Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

Still missing the point. Deliberately?

Who says something is not relevant. Brownshirts with clubs are not part of science and have no relevance.

All of recorded history says you are wrong about that. Brownshirts with clubs are all that has relevance.

Although some of the religious fundamentalists seem to lean that way.

Religion has offered a subterfuge in mens' struggles for power, but nothing more. Statism is another approach. Fundamentalism may take other guises, perhaps, although to date none other than religion or statism have worked in even the near term.

What is said, and how it is supported is what counts.
Even a simple mind should be able to figure this out. No fighting required.

In valueless discussions on bulletin boards, you are correct, so far at least. Reality beckons; Dawkins at least seems to realize the actual stakes, and game. Unfortunately, by its' very definition, atheism offers only every man for himself.

Hahaha. ... Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011

About what?

 

[D2011]

Originally Posted by D2011
Hahaha. ... Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011
About what?

Well, it was my poor attempt at humour. Its obvious NO ONE will admit they are wrong about anything.

D2011

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

A very, very deep question that. Why does information evolve?

Unfortunately, we have to start with a definition of information. The most brilliant minds in the world have wrestled to define that term. Literally. Shannon, Einstein, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Gell-Mann, Chaitin, Komorgorov, Kullback and Leibler, Wolfram, Mandlebrot, Holland, Arthur, Kauffman, Bohr, Turing, Church, Kleene, Godel... I literally just spit out that list off the top of my head as fast as I could type. I could probably fill this page if I kept going. Almost all of these people invented entirely new disciplines while trying to cope with the ideas surrounding the concepts of "complexity" and "information." The question is linked to problems in biology, quantum mechanics, information theory, meterology, computer science, cryptography, pattern recognition, astronomy, evolutionary computation, optimization, controls theory, statistics, nonlinear dynamics, signal processing, fluid dynamics, economics, natural languages... again, I could go on all day. This subject is clearly very important, but we simply don't have a satisfying answer. Yet.

The wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say is, "Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty." This issue, for now, is an uncertainty we all must endure. Species evolve. Information accumulates over millions and billions of years in the genomes of these species and produces magnificent, beautiful diversity. We know the mechanics with an astounding accuracy. But we don't know why it happened. We learn more about it every day. You can sit down with just a PC, publicly available data, and open source algorithms and make totally new discoveries in biology. You want a dendogram of the evolutionary relationships between all of the organisms with sequenced chloroplasts? It's literally one command away. If you can think of the right questions to ask, there's a lot to learn. We live in exciting times.

We don't know how life started. Was it a fluke? Was it inevitable? We don't know what the odds were, we don't even know precisely what mechanisms were involved in starting this long chain reaction that ultimately produced you and me. These are open questions in science. But people have wondered about them for thousands (maybe millions) of years, and we will answer some of them in our lifetime. You might know the answers before you die, and nobody else ever did.

Anyone advertising simple answers to these questions is simply avoiding enduring the uncertainty. If people who assume they know better could stop badgering those of us actually trying to figure this stuff out, come off their high horse, and get to work, we might answer the questions sooner. Chip in and help out instead of nagging about how uncomfortable you are with certain facts we already figured out. We all want to know the real answers to these questions. Deep down, we're not comfortable with our little personal pet theories. Once we know the real answers, we can stop fighting over the made up answers we cling to in the face of that yawning gulf of uncertainty stretching out in all directions.

Emotionally, I can understand that instinct to cling. Rationally, it's the ultimate folly. An open question is an opportunity, not a threat. It's exciting. Let go of those comfortable delusions and look around. There's a chance we can all know better how we fit into this big mystery, and nobody knows how it's going to turn out.

Don't just endure uncertainty. Revel in it.

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!

It appears to me that there are people who always want to find closure about our understanding of the universe. For example, during Galileos time, many wanted to settle for the current world views as final. Yet, knowledge slipped trough the claws of ignorance, and now we know so much more. It’s somewhat surprising that this process still continues: Many are desperate to enclose all we know today and settle here. Perhaps there’s some kind of need for closure. Perhaps they find solitude in stasis? Why come to this world, when there’s warmth and serenity in our mother’s wombs?

For me, a far more interesting question regarding Intelligent Design is: why do some people have such an urge for closure, especially when there’s overwhelming evidence that our knowledge will surpass our current state?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, it was my poor attempt at humour. Its obvious NO ONE will admit they are wrong about anything.

You're new here, aren't you? Hammy's just a troll. Every bit of his rubbish on this thread has been recycled from other threads. From interminable other threads. Unless he can come up with some new gibberish, there's no need to take him seriously.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thread topic: "Annoying creationists"

I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand.

Thread topic: "Is free will a paranormal concept"

Welcome to the problem wannabe materialists should examine ... just before they become 100% illogical in-the-closet dualists.

Thread topic: "Free will redux: what is true free will?"

Of course, a materialist can always "choose" to remain a closet dualist ....

Thread topic: "A critique of skepticism"

No it is not stylistic. That is the not-quite-100% 'unknown' that allows a closet dualist to pretend he is a materialist.

Thread topic: "Materialists"

Just his closet dualism peeking out ....

Thread topic: "Darwinism"

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here.

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

Thread topic: "To think or blindly follow"

Erm, yes. SFAICS, Scientific Naturalism (ala Stimpy) allows one to be a closet dualist while pretending otherwise. Whatever.

Thread topic: "The relationship between science and materialism"

Just the usual bunch of closet dualists pretending they are real, 100%, materialists.

Thread topic: "Our subconscious - real or woo?"

Have you ever had the balls to declare what philosophy you cling to? Materialist? If so, hopefully eliminative, although that requires 100% certainty in atheism and I doubt you are sure of anything. More likely you're just another closet, illogical, dualist with an unwillingness to look deeper than epistemology.

Thread topic: "Fossil evidence of transition from water to land"

Do you actually have a coherent worldview, or like most, you prefer not to examine it too closely? I assume you deny being an illogical dualist. How do you categorize yourself?

Thread topic: "Is anyone a former scientific creationist"

Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

Thread topic: "Materialism and immaterialism"

LOL. Would the missing part be "immaterial"? If so one would need to be a (closet?) dualist. Idealism is an easier choice.

Thread topic: "What is emergence of mind?"

Of course. Would you say that if one chooses "not to choose" one of a binary choice, is that person just a "closet dualist"?

 

[articulett]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

I thought we were supposed to keep the monkey thing on the down low...

 

[articulett]

It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information. It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.

What evolution does, in part, is transmute information from the environment to the genome. Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.

If you do not think information can evolve in nature without help from some "intelligence," it would be useful to explain why.

~~ Paul

But the truly imponderable question is, can the thinking of a creationist evolve?

 

[D2011]

You're new here, aren't you? Hammy's just a troll. Every bit of his rubbish on this thread has been recycled from other threads. From interminable other threads. Unless he can come up with some new gibberish, there's no need to take him seriously

I never noticed all those references to "closet" while readin through all of these pages, but now you draw my attention to it, they were all from this thread?

Quite the catch phrase isnt it?

D2011

 

[Dr Adequate]

I never noticed all those references to "closet" while readin through all of these pages, but now you draw my attention to it, they were all from this thread?

No, they aren't, that's my point. This is why I listed the thread topics. They're from thirteen different threads on wildly diverse topics, the first of which is nearly three years old (and there might well be more if so many threads hadn't got lost).

Whatever you're discussing, from free will to the evolution of amphibians, hammy may randomly turn up and start explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is:

(a) a "dualist";

(b) a liar who won't admit that he's a "dualist"

--- as a substitute for:

(1) arguing with the actual opinions of the people he disagrees with;

(2) discussing the topic of the thread.

 

[Cuddles]

I thought we were supposed to keep the monkey thing on the down low...

Isn't that illegal?

 

[cyborg]

For some definitions of troll that would depend upon whether or not he actually believes what he writes.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Did you all have a good Thanksgiving? Could you find anything to be thankful for?

Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?

I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.

I have never argued that you can’t have an increase in information as Dr Schneider has modeled in his ev computer simulation.

What I do argue against and what ev shows is that Dr Schneider’s broad sweeping claims based on his single published case using nonexistent input parameters in his model have no scientific basis. He extrapolated the rate of information gain from his 256 genome case and mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to the evolution of a human genome. This model and these claims were published in a peer reviewed journal. I don’t question the validity of the model; I question the validity of using unrealistic parameters (genome lengths and mutation rates) to establish a rate of information gain. Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model. My response to them is that is not abuse, that is the purpose for mathematical models.

Dr Schneider has used the internet to trumpet the results of his model. He has a web site dedicated to ev. I have tried to write a letter to the editor to the editors of Nucleic Acids Research (the publishers of the ev paper) to raise my points about what they published but they don’t accept letters to the editor. Dr Schneider has started a discussion thread on the Evolutionisdead forum on information theory and ev so I think discussing this topic on the internet is appropriate. In addition, Paul Anagnostopoulos wrote the java version of ev and is a moderator on this forum. The only problem with presenting my findings this way is that I have to listen to the continuous whimpering and whining of crybaby evolutionists, but I have found you can get used to this. In fact, I find that when the volume of the whining goes up, I know that I have hit the target. Very few evolutionists are willing to investigate the ev model especially now that the behavior of the model is better defined and the hard mathematical evidence that this model presents which contradicts key parts of their theory. I like presenting my findings on the net like this. There are probably more readers of this forum than there are readers of Nucleic Acids Research anyway.

Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent".

Then that's a different discussion for a different thread. As long as you're not positing an alternate hypothesis for material phenomena (i.e. "Evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore God created the world.") , we should pretty much agree here.

Delphi, why don’t you take a serious look at the many ID websites and see whether there is anything which constitutes a scientific argument? If Dr Schneider had taken to heart the IDer criticism of his model about unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates, this discussion we are having would never have happened. Instead, Dr Schneider shrugged off these issues without ever investigating what would happen to the rate of information gain when more realistic parameters are used in his model. If you don’t consider any other views, you will become an inbred mutual admiration society if you evolutionarians haven’t already achieved that status. What differentiates soft science from hard science is that hard science includes mathematical accounting. This issue is not going away, especially with the huge number of base differences between humans and chimpanzees and the small populations and small number of generations available to achieve these differences. Al Capone was brought down my accountants; it appears the same thing is going to happen with the theory of evolution.

Delphi, can I borrow some of your sterno, I want to keep this thanksgiving ev turkey leftovers warm. It will go good with Linda’s cookies and Cuddles tort.

Enough of the ramblings, now back to our subject. The following will bring joy to the hearts of evolutionarians (especially joozb) far and wide. I am about to admit that I was wrong. Adequate has asserted that I am not using realistic parameters in the ev computer model. Dr Schneider has used a mutation rate in his published case of 3.9x10^-3 to compute the evolution of a human genome in 1 billion years. I used the mutation rate of 1x10^-6 in Dr Schneider’s case and his computation shows that it would take 4 trillion years to evolve a human genome. Now Adequate says that an appropriate mutation rate is 1.7x10^-8. I admit my error. I have used this evolutionist approved value for a mutation rate in Dr Schneider’s program and it gives a generation for convergence to Perfect Creature of 948,952,092 generations. The rate of information acquisition using this mutation rate shows that the evolution of a human genome by random point mutations and natural selection would take over 900 trillion years. I give thanks to Adequate for the recommendation that a proper mutation rate be used when computing the rates of acquisition of information in Dr Schneider’s simulation of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. I offer apologies for not using a realistic genome length to make a more accurate estimate of the evolution of a human genome by random point mutations and natural selection but since this computer model takes an eternity to converge when you try to use realistic parameters for all inputs to this case, that computation must wait.

Lest Myriad and other evolutionarians say that I do not include Dr Schneider’s full published statement about his computation, I post it again:

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 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.

I think you evolutionarians had better reconsider panspermia and include intergalactic gene transfers as well as the other mechanisms Dr Schneider proposes, based on this results when Adequate’s approve mutation rate is used in evolutionist Dr Schneider’s (head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute) peer reviewed and published (in the Oxford University Press Journal Nucleic Acids Research) computer model of random point mutations and natural selection.

Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution, 2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution, and 3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

I expect Adequate to respond to this with a gif, URL or some simple minded probability analysis, or joozb’s idea of a scientific proof that anything is possible or if it sounds good it must be true, or Delphi’s complaint that I can't just disprove his theory, I have to offer and alternative, or Paul’s “huh?” Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis of his own computer model is a perfect example of the sloppy pseudo-science that evolutionarians engage in.

I am thankful for this evolutionist computer model!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model.

You are a liar. I think that you are abusing the model by using unrealistic parameters.

1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution,

You are a liar. You have not used realistic parameters.

2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution,

You are a liar. No data you have shown contradicts the possibility of punctuated equilibrium.

and 3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

You are a liar. The data clearly show that increasing population size decreases the required number of generations, as does basic probability theory.

I expect Adequate to respond to this with a gif, URL or some simple minded probability analysis

It is not necessary to post a complicated probability analysis to expose your very simple, not to say childish, errors.

It is interesting that you should describe my analysis as "simple-minded" when your own posts reveal that you are unable to understand it. I can only make it so simple: I cannot make it comprehensible to the uneducated, the retarded, or the congenitally innumerate.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution,

Please define macroevolution.

2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution,

Could you tell us what Gould's timeframe, population, and evolving mechanisms were?

3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

From what data are you extrapolating this claim?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!

My thought also.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
A very, very deep question that. Why does information evolve?

... again, I could go on all day. This subject is clearly very important, but we simply don't have a satisfying answer. Yet.

Nor does it appear likely we ever will. Perhaps the next evolutionary cycle will provide analysis power sufficient to find that answer.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
The wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say is, "Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty."

Don't just endure uncertainty. Revel in it.

Of course that is our only available course of action. However, for discussions' sake, a worldview that allows a dualistic component cannot provide a logically defensible basis; 100% materialism does provide a logical basis, as does ~materialism (in my case I term it objective idealism).

Scientific epistemology works as well under either choice and cannot differentiate between either.

For me, a far more interesting question regarding Intelligent Design is: why do some people have such an urge for closure, especially when there’s overwhelming evidence that our knowledge will surpass our current state?

Intelligent Design provides a large tent; those huddled together in defense of YEC Xianity have little to sustain that position.

For some definitions of troll that would depend upon whether or not he actually believes what he writes.

Although I do, do you rule out a 'devil's advocate'?

No, they aren't, that's my point. This is why I listed the thread topics. They're from thirteen different threads on wildly diverse topics, the first of which is nearly three years old (and there might well be more if so many threads hadn't got lost).

You probably got most of them. I doubt I'd arrived at my current position much sooner than that.

Whatever you're discussing, from free will to the evolution of amphibians, hammy may randomly turn up and start explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is:

(a) a "dualist";

(b) a liar who won't admit that he's a "dualist"

--- as a substitute for:

(1) arguing with the actual opinions of the people he disagrees with;

(2) discussing the topic of the thread.

The 100% materialism question I ask -- and that you have chosen not to answer -- is just a check to see if anyone has the couage to accept the actual worldview they are arguing for, as that position must underlie any logical defense of their presentation. I know of no question that can be posed or discussed that does not rest on one assumption or the other.

However, I also agree to cease this derail and allow y'all to whack one-another on the math and model. TTFN.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have given you an answer years ago, and I suspect that others have too. For a detailed answer, why don't you consult some of the other threads you've derailed with your boring irrelevant trash?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't have a response to this thread for now, but after several years of posting to Christianforums.com I decided to try out some place new. I wound up at Christianity.com forums and am involved in a thread where a Creationist is insisting that a Gryphon could be incorperated into the phylogenetic tree with no problem and that there is no discovery that would falsify evolutionary theory, despite all of the evolution supporters telling him that a Gryphon would destroy evolutionary theory. It's almost like stepping into bizarroworld.

I've upped the ante and asked him whether finding a Centaur population in Brazil would falsify evolution so we'll see what his answer is.... I'll cross post it here.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Where would it be incorporated into the phylogenetic tree? I'm fascinated.

Which six-limbed tetrapod (er? ... yes, quite ...) would it be descended from?

Where are the intermediate forms?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model.

You are a liar. I think that you are abusing the model by using unrealistic parameters.

“
“
“
“
“
“

Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter (not to be confused with Delphi’s wino-meter). I try to make Adequate happy by using his mutation rate and I only annoy him. At least he didn’t respond with a gif or url. What would really surprise me if he posted some data from ev that contradicts the claims that I have made about this evolutionist developed, peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection.

Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution,

Please define macroevolution.

Use the wikipedia definition.

2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution,

Could you tell us what Gould's timeframe, population, and evolving mechanisms were?

Ok, I’ll repost this information. Let’s start with Dr Schneider’s publication in Nucleic Acids Research, where he said the following:

This roughly-sigmoidal rapid transition corresponds to (and the program was inspired by) the proposal that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium [18,19], with noisy `active stasis' clearly visible from generation 705 to 2000 (Fig. 2b, Fig. 3).

Reference 18 and 19 refer to these two documents:

18 Gould, S. J. (1977) Is the cambrian explosion a sigmoid fraud?. In Ever Since Darwin, Reflections in Natural History N. Y.: W. W. Norton & Co. pp. 126-133.

19 Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366, 223-227.

Gould said the following on page 127 of his Ever Since Darwin publication.

Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian. (Readers must remember that geologists have a peculiar view of rapidity. By vernacular standards, it is a slow fuse indeed that burns for 10 million years. Still, 10 million years is but 1/450 of the earth's history, a mere instant to a geologist.)

Paleontologists have spent a largely fruitless century trying to explain this Cambrian "explosion"—the steep rise in diversity during the first 10 to 20 million years of the Cambrian period.

Gould said the following in his Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. publication:

As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).

Gould further adds the following:

Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations.

Later in this paper Gould applies the concept of punctuated equilibrium to Homo Sapiens:

Homo sapiens is a young species, perhaps no more than 200,000 years old. If most of our increment accrued quickly at our origin, but we then express this entirety from our origin to the present time as a darwin rate, we calculate a high value because our subsequent time of stasis has been so short. But if the same speciation event, with the same increment in the same time, had occurred two million years ago (with subsequent stasis), the darwin rate for the identical event would be much lower.

From these quotes from Gould’s writings on punctuated equilibrium, it is clear that Gould is attempting to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In addition, Gould sets the upper limit on the duration of the time span for punctuated equilibrium at 20 million years. However Gould then talks about much shorter time spans for punctuated equilibrium in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years time spans.

The value for the time span according to Gould and used as a reference in Dr Schneider’s paper is much less than 20 million. Gould says that ” small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,” is his proposed time scale.

These statements are in direct contradiction to the results from ev. Not only does your estimate of 575 million years to evolve 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100k genome far exceed the upper limit of punctuated equilibrium mentioned by Gould, Gould says macroevolutionary processes can occur in time spans of tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Again, Gould says that this process occurs in small populations which is in direct contradiction to the results from ev which show that reducing population increases the generations required for evolution of binding sites.

Even though ev demonstrates a sigmoidal convergence curve, the scale of this curve far exceeds the requirements for Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. The results from ev are a direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis of macroevolution.

3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

From what data are you extrapolating this claim?

I’ll repost the population data from ev if you like.
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
genome 1024
sites 16
widths 5/6
1 mu / genome
Population, Generations
4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1140
8192, 1180
16384, 1144
32768, 1148
46200, 1709
65536, 863
92680, 708
110000, 1177
G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Every one of these tables show that increasing populations are showing a markedly decreasing affect on the generations for convergence as population increases. The most marked affect on the generations for convergence occurs for populations under 1000. Why don’t you run that 2 meg population case and show that series has not reached an asymptote?

 

[hammegk]

I have given you an answer years ago, and I suspect that others have too. For a detailed answer, why don't you consult some of the other threads you've derailed with your boring irrelevant trash?

No thanks. The answer would matter only to you, not me, anyway.

I agree were I a 100% materialist, or a dualist, I wouldn't mention it either when it's so easy to duck, dance, dodge, and evade.