Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

For those of you eating popcorn, here's those two important phrases again.

Sphenisc, nice try, but the authors of this paper about the chimpanzee insulin gene seem to think there are differences between the human and chimpanzee insulin genes. Perhaps you are willing to explain all these base differences that they are talking about. How did these base differences occur? Remember, ev shows that it takes billions of generations to evolve only a 100 loci on a 100k genome by random point mutations and natural selection and we are talking about gigabase genomes. What is the selection process that has brought about these changes in these two genes? What is the mutation mechanism that has brought about these changes? Are these kinds of differences seen in the thousands of genes that humans and chimpanzees have and if so, how do you account for all these changes in only 500,000 generations. You evolutionists have an arithmetic problem.

 

[cyborg]

Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule?

Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?

Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?

It is if you insist that the mutation model of ev is complete.

 

[kjkent1]

Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?

Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?

 

[delphi_ote]

Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?

No. He won't even admit it was his theory. He'll smoke and mirrors disappear and pretend this never happend. Instead, he'll bring up another argument. Probably one he already made earlier in this thread.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule?

Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?

Oh I forgot, those hundreds of bases these authors are talking about, that must be cruft.

Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?

It is if you insist that the mutation model of ev is complete.

Ev is complete enough to illustrate how slow random point mutation and natural selection is with a contrived selection process. Without a selection process, ev does not converge. So unless you want to explain all the base differences in the insulin gene between humans and chimps with worldwide populations, interspecies gene transfers, sexual recombination, insertions and deletions, or any other mechanism other than random point mutations, it can’t happen by mutation and natural selection.

Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?

Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?

I don’t think evolutionist will ever admit that their own data falsifies their theory.

Hey, I thought you said good bye?

Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?

No. He won't even admit it was his theory. He'll smoke and mirrors disappear and pretend this never happend. Instead, he'll bring up another argument. Probably one he already made earlier in this thread.

It is easy to understand how lotteries stay in business with this type of thinking. So you kids think that two different species evolving from a common ancestor can have hundreds of base differences in their genes for insulin and still have the exact same amino acid sequence. It is interesting that the preproinsulin between the two species are not identical yet the insulins are identical. Where’s Dr Richard, what does he have to say? Is this an example of Paul’s evolutionary beachscape?

 

[sphenisc]

So you kids think that two different species evolving from a common ancestor can have hundreds of base differences in their genes for insulin and still have the exact same amino acid sequence. It is interesting that the preproinsulin between the two species are not identical yet the insulins are identical.

Yes and quite.

 

[cyborg]

Oh I forgot, those hundreds of bases these authors are talking about, that must be cruft.

Um, yes - that is the point.

Your 'lottery ticket' version of genetic creation is totally refuted by your own words.

Saying 4^G is really big doesn't mean **** unless you know how many of those combinations are viable - and you don't have a clue.

Ev is complete enough to illustrate how slow random point mutation and natural selection is with a contrived selection process. Without a selection process, ev does not converge.

Any new lies?

So unless you want to explain all the base differences in the insulin gene between humans and chimps with worldwide populations, interspecies gene transfers, sexual recombination, insertions and deletions, or any other mechanism other than random point mutations, it can’t happen by mutation and natural selection.

Why are you such an idiot? No I mean that seriously - how can you continually refute yourself and not realise it?

 

[kjkent1]

Hey, I thought you said good bye?

I did, but this event provided such a great opportunity to demonstrate that despite your considerable education, you are unwilling to consider any evidence which reasonably argues against your position.

Your hypothesis for the impossibility of evolution is that there is no selective method for a gene which can act to overcome the extraordinary mathematical unlikelihood of any functional DNA sequence appearing by random chance. In order for your hypothesis to hold, the possible sequences of DNA must all be substantially independent outcomes, which leads to your mathematical statement of the probability of any one sequence as: 4^G.

Here, your own evidence demonstrates that two different sequences produce substantially the same organic outcome. Thus there are absolutely less than 4^G possible sequences. Which falsifies your hypothesis.

Until you can show precisely how many of the 4^G sequences produce viable life processes, vis-a-vis how many do not, you do not have a working theory which matches observed reality.

It could just as easily be that a large percentage of DNA sequences produce viable life functions. The human genome is roughly 72" long, uncoiled. 1.3% of that coil is considered functional. Suppose that 1.3% of all DNA sequences produce viable organic outcomes, and that this is the reason why 1.3% of the human genome is functional? This would mean that the random chance of a gene from the beginning is only 1 in 72.

I can't prove that this is the case, and you can't prove that it isn't But you have provided evidence that two very different DNA sequences produce the identical organic outcome. Until you can explain this discrepancy in your theory, your hypothesis has just run around on the rocks of reality.

So, Alan, what proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, vs. some far lesser number?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So you kids think that two different species evolving from a common ancestor can have hundreds of base differences in their genes for insulin and still have the exact same amino acid sequence. It is interesting that the preproinsulin between the two species are not identical yet the insulins are identical.

Yes and quite.

The only thing this explains is why you want to indoctrinate naïve school children with your irrational theory.

Oh I forgot, those hundreds of bases these authors are talking about, that must be cruft.

Um, yes - that is the point.

Your 'lottery ticket' version of genetic creation is totally refuted by your own words.

Saying 4^G is really big doesn't mean **** unless you know how many of those combinations are viable - and you don't have a clue.

Has cruftborg come up with a valid point? Does the theory of evolution depend on percent of the 4^G combinations are viable? Does the fact that a selection process to evolve a gene not matter? Does the theory of evolution now become random mutation and viable combinations? We do have clues, most mutations are harmful, ask anyone with a genetic disease.

Ev is complete enough to illustrate how slow random point mutation and natural selection is with a contrived selection process. Without a selection process, ev does not converge.

Any new lies?

Try ev with selection turned off, you only get cruft.

So unless you want to explain all the base differences in the insulin gene between humans and chimps with worldwide populations, interspecies gene transfers, sexual recombination, insertions and deletions, or any other mechanism other than random point mutations, it can’t happen by mutation and natural selection.

Why are you such an idiot? No I mean that seriously - how can you continually refute yourself and not realise it?

Oh, I see, the theory of evolution is true and this is an example of it. Too bad there is no mathematics to support your irrational belief system.

Hey, I thought you said good bye?

I did, but this event provided such a great opportunity to demonstrate that despite your considerable education, you are unwilling to consider any evidence which reasonably argues against your position.

Which evidence are you talking about, your string cheese theory or cyborg’s cruft theory?

Your hypothesis for the impossibility of evolution is that there is no selective method for a gene which can act to overcome the extraordinary mathematical unlikelihood of any functional DNA sequence appearing by random chance. In order for your hypothesis to hold, the possible sequences of DNA must all be substantially independent outcomes, which leads to your mathematical statement of the probability of any one sequence as: 4^G.

Not quite, there is no selective method at all which can evolve a gene from the beginning. That lack of a selective method reduces the likelihood of obtaining any functional DNA sequence appearing an infinitesimal mathematical probability. If you and cruftborg believe that you can overcome these infinitesimal mathematical probabilities by proving that there are huge numbers of viable combinations DNA that are consistent with life, why don’t you explain why so many people die when exposed to radiation or other mutagens?

Here, your own evidence demonstrates that two different sequences produce substantially the same organic outcome. Thus there are absolutely less than 4^G possible sequences. Which falsifies your hypothesis.

So your argument is that there many paths to the most fit creature? Do you think that the precursor to humans and chimps produced insulin?

Until you can show precisely how many of the 4^G sequences produce viable life processes, vis-a-vis how many do not, you do not have a working theory which matches observed reality.

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?

It could just as easily be that a large percentage of DNA sequences produce viable life functions. The human genome is roughly 72" long, uncoiled. 1.3% of that coil is considered functional. Suppose that 1.3% of all DNA sequences produce viable organic outcomes, and that this is the reason why 1.3% of the human genome is functional? This would mean that the random chance of a gene from the beginning is only 1 in 72.

Huh?

I can't prove that this is the case, and you can't prove that it isn't But you have provided evidence that two very different DNA sequences produce the identical organic outcome. Until you can explain this discrepancy in your theory, your hypothesis has just run around on the rocks of reality.

Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.

So, Alan, what proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, vs. some far lesser number?

Kjkent1, why are mutagens dangerous?

 

[sphenisc]

If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.

What makes you think that the difference in insulin genes is the result of selection?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.What makes you think that the difference in insulin genes is the result of selection?

Either it drifted or it was selected for in order to fit your theory. Maybe Dr Richard can tell us whether the same enzymes cleave the preproinsulin for both humans and chimpanzees to insulin. If they aren’t identical enzymes then not only would the insulin gene had to drift but the cleaving enzymes would have drifted identically. For some reason, I think that the differences in genes will have a cascading effect on other related enzymes and you are going to have a hard time explaining the required changes in other related enzymes on drift. Of course, there is no selection process so these differences in genes will have to be explained by drift, if you get my drift.

 

[kjkent1]

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?

False premise. Why are bullets dangerous?

I won't allow you to control the discussion by playing Socrates. If you think you can outargue me, then take your shot, and prepare to get your ass handed to you over and over again. Just like as has been the case throughout this thread. Example:

Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.

How do you know that the common ancestor was already producing insulin, and not something different? A: you don't. You just jumped to that conclusion, because you need it to advance your false premise.

Maybe the common ancestor was producing something like insulin, but not the same molecular structure we know today. Maybe the two successor organisms diverged, but the requirements of their environment were similar, so they both evolved to use insulin because it was the best fit for the environment. Maybe the common ancestor produced insulin with one DNA sequence, and all those AWFUL mutations you claim are so dangerous caused a divergence that had a negligible effect.

Damn, there are all sorts of possible answers to your question other than that mutations cause cancer and kill the host. But, then you know that cancerous mutations are mostly the result of damage caused to somatic rather than germ cells, so your entire line of reasoning here is just religious zealotry gone awry.

Now, I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, rather than some much smaller number?

 

[delphi_ote]

So do I win the million?

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is Adequate’s idea of a mathematical proof of the theory of evolution..

Now, here's what I don't understand about you people. You lie about the content of my posts. Everyone reading this thread can read my posts. Everyone can see that you are a liar. Everyone can see that this is a very stupid lie to tell, 'cos you were bound to be caught. So everyone can see that you're a stupid liar.

Now what I don't understand is what you hope to gain by advertising in so blatant a fahion that you are a stupid liar. Do you, in real life, have the words "I AM A STUPID LIAR" tattooed on your forehead?

I am really fascinated. What do you hope to achieve by telling lies this dumb and immediately getting caught??

Or are you genuinely stupid enough to hope that one day you'll deceive someone?

In the future, sociologists will be studying the history of evolution trying to figure out how so many scientific institutions could be duped into believing the theory of evolution..

Do you realize that you guys have been reciting that mantra for the last 150 years? Longer, in fact, since you people were frightened and ignorant of geology before you were frightened and ignorant of biology.

You remember how I told you about reciting your fantasies not making them come true?

Adequate, for somebody with a PhD in mathematics, you present very little in the form of a mathematical argument.

Why no, of course not: it was only necessary to expose your mistakes once.

It was actually only necessary for you to make your mistakes once.

You are so boring Adequate. Keep it up; you may win this debate by boring me to death.

If you find that contact with reality bores you, I suggest that you spend less time on these forums and more time reading the Bible.

 

[Dr Adequate]

We do have clues, most mutations are harmful, ask anyone with a genetic disease.

Just when you thought dumb couldn't get any dumber ...

Kleinman, please learn something about

(1) Genetics.

Most mutations are not harmful, this is why most of us, who have germ-line mutations, and usually by your age a few somatic ones thrown in, are not, in fact, all that harmful.

(2) Logic.

Consider why this is not a good piece of rhetoric:

"Of course most cars are harmful, ask anyone who's been in a car crash."

Why would this not prove the point? Discuss.

(3) The theory of evolution.

And what if most mutations were harmful? The long-term chances of survival of harmful mutations would be smaller than those of neutral mutations, which in turn are smaller that those of advantageous mutations. Have you heard of a thing called the law of natural selection?

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?

In sufficient doses, they are dangerous because they cause many somatic mutations, and only one of them needs to become cancerous for you to have cancer.

Please, learn something. About something. Really, anything, it's all good.

 

[articulett]

And what if most mutations were harmful? The long-term chances of survival of harmful mutations would be smaller than those of neutral mutations, which in turn are smaller that those of advantageous mutations. Have you heard of a thing called the law of natural selection?

In sufficient doses, they are dangerous because they cause many somatic mutations, and only one of them needs to become cancerous for you to have cancer.

Moreover, cancer mutations are beneficial if you're a cell in a cancer tumor.

Kleinman, whether a gene is beneficial, harmful, or neutral only refers for the capacity for that piece of DNA to get passed on. It has nothing to do with how long humans live or who is happiest or which life forms we find the most endearing or "worthy"--

Suppose a gene made someone slightly more gullible than others--it made them slightly more likely to be religious due to temporal lobe activity--and suppose that, in turn, made them more likely to have kids because of stories about "going forth and multiplying" and admonishments against birth control, abortion, etc. coupled with the "god doesn't give you more than you can handle" meme.

Is that a good mutation for the organism? It sounds like a life of self created drudgery for the women. Plus increases in fecundity is associated with decreases in life span. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6202707.stm

But that sure is a beneficial mutation for the genes involved in creating such gullibility. It's guaranteed to be passed on at the expense of those doing the passing on.

Sexually transmitted diseases are very common in the animal kingdom--not just in humans-- Why? because it's a great way for a microbe to hitch a ride into a new organism.

When creationists speak of harmful mutations they seem to be on a whole different page than scientists. In genetics--a harmful mutation is only one that is less likely to get passed on. That's it. And you'd have to know how many mutations were going on in each organism at every moment to even imagine how many possible beneficial mutations could be occurring at that moment-- and we are discovering new life forms every single day! Our planet is teeming with life--and not necessarily stuff that we find savory. Much of it is invisible. And it takes only one single beneficial mutation to move any single organism one step "forward" in evolution.

Moreover, most of the human genome is junk DNA, and, therefore, most mutations are neutral--not harmful, because most mutations take place there.

Heard of forensic testing? Tandem repeats? RFLP? When we want to contrast two closely related life forms we look at the non working stuff because it accumulates changes quicker--if we want to compare similarities we look at the coding regions--it's how we know how far back we shared an ancestor with Chimpanzees.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?

False premise. Why are bullets dangerous?

Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.

I won't allow you to control the discussion by playing Socrates.

Why not?

If you think you can outargue me, then take your shot, and prepare to get your ass handed to you over and over again. Just like as has been the case throughout this thread. Example:

Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.

How do you know that the common ancestor was already producing insulin, and not something different? A: you don't. You just jumped to that conclusion, because you need it to advance your false premise.

The exon-intron organization of the insulin genes of these two primates is the same as those previously reported for the human and owl monkey insulin genes (Bell et al. 1980; Ullrich et al. 1980; Seino et al. 1987) and corresponds to what is termed the “ancestral” insulin gene structure (Steiner et al. 1985 ) , i.e., the coding region of the gene being interrupted by two introns.

I added the bold facing to the words “ancestral” insulin.Kjkent1, perhaps you know of a primate that doesn’t use some form of insulin?

Maybe the common ancestor was producing something like insulin, but not the same molecular structure we know today. Maybe the two successor organisms diverged, but the requirements of their environment were similar, so they both evolved to use insulin because it was the best fit for the environment. Maybe the common ancestor produced insulin with one DNA sequence, and all those AWFUL mutations you claim are so dangerous caused a divergence that had a negligible effect.

Maybe…? Maybe…? Maybe…? Maybe…?

Damn, there are all sorts of possible answers to your question other than that mutations cause cancer and kill the host. But, then you know that cancerous mutations are mostly the result of damage caused to somatic rather than germ cells, so your entire line of reasoning here is just religious zealotry gone awry.

The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?

Now, I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, rather than some much smaller number?

There are far more harmful mutations documented than beneficial mutations. This is your theory, if you think that there is large proportion of the 4^G possible sequences in a gene are viable, start listing your beneficial mutations and prove your argument. There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?

So do I win the million?

Sober up!

This is Adequate’s idea of a mathematical proof of the theory of evolution..

Now, here's what I don't understand about you people.

I’m starting to understand evolutionists. If you quote them they say you are a liar. Adequate, not only are you boring, you are long winded.

Kleinman, whether a gene is beneficial, harmful, or neutral only refers for the capacity for that piece of DNA to get passed on. It has nothing to do with how long humans live or who is happiest or which life forms we find the most endearing or "worthy"--

So are you going to tell us the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? Without that selection process, how does a gene evolve from the beginning? Or are you going to repeat the argument that I made previously when describing what selection can do?

I think this is a good time to review what the peer reviewed and published stylized computer model of random point mutations and natural selection ev shows us. First, when the genome is lengthened, the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow. Second, if the mutation rate becomes too high, the model fails to converge. Third, increasing population increases the convergence rate but only to a limited degree. Fourth and most importantly, when the genome is increase beyond a certain length, the model fails to converge. This failure in convergence is due to conflicting selection criteria. Selection to reduce errors in the nonbinding site region dominates selection to increase beneficial mutations in the binding site region. This fourth finding has important implications to the theory of evolution. It indicates that multiple selection criteria can conflict preventing evolution. This fourth finding also indicates the importance of defining a selection process that would allow genes to evolve from the beginning and transform genes from one form to another.

The example of human and chimpanzee insulin gene and molecule point to one of the many gaps in the theory of evolution. If differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin are due to drift, these changes are still subject to natural selection. Every step of the drift had to be either beneficial or neutral otherwise any of these mutations would cause selection out. If these changes are neutral, why don’t we see large varieties of insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees since these mutations do not get selected out? The reason is there is no selection process that would allow for these hundreds of base changes. If humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor and this common ancestor produce some form of insulin, there is no way to account for the hundreds of base differences between human and chimpanzee insulin gene. If you try to account for this by drift, there should be a wide variety of insulin genes with numerous neutral mutations. Perhaps evolutionists should postulate the theory of punctuated drifting. If you try to account for these differences by mutation and natural selection, what was the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin?

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

 

[kjkent1]

Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.

I did -- just yesterday, I had a CT-Scan. But, damn, I'm still here writing to you. Next time, I'll make sure that they turn up the power. So, I've done the mutagen experiment. I'll leave the bullet experiment to you.

The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't allow you to play Socrates with me, because it allows you to control the conversation. So make your affirmative case, if you have the nuts.

There are far more harmful mutations documented than beneficial mutations.

False. If every base in a genome is the product of mutation (something which you have consistently maintained), then the entire genome sequence of every living organism consists of beneficial mutations.

This is your theory, if you think that there is large proportion of the 4^G possible sequences in a gene are viable, start listing your beneficial mutations and prove your argument.

False. the 4^G impossibility argument is YOUR theory, and it has been your theory since page one of the evolutionisdead.com thread. Your entire argument rests on the conclusion that the number of inviable combinations of DNA sequences approaches 4^G -- only you have never actually offered any proof to support this conclusion. You take it as self evident, because your theology demands this as the only possibility. God is in control, therefore the observed viable DNA sequences must be the ONLY possible sequences, because they were designed that way.

Ain't that right, bubba?

Of course, this position is laughably absurd, because you are attempting to scientifically prove that randomness cannot account for the organization of life. But, if God is behind the entire operation of the universe, then randomness MUST BE ILLUSORY. God cannot possibly know and control all and simultaneously allow randomness to operate, because randomness is unpredictable. That is, UNLESS God operates in a non-logical manner. And, if God does, then damn, that means any attempt to logically determine God's behavior is doomed, because God's not logical.

I wonder if you realize just how friggin stupid and unsupportable your argument actually is, no matter how much scientific methodology you attempt to use? The real irony is that the Greeks sat around and did nothing but think through all of these logical constructs for several thousand years, and they concluded that theology and science are irrevocably discrete disciplines.

Unfortunately, you don't have several thousand years, so I'm just gonna have to keep pounding it into you until you realize that your argument is impossible, no matter how logical you may perceive it to be.

There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?

This is a perfect demonstration of how you don't get it. Every single web page, the underlying networking/computing technology, the boolean algebra, your fingers that type, the blood in your veins and arteries, your neurons -- EVERYTHING that you, Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D., ARE, is a tribute to BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

In short, there are a LOT MORE BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS than there are harmful ones, because if HARMFUL MUTATIONS were DOMINANT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LIFE!!!

Am I getting through, bubba? No, of course not, because your THEOLOGY requires that the reason for life is GOD, not mutations, harmful or otherwise. That is, you don't actually subscribe to any theory of beneficial mutations, because GOD makes life, not beneficial mutations.

What I wonder, is why you bother to discuss this subject at all. You sit in your chair proclaiming that there are more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations, when in fact, your belief system utterly prevents the existence of any beneficial mutations.

Thus, your entire argument is based on a completely false premise. No matter how much science you apply, you cannot possibly pass the following barrier:

Evolution is impossible only if God is responsible. Otherwise Evolution must be true, because there is no alternative.

Now you should read the above statement a few times and really contemplate it, because it's really the only thing that matters. You can ask all sorts of scientific questions and provide endless piles of peer-reviewed evidence showing the inconsistency of Evolutionary theory. But, in the end, none of it matters at all, because (and I'll repeat it now):

Evolution is impossible only if God is responsible. Otherwise Evolution must be true, because there is no other alternative.

I think this is a good time to review what the peer reviewed and published stylized computer model of random point mutations and natural selection ev shows us. First, when the genome is lengthened, the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow.

This conclusion has been soundly refuted by imposing a better selection method.

Second, if the mutation rate becomes too high, the model fails to converge.

Wow, this is a really impressive conclusion. I'll bet that if you stab an organism with an ice pick, that will damage the organism, too.

Third, increasing population increases the convergence rate but only to a limited degree.

Yawn

Fourth and most importantly, when the genome is increase beyond a certain length, the model fails to converge.This failure in convergence is due to conflicting selection criteria.

Bull****. The failure is due to to the selection method killing off organisms with neutral mutations, which would have otherwise survived with a more realistic selection method -- as demonstrated by Unnamed's more realistic selection method.

Selection to reduce errors in the nonbinding site region dominates selection to increase beneficial mutations in the binding site region. This fourth finding has important implications to the theory of evolution. It indicates that multiple selection criteria can conflict preventing evolution.

Bull****. It indicates that you don't understand the fact that a neutral mutation has no effect, so it shouldn't kill off its host.

This fourth finding also indicates the importance of defining a selection process that would allow genes to evolve from the beginning and transform genes from one form to another.

Imagine my surprise that you would suddenly announce this conclusion without any supporting evidence. "Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! ... Whoops, wrong hat!" -- Bullwinkle

The example of human and chimpanzee insulin gene and molecule point to one of the many gaps in the theory of evolution. If differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin are due to drift, these changes are still subject to natural selection. Every step of the drift had to be either beneficial or neutral otherwise any of these mutations would cause selection out.

False. There's no reason why a mutations can't drift between harmful, neutral and beneficial, because the environment of the host changes, and a harmful mutation doesn't necessarily guarantee extinction of an entire lineage.

If these changes are neutral, why don’t we see large varieties of insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees since these mutations do not get selected out? The reason is there is no selection process that would allow for these hundreds of base changes. If humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor and this common ancestor produce some form of insulin, there is no way to account for the hundreds of base differences between human and chimpanzee insulin gene.

Really? I just did, so I guess that pretty much blow this conclusion completely out of the water.

If you try to account for this by drift, there should be a wide variety of insulin genes with numerous neutral mutations.

Really? Let's see your supporting evidence.

Perhaps evolutionists should postulate the theory of punctuated drifting.

Perhaps they should.

If you try to account for these differences by mutation and natural selection, what was the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin?

Why Alan, you should know by know that the answer is that there must be far less than 4^G possible inviable DNA sequences.

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

OK, once again, I've disposed of all your ridiculous propositions. Got anything else?

 

[cyborg]

Has cruftborg come up with a valid point? Does the theory of evolution depend on percent of the 4^G combinations are viable?

No, but you argument that evolution is mathematically improbable does.

Does the fact that a selection process to evolve a gene not matter?

No it does not.

The construction of genes is not a 'goal'. Evolution is not goal based. New genes are mathematically guarunteed to happen. The question only becomes whether they are good or bad. This determination *REQUIRES* selection. The question is meaningless without selection.

Does the theory of evolution now become random mutation and viable combinations?

No. Your assertion that evolution is improbable depends on knowing the number of viable combinations as a proportion of 4^G.

Try ev with selection turned off, you only get cruft.

Exactly. You are self-refuting again.

Without selection all genes are equal - neither good nor bad. All 4^G possibilities are valid.

Remember when I said earlier than programming is not 2^P? This is because there are equivalent programs in the 2^P space.

That you do not see this is also true for the 4^G space despite having provided the evidence is not our problem.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.

I did -- just yesterday, I had a CT-Scan. But, damn, I'm still here writing to you. Next time, I'll make sure that they turn up the power. So, I've done the mutagen experiment. I'll leave the bullet experiment to you.

Your probability of surviving the mutagenic effect of the level of x-ray exposure from a CT scan is much better than the probability that the theory of evolution is true. Madam Currie found out otherwise for her radiation exposure. I hope the findings from your CT scan show you well.

The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't allow you to play Socrates with me, because it allows you to control the conversation. So make your affirmative case, if you have the nuts.

You evolutionists are the ones who say mutation and natural selection proves your theory. I am interested if you can explain why a beneficial mutation can be selected for. If you can’t do this you will have trouble mathematically describing and explaining your theory. I have already made an affirmative case with ev, the only thing that evolutionists have done is discredit Dr Schneider’s model which was a predictable response. Now we are working on describing the selection component of the “mutation and selection” slogan. You evolutionists aren’t doing so well with this concept either.

There are far more harmful mutations documented than beneficial mutations.

False. If every base in a genome is the product of mutation (something which you have consistently maintained), then the entire genome sequence of every living organism consists of beneficial mutations.

It’s not me that says that every base in a genome in the product of mutations, remember, I’m the annoying creationist.

This is your theory, if you think that there is large proportion of the 4^G possible sequences in a gene are viable, start listing your beneficial mutations and prove your argument.

False. the 4^G impossibility argument is YOUR theory, and it has been your theory since page one of the evolutionisdead.com thread. Your entire argument rests on the conclusion that the number of viable combinations of DNA sequences approaches 4^G -- only you have never actually offered any proof to support this conclusion. You take it as self evident, because your theology demands this as the only possibility. God is in control, therefore the observed viable DNA sequences must be the ONLY possible sequences, because they were designed that way.

Again, you attribute something to me that I have not done. 4^G is the number of combinations of bases possible for a genome of length G. It is evolutionist who propose that out of these 4^G combinations that natural selection evolves the sequences that are beneficial for life. But wait a minute, there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from one form to another form.

Of course, this position is laughably absurd, because you are attempting to scientifically prove that randomness cannot account for the organization of life. But, if God is behind the entire operation of the universe, then randomness MUST BE ILLUSORY. God cannot possibly know and control all and simultaneously allow randomness to operate, because randomness is unpredictable. That is, UNLESS God operates in a non-logical manner. And, if God does, then damn, that means any attempt to logically determine God's behavior is doomed, because God's not logical.

I think most serious evolutionists believe that “randomness cannot account for the organization of life”. They believe that random mutation controlled by natural selection is the explanation. The problem for you evolutionist is that the mathematics of this concept doesn’t work to prove your theory. In fact the opposite occurs as shown by ev.

I wonder if you realize just how friggin stupid and unsupportable your argument actually is, no matter how much scientific methodology you attempt to use? The real irony is that the Greeks sat around and did nothing but think through all of these logical constructs for several thousand years, and they concluded that theology and science are irrevocably discrete disciplines.

Hey, I’m using the peer reviewed and published ev computer model to support my argument. What do you have against this model? It was written by a devout evolutionist, published in a devoutly evolutionist journal and only until recently was accepted by devout evolutionists as proof of your theory. Only when you are shown what this mathematics of ev shows do you discredit this model.

Unfortunately, you don't have several thousand years, so I'm just gonna have to keep pounding it into you until you realize that your argument is impossible, no matter how logical you may perceive it to be.

Is your string cheese theory of evolution part of that pounding?

There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?

This is a perfect demonstration of how you don't get it. Every single web page, the underlying networking/computing technology, the boolean algebra, your fingers that type, the blood in your veins and arteries, your neurons -- EVERYTHING that you, Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D., ARE, is a tribute to BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

You got this backwards; we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

In short, there are a LOT MORE BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS than there are harmful ones, because if HARMFUL MUTATIONS were DOMINANT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LIFE!!!

IF GOD DID NOT CREATE US THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY LIFE!!! AND THE MATHEMATICS OF MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION SHOWS THIS PROCESS IMPOSSIBLE.

Could you stop typing so loud?

What I wonder, is why you bother to discuss this subject at all. You sit in your chair proclaiming that there are more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations, when in fact, your belief system utterly prevents the existence of any beneficial mutations.

Hey, I said the sickle cell mutation is beneficial mutation but you won’t tell us why.

Thus, your entire argument is based on a completely false premise. No matter how much science you apply, you cannot possibly pass the following barrier:

My argument is based on the results from the ev computer model.

Evolution is impossible only if God is responsible. Otherwise Evolution must be true, because there is no alternative.

I haven’t made this argument. What I have said is there are only two possibilities. Either we evolved or we have been created. If you disprove the theory of evolution, you support the alternative that we have been created. The mathematics of ev shows that the theory of evolution is impossible. Not only that, ev shows the importance of a selection process for the theory of evolution. There is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and no selection process to evolve a gene from one form to another.

I think this is a good time to review what the peer reviewed and published stylized computer model of random point mutations and natural selection ev shows us. First, when the genome is lengthened, the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow.

This conclusion has been soundly refuted by imposing a better selection method.

Are you talking about Unnamed’s selection process? Let’s see whether Dr Schneider or Paul will embrace this selection process as having any relationship to reality. Anyone who has any understanding of ev and the mathematical modeling of a selection process won’t touch Unnamed’s selection process with a ten foot pole (at least not calling it realistic). What Unnamed has done is focus a spotlight on the difficulty of formulating a realistic selection process.

Second, if the mutation rate becomes too high, the model fails to converge.

Wow, this is a really impressive conclusion. I'll bet that if you stab an organism with an ice pick, that will damage the organism, too.

I thought you said all mutations are beneficial.

Third, increasing population increases the convergence rate but only to a limited degree.

Yawn

Again, your difficulty in maintaining your attention leads you off the logic trail. When talking about the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a primate ancestor, the population levels would have been very small. There are few factors that help the mathematics of mutation and natural selection in support of the theory of evolution. You don’t have huge populations to accomplish this with humans and chimpanzees. So pay attention.

Fourth and most importantly, when the genome is increase beyond a certain length, the model fails to converge.This failure in convergence is due to conflicting selection criteria.

Bull****. The failure is due to to the selection method killing off organisms with neutral mutations, which would have otherwise survived with a more realistic selection method -- as demonstrated by Unnamed's more realistic selection method.

If Unnamed’s selection process is realistic, it must be in one of the 10^500 alternative realities from your string cheese theory. His selection process isn’t realistic in the reality we live in.

Selection to reduce errors in the nonbinding site region dominates selection to increase beneficial mutations in the binding site region. This fourth finding has important implications to the theory of evolution. It indicates that multiple selection criteria can conflict preventing evolution.

Bull****. It indicates that you don't understand the fact that a neutral mutation has no effect, so it shouldn't kill off its host.

Can you hit the asterisk key without looking at the keyboard?

This fourth finding also indicates the importance of defining a selection process that would allow genes to evolve from the beginning and transform genes from one form to another.

Imagine my surprise that you would suddenly announce this conclusion without any supporting evidence. "Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! ... Whoops, wrong hat!" -- Bullwinkle

I know you are having a hard time understanding ev, but I’ll be patient with you.

The example of human and chimpanzee insulin gene and molecule point to one of the many gaps in the theory of evolution. If differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin are due to drift, these changes are still subject to natural selection. Every step of the drift had to be either beneficial or neutral otherwise any of these mutations would cause selection out.

False. There's no reason why a mutations can't drift between harmful, neutral and beneficial, because the environment of the host changes, and a harmful mutation doesn't necessarily guarantee extinction of an entire lineage.

So tell us, what kind of environmental changes lead to the evolution of different preproinsulins for humans and chimpanzees?

If you try to account for this by drift, there should be a wide variety of insulin genes with numerous neutral mutations.

Really? Let's see your supporting evidence.

It actually wouldn’t surprise me if there are a few variants of insulin genes identified. After all, there are a couple of hundred variants of human hemoglobin that are compatible with life. That’s not very many variants for the total possible number of variants. You remember 4^G don’t you?

Perhaps evolutionists should postulate the theory of punctuated drifting.

Perhaps they should.

The whole theory of evolution is drifting from one speculation to the next.

If you try to account for these differences by mutation and natural selection, what was the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin?

Why Alan, you should know by know that the answer is that there must be far less than 4^G possible inviable DNA sequences.

For your theory to work there must be.

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

OK, once again, I've disposed of all your ridiculous propositions. Got anything else?

Hey, I’m just trying to keep up the interest in calculations so your computer company can stay in business. You know what I’m talking about.

Has cruftborg come up with a valid point? Does the theory of evolution depend on percent of the 4^G combinations are viable?

No, but you argument that evolution is mathematically improbable does.

Well, start posting your URLs that show your point is true.

Does the fact that a selection process to evolve a gene not matter?

No it does not.

The mutation without selection theory of evolution takes shape.

The construction of genes is not a 'goal'. Evolution is not goal based. New genes are mathematically guarunteed to happen. The question only becomes whether they are good or bad. This determination *REQUIRES* selection. The question is meaningless without selection.

What don’t you lay out your mathematics for us of how these good and bad genes appear?

Does the theory of evolution now become random mutation and viable combinations?

No. Your assertion that evolution is improbable depends on knowing the number of viable combinations as a proportion of 4^G.

Just how many viable combinations are there since you are now saying this is how your theory works?

Try ev with selection turned off, you only get cruft.

Exactly. You are self-refuting again.

Refuting what? When you turn selection off in ev binding sites do not evolve, in fact, any information you have in the binding sites is lost.

Without selection all genes are equal - neither good nor bad. All 4^G possibilities are valid.

That is not what ev shows, without selection, random mutations cause the loss of information in evolved binding sites. Selection must be maintained in order that binding sites be maintained.

So kjkent1 and cruftborg joins the crowd in discrediting ev, what a surprise. They can’t describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning; their argument is that there are huge numbers of combinations of bases that are compatible with life. Well, that and their string cheese melted on cruft theory of evolution.