Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

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.

Your statement here is unnecessarily extreme.

Several recently posted articles in this thread show evidence of other biological mechanisms which may increase the speed of evolutionary change. They are not modeled in ev. This doesn't mean that evolution is mathematically impossible -- it just means that the mechanism has yet to be modeled which will satisfy your stated criterion for accepting evolution as mathematically modeled.

You want ev to work faster, but when asked to do some of the fundamental research yourself, you immediately leap to the conclusion that no mechanism can possibly speed up ev.

Such a conclusion is entirely non-scientific and beneath you. You don't have any math nor any scientific test which demonstrates that any of these other, scientifically observed, biological mechanisms, if modeled, would not increase ev's performance to a satisfactory level.

You have also stated that Dr. Schneider took all of these things into account and so this renders such other mechanisms irrelevant. Dr. Schneider must have a crystal ball, because these mechanisms are only now being published, whereas ev has been in existence since 2000.

The point is that you are now playing the speculation game, in the same manner as you accuse your opponents. At first your comments were inventive and worthy of investigation. But by repeating them ad nauseam, without personally undertaking or even crediting others with the possibility that further research may improve ev, you are aiding in the thread to devolve into a flame war.

This is regrettable.

Thus, your statement that evolution is mathematically impossible is simply not supportable -- you don't have sufficient information to reach this conclusion.

But, be careful what you wish for, because if your goal is to show that ev won't cut the mustard as currently constructed, you may end up pushing someone else to cause it to do just that.

Or, maybe that's actually what you want -- to force the mathematical proof of evolution -- because you're really a closet evolutionarian, yourself.

 

[dv82matt]

...mathematical modeling of the theory of evolution shows that it is impossible.

In order to show that evolution is mathematically impossible you need to show that it cannot ever (even in principal) be mathematically described. It's pretty obvious that you're merely spouting rhetoric as you haven't even made a token effort to support your contention.

When your entire argument is based on something you made up is it any wonder that people find you annoying?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Your statement here is unnecessarily extreme.

We’ll have to disagree on that. I think the data from ev plainly verifies my statement.

Several recently posted articles in this thread show evidence of other biological mechanisms which may increase the speed of evolutionary change. They are not modeled in ev. This doesn't mean that evolution is mathematically impossible -- it just means that the mechanism has yet to be modeled which will satisfy your stated criterion for accepting evolution as mathematically modeled.

That’s another difference between what I post and what you evolutionarians post. I post the data obtained from your models, you post a URL and call that proof. Once I have finished with ev, I’ll look at some of the other mathematical models for evolution and see if they offer any real mathematical proof for the theory of evolution. I think that time is drawing close because Paul has already been indicating that there is no need for mathematical proof for the theory of evolution. If he abandons ev, that leaves only Dr Schneider and myself as defenders of the validity of the ev model.

You want ev to work faster, but when asked to do some of the fundamental research yourself, you immediately leap to the conclusion that no mechanism can possibly speed up ev.

What you don’t seem to comprehend is that ev works very rapidly with small genomes and high mutation rates. The selection process Dr Schneider designed works extremely well under these circumstances. What happens is the search space increases by 4^G as you lengthen the genome in the model and overwhelms the selection process. Even with this artificially precise selection process, random point mutation and natural selection is still profoundly slow when using larger genomes. The problem in the model is not the selection process; the problem in the model (and for the theory of evolution) is the underlying mathematics.

Such a conclusion is entirely non-scientific and beneath you. You don't have any math nor any scientific test which demonstrates that any of these other, scientifically observed, biological mechanisms, if modeled, would not increase ev's performance to a satisfactory level.

The most commonly stated mechanism that would correct what ev is showing is recombination. However, recombination without error does not have the capability of increasing information in the gene pool and recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of alleles which would reduce the information in the gene pool. If evolutionarians are going to claim the recombination is the main driving mechanism for evolution, you are going to have a hard time explaining different genes in humans and chimpanzees. Are you going to claim that frame shift mutations are the main driving force for evolution? How about recombination errors and polyploidy? Each of these mechanisms are dependent on random point mutations and natural selection to produce new genes and you are back to the ev model. Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone for your theory.

You have also stated that Dr. Schneider took all of these things into account and so this renders such other mechanisms irrelevant. Dr. Schneider must have a crystal ball, because these mechanisms are only now being published, whereas ev has been in existence since 2000.

I have never said that the other mechanisms are irrelevant. I only contend that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process as shown by ev. Dr Schneider wrote ev in the early 1980’s.

The point is that you are now playing the speculation game, in the same manner as you accuse your opponents. At first your comments were inventive and worthy of investigation. But by repeating them ad nauseam, without personally undertaking or even crediting others with the possibility that further research may improve ev, you are aiding in the thread to devolve into a flame war.

I love the smell of burning evolutionary theory in the morning!

Thus, your statement that evolution is mathematically impossible is simply not supportable -- you don't have sufficient information to reach this conclusion.

Sure it’s supportable. Why do you think that Paul’s evaluation from ev has evolved from it represents reality, to it represents a small portion of the evolutionary landscape, to who needs mathematics for the theory of evolution?

But, be careful what you wish for, because if your goal is to show that ev won't cut the mustard as currently constructed, you may end up pushing someone else to cause it to do just that.

I want you evolutionarians to work on the mathematics of your theory. Maybe you will come to your senses when you realize your theory doesn’t add up.

Or, maybe that's actually what you want -- to force the mathematical proof of evolution -- because you're really a closet evolutionarian, yourself.

Yeah, right, I’ll dress up in a gorilla suit and march in the next evolutionarian pride parade.

 

[The Atheist]

The Atheist ---

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

I have never signed myself that way.

Yes, but then again, you're a slightly more retiring chap than kleinman. I've read far more of your posts than his and I have no idea what your name is. I bet if I knew it, I'd find you ok. Our friend Alan Kleinman PhD doesn't seem to come up as a combination anywhere, either. Can't say I've tried too hard. Having an actual PhD won't make his views any less illegitimate than they are anyway.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Let's see what Gould said:

A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

Is Ev simulating the totality of this scenario? I think not.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I post the data obtained from your models, ...

None of which, so far, supports your contentions.

I think that time is drawing close because Paul has already been indicating that there is no need for mathematical proof for the theory of evolution. If he abandons ev, that leaves only Dr Schneider and myself as defenders of the validity of the ev model.

Thanks for quoting me out of context.

I only contend that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process as shown by ev.

What you contend is that it proves that macroevolution is impossible. Except when you back off on that statement like you did here.

Why do you think that Paul’s evaluation from ev has evolved from it represents reality, to it represents a small portion of the evolutionary landscape, to who needs mathematics for the theory of evolution?

Could you quote me where I said it represents the totality of the evolutionary landscape? Because you keep repeating this as if it's fact.

And what I said about math was:

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

Perhaps natural selection would do something with that critter.

But imagine he had siblings with the same mutation. Come on, you can do it.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you going to claim that frame shift mutations are the main driving force for evolution? How about recombination errors and polyploidy? Each of these mechanisms are dependent on random point mutations and natural selection to produce new genes and you are back to the ev model. Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone for your theory.

How about deletions, insertions, stutters, inversions, and transpositions? They feel left out of the KTPMNS. Won't you let them be part of your theory, too?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Are efforts underway to model those effects, or is everyone jumping on your "it don't need math anyway" idea?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I believe someone cited at least one already. But even without those models, there have been extensive efforts to count such mutations and there is not one observed case of any pairs of species having more than could be accounted for by observed mutation rates.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

Is Ev simulating the totality of this scenario? I think not.

So which is ev simulating, the small segment of the ancestral population which is rapidly evolving or the large, stable central populations that exert a strong homogenizing influence which is diluting new and favorable mutations?

I think that mathematics being demonstrated by ev strongly calls into question Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

I post the data obtained from your models, ...

None of which, so far, supports your contentions.

Then why do you withdraw your extrapolations so quickly?

I think that time is drawing close because Paul has already been indicating that there is no need for mathematical proof for the theory of evolution. If he abandons ev, that leaves only Dr Schneider and myself as defenders of the validity of the ev model.

Thanks for quoting me out of context.

So why don’t you tell us what ev means to the theory of evolution now so I can quote you out of context on that as well.

I only contend that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process as shown by ev.

What you contend is that it proves that macroevolution is impossible. Except when you back off on that statement like you did here.

Why do you think that Paul’s evaluation from ev has evolved from it represents reality, to it represents a small portion of the evolutionary landscape, to who needs mathematics for the theory of evolution?

Could you quote me where I said it represents the totality of the evolutionary landscape? Because you keep repeating this as if it's fact.

Paul, you must know by now that I don’t want or need to make up quotes by you or any one else. You evolutionarians produce more than enough annoyobilia for me to work with.

And what I said about math was:

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

That’s convenient since your own mathematical model provides evidence against your own theory. Since you are excising major portions of science out of your theory, you might as well include that no explanation for the selection process for abiogenesis or your theory of evolution are required. Who needs the principle of cause and effect in the theory of evolution?

Are you going to claim that frame shift mutations are the main driving force for evolution? How about recombination errors and polyploidy? Each of these mechanisms are dependent on random point mutations and natural selection to produce new genes and you are back to the ev model. Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone for your theory.

How about deletions, insertions, stutters, inversions, and transpositions? They feel left out of the KTPMNS. Won't you let them be part of your theory, too?

Please include any mechanism or selection process you can imagine in your model. Let’s see if that fixes your accounting problem.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So which is ev simulating, the small segment of the ancestral population which is rapidly evolving or the large, stable central populations that exert a strong homogenizing influence which is diluting new and favorable mutations?

Neither, because Ev starts with a random genome.

Then why do you withdraw your extrapolations so quickly?

Which extrapolation did I withdraw? Are you talking about the 200,000,000 guess I made?

Paul, you must know by now that I don’t want or need to make up quotes by you or any one else. You evolutionarians produce more than enough annoyobilia for me to work with.

Okay then, your claim that I said that Ev models the totality of the evolutionary landscape is just a lie.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

I believe someone cited at least one already. But even without those models, there have been extensive efforts to count such mutations and there is not one observed case of any pairs of species having more than could be accounted for by observed mutation rates.

Perhaps I misunderstand that comment, but I'd say at the moment you couldn't construct a more circular argument if you tried.

 

[kjkent1]

What you don’t seem to comprehend is that ev works very rapidly with small genomes and high mutation rates. The selection process Dr Schneider designed works extremely well under these circumstances. What happens is the search space increases by 4^G as you lengthen the genome in the model and overwhelms the selection process. Even with this artificially precise selection process, random point mutation and natural selection is still profoundly slow when using larger genomes. The problem in the model is not the selection process; the problem in the model (and for the theory of evolution) is the underlying mathematics.

1. Please explain to me why the target gnome must evolve as the result of one long process, rather than as the result of the concatenation of several/many smaller/faster processes.

2. You say that the problem is not in the selection process, but rather in the underlying math. This doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Example: ev conducts its selection process by overwriting one half of a population with a duplicate of the better half. What would happen if ev were modified overwrite the population with the top 1% of the better half?

If you can't provide an immediate mathematically precise answer to the above question, then you cannot conclude unequivocally that the problem with ev is not in the selection process.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2. You say that the problem is not in the selection process, but rather in the underlying math. This dpesn't seem obvious to me at all. Example: ev conducts its selection process by overwriting one half of a population with a duplicate of the better half. What would happen if ev were modified overwrrite the population with the top 1% of the better half?

I fooled around with this aspect of Ev awhile back. Myriad has experimented with a selection method that does finer selection between critters with the same mistake counts. Apparently it speeds up evolution. I'm going to add something like this to Ev when I get a chance.

~~ Paul

 

[dv82matt]

Are efforts underway to model those effects, or is everyone jumping on your "it don't need math anyway" idea?

False dilemma.

A mathematical model such as ev is certainly a welcome even nessessry step, just don't expect it to be without limitations.

I'll put it another way, mathematical models of evolution are nessessary (along with other means) to expand our knowledge of evolution, but a lack of them does not indicate evolution is baseless.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Perhaps I misunderstand that comment, but I'd say at the moment you couldn't construct a more circular argument if you tried.

Then I'll make it clearer. We've counted the differences present in genomes between species, we've measured the mutation rates between generations, we've measured the times involved. In no case have we found a difference in genomes that exceeds the mutation rate times the time available.

 

[hammegk]

Ok. You suggest modern evolutionary Theory is about the same point geologists Hutton & Lyell were about 1800.

I suspect the Theory is not that far advanced ...

 

[joobz]

Ok. You suggest modern evolutionary Theory is about the same point geologists Hutton & Lyell were about 1800.

I suspect the Theory is not that far advanced ...

And I suspect that the totality of science is at the same point that wine manufacturing was in the 1400's. 500 years from now, I'm sure our primitive notions of the world will seem quite amusing.

But oh well, we do the best with what we've got.

 

[hammegk]

The present is key to the past seems to require adustments to include catastrophism.

Where do you see that in modern ev theory ... other than in the fossil record as writ, I mean.


Actual Science (physics & chemistry) seems to be reasonably current rather than 500 years in the past.

 

[joobz]

Yes, but then again, you're a slightly more retiring chap than kleinman. I've read far more of your posts than his and I have no idea what your name is. I bet if I knew it, I'd find you ok. Our friend Alan Kleinman PhD doesn't seem to come up as a combination anywhere, either. Can't say I've tried too hard. Having an actual PhD won't make his views any less illegitimate than they are anyway.

In defense of fairness, Kleinman has a while back in this thread posted his PhD thesis topic. He's had 2 publications from it. Depending on your field of study that either good or bad. They were modeling papers, which modeling typically pumps out the manuscripts. Having no experiments will do that, but this was in 1980ish and computers weren't so friendly then as they are today.

The only thing I find concerning is that Kleinman's work was in heat transfer. For someone to be well versed in heat transfer but not understand the difference between kinetics and thermodynamics is quite troubling to me.

However, I mark that up to being out of the field for 20+ years and do not doubt that he is knowledgable in what he says he is.

The only thing here is his insistence on lies. We see evolution in action (what he call microevolution). Ev shows evolution can bring about new gene binding sites (what he calls macroevolution). This seems a strong link that evolution is involved in the process.

However, kleinman states that it takes too long (under the conditions he chooses). Ok, that's fine. But then does he suggest that new genes don't form? Or that new species aren't created? Or, if species are created then through what mechanism? He states that microevolution occurs, then what prevents microevolution from going too far? What barriers must be encountered that will prevent the natural selection process? Does this mean that at some point every species will stop microevolving and be near identical?

The distinction of micro vs. macro evolution result in logical deadends. I'm sure we don't understand all of evolution but as we learn more we'll adjust it to fit the data. So far, however, nothing has crept up to tear it completely down, like Kleinman seems to think.