Annoying creationists

[delphi_ote]

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.

This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.

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.

It's not my paper. I am very honored to be one of about 100 co-authors. The paper is not an argument for evolution. It's a paper that, among many other things, demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Those events are very different than point mutations, and are not accounted for in Ev.

 

[joobz]

As Yazhi stated, we're just spitting in the wind.
Kleinman's convinced of his own correctness, you'll not prove otherwise. Even where it is undoubtably clear that he is wrong, he refuses to admit it. He sticks with his missinterpretations, missquoting, and game playing rather than logic. There is no debate with such a person. There is no learning to be had.

Kleinman, you keep stating I have an "anything possible" hypothesis and that is completely untrue. I would expect you to not bear false witness, but I guess your are able to commit sins as long as you prove your point, eh?

Delphi_ote, Congrats on the Pub. You should be proud of that work.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

No

So what are you saying great completer of unfinished mansions?

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?

Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.

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.

Would you like to find a quote where I said that only random point mutations and nothing else determines the rate at which the genome evolves? Perhaps you would like to create a mathematical model which uses these other mechanism to evolve the genome and take the theory of evolution out of it’s mathematically deficient state?

What you evolutionists fail to see is that genetic similarities between one species and the next are not sufficient to prove the theory of evolution. You need to account for how you transform a genome from one species to the next in the time available. Ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection does not account for this transformation. If you believe that other mechanisms of gene mutation do account for this transformation, do the mathematics, otherwise the theory of evolution will always be a weak soft science.

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.

Again, I’m not posting here to try to prove ID/Creationism. I think you are being cruel describing Dr Schneider’s ev model as oversimplified. It is based on his PhD thesis, it has been peer reviewed and published and Dr Schneider has over 20 years invested in this model. Have you even run one case with the model or are you another evolutionarian who draws conclusions without doing any analysis? What a sad statement for people who call themselves scientists.

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.

It's not my paper. I am very honored to be one of about 100 co-authors. The paper is not an argument for evolution. It's a paper that, among many other things, demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Those events are very different than point mutations, and are not accounted for in Ev.

Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top.

 

[Timble]

You ask other people to provide mathematical proof when all you do is quote Schneider selectively.

You're more interested in point scoring than admit that no-one yet has the whole picture.

Evolution may be soft science, but creationism backed by the Bible is storytelling, I'd sooner back partial evidence that 3,000 year old campfire tales.

 

[delphi_ote]

Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top.

No, my statement is not contradictory. The paper is not an argument for evolution. That is not the thesis of the paper. I linked to it already. If you're capable of posting here, you're capable of clicking on the link.

Also,

This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.

Good job ignoring your flagrant mistake.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You ask other people to provide mathematical proof when all you do is quote Schneider selectively.

You're more interested in point scoring than admit that no-one yet has the whole picture.

Evolution may be soft science, but creationism backed by the Bible is storytelling, I'd sooner back partial evidence that 3,000 year old campfire tales.

Of course I quote Dr Schneider, he has written the best model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. He has a large web site dedicated to this mathematical model. You evolutionist need to take responsibility for providing your own mathematical proof. I doubt any mathematical model I would write that models the other mechanisms of mutations would prove the theory of evolution and evolutionists would ignore it because it was written by a creationist. The reason I get any traction at all in this debate is that ev was written by an evolutionist, the model has been peer reviewed and published and has been defended for years by the author who heads a group at the National Cancer Institute. Evolutionists have been making points off this model for years based on Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis with a single case from his model. Now a more in depth analysis shows something more that contradicts the theory of evolution. What’s the problem, you are a scientist, let the data speak for itself.

You are right, the Bible is storytelling. It just happens to be the greatest story ever told.

Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top.

No, my statement is not contradictory. The paper is not an argument for evolution. That is not the thesis of the paper. I linked to it already. If you're capable of posting here, you're capable of clicking on the link.

Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link?

This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations. The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available. Perhaps if you give the theory a little push with gene duplication, you can fix this deficiency in the theory.

 

[Beleth]

So what are you saying great completer of unfinished mansions?

Great completer of unfinished mansions? Me? You flatter me.

Anyway. I am saying that No, delphi_ote is not suggesting what you said. And I see that delphi_ote himself has responded, so you may take it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.

No problem. It's here. I linked it instead of reposting or summarizing because the second part loses a great deal in summarization.

And if I may be so bold, I'd like to mention in passing that "suddenly becoming too busy" is a common reaction to the subject of Diffuse Pontine Glioma. Which is, I suppose, why I'm stuck here at this particular point on the path.

 

[Beleth]

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations.

As I'm sure you are aware, 10 trillion alternative explanations isn't necessary to prove your interpretation is a false dilemma. Merely a third alternative will suffice.

But here are a third and a fourth, for good measure:
3) One or more of the assumptions made in ev are wrong.
4) Something else is happening, that is neither evolution (as she is currently understood) nor creation, that we don't have a hypothesis for yet.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.

No problem. It's here. I linked it instead of reposting or summarizing because the second part loses a great deal in summarization.

And if I may be so bold, I'd like to mention in passing that "suddenly becoming too busy" is a common reaction to the subject of Diffuse Pontine Glioma. Which is, I suppose, why I'm stuck here at this particular point on the path.

The reality is that I can’t respond to every post especially since my motivation is to discuss the ev computer model but since you persist with your questions, I will try to give you my understanding of these things you raise.

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?

I’m not sure whether you are asking me about my faith or why I oppose the theory of evolution. I try to respond to both points with one sentence. I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.

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.

I disagree with you that there is a common interpretation of the Bible. Two people can read that same verses in the Bible and draw completely different conclusions. Why do you think there are so many different denominations? Look at the striking different interpretation of many key verses in the Old Testament that Jewish scholars have when compared to Christian scholars.

I can’t answer your question about why God would allow children to suffer with painful diseases. What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled. God does not promise us that we won’t suffer in this life, what God does promise us that He will never leave us nor forsake us. When everything in this world fails us, you still can cling to God’s eternal everlasting love.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who is worried about it and claims to have proven mathematically that evolution is impossible (even though we have yet to see the proof). Just be sure that your proof takes all forms of mutation into account.

I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution.

It doesn't represent that, because your nonexistent proof doesn't take into account population, binding site width, selection method, and other things that even the simple Ev model includes. Actually, maybe it does, but we haven't seen your proof yet.

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.

Say what?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available.

What were those genome lengths, mutation rates, and time available, again?


~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who is worried about it and claims to have proven mathematically that evolution is impossible (even though we have yet to see the proof). Just be sure that your proof takes all forms of mutation into account.

Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.

I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution.

It doesn't represent that, because your nonexistent proof doesn't take into account population, binding site width, selection method, and other things that even the simple Ev model includes. Actually, maybe it does, but we haven't seen your proof yet.

Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.

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.

Say what?

There are no gaps in the theory of evolution that will cause a devout evolutionarian to renounce his belief system.

The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available.

What were those genome lengths, mutation rates, and time available, again?

It certainly isn’t G=256, mutation rate on 1 mutation per 256 bases per generations and 1000 generations.

 

[Timble]

Keinman, I notice you're still looking at ridiculously small populations. 2 meg is nothing to bacteria.

You ignored that point earlier.

 

[delphi_ote]

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations.

Actually, I only have to posit three explainations to prove that yours was a false dilemma. And the third doesn't even have to be plausible, as I don't find your explaination to be very likely and you're not requiring evidence.

So, a third possibility: we are all one consiousness dreaming itself.

 

[delphi_ote]

Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link?

In the first post that mentioned the paper!

 

[Beleth]

The reality is that I can’t respond to every post especially since my motivation is to discuss the ev computer model but since you persist with your questions, I will try to give you my understanding of these things you raise.

I appreciate it.

I’m not sure whether you are asking me about my faith or why I oppose the theory of evolution. I try to respond to both points with one sentence. I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.

I was asking why you believed in the Bible, but I find this answer very helpful.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your assessment of evolution being without hope. I find it to be brimming over with hope. The hope that, no matter what's wrong with the planet today, that some day it'll get solved naturally. The hope that some day pontine tumors will no longer kill children painfully. And so forth.

And I hate to be blunt, but I can think of no other way to phrase this: I put it to you that your need for hope is neither evidence for Creationism nor evidence against evolution, and therefore must rationally be disregarded.

I disagree with you that there is a common interpretation of the Bible. Two people can read that same verses in the Bible and draw completely different conclusions.

I agree. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; I meant "common" as in "popular" and not as in "universal". I also put it to you that the ability to draw completely different conclusions from the same verses in the Bible is evidence of its weakness as a basis of belief.

I can’t answer your question about why God would allow children to suffer with painful diseases.

Don't worry about it. It's a tough question. I have not yet heard an adequate answer to it. It just means that you are behind me on the path, and that's okay.

What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled.

The adjective that best describes such a God, a God Who allows pontine tumors to painfully kill innocent children, is "evil." If that is what your interpretation of the Bible leads you to, and that you find a message of hope in that, then I have to wonder whether you have really put much thought into it.

 

[D2011]

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

Oh man, I can feel it in my bones. Dr Ivan Panin is going to be wheeled out at any minute.

http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html

We had better tell all the other religions that Christianity is right & they are wrong...Oh....wooops....they already tried that....so much for love they neighbour.

I know they couldnt have made 1 massive bible & needed to make an edited version, but do you you think we will ever see the directors cut bible with the gospels of Thomas, Mary & Enoch included? Cant wait.

For amusing bible contradictions see:

http://www.evilbible.com/

I have read the bible more than once & many of the other gospels. Its a pity Christians can only see the passages that Benny Hinn highlights for them.

D2011

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.

You've only proven this limited assertion in your own mind until you present the proof. Are you ever going to present the proof to us?

Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.

You have seen Myriad's new selection method, right?

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.

~~ Paul

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

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.

So we can tell which the correct religion is based on it merits? And we should judge its merits based on the morality that came from the religion in the first place (well I'll assume that you think morality comes from religion, I don't know that for sure).

Not the method I would use, that is for sure.

LLH

 

[sphenisc]

There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest.

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"