Annoying creationists

[Skeptic Ginger]

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. ...

Mathematically, how did all the animals today evolve from the minuscule number that could have fit on Noah's Arc?

The Enclopedia of Life Project expects to catalogue 1.8 million known species of living things on Earth and the actual number is estimated to be 10 million. (I also saw a new estimate that on the sea floor alone there are probably another 10 million unknown species but we'll let you slide on that since those life forms wouldn't have necessarily died in the big flood, ignoring the salt water/fresh water issues as well of course.)

So can you have it both ways? Not enough time for evolution in 3.5 billion years but enough in the last 6,000 to evolve from the Ark survivors?

.....Use your imagination and you can probably figure a way opossum can migrate. You know how good your evolutionist imagination is. Perhaps they evolved wings traveled to South America and then devolved their wings once they arrived......

Did you miss the plate tectonics lectures in school too?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. Adequate, I really like this one. Can we assign it a lie number?

Yes, I think this would be Lie #8.

Lie #8: in simulating evolution, it's only necessary to simulate selection and point mutation, everything else is irrelevant. Hence ev is a good model of the whole evolutionary process.

Truth #8: It should be obvious even to a dork like kleinman that evolutionary history cannot be explained exclusively by mutations which conserve the length of the genome. Moreover, the idea that the processes modelled by ev are all that matters has been rejected by the creators of ev; by Dr Schneider ---

[L]arge environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer ... are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

--- and by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (see this thread, passim).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Did you miss the plate tectonics lectures in school too?

The movement of continents which we observe is just micromovement. There's no way that lots of micromovement can add up to macromovement, as you silly amathematical tectonicists claim. I can prove this mathematically, using a method whereby I never do any actual math or calculations but shout about cheese a lot instead. We call it "kleinmath".

 

[kjkent1]

Dr Schneider’s computer doesn’t explain everything, it only explains the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

If this is your position, then no one in this thread would disagree with you.

Evolution, from abiogenesis to present day life form diversity, solely by random point mutation and ev's version of selection, is very likely impossible.

But, to repeat again, that's not what Schneider's paper intended to prove. The paper shows info gain from a random start using point mutation and natural selection. So there's really no argument. And now you can go away.

However, I believe if you combine the string cheese theory of evolution with Dr Schneider’s work, you would really have something. You have observed alternative universes, haven’t you?

Of course I have. Haven't you? When you close your eyes and pray to Jesus, are you not communicating with an alternate universe?

You certainly aren't communicating with anyone in this universe, because if you were, then God would be mortal.

Here's a new question for ya, little Alan: suppose you were able to convince the entire scientific community that evolution is mathematically impossble. What scientific theory would you substitute to explain all the observed evidence?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know. I thought the change from
"HIV is proof evolution is impossible" to
"HIV is not representative of evolution"
was a very humorous transition.

Ooh, yes!

* claps hands *

And look at the reason he gives.

It undergoes recombination!



Apparently that makes a b-i-i-i-g difference ...

Did you get that folks?

(1) We're not allowed to claim that recombination makes evolution more powerful in diploid species (like dinosaurs and birds, or apes and humans) because point mutation and selection are all that matters. 'Cos Kleinman said so and then shouted about cheese a lot, so it must be true.

(2) We're not allowed to use HIV as a model for how evolution works because it's diploid (like dinosaurs and birds, or apes and humans) and undergoes recombination, which makes evolution more powerful. 'Cos kleinman says so, and behold his word is as law, possibly the one about not shaving thy camels on the Sabbath, and lo, righteousness shineth forth from his holy sphincter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The movement of continents which we observe is just micromovement. There's no way that lots of micromovement can add up to macromovement, as you silly amathematical tectonicists claim. I can prove this mathematically, using a method whereby I never do any actual math or calculations but shout about cheese a lot instead. We call it "kleinmath".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The movement of continents which we observe is just micromovement. There's no way that lots of micromovement can add up to macromovement, as you silly amathematical tectonicists claim. I can prove this mathematically, using a method whereby I never do any actual math or calculations but shout about cheese a lot instead. We call it "kleinmath".

I believe the cheese thing is restricted to evolution. If we begin to discuss plate tectonics, the thing will be pizza, not just cheese. Or possibly tacos.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

So I see you have gone on to simply ignoring my posts, kleinman. Is this because I actually know what I'm talking about, and you cannot lie your way through an argument with me?

ETA: Please note that I haven't forgotten all the unanswered questions you have simply ignored, kleinman. For example, where I used a certain word you accused me of misspelling. Or why you haven't commented on the three first search returns from your own search, and why they do not support your position.

I’m not ignoring any of you questions. I’m still waiting for you to explain how recombination creates new genes. So far, all you speculated is that duplicated genes acted on by mutation and selection creates new genes. I’m waiting for you to explain how recombination alone can make new genes.

There is no reason to believe that frame shift mutations, translocations, duplications or any other way of scrambling a genome is going to change the underlying mathematics of mutation and selection.

Dr. Adequate, I really like this one. Can we assign it a lie number?

Only a pussycat who has been at the cat nip too much is going to believe that these other mutation mechanisms are going to change the underlying mathematics of mutation and selection.

I keep telling you red herring man that I’m here to prove to you that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. ...

Mathematically, how did all the animals today evolve from the minuscule number that could have fit on Noah's Arc?

I’ll tell you what red herring girl. Once you evolutionists understand and accept what the mathematics of mutation and selection, you can start a new thread on this question and we can discuss this.

.....Use your imagination and you can probably figure a way opossum can migrate. You know how good your evolutionist imagination is. Perhaps they evolved wings traveled to South America and then devolved their wings once they arrived......

Did you miss the plate tectonics lectures in school too?

There you go kjkent1.

Dr Schneider’s computer doesn’t explain everything, it only explains the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.

If this is your position, then no one in this thread would disagree with you.

Really, evolutionists agree the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible?

Evolution, from abiogenesis to present day life form diversity, solely by random point mutation and ev's version of selection, is very likely impossible.

I have never heard this statement in any course or read it any textbook on evolution. Tell us, which mechanism of mutation will improve the mathematical possibility of the theory of evolution the most? And what version of selection will change the probabilities for the theory? Unnamed is not defending his selection process.

But, to repeat again, that's not what Schneider's paper intended to prove. The paper shows info gain from a random start using point mutation and natural selection. So there's really no argument. And now you can go away.

Dr Schneider’s published statements are not in agreement with what you are saying here, would you like me to post them again here? I’ll go away when the theory of evolution goes away.

However, I believe if you combine the string cheese theory of evolution with Dr Schneider’s work, you would really have something. You have observed alternative universes, haven’t you?

Of course I have. Haven't you? When you close your eyes and pray to Jesus, are you not communicating with an alternate universe?

Of course not, I am praying to the Creator of everything.

Here's a new question for ya, little Alan: suppose you were able to convince the entire scientific community that evolution is mathematically impossble. What scientific theory would you substitute to explain all the observed evidence?

This is a new question for me? Not, little gator.

The movement of continents which we observe is just micromovement. There's no way that lots of micromovement can add up to macromovement, as you silly amathematical tectonicists claim. I can prove this mathematically, using a method whereby I never do any actual math or calculations but shout about cheese a lot instead. We call it "kleinmath".

I believe the cheese thing is restricted to evolution. If we begin to discuss plate tectonics, the thing will be pizza, not just cheese. Or possibly tacos.

It’s nice to see that Adebz has posted a gif again. His gif and awe strategy in this discussion is so effective---at boring everyone to death. It’s nice to know that Adebz now finally understands how population affects the probabilities in the mutation and selection mathematics. I wonder if Adebz will tell us what the error in the equation of Dr Richard’s reference is or whether Dr Richard will find it.

So, Dr Schneider has spoken up on his web site for the first time in months about his ev model.

The key test [for Intellegent Design] is show me a process that generates information, and large amounts of specified information, without the guidance of an intelligent agent.

Ev does that.

Does Dr Schneider believe that ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection can generate large enough amounts of specified information to make the theory of evolution mathematically possible? Dr Schneider does not offer an explanation why the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow in his model when realistic length genomes are used. I wonder if Dr Schneider will discuss what a parametric of ev shows? Perhaps he will try to defend Paul’s Rcapacity concept.

 

[Taffer]

I’m not ignoring any of you questions. I’m still waiting for you to explain how recombination creates new genes. So far, all you speculated is that duplicated genes acted on by mutation and selection creates new genes. I’m waiting for you to explain how recombination alone can make new genes.

Mate, I never said it did. I have no idea where you get the thought that I ever claimed that recombination alone can make new genes.

I'm still waiting for responses to at least 2 posts.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

I’m not ignoring any of you questions. I’m still waiting for you to explain how recombination creates new genes. So far, all you speculated is that duplicated genes acted on by mutation and selection creates new genes. I’m waiting for you to explain how recombination alone can make new genes.

Mate, I never said it did. I have no idea where you get the thought that I ever claimed that recombination alone can make new genes.

Is that an admission that recombination alone does not and can not create new genes? We are talking about mathematical precision in this discussion of mutation and selection, not the sloppy speculations that you evolutionists use to explain your theory.

Once you accept this point, then we can go on to your next misunderstanding of recombination and natural selection. That is that recombination and natural selection can cause the loss of alleles from the gene pool and thus the loss of information from the gene pool.

 

[tojohndillonesq]

Proper Taxonomy

Not disagreeing with anything stated here. In fact, you will find that many creationists do not disagree with anything you have said here.

Any valid argument requires a high degree of specificity. Creationists fall into a number of quite disparate groups:

1) Young Earth Creationists who believe the Earth is less than ~20,000 years old.
2) Old Earth Creationists who do not dispute the evidence that the Earth is over three billion and the universe is over 30 billion years old, but believe that some aspects of Creation were "miraculous" in the sense that they occured outside all known laws of physics and outside any possible scientific explanation.
3) Creationists who do not dispute ANY of the scientific evidence about the origins of life, evolution, the age of the universe, etc.

Note that the third group encompasses virtually all Hindus and Buddhists, as well as a number of Christians. Hence is it by far the largest of the three segments. To lump the three groups together is inaccurate.

The group you are really attacking, and rightly so, is the Young Earth Creationists. The ones who deny the evidence of evolution, carbon dating, the time it took light to reach us from stars more than 20K light years away, etc. I propose a set of labels.

Group 1 is YEC. No sense of scienctific process or evidentiary procedure.
Group 2 is OEC. Want to believe in the unexplainable.
Group 3 is Deists. Believe in a God who originated the whole thing, and believe that saying evolution led to man is like saying "rain falls from clouds."

Hostility is, of course, a sign of fear. The hostility to science shown by YEC and OEC is caused by their fear of losing their faith in God. They shout about their faith to drown their own doubts.

When a scientist is hostile to YEC or OEC, it is like being hostile to a child who believes in Santa. It is not only illogical, but unproductive and unkind. the truly intelligent person is bigger than that. Attaching negative emotions to ideas or facts is... a flawed mental process.

The last thing I would like to point out is that to hate God is to believe in Him. You can hate what the idea of God has done to the world - the ignorance and violence it has caused - but in that case you must also take into account the good things as well. Just as with science. Bombs and penicillin Yin and Yang.

Sometimes these annoying creationists just piss me off:

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/foru...70&sid=3406e76df02b7fb9f60af262a63c3a63#11670

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is that an admission that recombination alone does not and can not create new genes?

Do you know for a fact that the portions of DNA that make up one gene cannot end up being recombined?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Hostility is, of course, a sign of fear. The hostility to science shown by YEC and OEC is caused by their fear of losing their faith in God. They shout about their faith to drown their own doubts.

Let’s see, kjkent1 thinks I’m doing this thread to build my self esteem, now we have tojohndillionesq who thinks I’m hostile to the theory of evolution out of fear. How about this alternative, the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is bad science that is mathematically impossible based on the results of an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model of random point mutation and natural selection. The reason why it is mathematically impossible is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This mathematical result is demonstrated by numerous real examples of this phenomenon.

Now tojohndillionesq, you appear hostile to the mathematics of mutation and selection and the numerous real examples of this mathematics. Is this because you are frightened of losing your faith in the theory of evolution?

 

[kleinman]

Is that an admission that recombination alone does not and can not create new genes?

Do you know for a fact that the portions of DNA that make up one gene cannot end up being recombined?

You can have errors in the recombination process that can make new sequences of bases. Are you proposing this as the mutation mechanism that will solve the deficiencies which ev reveals for the theory of evolution?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You can have errors in the recombination process that can make new sequences of bases. Are you proposing this as the mutation mechanism that will solve the deficiencies which ev reveals for the theory of evolution?

You didn't answer my question: Do you know for a fact that the portions of DNA that make up one gene cannot end up being recombined?

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

How about this alternative, the theory of evolution by mutation and selection is bad science that is mathematically impossible based on the results of an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model of random point mutation and natural selection. The reason why it is mathematically impossible is that multiple selection pressures slow the evolutionary process. This mathematical result is demonstrated by numerous real examples of this phenomenon.

Well, we know that "alternative" to be a load of bulldung. We need a plausible hypothesis as to why you lie so much.

Now tojohndillionesq, you appear hostile to the mathematics of mutation and selection and the numerous real examples of this mathematics.

You're wrong. He's actually hostile to people who bleat out stupid lies on this subject.

I'd try to explain to you what's wrong with lying, but I fear it would be like trying to describe color to a blind man.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Only a pussycat who has been at the cat nip too much is going to believe that these other mutation mechanisms are going to change the underlying mathematics of mutation and selection.

Then why did you make such a big deal out of HIV recombining, you stupid two-faced liar?

Once you evolutionists understand and accept what the mathematics of mutation and selection, you can start a new thread on this question and we can discuss this.

Cool. I'll start the thread and see if you're lying about this too.

Here you go. Kleinman's Noah's Ark Rubbish --- for all your lying-about-imaginary-magic-boats needs.

Really, evolutionists agree the theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible?

Yes, and we agree that the inventor of this "theory", one Dr Alan Kleinman --- perhaps you've heard of him --- is a lying halfwit.

I have never heard this statement in any course or read it any textbook on evolution.

Perhaps you should read one.

It’s nice to know that Adebz now finally understands how population affects the probabilities in the mutation and selection mathematics.

"Finally"? You stupid lying twat, I have been explaining the effect of population size to you ever since you started lying about it.

If you finally agree that I'm right, cheers. But I doubt it. To realise that I'm right, you'd have to know at least as much probability theory as most teenagers manage to understand in high school.

I wonder if Adebz will tell us what the error in the equation of Dr Richard’s reference is or whether Dr Richard will find it.

Dr Richard has given several references containing several equations.

In one of them, I suspect that a typesetter has dropped a subscript. Well, that's biology finished then.

---

Hey, remember last time you thought you'd found an error in a peer-reviewed paper?

And you'd dropped a zero from the length of the human genome and forgotten that it was diploid?

That was funny.

Does Dr Schneider believe that ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection can generate large enough amounts of specified information to make the theory of evolution mathematically possible?

He says explicitly that his model does not include various important factors and processes, as you would know if you stopped screaming stupid lies about what he wrote and actually read it.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

You can have errors in the recombination process that can make new sequences of bases. Are you proposing this as the mutation mechanism that will solve the deficiencies which ev reveals for the theory of evolution?

You didn't answer my question: Do you know for a fact that the portions of DNA that make up one gene cannot end up being recombined?

Transposition and recombination of genes or parts of genes is done all the time in immunocytes for the production of antibodies. This is a very active and precise process. Do you think this process occurs in meiosis or the recombination that is associated with HIV or other creatures? Do you have any examples where this type of recombination occurs in the reproductive process? Do you think this is the mutation mechanism that will solve the deficiencies which ev reveals for the theory of evolution?

 

[tojohndillonesq]

Lets be clear about what we mean by "hostile." I meant to imply anger and hatred. The OED says ("unfriendly" or "enemy.") What I meant to say was that an angry or hateful opposition is quite different from logical opposition.

When you question the intelligence or honesty of the opposing side, it is an inherently hostile and illogical argument. The only possible logical response to that is to say: "What you say about me may be true, but you have not addressed the merits of my argument."

I regret that you think I am hostile to your mathematics. I am not sure what I wrote to cause that... I don't see where I wrote any angry or insulting comments. Just as importantly, I don't see where you thought I disagreed with you?! I have a CS degree with a minor in math and I am not remotely qualifed to comment decisively on those things; few people are.

I would further point out that those in my third segment, the Deists, do not reject arguments of mathematics. Reviewing my posting I see that I was not as clear as I could have been on that point. Deists do not reject scientific evidence from either side. leaving that to the experts. (Which, if you do not have a Doctorate and numerous articles published on the subject, you probably are not. I find Behe to be a highly credible source, whether I agree with him or not.)

I firmly believe that science can and will explain everything. If evolution is disproven, it will be disproven through scientific evidence such as you present. It will be highly interesting to me, but not salient to the question of God.

"No one ever had his mind changed by being insulted."
--- A. Scott Walker

If I ... know all mysteries and all knowledge ... but do not have love, I am nothing.
--- Paul

 

[joobz]

If evolution is disproven, it will be disproven through scientific evidence such as you present.

Here is where you are slightly mistaken. Kleinman has yet to offer anything that remotely approaches a notion that could even begin to be considered an inkling of a scientific argument.
I refer you to the kleinman FAQ, to his moving of goalposts, and to his overall lack of intellectual honesty.