Annoying creationists

[Yahzi]

He is arguing against chance as being a mechanism behind the genesis of genes.

I know that. That was perfectly clear to anyone following the conversation. Hewitt claimed that evolutionists claim that it was "chance." When I referred to him claiming it was us claiming it was chance, everyone but you understood what I meant.

This misses the point since John was speaking in context of abiogenesis rather than evolution proper. And in any case John was arguing against chance.

And again. Hewitt decided to switch topics in the middle of the conversation, but we all knew exactly what he meant. Except, apparently, you.

Yahzi seems to be trying to make the point that order arising spontaneously from non-order is not dependent on chance. Which is fine, but it actually puts him in agreement with John on this point.

And once again, you state the obvious.

What you seem to be unaware of is that Hewitt disagrees when it comes to living systems.

Well he initially spoke of biological complexity and inanimate order. It was Yahzi who brought up live and dead. But the respective concepts are not synonomous.

What is the difference between biological order and inanimate order?

How would you characterize "living" other than referring to its complex order?

Why am I still arguing against vitalism?

Indeed you did. I question the relevance of the analogy.

The relevance is that biological systems are subject to the same rules as inanimate systems.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

The relevance is that if inanimate systems can generate order from mechanics and energy, then so can animate systems.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

He said there was a difference between biological complexity and inanimate order.

And that difference would be... what, exactly?

Order is order. It doesn't matter whether it is biological or inanimate; the laws of information theory apply to order, regardless of its origin.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

 

[Yahzi]

Thank you dv82matt, you said those things very well.

No, he didn't.

But I'm glad you found his diversion adequate excuse to avoid answering the question. I'm happy for you.

Now perhaps you would care to explain what your point is. I made the point that order can arise from simplicity in inanimate systems. So why do you think it can't do the same in animate systems?

In other words (for anyone who may have become confused by your misdirection), ribozymes did not arise from chance, and no one - least of all evolutionists - are saying they did. Ribozymes arose from the same process that sorts granola into large and small chunks.

Your position is that this is impossible - that even while you agree with the granola example, you feel it doesn't apply to ribozymes. Because you seem to think there is a difference between granola and "living systems."

What you have not done - or even come close to doing - is explaining what that difference is with respect to order. Obviously there are many differences between animate and inanimate systems. But there are also many similarities. I have asserted that they are similar in the application of information theory. You have asserted they are not. Please explain.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course that is a requirement; the point of increasing population is to show that you get sufficient reduction in the generations for convergence to support your theory.

What I said was that I didn't know I had to start at a population of 10.

You are still struggling to make a point, but perhaps you are finding the right combination of genome length, population, binding site number, binding site width, and mutation rate that may give some support to your theory. Why didn’t you post any points between 2048 and 65536?

I didn't run those populations yet.

Why don’t you extend this series to a population of 1 meg and see whether you can get down close to Adequate’s value of 1 generation for an infinite population?

1 million should get me "down close" to the theoretical limit at an infinite population? Wow.

In one series you have a generations of convergence of 9900 generations in the first series (the second data point) and 8000 generations for the second series (the first data point) when both cases should give identical results. Are you using identical random seeds?

Yes, I vary the random seed all the time. It's interesting to see the variance when you do.

Your latest un-retracted extrapolation for the evolution of 8 binding sites, population 32, weight width 9, site width 10, 1 mutation / 512 bases would require 2 billion generations to evolve for a mutation rate of 10^-6 and 63 million generations to evolve with a population of 1 meg. Are you going to modify your extrapolation based on your most recent data posted above?

No. Now I'm running experiments with fixed genome sizes and varying populations to see if I can find a pattern.

Please note that I don't give a damn about that extrapolation, because I am not an afficionado of the Theory of Point Mutations and Natural Selection.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Of course that is a requirement; the point of increasing population is to show that you get sufficient reduction in the generations for convergence to support your theory.

What I said was that I didn't know I had to start at a population of 10.

I had been looking at population trends starting with populations of 64 since that was the baseline population that Dr Schneider used. What minimum population do you want to use when looking at population trends. We can use whatever value you want to use.

Why don’t you extend this series to a population of 1 meg and see whether you can get down close to Adequate’s value of 1 generation for an infinite population?

1 million should get me "down close" to the theoretical limit at an infinite population? Wow.

Isn’t that the question? If Adequate is correct in his estimate, how large a population do you need in order approach that estimate?

In one series you have a generations of convergence of 9900 generations in the first series (the second data point) and 8000 generations for the second series (the first data point) when both cases should give identical results. Are you using identical random seeds?

Yes, I vary the random seed all the time. It's interesting to see the variance when you do.

We are already dealing with noisy data and varying the random seed introduces more variation into the data. You know that when you post a series like you just did with a peculiar data point that I am going to call you on this issue. You need to start posting the random seed number you are using.

Your latest un-retracted extrapolation for the evolution of 8 binding sites, population 32, weight width 9, site width 10, 1 mutation / 512 bases would require 2 billion generations to evolve for a mutation rate of 10^-6 and 63 million generations to evolve with a population of 1 meg. Are you going to modify your extrapolation based on your most recent data posted above?

No. Now I'm running experiments with fixed genome sizes and varying populations to see if I can find a pattern.

Good idea!

Please note that I don't give a damn about that extrapolation, because I am not an afficionado of the Theory of Point Mutations and Natural Selection.

Hey, it’s ok to change your mind. Do you think that random point mutations and natural selection have any role in the theory of evolution?

You all have a Merry Christmas.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I had been looking at population trends starting with populations of 64 since that was the baseline population that Dr Schneider used. What minimum population do you want to use when looking at population trends. We can use whatever value you want to use.

It doesn't really matter. The problem with 64 is that we probably can't run large enough populations to see a factor of 100 drop in generations. Then again, I have no idea why a factor of 100 is magical, except possibly to set the goalpost beyond what we can simulate.

Isn’t that the question? If Adequate is correct in his estimate, how large a population do you need in order approach that estimate?

No idea, since his asymptote was for an infinite population.

We are already dealing with noisy data and varying the random seed introduces more variation into the data. You know that when you post a series like you just did with a peculiar data point that I am going to call you on this issue. You need to start posting the random seed number you are using.

Why would you call me on it? Some weeks ago you said you were okay if I used the lowest number of generations I got for any given data point. Lots of my generation counts are the average of three or four runs.

Hey, it’s ok to change your mind. Do you think that random point mutations and natural selection have any role in the theory of evolution?

Are you suggesting that I was once an afficionado of the TPMNS? Cuz, like, if you are, then you're lying. Of course point mutations have a role; consider the latest finding on eye color. Can you distinguish between a supporting role and a one-woman show?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Hey, it’s ok to change your mind. Do you think that random point mutations and natural selection have any role in the theory of evolution?

Er, at least as much as does Yahzi shaking his box of corn flakes?


BTW, Yahzi, when something alive crawls out of the box I suspect very very strongly it will be a 'bio-contaminant'. Also, I believe I should advise you "Don't play in traffic!".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just to demonstrate how variable the experiments are, I ran my current experiment 10 times on a population of 128:

generations

5101
2879
2534
2019
4645
1742
3137
2465
3121
4516

Range: 3359
Mean: 3216
Standard deviation: 1157

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

Kjkent1, you do not understand this debate. As I have written numerous times in this thread previously, the only reason I get traction in this discussion is that I am using an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection.

Evolutionarians have questioned the results I have obtained with their own sanctioned model. Why would evolutionarians believe any modification I do to their model? If I thought there was a selection method or mechanism for mutation other than random point mutations that would make your theory work, I would tell you, but I don’t believe there are any such selection methods or mechanisms for mutation that would overcome this mathematical hurdle.

I encourage evolutionarians to include other selection methods and mechanisms of mutations to their mathematical models, so that they convince themselves of the mathematical impossibility of their theory.

LOL! I tell Paul that you won't do any of the work, and that you will waive off any possible explanation which might defeat your belief system, and how do you respond? Why, by confirming that you won't do any work, and by waiving me off by telling me that I don't understand the debate.

The debate, which you claim I do not understand, is trivially simple, and it will continue, unabated, as long as humans exist in their present form. I.E., (1) a creator has existed eternally and has designed the universe to function in a specified manner, such that human life now exists, (2) matter contained in the universe is naturally capable of self organization, such that human life now exists, or (3) some combination of #1 and/or #2.

At the more mundane level, if you want to soundly defeat the theory that no accurate selection model will improve ev's performance, and you consider yourself to be a scientist, then you should put aside your preconceptions/beliefs, and conduct some research, by modeling selection mechanisms inside of ev and presenting your findings for peer-reviewed publication.

You're obviously a very capable scientist, and you should be able to aid in speeding up the research process. The fact that you refuse to undertake the investigation clearly demonstrates that you view the risk of your discovering that your belief is in error, as insufficient to outweigh the benefit obtained by successfully modeling the evolutionary selection mechanism.

It's certainly easier to believe that evolution is mathematically impossible. However, as you've pointed out yourself in this thread, doing real science is hard work.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Kjkent1, you do not understand this debate. As I have written numerous times in this thread previously, the only reason I get traction in this discussion is that I am using an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection.

Evolutionarians have questioned the results I have obtained with their own sanctioned model. Why would evolutionarians believe any modification I do to their model? If I thought there was a selection method or mechanism for mutation other than random point mutations that would make your theory work, I would tell you, but I don’t believe there are any such selection methods or mechanisms for mutation that would overcome this mathematical hurdle.

I encourage evolutionarians to include other selection methods and mechanisms of mutations to their mathematical models, so that they convince themselves of the mathematical impossibility of their theory.

LOL! I tell Paul that you won't do any of the work, and that you will waive off any possible explanation which might defeat your belief system, and how do you respond? Why, by confirming that you won't do any work, and by waiving me off by telling me that I don't understand the debate.

You won’t even read these threads, let alone Dr Schneider’s web pages and publications on ev. Why should I take anything you say seriously?

The debate, which you claim I do not understand, is trivially simple, and it will continue, unabated, as long as humans exist in their present form. I.E., (1) a creator has existed eternally and has designed the universe to function in a specified manner, such that human life now exists, (2) matter contained in the universe is naturally capable of self organization, such that human life now exists, or (3) some combination of #1 and/or #2.

Too bad #2 has no mathematical basis.

At the more mundane level, if you want to soundly defeat the theory that no accurate selection model will improve ev's performance, and you consider yourself to be a scientist, then you should put aside your preconceptions/beliefs, and conduct some research, by modeling selection mechanisms inside of ev and presenting your findings for peer-reviewed publication.

Here is where your lack of understanding of ev is revealing itself. Dr Schneider has devised a selection mechanism that is very precise and stringent. It works very rapidly on small genomes with large mutation rates. The only way I can see devising a selection mechanism that works more rapidly than this is that every mutation is selected for or against on a mutation by mutation basis. Dr Schneider’s weight matrix is already very close to this and it still becomes profoundly slow when you apply this process to a realistic length genome. Don’t you think Dr Schneider, Paul or Myriad would redefine the selection process if they could? The reason they don’t is there is no known selection mechanism that could speed up the evolutionary process. This is an accounting problem and I know of no accounting rules that fix this mathematical fact that contradicts the theory of evolution.

You're obviously a very capable scientist, and you should be able to aid in speeding up the research process. The fact that you refuse to undertake the investigation clearly demonstrates that you view the risk of your discovering that your belief is in error, as insufficient to outweigh the benefit obtained by successfully modeling the evolutionary selection mechanism.

I know of no way to speed up the research process. The only parameter in ev that has even the slightest possibility of giving results that support the theory of evolution is huge populations. Running these types of cases requires hardware with much larger memory and processor speeds than our desktop machines have and I doubt your marketing people would want to get involved in such a controversial issue.

It's certainly easier to believe that evolution is mathematically impossible. However, as you've pointed out yourself in this thread, doing real science is hard work.

About 25-30 years ago there was an attempt to screen women for breast cancer by using thermography. The problem with this screening test was there were 50% false positives. I looked at the thermodynamics of this problem for my PhD. Once you did the mathematics for this situation, it became clear why there were so many false positives. I could see no way to overcome the physics and mathematics of this situation. The mathematics of the theory of evolution is presenting itself in the same way. There are no known selection processes or mutation mechanisms that would allow you to evolve a megabase genome in the time available, let alone a gigabase genome. This is a mathematical fact of life.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are no known selection processes or mutation mechanisms that would allow you to evolve a megabase genome in the time available, let alone a gigabase genome. This is a mathematical fact of life.

Whiplash! Now we're back to the mathematical proof that you refuse to present.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

There are no known selection processes or mutation mechanisms that would allow you to evolve a megabase genome in the time available, let alone a gigabase genome. This is a mathematical fact of life.

And yet, we are here, either as an amazing mathematical fact of nature, which has yet to be completely understood, or as the result of the application of the magical will of an all powerful entity who is definitionally beyond the limits of any possible mathematical proof.

Since proof of the latter is impossible, the only alternative is to research the former. Otherwise, all of your scientific skills are wasted. I doubt that God would have granted you such mental capacity for the purpose of not using it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I had been looking at population trends starting with populations of 64 since that was the baseline population that Dr Schneider used. What minimum population do you want to use when looking at population trends. We can use whatever value you want to use.

It doesn't really matter. The problem with 64 is that we probably can't run large enough populations to see a factor of 100 drop in generations. Then again, I have no idea why a factor of 100 is magical, except possibly to set the goalpost beyond what we can simulate.

There is nothing magical about the factor of 100. You need a greater reduction in the generations for convergence than this for creatures with large genomes and generation times measured in years for random point mutations and natural selection to contribute to the evolutionary process. I think the only unsettled question about ev is whether populations of 10^28 will speed up the evolutionary process sufficiently for a 1 meg genome.

Isn’t that the question? If Adequate is correct in his estimate, how large a population do you need in order approach that estimate?

No idea, since his asymptote was for an infinite population.

A population of 1,000,000 doesn’t get you there with a 1k genome. Do you think it will get better with larger genomes?

We are already dealing with noisy data and varying the random seed introduces more variation into the data. You know that when you post a series like you just did with a peculiar data point that I am going to call you on this issue. You need to start posting the random seed number you are using.

Why would you call me on it? Some weeks ago you said you were okay if I used the lowest number of generations I got for any given data point. Lots of my generation counts are the average of three or four runs.

As long as you are consistent with your data collection I have no problem with this. However you ran the same case in two different series with two different random seeds. This can obscure the trends.

Hey, it’s ok to change your mind. Do you think that random point mutations and natural selection have any role in the theory of evolution?

Are you suggesting that I was once an afficionado of the TPMNS? Cuz, like, if you are, then you're lying. Of course point mutations have a role; consider the latest finding on eye color. Can you distinguish between a supporting role and a one-woman show?

I have no idea what your view toward ev is or was. You have back peddled so much on this topic since it has started, I don’t even know if you believe that random point mutation and natural selection contributes to macroevolution at all unless you consider a single point mutation affecting eye color as a macroevolutionary process. Maybe you would like to explain the selection process that would select for that mutation that effects eye color.

Just to demonstrate how variable the experiments are, I ran my current experiment 10 times on a population of 128:

generations

5101
2879
2534
2019
4645
1742
3137
2465
3121
4516

Range: 3359
Mean: 3216
Standard deviation: 1157

How do you want to address this issue so that we can get data that we can agree on?

There are no known selection processes or mutation mechanisms that would allow you to evolve a megabase genome in the time available, let alone a gigabase genome. This is a mathematical fact of life.

Whiplash! Now we're back to the mathematical proof that you refuse to present.

Feel free to prove my statement wrong. If you know of a selection process or mutation mechanism that proves your theory, present it. The results from Dr Schneider’s model using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are my mathematical proof. I do appreciate you writing the java version of ev. It made it so much easier to come up to speed on this problem.

 

[John Hewitt]

No, he didn't.

But I'm glad you found his diversion adequate excuse to avoid answering the question. I'm happy for you.

Now perhaps you would care to explain what your point is. I made the point that order can arise from simplicity in inanimate systems. So why do you think it can't do the same in animate systems?

In other words (for anyone who may have become confused by your misdirection), ribozymes did not arise from chance, and no one - least of all evolutionists - are saying they did. Ribozymes arose from the same process that sorts granola into large and small chunks.

Your position is that this is impossible - that even while you agree with the granola example, you feel it doesn't apply to ribozymes. Because you seem to think there is a difference between granola and "living systems."

What you have not done - or even come close to doing - is explaining what that difference is with respect to order. Obviously there are many differences between animate and inanimate systems. But there are also many similarities. I have asserted that they are similar in the application of information theory. You have asserted they are not. Please explain.

I do accept that order can arise from physical processes but, in my view and I believe of most people, living things are not ordered in the same way that order exists in crytals or in the layering that arises from differential sedimentation in breakfast cereals. Such arrangements, that arise from physical processes, have about the them a simplicity which is not present in living things. Living things are complex and, on casual inspection, might even appear disordered, though that is an illusion. The debate on this thread has, to a large extent, concerned how the complexity of living things might have arisen.

It has been suggested by some observers that some self-replicating ribozyme, made from RNA or from some similar, precursor material. My point about such ribozymes is that they too would be complex and would be very unlikely to arise by chance. Some observers, Crick for example, calculate that such an entity could not arise within the lifetime of the universe. Even if it did arise by chance, it would not be adapted to survive within the primordial soup and would not have supplies of the activated precursors needed to make copies of itself. Hence my dismissal of such ideas.

For the same reason, I do not think that any self-replicating entity would arise as a result of your shaking your corn-flake packet.

I short animate and inanimate objects are different. There difference in respect of information theory is probably best given by the people who try to define the term "complexity." I would not claim to be an expert on this matter, Paul could undoubtedly give a better explanation, but the essence of the argument is that the data pattern that describes an ordered structure is highly compressible. Thus, for example, if you wished to describe the structure of a crytal of salt, you could describe the position of every atom of sodium and chlorine in the crystal lattice, which would be a very large data file, or you could describe one unit cell and then indicate the number of repeats in each axis needed to describe the whole crystal. This would be a very much smaller data file. The same would apply to you breakfast cereal.

So, the data files needed to describe inanimate structures can be compressed. By comparison, the data files needed to describe complex structurees, such as living things cannot be compressed nearly so easily. Hence, in respect of this aspect of information theory, animate and inanimate things are different.

 

[dv82matt]

I know that. That was perfectly clear to anyone following the conversation. Hewitt claimed that evolutionists claim that it was "chance."

This is somewhat tortured. If you were taking issue with a claim about a claim that evolutionists make about abiogenesis then at the very least it seems you failed to make your point. In any case there is this:

John: I have never asserted that the precursors to genes were created by chance. Just the reverse, I have asserted that the chance creation of genes from a primordial soup is infeasible and deplored this widespread assertion.
Yahzi: I'm sorry, but it's not worth my time anymore to link to the posts where you contradict yourself.

If you wish to move the goalposts do so explicitly.

When I referred to him claiming it was us claiming it was chance, everyone but you understood what I meant.

And again. Hewitt decided to switch topics in the middle of the conversation,

That is your own speculation. It is not born out by the evidence.

...but we all knew exactly what he meant. Except, apparently, you.

Do you have evidence to support this appeal to popularity?

And once again, you state the obvious.

Indeed, I am glad that you agree that I have correctly summarized your analogy.

What you seem to be unaware of is that Hewitt disagrees when it comes to living systems.

It's just not particularily relevant. You are conflating complexity and order. Your analogy is only applicable to order. You may as well have pointed out that gravity applies to living systems.

What is the difference between biological order and inanimate order?

Don't arbitrarily switch out words like that. It appears dishonest. It's biological complexity and inanimate order.

How would you characterize "living" other than referring to its complex order?

There are many ways to characterize "living". And biological complexity does not nessessarily mean life.

Why am I still arguing against vitalism?

Perhaps because you misinterpreted John's posts as being an argument in favor of vitalism.

The relevance is that biological systems are subject to the same rules as inanimate systems.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

The relevance is that if inanimate systems can generate order from mechanics and energy, then so can animate systems.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

No one has disagreed with this (except for the part about it being relevant). You are essentially arguing against your own misconceptions about what others believe.

He said there was a difference between biological complexity and inanimate order.

And that difference would be... what, exactly?

The words complexity and order, self-replication there may be more.

Order is order. It doesn't matter whether it is biological or inanimate; the laws of information theory apply to order, regardless of its origin.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

I don't disagree. The essential point you have been missing is that order and complexity are not synonomous.

 

[Yahzi]

You are essentially arguing against your own misconceptions about what others believe.

Did you read Hewitt's response to me?

You know, the part where he explicitly states:

I[n] short animate and inanimate objects are different

From this we can conclude that Hewitt is arguing that order in inanimate things is different than order in animate things. We can conclude this because it is exactly what he says.

My entire argument has been that he is making a distinction between order in inaminate things and order in animate things.

The essential point you have been missing is that order and complexity are not synonomous.

From the above quote of Hewitt's, it would appear that the essential point you have been missing is that Hewitt is arguing that order in inaminate things is different than order in animate things.

I am sorry that you are no more equipped to understand Hewitt's posts than you are mine, but unless you can demonstrate you actually know what either of us is talking about, I'm going to stop reading your posts.

 

[Yahzi]

I do accept that order can arise from physical processes but, in my view and I believe of most people, living things are not ordered in the same way that order exists in crytals or in the layering that arises from differential sedimentation in breakfast cereals.

Order is order. Period. There is not a special kind of order for living things, or complex things. It's just more of the same.

The debate on this thread has, to a large extent, concerned how the complexity of living things might have arisen.

And I have conclusively shown that order can arise from simple mechanics and energy.

You have agreed with this, but argued that a lot of order cannot arise in this way. You have offered no reason why the ability to stack order on order suddenly breaks down; no evidence that simple mechanics cannot - with appropriate selective mechanisms - continue to accrue order.

You have simply stated that you personally find it unbeleivable that a lot of order can arise from simple beginnings, even while you freely admit that some order can.

My point about such ribozymes is that they too would be complex and would be very unlikely to arise by chance.

Who said they arose from chance?

When did anyone, anywhere, ever say they arose from chance?

Why do you keep bringing up chance?

The granola did not sort itself by chance. Ribozymes did not arise by chance. Why do you keep bringing up the word chance? It has no place in this conversation, ever. Period.

For the same reason, I do not think that any self-replicating entity would arise as a result of your shaking your corn-flake packet.

But my granola-shaking example is not an example of chance.

You have dismissed "ribozymes arising from chance" by dismissing "order arising through mechanics." How, exactly, does that work?

I short animate and inanimate objects are different. There difference in respect of information theory is probably best given by the people who try to define the term "complexity." I would not claim to be an expert on this matter, Paul could undoubtedly give a better explanation, but the essence of the argument is that the data pattern that describes an ordered structure is highly compressible. Thus, for example, if you wished to describe the structure of a crytal of salt, you could describe the position of every atom of sodium and chlorine in the crystal lattice, which would be a very large data file, or you could describe one unit cell and then indicate the number of repeats in each axis needed to describe the whole crystal. This would be a very much smaller data file. The same would apply to you breakfast cereal.

The fact that you can compress simple order into a simple package does not make it non-order. As for an example of supremely complex order that can be reduced to a simple equation: Fractals

We can - theoretically - reduce almost any complex system to a relatively short fractal equation.

So, the data files needed to describe inanimate structures can be compressed. By comparison, the data files needed to describe complex structurees, such as living things cannot be compressed nearly so easily. Hence, in respect of this aspect of information theory, animate and inanimate things are different.

Your argument is: "compressing simple systems is easier than compressing complex systems. Therefore, simple systems can evolve from mechanics, but complex ones can't."

What has compression got to do how they arise? Why do you assume there is some magic cut-off level of compressibility, which on one side you can arise from simple mechanics and on the other you can't? Can you express this compressiblity limit as a number?

You have not shown any essential link between the compressibility of a system and its ability to be generated by simple mechanics and accrual. You have simply asserted such a link. As a professional programmer, I am intimately aware of how simple objects can be combined to produce complex behavours, and I am totally unimpressed with your assertion.

 

[John Hewitt]

I have conclusively shown that order can arise from simple mechanics and energy.
You have agreed with this, but argued that a lot of order cannot arise in this way. You have offered no reason why the ability to stack order on order suddenly breaks down; no evidence that simple mechanics cannot - with appropriate selective mechanisms - continue to accrue order.

You have simply stated that you personally find it unbeleivable that a lot of order can arise from simple beginnings, even while you freely admit that some order can.

I have stated previously that the informational difference between animate and inanimate is not order, it is complexity.

Who said they arose from chance?

When did anyone, anywhere, ever say they arose from chance?

Dawkins, in the Selfish gene. This proposal is quite widely considered.

Why do you keep bringing up chance?

The granola did not sort itself by chance. Ribozymes did not arise by chance. Why do you keep bringing up the word chance? It has no place in this conversation, ever. Period.

Read Chance and necessity, by Monod

We can - theoretically - reduce almost any complex system to a relatively short fractal equation.

Your argument is: "compressing simple systems is easier than compressing complex systems. Therefore, simple systems can evolve from mechanics, but complex ones can't."

No you can't reduce complex systems to fractals in that way. When I talked about compression, I was talking about data compression, not about compressing physical objects. The compressibility of the data file needed to describe a system is one way of assessing the complexity of that system. I am not sufficiently au fait with this topic to go into details. You will have to ask someone else for that.

I would add that dv82matt seems to me a thoughtful and intelligent person. You should consider his comments carefully.

 

[articulett]

And you should consider Yahtzi's comments carefully. Dawkins selfish gene is not about chance--mutation might be random--but selection is not...and it's the ratcheting that brings complexity. Earth is complex--but we can deduce much about how it came to be and natural forces explain it very well--some even liken the earth itself to a living organism. And life, too, is a ratcheting...change occurs through regular physical processes (like water forming crystal structure when it freezes...like ionic bonds...like granola sorting)--and some of these changes have a selective advantage over others
So, no matter how you define life--even if you say it's "x" degree of complexity or "order" or has these qualities--there is something that you think is life that won't fit in your category and something that you think isn't life that will. If you give examples of what you think is necessary for something to be alive, I'd be glad to show you the in between things (I've listed some before)--so which of those things are alive and which are not? At what point does a ribosomic molecule become life? If it participates in life--does it stop being alive when it's no longer in a living organism? There just isn't the clear cut difference between life and non-life that you imagine. There are things that could fall in either category depending on your definition. A body can be dead yet the insects and larva and bacteria and fungi on it can be alive. Living sperm can be on a dead body. Embryos can be frozen and after some time the slowly lose their ability to become someone. Are they dead? Alive?
And at what point are they alive and at what point are they dead. Are viruses alive?--prions?--if life evolved from viruses http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/ at what point would you consider them alive? Are mitochondria alive? Yeast? Fungi spores? Pollen? Are people kept alive by artificial means alive? Spermatazoa? Babies with anencephaly? parasitic twins? There is no clear dividing line between life and death--not even on the complexity scale. Some viruses are bigger and more complex than simple bacteria. What Yatzi is saying is that there is no line or definition that divides life and non life in any simple way. Life is an emerging process--just like consciousness--just like speciation--a continuum. There are many things that don't necessarily fall neatly into the category "alive" or "not alive". And the complexity of such things varies.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think the only unsettled question about ev is whether populations of 10^28 will speed up the evolutionary process sufficiently for a 1 meg genome.

Using only point mutations? Who knows? Who gives a crap?

A population of 1,000,000 doesn’t get you there with a 1k genome. Do you think it will get better with larger genomes?

Huh?

I have no idea what your view toward ev is or was. You have back peddled so much on this topic since it has started, I don’t even know if you believe that random point mutation and natural selection contributes to macroevolution at all unless you consider a single point mutation affecting eye color as a macroevolutionary process.

I haven't backpeddled at all. Never did I state that we were dealing with the Theory of Point Mutation and Natural Selection. I don't know whether point mutation contributes to macroevolution, because you've never defined macroevolution. What difference does it make, exactly? Is there a world somewhere that employs only point mutations?

Feel free to prove my statement wrong.

Not my job, mon.

The results from Dr Schneider’s model using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are my mathematical proof.

First of all, you have no idea what realistic genome lengths and mutations rates are. Second, you haven't used realistic populations, so your proof is defective. Third, even if this were all true, what have you proven? You've proven that the Kleinman Theory of Point Mutations and Natural Selection is flawed. We know that. We agree.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

I don't get it, Kleinman. You only acknowledge evolution when you care for your patients. You use science and fact in doing so. But, when you look at the overall picture, you claim that it doesn't exist. And you use illogic and lies to do so.

So far, I can say that I respect Kleinman the Dr, but have severe doubts about Kleinman the scientist.