Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simplest of questions.

He may not be alone. Try answering this one.

Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Genuine ... medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.

hammegk:

What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

 

[Dr Richard]

He may not be alone. Try answering this one.

Recovering Yuppie got to the answer before I did.

It the post immediately after the one where you asked the question.

 

[hammegk]

Advice to "read Sci. Am." is not an answer. Can you provide one?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

In your dreams you see goal posts moving

Wow, Kleinman, I was, perhaps foolishly, prepared to have a discussion with you.

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simplest of questions.

Neither have you responded to my challenge to show how any gene could evolve from the beginning. Here I repost what the challenge you responded to.

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

What you responded with is a classification system for insulin and related proteins from Zebra fish to humans. You have not described the selection process that would evolve the original ancestral pro-insulin gene nor have you described the selection process which can transform these so called related genes from one to another. I owe you no answer until you tell us what these selection processes are.

You asked how "insulin" (amongst other genes) could have evolved; I cited you a paper (which you did not even bother to read) that demonstrated this to a point at which I would consider the gene in question not to be "insulin".

You posted numerous quotes from this paper, none of which addressed the original selection process of the antecedent ancestral gene. If this issue is addressed in the paper, either quote it in you post or stop posting unrelated references. If you believe that your reference shows how a non-insulin gene evolved to an insulin gene, describe the selection process that did this so it can be included in the ev computer model. Otherwise, you are not demonstrating a cause and effect relationship for the evolution of these genes. You are simply using “mutation and natural selection” as a slogan.

This was not enough for you, and I asked you define "insulin". You have repeatedly declined to do so, and moved goalposts so fast I must admit I've given up trying to keep track of them.

With respects to a definition for “gene”, would the concept of one gene-one polypeptide satisfy you? I happen to prefer a more general definition that any beneficial sequence of bases be used in the concept of mutation and selection

I thought you just said I don’t answer your questions. I guess you are not privy to the RNA world hypothesis. Don’t you know that sequences of these bases is how life started?

Does anything in Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" give you any clue as to what is wrong in your assertion? Did you catch the bit where he argues that genes are NOT of necessity beneficial to the creature? That they are... erm... selfish?

If Dawkin’s explains in his book the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning please quote it.

I apologise for trying to have a reasoned discussion with you.

No need to apologize, you didn’t understand my original challenge and you still don’t. There is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and you have failed to provide the selection process that would evolve insulin from the Zebra fish to the human. Without a description for how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning or transform genes from one form to another, mutation and natural selection is nothing more than a slogan.

There are no moved goal posts here, only a missed attempt at the goal posts on your part.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region.

But that's not what I asked. I asked why you think it reaches a point where suddenly there is no information gain at all.

Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?

What makes you think it disappeared? Did he run some experiments I don't know about?

The Rcapacity problem is not the same problem as the error rate in the junk DNA. We've already run experiments that show this.

Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process?

I suspect it would slow down. But this sort of conflict is already present in Ev, since the gene has to evolve to match the binding sites while also being under pressure not to match itself. In your scenario, two different sequence logos would evolve.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with ad hominem attacks. I wouldn't, would I?

Point taken.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unnamed's selection mechanism treats random mutations in the non-binding site region as irrelevant to survival, which clearly speeds up evolution.

He doesn't treat them as entirely irrelevant, or creatures with zero mistakes would never evolve.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

He doesn't treat them as entirely irrelevant, or creatures with zero mistakes would never evolve.

~~ Paul

That's interesting. I suppose you're correct, because there must be some discriminator which remains after every creature is reproduced perfectly, other than a deleterious mutation, which would kill it off.

So, at what point does a mutation in a non-binding site region obtain greater selective value than of a mutation in a binding-site region?

 

[articulett]

There are observers who subscribe to the "RNA world" theory, but that theory is entirely inadequate.

And presumably, your "theory" is more adequate. And how would you sum up your theory? The "RNA world" theory can be shortened to 2 words--"RNA World"--it's pretty easy to understand, and seems to fit the data better than anything you have offered. I'm presuming most people on this forum can read it and more or less make sense of it. I haven't seen or heard anyone, including you, really say what your "theory" is. We all understand that it has to do, in part, with abiogenesis--and then you skip a lot of the middle and then you have another theory about humans and how they develop social features--and you believe your explanation is clearer than memes...you mention "free will", sexuality and sexual deviancy, and humor--as well as lying scientists...and your "theory" presumably explains all this better than the notion that human traits are byproducts of natural selection coupled with human selection (genes and memes). Does the latter take into account any of the new information we are discovering in neurology or in the studies of our mammal kin? What about genetics and twin studies in regards to personality traits?

As for the abiogenesis part... Is there anyone in a recent peer reviewed science article that asserts that cells are the replicator or that such a notion is a better way to facilitate understanding of how life evolved? I know it's Michael Behe's contention, but he doesn't publish in peer reviewed papers and he is not someone whom others go to for clarification (except maybe Ann Coulter). Do you feel no need to clarify to any of us why you think this leads to greater understanding? Doesn't it bother you that no one here, including you, can sum up your claims enough to actually argue them. Aren't you aware that people are trying to "get" what you are saying, but no one seems to be able to do so? Although you find the "RNA world" inadequate, I don't think any of us know why--nor do we know what you find to be more adequate (presumably your oscillation theory involving data streams and cells as replicators...that has nothing to do with the "dogma of naturalism" which you claim not to understand because you are approaching it all from an epistemological perspective...)

I have a question for others--do you ever here scientists using the word epistemology in their explanations? And do you find the term useful in enhancing your understanding? Whenever I see that word, I think of Hammegk or Justgeoff and I feel like I'm about to hear a lot of words that clarify absolutely nothing except my conclusion that someone is trying to pass off woo in a pedantic way.

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher...and I understand him just fine...but I don't recall him using such words--What do you think of Daniel Dennett, John? Your doctorate is in philosophy, correct? And your "theory" is a philosophical theory, right? What was your B.A. in? (I'm going from the info. at your website.). What is your experience or education in regards to science, genetics, human development, oscillating data, and solar energy? What have you read or studied about RNA? Why should people who want to understand the evolution of life wade through what you have to say? You've made it clear that you think Dawkins and the "RNA World" and the scientific contention that nucleic acids are considered the replicators are "inadequate" or "wrong"--but what have you offered in their place and how does it fit the data better?

Why is it that after all these pages, no one seems to grasp what you are offering?--

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region.

But that's not what I asked. I asked why you think it reaches a point where suddenly there is no information gain at all.

The reason is implicit in my answer. Here is a more explicit explanation. The reason there is no longer information gain once the genome length is long enough that errors in the non-binding site region are controlling selection. Elimination of these non-binding site errors do not add information to the genome. Unless the binding site region errors are controlling selection, you can’t evolve binding sites (where the information is being accumulated). This effect is not sudden, the generations for convergence increases with increasing genome length until you reach a tipping point where the errors in the binding site region dominate the selection process and you can no longer evolve binding sites in the binding site region. I suspect that wider binding sites slow this effect because these wider sites are less likely to be identified by the weight matrix and therefore bias the selection process toward the binding site region. This could be investigated by putting a counter on errors and tracking how many errors are in the binding and non-binding site regions.

Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?

What makes you think it disappeared? Did he run some experiments I don't know about?

The Rcapacity problem is not the same problem as the error rate in the junk DNA. We've already run experiments that show this.

Is the Rcapacity problem related to the information content of the binding site or to the selection process?

Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process?

I suspect it would slow down. But this sort of conflict is already present in Ev, since the gene has to evolve to match the binding sites while also being under pressure not to match itself. In your scenario, two different sequence logos would evolve.

I agree with you, two different selection processes in operation simultaneously would slow down the process down further. A third selection process would slow evolution even more so. Each additional selection process would continue to slow evolution further and as you said “certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world”.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There go those damned goalposts again

I think we may have found a use for kleinman. He may be useless at debate, he may be worthless as a human being, and he may be a disgusting disgrace to his religion --- but as an inspiration for comic poetry he is second only to Kent Hovind.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, it was you pretending to a case you cannot make

No that was me laughing my ass off at someone who claimed that RNA wasn't "suitable material for a replicator".

How many times does the same thing need saying.

RNA does not copy itself.

Well, for sane people this doesn't "need" saying even once, 'cos it's not true. And for mad people ... you can say it as many times as you like, and it won't change the facts.

There are RNA viruses, there is, dammit, Spiegelman's bucket o' chemicals, which we've just been discussing. "Labile" or not, RNA self-replicates given the right environment.

EARTH TO HEWITT. YOU CANNOT CHANGE REALITY BY LYING AT IT. HELLO?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Haha, it's the inadequate doctor! I was wondering when you'd join the fray. C'mon in and have a seat.Scientology maybe? Actually, they may suit you better than me - they have some strange ideas about people with excessively high intellect that I think might strike a chord with you.
As do you, by the looks of your posts. I guess we all have that deep down somewhere. Fortunately, I've past that stage. Have you? I'd certainly class people who spend time writing their own version of the bible to be more than a little suspect. Are you a little bit lost? Lacking something in your life? (Other than a personality and a woman, that is.)
Fortunately, there is little chance of either of those coming to pass. I don't hang out with overblown intellectuals who suffer from their own inadequacy to the extent that it keeps them awake at night, but I could make an exception. Interesting that despite not needing my company you've chosen to address a post to me. I wonder what you really think. Do you even know yourself?
No.

Statements like that do please me no end. I really enjoy the fact that I piss off atheists more than christians. I'm loving the fact that I've been classed as a christian apologist and have at least two genuine geniuses doubting my atheism in the past week. I guess you all get PMS at the same time.

Now you can crawl back into your study and write another poem or two to console yourself with the realisation that ignorant, violent scum are just as likely to be atheists as christians.

Disrespectfully.

The Atheist.

P.S. On a lighter note, you clearly don't have any idea what I'm up to here. Maybe next time, you might consider asking what I'm doing rather than jumping in half-cocked.

P.P.S. If you want to go down the abusive track, I need somthing really clever and vitriolic to add to my sig, so see what you can do.

Well, that was weird.

If you wish to insult me, you'll have to become coherent first.

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Then try to say what, if anything, you mean.

 

[articulett]

I haven't got the book in front of me now, but he talks about our sexual impulses 'misfiring' when, for example, we (want to) have sex but are using contraception.

I can think of plenty of reasons and ways to have sex that have nothing to do with procreation. While our basic drive and reward systems are genetically determined, what we do to satisfy or activate them evolve separately.

I think your getting this a little backwards. A strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species...genes that encourage a strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species--any time a gene is involved in encouraging sex...that gene has a good chance of seeing copies of itself in future generations. But no entity needs to know or care about that to pass on genes. You don't need to know how offspring are made to make a whole new one from scratch. You just have to have a compelling urge to do whatever it is that facilitates the process. Having a primal urge that needs satisfaction is one such way. Have the reward centers of your brain go crazy when engaging in certain activities is another such way. Feeling in love with another and a desire for nurturing is another way. Over riding the impulse control sections of the brain is another way. A dog doesn't know why he feels the urge to hump things...but we do...he has genes that make him have such urges...why? because the dogs that have those urges have more genes in the gene pool.

Humans have sex because sex is pleasurable and satisfying. Sex is pleasurable because evolution selected that trait--those who avoided sex, didn't have as many genes in the gene pool; while the insatiable did. From my observations, the sex drive tends to be particularly strong in males...but not necessarily specific (maybe the "any port in a storm" strategy)--hence the tendency of males to be the more likely of the sexes to have fetishes and more striking deviancies. The sex drive evolved to, not only be strong, but to over ride the thinking and rational part of the brain. Because, this can have unwanted consequences for the persons pursuing this drive, humans have invented things like contraception to enjoy such pursuits without risk. To genes--the pleasure of sex, is a means to their getting passed on. To humans, passing on genes, is a by product of engaging in a pleasurable activity. Sometimes that is a wanted byproduct...more often, it's a "surprise"...and sometimes it is an unwanted byproduct--a consequence.

Genes don't think...and you don't need to think to pass on genes. (Plants do it, for example)--nor do you need to be aware that you are passing on genes or procreating. You don't need to know a thing about it to succeed. Humans do think. But the tendencies they have in thoughts and feelings and drives are there because of genes. There are genes that mold the brain to make it responsive to and tailored to the environment the vehicle of those genes finds himself/herself in. We can and do love our children and care for others because the genes that give rise to the brain structures involving these feelings have a better chance at having their vectors (us) live and procreate. Most humans love their offspring, because they can't "not" do so. It might feel like a choice or a gift from an "intelligent designer"--but it's also a good way to keep the genes that code for those traits in the gene pool. If a gene could think, then making a brain receptive to oxytocin and serotonin and other hormones involved in nurturing behavior would be a good strategy.

When you look at human behavior and see similar behavior in the animal kingdom, them it strongly suggests an evolutionary (genetic) advantage to the organisms having such a feature. I'd say the sex drive is a good example.
The "will to live" is another. When it comes to more specifically human behaviors, it usually has underlying genetic components coupled with the evolutionary adaptive human brain which has evolved to learn from and be molded by the environment it finds itself in. It is also the organism of thought and damaging it can damage thinking and feelings. Genes code for our ability to understand and develop language. The language we speak is culturally determined. But all languages evolved from a "meme"--the notion that sounds could convey specific meaning...(in brains genetically evolved to be meme utilizers and replicators.)

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Advice to "read Sci. Am." is not an answer. Can you provide one?

No, but actually reading it would be. And I did give a one sentence explanation of the procedure before telling you where I'd seen a report of it being used. I've also explained it to Kleinman at least twice.

The technique is simple: Compare two genomes from two different species. The areas with the most accumulated differences will be the ones with no selection pressure and therefore, inactive. The ones with the least will be areas under selection pressure (active). The technique has led to the discovery of active, non-coding, regions we were previously unaware of.

In addition to being useful in finding out new information about genomes, this is powerful evidence that all life on Earth is related and that selection pressures are present.

ETA: While searching for a link I see Dr Richard posted a good one back in reply 2329.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In your dreams you see goal posts moving,
while when awake you see your logic losing.

No selection process to save your theory,
only mathematics that makes you teary.

Change the subject, whine and complain,
because ev’s sending your theory down in flames.

Mathematics, biology, and now poetry ... it there no beginning to your talents?

Seriously, is there anything at all you do well?

It doesn't rhyme, it doesn't scan, it doesn't make sense, it's not true, and it doesn't have a joke in it.

Do you really have to fail at everything?

You poor sod.

 

[articulett]

There go those damned goalposts again

A simple kick, an extra point
Is all, and then we may annoint
The victor in this war of words
Twixt idiots and science nerds

In order for the team to win
The gene producing insulin
Must split the uprights, straight and true,
That's all that Kleinman asks of you.

But wait! The crossbar's much too near
A child could make that kick from here
Precursers shown are not enough--
We need to make the task more tough

And so, I send my best regards
And move the goalposts ten more yards.

The protein superfamily
For insulin in you and me
Is found in other mammals, too
(And rats and mice--why, they have two!)

We'll trace it further, if you wish
To proteins found in zebra fish
(What's cool, you'll see upon reflection--
It fits with natural selection!)

Wait! You'll make that kick with ease
And so, if you'll indulge me, please,
To make the kick that has you winning
Trace the gene to its beginning!

With due respect, and beaming smile,
I'll move the goalposts half a mile.

The crossbar now is but a speck
From here--but maybe...what the heck--
I'll try it, under one condition:
Before I kick--your definition?

Could you define your terms, I mean?
Define "beginning", also "gene"
Your definitions seem to change
If you could narrow down the range--

Wait! The start I want is this--
The gene's abiogenesis!
Or if I think I still might hang
Then trace it back to the Big Bang!

And all the time that I've been talking
Those goalposts, they have kept on walking.

To satisfy my little query
Don't attempt to feed me theory
But, from time itself, condense
The binding, legal evidence.

If insulin evolved, why then
You ought to know precisely when.
Before the gene was well-dispersed
There must be someone who was first.

I want his name (and, you've surmised,
I want it duly notarized!)
If you cannot do that, you fail
And by default, I will prevail!

If lunacy you must defend
The moving goalpost is your friend.

Wading through creationist muck is worth it for gems such as these. I find it sadly ironic that creationists can miss the brilliance of such eloquence due to their blinding hubris which they mistake for genius.

Nominated!

Both you and Dr. Adequate are gifted in your scientific understanding, eloquence, and ability to communicate complexity with brevity, clarity and wit that I aspire to. (But until I reach that point, I may plagiarize...)

Yes, the creationists can't learn the fantastic things that science has afforded us the privilege of knowing--but they aren't the only people reading these posts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Neither have you responded to my challenge to show how any gene could evolve from the beginning.

Same old lies. See my sig.

 

[delphi_ote]

Anyone interested in autocatalytic RNA should look into the work of Gerald Joyce.

 

[articulett]

Performance art?

Linda

Beautiful.

I'm guessing that he's a deranged individual whose community members have encouraged his computer usage as a type of therapy (and to keep him from inflicting himself on others.)

Maybe he has a wife and kids and we are doing them a great favor by keeping him busy online, so they can be free of whatever it is he thinks he is communicating. I wonder if anyone "gets" him...or even cares about what he thinks...or...even likes him.

Maybe he has a brain tumor? (I keep him on ignore, just in case his personality disorder is something he has no control over...fortunately few people respond to him, so I don't see what he's ranting about anymore-- except when he appears in a post that makes me laugh--like yours.)