Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Little do they realize that they are simply appealing to ignorance and not being clever at all.

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.

Like my company, Windfall Software, it was Y2K complacent.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Delphi

That's my name! Now, come on, give me two more!

This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions.

You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

Unlike creatonarians, who confuse attending to details with knowing all the details. This is not surprising, since they have no details at all.

But I do have google!

By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?

Here is my data for a genome size of 1000 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per million bases:

population, generations
2, 29037000
4, 72555000
8, 44261000
16, 32561000
32, 14806000
64, 12845000
128, 8005000
256, 9388000
512, 10319000
1024, 4040000
2048, 3300000
4096, 3400000
8192, 2231000
16384, 2004000
32768, (running now)

Rcapacity has nothing to do with this experiment.

It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G

You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.

But I do have google!

It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Oh, that was informative.

Run out of lies, eh?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Nah, it's your turn.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

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

Some find increased self-knowledge interesting and useful.

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

In terms of content you usually seem to be rational. In terms of presentation, much less so.

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

What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.

... 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.

And others who are not "creationists" note that moving from intraspecies mutations, point and otherwise, to a leap across the chasm that provides a fossil record speciation event, or better yet a laboratory example, of something that demonstrates the ill-defined term "speciation" is yet to be found.

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.

Depending on the definition of those terms, it is true that lack of transitional forms remains a problem.

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

And now we all await the math models. I believe we agree ev isn't it.


LOL. Is modern evolutionary theory even at the stage of rolling balls down inclined planes? I'd say we have a long way to go before approaching newtonian accuracy.

Bur cheer up; you're probably farther along than the other soft "sciences", human behavior being what it is.



joobz: Re hammegk & background ....

In response to a comment about god & dice (Thread R&P: Are free will & determinism compatible)

Originally Posted by hammegk
Bell-Aspect-DCQE-etc say the dice are loaded ...

A composite of your posts shows an interference pattern emerging, hammegk. Not thought about they revert to behaving like waves.

PS. Search isn't working for me at the moment ... sorry.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Tell me again about these "closet dualists".

Can I recognise them by the way they walk?

 

[articulett]

I can understand being cautious about privacy on the internet, especially regarding a topic like this. I didn't reveal my identity because I thought it proved anything. My name is so common, you're better off trying to track me down by my web alias anyway. I was just proud to be a part of the paper I linked. Then Kleinman started this crusade about names.

Yes, I don't think it's likely to matter, but fervent believers can do some pretty scary things, so I would never try to shame someone into revealing their identity on a forum. I speak a little freer knowing that the people I piss off can't throw things at me.

I remember Penn Jillette at a TAM2 (?)talking about how he's not afraid to ire magicians by revealing secrets or to piss off people of faith-- but he's 6'5" and 300 pounds. It's not like he needs to cross to the other side of the street when someone sinister is in his path--in fact, he's probably the one that others cross the street because of.

I spoke out, because I think it was a silly attack on Dr. Adequate, but I guess he's got to use whatever he has in his arsenal because there sure isn't evidence in support of whatever it is he believes.

Kleinman, you aren't one of those YEC's are you. I mean, you can knock evolution all you want, but have you brought any evidence to the table for Intelligent Design--and could the Intelligent Designer be Allah? Zeus? The Hebrew God? An alien? It's just hard to take you seriously. You don't understand some of the basics of evolution and the known way genomes change. You seem to think it couldn't have happened it whatever given time frame you believe in and therefore, someone must have done some tinkering along the way to speed things up a bit--something supernatural. Right?

But we have 0 evidence that anything supernatural exists--none--no measurable evidence. All the things we've learned about our world have not come from divine texts--but through evolving and refining our knowledge via testing, measurement, replication, and evidence. The truths we discover are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. DNA is in everyone's blood and always was even if no human ever found that out. No divine text mentioned it. Darwin didn't even know it existed...he could only hypothesize about what was in gametes that was passed on. Do you understand the significance of what we now know--we've mapped the whole human genome--and the chimpanzee genome too--we can see the changes that took place since we shared a common ancestor. We share approximately 98% of our genes with them. You'd think an omniscient, all loving designer would have mentioned it, wouldn't you? --Or at least clued people in to things like germ theory--just to save some suffering and not look like he favored bacteria over humans. No matter where you look for your claims--none of it makes any sense--there's nothing measurable...life forms look cobbled together and there are failures on an astronomical scales when you think of all the possible people that could have existed per one sex act--and multiply that by the trillions of life forms on this planet. How is that waste intelligent?

Francis Collins helped map the human genome and he accepts evolution (because it's undeniable)--he is also an Evangelical Christian for reasons most other scientists can't fathom. Mostly, because Science can't dissprove a god outside of time and place--and some personal revelations that mean no more than any other personal revelations from a scientific perspective. People have revelations all the time. They're untestable, don't agree with eachother, can be influences by electrical stimulation or drugs, and aren't useful for anyone but the believer. Despite your shared faith, he doesn't really have any problems with evolution--he thinks maybe god set it all up but he doesn't give much evidence in support (except the goldilocks universe kind of thinking which is backwards)--he'd have a lot to tell you about your miscalculations if you wanted to actually understand why no scientist would take you seriously.
And he wouldn't threaten your favorite belief...you could learn the facts without fear of eternal damnation. Really, you should try. Your conviction of your rightness is making you seem dotty-- and you are missing some of the most interesting information humans have ever been able to know. Check it out for yourself. You have no-one buy your BS here. No-one. The only ones who support you are people who have been embedded in similar beliefs since they joined this forum. Like you, their beliefs are based on faith, and so reason goes nowhere with them. But you actually sound like you could learn the facts. Read Darwin. Read Dawkins. Read Scientific American or National Geographic. Read Sagan. You are deluding yourself; don't you want to know the facts? People like you never even seem to read the people they claim to despise.

 

[delphi_ote]

kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap.

It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

If by annoying you mean a complete drooling moron, then you're overkilling it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

 

[articulett]

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

Indeed. Not a one. Their whole "we can't see macroevolution" is idiotic too. The truth is, no proof will ever be enough...they never state what it is that will convince them. And all we ask for is a bit of evidence in support of something else. We can't see macroevolution, because it takes eons to speciate--but we can see it in process. All breeds of dogs are still in the wolf family--subspecies...and all the forms have been formed through human selection which is a lot faster then letting nature due the culling--and more varied as well. But dogs can still produce fertile offspring with wolf, and until they can't, they're still part of the same species.

Zebras and Donkeys are speciating. They can still mate and some of the offspring can be mated to donkeys but not to other mixes, I think. http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html

Horses and donkeys have speciated and their offspring are sterile (mules) and are considered hybrids. Speciation doesn't happen quickly--it usually starts as a divergence in in breeding populations or a separation due to rivers, tectonic plate movement, migration, mountains, etc. At the beginning of speciation animals may start to look different, but they can still produce fertile offspring with eachother if they have the opportunity to mate. The longer time between mating generations the less fertile such chance offspring are likely to be--and then they will be sterile (hybrids unable to mate successfully with any of the members of the parental species or even with others like themselves). And finally no offspring can be produced at all even when the animals get together. We see all of these stages in many animals right now.

We see exactly what is going on in the DNA. That is evidence no matter how much creationists want to scream and say it doesn't count. Wanting macroevolution not to have been demonstrated doesn't mean it hasn't been demonstrated sufficiently in many forms to the satisfaction of most scientists and even in a court of law-- no matter how much creationarians say it doesn't count.

The fact is, nothing will count to a person whose self importance and eternal bliss rests on them believing a particular unbelievable story. Kleinman can't let the facts penetrate, because he thinks it might be the devil tempting him to bite from the tree of knowledge. Religion is the most ignorant promoting institution I can imagine. I am glad it's fading as rapidly as creationists pretend evolution is. If only they knew the truth.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

To expound further on articulette's and my own earlier posts, I have to wonder why Creationists would think the "Hitler was an 'evolutionist'" argument would make the fossil and genetic evidence go away as well. Similarly I recently encountered the "evolution says humans are just animals" argument, which makes me ask first why bee colonies function then why I'm not sitting naked in my own filth replying to said assinine assertion when my view that I'm "merely an animal" should have me running around stealing what I can and raping any woman I come in close contact with.

I'm sorry anti-evolutionists, but the fossils exist, the genetic evidence exists, and no matter how many appeals to how mathmatical and metaphysical arguments you present, those things aren't going away.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Oh, that was informative.

Run out of lies, eh?

I have to admit that I have been very unfair with Adequate. In order for Adequate to know where the goal posts are, he first needs to make it to the ballpark. So, I will inform Adequate on how to get to the ev ball park. First, since Adequate is an imaginary superhero, we have to get him from Krypton to earth. So Adequate, be a good little boy and get into your spaceship for a fun little ride to earth. Once you get to earth, you need to take a tour of Dr Schneider’s web site and learn a little about what Dr Schneider is mathematically modeling. Once you have done that, you need to run more than a single case like Dr Schneider has done and then you will find yourself in the ballpark. At this point, perhaps you will see the goalposts, that is if your seat isn’t too far up in the bleachers.

Someone must have given Adequate a bottle, he doesn’t seem to be whining as much as previous. Now if someone would just change his diapers. When he grows up we can make him a brown cape from them to go with his imaginary superhero outfit.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?

No, it was your very bad compliant/complacent pun. Perhaps I erred and that wasn’t a pun but what you really had done was taken English lessons from joozb?

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Nah, it's your turn.

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.

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

What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.

Hammegk, if you would just pay attention to Adequate, you would see new species popping up on a regular basis. Joozb says the likelihood of abiogensis occurring is equal to winning a single superlotto, that’s why we see new life originating on a weekly basis.

kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap.

It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

I agree with you that the smaller scale cases prove most of the mathematical behavior of ev. The one point that is not completely clear is whether the population cases are showing an approach to an asymptote or whether there is a small slope to the curve to Adequate’s proposed point of 1 generation for an infinite population. Even a number like 10^20 is a long way from infinity, it is also a long way from 4^1,000,000. There is so much noise in this stochastic process that I am not sure which is happening with the population series. Paul likes to do curve fits to this data but I think these are useless; you need to generate the points with ev.

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear.

I don’t think ev is a bogus mathematical calculation, I think it is a mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection written by an evolutionist who heads the computational molecular biology group at the National Cancer Institute, which was peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press journal, Nucleic Acids Research.

I know this following question is off topic, but what makes you so proud to be an UnrepentantSinner? Never mind, don’t bother answering, better to know you are an UnrepentantSinner than be self righteous, unless you figured out a way to do both.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, no new lies then?

 

[Yahzi]

Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak,

Delicious.

why do you waste your time reading this thread

I can explain that for you. The problem is that your moniker is somewhat misleading.

While a handful of people here might indeed find you annoying, the rest of us find you amusing.

We aren't wasting our time reading this thread; we're mining comedy gold. Irony is the rarest of the comic substances, and you are a source of such purity and depth as to amaze, astound, and above all, endlessly entertain.

For example, I point you to the comment, above.

 

[Yahzi]

We can't see macroevolution,

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

 

[delphi_ote]

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)

Computer scientists don't always store data in a single contiguous block in RAM on one machine. We could handle these problems if we needed to run such a distributed simulation. Current climate simulations require a lot more data and calculation, and some of them are being run on personal computers.

I just did a Google search for an example of this kind of thing. Here's a BBC article about a climate simulation. Also, here's a paper about a a parallel implementation of a genetic algorithm (oddly, I used to work in that department, but I never even heard about this project.) Ev has a lot in common with GAs.

 

[John Hewitt]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

 

[delphi_ote]

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

Paul was using it as an adjective. Read his first post.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

Well, that's how they define macroevolution sometimes. Have you noticed that we've never managed to get Kleinman to give us his definition of macroevolution? He refers us to Wikipedia, which recently had a change in its definition. The definition now includes:

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.

~~ Paul