Annoying creationists

[Myriad]

Edit: Cross-posted with Paul; never mind.

- Myriad

 

[joobz]

My insanely clever comment comparing him to a voodoo doctor.

Otherwise, no.

I also liked your "throwing rocks" comment
oh, and the evolution of kleinman's macro posts was also nicely done.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Poor Delphi is complaining that I am moving the goal posts.

I don't think he's complaining. He's observing and sharing his observation with other readers of this thread. We just love to watch those goalposts move! Do it again, kleinman! If we did find a self-replicating molecule in a cell, what would you do? Move them again? Throw away your bible? I like easy questions.

You poor complaining bible thumpers have been moving your goalposts since Copernicus, and there is every reason to expect you to continue indefinately as long as science discovers truth. Why? Because you just don't want to give up the fairy tales of your childhood.

 

[I less than three logic]

all of the arguments Kleinman has made have ALREADY been discounted for multiple reasons.

But since he feels the need to re-hash the same old lies, I'll link to all of the posts that explain why this is just wrong.




This post is from page 15, we are now on page 20. And I'm STILL waiting for a new hypothesis from you as to why evolution is wrong.

All evidence in this thread indicates you’ll be waiting for quite some time. It seems the last 16 or so pages have taken the same shape.

Kleinman makes claim A.
Random poster (X) says claim A is wrong for reasons Y and Z.
Kleinman responds to X with B and C.
X show B and C are irrelevant to X's claim and that Y and Z have been left unaddressed.
Kleinman makes witless insult of X, pats self on the back, and makes claim A.
Repeat ad nauseam.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:

Natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[joobz]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:

My favorite so far has been.
(paraphrased)

Kleinman:If I had more powerful computer, i could prove that ev and thereby evolution is wrong.

kjkent1:I'd be happy to provide you the resources if you could write up a request.

Kleinman:um, a, um....No..I, uh...don't......computer..uh... You're greedy.. yeah that's it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection?

The small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes.

~~ Paul

 

[Beleth]

What does ETA mean?

Estimated Time of Arrival.

I take it that you have no disagreement with the rest of my previous post?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I have a little problem with this estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation. If you take a mutation rate of 10^-7 and a genome length of 3x10^8, you should only get about 30 mutations per generation per genome. They suggest and overall mutation rate of 2.14x10^-8 which would give only about 7 mutations per generation per genome.

You have to consider how many cell divisions occur before the gametes are ready, and also the fact that the zygote is composed of two gametes.

Again, note that the human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length and accordingly, there should be an average of 70 mutations per DNA replication. So if you have two meiotic replications you would get 140 mutations, none of which can be fatal to the cell. How do you think natural selection would affect all these mutations?

Even if you assume their estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation is correct, some of those mutations will be harmful and that creature will be selected against, some mutations will be helpful and that creature will be selected for and some mutations will be neutral and will not be selected for or against.

For sure, the critters that were selected against are not our ancestors.

So only critters with 128 nonfatal mutations make it through?

I know that Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis satisfied you until you realize he failed to attend to the details. I will only me satisfied when this job on the theory of evolution is finished.

I have run many experiments that satisfy me. If you care to present the proof that I should be dissatisfied, I'm all ears.

How many cases did you run before we started this discussion? It is already clear that from ev that you cannot evolve any fundamental gene or control system on a megabase or gigabase genome by random point mutations and natural selection. We are both satisfied with that result. When the computing power becomes available, we can find out what happens with populations greater than 10^6. Clearly, you are going to have trouble reconciling the results from ev and the number of base substitutions the separate humans and chimpanzees. Perhaps you can clarify something. If I understand it correctly, the number of base substitutions differences between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is on the portions of the genomes that are homologous. There are apparently large portions of the genome where the base differences may be 10% or more, is that true?

Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists.

And this, folks, is Dr. Kleinman's method of argumentation. His goal is clear: He wants to be able to say crap like this at Creationist sites to win points with the evolution deniers.

You won't do the work to support your thesis, but you're perfectly happy to predict the outcome.

Paul, both you and Dr Schneider have been saying for years that ev models reality. Look at your posts on this forum before we started doing parametric studies on ev. So don’t whine when someone shows you that your gross overstatements have no mathematical or scientific basis.

However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection.

Oh, please. What a load of ********.

Which part are you having trouble with, the random point mutations part or the natural selection part?

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

Just to clarify- are you saying the mathematical model of evolution is wrong, or the "theory" of evolution is wrong?
Because if it's the former, I suspect you may well have a point.
If it's the latter, I would be intrigued to know what (if any) alternative you propose.

I do apologise if you have already clarified this. I find much of the discussion quite incomprehensible.

Fair enough Sam. I again will state my position. Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. He has used information theory in order to derive this model. I believe that Dr Schneider’s mathematical model is a plausible simulation of this phenomenon. However, Dr Schneider used totally unrealistic input parameters in his single published case which gave a totally unrealistic rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider used this rate of information gain to estimate the amount of time it would take to evolve a human genome. When you use realistic parameters in his model, the rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection becomes so profoundly slow that not only do you lack the time to evolve a human genome, this model calls into question whether any fundamental gene or gene control system can evolve on a realistic length genome.

Sam, this is not a trivial debate. It requires knowledge of genetics, molecular biology, information theory (thermodynamics), probability theory and computer simulations. In addition, this debate is carried on in a highly charged political environment. But people on this forum are so friendly, it is a joy to carry on a discussion like this on this forum.

You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection?

The small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes.

Paul, do you want to expand on this hypothesis?

What does ETA mean?

Estimated Time of Arrival.

I take it that you have no disagreement with the rest of my previous post?

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post, it is just too far off from topic from the ev computer simulation.

 

[Beleth]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post, it is just too far off from topic from the ev computer simulation.

On the contrary. It strikes at the heart of your conclusion about ev.

 

[Yahzi]

I also liked your "throwing rocks" comment

That's Beleth's, actually.

I just stole it.

 

[Yahzi]

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor...

As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.

You complain about conceptual construction, but you don't understand the difference between aliens and gods?

 

[cyborg]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:

Yeah, that's definitely a WTF moment for me.

I'd just love to hear how it is so.

 

[kjkent1]

So, the answer to your question is yes; given the right parameters, I think that any properly constructed simulation could do what you ask. I do not know whether EV is better than some other simulation - you would have to take that up with somebody who has more directly relevant expertise.

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor. I think the same of behaviour in the field, with evolutionists being, if anything, more abusive and dogmatic than their creationist opponents. In "Sex and Philosophy," where I discuss the application of bioepistemic evolution to prebiosis, abiogenesis if you prefer, I use the phrase "a plague on both your houses."
That is basically how I feel about this kind of debate. As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.

Thanks, John. Your response is refreshingly informative -- and free of sarcasm and/or ad hominem.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, do you want to expand on this hypothesis? [that small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes]

Don't tell me you haven't heard of designosomes?

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.

OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.

And, yet, life exists in overwhelming numbers and diversity. Sort of like the fact that people routinely play Powerball(r) knowing that the probability of any individual winning is a practical nullity. Nevertheless, someone eventually wins and it happens quite a few times every year.

I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

This is not sarcasm on my part. I'm trying to understand why you think the above theory is more scientific than the one you seek to discredit.

Or, is it just your faith which leads you to the alternative conclusion?

 

[hammegk]

OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.


I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

Perhaps 'directed' or 'with intent' rather than 'random', timescales undefined, would be a better way to put it.

Instantaneous in geologic time does seem to be demonstrated more often than not.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.

OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.

Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations with natural selection shows that natural selection is insufficient to overcome these probabilistic constraints as well. The mathematics that this model demonstrates is that this process only works quickly on unrealistically short genomes with unrealistically high mutation rates. This finding has shaped the arguments for evolution on this forum. Paul now talks about designosomes. The only part of my argument against the theory of evolution based on the results from ev is whether huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to support the evolutionary theory. The preliminary data with populations up to 10^6 don’t look good for believers in the evolutionary theory.

And, yet, life exists in overwhelming numbers and diversity. Sort of like the fact that people routinely play Powerball(r) knowing that the probability of any individual winning is a practical nullity. Nevertheless, someone eventually wins and it happens quite a few times every year.

1 in 10^8 odds are great odds compared to 1 in 40^32. The point of this discussion is that Dr Schneider mathematically modeled what happens to the simple probability problem when you introduce natural selection and it is insufficient to overcome the horrendous probabilities the theory of evolution must overcome in order to be a mathematical science.

I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

This is not sarcasm on my part. I'm trying to understand why you think the above theory is more scientific than the one you seek to discredit.

Or, is it just your faith which leads you to the alternative conclusion?

I am not here to offer an alternative theory. I am here to show what happens with Dr Schneider’s ev model when realistic parameters are used in the model. What it shows is that macroevolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used, it contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to invalidate either of the first two assertions. My last assertion has not been conclusively shown for populations over 10^6 so there is still a small amount of wiggle room for evolutionists until larger population cases are run.

Paul and Myriad are the only two evolutionists who have run cases and posted their results from ev. They may not agree with my assertions about what ev shows but both understand the mathematical difficulties this model presents for the theory of evolution. Why don’t you contact Dr Schneider, toms@ncifcrf.gov , and see whether he would be interested in running his model on your super computer. If he is, I’ll write up a proposal for your marketing people.

 

[kjkent1]

1 in 10^8 odds are great odds compared to 1 in 40^32. The point of this discussion is that Dr Schneider mathematically modeled what happens to the simple probability problem when you introduce natural selection and it is insufficient to overcome the horrendous probabilities the theory of evolution must overcome in order to be a mathematical science.

I don't have a sufficient understanding of the operation of DNA to be able to challenge your 40^32 raw probability. Maybe one of the other mathematicians here would be so kind as to discuss whether or not this is a reasonable conclusion. It sort of reminds of the tornado through the junkyard argument.

But, on a more basic level, and I realize that you find the difference in probablilities incomparable, once the outcome of an independent trial occurs, while it's probability of occuring again my be null, its probability of having already occured is 100%, right?

What I'm getting at here, is that the universe is a really, really big place. It may be for all practical purposes, limitless in scope -- or at least beyond any reasonable measurement. So given a set of nearly limitless possibilities, are not all outcomes equally likely? And, if so, doesn't this somewhat render your probability analysis moot?

Schneider's EV model shows that biological information gain is mathematically possible in this universe without divine intervention. And, life exists. So, regardless of its improbablness, we are here, and there are really only two alternatives:

1. Life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions and evolves while those conditions persist, or;

2. Life is the product of an almighty creator.

Note: interjecting an extra-terrestrial alien intelligence merely forestalls the inevitable question of how the alien came to exist, and which leads back to questions #1 and #2, above.

So, while I understand that your intent is to show that EV is wrong, rather than advocating an alternative thoery, you can only do that by showing that EV does not produce undesigned information gain. Otherwise, your proof is refuted by life's actual existence -- in the absence of an alternative affirmative theory -- which you are refusing to advance.

Why don’t you contact Dr Schneider (email omitted) and see whether he would be interested in running his model on your super computer. If he is, I’ll write up a proposal for your marketing people.

Well, for one , I've already read Mark Twain. ;-)

I could certainly contact Dr. Schneider (and I just may do this), but this begs the question: why haven't you already done this? The only way that this gets interesting enough for media attention is if two well-respected intellectual foes can agree on the conditions of the experiment. This is a battle of creation vs. evolution -- nothing less, and that's how I'd want to advertise it to the press.

I don't actually know if you're a well-respected intellectual foe or not. You seem to be pretty good at advancing your position, and you and Dr. Schneider have already communicated -- apparently with some regularity.

So, what's your reluctance to contact Schneider?

 

[kjkent1]

Perhaps 'directed' or 'with intent' rather than 'random', timescales undefined, would be a better way to put it.

Instantaneous in geologic time does seem to be demonstrated more often than not.

Point taken.