Annoying creationists

[Dr Adequate]

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events...

They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested.

Certainly.

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.

There you go.

You can move the goalposts how you like --- we can still put the ball through them.

 

[Beleth]

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?"

I think you're mixing concepts here in a confusing way.

Explanations of a past event never become "more likely"; either an explanation correctly explains an event, or it doesn't. The probability of evolution happening is either 0 or 1; likewise with creation.

If I rolled a die, a number definitely got rolled. That I rolled a 2 doesn't become more likely just because I discover that I didn't roll a 5.

This is actually the essence of the Monty Hall paradox. When I pick a door, I divide the doors into two groups: The Door I Picked, and the Doors I Didn't Pick. The likelihood of the car being behind TDIP doesn't change just because one of TDsIDP is shown to be empty.

 

[sphenisc]

This site gives a similar argument to Dr A's but uses rather different figures.

http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=237

The conclusion,however, is much the same.

(I liked the fact that Dr A's generation length value matched AiG's - both rather anthropocentric).

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much.

You sure?
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0030314

Apparently the authors of that article are not aware of the effects of trisomies on humans.

Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this.

Even if the model was showing whatever it is you think it's showing, this is not evidence of creation. Your dilema is still there. What is your alternate hypothesis and where is the evidence for it? How does it account for what you find lacking in evolution? Most importantly, how does it explain all of the evidence evolution already explains?

I have repeatedly said that I am not here to prove creation. I am only presenting evidence from a computer model written by an evolutionist, peer reviewed and published in an evolutionist journal that contradicts your belief system and you evolutionists get annoyed and cry foul. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.

Sorry, but you're not allowed to sit on your ass and be grumpy in science. If you present a hypothesis, you have to defend it.

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.

If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts.

Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Once I did this, evolutionists have been discrediting the model rather than acknowledging these results. What I will agree to is if evolutionist can prove that my calculations on this topic are incorrect that they will have more evidence in support of their theory.

The genetic evidence in support of the theory of evolution can be summed up as apparent genomic similarity between one species and the next. This is only half the proof; evolutionists have to prove how one genome transforms to another in the time available with the mechanisms available. Dr Schneider’s model shows how difficult this mathematical hurdle is.

Mr Scott, fire away and prove that the data that I have posted from ev is incorrect and that you can make ev converge quickly enough to support the concept of macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium.

Of course, abiogenesis is another problem that evolutionists have. The best argument I have seen is joozb’s scientific conclusion that anything is possible.

I enjoy your intent here, but you are assuming kleinman is capable of honor. He hasn't in demonstrated the ability to admit error in something as simple as incorrectly defining terms. He'll NEVER actually admit error in something that could shake the foundations of his faith.

Joozb, you must have turned your grammar and spell checker on in your word processor. You are the best argument against teaching the theory of evolution to grade schoolers. What is more important to teach children, the theory of evolution or how to read and write?

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events...

They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested.

Certainly.

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.

There you go.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.

You can move the goalposts how you like --- we can still put the ball through them.

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters.

Your parameters are not realistic. One of them is wrong by a dozen orders of magnitude. We know this. Stop lying.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.

Oh dear me.

We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.

Sheesh.

You really don't understand the theory of evolution at all, do you?

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal

I understood that argument. You were wrong about the mechanism being too slow to explain macroevolution, wrong about punctuated equilibrium, and wrong about population size.

So you started making a fool of yourself over primate evolution instead.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters.

Your parameters are not realistic. One of them is wrong by a dozen orders of magnitude. We know this. Stop lying.

Why don’t you post the parameters that I used in Dr Schneider’s model and the parameters Dr Schneider used in his publication and point out my lie? Otherwise your point Dr is inAdequate.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.

Oh dear me.

We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.
Sheesh.
You really don't understand the theory of evolution at all, do you?

Your response here Dr is inAdequate.

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal

I understood that argument. You were wrong about the mechanism being too slow to explain macroevolution, wrong about punctuated equilibrium, and wrong about population size. So you started making a fool of yourself over primate evolution instead.

If I am wrong about these points, the author of the model has a web site which he defends his model. He has chosen to remain silent and let Paul Anagnostopoulos, the java programmer for his model to defend the model. You are not able to defend against the results I have posted from ev. Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts. Your response here Dr is inAdequate. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t whimpering crybabies? By the way, Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[joobz]

I have repeatedly said that I am not here to prove creation. I am only presenting evidence from a computer model written by an evolutionist, peer reviewed and published in an evolutionist journal that contradicts your belief system and you evolutionists get annoyed and cry foul. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.

wrong.

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.

Do you call retorting logical arguments with bad information, baseless assertions and personal attacks a discussion?

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Once I did this, evolutionists have been discrediting the model rather than acknowledging these results.

really?

What I will agree to is if evolutionist can prove that my calculations on this topic are incorrect that they will have more evidence in support of their theory.

really?

The genetic evidence in support of the theory of evolution can be summed up as apparent genomic similarity between one species and the next. This is only half the proof; evolutionists have to prove how one genome transforms to another in the time available with the mechanisms available.

Really?

Dr Schneider’s model shows how difficult this mathematical hurdle is.

you use the word "mathematical" as though it were some shield, but it doesn't shield you from logic. It doesn't shield you from fact. If the basis of your calculations are wrong, than your conclusions are wrong.

But please, continue to claim a "mathematical argument." I've enjoyed watching the hole you've dug for yourself.

Mr Scott, fire away and prove that the data that I have posted from ev is incorrect and that you can make ev converge quickly enough to support the concept of macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium.

Of course, abiogenesis is another problem that evolutionists have. The best argument I have seen is joozb’s scientific conclusion that anything is possible.

regardless of what some people say, repetition doesn't equal truth. Continue to missquote me and missrepresent my hypotheses. remember as you stated,"Google is watching." you continue to lie, it will haunt you even more.

Joozb, you must have turned your grammar and spell checker on in your word processor. You are the best argument against teaching the theory of evolution to grade schoolers. What is more important to teach children, the theory of evolution or how to read and write?

i've admitted to writing rapidly without proofreading. that's my problem. You've denied any wrong, that's your problem.
But, go ahead and continue to lie and cheat your way through this debate. You've exposed yourself as a little boy. One who doesn't accept responsibility. You are found morally and ethically wanting.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.

That's your mathematical proof? "Majority of mutations are harmful?" really? How do you quantify "Majority"? Hmm, you are really sounding precise in your analysis.

BTW, if "the majority of mutations are harmful" How do you explain rather benign differences between protein polymorphisms?

but please, continue with your "mathematical" highly quantitative analysis. It's very enlightening.

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal.

Ahh, there's that final mathematical conclusion.. "too slow" did you get this kinetic result by thermodyanmic analysis again? I'd love to hear all about it.

 

[Bronze Dog]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?

 

[sphenisc]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?

We all will be, it's just some of us get there faster than others.

 

[joobz]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?

The advantage to kleinman's logical reasoning is that it doesn't need truth or reality to support it.

Mutations aren't all bad. many are rather insignificant.
But that would go against his primary goal of "evolution is bad." So he fully allows himself to make up facts.


Nope, no logic in kleinman's attacks. Just silly little insults peppered with the words "too slow" over and over again.

 

[delphi_ote]

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.

If you're going to make a hypothesis, defend it. Sitting there with your arms crossed complaining, "This theory isn't good enough for me," is purely arrogant and immature intellectual laziness. Positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy. You have no scientific ethic whatsoever.

 

[delphi_ote]

Just silly little insults peppered with the words "too slow" over and over again.

It's Christophera in reverse.

 

[delphi_ote]

Your response here Dr is inAdequate.

That gets more clever every time some nitwit posts it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.

If you're going to make a hypothesis, defend it. Sitting there with your arms crossed complaining, "This theory isn't good enough for me," is purely arrogant and immature intellectual laziness. Positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy. You have no scientific ethic whatsoever.

Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible, but macroevolution is mathematically impossible by point mutation and natural selection, ev shows this.

Your response here Dr is inAdequate.

That gets more clever every time some nitwit posts it.

I thought it was Foster Zygote’s job to defend crybaby evolutionists. Did you get a promotion?

Delphi, you really need to lay off the sterno.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why don’t you post the parameters that I used in Dr Schneider’s model and the parameters Dr Schneider used in his publication and point out my lie?

I have done so.

Your response here Dr is inAdequate.

So, I see that you are unable to refute my point.

If I am wrong about these points, the author of the model has a web site which he defends his model. He has chosen to remain silent and let Paul Anagnostopoulos, the java programmer for his model to defend the model.

Dr Scheider is under no obligation to reply to every snivelling halfwitted liar with a grudge against reality.

You are not able to defend against the results I have posted from ev.

You are a liar. I have done so.

Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts. Your response here Dr is inAdequate. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t whimpering crybabies?

Childish abuse is no substitute for argument, but I guess it's all you've got.

 

[delphi_ote]

Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible...

As I said before, positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy.

 

[joobz]

Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible, but macroevolution is mathematically impossible by point mutation and natural selection, ev shows this.

Repetition doesn't equal truth. Continue to missquote me and missrepresent my hypotheses. remember as you stated,"Google is watching." as you continue to lie, it will haunt you even more.

I thought it was Foster Zygote’s job to defend crybaby evolutionists. Did you get a promotion?

childish insults are all you have left. Facts and truth have abandoned you.

But please, continue your foolishness. I want to see how deeply entrenched in fantasy you become.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Here is a Thanksgiving treat for you readers;

Since it has been shown that ev takes profoundly huge numbers of generations to converge for observed mutation rates and genome lengths, ev as an abbreviation for evolution is not an appropriate acronym. The following is a list of more appropriate words for the acronym ev:

evacuate-what an evolutionist must do with his scientific objectivity in order to say the ev proves that a human genome can evolve in a billion years by point mutations and natural selection.

evade-what an evolutionist must do when a parametric study of ev is done.

evaluate-what an evolutionist doesn’t do with a parametric study of ev.

evanescent-what happens to the proof of evolution from ev.

evangel-ev is bad news for evolutionists

evaporate-the proof of evolution disappears with a parametric study of ev.

evade-what an evolutionist does when a parametric study of ev is done.

evenhanded-something which an evolutionist doesn’t do with the data from ev.

eventually-convergence which ev will do with observed genome lengths and mutation rates if you are willing to wait long enough.

everlasting-the amount of time necessary for ev to converge with observed genome lengths and mutation rates.

eveready-if you put in observed genome lengths and mutation rates in ev, it just keeps on running and running and running.

evidence-what ev is not for the theory of evolution.

evert-what ev does with the theory of evolution.

eviscerate-ev deprives the theory of evolution of vital or essential parts.

evolution-an appropriate word for the acronym ev only when you subscribe to Dr Schneider’s notion that information equals entropy rather than the more intuitive and proper mathematical representation that information equals the negative of entropy.

evulsion-what ev forcibly does with mutations and natural selection from the theory of evolution.

evil-what evolutionists think of creationists who evalutate ev for evidence of evolution in an evenhanded manner. Unfortunately, evolutionist evade the discussion because they realize their arguments evaporate when they see that ev only converges eventually. When evolutionists realize that ev actually everts the theory of evolution by eviscerating the core principle of mutation and natural selection, they evacuate from the discussion. Ev mathematically evulses mutation and natural selection from the theory of evolution because of the everlasting computer run times. I hope this discussion topic on Dr Schneider’s ev program has evoked some thoughts.

 

[delphi_ote]

[latex]$$ {word game}\ne{evidence} $$[/latex]

 

[Dr Adequate]

Since it has been shown that ev takes profoundly huge numbers of generations to converge for observed mutation rates and genome lengths ...

... and population sizes which are a dozen orders of magnitude too small, you will aboandon all pretence of argument and degenerate into mere raving.

Was that it? That's all you've got?

That was your best shot?

Poor, frustrated, impotent little creationist.

Come back when you've thought of some new lies.