Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Use the wikipedia definition [of macrevolution].

Here it is, recently updated, I believe:

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

• It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution.
• A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

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.

What does this have to do with the time required to evolve binding sites? Is that a speciation event?

I'm too bored to continue responding.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

So you're using some guess I made as evidence? Did Gould say all macroevolutionary processes occur in tens or hundreds of thousands of years? Is the evolution of binding sites a macroevolutionary process? Did it occur during the Cambrian?

Why the hell are you talking about?

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

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?

I bet it's close to this!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3839522a4560,00.html

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

If the answer doesn't matter to you, why ask the question?

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.

With whom are you agreeing? The voices in your head?

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.

What would astonish me is if you could produce any data which supports your claims.

But you can't.

Hey, you lying tosser, you made the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

Here's some evidence which contradicts your claims:

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

This disproves your lie that:

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

There you go.

If you wish to snivel out these halfwitted fairy-tales about ev, try a creationist forum. The idiots there might believe you.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Paul raises the needle on the whino-meter.

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.

What does this have to do with the time required to evolve binding sites? Is that a speciation event?

I'm too bored to continue responding.

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed.

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.

So you're using some guess I made as evidence? Did Gould say all macroevolutionary processes occur in tens or hundreds of thousands of years? Is the evolution of binding sites a macroevolutionary process? Did it occur during the Cambrian?

Why the hell are you talking about?

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next. He certainly applied this concept to human evolution. With respects to the evolution of binding sites as whether this is a macroevolutionary process, based on the results from ev, one would have to say yes.

That’s better, you are no longer bored.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?

Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored.

Unfortunately, your interest in the program seems to extend only to telling idiotic lies about the deliberate misuse you have made of it.

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next.

Given that the man wasn't a shambling lunatic, we may conclude that he could indeed tell the difference between one macroevolutionary process and another. In particular, he has made it clear that his statements about the fossil record apply to change between species:

"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record ... Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am —- for I have become a major target of these practices ... it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?

I have no idea, but see the previous post.

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed.

I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess?

I said that if the Ev model we were using is relevant to real life, and if my assumption about the length of a generation is correct, then that would translate to 575 million years. Why anyone would assume those conditions are true I cannot imagine. Even more ridiculous would be for someone to assume anything about binding site evolution vis-a-vis punctuated equilibrium.

The problem here is that you are employing the usual Creationist gambit of getting scientists to appear to disagree with one other so you can point out the obvious fact that scientists disagree with one another. But no one gives a damn what I think.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

joobz: You are correct that I'm disrupting a (valueless imo) discussion on mathematical proofs of the unprovable. I apologise.

the derail is acceptable since nothing new is coming from kleinman. I'm curious to know what you mean by closet dualist. There seems to be a huge backstory with your claim of 100% materialists. I don't really get how that fits into the evolution/religion/atheism thing. Could you provide some links to some threads or pages that would add some understanding to this debate.

As for the "proofs of the unprovable". I don't really see it that way. It all depends on what you expect from the simulation. If you expect the simulation to show that god doesn't exist, or that the model shows conclusviely HOW evolution happened, than you are right. But if you have realistic expectations of the simulation, it can definitely aide understanding. We learn know that through random mutation, it IS possible that a binding site could evolve without any other event occuring. This is a fairly important result, in that it shows that increases in order can occur without additional factors. This doesn't say that is what happened, but it helps answer the question if that pathway is possible.

I always use the hammer example. Math modeling is a tool, a hammer. You can't build without it, but you need still more than just it to create a skyscraper.

If your continuing-I-hope presence here bears out your assumption that Dr.A, pridefulness, and hubris have no commonality, that will be your choice, too, but not one that I share.

I would never think anyone is exclusively humble. I know i've had moments of arrogance, in this thread even. But in this case, in this thread, I'm fully Behind Dr. A's attempts at reasoning with Kleinman. Unfortunately, I think it is a valueless attempt. Kleinman has no desire to be truthful. You can't reason or debate such an individual.

 

[delphi_ote]

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!

Thank you very much.

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?

Sagan really summed this up this kind of thinking quite nicely and gave a fantastic counter-argument to it in Pale Blue Dot:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead, they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

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?

I think the problem is that we constantly teach the next generation a collection of static, immutable facts when we "educate" them. We need to let everyone understand that our species' collective knowledge constantly becomes more subtle, more accurate, and deeper through application of the scientific method.

 

[joobz]

I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.

I think he believes he is providing proof. He still thinks that his simulations are proof positive to what ever crazy claim he's making. we've pointed out repeatedly the errors of his argument, and he deliberately ignores them. He doesn't have anything to add because there isn't anything more. He's done.

 

[kjkent1]

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


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.

Yes, I did have a pleasant Thanksgiving -- thanks for asking.

So, based on your response here, it appears that Dr. Schneider has established at least the mathematical possibility of evolving information from randomness. and, what remains to be established is that such evolution could occur within the time available since the creation of this universe.

Assuming that I've successfully characterized the issue, then, how do you know that the parameters which you are using to confirm your hypothesis that evolution could not have occured withing the available time constraints, are realistic?

I doubt that Dr. Schneider would dispute the claim that the original parameters of EV are not a realistic model of a known biological organism. But, in the real world, there are a myriad of ways under which evolution does not occur. That is, extinction "happens." So, the fact that you may be able to defeat EV with a particular set of conditions should be no surprise.

It should be equally unsurprising that other sets of parameters cause EV to work as advertised.

It seems to me that what remains to be done is for both sides of the debate to try to agree on a set of parameters that reasonably models some known biological organism, and then run EV and see what happens.

Then, if the outcome does not produce a realistic evolutionary outcome, tweek the paramaters until one appears. Then check the parameters to ensure that they continue to reasonably model the original biological organism.

Eventually, by repeating the above, I would think that you would come upon a set of parameters that will successfully evolve the target organism within the time required.

If not, then I'd say you have a reasonable proof that current evolutionary theory has a timing problem. This doesn't necessarily rule out evolution, but it may call for some additional research into the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Conversely, if the organism evolves within the time available, then I'd say that your ID hypothesis is falsified.

At the moment, it seems to me that EV has demonstrated that evolution is possible, within some limit of measurement, although the limit is questioned as being too great. It further seems to me that engaging in a flame war is a non-productive use of time, unless everyone enjoys casting insults at each other.

So, why not just get together and try to do the research and then offer the results for publication?

I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?

Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.

I have no idea.

That’s an interesting concept Adequate, does every example of chromosomal aberration represent speciation? If not, which examples of chromosomal doubling represent speciation? Why don’t you expand on this line of thought?

Paul, I respect your forthrightness.

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored.

Unfortunately, your interest in the program seems to extend only to telling idiotic lies about the deliberate misuse you have made of it.

Somebody stop me before I compute again!

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next.

Given that the man wasn't a shambling lunatic, we may conclude that he could indeed tell the difference between one macroevolutionary process and another. In particular, he has made it clear that his statements about the fossil record apply to change between species:

Again Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter. I know you evolutionarians want to change the subject off of ev but I am trying not to ramble and stay on subject.

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed.

I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.

Just think of our discussions as an example of Gould’s punctuated equilibrium and that our discussions are going on a geologic time scale. If you think back what you were saying just one year ago about ev and what you are saying now, you can appreciate the evolution that has occurred in your thinking.

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess?

I said that if the Ev model we were using is relevant to real life, and if my assumption about the length of a generation is correct, then that would translate to 575 million years. Why anyone would assume those conditions are true I cannot imagine. Even more ridiculous would be for someone to assume anything about binding site evolution vis-a-vis punctuated equilibrium.

The problem here is that you are employing the usual Creationist gambit of getting scientists to appear to disagree with one other so you can point out the obvious fact that scientists disagree with one another. But no one gives a damn what I think.

See what I mean, you are much more careful with your statements about ev than you were just one year ago. Dr Schneider asserts that ev represents reality, do you want me to post his quotes again? Dr Schneider also asserts the ev represents punctuated equilibrium according to the definition hypothesized by Gould. This has been published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. You never question these assertions last year but now that you have a better idea of the mathematics simulated by ev, you now can see some of the problems with Dr Schneider’s assertions.

Paul, you probably won’t believe me but I do care about what you think. What do you think that ev simulates? Do you think that ev accurately simulates random point mutations and natural selection?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It seems to me that what remains to be done is for both sides of the debate to try to agree on a set of parameters that reasonably models some known biological organism, and then run EV and see what happens.

Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size. It's taking Paul long enough to simulate what happens with a population size of about 1000000.

By contrast, there are 100000000000000 bacteria in a single human gut. (Why am I counting bacteria? --- Because the simulation doesn't allow for sexual recombination.)

We can't get the population size parameter right, 'cos we'd all be long dead and buried while we were still waiting for the program to finish running.

So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.

Kleinman's dodge is to make the mutation rate realistic but not the population size, and then to claim that these parameters are realistic, even though this is a lie, and he knows it, and we know it.

So your suggestion, while correct in principle, is impossible to follow in practice.

Oh --- and welcome to the forums! Enjoy.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

See what I mean, you are much more careful with your statements about ev than you were just one year ago. Dr Schneider asserts that ev represents reality, do you want me to post his quotes again? Dr Schneider also asserts the ev represents punctuated equilibrium according to the definition hypothesized by Gould. This has been published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. You never question these assertions last year but now that you have a better idea of the mathematics simulated by ev, you now can see some of the problems with Dr Schneider’s assertions.

I think that Schneider was pointing out the fast evolution of the binding sites followed by a period of stasis. If you want to argue that he was claiming that Ev precisely models "Gould's punctuated equilibrium," whatever that is, you'll have to take that up with him. I doubt he was claiming that, since no one agrees on the parameters of punctuated equilibrium anyway.

I agree that Ev represents reality accurately to the degree that it models it, which is only a limited degree. Again, if you think that Schneider is making claims about the actual number of generations to evolve binding sites in real life, you'll have to take that up with him. Again, I doubt it, since Ev's binding site model is quite simplistic.

Paul, you probably won’t believe me but I do care about what you think. What do you think that ev simulates? Do you think that ev accurately simulates random point mutations and natural selection?

I think it simulates an idealized model of chromosomes, binding sites, point mutations, populations, and natural selection.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

If not, which examples of chromosomal doubling represent speciation? Why don’t you expand on this line of thought?

AFAIK, yes. Species can't interbreed if they have different chromosome numbers.

Again Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter.

Are you genuinely too stupid to tell the difference between correcting your ignorance and "whining", or are you just addicted to lying?

I know you evolutionarians want to change the subject off of ev but I am trying not to ramble and stay on subject.

Everyone reading this thread can see that you brought up the question about Gould and I answered you. There's no point in pretending that I wished to change the subject, because everyone reading this thread can see what a stupid snivelling little liar you are.

Your question about chromosome number is also not on the topic of ev. Nor your digression about primate evolution.

Now, do you have any new lies to tell about ev, or have you shot your bolt?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size. It's taking Paul long enough to simulate what happens with a population size of about 1000000.

It doesn't seem to be linear in population size using the available parameters to Ev. However, Myriad has tried a different tie-breaking scheme which he thinks does produce linear behavior. We shall see.

So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.

My experiments with mutation rate indicates that generations are linear with respect to mutation rate. This should come as no surpise.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't seem to be linear in population size using the available parameters to Ev.

No, no, you misunderstand me. I meant that the computer time required to simulate one generation is linear w.r.t. population size.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size.

Actually, it's probably worse than linear on population size. There's a sort on the population for the selection stage. That's O(n*log).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, it's probably worse than linear on population size. There's a sort on the population for the selection stage. That's O(n*log).

Thanks. I sit corrected.

And then there's the restriction on memory to be considered...