Annoying creationists

[Kotatsu]

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.

Not necessarily, as --- as I understand it, which is probably not correct --- there would still need to be at least an improbable mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur naturally. If it can be shown that it is, indeed, fully impossible for abiogenesis to occur by any natural mechanism, the number of universes would be irrelevant.

Or am I missing something?

This does not preclude that his mathematical prrof is valid only within Ev (and possibly similar programs; perhaps, again, DarwinPond?), though, and not in the real world.

 

[hammegk]

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.

If you define God, I suppose we could discuss your contention ...

Remind me, as I seem to have forgotten your reply:
Do you accept a case of speciation only if the resulting progeny is different enough from its parent species to form, at least, a new genus? Or do you prefer to stick with the more common form of speciation where the resulting progeny is only a new species?

I haven't replied, other than to state "I don't have an answer".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you define God, I suppose we could discuss your contention ...

The ploy is to avoid the mention of the word god, regardless of its definition. For most creationists in the U.S., this means avoiding the word God, the Christian God, regardless of its definition.

Kleinman, having more guts than the average creationist apologist, has been happy to quote the Bible to us.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

And yet it happens.

You’ve prove this by posting links you don’t read and failing to provide an explanation how this happens.

Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero?

Of course, since the de novo evolution of a genome has been actually observed, I don't need to give some hypothetical "mathematical" description of it, I've given you a description of it.

You’ve observe nothing and call it something and have no hypothetical “mathematical” description of it because it doesn’t exist.

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

Righty-o.

Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

Kleinman has not invoked God? You gotta pay more attention, Hammegk.

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.

Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically.

Lovely. Please do so.

I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.

Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?

No, because with or without a valid selection process, "all known mechanisms" are not sufficient to gain sufficient results. However, I'd like to think that including more than one known mechanism may, at the very least, give more accurate results.

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.

Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.

How do you know that?

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman:

Correct me if I'm wrong:

You've said that the Ev program, if it perfectly models evolution, proves it is mathematically impossible for the genetic endowment of humans to have evolved in the time Darwinists claim. That would mean you are saying that Evolution Time Required is greater than Evolution Time Available (ETR > ETA).

What specific values of ETR and ETA are you using? What are the longest and shortest estimated ETR and ETA that you believe are reasonable? How do you arrive at these values?

 

[hammegk]

The ploy is to avoid the mention of the word god, regardless of its definition. For most creationists in the U.S., this means avoiding the word God, the Christian God, regardless of its definition.

Kleinman, having more guts than the average creationist apologist, has been happy to quote the Bible to us.

~~ Paul

I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Correct me if I'm wrong:

You've said that the Ev program, if it perfectly models evolution, proves it is mathematically impossible for the genetic endowment of humans to have evolved in the time Darwinists claim. That would mean you are saying that Evolution Time Required is greater than Evolution Time Available (ETR > ETA).

I have never said the ev perfectly models evolution. I have said that ev gives a plausible model of random point mutations and natural selection. I have also said that Dr Schneider’s selection process does not accurately model any realistic phenomena but for the sake of discussion did not challenge this with any rigor until Unnamed devised his more unrealistic selection process which almost completely ignores mutations on the nonbinding site region of the genome.

What specific values of ETR and ETA are you using? What are the longest and shortest estimated ETR and ETA that you believe are reasonable? How do you arrive at these values?

The way we have been arriving at time from generations for convergence is by multiplying by the length of time per generation for particular creatures. Bacteria can have length of time per generation of about 20 minutes under ideal circumstances but can sustain this for only a few hours. Paul has used a value of 1 generation per day average for bacteria and I think that is close enough for all practical purposes. The time available for evolving bacteria is about 3 billion years. When discussing generation times for humans, I have been using 10 years per generation. The amount of time available per evolutionarian estimates had been 4-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged which would give about 400-600,000 generations. One of my evolutionarian friends recently said that the he saw a new estimate that humans and chimps diverged 14,000,000 years ago. That’s no big surprise for me. Evolutionarians will need a lot more time to account for the differences in the two genomes.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The way we have been arriving at time from generations for convergence is by multiplying by the length of time per generation for particular creatures. Bacteria can have length of time per generation of about 20 minutes under ideal circumstances but can sustain this for only a few hours. Paul has used a value of 1 generation per day average for bacteria and I think that is close enough for all practical purposes. The time available for evolving bacteria is about 3 billion years. When discussing generation times for humans, I have been using 10 years per generation. The amount of time available per evolutionarian estimates had been 4-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged which would give about 400-600,000 generations. One of my evolutionarian friends recently said that the he saw a new estimate that humans and chimps diverged 14,000,000 years ago. That’s no big surprise for me. Evolutionarians will need a lot more time to account for the differences in the two genomes

I'm asking for two numbers. The Evolution Time Available (ETA) and the Evolution Time Required (ETR).

You are saying the ETA for bacteria is 3 billion years? For humans to diverge is 4-14 million years?

What are your estimates for the ETR of bacteria, and human divergence from the ancestor purportedly common to the chimps? How many years?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I'm asking for two numbers. The Evolution Time Available (ETA) and the Evolution Time Required (ETR).

You are saying the ETA for bacteria is 3 billion years? For humans to diverge is 4-14 million years?

What are your estimates for the ETR of bacteria, and human divergence from the ancestor purportedly common to the chimps? How many years?

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. For example, Dr Schneider used a genome length of 256 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 base per generations and estimated a rate of information increase of 1 bit per 11 generations. He then extrapolated this value to a human genome and estimated 1 billion years (with conditions). If you use a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases with a genome length of 256 bases, the rate of information accumulation drops to about 1 bit per 4000 generations and the amount of time required to evolve a human genome becomes about 4 trillion years.

If you use longer genomes in the ev model, the rate of information accumulation drops markedly. In fact, the largest genome either Paul or I have run is about 100k and the rate of information accumulation is at least 10’s of thousands of times slower than for the 256 base case. If you are depending on random point mutations and natural selection to account for the divergence of humans and chimps (gigabase genomes), ev shows this is mathematically impossible. For bacteria, you might make a rough estimate that the simples bacterial genome has about 1,000,000 bits of information. Ev is showing for a 100k genome that information can be gained at the rate of about 1 bit per million generations. Therefore, it would take 10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12 generations to accumulate the information to evolve a 500k genome. If you assume 1 generation per day that gives a required time of about 2.7 billion years to evolve a 500k bacterial genome by random point mutations. There is a really big if in this calculation. That big if is what is the selection process that would allow for evolution of the 200+ genes de novo. Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for the de novo evolution of binding sites because it allows step wise recognition of the sites. There is no real selection process that can be demonstrated that works like this. With Dr Schneider’s model, you would have to assume that there are hundreds of different selection processes that somehow can evolve the many different genes required for even the simplest life form. So the 2.7 billion year estimate for the evolution of a bacterial genome is an extremely overoptimistic estimate based on an unrealistic selection process.

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

 

[Kotatsu]

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.

By sufficient results, I mean results which are sufficient to be applicable to any and all given species (or other grouping) of organism in the real world. Random point mutations does not fully explain the process seen in Song's et al. study, which I have mentioned previously. "Speciation" in this study depends on allopolyploidization and involved directed evolution of the paternal genome in some cases. Thereby I can conclude that random point mutations alone are not sufficient, using the definition above.

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.

This is true only if you can be sure that we already know all existing selection processes. There may remain untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes which gainsay your argument.

 

[kjkent1]

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. For example, Dr Schneider used a genome length of 256 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 base per generations and estimated a rate of information increase of 1 bit per 11 generations. He then extrapolated this value to a human genome and estimated 1 billion years (with conditions). If you use a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases with a genome length of 256 bases, the rate of information accumulation drops to about 1 bit per 4000 generations and the amount of time required to evolve a human genome becomes about 4 trillion years.

If you use longer genomes in the ev model, the rate of information accumulation drops markedly. In fact, the largest genome either Paul or I have run is about 100k and the rate of information accumulation is at least 10’s of thousands of times slower than for the 256 base case. If you are depending on random point mutations and natural selection to account for the divergence of humans and chimps (gigabase genomes), ev shows this is mathematically impossible. For bacteria, you might make a rough estimate that the simples bacterial genome has about 1,000,000 bits of information. Ev is showing for a 100k genome that information can be gained at the rate of about 1 bit per million generations. Therefore, it would take 10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12 generations to accumulate the information to evolve a 500k genome. If you assume 1 generation per day that gives a required time of about 2.7 billion years to evolve a 500k bacterial genome by random point mutations. There is a really big if in this calculation. That big if is what is the selection process that would allow for evolution of the 200+ genes de novo. Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for the de novo evolution of binding sites because it allows step wise recognition of the sites. There is no real selection process that can be demonstrated that works like this. With Dr Schneider’s model, you would have to assume that there are hundreds of different selection processes that somehow can evolve the many different genes required for even the simplest life form. So the 2.7 billion year estimate for the evolution of a bacterial genome is an extremely overoptimistic estimate based on an unrealistic selection process.

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

You may want to mention to Mr. Scott, that none of your opponents agree with your above statement of facts, and that substantially all of your claims have already been refuted, at least to your opponents' satisfaction -- if not to your own.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You’ve prove this by posting links you don’t read and failing to provide an explanation how this happens.

You’ve observe nothing and call it something and have no hypothetical “mathematical” description of it because it doesn’t exist.

Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.

Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.

I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.

Once again, I have highlighted everything you've said which is not a lie, or implicit lie, which we've already debunked.

You will notice that I've not highlighted anything.

Come back when you've thought of some new lies.

 

[Dr Adequate]

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev ...

And also on the size of the population, as was pointed out to you about thirty pages ago, and as you yourself know perfectly well, you halfwitted liar.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?

Apparently, "believers" put totally unrealistic figures into the computer model, they get, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out", and then when shown some actual math, they lie and lie and lie and lie rather than face reality.

 

[kjkent1]

Not necessarily, as --- as I understand it, which is probably not correct --- there would still need to be at least an improbable mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur naturally. If it can be shown that it is, indeed, fully impossible for abiogenesis to occur by any natural mechanism, the number of universes would be irrelevant.

Or am I missing something?

This does not preclude that his mathematical prrof is valid only within Ev (and possibly similar programs; perhaps, again, DarwinPond?), though, and not in the real world.

Now, you're being totally unfair by insisting on a real-world scientific confirmation of the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring by any natural mechanism! ;-)

Kleinman's entire argument is based on mathematically improbability -- not reality. If his argument were reality based, then there would be no argument, because reality is that life is here, and unless magic rules the universe, then there is a scientific explanation for life's existence and diversity.

So, I attacked kleinman with his own bullets: pure math. String theorists postulate an "ensemble" of universes so enormous that they dwarf the improbability of life arising by random chance. Kleinman finds such an argument ridiculous, only because he knows that if string theory is proved true, then his own mathematical argument is crushed.

At the moment, we can't prove string theory. We can only prove that the adherents of string theory are perhaps the most brilliant theoretical mathematicians and high energy physicists on the planet.

I don't usually argue from authority -- except for legal authority. But, in this case, I think that my authorities supporting string theory pretty much lay waste to Kleinman's Ph.D in mechanical engineering and his M.D.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now, you're being totally unfair by insisting on a real-world scientific confirmation of the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring by any natural mechanism!

I think you've missed Kotatsu's point. I think it was that the size of the ensemble is irrelevant if abiogenesis is actually impossible.

I don't usually argue from authority -- except for legal authority. But, in this case, I think that my authorities supporting string theory pretty much lay waste to Kleinman's Ph.D in mechanical engineering and his M.D.

Kleinman has an M.D? I was just disgusted by his stupidity and monomania, but now I'm frightened as to what he might do to innocent people. He's not a practicing doctor, for pity's sake? If so, is there any way we can get in touch with his patients? We could show them the stuff he's posted. That would be enough.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.

If I said that Ev modeled the entire evolutionary landscape, I was wrong. However, I swear I remember saying that it clearly does not.

Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.

Apparently you have more stamina than the rest of us, at least as far as repeating your mantra is concerned. The rest of us have moved on. Let it go, Alan, let it go.

I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.

You have done no such thing as "disprov[ing] evolutionism mathematically." You have, however, become a serial liar.

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.

A valid selection process is required for what purpose? If it is to show that information gain is possible through evolution, Ev's selection process is sufficient. If it is to model the entire evolutionary landscape, then Ev does not do that. What is it that I haven't acknowledged?

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.

Aha, so our lack of ability to describe the selection process allows you to know that there is no such process. Logical fallacy, anyone?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?

Not even I, one of your biggest fans, can figure out what this has to do with anything.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

What exactly do you mean by evolving a gene "de novo"?

It is good of you to acknowledge that Ev has nothing to do with evolutionarianism's "real problem."

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not even I, one of your biggest fans, can figure out what this has to do with anything.

See my post replying to him. Insofar as anyone can understand hammy, I believe that hammy is trying to pretend that the nonsense figures klienman stuck into your program are correct, whereas we have explained to the drivelling lunatic that his figures are wrong by at least a dozen orders of magnitude.

I'd like to debate hammy, except that he keeps quoting people who drool when they talk.