Annoying creationists

[Schneibster]

Good God. Well, at least he has the trappings- but the trappings he learned 'way back when appear to be all he knows. No wonder I keep hearing about how we haven't explained this and that.

John, welcome to the twenty-first century; we've completely mapped the human genome, and completely described the transcription process, from soup to nuts. Or, if you prefer, from gene to protein. It's all been done. We know how it works. We are even to the point of being able to forensically tell someone's hair and eye color, and whether their earlobes are attached or not, and whether they have a widow's peak, from their DNA alone. We're talking about mapping the genotype directly to the phenotype. We've done it, John. And if we can do that, then if the phenotype changes, it means the genotype has to have- and that means that evolution happens in the genotype. There just isn't anywhere to hide.

I'll tender my apologies for doubting your training- but you have to accept some responsibility too, because you never spoke of anything that would lead me to believe that you actually knew what you were talking about. You have to try harder if you ever want anyone to understand. That's what articulett is saying. And if you don't understand that we get every woo on the 'Net here, I suggest you go have a look at the two running threads by the latest woo to show up, who apparently thinks that the distance to the Moon is dependent upon the size of the Great Pyramid, or some such crap.

Do better.

ETA: And just because you have the training doesn't mean you're not a woo. I'll warn you about IIDB: they're more polite there; they'll just put you on ignore. And if you're as nasty there as you've been here, you won't last long.

Bring data, John. Not ideas; not theories; not mysterious connections between this and that. Hard data. Tell us about experiments that should be run. Tell us about observations that have not been made and should be. That was your mistake the first time. Don't make it again.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, welcome to the twenty-first century; we've completely mapped the human genome, and completely described the transcription process, from soup to nuts. Or, if you prefer, from gene to protein. It's all been done. We know how it works. We are even to the point of being able to forensically tell someone's hair and eye color, and whether their earlobes are attached or not, and whether they have a widow's peak, from their DNA alone. We're talking about mapping the genotype directly to the phenotype. We've done it, John. And if we can do that, then if the phenotype changes, it means the genotype has to have- and that means that evolution happens in the genotype. There just isn't anywhere to hide.

I'll tender my apologies for doubting your training- but you have to accept some responsibility too, because you never spoke of anything that would lead me to believe that you actually knew what you were talking about.

Actually, my background has been made perfectly clear all along and I am much more up to date than you appear to think. This is just yet another from your library of ill-mannered ad hominems. So, in return, let me guess at your background and offer you a few ad hominems in return.
Let's see, trained in physics or something similar?
Worked in computing?
Reads amateur science books?
Hasn't got a clue about chemistry or molecular biology?

The last one must be true because, quite simply, I cannot remember you saying anything, from either field, that is both correct and relevant.

Please, I invite you, choose one item from the first paragraph of empty headed babble quoted above and explain why you think it is relevant. I am really looking forward to you explaining why you think earlobes or hair colour come into this!

 

[Dr Richard]

The ideas in question are
1. That a self-replicating molecule can be made from RNA. Yes, I consider that extraordinary and unsupported by any evidence and outside of any parallel.
2. That reality includes a virtual infinity of parallel universes, undetectable from the one which we inhabit.

My suggestion, as an alternative, is that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night and that it provides the data flow that triggers evolution.

And you think my claims are extraordinary?

John - your idea - that the fluctuations in temperature provided by the sun drive the chemical reactions/equilibrium which create self-replicating molecules - does not seem that extraordinary to me. In fact, it seems a fairly mundane hypothesis, given what we know about DNA/RNA repliacation.

Given that, you then have to answer the following question: which molecules is your sun acting upon?

I would accept that at present we do not have a strand of RNA capable of self-encoding a ribozyme, but at present I would say there is considerably more evidence to support the RNA world hypothesis than your....

...

erm... what is it again? What are your proposed self-replicators? Please don't say cells, we need to know what came before that...


This article gives a fairly up to date review of where the evidence for the RNA world hypothesis stands.

If you can provide evidence that your own idea is more fully developed than the data presented in this paper, I would be happy to reconsider, but at the moment I view an RNA world as being the most credible explanation of early molecular evolution.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know how some people's personality radically changes when they get behind the wheel of a car? A similar thing appears to be happening to people on this forum.

It must be encoded in their genes. So there's no point thinking they may be able to bring in new knowledge and produce a different output. Because a phenotype can't evolve. The books say so you see, so it must be true.

Just because you don't agree with one idea a person has proposed, is not a sensible reason to ignore all their ideas.

I've read some of what John has written on his sex&philosophy site and while I don't agree with or know enough to argue with some of what he's proposing, some of it I do agree with and do know enough to evaluate it reasonably.

 

[Mr. Scott]

You know how some people's personality radically changes when they get behind the wheel of a car? A similar thing appears to be happening to people on this forum.

Monsters from the ID (intentional pun).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Has it been? It would be an interesting claim. Care to prove it.

I think I can show it's true almost by definition if someone can define supernatural. The only way it's not true is if there is a current theory of something that could be improved by invoking supernaturalism. But the way improvement is measured would be by showing that supernaturalism provides a better explanation of observed phenomena. But since, by definition,* supernatural influences can't be observed, I'm not sure how that could work. Supernatural entities are assumed by faith, and faith doesn't help improve theory.

You are wrong. What comes back is the inAdequate-inArticulett-Ynatzi-Schneibster-et al supercilious nastiness, aided and abetted by a group of moderators who protect their favorites.

So one of those people has claimed a final theory of abiogenesis? Or have they just thrown out some ideas they think are relevant, as has Hewitt?

And that evidence abounds on JREF, in this thread, and many others.
...
And the evidence of that happening is also abundantly demonstrated to be completely lacking to any rational observer.

But what is interesting is that Hewitt is being just as closed-minded about his opponents' ideas (e.g., RNA self-replication) as other people are about his ideas. I think what's really going on is lively debate about abiogenesis, with a good dollop of name-calling thrown in. Whether Hewitt deserves to be called a creationist I do not know, because I really can't figure that out.


~~ Paul

* At least I think that's part of its definition.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, absolutely, I don't know yet and you don't know yet. So please ask Yahzi to stop demanding a declaration of faith that one day we all will know. My answer was "dunno" - what is your problem?

Sorry, I haven't been paying enough attention to know whether Yahzi has been making such demands.

The ideas in question are
1. That a self-replicating molecule can be made from RNA. Yes, I consider that extraordinary and unsupported by any evidence and outside of any parallel.
2. That reality includes a virtual infinity of parallel universes, undetectable from the one which we inhabit.

My suggestion, as an alternative, is that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night and that it provides the data flow that triggers evolution.

And you think my claims are extraordinary?

I don't really care where all the claims lie on the ordinariness scale. If you dismiss RNA self-replication, then you are doing exactly what it is you're asking others not to do. I'm sure you think you have good reasons for doing so, as does everyone else.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/author.htm

Dr. Hewitt has become a fierce critic of the academic community, in particular of the scientific establishment, which (Perutz not included) he often found to be corrupt, unwilling to engage in rational debate, censorious of criticism and dissent and, at times, deliberately deceitful. A description of one instance can be found in his work at A Habit of Lies.

The conflict between scientific deceit, which is actually quite common, and science's claims of rationality, led to Dr. Hewitt's interest in scientific method and philosophy. This interest, in its turn, led to his studying the application of evolutionary theory to epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and hence to his development of the generalized form of evolutionary theory, bioepistemic evolution, described in "The Architecture of Thought." The radical departure underpinning the theory of bioepistemic evolution is that it is based on data, rather than genes, which are treated as a format for the data contained on DNA. The aim of his present work is to describe and develop this form of evolutionary theory particularly its application to our understanding of human nature and origins.

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/conclusions.htm

Free Will and the Ascent of Man

It is not unusual for commentators on evolutionary theory to decry its depiction of humans as programmed mechanisms, unable to make decisions for themselves. "What about free will and personal responsibility?" they say and it is a fair question, though not one to which they usually offer any real answer of their own. The answer implied by this work is that free will is itself a function of knowledge separate from genes.

. . . With the passage of time, we have come to possess so much more knowledge than animals, so many more choices, that humans, alone among the animals may be said to possess free will.

Free will grows from knowledge and has grown apace as civilization has developed. As Jacob Bronowski's TV series, The Ascent of Man, discussed, civilization greatly increases mankind's stock of knowledge and is built around new ways of accumulating, storing and distributing social knowledge. In his accumulated knowledge, mankind really has ascended above the animals and become the pinnacle of evolution.

I'm just picking out some passages to help clarify John's position--he doesn't like it, but I'd love it if someone could understand it enough to explain it to me. His theory, as you'll see from the link involves abiogenesis up through "free will". Free will isn't defined, and is a term usually involved with religious leanings. There isn't a good scientific definition of free will or a concensus as to how much of it humans possess and at what point. And even if we can conceive of it being data, rather than genes, that he's talking about, I just don't see how or what his theory is useful for. He seems to have a very poor understanding of how genes mold brains that in turn are molded by the environment. His theory involves group selection, and he, like many creationist, don't seem to understand basic game theory--how group selection factors (such as in group amity and out group enmity) can be encoded in genes) even though it is present in our closest primate kin.

I don't even know how the proteins made by genes are a part of this theory or why we should look at it this way or why he keeps insisting that nucleic acids aren't the basis for replication, when it is so clear that it is--and that understanding has lead to all the things Shneibster and Dr. Adequate describe which he repeatedly dismisses as irrelevant.

So, if you understand him Ivor. Or anyone else. Can you clarify the meaning in these passages and why we should think his theory is more worth looking into than, say, Kleinman's maths or Behe's "irreducible complexity"? How can anyone take hims seriously when he hasn't the slightest interest in current understanding and uses terms like "free will" in a paper that is supposed to be scientific--or maybe "epistemological"-- but science cares about facts--not philosophy.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/author.htm

Dr. Hewitt has become a fierce critic of the academic community, in particular of the scientific establishment, which (Perutz not included) he often found to be corrupt, unwilling to engage in rational debate, censorious of criticism and dissent and, at times, deliberately deceitful. A description of one instance can be found in his work at A Habit of Lies.

The conflict between scientific deceit, which is actually quite common, and science's claims of rationality, led to Dr. Hewitt's interest in scientific method and philosophy. This interest, in its turn, led to his studying the application of evolutionary theory to epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and hence to his development of the generalized form of evolutionary theory, bioepistemic evolution, described in "The Architecture of Thought." The radical departure underpinning the theory of bioepistemic evolution is that it is based on data, rather than genes, which are treated as a format for the data contained on DNA. The aim of his present work is to describe and develop this form of evolutionary theory particularly its application to our understanding of human nature and origins.

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/conclusions.htm

Free Will and the Ascent of Man

It is not unusual for commentators on evolutionary theory to decry its depiction of humans as programmed mechanisms, unable to make decisions for themselves. "What about free will and personal responsibility?" they say and it is a fair question, though not one to which they usually offer any real answer of their own. The answer implied by this work is that free will is itself a function of knowledge separate from genes.

. . . With the passage of time, we have come to possess so much more knowledge than animals, so many more choices, that humans, alone among the animals may be said to possess free will.

Free will grows from knowledge and has grown apace as civilization has developed. As Jacob Bronowski's TV series, The Ascent of Man, discussed, civilization greatly increases mankind's stock of knowledge and is built around new ways of accumulating, storing and distributing social knowledge. In his accumulated knowledge, mankind really has ascended above the animals and become the pinnacle of evolution.

I'm just picking out some passages to help clarify John's position--he doesn't like it, but I'd love it if someone could understand it enough to explain it to me. His theory, as you'll see from the link involves abiogenesis up through "free will". Free will isn't defined, and is a term usually involved with religious leanings. There isn't a good scientific definition of free will or a concensus as to how much of it humans possess and at what point. And even if we can conceive of it being data, rather than genes, that he's talking about, I just don't see how or what his theory is useful for. He seems to have a very poor understanding of how genes mold brains that in turn are molded by the environment. His theory involves group selection, and he, like many creationist, don't seem to understand basic game theory--how group selection factors (such as in group amity and out group enmity) can be encoded in genes) even though it is present in our closest primate kin.

I don't even know how the proteins made by genes are a part of this theory or why we should look at it this way or why he keeps insisting that nucleic acids aren't the basis for replication, when it is so clear that it is--and that understanding has lead to all the things Shneibster and Dr. Adequate describe which he repeatedly dismisses as irrelevant.

So, if you understand him Ivor. Or anyone else. Can you clarify the meaning in these passages and why we should think his theory is more worth looking into than, say, Kleinman's maths or Behe's "irreducible complexity"? How can anyone take hims seriously when he hasn't the slightest interest in current understanding and uses terms like "free will" in a paper that is supposed to be scientific--or maybe "epistemological"-- but science cares about facts--not philosophy.

I think "Free Will" is being used to describe the fact that as you gain more knowledge you can make more "choices". Thus simple organisms, with very little knowledge, behave in very predictable ways, while animals with more capacity for knowledge are harder to predict and have a wider range of behaviors.

 

[cyborg]

That's not free then.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's not free then.

But I bet you act on a day to day basis as if you do have free will. It's a very persistent illusion.

 

[Mercutio]

But I bet you act on a day to day basis as if you do have free will. It's a very persistent illusion.

So is a sunrise; we should not ignore the "illusion" part, just because of the "persistent" part.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So is a sunrise; we should not ignore the "illusion" part, just because of the "persistent" part.

And what should we do with the knowledge that free will is an illusion on a day to day basis?

Or to put it another way, what tasks can you perform better by incorporating that knowledge?

 

[John Hewitt]

John - your idea - that the fluctuations in temperature provided by the sun drive the chemical reactions/equilibrium which create self-replicating molecules - does not seem that extraordinary to me. In fact, it seems a fairly mundane hypothesis, given what we know about DNA/RNA repliacation.

Given that, you then have to answer the following question: which molecules is your sun acting upon?

I would accept that at present we do not have a strand of RNA capable of self-encoding a ribozyme, but at present I would say there is considerably more evidence to support the RNA world hypothesis than your....

...

erm... what is it again? What are your proposed self-replicators? Please don't say cells, we need to know what came before that...

This article gives a fairly up to date review of where the evidence for the RNA world hypothesis stands.

If you can provide evidence that your own idea is more fully developed than the data presented in this paper, I would be happy to reconsider, but at the moment I view an RNA world as being the most credible explanation of early molecular evolution.

I agree that the assumptions of my prebiosis work are "mundane," your word and chosen negatively I think. There is nothing exceptionable about the assumptions but I have not found them applied previously and my theory does seem to be original.

The sun would act upon any chemical equilibrium that was not thermoneutral - so there is a great variety of oscillations and selection would act upon them. The final products of selection would resemble biochemical pathways. Hence my work is a "metabolism first" theory.

Erm ... your facetiousness and negativeness is showing. I do not think a replicator is needed for evolution, what is needed is replicating data. I am proposing that the sun provides that until self-replicating systems emerge by evolution. I suggest you read Shapiro - what was his title "A Replicator is not Needed for the Origin of Life" - something like that.

I haven't got the paper you cite but I collect these things so if you can get me a pdf of it that would be helpful.

Thank you for saying that "If you can provide evidence that your own idea is more fully developed than the data presented in this paper, I would be happy to reconsider, but at the moment I view an RNA world as being the most credible explanation of early molecular evolution." There is no serious evidential support for the RNA world theory and that theory makes assumptions that are chemically unworkable. As for the above comment, I think it a one-sided prejudgement.

 

[John Hewitt]

I think "Free Will" is being used to describe the fact that as you gain more knowledge you can make more "choices". Thus simple organisms, with very little knowledge, behave in very predictable ways, while animals with more capacity for knowledge are harder to predict and have a wider range of behaviors.

Exactly so!

 

[hammegk]

Sorry hammegk, I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Go ahead, noobie.

If anyone was going to be picked on for being the least favourite, as well as a disruptive, abusive prick, it would be me and I haven't even had a warning in the past three months. Love 'em or hate 'em, you can't plead bias.

You being outside the US and an avowed atheist bought you membership in the clique ... Lovers' quarrels even occur among insiders.

And your meaningless attacks in this thread certainly helped provide a derail.

If your title was The Theist and you were a US poster you'd have been suspended long ago.

 

[cyborg]

And what should we do with the knowledge that free will is an illusion on a day to day basis?

Or to put it another way, what tasks can you perform better by incorporating that knowledge?

Nothing. But then I can be a completely successful human animal without any advanced knowledge whatsoever so this seems a fairly disingenuous question for a science forum.

That is really such a silly thing to say.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nothing. But then I can be a completely successful human animal without any advanced knowledge whatsoever so this seems a fairly disingenuous question for a science forum.

That is really such a silly thing to say.

And what I said was silly!

 

[cyborg]

Yes Ivor, that's right. I NEED the Internet, central heating, processed foods, ICBMs, cars, the electric light bulb, television et al in order to exist. That's right - as we know all those things were around in the time of the Flintstones and it has always been that way. Without them I would wither and die instantly.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes Ivor, that's right. I NEED the Internet, central heating, processed foods, ICBMs, cars, the electric light bulb, television et al in order to exist. That's right - as we know all those things were around in the time of the Flintstones and it has always been that way. Without them I would wither and die instantly.

I don't know about you, but I think a grasp of grammar and language is pretty advanced. As are the nuances of social knowledge.

Could you be a "a completely successful human animal" without those things?