Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

You usually make sense, hence my comment.

Thanks for that!

I blame Douglas Adams for the other.

 

[kjkent1]

It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.

I'll tell Dr. Susskind you don't approve of his theory. I'm sure he'll be amused!

As a scientist, you can't reasonably fall back on Genesis, unless you have some science to back it up. But, I admire you for at least stating that your alternative to a scientific explanation is magic.

 

[articulett]

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

Oh no... another monkey wrench for kleinman's maths:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885

horizontal gene transfer between viruses and genes!

 

[Kotatsu]

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

I feel this is a false dichotomy: I can both not care about Dr. Schneider's alleged thoughts and ideas, and still understand that you are misrepresenting them.

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

In my work the need for modelling of anything does not arise; it does not interest me more than at the basic level of interest I believe all scientists might feel. That does not stop me from realising that your conclusions are reversed.

 

[Kotatsu]

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

[nothing that hasn't been said 200 times already]
Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.
[/see above]

The model may work for something like DarwinPond, which is much simpler, though.

 

[John Hewitt]

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

As far as I can understand, it’s true to state that everyone (even you Kleinman) currently taking part in this discussion at least believes that genes exist and are passed on from one generation to the next. As for the main people posting who have problems with the theory of evolution:

Kleinman – you don’t believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo. God is your explanation for these things. Your evidence for God is the Bible and that a scientist’s model (ev) of a limited set of biological processes does not match reality when the results are extrapolated. I.e. Evolution by the methods simulated in ev would take too long.

John – you do not think the explanations presented here of how genes came to exist or can replicate are viable or as good as your own. You also disagree with using specifics of gene evolution to explain human behavior. The core of Bioepistemic evolution is that data exists and evolves at different levels rather than a particular data storage device, e.g. a gene.

Hammegk – you think one or two sentences are sufficient to explain any point. That’s about all I can grasp from your posts. If you have a disability that means you find it difficult to type then I apologize. Anyway, I’ll be bracing myself for the witty put down and emoticon.

Is this a fair summary of the content of your posts?

 

[hammegk]

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.

Why tongue-in-cheek? At minimum this universe meets the criteria for Weak anthropic principle. I'd suggest Strong anthropic principle offers support for your ideas, and perhaps for Kleinman too.

SAP to me implies that biolife was as certain to occur as was the existing table of chemical elements.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have looked at some of your links. Non of them described DNA or RNA functioning as a replicator. Some such studies describe autocatalytic reactions but you do not need the complexity of biochemistry to achieve that.

I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

If in Hewittese this does not qualify as "functioning as a replicator", then I never claimed that they did --- in fact, I don't speak a word of Hewittese. I do, however, claim that, in plain English, they self-replicate.

As in:

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

"[T]he template-free synthesis of RNA by Q-beta replicase described in this paper leads to truly self-replicating RNA molecules with defined and non-repetitive structures."

How much more black-and-white could it be?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.

Don't you ever tell the truth?

 

[John Hewitt]

John – you do not think the explanations presented here of how genes came to exist or can replicate are viable or as good as your own. You also disagree with using specifics of gene evolution to explain human behavior. The core of Bioepistemic evolution is that data exists and evolves at different levels rather than a particular data storage device, e.g. a gene.

Yes, your description of bioepistemic evolution is fair, though not detailed. I did not realise that another theory for how genes had come about and could replicated had been proposed on this thread, though it may have been referenced without my noticing. The theories I have seen generally presume, among other things, the prior existence of preexisting pools of energetically activated nucleotides. That presumption is, in itself, reason to reject the theory in question - unless someone, somewhere has explained how they could arise. There are similar issues with the boundary problem.

The parallel universes idea seems horrible to me. It proposes that reality incorporates an essentially infinite range of universes that are parallel to our own but undetectable from within it. Within the enormous range of this reality, even an extremely improbably event such as the chance emergence of a viable organism can happen. We "know" that such an event did happen in this universe because we are, ourselves, evidence for the event.
What can one say - this may or may not be a metaphysically natural idea but it makes no obvious predictions - except that life should not have emerged twice within this universe. It can be falsified by discovering life elsewhere but it I do not see how it could ever make a useful prediction.

Yes, I do think it wrong to use purely genetic evolution to explain human behaviour. Clearly, there are lements of genetics involved in human behaviour but most human choices arise from social knowledge and observational knowledge. In those circumstances I think it best to think of genes as shaping or formatting these non-genetic knowledge pools. Thus, I would argue, our genetic making up sets the broad shape and the boundaries (the formatting if you like) of human social knowledge but actual human behaviour is a product, not just of the broad shape, but also of the detailed knowledge itself.

 

[sphenisc]

I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

He's already provided the answer to this, he has his own bizarre definition.

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

Thus DNA isn't a replicator, cells are, animals aren't, (non-carnivorous) plants are, carnivorous plants aren't.

 

[John Hewitt]

As I have said before -

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

If in Hewittese this does not qualify as "functioning as a replicator", then I never claimed that they did --- in fact, I don't speak a word of Hewittese. I do, however, claim that, in plain English, they self-replicate.

As in:

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

"[T]he template-free synthesis of RNA by Q-beta replicase described in this paper leads to truly self-replicating RNA molecules with defined and non-repetitive structures."

How much more black-and-white could it be?

It could be rendered more black and white by you explaining, in black and white, how q-beta replicase and energetically activated nucleotides could get into a test-tube without the intelligent intervention of Spiegelman and his colleagues.

 

[John Hewitt]

He's already provided the answer to this, he has his own bizarre definition.

Thus DNA isn't a replicator, cells are, animals aren't, (non-carnivorous) plants are, carnivorous plants aren't.

I consider grass a plausible earthly input into a cow's stomach. You, presumably, don't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

You have indeed said that. You've recited it over and over. But it's not got any truer, has it?

I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity.

In what sense is this an "affirmative case for creation"? It doesn't take a magic invisible sky pixie to produce irreducible complexity.

I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations.

Or, to put it another way: "I have presented an afirmative case for pigs having wings. I have made the analogy of ornithologists and aviation engineers being able to recognize wings in their observations, something which pig farmers refuse to do in their observations."

However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.

The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later.

Hello, earth to mad person. Reciting these lies over and over won't make them true. It won't even make them convincing. It surely can't even make them convincing to you. We've shown you the clumsy mistakes in your math, we've shown you evidence for de novo production of genes, we've shown you entire genomes arising de novo in a test-tube, and reciting your gibble of windy nonsense won't make the facts go away.

 

[sphenisc]

I consider grass a plausible earthly input into a cow's stomach. You, presumably, don't.

I estimate that a blade of grass is approximately 10^22 amu. I don't regard that as small, you presumably do.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It could be rendered more black and white by you explaining, in black and white, how q-beta replicase and energetically activated nucleotides could get into a test-tube without the intelligent intervention of Spiegelman and his colleagues.

As I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

Do you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?

 

[John Hewitt]

As I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

Do you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?

Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying.

 

[John Hewitt]

I estimate that a blade of grass is approximately 10^22 amu. I don't regard that as small, you presumably do.

I don't regard your comments as relevant. You presumably do.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying.

Certainly. I am saying that as I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

I am also asking whether you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?