Annoying creationists

[kjkent1]

How do you know what you measured if it's undefined? Maybe you have a correlation/causation problem.



How do you know that?

I won't let you play Socrates with me. Provide an affirmative rebuttal or we have nothing to talk about.

 

[hammegk]

Rebuttal to what? The fact that no one can define either time or energy?

 

[cyborg]

How do you know that?

You can't string a paragraph together without a non-sequitur.

 

[Kotatsu]

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.

But, as DrA points out below, if Kleinman could use his version of math to prove that all conceivable forms of abiogenesis by non-magical means are mathematically impossible --- using, I'd not hesitate assume, a reasoning as founded in reality as usual --- abiogenesis would never occur, regardless of the number of universes. Kleinman's arguments are refuted only to the extent that he agrees that we are talking about an "improbability" rather than an "impossibility". Otherwise, a numerical representation of his refutedness will be similar to a numerical representation of his understanding of what he is talking about.

 

[delphi_ote]

The fact that no one can define either time or energy?

Assuming you don't believe Miriam-Webster's definition, you must be promoting either solipsism or nihilism. That should make for an exciting discussion.

 

[hammegk]

You are correct that Miriam-Webster's offerings are puerile and un-satisfactory for this discussion.

Nihilism? No thanks, but that's not really a problem for objective idealism; much moreso for materialists/naturalists/athiests, imo.

Solipsism? Much tougher. All *I* can do is deny *I* am The Solipsist, should such exist. What's your answer?

 

[articulett]

You are correct that Miriam-Webster's offerings are puerile and un-satisfactory for this discussion.

Creationists are so IRONIC--really Hammy...we've been describing your offerings exactly as you describe Miriam Websters. Hewitt endlessly obfuscates, Kleinman gets stuck on his math, but you never even seem to be part of the same conversation as anyone else...

 

[The Atheist]

Yahzi. I really must thank you and your buddy Arti for putting up such easy targets. (I see Arti has realised she needed to give up and is only attacking me in thrid party posts now. She's smarter than I thought!)

Never mind, one day, with luck, you'll extract your heads from the dark orifices they presently inhabit and you'll join the real world.

Look at this rubbish!

A perusal of my posting history would demonstrate that I do quite well with simple, short posts.

As I've yet to read any other than in this thread, I'll stick with what I see. It's poor enough without going searching for it.

If you're having trouble getting your point across, you might consider spending more effort on clarity, and less on slavering insults.

Au contraire, honey. I'm having no problem with getting my point across. You and Arti are having trouble, but then I see you having great difficulty understanding very clear English from others, so I know where I think the problem.

If you can't just say what you mean, perhaps you should concentrate on figuring out what it is you mean. Ordered thoughts are a prerequisite for ordered writing.

See above - it's the reading and comprehension lessons you need.

What possible relevance could that have to this conversation?

I have spent a career in building scientific instrumentation, so I know something about extracting signal from noise and computer science. That seems apropos in a discussion about data signals. I have a degree in philosophy, which is perhaps relevant to epistimology and Plato.

But I expect my arguments to stand independently, without any more authority than their own logic. So my qualifications - or lack thereof - are wholly unimportant. As are everyone's, really.

What part of this do you disagree with?

No problem at all. the problem you seem to be having is simply comprehension. I'm surprised you didn't get some help in that area from philosophy.

This brings up so very, very many questions.

1. What is your addiction to argument from authority - why do you ask for "credentials" rather than arguments?

See, again you struggle with such simple language! We're discussing ACHIEVEMENTS. You haven't had any, Popper has. It's really very simple once you grasp the concept.

2. Are you actually interested in a philosophical discussion, or do you just want to hurl insults and demand credentials?

I'll have a philosophical argument anytime. I don't advise you to start one, however, going on your results so far! At this stage, I don't even think we have a philosophical difference, which just emphasises how stupid you're making yourself look. No skin off my nose, though, so keep it going.

Insults? I haven't made an insult as far as I can tell. I'm just pointing out your very obvious deficiencies, so if you find that insulting, brush up on those weaknesses!

3. And of course, the question both most important and most likely to be fruitless: did you actually read the D.C. Stove article?

Yes indeed. I can read. If you need lessons, I may even be able to help you online.

Read this very, very carefully:

Being wrong does not make one an idiot. That's a concept you should be getting used to yourself, although I'm perilously close to classing you as an idiot. I even gave you the Winston Churchill analogy to help you out. Maybe I should have found an analogy involving Barney or Bart Simpson - more your league, I'd say.

Pleasant dreams!

 

[Schneibster]

Never mind, one day, with luck, you'll extract your heads from the dark orifices they presently inhabit and you'll join the real world.

Insults? I haven't made an insult as far as I can tell.

That's really all I needed to see. Bye now.

ETA: what a productive thread this has been.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

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.

Do you care to describe how allopolyploidization creates new genes rather than simply duplicating existing genes?

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.

Do you want to describe a single selection process that would yield a new gene de novo or is the untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes the scientific explanation for your theory?

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.

There are no populations sizes on earth that world rescue your theory if you don’t have a selection process. Your mathematical skills are proving to be devastatingly boring. This may prove to be your best debating tool, better than posting links that you don’t read and posting gifs and jpegs. When are you going to give a realistic mathematical description of a selection process that would yield a genome de novo?

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.

Oh, so you were exaggerating just a bit? What part of the evolutionary landscape does Dr Schneider’s selection process model?

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.

So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating? The reason you have no stamina is you have no arguments for your mantra when your own computer model shows the mathematical impossibility of random point mutations and natural selection for evolving anything.

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 think adopting scatequate’s tactics will prove your theory? Your own version of ev is on the net for everyone to check out my arguments. Yet neither you, scatequate nor any other evolutionarian are able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. You have no mantra “random mutation and natural selection” without a valid selection process that would evolve de novo.

Intelligent Design has no answers. It can only make itself look palatable by making evolution look less palatable. It lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth

The problem with your unfinished evolutionarian mansion is that it has a wonderful roof but no foundation. That foundation is a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.

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?

Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain. You are so busy working on the landscaping for your unfinished evolutionarian mansion that you can’t see your mansion has no foundation.

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?

Your vivid imagination allows you to see life arise from some primordial soup yet your imagination fails you when asked to describe a realistic selection process. The only thing that is illogical in this discussion is your theory of evolution.

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.

You are also having difficulty figuring out that having a valid selection process is required in your model in order to simulate any portion of the evolutionary landscape realistically.

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."

I’ll help you understand what evolving a gene “de novo” means. Evolving a gene de novo is exactly analogous to Dr Schneider’s model of evolving binding sites de novo. In Dr Schneider’s case of evolving binding sites, you start with a random sequence of bases on a genome and a random sequence for a weight matrix and then proceed to allow a mutation/selection cycle to change the genome and weight matrix until you satisfy the selection criterion. Dr Schneider’s contrive selection process is able to evolve the genome such that the weight matrix and genome evolve to a perfect creature. There is no selection process that works like Dr Schneider’s selection process. Rather than evolving binding sites, what type of selection process would evolve a gene?

Ev has everything to do with evolutionarianism’s “real problem”. It puts a spot light on the need for a realistic selection process in order to explain your theory. Without a realistic selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, your mantra of mutation and natural selection becomes a meaningless slogan.

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. [mucho snippo] There is/are no such selection process(s).

Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

Study the portion that you [mucho snippo]’d. There are estimated times in there but they are based solely on the rate of information acquisition of information from evolving binding sites using Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process. All these estimated times are based on Dr Schneider’s non-existent selection process. Without a realistic selection process, the ev computer model is useless for making meaningful estimates for time required to evolve binding sites, let alone time required to evolve a gene de novo. I’ll rephrase this is you are still having trouble parsing what I am saying.

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.

Thank you, Paul. I like my Science natural without artificial additives. I want the pure method untainted by bleepin philosophical interpretations.

True, there are some epistomological assumptions in the mix. Some yeast is necessary in the bread making. But I just want the bread to rise, not explode in the oven.

Paul, your science does require metaphysical naturalism, you hide it behind terminology like “our lack of ability to describe the selection process”.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have some questions:

Anybody:

Is Down('s) syndrome an example of extra genetic information appearing? (Yes, I know it's a repeat of genetic information, but isn't the DNA a bit longer?)

And one just for you, Kleinman:

What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg? Is a soul a required input for this process to work?

 

[Kotatsu]

Do you care to describe how allopolyploidization creates new genes rather than simply duplicating existing genes?

Certainly: after a polyploidization event, new genes can be "created" through all the same means as during normal "creation" of new genes. For instance, it can occur by random point mutation, insertion, deletion, and so on. Further, the rate of mutation seems to be greatly increased following allopolyploidization, as compared to rates in "normal" progeny resulting from "normal" procreation (for example, within a species). The genome change may also be directional.

However, you misunderstand my point. If evolution was forced by some unknown power to rely only on random point mutations, allopolyploidization would never occur. The fact that allopolyploidization is observed denies the universality you attach to Ev's mechanisms. The model does not model what happens when the genome is doubled through allopolyploidization; thus it is insufficient, and your conclusions based on it become --- or rather remain --- ridiculous.

Do you want to describe a single selection process that would yield a new gene de novo or is the untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes the scientific explanation for your theory?

As my "theory" in this case is that you don't know for sure if there are unknown selection processes, and thus cannot assert that "there is no such thing", I will decline to describe an unknown selection process.

 

[fls]

I have some questions:

Anybody:

Is Down('s) syndrome an example of extra genetic information appearing? (Yes, I know it's a repeat of genetic information, but isn't the DNA a bit longer?)

There is a third copy of chromosome 21, but the chromosome itself is the same (not longer). A small number (less than 5 percent) are caused by a translocation (an exchange) of material between two different chromosomes, which again can result in an extra copy of some of the chromosome 21 material. That could result in length differences.

Linda

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg? What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg?

The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.

Is a soul a required input for this process to work?

This a question about the supernatural and the answer you would get depends on your belief system. I have very limited knowledge of the supernatural but in my belief system, fertilization of human egg and sperm is associated with a soul. Whether that soul existed before fertilization occurs, I don’t know.

 

[Taffer]

Kleinman,
I have been following this thread for a while. You appear to be convinced that 'life' is required for selection pressures to exist. This is not the case. You also appear convinced that a gene or a genome appeared in toto, another point which there is no evidence to suggest. You do, however, seem to have an incorrect and limited view of evolutionary theory.

The selection pressure of which you speak is not limited to living things, as you rather incorrectly seem to assume. Take, by analogy, the scenario of using a sieve. A sieve allows particles up to a certain size to pass through it, while larger particles can not. A sieve can be thought of as a form of selection pressure. Apply this to the wider environment, such as the pre-life environment, and 'de novo' gene generation does not seem so unlikely. Given the presence of self replicating RNA molecules, any sequences which enhance efficiency rates of replication will be selected for, in such that they will obtain a larger share of space, energy and raw materials compared to other self replicating molecules. These sequences would not be considered genes per se, but any could easily lead to the first replicating genes by simple evolution. A gene is simply a sequence of DNA which enhances the efficiency rates of replication. Anything which forms will be selected for. I fail to see why you find this so hard to grasp.

Secondly, I completely fail to see your reasoning behind thinking a genome, or even a gene, must arrise in toto. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe you have come out and actually stated you believe this, but I have gathered from your posts that you believe it to be so. If you do, would you mind explaining why?

 

[Taffer]

The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.

What? Recombination does not occur during fertilization, but during prophase 1 of meiosis.

This a question about the supernatural and the answer you would get depends on your belief system. I have very limited knowledge of the supernatural but in my belief system, fertilization of human egg and sperm is associated with a soul. Whether that soul existed before fertilization occurs, I don’t know.

I know you weren't replying to me, but would you mind defining what you mean by 'soul', and how you believe it plays a role in fertilization?

ETA: Wow, kleinman, you have some serious tag issues going on.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am glad we do not want to make a sect out of it but I keep being subject to the accusation that I don't follow it - what, precisely, is that acusation about? The implication from Yahzi and his friend Articulett, repeated again and again and often rather explicit, is that I am proposing supernatural explanations. So, would somebody please tell me exactly what this faith is that I am being accused of breaking?

I'm not sure what faith you're breaking, but I would be interested in a description of the supposedly supernatural explanation you're proposing. I thought your statement "I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them." was a bit of a sidestep.

I prefer epistemology because that is the "Theory of Knowledge" and knowledge is necessarily encoded as data, as are other types of evolution. It lends itself to a merger with the rest of evolution but what is anybody supposed to do with "metaphysical naturalism?"

I have no idea.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How are you doing defining your Natural twin gods, Energy, and Time?

They are defined mathematically, and the mathematics demonstrated by experiment. Got either of those thing for supernatural?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, so you were exaggerating just a bit? What part of the evolutionary landscape does Dr Schneider’s selection process model?

A stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. This is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution can lead to information gain. It is not sufficient to draw any sweeping conclusions about time required for evolution in the real world.

So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating?

Correct, because our mantra is complex and nuanced, while your mathematics is entirely absent.

You think adopting scatequate’s tactics will prove your theory?

I don't have a theory, I have a simple observed fact: You have not done the mathematics to "disprove evolutionism mathematically." However, you keep repeating that you have.

Yet neither you, scatequate nor any other evolutionarian are able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.

I don't even know what you mean by "de novo." Seems to me you mean "ex nihilo." You do realize that de novo means "over again; anew," right?

Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain.

So you're suggesting that a more complex, nuanced selection model might actually show no information gain? In order for that to be the case, the selection model would have to neglect to bias the selection toward creatures with better binding. But if that were the case, I very much doubt we would call it a "selection model."

Your vivid imagination allows you to see life arise from some primordial soup yet your imagination fails you when asked to describe a realistic selection process.

Correct. And your use of my failing as some sort of proof against evolution is, as I said before, a logical fallacy.

I’ll help you understand what evolving a gene “de novo” means. Evolving a gene de novo is exactly analogous to Dr Schneider’s model of evolving binding sites de novo.

Ev does not evolve binding de novo, nor even ex nihilo.

Paul, your science does require metaphysical naturalism, you hide it behind terminology like “our lack of ability to describe the selection process”.

You don't know what you're talking about.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

They are defined mathematically, and the mathematics demonstrated by experiment. Got either of those thing for supernatural?

~~ Paul

Nope. There is no supernatural in my worldview; that's a problem for wannabe materialists/naturalists/athiests.

.... our mantra is complex and nuanced ...

Or, better said, y'all need to wave your arms rapidly and talk loudly.

You don't know what you're talking about.

~~ Paul

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.