Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So the nonsensical response that evolutionists give to how the first genes formed without the DNA replicase system is “billions and billions of years”. You have no science, no mathematics, only slogans to support your theory.

Oh, you are a hoot! You got that out of what I wrote? (well, no, you didn't--but that didn't stop you.)

Well let’s get these quotes accurately.

Sure. Modern genes have been built upon billions of years of previous genes. To suggest that the simplest current organisms are identical to the earliest replicants is disingenuous at best. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that our current simple life is as simple as it gets. But... if genes are defined functionally, and the function is replication, we can get much much simpler for our early genes.

How many billions of years does abiogenesis take and how many billions of years does it take to get your so-called modern genes?

There are no experiments that demonstrate how the basic components of life formed nonezymatically. Your theory is nothing but gaps.

1) Could you please list what you mean here by "basic components of life"? I am curious as to whether you are simply asking the wrong things again, or whether you are making an actual point. 2) Nothing but gaps? Is this one of those deals where, when a gap is filled in, you get to claim that we have merely created two more gaps? These gaps you speak of are shrinking rapidly; soon there may be nowhere left for your god to hide.

Let’s keep it simple for you, 1) ribose and RNA bases or amino acids depending on which fantasy trip you subscribe to and 2) the gaps in your theory are mathematical, chemical and physical, but you have no shortage of slogans. That mathematical gap grew by orders of magnitude with the development of Dr Schneider’s ev program.

Too bad you and other evolutionists don’t accept the results of Dr Schneider’s research, then research money could go to something worthwhile, not your silly, irrational concept of abiogenesis.

Hey, "evolutionists" can work just fine with a god-created abiogenesis (and it is not difficult to find examples of evolutionists admitting this; as an aside, my very first school exposure to natural selection was by a visiting entomologist who said that, in his opinion, "god touched the earth" and created life, which then proceeded via natural selection). When you speak of a "silly, irrational concept of abiogenesis", remember that the term applies to your god hypothesis every bit as much as to the tidal pool hypothesis, the thermal vent hypothesis, the volcanic gas hypothesis, Odin's tears, and the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Finally you acknowledge that your concept of abiogenesis has as much validity as Odin's tears and the Great Green Arkleseizure.

So please, in your continuing conflation of natural selection and abiogenesis, be careful which targets you think you are aiming at. Sloppy use of vocabulary might lead some to believe that you don't know what you are talking about.

Since you evolutionists like to define terms, perhaps you would be willing to define when abiogenesis ends and your theory of evolution begins. It will be interesting to see how you define when one fantasy ends and another begins.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

It used to take millions of years for lucky gene mutations to make lucky beneficial changes, but NOW I think the evolutionists have decided to make the impossible more probable by changing the amount of lucky time needed to billions, and then trillions. And yet as people lose faith in luck and get impatient, I'm sure the evolutionists will say it takes zillions of years for beneficial mutations to chance life for the better.

 

[Mercutio]

Well let’s get these quotes accurately.

Yes, let's.

How many billions of years does abiogenesis take and how many billions of years does it take to get your so-called modern genes?

It is not the time, dear, but what happens during that time that is important. The sun has been here billions of years longer than life has been, and yet I doubt very much that abiogenesis will take place upon it. You said that the evolutionist's answer was "billions and billions of years". That is either an ignorant oversimplification or an outright lie.

Let’s keep it simple for you, 1) ribose and RNA bases or amino acids depending on which fantasy trip you subscribe to and 2) the gaps in your theory are mathematical, chemical and physical, but you have no shortage of slogans. That mathematical gap grew by orders of magnitude with the development of Dr Schneider’s ev program.

1) Do you think this is the only form that life could have taken? (this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one). 2) You must be looking at different journals than I am. I'd love to see the sources supporting this contention.

Finally you acknowledge that your concept of abiogenesis has as much validity as Odin's tears and the Great Green Arkleseizure.

It would be foolish to defend any one abiogenesis hypothesis before there is sufficient evidence for it. The three naturalistic hypotheses mentioned are each being investigated. Even if, however, one of them is shown to create a living thing in the lab, it will not have demonstrated that it is the one that worked billions of years ago. It will merely have been shown to be sufficient. Odin's tears, the Great Green Arkleseizure, and your god hypothesis, however, share the property of being untestable (to the best of my knowledge--I have, however, asked you to report on the evidence you once claimed was abundant). So, I suggest that while none of the listed hypotheses can ever be shown to be "the right one", there is still a meaningful qualitative difference between the naturalistic and the mythical hypotheses. I do, still, encourage you to bring your evidence to bear.

Since you evolutionists like to define terms, perhaps you would be willing to define when abiogenesis ends and your theory of evolution begins. It will be interesting to see how you define when one fantasy ends and another begins.

Natural selection requires a replicant. (Some will say that it requires a population of living things; that is a more conservative definition.) Abiogenesis results in a replicant. It is possible that there were several abiogenesis events, but that all current life evolved from the winner. Perhaps another event gave rise to life that was not DNA/RNA based, or that had a different codon (not our three-triplet), or different chirality, or whatever... but this population or populations did not survive the competition with ours. It could even be that one of these new life forms was somehow more efficient than ours, but had a later start and was eaten by a mudskipper.

It is an easy distinction to make. Just look at the definitions of the terms.

 

[Mercutio]

It used to take millions of years for lucky gene mutations to make lucky beneficial changes, but NOW I think the evolutionists have decided to make the impossible more probable by changing the amount of lucky time needed to billions, and then trillions. And yet as people lose faith in luck and get impatient, I'm sure the evolutionists will say it takes zillions of years for beneficial mutations to chance life for the better.

Here, have an example in humans in the past 20,000 years.

ETA: Here is a link to a more user-friendly press release on it.

Scientists have known for decades that at some point in the past all humans were lactose intolerant. What was not known was just how recently lactose tolerance evolved.

Dr Thomas said: "To go from lactose tolerance being rare or absent seven to eight thousand years ago to the commonality we see today in central and northern Europeans just cannot be explained by anything except strong natural selection. Our study confirms that the variant of the lactase gene appeared very recently in evolutionary terms and that it became common because it gave its carriers a massive survival advantage. Scientists have inferred this already through analysis of genes in today's population but we've confirmed it by going back and looking at ancient DNA."

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

How many billions of years does abiogenesis take and how many billions of years does it take to get your so-called modern genes?

It is not the time, dear, but what happens during that time that is important. The sun has been here billions of years longer than life has been, and yet I doubt very much that abiogenesis will take place upon it. You said that the evolutionist's answer was "billions and billions of years". That is either an ignorant oversimplification or an outright lie.

You need to study ev. When you do you will understand that random point mutation and natural selection accomplishes very little in billions of generations. The “billions and billions of years” which is the standard evolutionist answer to how abiogenesis occurs and your answer to how modern genes evolve is neither an ignorant oversimplification nor an outright lie.

Let’s keep it simple for you, 1) ribose and RNA bases or amino acids depending on which fantasy trip you subscribe to and 2) the gaps in your theory are mathematical, chemical and physical, but you have no shortage of slogans. That mathematical gap grew by orders of magnitude with the development of Dr Schneider’s ev program.

1) Do you think this is the only form that life could have taken? (this is a serious question, not a rhetorical one). 2) You must be looking at different journals than I am. I'd love to see the sources supporting this contention.

1) Oh no, I’ve watched Star Trek and Star Wars, there are all different kinds of life forms. 2) Start with Nucleic Acids Research and read EV Evolution of Biological Information by Dr Tom Schneider. His work reveals a huge mathematical gap in your theory.

Finally you acknowledge that your concept of abiogenesis has as much validity as Odin's tears and the Great Green Arkleseizure.

It would be foolish to defend any one abiogenesis hypothesis before there is sufficient evidence for it. The three naturalistic hypotheses mentioned are each being investigated. Even if, however, one of them is shown to create a living thing in the lab, it will not have demonstrated that it is the one that worked billions of years ago. It will merely have been shown to be sufficient. Odin's tears, the Great Green Arkleseizure, and your god hypothesis, however, share the property of being untestable (to the best of my knowledge--I have, however, asked you to report on the evidence you once claimed was abundant). So, I suggest that while none of the listed hypotheses can ever be shown to be "the right one", there is still a meaningful qualitative difference between the naturalistic and the mythical hypotheses. I do, still, encourage you to bring your evidence to bear.

Of course there is no evidence for abiogenesis. The chemistry required to accomplish this is impossible and the mathematics and physics to select for the sequences necessary to make genes does not exist. Beside this, you do have billions of years to accomplish this.

Since you evolutionists like to define terms, perhaps you would be willing to define when abiogenesis ends and your theory of evolution begins. It will be interesting to see how you define when one fantasy ends and another begins.

Natural selection requires a replicant. (Some will say that it requires a population of living things; that is a more conservative definition.) Abiogenesis results in a replicant. It is possible that there were several abiogenesis events, but that all current life evolved from the winner. Perhaps another event gave rise to life that was not DNA/RNA based, or that had a different codon (not our three-triplet), or different chirality, or whatever... but this population or populations did not survive the competition with ours. It could even be that one of these new life forms was somehow more efficient than ours, but had a later start and was eaten by a mudskipper.

Well, why don’t you tell us how the first replicant came to be? Or is that just another gap in your theory? Here is an abbreviated sequence of the evolutionist concept of how life came to be: abiogenesis->first replicant->mutation and selection->life today or more simply gap->gap->gap->life today.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

OK, fair enough. So if I understand correctly (and, I probably don't), then with ev's default settings, a perfect creature can arise by chance during nearly any generation, and if it does, that's really the end of the experiment, regardless of the amount of convergence which may have already occured.

I'm not sure I understand you, but I think you're right. A creature with 1 mistake can evolve to one with 0 mistakes by chance, as you say. At that point, Rseq is usually close to Rfreq. But this assumes that the parameters are set so that the creature really is perfect: all bindings sites bound, no spurious bindings. That's because Rfreq is calculated based on that assumption. If you've changed the parameters so that a 0-mistake creature can evolve with spurious bindings, then Rseq will probably be much lower than the calculated Rfreq.

Once a creature with 0 mistakes evolves, then it's pretty much genetic drift after that. It's quite unlikely that a creature that evolves with your parameters will ever drift to Rseq >= Rfreq. There is no pressure to go there.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You need to study ev. When you do you will understand that random point mutation and natural selection accomplishes very little in billions of generations.

With what genome size and population?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You need to study ev. When you do you will understand that random point mutation and natural selection accomplishes very little in billions of generations.

With what genome size and population?

Let’s see, where did we leave off at? G=100k, Mutation rate=10^-6, Population 1 meg, generations for convergence per your estimate 200,000,000. I still think this is an underestimate but for the sake of discussion we can use that value. So G is still at least a factor of 5 smaller than the smallest G for any free living organism. How many loci evolved in that time? ~100 What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? ~gap

 

[Mercutio]

You need to study ev. When you do you will understand that random point mutation and natural selection accomplishes very little in billions of generations. The “billions and billions of years” which is the standard evolutionist answer to how abiogenesis occurs and your answer to how modern genes evolve is neither an ignorant oversimplification nor an outright lie.

Ev, of course, limits population size--it is a model, after all. Your answer is quite consistent with the "ignorant oversimplification" hypothesis... but I am not abandoning the other yet, either.

1) Oh no, I’ve watched Star Trek and Star Wars, there are all different kinds of life forms. 2) Start with Nucleic Acids Research and read EV Evolution of Biological Information by Dr Tom Schneider. His work reveals a huge mathematical gap in your theory.

1) Figures. To take this more seriously than is meant, such a definition of "all different kinds" is a tremendous lack of imagination. The vast majority of life forms in these "sources" are bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, capable of eating what we eat. When you let the media do your imagining for you, you stunt your imagination. 2) Ok, I read Schneider.

The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists (32) (R. Truman, http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm ; 08-Jun-1999) but only qualitatively addressed by biologists (33). The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy (H = –plog2p, p = 1) implies that neither can be negative (H 0), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequence and Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists.

The ev model can also be used to succinctly address two other creationist arguments. First, the recognizer gene and its binding sites co-evolve, so they become dependent on each other and destructive mutations in either immediately lead to elimination of the organism. This situation fits Behe’s (34) definition of ‘irreducible complexity’ exactly ("a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning", page 39), yet the molecular evolution of this ‘Roman arch’ is straightforward and rapid, in direct contradiction to his thesis. Second, the probability of finding 16 sites averaging 4 bits each in random sequences is 2–4 x 16 5 x 10–20 yet the sites evolved from random sequences in only ~103 generations, at an average rate of ~1 bit per 11 generations. Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, ~9 months (35), but it could be much faster because the enormous titer [1010 new virions/day/person (17)] provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 109 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an over estimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse world-wide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution. So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner (32,36), the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection (33).

Of course there is no evidence for abiogenesis. The chemistry required to accomplish this is impossible and the mathematics and physics to select for the sequences necessary to make genes does not exist. Beside this, you do have billions of years to accomplish this.

The good folks at Nucleic Acids Research seem to disagree with you.

Well, why don’t you tell us how the first replicant came to be? Or is that just another gap in your theory? Here is an abbreviated sequence of the evolutionist concept of how life came to be: abiogenesis->first replicant->mutation and selection->life today or more simply gap->gap->gap->life today.

I will wait for the people who are doing the research to answer that question. It certainly is a fascinating question, though. I wonder who will provide a demonstrable abiogenesis event first--the "evolutionists" or the "goddiditists". Time may tell...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let’s see, where did we leave off at? G=100k, Mutation rate=10^-6, Population 1 meg, generations for convergence per your estimate 200,000,000. I still think this is an underestimate but for the sake of discussion we can use that value. So G is still at least a factor of 5 smaller than the smallest G for any free living organism. How many loci evolved in that time? ~100 What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? ~gap

How big were the genomes of organisms back when ancient genes were evolving? The populations were certainly many orders of magnitude bigger than a million, but how big?

I'm just asking, cuz you have proven that evolution is mathematically impossible, so you must know.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

Let’s see, where did we leave off at? G=100k, Mutation rate=10^-6, Population 1 meg, generations for convergence per your estimate 200,000,000. I still think this is an underestimate but for the sake of discussion we can use that value. So G is still at least a factor of 5 smaller than the smallest G for any free living organism. How many loci evolved in that time? ~100 What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? ~gap

This is a frivolous argument. It presumes that only a "perfect creature" as defined by ev is alive and capable of functioning and reproducing in the real world. But, ev makes a different presumption.

We don't know if the ev genome is just part of an already living creature's existing genome, or whether the binding sites that ev presents are just a molecular structure sitting in a pond somewhere. However, what ev does impliedly presume, is that from generation one (1), the "creature" is capable of reproducing itself. Otherwise, there would be no evolution at all.

So, your calculation is irrelevant, because the creature doesn't have to evolve to perfection within some X number of generations to be viable. It's viable at instantiation.

And, during every generation, there are changes -- changes which in the model will cause real-world functionality, but which we cannot actually discuss because we can't observe the creature in its environment.

Suppose that at generation two (2), the DNA sequence creates a different functionality, and then in generation three (3), it develops something else? We don't know what the creature is actually doing -- but we do know that it's alive, and that it's doing something throughout the evolutionary process.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Since you evolutionists like to define terms, perhaps you would be willing to define when abiogenesis ends and your theory of evolution begins.

You've spent all this time whining about evolution and abiogenesis and you don't even know the meaning of the terms?

I guess that figures. The amount of time people spend whining about science is usually proportional to their ignorance of it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I will wait for the people who are doing the research to answer that question. It certainly is a fascinating question, though. I wonder who will provide a demonstrable abiogenesis event first--the "evolutionists" or the "goddiditists".

The evolutionists, of course.

See the link in my sig.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here is an abbreviated sequence of the evolutionist concept of how life came to be: abiogenesis->first replicant->mutation and selection->life today or more simply gap->gap->gap->life today.

This is a new lie, I believe. Well done!

Tell me, when you pretend that the words "mutation and selection" are the same as the word "gap", whom do you think you're going to fool?

This is even dumber than your other lies.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You need to study ev. When you do you will understand that random point mutation and natural selection accomplishes very little in billions of generations. The “billions and billions of years” which is the standard evolutionist answer to how abiogenesis occurs and your answer to how modern genes evolve is neither an ignorant oversimplification nor an outright lie.

Ev, of course, limits population size--it is a model, after all. Your answer is quite consistent with the "ignorant oversimplification" hypothesis... but I am not abandoning the other yet, either.

If you had run some cases with ev you would find out that the model does not limit population. It is the amount of memory available on the computer which limits the size of the population. Of course you are an expert on ev since you have run as many cases as Adequate has.

1) Oh no, I’ve watched Star Trek and Star Wars, there are all different kinds of life forms. 2) Start with Nucleic Acids Research and read EV Evolution of Biological Information by Dr Tom Schneider. His work reveals a huge mathematical gap in your theory.

1) Figures. To take this more seriously than is meant, such a definition of "all different kinds" is a tremendous lack of imagination. The vast majority of life forms in these "sources" are bipedal, bilaterally symmetrical, capable of eating what we eat. When you let the media do your imagining for you, you stunt your imagination. 2) Ok, I read Schneider.

1) Evolutionists don’t have stunted imaginations, you have stunted mathematical and scientific skills. 2) ok, lets go through what you have read from Dr Schneider’s paper:

Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, ~9 months (35), but it could be much faster because the enormous titer [1010 new virions/day/person (17)] provides a larger pool for successful changes.

Dr Schneider has made two inaccurate statements here. The first is the mutation rate for HIV is much slower than 1/10 * 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation, look up the value. The second is that Dr Schneider assumes that huge populations markedly accelerate evolution. This view is contradicted by his own computer model.

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 109 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an over estimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse world-wide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

Dr Schneider makes this estimate based on the rate of information gain on a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. If Dr Schneider simply uses a realistic mutation rate in this case, his estimate of a billion years becomes 4 trillion years. Use a realistic genome length and a realistic mutation rate in the ev model and nothing can evolve in a realistic length of time.

So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner (32,36), the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection (33).

Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis with only a single case with unrealistic genome length and mutation rate has erroneously led him to conclude that biological information appears rapidly by this mechanism. In fact, using a realistic genome length and mutation rate in ev shows that the rate of information acquisition by random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to allow for evolution by this mechanism.

Of course there is no evidence for abiogenesis. The chemistry required to accomplish this is impossible and the mathematics and physics to select for the sequences necessary to make genes does not exist. Beside this, you do have billions of years to accomplish this.

The good folks at Nucleic Acids Research seem to disagree with you.

You will find that I agree that the good folks at Nucleic Acids Research were correct in publishing Dr Schneider’s work. Dr Schneider has properly modeled random point mutations and natural selection. What I believe is the folks at Nucleic Acids Research and Dr Schneider did not realize the full ramifications of the mathematics of this model. I did just what Dr Schneider suggested in his paper. Do you remember this paragraph?

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.

What an interesting surprise this parametric study reveals.

Well, why don’t you tell us how the first replicant came to be? Or is that just another gap in your theory? Here is an abbreviated sequence of the evolutionist concept of how life came to be: abiogenesis->first replicant->mutation and selection->life today or more simply gap->gap->gap->life today.

I will wait for the people who are doing the research to answer that question. It certainly is a fascinating question, though. I wonder who will provide a demonstrable abiogenesis event first--the "evolutionists" or the "goddiditists". Time may tell...

What we do know is that evolutiondidn’tdoit. We have the mathematics to show this.

Let’s see, where did we leave off at? G=100k, Mutation rate=10^-6, Population 1 meg, generations for convergence per your estimate 200,000,000. I still think this is an underestimate but for the sake of discussion we can use that value. So G is still at least a factor of 5 smaller than the smallest G for any free living organism. How many loci evolved in that time? ~100 What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? ~gap

How big were the genomes of organisms back when ancient genes were evolving? The populations were certainly many orders of magnitude bigger than a million, but how big?

I’ll leave this type of fantasizing to you evolutionists.

I'm just asking, cuz you have proven that evolution is mathematically impossible, so you must know.

What I know is that ev shows that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used, the rate of information acquisition is profoundly slow, too slow to explain the theory of information. If you want to fantasize about tiny genomes evolving in some primordial soup, that is fine, just don’t call this science.

 

[Mercutio]

Have you written to the Journal yet? I searched under "Kleinman", but found nothing. I read your assertions here, but I would like to see what the good folks at the journal say. Your assertion that his rates are unrealistic has taken you a long way from his study, to the point of declaring evolution impossible! I'd kinda like to see more than ... well, just your assertion.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Have you written to the Journal yet? I searched under "Kleinman", but found nothing. I read your assertions here, but I would like to see what the good folks at the journal say. Your assertion that his rates are unrealistic has taken you a long way from his study, to the point of declaring evolution impossible! I'd kinda like to see more than ... well, just your assertion.

Yes, I contacted the editors of Nucleic Acids Research. Initially they said the typical strawman argument that you evolutionists use. When I told them specifically what happens to Dr Schneider’s model when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates were used in the model and wanted to report these results in a letter to the editor, they said they do not take letters to the editor. This discussion did not come out of nothing; I discussed this issue extensively with Dr Schneider and Paul with hundreds of email communications. Dr Schneider has refused to discuss this issue publicly but Paul has shown willingness to discuss this issue publicly. What you call assertions can easily be replicated in the ev model, plug in the numbers and see the results.

The underlying problem for you evolutionists is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. When you study ev, you will see the contrive selection process Dr Schneider used in order to carry out the simulation. There is no way to model a selection process that can evolve a gene which doesn’t exist, there is nothing to select for. The ev mathematical model puts the spotlight on this deficiency in your theory.

The ev computer model has put your theory of evolution into a mathematical vise which I don’t think your theory can survive.

 

[Mercutio]

So write your letter to the editors of the journal--as carefully and well-supported as you would write it to them--and post it here. As is, I see at least two potential problems with your criticism--one a matter of the effects of population size, the other a much more fundamental misunderstanding that presumes a directed evolution aiming for a particular outcome. But without your well-stated argument, it is impossible to evaluate.

And please do not use the construction "a gene is to evolve...". That paragraph, copied and pasted as many times as you have already, has gotten you nowhere. It is that argument that makes me suspect that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. But of course, I could be wrong (it has happened once before, a few years ago); if you focus on your argument, not on the personal sniping, perhaps you can phrase it in such an idiot-proof manner that even I will understand.

If you are willing to do that, I am willing to set aside my request that we evaluate the evidence for your god hypothesis. We can always return to that later.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So write your letter to the editors of the journal--as carefully and well-supported as you would write it to them--and post it here. As is, I see at least two potential problems with your criticism--one a matter of the effects of population size, the other a much more fundamental misunderstanding that presumes a directed evolution aiming for a particular outcome. But without your well-stated argument, it is impossible to evaluate.

What is the point of doing this? All I would be doing is reiterating what I have posted on this thread and the Evolutionisdead forum. With respects to the population issue, if you examine this data, you would see that only the first few doublings of the population decrease the generations for convergence markedly. The data appears to be rapidly approach an asymptote. This a far stretch from the conclusion Dr Schneider made about the effects of huge populations on the rates of information acquisition, a conclusion he drew with only a single data point. To get a more conclusive answer on this issue requires far more memory than I have on my computer. A G=1000, population=1meg case takes the entire memory available on my PC (1/2 gigabyte). Any realistic genome size with populations of 10^10 would take millions of gigabytes of memory. That said, you can see trends with the smaller genomes and smaller populations that does not bode well for your theory.

And please do not use the construction "a gene is to evolve...". That paragraph, copied and pasted as many times as you have already, has gotten you nowhere. It is that argument that makes me suspect that you have a fundamental misunderstanding. But of course, I could be wrong (it has happened once before, a few years ago); if you focus on your argument, not on the personal sniping, perhaps you can phrase it in such an idiot-proof manner that even I will understand.

If you studied ev, in particular the selection process that Dr Schneider used, you would understand my “a gene is to evolve…” argument. Your theory stands or falls on this definition. I don’t know of a valid definition for selection that would do this and so far no evolutionist has been able to describe such a selection process. Unless you or some other evolutionist can do this, your theory will fail mathematically.

If you are willing to do that, I am willing to set aside my request that we evaluate the evidence for your god hypothesis. We can always return to that later.

I think you should evaluate the evidence for God, especially since your own mathematics shows your theory to be impossible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How big were the genomes of organisms back when ancient genes were evolving? The populations were certainly many orders of magnitude bigger than a million, but how big?

I’ll leave this type of fantasizing to you evolutionists.
...
What I know is that ev shows that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used, the rate of information acquisition is profoundly slow, too slow to explain the theory of information. [emphasis mine]

All righty then.

~~ Paul