Annoying creationists

[cyborg]

1) Believe in GOD
2) Abuse mathematics
3) ???
4) Profit!

 

[articulett]

1) Believe in GOD
2) Abuse mathematics
3) ???
4) Profit!

There may be a Templeton prize in that.

 

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by kjkent1
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.

Neither does #1.

 

[fishbob]

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.

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.

Apparently you drive nails with a screwdriver.
I imagine a collection in your garage of abused tools in broken piles on the workbench. The mathematics of drilling holes with sandpaper is indeed difficult to overcome.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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?

That’s a strange thing for you to say. Just a few short months ago you thought that ev represented the holy grail for the theory of evolution and you even wrote the online version of this model. Now you are professing ignorance and are even indignant that I should raise such a point. Do I detect some annoyance?

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?

None of the population series we have done show a rapid convergence to Adequate’s proposed value of 1 generation for convergence with an infinite population. Do you think larger genomes will show a more rapid approach to this value of 1 generation? I believe that larger genomes will show lower rates of reduction in the generations for convergence as population is increased.

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?

You are so cute when you squirm.

Feel free to prove my statement wrong.

Not my job, mon.

That’s ok; you have already given me more than enough red meat to keep this barbeque going for months.

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.

Why don’t you tell us what your idea of a realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are? With respects to realistic populations, 1 meg is a realistic estimate for the population of our supposed primate ancestor. If you are supporter of Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, populations would even be smaller. The only portion of my proof with ev on the effects of population size which has not been completed (not defective) is the effects of population on the microorganism population scale. The initial data from ev on this issue does not look good for the evolutionarian viewpoint.

The only things that we have agreed on in this discussion you have retracted-whoops, squirmed on. Does random point mutation and natural selection have any role in your theory of evolution?

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.

It has been a while since I posted my view of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. I do not believe there is any scientific or mathematical basis for the concept of abiogenesis. I look at the theory of evolution as composed of two parts. The first part consists of microevolutionary processes which have a mathematical and scientific basis and the second part consists of macroevolutionary processes which do not have a mathematical and scientific basis.

I understand that evolutionarians do not draw this kind of distinction and view microevolution and macroevolution as part of a continuum. This is why I like using ev in this debate. It shows how little can be accomplished by random point mutations and natural selection in billions of generations. Hard science comes down to applying known physical laws in as precise a mathematical model as possible in order to predict the behavior of a system.

Most evolutionarians who have studied the mathematics of the theory of evolution know that chance alone can not explain their theory so they introduce the concept of a selection process in order to overcome these virtually impossible probabilities. The problem with the concept of a selection process is that none is known that overcome these virtually impossible probabilities, either to evolve one species to another or to generate the initial ribozymes needed in the primordial soup to generate the first life forms.

Hard science ultimately comes down to bookkeeping. The bookkeeping of the theory of evolution does not balance. This will become more and more clear as the human/chimpanzee genomes are compared in more detail as well as the genomes of other living things become better described. There are no known mechanisms to transform the genomes of one species to another species in the time available. Ev demonstrates this with random point mutations and natural selection.

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.

Neither does #1.

#2 can be disproved mathematically, that is what I am doing with ev. Are you saying you can disprove #1 mathematically? I would really like to see this.

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.

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.

Apparently you drive nails with a screwdriver.
I imagine a collection in your garage of abused tools in broken piles on the workbench. The mathematics of drilling holes with sandpaper is indeed difficult to overcome.

You evolutionarians continue to accuse me of abusing your mathematics. It is easy enough to demonstrate this if it were true but you fail to do this. Where is the problem? Is it in using known genome lengths and mutation rates in ev? Ev is forcing evolutionarians to speculate that there were life forms that had much shorter genome lengths than any free living organism known today and that these life forms could endure much higher mutation rates than any living thing known today. In addition, ev is showing that no gene or fundamental genetic control system can evolve on a megabase genome by random point mutation and natural selection. It is mathematically impossible as so well demonstrated by the ev computer model.

 

[dv82matt]

Did you read Hewitt's response to me?

I did yes.

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.

Sigh, it's as if you didn't read my prior post? Why do you still insist on redefining complexity as order? Do you understand the concept of complexity? Do you understand that you are not substituting an equivalent term when you use the word "order"?

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.

You appear to have quoted me here not for the purpose of responding to the point but merely to mimic the word pattern. re: "the essential point you have been missing". Do you have anything to say to the point?

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.

Shrug. I can't say that I'm particularily surprised to see you retreat to a bunker mentality.

 

[joobz]

It has been a while since I posted my view of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. I do not believe there is any scientific or mathematical basis for the concept of abiogenesis. I look at the theory of evolution as composed of two parts. The first part consists of microevolutionary processes which have a mathematical and scientific basis and the second part consists of macroevolutionary processes which do not have a mathematical and scientific basis.

I understand that evolutionarians do not draw this kind of distinction and view microevolution and macroevolution as part of a continuum. This is why I like using ev in this debate. It shows how little can be accomplished by random point mutations and natural selection in billions of generations. Hard science comes down to applying known physical laws in as precise a mathematical model as possible in order to predict the behavior of a system.

Most evolutionarians who have studied the mathematics of the theory of evolution know that chance alone can not explain their theory so they introduce the concept of a selection process in order to overcome these virtually impossible probabilities. The problem with the concept of a selection process is that none is known that overcome these virtually impossible probabilities, either to evolve one species to another or to generate the initial ribozymes needed in the primordial soup to generate the first life forms.

but this is the heart of it. No one has claimed chance alone.
No one has claimed point mutation alone. No one has claimed we know all mechanisms. Yet,you continue to beat the straw man and no one understands your efforts. When these facts are pointed out to you, you ignore it. That makes your methods dishonest, which can never exist in science.

Maybe you have legitimate complaints about a minority of investigators who hold to the things you argue against. But these people aren't here on this forum. And, your methods make your actions worse then these ficticious foes. How can we take your arguements seriously when you continue to chant the same mistaken views, mistaken conclusions and mistaken assumptions?

 

[dv82matt]

Dawkins selfish gene is not about chance--mutation might be random--but selection is not...and it's the ratcheting that brings complexity.

When it comes to abiogenesis we don't yet know enough to say to what roles chance and selection play. It may be continuous as you say but it may in fact be discontinuous in which case chance likely plays a larger role. In short, given our ignorace of abiogenesis, I think it is premature to dismiss chance.

Also, if John were to attempt to get ID or God in through the backdoor so to speak, then I would object to that, but I haven't seen him do that.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

It has been a while since I posted my view of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. I do not believe there is any scientific or mathematical basis for the concept of abiogenesis. I look at the theory of evolution as composed of two parts. The first part consists of microevolutionary processes which have a mathematical and scientific basis and the second part consists of macroevolutionary processes which do not have a mathematical and scientific basis.

I understand that evolutionarians do not draw this kind of distinction and view microevolution and macroevolution as part of a continuum. This is why I like using ev in this debate. It shows how little can be accomplished by random point mutations and natural selection in billions of generations. Hard science comes down to applying known physical laws in as precise a mathematical model as possible in order to predict the behavior of a system.

Most evolutionarians who have studied the mathematics of the theory of evolution know that chance alone can not explain their theory so they introduce the concept of a selection process in order to overcome these virtually impossible probabilities. The problem with the concept of a selection process is that none is known that overcome these virtually impossible probabilities, either to evolve one species to another or to generate the initial ribozymes needed in the primordial soup to generate the first life forms.

but this is the heart of it. No one has claimed chance alone.
No one has claimed point mutation alone. No one has claimed we know all mechanisms. Yet,you continue to beat the straw man and no one understands your efforts. When these facts are pointed out to you, you ignore it. That makes your methods dishonest, which can never exist in science.

Maybe you have legitimate complaints about a minority of investigators who hold to the things you argue against. But these people aren't here on this forum. And, your methods make your actions worse then these ficticious foes. How can we take your arguements seriously when you continue to chant the same mistaken views, mistaken conclusions and mistaken assumptions?

This discussion about ev is forcing evolutionarians to take positions on their views that are subject to the rules of mathematical logic and analysis. You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone because analysis of this concept shows the virtual mathematical impossibility of this concept. So you introduce selection into these concepts but can not demonstrate what this selection process is for abiogenesis and how it could work and ev demonstrates how slow selection is for random point mutations and natural selection when using known measured genome lengths and mutation rates. So now you retreat to the position that there are other selection mechanisms and mechanisms of mutations and rearrangements of genomes that can rescue your theories but you don’t present the mathematical models that demonstrate your theories.

The only fact you can present for the theory of evolution is that there are some similarities between genomes of living things. I acknowledge this fact. What you won’t acknowledge is there are no mechanisms that explain how you can transform these genomes from one to another in the time available. Random point mutations and natural selection does not provide the mechanism for these transformations, ev shows this mathematical impossibility. If you believe that other mechanisms will accomplish this transformation, produce your mathematical model and prove your theory. Otherwise, your theory started without a mathematical basis and remains that way. Your pronouncements about other mechanisms will serve as sufficient proof only for devout evolutionarians. Hard science requires you run the numbers. The theories of evolution and abiogenesis can not withstand this type of scrutiny.

 

[articulett]

When it comes to abiogenesis we don't yet know enough to say to what roles chance and selection play. It may be continuous as you say but it may in fact be discontinuous in which case chance likely plays a larger role. In short, given our ignorace of abiogenesis, I think it is premature to dismiss chance.

Also, if John were to attempt to get ID or God in through the backdoor so to speak, then I would object to that, but I haven't seen him do that.

No, he's just trying to insert god into the gaps between knowledge. I am pointing out that no matter how you define life--via complexity or anything else--there is no easy dividing line--there is much that doesn't fit neatly in one side or the other no matter what definition you give. For example, are tumors "alive"? Are the bacteria that help you digest food? At what point is a virus alive (they give "live" polio vaccinations and "killed" ones).

One thing creationists do is to talk about "increasing complexity" in the genome--but they never say exactly what they mean. More DNA? More genes? More chromosomes? More order? A more masterful symphony between the interacting components? Higher functioning? To say "life is more complex" than "non-life" is an argument that can't be proven false or even tested until you say what it is about life that makes it "more complex" than non-life. If you're looking to insert God--you have to have a clue as to where he would need to be inserted. And so far, god just seems to be the answer for stuff we don't have a complete grasp on yet--just as he always has been. Remember when humans had weather gods? --When mental illness was thought to be possession? We know humans like explanations, and when they don't have explanations they make up supernatural explanations. But we don't know that anything supernatural has ever existed. Saying "golly gee--what a puzzle--it must be god" might make people feel might--but it sure isn't science.

Proving there are gaps in knowledge doesn't prove anything supernatural--just as proving that there are missing elements does not prove god is keeping them under wraps. Gaps in knowledge are great places for exploration--and we humans have been steadying filling in more and more precise and detailed answers. It never has been a means of proving anybody's god...in the same way it's doesn't prove space aliens are doing an experiment with life on our planet.

So what is the complexity that makes life different than non-life?--or are you talking more about consciousness?--which also exists on a continuum. Never defining the terms or what this god or whomever is supposed to have done is just useless (though I bet you could get a Templeton prize if you do it well.)

No one is dismissing chance. There's trillions of chance events--but some lead to something else slightly more complex--slightly more "life-like"--slightly more likely to survive and evolve into something else rather than break down and let the molecules of existence be incorporated elsewhere. If a chance event (from meteors to blind luck) even enhances some group of molecules chance of surviving on earth--that group of molecules can evolve--living or not. Just like molecules in a snowball can evolve into a bigger snowball-- or melt and join other molecules as a puddle--or evaporate into water vapor (which still as mass and molecules)--the molecules can also freeze in a lattice structure making ice. You'll agree that water is necessary to life on this planet...but it is not life itself. At what point do water molecules become a part of life?

As for life being discontinuous--what do you mean? Do you mean that it could just poof into existence (with whatever complexity you define life to be). Wouldn't that be on par with a Mountain poofing into existence? Why would you presume that anything "poofs" into existence when we know that our earth evolved, trees come from seeds, forests come from plants, solar systems evolve--cancers evolve, bacteria evolves--all complexity known to humans evolved from something less complex, didn't it? Why would you even presume life (however you define it or wherever you put the divinding line) is different. And if it is different--what the heck are you imagining? A god that evolved from nothing inserting this thing called life upon a protolife to see what happens--like kids releasing computer viruses onto the internet to see what happens? Why not look for aliens who inserted life? We have some pretty great models and understanding about how life most likely evolved...and consciousness too-- how can pointing to the gaps prove anything at all? Much less anything supernatural or "beyond human understanding", etc.

So, what is the complexity factor that separates life from non-life. And what makes you think it was discontinuous? Do you also think speciation is discontinuous? When are the sperm and eggs officially "alive"? (or pollen and other plant gametes or spores?) At what point does the alive thing cease being alive?

 

[dv82matt]

No, he's just trying to insert god into the gaps between knowledge.

I will reserve judgement on that.

I am pointing out that no matter how you define life--via complexity or anything else--there is no easy dividing line--there is much that doesn't fit neatly in one side or the other no matter what definition you give. For example, are tumors "alive"? Are the bacteria that help you digest food? At what point is a virus alive (they give "live" polio vaccinations and "killed" ones).

I agree that defining life is problematic. I guess I don't see why this is such an issue for you though. The lack of a rigorous definition across all disciplines does not imply that shaking up a box of granola is equivalent to life except simpler.

One thing creationists do is to talk about "increasing complexity" in the genome--but they never say exactly what they mean. More DNA? More genes? More chromosomes? More order? A more masterful symphony between the interacting components? Higher functioning?

Well you didn't really expect a valid argument from creationists did you?

So what is the complexity that makes life different than non-life?--or are you talking more about consciousness?--which also exists on a continuum.

No, I don't mean consciousness.

Never defining the terms or what this god or whomever is supposed to have done is just useless (though I bet you could get a Templeton prize if you do it well.)

It is true that I cannot give you a precise definition of "complex". I can provide you with several informal descriptions of complex systems if that would be helpful. From wikipedia:

A complex system is a highly structured system, which shows structure with variations (Goldenfeld and Kadanoff)

A complex system is one whose evolution is very sensitive to initial conditions or to small perturbations, one in which the number of independent interacting components is large, or one in which there are multiple pathways by which the system can evolve (Whitesides and Ismagilov)

A complex system is one that by design or function or both is difficult to understand and verify (Weng, Bhalla and Iyengar)

A complex system is one in which there are multiple interactions between many different components (D. Rind)

Complex systems are systems in process that constantly evolve and unfold over time (W. Brian Arthur).

No one is dismissing chance. There's trillions of chance events--but some lead to something else slightly more complex--slightly more "life-like"--slightly more likely to survive and evolve into something else rather than break down and let the molecules of existence be incorporated elsewhere. If a chance event (from meteors to blind luck) even enhances some group of molecules chance of surviving on earth--that group of molecules can evolve--living or not. Just like molecules in a snowball can evolve into a bigger snowball-- or melt and join other molecules as a puddle--or evaporate into water vapor (which still as mass and molecules)--the molecules can also freeze in a lattice structure making ice.

Without self-replication evolution won't happen. Most non-living systems cannot replicate themselves.

You'll agree that water is necessary to life on this planet...but it is not life itself. At what point do water molecules become a part of life?

Certainly I agree. Why does it matter?

As for life being discontinuous--what do you mean?

I mean that it might have required a large degree of luck to get started.

Why would you even presume life (however you define it or wherever you put the divinding line) is different.

Maybe I'm missing what your getting at. Despite a fuzzy middle ground, life is clearly different from non-life.

So, what is the complexity factor that separates life from non-life.

See above.

And what makes you think it was discontinuous?

I don't think that. I said it may be.

Do you also think speciation is discontinuous?

No.

When are the sperm and eggs officially "alive"? (or pollen and other plant gametes or spores?) At what point does the alive thing cease being alive?

It's a big fuzzy middle ground.

 

[cyborg]

You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone because analysis of this concept shows the virtual mathematical impossibility of this concept.

You dumb ****.

Natural Selection is not chance.

But do keep banging that drum about how YOU'VE changed us from believing in a chance theory based on your amazing insights with ev. ****, you might even eventually persuade us that probabilities can go all the way to 11.

Hard science requires you run the numbers.

NO, YOU RUN THE NUMBERS YOU LAZY ASS. YOU FALSIFY.

Dumbass.

 

[hammegk]

Natural Selection is not chance.

Hmm. Who schedules the asteroid strikes, volcanoes, plate movements, smoker vent availability, etc?

NO, YOU RUN THE NUMBERS YOU LAZY ASS. YOU FALSIFY.

Er, no. It works the other way, although point mutation seems to be taking a beating as having potential effectiveness outside the microev scale.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone because analysis of this concept shows the virtual mathematical impossibility of this concept.

You dumb ****.

Natural Selection is not chance.

But do keep banging that drum about how YOU'VE changed us from believing in a chance theory based on your amazing insights with ev. ****, you might even eventually persuade us that probabilities can go all the way to 11.

Cyborg, your attention span is limited to one sentence because if you had read the sentence after the one you quoted you would have seen:

You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone because analysis of this concept shows the virtual mathematical impossibility of this concept. So you introduce selection into these concepts but can not demonstrate what this selection process is for abiogenesis and how it could work and ev demonstrates how slow selection is for random point mutations and natural selection when using known measured genome lengths and mutation rates.

Hard science requires you run the numbers.

NO, YOU RUN THE NUMBERS YOU LAZY ASS. YOU FALSIFY.

Why don’t you post the numbers that you say I am too lazy to run and then I falsify?

What has happen to you? Did someone put coal in your stocking? There is more truth in the story of Santa Claus than there is in the theory of evolution.

Merry Christmas to you all.

 

[joobz]

This discussion about ev is forcing evolutionarians to take positions on their views that are subject to the rules of mathematical logic and analysis. You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone because analysis of this concept shows the virtual mathematical impossibility of this concept. So you introduce selection into these concepts but can not demonstrate what this selection process is for abiogenesis and how it could work and ev demonstrates how slow selection is for random point mutations and natural selection when using known measured genome lengths and mutation rates. So now you retreat to the position that there are other selection mechanisms and mechanisms of mutations and rearrangements of genomes that can rescue your theories but you don’t present the mathematical models that demonstrate your theories.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your continuous lies.

The only retreat that has existed here has been your position. You stated that evolution can't be real cause ev says so.(it's mathematical.)

but then after giving an example of the use of evolutionary theory in immunizations, you counter with a statement that you don't believe in "macroevolution", oh but evolution does occur. Yet you cannot draw a line to explain where one ends and the other begins.

ev has clearly demonstrated that binding site evolution can occur. It occurs within a window of functioning. But why would that be considered a proof that it's impossible? There is a window of opportunity where laminar flow is posisble (dependant upon kenimatic viscosity and speed of flow), but does that mean laminar flow is impossible because it is bounded? The logic makes no sense.

The fact that you continually beat a strawman argument is proof that you have nothing new to add or give. I had hope for you, but it seems to be wasted.

 

[John Hewitt]

No, he (Hewitt) is just trying to insert god into the gaps between knowledge. I am pointing out that no matter how you define life--via complexity or anything else--there is no easy dividing line--there is much that doesn't fit neatly in one side or the other no matter what definition you give. <snip>

One thing creationists do is to talk about "increasing complexity" in the genome--but they never say exactly what they mean. <snip>
If you're looking to insert God--you have to have a clue as to where he would need to be inserted. And so far, god just seems to be the answer for stuff we don't have a complete grasp on yet--just as he always has been. <snip>

Proving there are gaps in knowledge doesn't prove anything supernatural--just as proving that there are missing elements does not prove god is keeping them under wraps. Gaps in knowledge are great places for exploration--and we humans have been steadying filling in more and more precise and detailed answers. It never has been a means of proving anybody's god...in the same way it's doesn't prove space aliens are doing an experiment with life on our planet.

So what is the complexity that makes life different than non-life?--or are you talking more about consciousness?--which also exists on a continuum. Never defining the terms or what this god or whomever is supposed to have done is just useless (though I bet you could get a Templeton prize if you do it well.)

<snip>Just like molecules in a snowball can evolve into a bigger snowball-- or melt and join other molecules as a puddle--or evaporate into water vapor (which still as mass and molecules)--the molecules can also freeze in a lattice structure making ice. You'll agree that water is necessary to life on this planet...but it is not life itself. At what point do water molecules become a part of life?

<snip>

So, what is the complexity factor that separates life from non-life. And what makes you think it was discontinuous? Do you also think speciation is discontinuous? When are the sperm and eggs officially "alive"? (or pollen and other plant gametes or spores?) At what point does the alive thing cease being alive?

I think it is true that there are many gaps in our understanding of evolution but I do not recall trying to fill one of them with God. Could you please explain why you keep introducing supernatural entities into discussion concerning me?
For some purposes, the precise distinction between alive and not alive and the definition of complexity is immaterial. Most people agree that complexity increases as evolution progresses.

 

[fishbob]

Why don’t you post the numbers that you say I am too lazy to run . . . . .

I guess that writing the words does not in any way imply understanding what the words mean.

 

[cyborg]

Hmm. Who schedules the asteroid strikes, volcanoes, plate movements, smoker vent availability, etc?

The Stonecutters.

 

[cyborg]

Why don’t you post the numbers that you say I am too lazy to run and then I falsify?

Because it is your proof dumb-ass. I am fed up with your lazy ****. Your continual bitching here is tiresome. It's only so long you can watch someone like yourself jerk themselves off in public before the disgust is too much.

Go away and publish your goddamn proof. Moaning about science being against you will not be accepted - that is just is a lazy man talking who doesn't want to fight. If it is true go and fight for it. If you only care about jerking yourself off then continue masturbating here.

What has happen to you? Did someone put coal in your stocking?

Just about had enough of your **** is all.

There is more truth in the story of Santa Claus than there is in the theory of evolution.

There is more truth in the story of Thor than there is in the story of the birth of Christ.

Merry Christmas to you all.

Screw you Bible-freak.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Isn’t that the question? If Adequate is correct in his estimate,

It's not an estimate.

how large a population do you need in order approach that estimate?

The generation size approaches the asymptote as the population size approaches infinity.

The curve is always approaching the asymptote.

Do you know what these words mean?