Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By moving in mysterious ways.

And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

[latex]$\mathit{design}=\mathrm{move}(\mathit{mystery}) + \mathrm{C}$[/latex]

~~ Paul

 

[tsig]

And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

[latex]$\mathit{design}=\mathrm{move}(\mathit{mystery}) + \mathrm{C}$[/latex]

~~ Paul

No intelligent designer would put a waste disposal in a recreation area.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No intelligent designer would put a waste disposal in a recreation area.

Hey, at least we don't have a cloaca.

~~ Paul

 

[AgingYoung]

I do intend to read this entire thread but this is the 2nd reference I've noticed about what I'm doing with wm2d.

Kleinman, I suggest you read [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48951]this thread[/URL]. I would be interested to know your views on AgingYoung, and if you believe a perpetual motion machine is possible. The argument is exactly the same as this one, that a simulation of one small part of the world is more accurate at representing the world than the world is itself.

Cuddles,

Could you provide a direct link where I said that? I think you're spreading rumors.

Gene

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.

Please don't annoy me with this gambit. Certain types of patterns are taken as indicative of human design. There are gobs of patterns that are not.

Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not.

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

I disagree. I believe you are conflating understanding with reproducing.

At least Miller was able to produce an experiment that showed how amino acids could be produced. You subscribers to the RNA world view of abiogenesis haven’t shown how an RNA base could be produced.

Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.

Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic. You can not reduce the concept of random point mutations and natural selection to a single algebraic equation. The concept is too complex. Dr Schneider has taken a series of algebraic equations to model one of the simplest cases of random point mutations and natural selection. He starts with a random sequence of bases, sets aside a small portion of this random sequence to evolve and then allows random change to the sequence and imposes a selection process to choose which mutations are helpful or not and the lets those with the best sequences reproduce and repeats this cycle.

As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo. Ev shows the difficulty of evolving binding sites on large genomes with a well defined mathematical selection process, you don’t have a mechanism like this for the evolution of a gene.

I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.

You don't get to have it both ways:
"Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection"
- and -
"The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so"
can not exist in the same logical framework.

And of course the math won't change, but the calculations most likely will.
2 + 2 will always equal 4, but maybe we won't be adding 2 + 2.

Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and then Dr Schneider writes a computer model that simulates random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner. When you use realistic parameters in his model, it shows that random point mutations and natural selection is far too slow to allow for macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and shows that huge populations do not have a marked increase on the rate of evolution. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations.

And your rude arrogance, along with your failed logic, provides convincing evidence for my theory of creationist dishonesty.

Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist?

 

[John Hewitt]

And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

~~ Paul

I did not think you intended your question to be taken seriously. But I think this subject may well move on.

Was it not Paley who pointed out that we can tell by inspection that a watch was designed; a difference clearly exists and, while we may not yet have stated the distinction generally, there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.

 

[joobz]

I do intend to read this entire thread but this is the 2nd reference I've noticed about what I'm doing with wm2d.

Cuddles,

Could you provide a direct link where I said that? I think you're spreading rumors.

Gene

Hi AgingYoung,
perhaps Cuddles is reading more into what your plans are, but it would be an honest mistake. I've checked that thread and came to the same conclusion. the question being, are you trying to prove the existence of PPM using a model? If so, a model can't do that. If you are simply having fun with wm2d to see to what extent you can (in that fictional world) create a PPM, then that is a completely agreeable thing to do.

However, Cuddles' point (As was mine in that thread), you can't account for everything in the model. Friction takes over. molecular interactions occur that you can't account for. So even if you see a PPM in the wm2d, that doesn't mean you can find materials to make it and it would work. That's all.

And to be fair, I would never compare your postings to what Kleinman has been doing. Kleinman has been dishonest throughout. He uses poor inputs that are not substantiated to run a simulation and pretends that disproves evolution. We've explained carefully why his inputs aren't justified, but he continues to ignore that. He deliberately missquotes, attacks, and insults everyone. His hypothesis has been completely refuted. But he continues to ignore that. He is completely and totally dishonest.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not.

I have no explanation. We know a skyscraper is intelligently designed because we designed it. We assume that a snowflake is not intelligently designed. When someone stumbles upon the intelligent designer of the snowflake, then we will know we made an incorrect assumption.

You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic.

If you have some mathematics that doesn't involve equations, I'd be happy to see that, too.

As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo.

I think you're being a bit pessimistic here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8703096&dopt=Citation

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4662.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu65t858g1k64326/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/1/1

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/asap/abs/ja066103k.html

and, of course:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8ur17mp987434g4/

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Was it not Paley who pointed out that we can tell by inspection that a watch was designed; a difference clearly exists and, while we may not yet have stated the distinction generally, there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.

That would be an interesting project. Unfortunately, the only intelligent design we know about is human design. That is why Intelligent Design is nothing more than an analogy from human design (and why the Designer is not the Creator).

~~ Paul

 

[AgingYoung]

Oops, the link was meant to be http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48951&page=8

To summarize it : AgingYoung has used a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of Newton's Laws, to design a machine that will run forever, thereby showing that Newton's Laws are not correct. Since he is attempting to do something which the simulation is not designed to do, any results he gets are completely meaningless, since they are not valid in the real world.

As I notice points made at my expense I feel compelled to comment. Newton's laws of motion tend to approximate reality. If you tweak wm2d by increasing the steps or frames of time it considers (per second) it approximates reality a little better.

The circular reasoning you're suggesting I'm falling for is very off the mark. I use the simulator as spreadsheet with a graphic i/o to calculate various forces over very short durations of time. I am in no way using it to disprove Newtonian physics. I don't think it was Newton that defined gravity as being conservative. My thoughts are it isn't.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

joobz,

perhaps Cuddles is reading more into what your plans are, but it would be an honest mistake. I've checked that thread and came to the same conclusion. the question being, are you trying to prove the existence of PPM using a model?

In a word, 'no.'

I'm still reading this thread. If you've came to the same conclusion then I'd have to see precisely what it was I said that led you to it.

Gene

 

[fishbob]

Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. . . .
. . . The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations.

Please note that kleinman - in the same paragraph - denies that he wants it both ways while trying to have it both ways. Non-logical and not particularly honest.

Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist?

No, just a more accurate description.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you use realistic parameters in his model, it shows that random point mutations and natural selection is far too slow to allow for macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and shows that huge populations do not have a marked increase on the rate of evolution.

Could you list those realistic parameters, please? And then show the results from simulations with those parameters. Thank you ever so much.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not.

I have no explanation. We know a skyscraper is intelligently designed because we designed it. We assume that a snowflake is not intelligently designed. When someone stumbles upon the intelligent designer of the snowflake, then we will know we made an incorrect assumption.

How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?

You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic.

If you have some mathematics that doesn't involve equations, I'd be happy to see that, too.

From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?

As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo.

I think you're being a bit pessimistic here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4662.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu65t858g1k64326/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...bstract/22/1/1

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...ja066103k.html

and, of course:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8ur17mp987434g4/

Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome.

Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. . . .
. . . The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations.

Please note that kleinman - in the same paragraph - denies that he wants it both ways while trying to have it both ways. Non-logical and not particularly honest.

Fishbob, your logical pressure is too great for me. I confess that I am getting it both ways.

Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist?

No, just a more accurate description.

The day that I get a complement from an evolutionarian will be the day that I start questioning the accuracy of my analysis.

 

[AgingYoung]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.

Gene

 

[joobz]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.

Gene

That's a good healthy greek name. It definitely fairs better than my mom's maiden name which was de-greekified at ellis island when my grandpa came over.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?

His hair will be perfect.

From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?

Fishbobian dodging of central issue duly noted. I have no equations and either do you.

Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome.

We don't understand the process well enough to model it, which is why all your spewing about Ev is irrelevant.

Either Ev is an accurate model of more or less the entirety of evolution and you can draw your pessimistic ultimate conclusion from it, or it is not. Which do you think is the case?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.

Silly spellchecker.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?

His hair will be perfect.

He will also be the fountain of smart.

From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?

Fishbobian dodging of central issue duly noted. I have no equations and either do you.

Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.

Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome.

We don't understand the process well enough to model it, which is why all your spewing about Ev is irrelevant.

Either Ev is an accurate model of more or less the entirety of evolution and you can draw your pessimistic ultimate conclusion from it, or it is not. Which do you think is the case?

Again, you have come a long way in this discussion. You have no idea how evolution has occurred but you are sure it is true. You continue to devalue the model on which you have worked so hard.

I’ve told you many times I will be patient with you. I will again show you where the goal posts are. Dr Schneider has written a plausible model for random point mutations and natural selection. When you use realistic parameters in the model it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible, it takes far too many generations, ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and huge populations do not accelerate the evolutionary processes sufficiently to contradict either of the first two assertions. Perhaps you could give Delphi a ride to the ball park since he is in no condition to drive.

 

[joobz]

Since we are on a new page and kleinman is still spouting the same wrong nonsense, I'd thought I'd provide a relisting of why kleinman is wrong.

Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.

the following links represent clear flaws in your argument against ev and why you are wrong.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432


Please try again, but with a new hypothesis.
Evolution takes to long cause ev said so has been disproven.

It seems all's quite on the new "why ev disproves evolution" hypothesis front.