all right - they might all be partly true, and then again they may all be wrong.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think that you will find that point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of your theory. You have no other mechanism to explain the de novo evolution of a gene.

So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter? Are you sure you're not limiting yourself to Ev's single type of mutation because you're trying to make a point using only Ev as evidence?

~~ Paul

 

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I’m the “Annoying creationist” so use your skills in deductive logic to figure out what I believe is the mechanism which produced the "endless forms most beautiful".

Great. An alternate hypothesis. Where is your evidence for this? "I think evolution is impossible, therefore creationism" doesn't explain anything. As I said before, it's an excuse for ignorance.

Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.

It only demonstrates your ignorance and bias more that you think I would be embarassed about being published in Science.

 

[Beleth]

The more I read the Bible, the more I am convinced it is true.

What is it about the Bible that convinces you?

I recommend you read it more than once because it is difficult to read the Bible like a novel. Until you understand that part of the book is Biblical law, part of the book is historical, part of the book is a song book, part of the book is prophetical, part of the book is instructional. These different parts are woven into a tapestry that can be difficult to understand until you read this book several times. Many people if they have any knowledge of the Bible, it is limited to a couple small segments of the book, for example the Noah flood story or the story of David and Goliath or maybe the Christmas story.

I've read rather more of the Bible than that. I've also read quite a few scholarly works about it. I'm quite familiar with the accretion and redaction processes the Bible went through.

And yet I'm also quite familiar with scientific works. How the evidence points to a universe and an Earth not 6000 years old like the Bible says, but billions of years old. And that gets me to thinking. Thinking about what to conclude when there are such conflicting stories. Thinking about which story is more credible, and why the stories are so different.

And on top of that, I'm also quite familiar with other religious works. How each one differs from each other, and how they all at their heart differ in a very fundamental way with direct observation of the reality around me.

And after all that studying... after all that searching for a religious truth... I have yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So when I come across a person such as yourself who has come to a conclusion, I die of curiosity to find out why. What knowledge have they discovered that I have not? Or, possibly, what knowledge have I discovered that casts a shadow on the conclusion they have come to? I see us both on the same path; the question is, which one of us has walked further down that path?

Now, you unquestioningly have a boatload more knowledge about the inner workings of evolution than I do. If you are ahead of me on the path, you are a worthwhile person to follow. Which is why I am asking such basic questions. I want to determine if you are ahead of me on the path.

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.

I am aware that that is a common interpretation of the Bible. But it doesn't jibe with certain aspects of the real world that I am aware of; for instance, the existence of inoperable, untreatable, terminal, excruciatingly painful, brain tumors that affect children. I cannot reconcile the thought of a just, loving God with the fact that such an unjust, unkind condition exists.

This is where I am stuck on the path.
If you are further on the path than I am, I'd love to know how you got past this.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.

A Moslem would say the same about the Koran, a Jew about the Torah, and so on....you can't all be right, or possibly you can't all be all right - they might all be partly true, and then again they may all be wrong.

Trimble, you are correct in your analysis. So how do you distinguish which if any is true? Is it Islam which believes that your good deeds outweigh your bad deed you make to heaven or you get an express ticket to heaven with 70 virgins if you commit suicide while killing infidels? No wonder there are so few female Islamic suicide bombers. I have never met a woman who thought having sex with 70 virgin males was heaven. If you are female and do think that is heaven, don’t bother telling me, I am not a Moslem cleric. Or is it the orthodox Jewish belief that following Talmudic law leads to righteousness. Somehow by good deeds we can make ourselves acceptable to God. Or any of the myriad of other religions that says if you do the right thing or good deeds, you will make it to heaven or nirvana or eternal peace. What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.

I think that you will find that point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of your theory. You have no other mechanism to explain the de novo evolution of a gene.

So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter? Are you sure you're not limiting yourself to Ev's single type of mutation because you're trying to make a point using only Ev as evidence?

Paul, if you believe any of these other mechanisms will rescue the theory of evolution from the restrictions imposed by ev, feel free to prove this mathematically. I limit myself to ev because that is the model available to us and the broad claims Dr Schneider has made based on this model which are so easily disproved. I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution. My arguments against other mechanisms of evolution is not based in mathematical logic so doesn’t have the force that the arguments using ev carries. Whether these other mechanism matter or not is up to you evolutionists to prove mathematically. I am glad that is not a task for me because I have the feeling this will be a fruitless effort.

Delphi, I’m the “Annoying creationist” so use your skills in deductive logic to figure out what I believe is the mechanism which produced the "endless forms most beautiful".

Great. An alternate hypothesis. Where is your evidence for this? "I think evolution is impossible, therefore creationism" doesn't explain anything. As I said before, it's an excuse for ignorance.

I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation. If you want to look for other explanations for the origin of life, that’s fine with me, but I don’t believe that the theory of evolution has all the scientific foundation you attribute to the theory.

Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.

It only demonstrates your ignorance and bias more that you think I would be embarassed about being published in Science.

Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science?

 

[delphi_ote]

I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation.

That's not logic at all. Disproving that the Earth is flat does not support the conclusion that it is a cube. You have to have evidence for the alternate hypothesis. What is your evidence for "Goddidit"? Evolutionary theory has great predictive power. What theory are you suggesting we put in its place, and how can you demonstrate it has greater predictive power?

Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science?

That would be a riot. You're so far from even a basic understanding of modern biology, I might as well have my cat review it.

 

[Timble]

What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.

OK, that's you'r unique selling point, but beyond personal belief you've no evidence that it's true, or indeed that the Bible is anything more than the Bumper Book of Middle Eastern Myths and Legends. Some of it's probably history, some of it has parallels in wisdom literature and poetry from neighbouring cultures (particularly Eygpt), some of it's stories are found in versions in other sets of mythology. There's some new material.

It doesn't prove your claim in any way.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation.

That's not logic at all. Disproving that the Earth is flat does not support the conclusion that it is a cube. You have to have evidence for the alternate hypothesis. What is your evidence for "Goddidit"? Evolutionary theory has great predictive power. What theory are you suggesting we put in its place, and how can you demonstrate it has greater predictive power?

So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created. That’s about as scientific a proof of the theory of evolution as joozb’s argument for abiogenesis that anything is possible.

Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science?

That would be a riot. You're so far from even a basic understanding of modern biology, I might as well have my cat review it.

So if your article is such a strong argument for the theory of evolution, give us the name of it so we can scratch at it or is this something that only your secret society can understand.

What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.

OK, that's you'r unique selling point, but beyond personal belief you've no evidence that it's true, or indeed that the Bible is anything more than the Bumper Book of Middle Eastern Myths and Legends. Some of its probably history, some of it has parallels in wisdom literature and poetry from neighbouring cultures (particularly Eygpt), some of it's stories are found in versions in other sets of mythology. There's some new material.

It doesn't prove your claim in any way.

You evolutionarians really are slow learners. I’m not here to prove the Bible to be true, I'm here to prove that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model. You have some understanding of my faith and I have some understanding of your evolutionary faith. It’s too bad that Dr Schneider’s ev model undermines your faith in random point mutations and natural selection but that’s what hard mathematical science does to weak soft scientific theories.

 

[Beleth]

So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.

Also, I see you have replied to posts made after my previous post, without responding to my previous post. How may I help you out?

 

[Timble]

You evolutionarians really are slow learners. I’m not here to prove the Bible to be true, I'm here to prove that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model. You have some understanding of my faith and I have some understanding of your evolutionary faith. It’s too bad that Dr Schneider’s ev model undermines your faith in random point mutations and natural selection but that’s what hard mathematical science does to weak soft scientific theories.

You're the only person who claims that random point mutations, and nothing else, determines the rate at which the genome evolves. The thing's a partial model at best. We knew that.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Even if evolution was proven impossible, that would mean precisely zero for the viability of ID/Creationism.

Of course, sticking needles into an oversimplified model doesn't prove evolution impossible, so the above is pretty much moot. You need stronger juju.