Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

If you think a five year old child could make your statements meaningful then quick, fetch a five year old child.

English really is a problem for you isn't it?

Now you're confusing "understand" and "meaningful".

 

[The Atheist]

So, you are still either unwilling or unable to say what you mean.

Neither.

Isn't it just so bloody frustrating when something so simple becomes so bloody complicated?

Ring any bells?

 

[John Hewitt]

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.

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

Yet again, an empty, unargued claim that ignores serious argument. I can only assume that you have no understanding of this area and are not willing to think about your claims.

 

[The Atheist]

Yet again, an empty, unargued claim that ignores serious argument. I can only assume that you have no understanding of this area and are not willing to think about your claims.

How's your French, John? My written French is lousy these days, but if yours is any good, I suggest switching. You couldn't get any less sense than is already the case.

 

[John Hewitt]

How's your French, John? My written French is lousy these days, but if yours is any good, I suggest switching. You couldn't get any less sense than is already the case.

If it were only a matter of language but I fear that Dr. Adequate would not engage with reason in any language. Some people, actually many people, immunize themselves and their ideas against reason and evidence.
Popper, of course, was well aware of such behaviour. He insisted that genuinely scientific ideas should not be so immunized but must be rendered and defended so as to remain falsifiable by evidence.

My feeling is that Dr. Adequate's list of links was in a field, molecular biology, that he does not understand. It may be he just got them from a Google scholar search, or something similar. He cannot debate those topics so he churns silly, empty comments that immunize him from contradiction.

It seems a shame that effort is wasted on such stuff when what is really needed is sensible discussion.

 

[Taffer]

Certainly I do. You can start with the results from ev computer model, a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows this mechanism of evolution is so profoundly slow when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve by this mechanism.

Why your maths is incorrect has been explained to you many times.

Then you can again consider the concept of natural selection which can only operate if there is a benefit or detriment to the creature.

Selection can occur in non-living things.

I have shown that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning. I will repeat it again since so many evolutionarians are in denial about this issue.

No, you haven't kleinman. You have made an assertion, and all 'evidence' you have provided has been shown to be wrong. More then once. Please see Dr. Adequate's sig, and the various posts responding to your mathematics.

A gene is to evolve.

Can you please tell me what this means?

The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome.

How is a sequence "laid down on" a genome? Genomes are sequences.

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.

This is quite simply a perfect example of you understanding little about evolution and genetics.

It has never been claimed that the only benificial characteristic of a sequence of DNA is in the form of producing proteins. There are many more things that a sequence of DNA can do. That doesn't even start on RNA, and other organic molecules.

Do you evolutionarians see the goal posts or are you so far out of the ball park you need the Hubble telescope just to see the ball park?

I have not seen a single person who understands genetics, biology and evolution move any goal posts in this thread. If you think there has been, please provide evidence.

This thread is about mathematically modeling evolution by mutation and selection. If you believe there is and was selective pressure to do this, present a description for this so that you can evolve a gene from the beginning.

As I already said, I do not have access to my research nor my papers from where I am. I am returning to university at the start of next week. I should be able to provide a better explanation then. However, I feel this has adequately been answered already.

Feel free not to discuss this topic if you believe that all genes formed during abiogenesis.

I never said this. Please follow along. The evolution of a novel gene has been demonstrated. Please see Dr. Adequate's sig. However, the formation of the first replicating molecules deals with abiogenesis, and not evolution. You have constantly failed to show a grasp of this point.

However, you have acknowledged the first step in disproving the theory of evolution.

What? Where have I done this?

The next step is understanding that there is no selective pressure that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

This is an assertion. Care to try to prove it?

The only thing that natural selection can do is select for a creature with a beneficial property and select against a creature with a detrimental property.

Correct. However, selection can act on things which are not 'alive', in the biological sense. Try to understand this.

The addition of bases to a sequence which is neither beneficial nor detrimental will not alter the frequency of occurrence of that sequence in the population.

You do not understand population genetics. Try looking up 'genetic drift'.

Without selection pressure, the theory of evolution is not mathematically possible as you so correctly have said.

Of course. But, again, there are and always were selective pressure. "Natural selection" on 'living' things, and just plain, ol' "selection" on non-living things.

Taffer, that’s a lovely semantic dance you are doing here.

Perhaps you care to explain how it is a "semantic dance"? I answered his question.

I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin, the gene that codes for globulin, the genes that code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle, the genes that code for the proteins in the DNA replicase system and so on. Do you believe that all these genes arose during abiogenesis? Unless you can describe a sieve that would give rise to these genes from the beginning, you theory of evolution is mathematically impossible as you so correctly noted earlier.

This has already been answered, so I will not deal with the latter part of this paragraph. However, you are constantly dealing with both evolution and abiogenesis, and equating the two. It has been shown that novel genes evolve.

You have also not answered a number of questions of mine. But, let's stick to just one.

Can you please provide a definition of "soul"?

 

[Taffer]

Because it doesn't know the difference.

I suspect this to be the case.

 

[Dr Adequate]

English really is a problem for you isn't it?

Now you're confusing "understand" and "meaningful".

No; and no.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry mate, insults are ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem usually has precisely nothing to do with the argument at all:

Dictionary.com agrees: 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

So does Webster: 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

And the final nail, so does OED: • adverb & adjective (of an argument) personal rather than objective.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘to the person’.

Well, you are both right and wrong. From a dictionary definition, an insult is indeed an "ad hom". However, as applied to philosophy and logic, the logical fallacy of ad hom is restricted to the using a personal trait to explain why their argument is wrong. For example

1) "Geoff is a neo-nazi."
2) "Therefore, anything he has to say is wrong."

However, (and again, this is the logically fallacy use of the term) just saying:

1) "Geoff is a neo-nazi."

Is not an ad hom.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Neither.

Isn't it just so bloody frustrating when something so simple becomes so bloody complicated?

Ring any bells?

Again, you appear to be speaking gibberish.

Will you either say what you meant by your nonsense about "writing my own version of the bible", or explain why you're so afraid of saying what you meant by it, or confess that you were talking gibberish?

Or if that scares you so much, try to explain what you meant by this:

but now you're telling me that I was insulting you and lying by saying I wasn't. So, you do know what I was saying!."

My shot for Randi's million is: no, you will not.



If you are incapable of debating me, I have a great idea: don't.

 

[Taffer]

What this is indicating that if you have more than a single selection condition, one may interfere with the other. If you have multiple genes evolving, each is responding to their selection pressure (whatever that may be), each is interfering with others preventing any from evolving.

You have no clue about evolutionary theory.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If it were only a matter of language but I fear that Dr. Adequate would not engage with reason in any language. Some people, actually many people, immunize themselves and their ideas against reason and evidence.
Popper, of course, was well aware of such behaviour. He insisted that genuinely scientific ideas should not be so immunized but must be rendered and defended so as to remain falsifiable by evidence.

My feeling is that Dr. Adequate's list of links was in a field, molecular biology, that he does not understand. It may be he just got them from a Google scholar search, or something similar. He cannot debate those topics so he churns silly, empty comments that immunize him from contradiction.

It seems a shame that effort is wasted on such stuff when what is really needed is sensible discussion.

So, instead of debating any point that I've made, you substitute telling lies about me.

Now, let's enter into your fantasy world for a minute. Let's imagine that the reason that I evidently understand, and can explain, and can quote from, the links I've posted, is not that I understand them, but that ... er ... er ... the Magic Invisible Sky Pixie waved his mighty magic wand and made me appear to understand things of which I actually have no knowledge. By magic. Abracadabra!

I know that's not very plausible, but it's not my job to make your fantasies coherent; that's the best I can do.

So, anyway, suppose your impossible magical fantasies about me were actually true. I know this is a strain on the imagination, but just try to imagine for a couple of minutes that what you are saying is true.

Then what of it?

Where does that get you?

Imagine, for a couple of minutes, that you're telling the truth. Imagine that I do not understand the papers I've cited.

THEN THAT WON'T MAKE THE FACTS IN THEM GO AWAY, WILL IT?

Earth to Hewitt, Earth to Hewitt, we have lost your signal, come in ...

Don't you see, you freakin' moron, that even if your fantasies about me were true, that would not abolish the facts?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, damn, I nearly forgot. A message for "The Atheist".

I just went to the chatroom, and I heard all sorts of stories about you. Let me say frankly and forthrightly that I don't believe a word of them.

You cannot possibly be an anal sphincter, if only for the reason that that useful but unlovely muscle cannot type. In the same way, I would deny a priori all claims that you are a lump of feces.

The absurd notion that you feast on excrement is, I am sure, an exaggeration; and in the same way I would not, without evidence, believe the rumors that you have sexual intercourse with pigs.

I believe that the gross nature of your character has led certain persons to get carried away.

However, the more moderate views of "Jon The Geek" struck a chord with me, and so his words are now included in my "sig".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.)

Thank you for your response. Perhaps I should try to give an example from my own field about what I’m trying to get at and what (I think) some of what John is proposing.

My main job nowadays is designing digital circuits. This involves thinking about the functionality the design needs to have and coming up with small pieces of logic that when connected together will provide that functionality. With modern formal languages, such as VHDL, the level of abstraction that I can use to describe these small pieces has increased immensely, as has the size of them.

For example, where as in the past I would have had to have drawn a schematic diagram showing the individual logic gates to implement a multiplier, today I can use the ‘*’ operator between two named signals and the software tools will infer a multiplier. So here is a first level of abstraction. When I’m designing circuits, I no longer think in terms of the logic gates in a multiplier, I think in terms of the type of multiplier I want. I know the connection is there to the gate, but it is of no real use to me.

Now, when I have finished the design, more often than not it will be required to control the implemented functionality with a microprocessor. I’ll choose the exact processor on the functionality it has. How that functionality has been achieved, I very rarely care. So now I’m thinking of complete systems and understanding the functionality that is useful to me. Could I look at the microprocessor schematic and see how it performs its wonders? Sure, but the complexity of it is likely to be too great for me to be able to understand the overall behavior.

So now we’ve got the block of logic that I designed and a block of logic I didn’t, but I’d argue that at an appropriate level of abstraction, I can understand both equally well for my needs.

The huge advantage to this approach is that I, a single person, can construct systems that are far beyond my ability to understand in their entirety. I think a similar approach could be useful in understanding how evolution of one level is related to evolution of another.

In an awful mix of analogies, my genes have provided me (a young, fit virile male if you were wondering) with strobe signals as triggers for various behaviors. I believe it is generally more useful to analyze the resulting behavior at a higher level of abstraction than keep harking back to genetics, or forcing particular processes that occur at one level onto another.

P.S. Just finished the bit in The God Delusion about the hypothetical moral dilemmas. There’s another option to some of them: Use yourself to derail the train / save the 5 patients in need of organ transplants. Then six other people survive. I would also use the fat man on the track (not the one on the bridge), though Dawkins reports that most people would not. If I was in the army, I’d do what I was told. If was in a large enough group of people I may do nothing expecting someone else to do something.

 

[John Hewitt]

So, anyway, suppose your impossible magical fantasies about me were actually true. I know this is a strain on the imagination, but just try to imagine for a couple of minutes that what you are saying is true.

Then what of it? Where does that get you?

Imagine, for a couple of minutes that you're telling the truth. Imagine that I do not understand the papers I've cited.

I am in no doubt that you do not understand the papers you have cited. Moreover, failing some sort of evidence to the contrary, I shall assume that in fact you do not understand the field, molecular biology, from which those references were drawn. You might like to note that what I have said about Qbeta and RNA replicators is substantially accurate.

In future, it might be best if you would confine your links to fields where you do understand the claims being made. Also, I suggest that you take advice, or at least be tentative, when drawing claims from a field you have not studied.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am in no doubt that you do not understand the papers you have cited. Moreover, failing some sort of evidence to the contrary, I shall assume that in fact you do not understand the field, molecular biology, from which those references were drawn. You might like to note that what I have said about Qbeta and RNA replicators is substantially accurate.

In future, it might be best if you would confine your links to fields where you do understand the claims being made. Also, I suggest that you take advice, or at least be tentative, when drawing claims from a field you have not studied.

You can "assume" what you like about me, my pet.

But this will not abolish the proven facts nor destroy the laws of nature.

Let's explain it one more time.

So, instead of debating any point that I've made, you substitute telling lies about me.

Now, let's enter into your fantasy world for a minute. Let's imagine that the reason that I evidently understand, and can explain, and can quote from, the links I've posted, is not that I understand them, but that ... er ... er ... the Magic Invisible Sky Pixie waved his mighty magic wand and made me appear to understand things of which I actually have no knowledge. By magic. Abracadabra!

I know that's not very plausible, but it's not my job to make your fantasies coherent; that's the best I can do.

So, anyway, suppose your impossible magical fantasies about me were actually true. I know this is a strain on the imagination, but just try to imagine for a couple of minutes that what you are saying is true.

Then what of it?

Where does that get you?

Imagine, for a couple of minutes, that you're telling the truth. Imagine that I do not understand the papers I've cited.

THEN THAT WON'T MAKE THE FACTS IN THEM GO AWAY, WILL IT?

Earth to Hewitt, Earth to Hewitt, we have lost your signal, come in ...

Don't you see, you freakin' moron, that even if your fantasies about me were true, that would not abolish the facts?

You seem to have invented a crazy version of the ad hominem fallacy all of your own. You keep on claiming that I don't understand the facts that I've cited. As it happens, I do, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't magically make the facts go away, would it?

---

Now, can you debate any claim that I've made, or any fact that I've cited? 'Cos if not, you cannot debate me.

 

[John Hewitt]

You seem to have invented a crazy version of the ad hominem fallacy all of your own. You keep on claiming that I don't understand the facts that I've cited. As it happens, I do, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't magically make the facts go away, would it?

Then I suggest you demonstrate that understanding by sensible debate.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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?

That's way too complicated a question for my poor little brain.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

"Not sudden" is incompatible with "tipping point."

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

I'm not sure what this means. The Rcapacity problem arises when the number of bits of information needed to uniquely identify the binding sites from the rest of the DNA cannot be held within the binding sites. Therefore it becomes difficult/impossible to evolve a code in the binding sites. I ran experiments that decoupled the Rcapacity problem from the size of the genome, showing that there are two different issues at play.

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”.

Yes, but I did not say that all the extant genetic control mechanisms evolved at the same time, did I?

~~ Paul

 

[Taffer]

You seem to have invented a crazy version of the ad hominem fallacy all of your own. You keep on claiming that I don't understand the facts that I've cited. As it happens, I do, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't magically make the facts go away, would it?

I'd just like to post this a second time, so everyone can see it. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. Please note that a personal trait of the arguer, namely that "he doesn't understand molecular biology" is used as a reason that his argument is wrong. It is a fallacy, because even if one does not understand the substance of an argument, the argument is to be judged by the argument alone, not by the knowledge of an arguer.

If anyone disagrees with this, then I ask a simple question. If I make an argument, then later think I was wrong, does that invalidate my initial argument?