Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

Yes, you detect my standard annoyance about your lies. Perhaps you could quote me where I said that Ev simulates the totality of the evolutionary landscape?

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.

Dr. A. proposed that the asymptote for an infinite population was 1 generation. He said nothing about the rate at which the asymptote would be approached for finite populations.

You are so cute when you squirm.

Excellent answer. Thorough evasion noted.

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.

So Ev simulates the evolution of a binding site in our primate ancestor? I did not realize that.

If you are supporter of Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, populations would even be smaller.

This statement is utterly nonsensical.

Does random point mutation and natural selection have any role in your theory of evolution?

Yes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

Oh please, could we stop with this cutesy observation? "Natural selection is not chance" is short for "Natural selection is not chance with respect to the environment."

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

It doesn't work the other way when Kleinman says "Macroevolution is mathematically impossible," which he says at least twice a day. That statement implies that he has a proof. Where is the proof?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Interesting essay on the emergence of cells:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5805/1558

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Oh please, could we stop with this cutesy observation? "Natural selection is not chance" is short for "Natural selection is not chance with respect to the environment."

Evolutionarians only wish the problem was a 'cutesy statement'. Even at the most basic level "Random" remains the problem.

It doesn't work the other way when Kleinman says "Macroevolution is mathematically impossible," which he says at least twice a day. That statement implies that he has a proof. Where is the proof?

~~ Paul

I think he looks your point mutation results, and deems 'true speciation' mathematically impossible on that basis. He then comments, yup, there are certainly other factors besides point mutations ... evolutionarians need to identify and mathematize them, and let's see how that model looks. We all know how the fossil record looks. "Model it" is the challenge.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evolutionarians only wish the problem was a 'cutesy statement'. Even at the most basic level "Random" remains the problem.

Only if you insist that life is some sort of super special thing unlike anything else whatsoever, instead of simply an island of organization in the midst of, and relative to, the surrounding environment.

I think he looks your point mutation results, and deems 'true speciation' mathematically impossible on that basis. He then comments, yup, there are certainly other factors besides point mutations ... evolutionarians need to identify and mathematize them, and let's see how that model looks. We all know how the fossil record looks. "Model it" is the challenge.

Mathematical modeling is not a required bit of evidence for evolution. And if it is, then it's a required bit of evidence for every other theory of the origin of species, too.

In any event, the idea that point mutations alone could not result in speciation is open to question. What if point mutations changed the sex organs of a critter sufficiently to make mating physically difficult?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Only if you insist that life is some sort of super special thing unlike anything else whatsoever, instead of simply an island of organization in the midst of, and relative to, the surrounding environment.

Actually, I insist just the opposite.

Mathematical modeling is not a required bit of evidence for evolution.

You may continue to wave your arms all you wish. Others may continue to point out that's what you're doing.

And if it is, then it's a required bit of evidence for every other theory of the origin of species, too.

If ever to be rigorous, yup.

In any event, the idea that point mutations alone could not result in speciation is open to question. What if point mutations changed the sex organs of a critter sufficiently to make mating physically difficult?

~~ Paul

"What if", indeed? You encapsulated everything in two words.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Actually, I insist just the opposite.

You insist that life isn't special at all? Then what's the issue with it being just an island of organization in the midst of the surrounding environment? Why did you say "Even at the most basic level "Random" remains the problem"? If random is a problem, then "special" sounds just like what you're arguing for.

You may continue to wave your arms all you wish. Others may continue to point out that's what you're doing.

Is mathematical modeling a required piece of the puzzle for, say, history?

"What if", indeed? You encapsulated everything in two words.

Fine, as long as you agree it's a legitimate question, then Kleinman's dogmatic rejection of point mutation as a source of speciation can be rejected. For his dogmatic rejection to work, he has to show that point mutations cannot result in speciation even in principle.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

The creationists purposely ask for something ridiculous so they can say that evolution isn't proven. We don't need a mathematical model though we have a pretty good idea of mutation rates and which mutations happened where and when--because we have DNA. We can SEE the changes. We can see old genes turned off and alterations in genes and the proteins they make. We can see translocations, duplications, and point mutations. We can see all of it--and what sort of mathematical model would there need to be for something that only needed to happen once--because all life is built upon some mutation or change that only happened once--out of infinite chance and possibililities (and the more life there is and the more genetic copying and dividing there is--the more chances there are for "beneficial" mutations.)

We don't need a mathematical formula to show how forests came to be or a mountain came to be though we have a pretty good understanding. We don't have a mathematical model about how our oceans came to be--because we don't need one. We don't need a mathematical model to show how evolution came to be either. It's apparent--in the genes. You can make all the mathematical models you want about how a mountain contains x number of granuals and couldn't build up in the time given--and it doesn't change the fact that it did--and it did through natural processes. You just need to change your formula so that it factors in things like tectonic plate movement, earth quakes, volcanic explosions, meteors, etc. Because mountains exist via natural processes even if it wasn't grain by grain construction. That is true of life also.

Asking Paul or any serious scientist to show the forumula for mutations that lead to life and species divergence is like asking a geologist for the formula for mountain formation.

Or the formula for how language evolved to the languages we have today via symbolic sound.

These formulas are just digressions meant to confuse the issue so you can say, "humans can't explain it, therefore god did it."

It's dishonest. And even if someone showed you THE mathematical formula, you'd still find fault in it--you'd say, "well, by my calculations that would take a trillion years and the odds are very much against it happening in the millions of years it happened in." The bottom line is, humans have no idea of even figuring out the odds--we have no idea how many planets have evolved life forms of some kind in their history--we have no idea how many natural events are happening that can line the circumstances up right for life. We have no idea how many replication "experiments" there are in every cell and possibly outside of cells every day from the beginning of the first replicator. Or even if the first replicator is a single "thing" or on a continuum.

But we know for sure it happened because we can see it in the DNA. And we know it's very unlikely to have a supernatural explanation behind it--because none of the stuff we've come to know ever has--even though humans once thought it did. None of this stuff was written about by any omniscient entities so we have to slowly figure it out for ourselves. Because the deeper our understanding gets--the less likely any supernatural creator seems to be at the heart of it.

To say, you can't give me the math formula for life, therefore god did it--makes as much sense as claiming our failure to have a mathematic model for the evolution of language means the tower of Babel has a chance of being true.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I haven't read this whole thread but the ~3% difference between humans and chimps would be equivalent to a 3 in 100 million base pair difference between generations. How can anyone claim that rate is any kind of obstacle?

 

[dv82matt]

You no longer say that that abiogenesis and theory of evolution are based on chance alone...

So many misconceptions.

Apparently you think that:
1. at one time the theory of evolution was based on chance alone.
2. selection is just a recent "add on" to the theory.
3. anything which has not been mathematically explained is impossible.
4. if a model is at odds with reality then reality is wrong.
5. being annoying is a sign that you're onto something.

Your only trick is to repeatedly point out a possible limitation of ev and try to dress it up as a disproof of evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Note that mutations are a result of external events and cellular chemistry. A complete model of mutation would require a complete model of chemistry. It ain't gonna happen, so if that's what Creationists insist on, they've got a perfect long-term godgap.

Here's a paper to get them started:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v96/n3/full/6800771a.html

And here's an order, the sturgeon, that won't cooperate at all. Bad sturgeon!

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1203

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

You insist that life isn't special at all? Then what's the issue with it being just an island of organization in the midst of the surrounding environment?

Since, as you well know, in my view 'what-is' is life (rather than not-life=matter) I have no problem with that statement, as long as terran rna/dna bio-life is what you intend 'life' to mean.

Why did you say "Even at the most basic level "Random" remains the problem"? If random is a problem, then "special" sounds just like what you're arguing for.

Nah, that's your argument. What else does a materialist have?

Is mathematical modeling a required piece of the puzzle for, say, history?

No, but I thought you were purporting Modern Ev Theory to be "science".

Fine, as long as you agree it's a legitimate question, then Kleinman's dogmatic rejection of point mutation as a source of speciation can be rejected. For his dogmatic rejection to work, he has to show that point mutations cannot result in speciation even in principle.

Perhaps he has, perhaps he hasn't. My reading so far says the jury is still out. As the expalnation for microev, even he agrees it has merit.


As I said before: You have the fossil record; tie that to your argument rather than just pointing at it. We all agree that whatever macroev is, fossils actually demonstrate that it occured.

 

[articulett]

Interesting essay on the emergence of cells:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5805/1558

~~ Paul

That was a good link! I wonder what John Hewitt will say about it.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38145/

The above link talks about the bacterial biodiversity in the air we breathe.

and this is about bacterial cell signaling to form colonies....

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23546/

I think these both offer interesting clues about the emergence of life from single cell life forms, but I wonder if those who can't let go of the idea of a creator can enjoy or incorporate this new information. Our world is teeming with invisible life--but it's not ghosts or intelligent designers--it's bacteria floating in the air we breathe.

And the biodiversity of the primordial soup is even more stunning: In the sense that biodiversity is richness, Census microbe hunters found 20,000 kinds floating in a single liter of sea water. Samples were taken from the Atlantic and Pacific, including from an eruptive fissure 1,500 meters deep on a seamount in the Pacific a few hundred kilometers west of Oregon, USA.

Revealed by DNA studies, most of the different kinds of bacteria were unknown and likely rare globally. The richness of the diversity invites speculation about what rare species contribute to their biosphere and an estimate that the kinds of bacteria in the oceans exceed five to 10 million.

The researchers also began assembling the best-ever video of protists (mostly microscopic organisms that are neither animals, plants, or fungi) and to pioneer optical and genetic techniques to extend the limits of knowledge.


http://www.divenews.com/modules.php...=article&sid=5062&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

There are so many things along the life continuum--and so many different forms, and we are learning so much everyday (as the above)--how can we have figured this information into a mathematical model...when we didn't know that there was so much life in the invisible air we breath--nor have we come close to identifying all the life-forms and proto life "things" in the ocean. Who would waste time on a math formula trying to prove it couldn't have happened without supernatural help that we don't know exists--when there is so much to learn from substances we are just coming to know the existence of! And these substances fit into a theory already well established which is accumulating more evidence every day (evolution). Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves or others. If there is an intelligent designer, he sure hasn't been much help in revealing anything about the nature of our world to us--nor is he in evidence as we discover more and more about the world too small to see and the universe too huge to grasp.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since, as you well know, in my view 'what-is' is life (rather than not-life=matter) I have no problem with that statement, as long as terran rna/dna bio-life is what you intend 'life' to mean.

And yet you say that life is nothing special. Making it the fundamental existent is about as special as you can get, no?

No, but I thought you were purporting Modern Ev Theory to be "science".

That still doesn't make a perfect mathmetical model a requirement. And, as I mentioned above, it's actually an impossibility.

As I said before: You have the fossil record; tie that to your argument rather than just pointing at it. We all agree that whatever macroev is, fossils actually demonstrate that it occured.

And yet Kleinman insists that the fossil record can't be the product of evolution.* Now why do we need to tie the fossil record to the mathematical model? Is there some evidence within the fossil record of something other than evolution occuring, some evidence that compels us to weigh it against evolution by working on two competing mathematical models to see which one can better absorb all the evidence? No, there is no evidence of anything except evolution. It's as if you're asking us to apply Occam when there is only one available theory.

When the Creationists provide their theory, then I'll agree that more mathematical work would be useful to make a distinction. Meanwhile, the mathematical work can proceed at its own pace.


~~ Paul

* Or maybe he just insists that it can't be the product of point mutation only. Who knows? Who cares?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh look, mathematical modeling of something other than point mutation:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/278

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

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?

No, the con-ver-gence will be-come less rap-id as we ap-proach the a-symp-tote.

Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

 

[hammegk]

And yet you say that life is nothing special. Making it the fundamental existent is about as special as you can get, no?

Interesting question from one thought-form to another ...

That still doesn't make a perfect mathmetical model a requirement. And, as I mentioned above, it's actually an impossibility.

Agreed.

And yet Kleinman insists that the fossil record can't be the product of evolution.*

* Or maybe he just insists that it can't be the product of point mutation only.

That's the way I understand his point, anyway.

Now why do we need to tie the fossil record to the mathematical model?

Same "reasons" you are working with the model you are running now.

Is there some evidence within the fossil record of something other than evolution occuring, some evidence that compels us to weigh it against evolution by working on two competing mathematical models to see which one can better absorb all the evidence? No, there is no evidence of anything except evolution. It's as if you're asking us to apply Occam when there is only one available theory.

Actually I suggested you go where the data leads.

When the Creationists provide their theory, then I'll agree that more mathematical work would be useful to make a distinction.

They have several more primary problems to be explained by mathematics: Maybe start with the math explaining why baryons attract?

Meanwhile, the mathematical work can proceed at its own pace.

Why not?

 

[The Atheist]

Interesting debate you have going here. I see John Hewitt's taking part, so I'll join in as well.

John, I said I'd get back to you when I'd studied your site some more and this looks as good a place as any.

I'm always going to like your style when your site is named sexandphilosophy, so you got off to a good start. I see nothing too contentious in what I've seen so far and the same applies to your posts here. As far as I can tell, the differences between you and Paul & the team are not huge.

On to the other interesting character on the thread, Kleinman, the erstwhile "Dr" Alan Kleinman, "PhD". I see the subject of his qualifications and skills has been answered with a "you go find out" attitude.

Ok, Kleinman, I asked Google and was told all about Alan Kleinman, PhD:



nope. How about, Alan Kleinman, Engineer?



nope. How about, Alan Kleinman, MD?



Hmm. You may actually be a doctor of medicine. I confess to being pleased to not be a patient of yours.

I wonder how easy it is to get a degree or PhD these days?

You're the mathematician, Kleinman, work some odds out for me. What is the likelihood of Google having never heard of a living PhD? No publications, nothing? With all your scholarly analysis, nobody's ever heard of you?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Joobz, you can’t tell the difference between the truth and a lie.

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.)

Joobz, go back to my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum and you will see that my position on what ev shows has not changed.

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.

Microevolution is the only part of the theory of evolution and of abiogenesis which has any scientific basis. I have drawn lines but you refuse to pay attention. I have said that de novo generation of a gene or genetic control mechanism represents macroevolution.

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 problem with your analogy is that laminar flow can be demonstrated with known viscosities and flow velocities while the evolution of binding sites requires unrealistically small genomes with unrealistically high mutation rates in order to occur rapidly, neither of which can be demonstrated in the laboratory nor in field measurements. If you had read Dr Schneider’s publication in Nucleic Acids Research about ev you would have seen the following quote:

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.

Clearly Dr Schneider intended that his program be used to study these parameters. His model shows how profoundly slow the process of random point mutation and natural selection becomes when you use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates.

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.

The only thing that I continually beat is the data obtained from ev. That data shows that random point mutations and natural selection is far too slow when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are use in the model to support the theory of evolution. In fact the data shows it is mathematically impossible to evolve anything by random point mutations and natural selection, it is far too slow a process.

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, feel free to inform us of the selection process or mutation mechanism that allow you to evolve a megabase or gigabase genome in the time available. It certainly is not random point mutations and natural selection as described by Dr Schneider’s ev model. Maybe we should give you an elevated head rest for this ride.

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?

Yes, you detect my standard annoyance about your lies. Perhaps you could quote me where I said that Ev simulates the totality of the evolutionary landscape?

Perhaps we should say that your view of ev is evolving.

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.

Dr. A. proposed that the asymptote for an infinite population was 1 generation. He said nothing about the rate at which the asymptote would be approached for finite populations.

Now that’s another interesting idea you are presenting.

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.

So Ev simulates the evolution of a binding site in our primate ancestor? I did not realize that.

Just the opposite, ev demonstrates that nothing can evolve de novo by random point mutations and natural selection on a gigabase genome.

If you are supporter of Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, populations would even be smaller.

This statement is utterly nonsensical.

Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium states that evolution occurs more quickly in small subpopulations. This is in direct contradiction with the results from ev.

Does random point mutation and natural selection have any role in your theory of evolution?

Yes.

Why don’t you tell us what it is so I can quote you at a later date? I am always looking for annoyobilia from you.

Mathematical modeling is not a required bit of evidence for evolution. And if it is, then it's a required bit of evidence for every other theory of the origin of species, too.

Fair enough, teach the theory of evolution and intelligent design in philosophy courses. There is a distinction that can be made between the two theories, mathematical modeling of the theory of evolution shows that it is impossible. I don’t think anyone has shown intelligent design is mathematically impossible.

In any event, the idea that point mutations alone could not result in speciation is open to question. What if point mutations changed the sex organs of a critter sufficiently to make mating physically difficult?

Perhaps natural selection would do something with that critter.

We don't need a mathematical model though we have a pretty good idea of mutation rates and which mutations happened where and when--because we have DNA. We can SEE the changes. We can see old genes turned off and alterations in genes and the proteins they make. We can see translocations, duplications, and point mutations. We can see all of it--and what sort of mathematical model would there need to be for something that only needed to happen once--because all life is built upon some mutation or change that only happened once--out of infinite chance and possibililities (and the more life there is and the more genetic copying and dividing there is--the more chances there are for "beneficial" mutations.)

Mathematics differentiates the hard sciences from the soft sciences. You are a devout believer in evolutionism, it just doesn’t meet the standard of a hard science.

No, but I thought you were purporting Modern Ev Theory to be "science".

That still doesn't make a perfect mathmetical model a requirement. And, as I mentioned above, it's actually an impossibility.

Paul, your own model argues against your theory.

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?

No, the con-ver-gence will be-come less rap-id as we ap-proach the a-symp-tote.

That’s correct, now why don’t you explain that to Paul.

Ok, Kleinman, I asked Google and was told all about Alan Kleinman, PhD:

You are kidding me. Are you telling me that google doesn’t know everything? Keep looking; I have a few publications out there.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The Atheist ---

My real name, followed by PhD, the whole surrounded by quotes, gets no hits either.

I have never signed myself that way.