Annoying creationists

[articulett]

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks :) )

[articulett]

I tutor kids who attend religious Jewish schools. Evolution chapters are torn out of their bio books. We were working on a chapter about bryophytes, for Pete's sake.... early PLANTS! The statement in the book involved info about the plants being 245 milliion years old. The numbers were blacked out with a marker and the word "many" replaced it.

The school is not extreme Orthodox.... but surely 'religious.' They offer a lot of learning, and no real education. It's all around us.....

Strangely, the last Pope accepted the teaching of evolution. How gracious.

No wonder we're 29th in education in the WORLD...

Yep...it's disturbing, but what can you expect from a group of people told that their salvation depends on them believing the right unbelievable story. You get a world where clergy men tell their people what they can and can't believe.

I'm with Dawkins on this--"what is so damn special about belief?" It's changeable, hard to measure, and not particularly useful for finding the truth.
I don't know what it's good for except that it appears to be a major ingredient in making "annoying creationists" (the title of this thread). And, boy is it resistant to education and factual information.

[kjkent1]

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks :) )

Very cool research -- but nothing less than self-replicating chemicals from a bathtub full of sterile saline will satisfy kleinman, I'll wager.

[kleinman]

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates. It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.Your post above is entirely non-responsive. I ask you to show how Paul's actions are deceitful/dishonest, and I said nothing about Dr. Schneider. I have no idea why you think the above statement addresses the request.
You may not like this response. But, it satisfies your requirements whether you like it or not.
I love that response. I hope evolutionarians far and wide embrace your explanation.Great, then you can stop your complaining now and perhaps attend to a few more patients.
I’m not complaining, I find your explanation worthy truly evolutionary. Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning? Your string theory argument is leaving me in stitches.
I, of course, have him on ignore for obvious reasons--
Who are you ignoring? Anybody I know?
Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=61885 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885)
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks)
Articulett, when building a mansion, you need to produce the foundation first. Paul is working on the landscaping, you are working on the roof. Your links about interspecies gene transfer neglects the issue of how did you get the genes to begin with in order to have the interspecies gene transfers. Did I forget to ask you to describe the selection process for evolving a gene from the beginning?

Randi, it seems I just saved you a million bucks.
Very cool research -- but nothing less than self-replicating chemicals from a bathtub full of sterile saline will satisfy kleinman, I'll wager.
I’m not so hard to satisfy. Just describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.
Well, actually, I didn't know Schneider at that point in time. However, you'll remember that he says "at this rate" when he makes his sweeping conclusion.


You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.
Aha, so you have simply proven, perhaps, that point mutation and a certain form of natural selection is not fast enough. This is a far cry from "disprov evolutionism mathematically," isn't it?


de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.
No, [i]novo means to make anew, refresh, revive, change, alter. I don't think "from the beginning" is a good translation.


There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.
But that is not what we are discussing. You said " Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain."


If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?
The gene is used immediately, on generation 0, to match the binding sites. The gene is already present, it just happens to be a random sequence. It is not evolved from nothing, nor is evolved anew.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For you, how would I know? What I do know is that "supernatural" is meaningless in my worldview.
I think it may be meaningless, period.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.
This is nothing more than an unsupported statement from you, yet you say "disproves evolutionism mathematically." Doesn't this big leap bother you?


The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev.
Alan, you flatter yourself. I still don't think your "realistic" mutation rates and genome lengths are a problem, because you ignore populations. This is not to mention that you have no idea what realistic mutation rates and genome lengths actually are. The issue with Ev, as I stated from the beginning, is that it does not model the full evolutionary landscape.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates.
I shall do so when you quote exactly the passage you think was inappropriate. Meanwhile, what does this have to do with me being a "two faced hypocrite"?

It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.
Do you have a mathematical proof of this claim?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.Well, actually, I didn't know Schneider at that point in time. However, you'll remember that he says "at this rate" when he makes his sweeping conclusion.
Ok, so what’s the problem with my claim that ev shows the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection?
You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.Aha, so you have simply proven, perhaps, that point mutation and a certain form of natural selection is not fast enough. This is a far cry from "disprov evolutionism mathematically," isn't it?
What you continue to have difficulty grasping is the importance of point mutations to your theory but this issue takes the back seat when you have to consider the problem you have with a realistic selection process. In studying ev, it has become apparent that the selection process is what will make or break your theory mathematically. If you can not produce a selection process that will evolve a gene from the beginning, you are stuck with the simple probabilities and that is a losing argument. You would need to use kjkent1’s string theory argument.
de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.No, [I]novo means to make anew, refresh, revive, change, alter. I don't think "from the beginning" is a good translation.
I will stop using the terminology de novo just for you. You might as well get used to seeing the phrase “from the beginning” about a jillion times, because that is the Achilles heel of your theory.
There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.But that is not what we are discussing. You said " Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain."
You can pile all the adjectives onto the word “selection” you want but your theory is based on the concept of mutation and selection. This is what ev is modeling and this is the issue you have to explain. Stop trying to squirm out of this issue, it’s not becoming for a moderator on the James Randi educational forum.
If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?The gene is used immediately, on generation 0, to match the binding sites. The gene is already present, it just happens to be a random sequence. It is not evolved from nothing, nor is evolved anew.
Do you realize how tortured your argument sounds? So how are you going to explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning when you are not even evolving binding sites from the beginning?
Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.This is nothing more than an unsupported statement from you, yet you say "disproves evolutionism mathematically." Doesn't this big leap bother you?
Doesn’t it bother you that your theory of evolution based on mutation and selection has nothing more than a mythical selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning?
The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev.Alan, you flatter yourself. I still don't think your "realistic" mutation rates and genome lengths are a problem, because you ignore populations. This is not to mention that you have no idea what realistic mutation rates and genome lengths actually are. The issue with Ev, as I stated from the beginning, is that it does not model the full evolutionary landscape
Genome lengths and mutation rates are the least of your problems. Without a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you have nothing other than landscaping for you mansion, no foundation whatsoever. Population will do nothing for you without a selection process. Anyway, ev is already giving preliminary data that shows population doesn’t help your argument much.
Well here is Paul’s opportunity to state publicly that Dr Schneider has inappropriately extrapolated the result of his stylized computer model to the evolution of a human genome and that was done using totally unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates.I shall do so when you quote exactly the passage you think was inappropriate. Meanwhile, what does this have to do with me being a "two faced hypocrite"?
What makes you a “two faced hypocrite” is your response that ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. You did this to my claim that the rate of information acquisition in ev when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection. When Dr Schneider made his claim about the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and mutation rate of 1 per 256 bases per generation to compute the evolution of a human genome, was he using a “realistic” version of ev? You evolutionarians did a sloppy and superficial analysis of your computer model and now you know there is no selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You should have stuck with landscaping because mathematics is showing the fatal flaws in the foundation of your theory.
It still doesn’t address the issue that there is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning and that is the death blow to your theory. No stylized or realistic model will yield valid results without a selection process and one does not exist.Do you have a mathematical proof of this claim?
Sure do! Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = f
I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.
Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Of course, if you believe that every gene formed by abiogenesis then your statement is accurate. Anyway, kjkent1 has already solved your abiogenesis problem with string theory.

[Taffer]

Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.

Play semantic games all you like. I have described how there could be selective pressure of something which is not alive. Perhaps it should not be labelled 'natural selection', to avoid confusion, but it most certainly is a form of selective pressure.

Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.

I'm afraid I am only a lowly post-grad student. However, you are claiming that such an account is impossible. This field of evolutionary genetics is very new, and new discoveries are being made all the time. The current hypotheses are being tested as we speak. As Paul C. has explained many times to you, the lack of a current working model, as I am unaware of any completed experiments into the various hypotheses yet, does not mean that it didn't happen. Unless you have some compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?

Also, please note that the generation of self replicating RNA has nothing to do with evolution.

The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?

This is a very interesting question, one which is only now beginning to be answered. There are been found various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes which do have a benificial role to play to an organisms genome. Things like the greater DNA structure (i.e. folding, loops, etc), enhanced binding sites, gene regulation and more are starting to be shown to be carried out by what was once thought of as 'junk' DNA.

You also completely missed the point of my analogy. Self replication is enough for selective pressures to work. Anything is enough for selective pressures to work, as long as there is some variation in the population of objects, and some forms of this variation are more benificial then others.

You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.

I know, but calling it "recombination" is a misleading use of the word.

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.

This is a non-answer. You seem to understand and know what the 'soul' is. Please describe it to me.

[Taffer]

Kleinman, please see my post responding to you earlier reguarding one hypothesis of a selection procedure. You have not answered why this could not happen.

Also, please note that you are entirely out of the range of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the evolution of organisms. You are dealing with abiogenesis if you are arguing against the first gene formation.

Also, saying "the evolution of a gene from the beginning" is a convoluted way of saying things. I suggest "the formation of the first novel gene", as this is what you are really arguing against, not the formation of a novel gene at all, as the latter has already been shown on this thread to have occured.

[The Atheist]

Oh no...it looks like someone from the other side solved the math problem first.

"We have developed the first exact solution of a mathematical model of evolution that accounts for this cross-species genetic exchange," said Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070029220033data_trunc_sys.shtml

Let me guess...Kleinman will refuse to compute it. Hewitt will dismiss it in favor of his hypothesis that only Atheist seems to support, but no-one can sum up or paraphrase...and Hammy will continue with his ad homs, emoticons, and irrelevancies...

(Randi, give me my million bucks :) ):dl:

Classic! The problem's been solved. Thanks, Arti.

Oh, you just forgot to include this phrase from the report (yes REPORT, singular - you give two links to identical articles!):

New studies by Rice University scientists suggest a possible answer

Not exactly done and dusted, but Arti's not going to let a little speculation obscure her facts. Not when those "facts" agree with her position, anyway!.

John:

I notice there's some bits in the link about sexual selection. Might be worth a look. Be quite funny if Arti inadvertantly placed links to work which is moving down your street. Personally, I don't see the studies at Rice University interfering with your theory anyway.

[kjkent1]

Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning?Yes, and you know exactly what it is: random chance.

[articulett]

I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.

~~ Paul

Those creationists are a slippery sort--playing the everlasting game of "move the goalposts." Kleinman claims to have a mathematical equation that shows evolution couldn't happen by point mutation alone--everyone agrees...we are just learning all the ways DNA becomes genes and genes become genomes. Kleinman's math hypothesis is the equivalent of saying--"the vastness of the internet is impossible because it takes "x" amount of time to hook up a computer and more time to write things down... therefore it must have been planned in it's entirety in advance by an invisible dude!"

So now Kleinman is like Hewitt-- Because, scientists can't yet say for certain how life started (though we have a plethora of pieces to the puzzle)--"intelligent design proponents" use this murkiness to obfuscate further and pretend that they have the magical true answer--the one that proves it must be "intelligently designed" and that evolution is a sham--a faith that people have bought into willy nilly--while evil scientists keep the brilliant theories of creationist from ever being heard.

As science discovers more and more facts, their intelligent designer gets murkier and more nebulous and is reduced to semantic games and "epistemology". You can spot them by the way they seem to muck up understanding rather than facilitate it. If they understood each other or were on the same page regarding their problems with evolution and their alternative hypothesis they would seem more credible--

[John Hewitt]

I notice there's some bits in the link about sexual selection. Might be worth a look. Be quite funny if Arti inadvertantly placed links to work which is moving down your street. Personally, I don't see the studies at Rice University interfering with your theory anyway.

Yes, this will be a press release from Rice, which is why the two reports are identical.
Both sexual selection and horizontal gene transfer are generally accepted. Sexual selection was described by Darwin, but largely ignored until the last 30 or 40 years. Horiziontal gene transfer has been demonstrable for at least 30 years (As Brian Hartley used to say about serine protease studies, "It seems that the cow has infected a bacterium") and there was a quire recent report about HGT among bacteria being very widespread. We have also had bacteriophage etc. for a long time which could carry host genes with them.
From the point of view of my work, I am very happy with such developments.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think, as other people have now stated, that this discussion has drifted away from evolution per se, and onto abiogenesis. The answer to the question of how genes came about does little to dent the theory of evolution. We know (i.e. have observed) that genes do mutate, exchange information and grow longer.

Kleinman:

With all your talk of foundations and mansions, I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of a scientific model. A model is used to explain observed phenomenon. The test of the models validity/scope is its ability to predict, either forward or backward in time, phenomenon which its proponents claim it models. Even when a model fails to accurately predict everything it should be able to, this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong, merely incomplete.

Before you reply that evolution would take too long or can’t explain abiogenesis, think, for example, about the development of the various models of the atom. Would you claim some (still very useful) models are wrong because they cannot explain how the first sub-atomic particles came about? Also think about what has happened to models of the atom over time – they have generally been added to or modified, rather than thrown out completely. Please also note that at no time has ‘goddidit’ been added to a model.

While you are entitled to your belief of souls being ‘inserted’ into human(1) embryos, I think Occam’s razor should be applied to this hypothesis. If other animals can get by without souls being added to their embryos why can’t we?

(1) I’m assuming you believe only humans have souls.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ok, so what’s the problem with my claim that ev shows the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection?
You do not know what realistic rates, genome lengths, and populations are.


What you continue to have difficulty grasping is the importance of point mutations to your theory but this issue takes the back seat when you have to consider the problem you have with a realistic selection process. In studying ev, it has become apparent that the selection process is what will make or break your theory mathematically.
Again, you do not know anything more than that the selection method has significant effect on the rate. "Make or break" is too strong.


If you can not produce a selection process that will evolve a gene from the beginning, you are stuck with the simple probabilities and that is a losing argument. You would need to use kjkent1’s string theory argument.
Now you've switched subjects. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis.


I will stop using the terminology de novo just for you. You might as well get used to seeing the phrase “from the beginning” about a jillion times, because that is the Achilles heel of your theory.
Or you could use "from scratch."


You can pile all the adjectives onto the word “selection” you want but your theory is based on the concept of mutation and selection. This is what ev is modeling and this is the issue you have to explain. Stop trying to squirm out of this issue, it’s not becoming for a moderator on the James Randi educational forum.
Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two. You are conflating them because your only evidence is Ev, yet the crux of your argument is abiogenesis. Unfortunately, they gots nothing to do with each other.


Do you realize how tortured your argument sounds? So how are you going to explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning when you are not even evolving binding sites from the beginning?
It's not my argument, it's your conflating Ev with abiogenesis that is the torture. Ev is not creating a gene from scratch, because the function of the gene is preprogrammed.


Doesn’t it bother you that your theory of evolution based on mutation and selection has nothing more than a mythical selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning?
Avoidance of my question duly noted.


Genome lengths and mutation rates are the least of your problems. Without a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you have nothing other than landscaping for you mansion, no foundation whatsoever.
But this has nothing to do with Ev. Would you like to discuss the mathematics of abiogenesis, because that is what you're claiming that you have shown to be untenable.


What makes you a “two faced hypocrite” is your response that ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. You did this to my claim that the rate of information acquisition in ev when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection.
Okay, let me clarify: Ev models a stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. I don't think your genome length and mutation rate claims are well thought out.

Better?


When Dr Schneider made his claim about the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and mutation rate of 1 per 256 bases per generation to compute the evolution of a human genome, was he using a “realistic” version of ev?
No, he was not. That's why he said "at this rate."


Sure do! Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = f
What is the variable f? Or is it a function?


Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.
Indeed, but Ev does not model the totality of that scenario.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you die, you will understand what the soul is.
I find it deliciously appealing that if there is existence after death, nonbelievers will have to eat their words when they die. But if there is no existence after death, believers will simply never know.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

How do you defend your worldview as logical, given that it apparently includes God as a natural actor who is entirely unmeasurable?
Should god exist, measuring his effects/affects may from time to time be what science does, although and as yet any such effects/affects remain unidentified sfaik.

I think it may be meaningless, period.

Me too. I wonder why so many cite it as a possibility, other than to obfuscate, that is. Or to demonstrate unknowingly they remain mired in dualism.

PS. I admit my error in that kleinman does appear to be a theist. :(

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Me too. I wonder why so many cite it as a possibility, other than to obfuscate, that is. Or to demonstrate unknowingly they remain mired in dualism.
I think people are usually using the word supernatural as a convenient tag for some unsual aspect of a claim. Most descriptions of god sound supernatural. Synchronicity sounds supernatural, as does libertarian free will. Various aspects of psi, too. A better word would be "non-naturalistic."

But it doesn't mean that I think there really is a supernatural realm.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Congratulations. "Non-Naturalistic"; another meaningless weasel word fit for a dualist. :)

[kjkent1]

Should god exist, measuring his effects/affects may from time to time be what science does, although and as yet any such effects/affects remain unidentified sfaik.

Should science conclude that it has experimentally measured God, can God change the experiment so that the measurement never occurred?

If so, then science can never know with any certainty that it has measured God.

Thus, it can never be logical that God is natural, because only the natural can be measured, and God is unmeasurable.

[Dr Adequate]

Ok, so what’s the problem with my claim that ev shows the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection? The main problem with your claim is that it's a lie.

A subsiduary problem is that everyone who's read this thread knows that it's a lie, so even qua lie, it's a really crappy lie, since surely the whole point of a lie is to deceive people.

[Dr Adequate]

How kleinman screwed up with ev:

* snip *

The mistake Kleinman has made, or one of them, is to take a realistic value for p (the probability of a point mutation for a given base) but not for n (the population). This gives a totally unrealistic value for the probability that a given substition will occur in the gene pool per generation, which is given by:

q = 1 - (1 - p/3)n

If, for example, we take a realistic value for p of 10-8, then for a measly million organisms, q is 0.3%. For a lousy billion, it's 96.4%.

If we use a more realistic order of magnitude for the bacteria, say something like the 1014 present in a single human gut, then my calculator isn't accurate enough to tell us the difference between q and 1.

Schneider is forced by practical constraints to take n to be small, and has compensated for this by using an unrealistic value for p to give himself a realistic value for q. This is eminently sensible, since it is the amount of variation within the gene pool, rather than the variation between individuals per generation, that determines the rate of evolution.

Kleinman, on the other hand, has chosen his numbers so that the value for q is wildly unrealistic; this is why his estimate of the time the process would take is also wildly unrealistic.

New genes:

Evolution of novel genes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11682312)

The origin of new genes (http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/betran/naturereviews.pdf)

Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/26/9935.pdf)

* snip *

RNA species from a bucket of chemicals:

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=432262&tools=bot)

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=451910)

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2422560&dopt=Abstract)

* snip *

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase (http://edoc.mpg.de/262342)

* snip *

The False Witness:

Oh, little he cares he's been proven in error;
it's happened before, so it holds little terror:
do scientists really suppose
that by proving him wrong they can prove that he's wrong?
For the facts are just feeble, but falsehood is strong,
as a faithful creationist knows.

* snip *

So the verified facts are the least of his fears:
he just closes his eyes and he plugs up his ears,
and he carefully shuts off his brain.
When all of the lies that he loves to recite
have been proved to be wrong, he can prove that they're right
by reciting them over again.

Ah well, I guess you can't teach a pig to sing. However, the guy who thought up that proverb should have added a codicil to the effect that one can sometimes get a little quiet amusement out of annoying a pig.

[kleinman]

Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.Play semantic games all you like. I have described how there could be selective pressure of something which is not alive. Perhaps it should not be labelled 'natural selection', to avoid confusion, but it most certainly is a form of selective pressure.
You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.
Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.I'm afraid I am only a lowly post-grad student. However, you are claiming that such an account is impossible. This field of evolutionary genetics is very new, and new discoveries are being made all the time. The current hypotheses are being tested as we speak. As Paul C. has explained many times to you, the lack of a current working model, as I am unaware of any completed experiments into the various hypotheses yet, does not mean that it didn't happen. Unless you have some compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?
There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.
Also, please note that the generation of self replicating RNA has nothing to do with evolution.
So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?
The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?This is a very interesting question, one which is only now beginning to be answered. There are been found various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes which do have a benificial role to play to an organisms genome. Things like the greater DNA structure (i.e. folding, loops, etc), enhanced binding sites, gene regulation and more are starting to be shown to be carried out by what was once thought of as 'junk' DNA.
So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.
You also completely missed the point of my analogy. Self replication is enough for selective pressures to work. Anything is enough for selective pressures to work, as long as there is some variation in the population of objects, and some forms of this variation are more benificial then others.
So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.
You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.I know, but calling it "recombination" is a misleading use of the word.
Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?
When you die, you will understand what the soul is.This is a non-answer. You seem to understand and know what the 'soul' is. Please describe it to me.
You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.
Kleinman, please see my post responding to you earlier reguarding one hypothesis of a selection procedure. You have not answered why this could not happen.
You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.
Also, please note that you are entirely out of the range of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the evolution of organisms. You are dealing with abiogenesis if you are arguing against the first gene formation.
Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?
Also, saying "the evolution of a gene from the beginning" is a convoluted way of saying things. I suggest "the formation of the first novel gene", as this is what you are really arguing against, not the formation of a novel gene at all, as the latter has already been shown on this thread to have occured.
Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.
Do you have anything in your string theory that would explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning?Yes, and you know exactly what it is: random chance.
Hey Paul, forget about teaching children to read, write and do arithmetic, let’s start teaching them string theory.
I presume everyone has noticed that Kleinman's mantra now concerns abiogenesis, something about which Ev does not concern itself. Ev is no longer the topic of this conversation.Those creationists are a slippery sort--playing the everlasting game of "move the goalposts." Kleinman claims to have a mathematical equation that shows evolution couldn't happen by point mutation alone--everyone agrees...we are just learning all the ways DNA becomes genes and genes become genomes. Kleinman's math hypothesis is the equivalent of saying--"the vastness of the internet is impossible because it takes "x" amount of time to hook up a computer and more time to write things down... therefore it must have been planned in it's entirety in advance by an invisible dude!"
The reason why you evolutionarians have a hard time seeing the goal posts is that you don’t know where the ball park is. Let me remind you where the ball park is. Your mantra is “mutation and natural selection” but you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.
I think, as other people have now stated, that this discussion has drifted away from evolution per se, and onto abiogenesis. The answer to the question of how genes came about does little to dent the theory of evolution. We know (i.e. have observed) that genes do mutate, exchange information and grow longer.
The reason the discussion has drifted this direction is that both abiogenesis and evolution require a selection process in order to increase information in molecules or genomes. No selection process exists for either. What ev demonstrates is that random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow at acquiring information. Far too slow to support the theory of evolution. If you believe that other forms of mutation show the theory of evolution to be true, include it in the model, show the results and end this discussion.
With all your talk of foundations and mansions, I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of a scientific model. A model is used to explain observed phenomenon. The test of the models validity/scope is its ability to predict, either forward or backward in time, phenomenon which its proponents claim it models. Even when a model fails to accurately predict everything it should be able to, this does not necessarily mean the model is wrong, merely incomplete.
This discussion of foundations and mansion was inspired by a post by Beleth. If you haven’t read the thread carefully, you won’t understand my usage of this analogy.

Let’s see if we can understand what is being done with ev. You start out with a random genome. You allow random point mutations to occur on the genome and apply a selective process to these mutations. If the mutations are beneficial, you select for the creature, if detrimental, you select against the creature. When you have evolved a creature that has no errors, your model has converged.

What I did with Dr Schneider’s model was do a parametric study. I varied individual parameters and tabulated the number of generations to convergence. What this study shows is that the number of generations becomes huge when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. To get a sense of how slow this process is, on a 100k genome with a population of a million, it takes more than 100,000,000 generations to evolve 128 loci on this 100k genome. This is all done with a contrived selective process. There is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The key part of this model is the selective process. Without a valid selective process this model will always be incomplete. With an invalid selective process, this model will always be wrong.
Before you reply that evolution would take too long or can’t explain abiogenesis, think, for example, about the development of the various models of the atom. Would you claim some (still very useful) models are wrong because they cannot explain how the first sub-atomic particles came about? Also think about what has happened to models of the atom over time – they have generally been added to or modified, rather than thrown out completely. Please also note that at no time has ‘goddidit’ been added to a model.
The fundamental mechanism for driving the theory of evolution is mutation and natural selection. In order for this theory to have a hard mathematical scientific basis, you need to describe both mutation and natural selection mathematically. Mutation rates have been measured and described for years. Natural selection has not been mathematically described very often. Dr Schneider did this with the ev model and put a spot light on this concept. It shows how important it is to be able to describe natural selection mathematically in order to have a valid mathematical model. You evolutionarians don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.
Ok, so what’s the problem with my claim that ev shows the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection?You do not know what realistic rates, genome lengths, and populations are.
I suppose you think a genome length of 256 bases and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation is realistic.
What you continue to have difficulty grasping is the importance of point mutations to your theory but this issue takes the back seat when you have to consider the problem you have with a realistic selection process. In studying ev, it has become apparent that the selection process is what will make or break your theory mathematically.Again, you do not know anything more than that the selection method has significant effect on the rate. "Make or break" is too strong.
If you can’t come up with a selection mechanism that can evolve a gene from the beginning, your theory is broke. What more can you say about natural selection than if a particular property is beneficial it is selected for and if it is detrimental, it is selected against? You are trying to attribute to natural selection a capability that does not exist.
If you can not produce a selection process that will evolve a gene from the beginning, you are stuck with the simple probabilities and that is a losing argument. You would need to use kjkent1’s string theory argument.Now you've switched subjects. Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Unless you take the position that all genes were formed during abiogenesis, the theory of evolution must allow for evolution of new genes from the beginning. Either way, both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution requires a selection process to evolve new genetic components from the beginning. You have no selection process that can do this.
I will stop using the terminology de novo just for you. You might as well get used to seeing the phrase “from the beginning” about a jillion times, because that is the Achilles heel of your theory.Or you could use "from scratch."
I prefer the terminology “from the beginning” because using the terminology “from scratch” implies to me from nothing and that is not what I am trying to communicate.
You can pile all the adjectives onto the word “selection” you want but your theory is based on the concept of mutation and selection. This is what ev is modeling and this is the issue you have to explain. Stop trying to squirm out of this issue, it’s not becoming for a moderator on the James Randi educational forum.Ev has nothing to do with abiogenesis, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two. You are conflating them because your only evidence is Ev, yet the crux of your argument is abiogenesis. Unfortunately, they gots nothing to do with each other.
Ev is not a model of abiogenesis but ev does show the importance of a valid selection process. Neither abiogenesis nor the ev model have a valid selection process that allows the generation of a gene from the beginning.
Do you realize how tortured your argument sounds? So how are you going to explain the evolution of a gene from the beginning when you are not even evolving binding sites from the beginning?It's not my argument, it's your conflating Ev with abiogenesis that is the torture. Ev is not creating a gene from scratch, because the function of the gene is preprogrammed.
However, ev demonstrates the importance of the selection process for evolving anything. Without a valid selection mechanism, you can evolve nothing.
Doesn’t it bother you that your theory of evolution based on mutation and selection has nothing more than a mythical selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning?Avoidance of my question duly noted.
The proper question to ask is what is the selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. Unless you can answer this question, your theory is nothing more than modern mythology.
Genome lengths and mutation rates are the least of your problems. Without a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you have nothing other than landscaping for you mansion, no foundation whatsoever.But this has nothing to do with Ev. Would you like to discuss the mathematics of abiogenesis, because that is what you're claiming that you have shown to be untenable.
Are you saying a valid selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning is not part of the evolutionary landscape? Use whatever mutation mechanism you want and describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.
What makes you a “two faced hypocrite” is your response that ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. You did this to my claim that the rate of information acquisition in ev when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutations and natural selection.Okay, let me clarify: Ev models a stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. I don't think your genome length and mutation rate claims are well thought out.

Better?
I’ve always said I would be patient with you. You are showing slight improvement but still have a long way to go.

Feel free to post what you believe are realistic genome lengths and mutation rates and we can run series in ev based on those parameters.
When Dr Schneider made his claim about the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and mutation rate of 1 per 256 bases per generation to compute the evolution of a human genome, was he using a “realistic” version of ev?No, he was not. That's why he said "at this rate."
Let me make sure I understand what you have just said here. You are saying that Dr Schneider did not use a realistic model of random point mutation and natural selection to compute the rate of evolution of a human genome but it is ok to compute this anyway because he said “at this rate”?
Sure do! Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = fWhat is the variable f? Or is it a function?
Sorry, the screen editor changed my symbol Ø to an f.

The equation should read:
Selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning = Ø
Not quite, the evolution of a gene from the beginning applies to both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.Indeed, but Ev does not model the totality of that scenario.
Ev certainly doesn’t model natural selection such that a gene can evolve from the beginning and that is the crucial part of the scenario.
When you die, you will understand what the soul is.I find it deliciously appealing that if there is existence after death, nonbelievers will have to eat their words when they die. But if there is no existence after death, believers will simply never know.
You are right Paul! If I am wrong, it doesn’t matter, if you are wrong, well you figure it out.

[delphi_ote]

Congratulations. "Non-Naturalistic"; another meaningless weasel word fit for a dualist. :)
Is it really necessary to attempt to derail every interesting thread about evolution on this board with this nonsense about "dualists", hammy? If you want to talk about it so much, why not start your very own thread on the subject?

[Taffer]

You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.

Um, then it is you playing a semantic game. You are making an argument by definition, which is a fallacy.

There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

This doesn't answer my question.

So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?

I don't know, I do not deal with abiogenesis.

So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.

As I've already explained, at the very least some affect genome folding, binding inhibition and attraction, and gene regulation.

So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.

Yes, and no. All you said was that there were no selective pressures to evolve a novel gene. We have shown this is false. You are now also claiming that not even self replicators could come about. This is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis, then that is another matter entirely.

Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?

Excuse me? What does this have to do with anything?

You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.

Science has told us so far that there is no soul. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can't, just come out and admit it.

You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.

There doesn't need to be. You are now dealing with abiogenesis, not evolution.

Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?

No, they don't. Abiogenesis requires nothing, and does not deal with the first formation of genes, but the first formation of life. I have given one hypothesis as to selective pressures which would lead to a discrete gene from self replicating RNA molecules. If you take issue with that hypothesis, then address that hypothesis. Stop making straw man arguments about what evolution does not deal with.

Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

You just show you do not understand genetics. A 'gene' need not be transcribed to affect a genome, nor need a self replicating molecule produce a protein before it could be considered a gene. Look at transposons for examples of non-protein producing, replicating, genes.

[Taffer]

Dr. A: a wonderful summery, thank you. :)

[kleinman]

You are accusing the wrong author for playing semantic games, that definition is straight out of my Random House dictionary. Random House, I wonder if they are evolutionarians.Um, then it is you playing a semantic game. You are making an argument by definition, which is a fallacy.
What’s your definition of “argument”?
There are two major arguments I am making here. The first is that ev shows that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that the rate of information acquisition is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by random point mutation and natural selection. The second is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.This doesn't answer my question.
You must first ask the proper question.
So what is your sieve that generates self replicating RNA?I don't know, I do not deal with abiogenesis.
So what is your sieve for generating a gene from the beginning, or do all genes arise through abiogenesis?
So explain to us how various silent, inactivated or incomplete genes offer a selective benefit to that creature.As I've already explained, at the very least some affect genome folding, binding inhibition and attraction, and gene regulation.
If these genes have effect, it doesn’t sound like they are silent, inactivated or incomplete.
So let’s see if I am understanding your analogy. You have random chemical reactions and some type of selective process which is generating self replicating molecules. Then these self generating molecules continue to evolve under this selective pressure to make more complex self replicating molecules until they finally get together to make a simple life form.Yes, and no. All you said was that there were no selective pressures to evolve a novel gene. We have shown this is false. You are now also claiming that not even self replicators could come about. This is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis, then that is another matter entirely.
Do you believe that all genes were formed during abiogenesis? Explain to us what this sieve is that you are talking about that forms molecules whether is be in abiogenesis or for the theory of evolution.
Could you tell us how natural selection is acting on the recombination that is occurring prophase?Excuse me? What does this have to do with anything?
I’m not sure. You are the one who raised the issue of recombination during prophase and that the recombination that occurs during fertilization somehow is not recombination. I was wondering if you would walk us through the process and explain how these different processes affect evolution. Do either of these processes affect the information content of the gene pool?
You evolutionarians are the ones who claim that science can answer all the questions, so use your science to answer this question.Science has told us so far that there is no soul. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can't, just come out and admit it.
Science has told us so far that there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can’t, just come out and admit it. On the other hand, I do not claim there is a soul based on science so I owe you no scientific explanation.
You evolutionarians are an impatient lot. The flaw in your hypothesis is that there is no demonstrable selection procedure that would generate self replicating molecules whether they be of amino acids, RNA or any other mer.There doesn't need to be. You are now dealing with abiogenesis, not evolution.
Without a selection process, neither abiogenesis nor the theory of evolution are mathematically possible.
Both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution require a selection procedure in order to form genes from the beginning. Are you claiming that all genes formed during abiogenesis?No, they don't. Abiogenesis requires nothing, and does not deal with the first formation of genes, but the first formation of life. I have given one hypothesis as to selective pressures which would lead to a discrete gene from self replicating RNA molecules. If you take issue with that hypothesis, then address that hypothesis. Stop making straw man arguments about what evolution does not deal with.
I understand, your scientific arguments require nothing.
Since I doubt you have read this thread carefully, I will repeat my argument about why there is no selective process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. The only time there could be a selective benefit to a gene is if it produces a functional protein, so here is the argument:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.You just show you do not understand genetics. A 'gene' need not be transcribed to affect a genome, nor need a self replicating molecule produce a protein before it could be considered a gene. Look at transposons for examples of non-protein producing, replicating, genes.
Ok, put together your hypothesis into a coherent mathematical model and explain the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you only have mush here. I’m particularly interested in seeing how you describe natural selection mathematically.

[John Hewitt]

Dr. A: a wonderful summery, thank you. :)
Actually, I feel that Dr. Adequate has an irritating habit of posting links with no associated explanation of why he finds them relevant and no inclination to explain when their apparent irrelevance is pointed out to him.

Would somebody please explain to this chap that a carefully choreographed mixture of enzymes and nucleotide precursors is not some random bucketful of chemicals.

[Dr Adequate]

What’s your definition of “argument”?

You must first ask the proper question.

So what is your sieve for generating a gene from the beginning, or do all genes arise through abiogenesis?

If these genes have effect, it doesn’t sound like they are silent, inactivated or incomplete.

Do you believe that all genes were formed during abiogenesis? Explain to us what this sieve is that you are talking about that forms molecules whether is be in abiogenesis or for the theory of evolution.

I’m not sure. You are the one who raised the issue of recombination during prophase and that the recombination that occurs during fertilization somehow is not recombination. I was wondering if you would walk us through the process and explain how these different processes affect evolution. Do either of these processes affect the information content of the gene pool?

Science has told us so far that there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can’t, just come out and admit it. On the other hand, I do not claim there is a soul based on science so I owe you no scientific explanation.

Without a selection process, neither abiogenesis nor the theory of evolution are mathematically possible.

I understand, your scientific arguments require nothing.
So, to your usual lies, you seem to have added the pretence that you don't know what "argument" means. Whom do you hope to fool?

ar·gu·ment

n.

A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" (Shakespeare).

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: "presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life."
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: "The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now."
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: "You and love are still my argument" (Shakespeare).

Logic. The minor premise in a syllogism.
Mathematics. An independent variable of a function.
The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.
Computer Science. A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.
Linguistics. In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence.

Ok, put together your hypothesis into a coherent mathematical model and explain the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you only have mush here. I’m particularly interested in seeing how you describe natural selection mathematically. If you are genuinely interested, rather than (as I suspect) bleating out another halfwitted lie then you will need:

(a) Some sort of textbook on the mathematics of evolution.
(b) Some knowledge of mathematics.

But you might start here (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MATHMPG.html).

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, I feel that Dr. Adequate has an irritating habit of posting links with no associated explanation of why he finds them relevant and no inclination to explain when their apparent irrelevance is pointed out to him. I have pointed out their relevance; moreover, you can, I presume, read them.

If you cannot understand the results or their significance, then, to quote someone or other: "I have found you an argument, I am not obliged to find you an understanding".

Would somebody please explain to this chap that a carefully choreographed mixture of enzymes and nucleotide precursors is not some random bucketful of chemicals. Would someone explain to this chap that one cannot "carefully choreograph" what a bucketful of chemicals do, and that I did not claim that such reactions take place in a "random" bucketful of chemicals.

[kleinman]

But you might start here (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MATHMPG.html).
As usual, your links are totally useless for giving a mathematical description for natural selection to evolve a gene from the beginning. Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death. This seems to be your only effective debating tool. Have you given up on gifs and jpegs?

[Dr Adequate]

As usual, your links are totally useless for giving a mathematical description for natural selection to evolve a gene from the beginning.That is because you didn't ask for such a thing. You wrote:

Ok, put together your hypothesis into a coherent mathematical model and explain the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you only have mush here. I’m particularly interested in seeing how you describe natural selection mathematically. So I told you. It's no use pretending you wrote anything else, your statement is there for all to read.

In answer to your new question, "natural selection" does not "evolve a gene from the beginning", as you would know if you knew the first darn thing about the theory of evolution. If you want to know how a gene evolves from the beginning, I have already posted several links explaining this.

Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death. Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.

This seems to be your only effective debating tool. Presenting you with facts which you find "boring"? Yes, it seems I have no other.

Have you given up on gifs and jpegs? No, I think I have one which fits your present case:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/shifting_goalposts.jpg

[Kotatsu]

You must first ask the proper question.

Here, let me try:

"Pretty please?"

Was I correct?

[hammegk]

Should science conclude that it has experimentally measured God, can God change the experiment so that the measurement never occurred?

If so, then science can never know with any certainty that it has measured God.

Thus, it can never be logical that God is natural, because only the natural can be measured, and God is unmeasurable.
If you tried, there might be a syllogism lurking in there. :D

To your first point, who knows? I don't.

You can certainly define god to be tricky, or whatever you choose. Or in your case, as a good materialist/naturalist/atheist, as your prior experiences and current programming dictates.

[kleinman]

Scatequate, you may win this argument by boring me to death.Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.
It is not biology that I find boring, it is your incoherent, sloppy, poorly thought out and illogical arguments that I find boring. For someone with a PhD in mathematics, you are demonstrating a striking deficiency in being able to describe natural selection mathematically for evolving a gene from the beginning.

Good to see you using graphics again. However, didn’t I give you directions to the ball park about 40 pages ago so that at least you could see the goal posts?
You must first ask the proper question.Here, let me try:

"Pretty please?"

Was I correct?
Ok, your feigned courtesy warrants me telling you the proper question for this discussion.

What is the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? If you have some mathematical skills, feel free to describe this selection process mathematically. If you have no idea of this selection process, feel free to post totally unrelated links, gifs, jpegs or attempt to change the subject.

Paul, ev does use a selection process, right?

[John Hewitt]

I have pointed out their relevance; moreover, you can, I presume, read them.
If you cannot understand the results or their significance, then, to quote someone or other: "I have found you an argument, I am not obliged to find you an understanding".
I do not think you have and I do not think you have tried.
I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

Would someone explain to this chap that one cannot "carefully choreograph" what a bucketful of chemicals do, and that I did not claim that such reactions take place in a "random" bucketful of chemicals.
Scientists do carefully control the chemicals in their mixtures. Please stop talking as if they do not.

[kjkent1]

If you tried, there might be a syllogism lurking in there. :D

To your first point, who knows? I don't.

You can certainly define god to be tricky, or whatever you choose. Or in your case, as a good materialist/naturalist/atheist, as your prior experiences and current programming dictates.

I don't feel like dancing anymore. And, I'm not an atheist.

[Schneibster]

Many people find the facts of biology interesting. If you find them dull, I suggest you find another hobby besides whining about them.:dl:

:popcorn1

ETA: That's so good, I'm adding it to my signature.

[kjkent1]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?

[articulett]

I do not think you have and I do not think you have tried.

I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

Scientists do carefully control the chemicals in their mixtures. Please stop talking as if they do not.

You gotta love the irony. No one but you is perceiving Dr. A to be claiming that scientists don't control the chemicals in their mixtures but that doesn't mean some intelligence is necessary to do the "mixing" in the real world. Furthermore, you are not a scientist...you are a philosopher who has stated that you think scientists explaining evolution leads to an "infinite egress". Moreover, you use "epistemology" and data streams rather than facts to try and pass off some hypothesis which no one but you seems to understand. In fact, the only supporter you seem to have is a single person who cannot sum up or paraphrase what you say and who is widely regarded as a buffoon.

All these pages and complaints and writing and links by you (to your own writings)--and still no one can paraphrase or grasp what your basic problem with evolution is? (or your problem with Dr. A?) Or even what "the dogma scientists adhere to" is?? Moreover, no one seems to grasp your hypothesis or explanation at all--we don't know how it fits in with the facts, how it can be tested, nor why you are so incurious as to new developments on scientific frontiers. You've convinced yourself that no-one is grasping what you say, because of your depth. But no one is responding to what you say, because you aren't really saying anything at all.

You add nothing to anyone's understanding of the subject of evolution while deriding Dr. A., me, Paul, Dawkins, "cheating scientists" in general and a world of people eager to share new information...and expand understanding on the topic.

I understand the technique--what else are you to do when the facts don't support your beliefs? But how long are you going to be fighting this losing battle? And why? Why not learn some more actual facts? Why is evolution and abiogenesis so threatening to you? And what do you make of the fact that Yahzi can't tell you from Kleinman? And I can't tell you from Michael Behe. Can you tell us how you're different? Or is it more insults and obfuscations and oblique commentary with links to your book that you're selling and your cause in support of "maverick scientists" or whatever you imagine yourself to be?

Here's another simple question you can avoid yet again: Does your hypothesis involve the notion of "intelligent design"? (I know I asked before, but you never really answer--just obliquely at best)

...Is that why you are pretending that Dr. A. confused natural selection with chaos and randomness? I suspect your hypothesis has to do with an argument from incredulity, but like all creationists you are slippery and never really say anything amidst all your pontificating and pedantry. If you want to pretend to be a "maverick scientist" at least stick to the facts--and be honest.

A lot of bright people have waded through your BS writings and tried to make sense of it. The least you can do is stop the insults and tell the truth about your beliefs instead of claiming naivete about the meaning of the word naturalism. You may think that your beliefs don't affect your work. But I submit that they are the reason no scientist can actually grasp what you are saying. Many of us read all types of scientific articles and have no problems grasping what is being said. Why can't anyone grasp your "theory"?

You are harder to make sense of than the bible.

[Myriad]

Hi kjkent1,

Not quite. Work it step by step this way:

chance that one roulette wheel with 1,000,000,000 slots will hit:
1/1,000,000,000

chance that one roulette wheel with 1,000,000,000 slots will fail to hit:
(1 - 1/1,000,000,000)

chance that all of 1,000,000,000 such roulette wheels will fail to hit:
(1 - 1/1,000,000,000) ^ 1,000,000,000

chance that at least one of the roulette wheels will hit:
1 - ((1 - 1/1,000,000,000) ^ 1,000,000,000) = 0.632120551....

also:

limitn -> infinity (1 - 1/n)^n = 1/e
limitn -> infinity 1.0 - (1 - 1/n)^n = 1 - 1/e = 0.632120559...

Respectfully,
Myriad

[RecoveringYuppy]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?
I think that's the probability of something NOT falling in to a particular slot.

ETA: and apparently Myriad agrees.

[articulett]

John,

Here is something scientifically credible that you might actually apply your oscillating data hypothesis towards:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070204162541.htm

Here are even more scientists involved with actual oscillating data: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070204162541.htm

Say, I can understand these folks just fine! I bet most of the people on this forum can too. And it's brand new info. Plus it all involves a naturalistic explanation.

So why can't anyone sum up your oscillating-data-epistemology-cells-are-the true-replicators-free-will-cheating-scientist-theory as readily given all the time you've spent supposedly trying to explain it? Could it be because you are the one who is off base and not Dr. A and everyone else who understands evolution and the fact that nucleic acids are considered the basis of replication??

You can actually use your intelligence to add to understanding rather than wasting your time trying to find flaws in evolution. Look at Kleinman's writing and get a clue: Pedantry is really off-putting when you're just plain wrong.

[Schneibster]

Question for any one of you math wizards:

If I have one roulette wheel with one trillion slots in the wheel, then it's one in a trillion that the ball will fall into any one particular numbered slot. But if I have one trillion roulette wheels, each with one trillion slots in their respective wheels, the chances that at least one of those trillion balls will fall into a particular numbered slot is about 37% (Y/N)?
OK, first, Poisson distribution.
Second, a "trial" is one spin of each wheel; so, a trillion spins.
Third, for a trillion spins where the probability is one in a trillion, the expected value is one; that is, the most likely outcome, if you examine a trillion random events looking for a particular configuration with a probability of one in a trillion, is one.

There is a 37% chance that you will see zero, and a 37% chance that you will see one; and an 18% chance you will see two. There is a 6% chance you will see three, and a 1.5% chance you will see four.

What you're trying to do is say that there is only a slightly more than 1/3 chance of seeing a particular configuration of an event in a trial if the number of events in the trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of that configuration; but that is incorrect. What you REALLY want to know is, "if the number of events in a trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of a particular configuration of an event, what are the chances that I will see NO such events in a particular trial?" And the answer to THAT question is, 37%. There is therefore a 63% chance that you will see AT LEAST ONE such event in any given trial.

ETA: and apparently Myriad and RecoveringYuppie agree.

And here is a nice little calculator to play with. (http://www.anesi.com/poisson.htm)

[articulett]

:dl:

:popcorn1

ETA: That's so good, I'm adding it to my signature.

I know... it IS good. (Damn, I wish I thought of it.)

Dr. A. does have a way with words.

[articulett]

I think that's the probability of something NOT falling in to a particular slot.

ETA: and apparently Myriad agrees.

Yep, that seems to be the consensus. It reminds me of the Birthday problem:

How many random people do you have to have in a group so that it is more likely that 2 people share a birthday (p>.5) than no one sharing a birthday. The answer is 23. You have to have a group of people where there is 23 (or more) members with presumably random birthdays.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BirthdayProblem.html

It's an easy one to demonstrate, because my classes usually have between 25 and 30 students, and there are always 2 who share a birthday unbeknownst to them.

There was a good non-fiction book on the best seller list for a while called Fooled by Randomness that brings the inability to comprehend large numbers and probability to mind. It seems to be a common theme in creationist arguments: "This can't have all come about by chance!" Chance is just a piece of the equation--huge numbers, long periods of time, and natural selection are the parts of the equation they seem to be a little shaky on. Sometimes it's referred to as the "Goldilocks Hypothesis" of life-- "Gee, we humans fit so well in this world, this world must have been made to bring forth us"... :)

I suppose the bacteria on our skin can make the same claim.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070206095816.htm

[kjkent1]

OK, first, Poisson distribution.
Second, a "trial" is one spin of each wheel; so, a trillion spins.
Third, for a trillion spins where the probability is one in a trillion, the expected value is one; that is, the most likely outcome, if you examine a trillion random events looking for a particular configuration with a probability of one in a trillion, is one.

There is a 37% chance that you will see zero, and a 37% chance that you will see one; and an 18% chance you will see two. There is a 6% chance you will see three, and a 1.5% chance you will see four.

What you're trying to do is say that there is only a slightly more than 1/3 chance of seeing a particular configuration of an event in a trial if the number of events in the trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of that configuration; but that is incorrect. What you REALLY want to know is, "if the number of events in a trial is equal to the reciprocal of the probability of a particular configuration of an event, what are the chances that I will see NO such events in a particular trial?" And the answer to THAT question is, 37%. There is therefore a 63% chance that you will see AT LEAST ONE such event in any given trial.

ETA: and apparently Myriad and RecoveringYuppie agree.

And here is a nice little calculator to play with. (http://www.anesi.com/poisson.htm)

Thanks to all of you for the quick probability lesson. Does anyone think that my little thought experiment might reasonably relate to the the probability of the creation of a self-replicating molecule, by random chance, in a sea filled with prebiotic chemicals?

[kleinman]

Thanks to all of you for the quick probability lesson. Does anyone think that my little thought experiment might reasonably relate to the the probability of the creation of a self-replicating molecule, by random chance, in a sea filled with prebiotic chemicals?
Here’s a simple little computation to consider. Approximately how many atoms are there in the earth?

[kjkent1]

Here’s a simple little computation to consider. Approximately how many atoms are there in the earth?

Don't draw it out, Alan. Just run the numbers, so that I can rebut your analysis. I have a slew of other mathematicians here who are chomping at the bit.

[kleinman]

Here’s a simple little computation to consider. Approximately how many atoms are there in the earth?Don't draw it out, Alan. Just run the numbers, so that I can rebut your analysis. I have a slew of other mathematicians here who are chomping at the bit.
You are so lazy. My estimate is 1.25E+50 atoms in the earth. How many of these atoms are carbon?

[kjkent1]

You are so lazy. My estimate is 1.25E+50 atoms in the earth. How many of these atoms are carbon?I'm not lazy, Alan -- I'm busy.

Would it be too much to ask that you provide your entire expert witness report in the same post, rather than one line at a time?

[Schneibster]

Wait 'til you get to combinations and permutations, kjkent1. Watch out; there's about a billion ways to "baffle 'em with BS" in that subject.

[kleinman]

You are so lazy. My estimate is 1.25E+50 atoms in the earth. How many of these atoms are carbon?I'm not lazy, Alan -- I'm busy.
Then what are you doing playing around on this forum?
Would it be too much to ask that you provide your entire expert witness report in the same post, rather than one line at a time?
Don’t rush me. I watch Matlock and when he presents his case, he wins it with a dramatic last second testimony (interrupted by a commercial break).

Now that you evolutionarians are considering what the probabilities are to form a complex polymer, I thought it worthwhile to consider how many atoms are available in your probability space. Carbon and nitrogen are trace elements when considering the composition of the earth. There are 11 elements that compose about 99.5% the mass of the earth. That list contains neither carbon or nitrogen. If all the mass of the trace elements in the earth were in the form of carbon, you would have about 1.6E+48 carbon atoms.

So as you consider the probabilities of forming these complex molecules in the primordial soup by chance alone, you will have something to compare these numbers with.

It will become readily apparent that if you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, your probabilities will be so infinitesimally small of forming these molecules by random chance alone that only the most devout evolutionarian will believe this can happen.
Wait 'til you get to combinations and permutations, kjkent1. Watch out; there's about a billion ways to "baffle 'em with BS" in that subject.
A billion ways? You better use scientific notation.

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's an easy one to demonstrate, because my classes usually have between 25 and 30 students, and there are always 2 who share a birthday unbeknownst to them.
A stronger coindence happened to me at TAM. I was sitting next to Wollery. A week later I sign on to the forum and notice his name next to mine under birthdays. Eight hundred people sitting in a room is nearly 1600 opportunities for two people sharing a birthday to be sitting next to each other (or 800 if you only count the people on the left and right).

[kjkent1]

Then what are you doing playing around on this forum?

Don’t rush me. I watch Matlock and when he presents his case, he wins it with a dramatic last second testimony (interrupted by a commercial break).

Now that you evolutionarians are considering what the probabilities are to form a complex polymer, I thought it worthwhile to consider how many atoms are available in your probability space. Carbon and nitrogen are trace elements when considering the composition of the earth. There are 11 elements that compose about 99.5% the mass of the earth. That list contains neither carbon or nitrogen. If all the mass of the trace elements in the earth were in the form of carbon, you would have about 1.6E+48 carbon atoms.

So as you consider the probabilities of forming these complex molecules in the primordial soup by chance alone, you will have something to compare these numbers with.

It will become readily apparent that if you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, your probabilities will be so infinitesimally small of forming these molecules by random chance alone that only the most devout evolutionarian will believe this can happen.This is your third post, and I'm still waiting for you to compute all the probabilities.

I'm sure you've been awaiting this opportunity for a very long time -- so let's get on with the show. Please provide us with the math to show how unlikely is it for a self-replicating molecule to have formed by chance, in your expert opinion.

[Mr. Scott]

Highlights of the game so far:

My argument is that the ev computer program shows that this process [the evolution of binding sites by random point and natural selection] is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used in the model that macroevolution by this mechanism is mathematically impossible.

So let me get this straight, Kleinman is saying evolution is bunk because it is incompatible with certain results of a simulation? That's rich.

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

I have not moved any goal posts.

Commentary:

"[The devil] does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44, NASB).

[Dr Adequate]

It is not biology that I find boring, it is your incoherent, sloppy, poorly thought out and illogical arguments that I find boring.You remember how I explained to you how lying won't make the facts go away? It still won't.

For someone with a PhD in mathematics, you are demonstrating a striking deficiency in being able to describe natural selection mathematically for evolving a gene from the beginning. Because I have a training in logic and mathematics, and because I know something about the theory of evolution, I know that the phrase "describe natural selection mathematically for evolving a gene from the beginning" is meaningless gibberish.

Along the lines of "describe the first law of motion mathematically to explain the formation of the solar system from the beginning".

Don't you see, to anyone who knows what the words you're using actually mean, it's just nonsense?

Sheesh, I'm trying to teach a pig to sing again.

You don't have the basic concepts to understand the meaning of the words you're stringing together, any more than a pig repeatedly squealing has a knowledge of melody.

GO AWAY AND LEARN SOMETHING.

Anything. Anything at all about the subjects from which you're plucking a few random words and stirring them into what psychologists call "word salad".

Good to see you using graphics again. However, didn’t I give you directions to the ball park about 40 pages ago so that at least you could see the goal posts?Having looked "about 40 pages back", I notice that you were drooling out nonsense and halfwitted lies even then.

And that you are still trying to shift the goalposts.

[Dr Adequate]

I do not think you have and I do not think you have tried. Then you are wrong.

I think you choose not to understand even simple points. Then you are wrong.

Scientists do carefully control the chemicals in their mixtures. Please stop talking as if they do not. I have never done so, and when you claim that I have ... well, which would you find more courteous: should I call you a moron or a liar? For you are certainly one or the other. Or maybe a bit of both.

To quote articulett:

You gotta love the irony. No one but you is perceiving Dr. A to be claiming that scientists don't control the chemicals in their mixtures ...

And yeah, you gotta love the irony:

I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

And yeah, you gotta love the irony some more:

I did not claim that such reactions take place in a "random" bucketful of chemicals.

And let's just take that irony home and love it all night long:

I think you choose not to understand even simple points.

:dl:

[articulett]

A stronger coindence happened to me at TAM. I was sitting next to Wollery. A week later I sign on to the forum and notice his name next to mine under birthdays. Eight hundred people sitting in a room is nearly 1600 opportunities for two people sharing a birthday to be sitting next to each other (or 800 if you only count the people on the left and right).


Dude! Synchronicity. Hawkeye has the same birthday as James Randi and he quoted her (Hawkeye is a female) extensively in this week's SWIFT! AND when I was at the "critical thinking" workshop at TAM, an attendee grabbed Ray Hall (the speaker) and said something like..."I'm a critical thinker, but on the way out here, I sat next to someone on the plane who had my same birthday, and it was also the same birthday as Meatloaf (the singer!)--What are the odds of that?!" Of course the odds would be improbable if she had predicted such an event beforehand--but there's a pretty good chance all of us sit next to people who share our birthday quite frequently in our lives without ever knowing it. (But not necessarily people as cool as Wollory, Randi, or Meatloaf, of course.)

So are there any cool people out there with a January 11 birthday? Ray Hall says he tells his students to be "coincidence conspiracy theorists".

[articulett]

So as you consider the probabilities of forming these complex molecules in the primordial soup by chance alone, you will have something to compare these numbers with.

It will become readily apparent that if you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, your probabilities will be so infinitesimally small of forming these molecules by random chance alone that only the most devout evolutionarian will believe this can happen.

A billion ways? You better use scientific notation.

You are such a dolt. Random chance? I just linked an article which showed how some elements and molecules in the primordial soup happen to stick to mineral surfaces (like rocks) better than others when water evaporates and/or washes over said rocks. These molecules happen to have a way of interlocking with eachother due to their chirality--which just happens to be the left handed chirality--the one that predominates in life forming molecules. Duh. Life-ish molecules stick together better than non lifeish molecules when energy is added to the system via tides or weather phenomena like the Sun...or meteors. That isn't random chance. You creationists are just utter dolts when it comes to understanding the very basics of evolution. Randomness is what happens to the numerous atoms--but when they stick together--that's SELECTION. When you boil water and there's minerals left in the pan--those minerals have been "selected" by natural processes. Do you get it yet? I thought not. Because creationists like to pretend that scientists think it all happened "randomly". You truly are a deluded, lying simpleton.

Does your "intelligent designer" magnetize the poles with his magic wand--or can we continue to presume that such an event was achieved through natural forces? Is god in charge of electrons? Hewitt's "data streams"? Hammy's mutterings? Your delusion?

[The Atheist]

Articulett on ad hominem.

My answer is not an ad hom. I am more than willing to back all my statements about you with evidence-- Ad hominen attacks are attacks of the person rather than the argument.

tsk tsk Go crawl back in your hole.

Or is it more insults and obfuscations ....

A lot of bright people have waded through your BS writings .....

You are such a dolt.......

You creationists are just utter dolts when it comes to understanding the very basics of evolution......

.... You truly are a deluded, lying simpleton.

.....Your delusion?

Arti, summing up her posting style:

So much verbiage; so little content.

[Taffer]

Articulett on ad hominem.

Not a single one of these were ad hominem arguments, TA. Ad hom arguments link a personal feature about the arguer too why their argument was wrong. These are simply insults.

[Taffer]

What’s your definition of “argument”?

I'm not even going to bother. The good doctor has adequately provided a definition. But FYI, I'm using the standard philosophic definition of an argument.

You must first ask the proper question.

I'm afraid I am only a lowly post-grad student. However, you are claiming that such an account is impossible. This field of evolutionary genetics is very new, and new discoveries are being made all the time. The current hypotheses are being tested as we speak. As Paul C. has explained many times to you, the lack of a current working model, as I am unaware of any completed experiments into the various hypotheses yet, does not mean that it didn't happen. Unless you have some compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?

My apologies, I thought my question was clear. Do you have any compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?

So what is your sieve for generating a gene from the beginning, or do all genes arise through abiogenesis?

Of course they didn't. My 'sieve' is selective pressures of self replicating molecules. Don't you understand this? It is easy to see how genes arrise, but you continue to argue against it. What you should be arguing, if anything, is the hypotheses of abiogenesis, something which I do not deal with.

If these genes have effect, it doesn’t sound like they are silent, inactivated or incomplete.


A 'silent' gene is a gene which does not produce a protein product, and thus does not have a phenotypic effect. Thus, they are indeed silent. You should learn current genetic definitions of words. Additionally, 'inactivated' genes are genes which are transcriptionally inhibited, and incomplete genes are genes which do not have initiation and termination codons, or is a partial copy of another gene.

Do you believe that all genes were formed during abiogenesis? Explain to us what this sieve is that you are talking about that forms molecules whether is be in abiogenesis or for the theory of evolution.

No, I do not believe all genes were created in toto during abiogenesis. I have described mechanisms which would provide selective pressure for the evolution of genes after abiogenesis. I could not possibly speculate about the hypotheses of abiogenesis, as I deal with evolution.

I’m not sure. You are the one who raised the issue of recombination during prophase and that the recombination that occurs during fertilization somehow is not recombination. I was wondering if you would walk us through the process and explain how these different processes affect evolution. Do either of these processes affect the information content of the gene pool?

Oh for the love of...

kleinman, you first brought this up:


The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.

You have used the term 'recombination' incorrectly. As it is applied to evolution, and genetics as a whole, 'recombination' is a process which happens during meiosis, during prophase 1. I can't even begin to understand what you mean.

Science has told us so far that there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning. You claim there is. Therefore, it is up to you to describe it. If you can’t, just come out and admit it. On the other hand, I do not claim there is a soul based on science so I owe you no scientific explanation.

Actually, science has provided much evidence that there is. You just think it hasn't. Please see Dr. A's links.

Also, I never said I wanted scientific explanation for the soul, I just want a definition of what a soul is. Come on, it can't be that hard.

Without a selection process, neither abiogenesis nor the theory of evolution are mathematically possible.

You are correct that, without selection pressure, the theory of evolution is not mathematically possible. However, there is and was selective pressure, so that is not a problem. As for abiogenesis, since it does not deal with evolution of anything, it might or might not require selective pressure. You would have to choose one hypothesis for us to discuss, as I am not versed in abiogenesis. I deal only with evolution.

I understand, your scientific arguments require nothing.

Excuse me? What does this mean?

Ok, put together your hypothesis into a coherent mathematical model and explain the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you only have mush here. I’m particularly interested in seeing how you describe natural selection mathematically.

I could quickly answer this, but all my relevent notes are roughly 800km away. However, if you are still interested, when I return to university, I shall post the currently held population genetics equations regarding the effect of selective pressures.

[Taffer]

In answer to your new question, "natural selection" does not "evolve a gene from the beginning", as you would know if you knew the first darn thing about the theory of evolution.

This is correct, it does not. But there are selective pressures which would lead to the development of a descrete gene. However, it would be misleading to label those pressures 'natural selection', given the connotations of that phrase.

[John Hewitt]

Then you are wrong.

I have never done so, and when you claim that I have ... well, which would you find more courteous: should I call you a moron or a liar? For you are certainly one or the other. Or maybe a bit of both.


The simple point, in question, is that the primordial oceans, as conceived by most people, will have contained not a single molecule of q-beta replicase and virtually none of the substrates that enzyme requires. It seems to me unreasonable to post links to the kind of work innovated by Spiegelman as if they somehow explain the emergence of genes on the prebiotic earth.
Nobody sensible believes that they do and that point seems quite straightforward to me. I think you should either stop posting such links or explain their relevance.

[hammegk]

But there are selective pressures which would lead to the development of a descrete gene.
Yeah, that is a question being discussed. What did you say those pressures are?


However, it would be misleading to label those pressures 'natural selection', given the connotations of that phrase.
What do you label them? Er, let me guess ... energy, time, and chance?

[Taffer]

Yeah, that is a question being discussed. What did you say those pressures are?

Competition for resources by self replicating RNA molecules.

What do you label them? Er, let me guess ... energy, time, and chance?

Er, no hamme. I would label it "selection", just not "natural selection" as "natural selection" is most often associated with classically classified living things, of which self replicating RNA is not. However, that does not change the nature of the selection, or the outcome.

ETA: "Classically classified". What a horrible description. :(

[hammegk]

Competition for resources by self replicating RNA molecules.
There seems to be a bit of discussion about where we find one of those, today. Better yet, how did we get the first one?

[Taffer]

There seems to be a bit of discussion about where we find one of those, today. Better yet, how did we get the first one?

I don't know, hamme, I do not deal with abiogenesis.

ETA: How does this relate to the original point, anyway? You asked for the selective pressures which would lead to the formation of the first novel genes. I proved an example of one. Why, then, did you switch to abiogenesis?

[kleinman]

This is your third post, and I'm still waiting for you to compute all the probabilities.
Didn’t you take care of all the probability problems with string theory?
My apologies, I thought my question was clear. Do you have any compelling evidence which would falsify these hypotheses?
Certainly I do. You can start with the results from ev computer model, a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows this mechanism of evolution is so profoundly slow when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve by this mechanism. Then you can again consider the concept of natural selection which can only operate if there is a benefit or detriment to the creature. I have shown that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning. I will repeat it again since so many evolutionarians are in denial about this issue.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

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

Without a selection process, neither abiogenesis nor the theory of evolution are mathematically possible.You are correct that, without selection pressure, the theory of evolution is not mathematically possible. However, there is and was selective pressure, so that is not a problem. As for abiogenesis, since it does not deal with evolution of anything, it might or might not require selective pressure. You would have to choose one hypothesis for us to discuss, as I am not versed in abiogenesis. I deal only with evolution.
This thread is about mathematically modeling evolution by mutation and selection. If you believe there is and was selective pressure to do this, present a description for this so that you can evolve a gene from the beginning. Feel free not to discuss this topic if you believe that all genes formed during abiogenesis. However, you have acknowledged the first step in disproving the theory of evolution. The next step is understanding that there is no selective pressure that can evolve a gene from the beginning. The only thing that natural selection can do is select for a creature with a beneficial property and select against a creature with a detrimental property. The addition of bases to a sequence which is neither beneficial nor detrimental will not alter the frequency of occurrence of that sequence in the population. Without selection pressure, the theory of evolution is not mathematically possible as you so correctly have said.
Yeah, that is a question being discussed. What did you say those pressures are?Competition for resources by self replicating RNA molecules.
Taffer, that’s a lovely semantic dance you are doing here.
There seems to be a bit of discussion about where we find one of those, today. Better yet, how did we get the first one?I don't know, hamme, I do not deal with abiogenesis.
I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin, the gene that codes for globulin, the genes that code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle, the genes that code for the proteins in the DNA replicase system and so on. Do you believe that all these genes arose during abiogenesis? Unless you can describe a sieve that would give rise to these genes from the beginning, you theory of evolution is mathematically impossible as you so correctly noted earlier.

[kjkent1]

Didn’t you take care of all the probability problems with string theory?Unless you defend your current position, I'll take your statement here as an admission by you that I have, in fact, refuted substantially all of your claims of mathematical impossibility, concerning both evolution and abiogenesis.

Edit: you know, there's a lot of genuine brain power in this thread. If you were a litttle more interested in actually searching for answers, rather than ridiculing your opponents because they don't accept your version of universal creation, all of us might just discover something new -- or at least worthy of further investigation.

[kleinman]

Didn’t you take care of all the probability problems with string theory?Unless you defend your current position, I'll take your statement here as an admission by you that I have, in fact, refuted substantially all of your claims of mathematical impossibility, concerning both evolution and abiogenesis.
Little gator, I think your refutation of my claims using string theory should be embraced by evolutionarians far and wide. It has been the only response to my claim that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning.

[kjkent1]

Little gator, I think your refutation of my claims using string theory should be embraced by evolutionarians far and wide. It has been the only response to my claim that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning.I don't know what you mean by "little gator," but if it's a reference to chronological age, I'm probably older than you are.

[kleinman]

Little gator, I think your refutation of my claims using string theory should be embraced by evolutionarians far and wide. It has been the only response to my claim that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning.I don't know what you mean by "little gator," but if it's a reference to chronological age, I'm probably older than you are.
Did you compute that probability?

[kjkent1]

Did you compute that probability?No, but the publicly available empirical evidence suggests to me that you're between 50 and 60 years old.

[Dr Richard]

...I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. The gene that codes for insulin...

Annual review of Genetics: structure and evolution of the insulin gene (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ge.19.120185.002335)

Apologies for the block quotations, and long post, but I am not sure that many viewers will have access to Annual Reviews going back to 1985...

Kleinman has evidently forgotten that the insulin gene does not exist in isolation:

The two-chain hormone is derived biosynthetically from the immediate precursor, proinsulin which consists of the B and A chains linked to a connecting peptide (C-peptide) by adjacent pairs basic residues in the following order: NH2-B chain.Arg.Arg.C-peptide. Lys.Arg.A chain-COOH(2 3, 93, 136). However,the initial translation product of the insulin mRNiAs preproinsulin, which contains an N-terminal signal peptide, or prepeptide, of 24 amino acids linked to proinsulin (21).

So, insulin comes from proinsulin...

Although insulin at one time was thought to be a structurally unique hormone, the pioneering studies of Froesch and Humbeal nd their coworkers( 40,110, 111, 159) have shown that other insulin-like activities not suppressed by the addition of anti-insulin antibody are present in the sera of mammals. The successful isolation and amino acid sequence determination of these substances, which have been named IGF-I and II in man (110, 111), clearly demonstrated their structural relationship to proinsulin, particularly in the conservation of the disulfide bridges and the presence of a short connecting peptide segment that is usually not removed. In addition to the insulin-like growth factors, the ovarian peptide hormone, relaxin, has been placed in the insulin superfamily on the basis of its primary and secondary structural homology to insulin (61). The submaxillary nerve growth factor (NGF) may also be a homologue of insulin (38), but in this case the evidence is less compelling (147a).

Insulin is therefore part of a signalling superfamily. This is is of course the case with most signalling/receptor pathways, which exhibit multiple crossovers and redundancies. As might be expected from evolution with natural selection, or perhaps from a sloppy/incompetent designer. This is further evidenced by the fact there is not just one insulin gene, in rodents at least...

In most species the insulin gene exists in a single copy, except rats (79) and mice (18) where 2 nonallelic insulins are produced by closely related genes that are over 90% homologous in nucleotide sequence in the rat (79) (estimated divergence time 25-35 million years). Evidence suggests that the genes for rat and mouse insulin I, which in addition to the absence of IVS-2 (Figure 1) exhibit other hallmarks of retroposition, probably have arisen by RNA-mediaded rna transposition,as a functional gene, of a cDNA copy of an incompletely processed upstream transcript of insulin gene II into the ancestral murine germ line (122).

Again, this seems entirely consistent with an evolutionary explanation of a mutation within the rodent precursor after separation from the mammalian superfamily. Personally, I find in incomprehensible why an intelluigent designer would duplicate the insulin gene in these two species alone, and as we know argument from personal incredulity constitutes proof...

But this will not be good enough for Kleinman, we need to know how these insulin link genes could have evolved in the first place...

As noted earlier, it is now clear that several insulin-like growth factors (also known as multiplication stimulating activity (MSA) or somatomedin) circulate in mammals (e.g. rat MSA and human IGFs I and II).

The gene for IGF I is located on human chromosome 12, which may be evolutionarily related to chromosome (14, 143). The recent demonstration
of a larger variant form of IGFI I in humans suggests the existence of an
additional gene for IGF II in man (162). Although the exact time of divergence
of these molecules from insulin cannot be predicted with accuracy, they differ
more in amino acid sequence (-45% homology) than do the vertebrate insulins
(e.g. hagfish vs human -60% homology) suggesting an earlier separation time (>0.5 billion years). The recent finding of IGF-like peptides in Bombyxm orii
(90) tentatively supports this conclusion, although it is unclear as yet whether insulin, as such, also exists in such invertebrates. Thus far the evidence on putative invertebrate or prokaryotic insulins is fragmentary (35, 36, 78a, 105,140).

But where did these earlier genes come from?

The above findings, coupled with evidence that IGF-I production is under control of pituitary growth hormone and may, in fact, be largely responsible for mediating postnatal somatic growth in the organism (1, 17, 40), strongly suggest the evolution of a complex and well-integrated system for the regulation of growth and metabolism in which insulin-like peptides (insulin and somatomedins) play a central role and are regulated by both nutritional and neural influences

...It is tempting to speculate that protoinsulin in simpler organisms was a metabolic hormone whose actions led to increased uptake and utilization of foodstuffs and, perhaps as a direct consequence, stimulated growth. However, as organisms became more complex and food supplies more limited, these two activities - nutrition and growth - had to be uncoupled. To accomplish this the primitive "insulin" system becamed diversified in evolution into superfamilies of related proteins and receptors, with differing relative potencies for regulating fuel metabolism on the one hand, or growth on the other. This hypothesis is supported by studies of the relative growth-promoting vs metabolic activities of insulin and the IGF peptides (40, 47, 70, 71, 160).

And these genes form part of an even older family of proteins - remember the ovarian hormone relaxin mentioned above?

Relaxin has no insulin-like activity and little is known of its cell surface receptors, at present. However, as discussed in more detail below, recent studies of its mode of biosynthesis via preprorelaxin (74, 153) and of its gene structure support its probable evolutionary divergence from an ancestral antecedent of insulin.

So, insulin is part of a superfamily of proteins whose comparatve structures in various species support the hypothesis that they evolved from primitive organisms where they regulated growth and metabolism.

Remember that Kleinman specifically did not ask for abiogenesis here, so haveing covered >500million years of evolution of the insulin gene, I will leave things there.

I realise that most JREF forum readers will realise that similar cases can be made for the other genes/proteins he mentions, but it is worth pointing out that such evolutionary genetics is not simply a sterile theoretical field. Genuine scientific and medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.

My favorite recent paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7035/abs/nature03467.html)is on the importance of the non-coding (so-called junk) DNA in the pathogenesis of Hirschsprung's disease; note the application within the paper of evolutionary theory to achieve a clinically relevant result.

So, question to Kleinman in return. What did God evolve from? Or did he just suddenly appear? What is the mathematical probability of that happening?

[Schneibster]

How does this relate to the original point, anyway? You asked for the selective pressures which would lead to the formation of the first novel genes. I proved an example of one. Why, then, did you switch to abiogenesis?Because it doesn't know the difference.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Kleinman has evidently forgotten that the insulin gene does not exist in isolation:
Probably never knew it. And based on his repetition of a similar error regarding hemoglobin probably isn't capable of learning it.

[Schneibster]

I realise that most JREF forum readers will realise that similar cases can be made for the other genes/proteins he mentions, but it is worth pointing out that such evolutionary genetics is not simply a sterile theoretical field. Genuine scientific and medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

[kleinman]

...I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. The gene that codes for insulin... Annual review of Genetics: structure and evolution of the insulin gene (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ge.19.120185.002335)

Apologies for the block quotations, and long post, but I am not sure that many viewers will have access to Annual Reviews going back to 1985...

Kleinman has evidently forgotten that the insulin gene does not exist in isolation:
Dr Richard, welcome to this discussion. I particularly appreciate that you quote the portion of your link that feel address my argument.
The two-chain hormone is derived biosynthetically from the immediate precursor, proinsulin which consists of the B and A chains linked to a connecting peptide (C-peptide) by adjacent pairs basic residues in the following order: NH2-B chain.Arg.Arg.C-peptide. Lys.Arg.A chain-COOH(2 3, 93, 136). However,the initial translation product of the insulin mRNiAs preproinsulin, which contains an N-terminal signal peptide, or prepeptide, of 24 amino acids linked to proinsulin (21).
And
Although insulin at one time was thought to be a structurally unique hormone, the pioneering studies of Froesch and Humbeal nd their coworkers( 40,110, 111, 159) have shown that other insulin-like activities not suppressed by the addition of anti-insulin antibody are present in the sera of mammals. The successful isolation and amino acid sequence determination of these substances, which have been named IGF-I and II in man (110, 111), clearly demonstrated their structural relationship to proinsulin, particularly in the conservation of the disulfide bridges and the presence of a short connecting peptide segment that is usually not removed. In addition to the insulin-like growth factors, the ovarian peptide hormone, relaxin, has been placed in the insulin superfamily on the basis of its primary and secondary structural homology to insulin (61). The submaxillary nerve growth factor (NGF) may also be a homologue of insulin (38), but in this case the evidence is less compelling (147a).
Insulin is therefore part of a signalling superfamily. This is is of course the case with most signalling/receptor pathways, which exhibit multiple crossovers and redundancies. As might be expected from evolution with natural selection, or perhaps from a sloppy/incompetent designer. This is further evidenced by the fact there is not just one insulin gene, in rodents at least...
In most species the insulin gene exists in a single copy, except rats (79) and mice (18) where 2 nonallelic insulins are produced by closely related genes that are over 90% homologous in nucleotide sequence in the rat (79) (estimated divergence time 25-35 million years). Evidence suggests that the genes for rat and mouse insulin I, which in addition to the absence of IVS-2 (Figure 1) exhibit other hallmarks of retroposition, probably have arisen by RNA-mediaded rna transposition,as a functional gene, of a cDNA copy of an incompletely processed upstream transcript of insulin gene II into the ancestral murine germ line (122).
And so on…
But this is the crucial quote from this link.
Relaxin has no insulin-like activity and little is known of its cell surface receptors, at present. However, as discussed in more detail below, recent studies of its mode of biosynthesis via preprorelaxin (74, 153) and of its gene structure support its probable evolutionary divergence from an ancestral antecedent of insulin.
There are two issues you have to account for in your story in order to make it mathematically and scientifically consistent. The first is how did the ancestral antecedent of insulin arise from the beginning and the second is how did this ancestral antecedent of insulin morph into the other related hormones. You have no selection process that will evolve any gene from the beginning including your so called ancestral antecedent of insulin. And any process of morphing this so called ancestral antecedent of insulin into other hormones must have selective benefit to those creatures as it is morphing step by step from one hormone to the next. Do you care to describe this selective process that morphs these hormones from one to another so that it can be included in Dr Schneider’s mathematical model and the process demonstrated. Otherwise, mutation and selection is nothing more than a slogan with no mathematical or scientific basis.

It is not enough to observe similarities between genetic structures. You must demonstrate how these structures could have arisen initially and how they can transform from one to another. You have done neither.
I realise that most JREF forum readers will realise that similar cases can be made for the other genes/proteins he mentions, but it is worth pointing out that such evolutionary genetics is not simply a sterile theoretical field. Genuine scientific and medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.
You can make similar cases for any genes you want and I will ask you how the ancestral gene formed from the beginning and how these genes transformed from one to another. I don’t consider a slogan as a scientific answer.

Dr Richard, perhaps you could tell us what the ancestral genes were for the DNA replicase system? I would be interested in hearing that case.

[hammegk]

Genuine ... medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.

What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

[RecoveringYuppy]

We've found parts of our genome that we didn't know were active by comparing the rate of accumulation of change in the various regions of DNA. Look back through Scientific American over the past two years for an article about the subject.

[Schneibster]

Well, I guess that was about what I expected. No answer. OK, fine, back on ignore.

[Dr Richard]

Dr Richard, welcome to this discussion. I particularly appreciate that you quote the portion of your link that feel address my argument.

I am however somewhat diappointed that you did not actually bother to read the article before firing off your response. I was, after all, merely quoting excerpts from the article; it would be somewhat foolish to base your arguments solely on what I have quoted.

Firstly, I need to clarify a point:

You asked for a demonstration of the evolution of insulin.

I provided evidence back to the precursor from which proto insulin and proto relaxin diverged; this would seem not to be sufficient.

Definition and acceptable base sequence please.

You did not answer my other questions, hence I feel we must stall on this point for now.

[Kotatsu]

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

Notwithstanding, again, that the results of Ev regarding random point mutations does not in any way whatsoever preclude the possibility of evolution either entirely through other means, or through a combination of random point mutations and other means, your latest formulation of your hypothesis (1) can easily be countered by the example of what I believe is called the FMRFamide-like neuropeptide family (2), many members of which have appeared exactly due to random point mutations, but which are still useable by the organisms, with a varied degree of success.

---
(1) i.e. "nothing can evolve by th[is] mechanism [random point mutation and natural selection]" (Emphasis mine).
(2) I don't have the papers in front of me, as I am at home, and I have only become superficially acquianted with them, as my study on a certain oligochaete (3) have involved working with a guy in Florida who studies this family from an evolutionary perspective (among other things).
(3) Submitted today after over a year of hard work! Hoorah!

[kleinman]

We've found parts of our genome that we didn't know were active by comparing the rate of accumulation of change in the various regions of DNA. Look back through Scientific American over the past two years for an article about the subject.
At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

This is a discussion on the mathematics of mutation and selection. I have focused on Dr Tom Schneider’s ev computer model of random point mutation and natural selection since it was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. It is clear from this stylized model that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model, too slow to evolve anything in the time available. Unnamed altered Dr Schneider’s selection process and achieved more rapid convergence which moved the center of discussion to the selection process. Since neither Dr Schneider’s nor Unnamed’s selection process have any relationship to any realistic selection process, I have challenge the evolutionarians reading this thread to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. We can add to this challenge to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene from one form to another such that every step of the evolutionary process gives a selective benefit to those creatures in which this process is occurring.

As an example of this additional challenge, consider a gene which produces a protein that acts as a selective channel for transporting sodium. Describe a selection process that would evolve this gene to a protein that would transport calcium such that every step along the way this gene offers selective benefit to the creatures in which this gene is evolving.

It is not enough to say that there are genetic similarities between different life forms and therefore the theory of evolution is true. You must show how the bookkeeping of your slogan of mutation and natural selection accomplishes these transformations and the origin of the so called ancestral genes initially. Dr Schneider’s model shows that you don’t have your bookkeeping in order. In fact, Dr Schneider’s model shows how important the selection process is for accomplishing any gain in information in a genome. Without a valid selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and a selection process that allows the transformation of one gene to another, you have no theory of evolution with a mathematical/scientific basis. However, you do have a slogan that has duped many scientists for more than 150 years.
Firstly, I need to clarify a point:

You asked for a demonstration of the evolution of insulin.

I provided evidence back to the precursor from which proto insulin and proto relaxin diverged; this would seem not to be sufficient.
My contention is that natural selection does not have the capability of evolving a gene from the beginning. I will repeat my argument again here.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Do you suggest there is a proto DNA replicase system?
Definition and acceptable base sequence please.
A sequence that gives benefit to the creature, something which a partially evolved gene can not do.
You did not answer my other questions, hence I feel we must stall on this point for now.
You have not answered my questions either. What is the selection mechanism which would evolve a gene from the beginning? Your entire first post simply describes similarities between insulin and insulin like molecules and that satisfies you as a proof for the theory of evolution. I on the other hand require you show how proto insulin evolved from the beginning and how these insulin like molecules transform from one to another by mutation and selection. Using the slogan “mutation and natural selection” is not a satisfactory scientific explanation. Mutations have been described and measured extensively however natural selection is an amorphous mushy term as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection. It is your theory of evolution which is stalled without a valid selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

[Kotatsu]

What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years?

[/serious mode]
Didn't people use to eat powdered diamonds to counter some syndrom or other? Or is that just a myth, or perhaps something I've just made up?
[serious mode]

[RecoveringYuppy]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.
I think if you see me post a link for you or Hamme you can assume it's because I thought the link would be useful to me.

[kleinman]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.I think if you see me post a link for you or Hamme you can assume it's because I thought the link would be useful to me.
This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

[Dr Richard]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

Evasion noted


Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Firstly, I need to clarify a point:

You asked for a demonstration of the evolution of insulin.

I provided evidence back to the precursor from which proto insulin and proto relaxin diverged; this would seem not to be sufficient.


My contention is that natural selection does not have the capability of evolving a gene from the beginning. I will repeat my argument again here.

Evasion again noted.

May I remind you

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

I provided you with evidence of the development of the insulin superfamily. You now try to evade this evidence by falling back on... abiogenesis, as per:

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Do you suggest there is a proto DNA replicase system?

Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Definition and acceptable base sequence please.


A sequence that gives benefit to the creature, something which a partially evolved gene can not do.

Oh so close, and yet so far! So, just to be straight, your definition of "insulin" is "a sequence that gives benefit to the creature"

Seriously?

[Kotatsu]

don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.

Instead, you should follow Kleinman's example and post assertions backed up with nothing at all except displays of various stages of bewilderment and incredulity.

Oh, and reiterations of the idea that a model which models a part of reality models all of it.

[RecoveringYuppy]

This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.
Since I've noted you don't takes serious arguments as serious arguments you didn't have to point this out to me.

And I did explain the important part in my own words.

[Dr Richard]

At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.

Don't bother with Scientific American, try Science:

Conservation of RET Regulatory Function from Human to Zebrafish Without Sequence Similarity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5771/276)

Just to reemphasise, this is not a sterile debate; RET is of importance in many human illnesses, including my own area of interest, Hirschsprung's disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirschsprung's_disease)

[kleinman]

This isn’t a discussion on the paranormal. I can’t read your mind so as to know what you think is useful in a link. If you can’t quote from the link what you think is important or put what you think is important in your own words, don’t expect posting the name of a journal or a link will be taken as a serious argument.Since I've noted you don't takes serious arguments as serious arguments you didn't have to point this out to me.

And I did explain the important part in my own words.
Ok, so let’s follow the point you are trying to make here.
We've found parts of our genome that we didn't know were active by comparing the rate of accumulation of change in the various regions of DNA. Look back through Scientific American over the past two years for an article about the subject.
I’ll assume that what you are trying to say here is that sequences of bases that on first examination that appear not to have function in fact do have function. Do you want us to draw the conclusion that every sequence of bases has function? And if that is so, that any random sequence of bases offers selective benefit to that creature and therefore there is a selective benefit for partially completed genes?

Why don’t you expand on your point and tell us how this observation relates to a selective process for evolving a gene from the beginning?
At least Dr Richard quotes the portions of his link that he thinks makes a valid argument. Now RecoveringYuppy simply says read Scientific American. Let me bring this discussion back on topic.Don't bother with Scientific American, try Science:

Conservation of RET Regulatory Function from Human to Zebrafish Without Sequence Similarity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5771/276)

Just to reemphasise, this is not a sterile debate; RET is of importance in many human illnesses, including my own area of interest, Hirschsprung's disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirschsprung's_disease)
Don’t you have any links which go from Human to original gene and then you can describe the how the original gene evolved from the beginning. I have acknowledged many times in this discussion that there are genetic similarities between different life forms. What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another. Think of this thread as an introductory course in evolutionary bookkeeping. Dr Schneider attempted to do this with his ev computer model and this shows that random point mutations and natural selection fails the bookkeeping test. The theory of evolution can never pass the bookkeeping test without a valid selection mechanism.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I’ll assume that what you are trying to say here is that sequences of bases that on first examination that appear not to have function in fact do have function. Do you want us to draw the conclusion that every sequence of bases has function?
No.

What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.

No one is claiming to have the selection mechanism for any "original gene". We keep pointing out that you haven't even identified an original gene nor have I seen anyone in this thread claim to know of one.

The evidence that's been cited for you is evidence that we know genes transform in to one another across species. In other words, it's evidence for what we actually claim to know and not your strawmen.

[kleinman]

What I am arguing is that you don’t have a selection mechanism to evolve the original gene and you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.No one is claiming to have the selection mechanism for any "original gene". We keep pointing out that you haven't even identified an original gene nor have I seen anyone in this thread claim to know of one.

The evidence that's been cited for you is evidence that we know genes transform in to one another across species. In other words, it's evidence for what we actually claim to know and not your strawmen.
Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another. You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next.

There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.

[Dr Richard]

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

I choose insulin, as you brought it up.

What definition and base sequence of insulin were you using in this paragraph?

I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin.....

What definition of "beginning" are you using?

What defintion of "gene" are you using?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.

Earth to Klenman:The sentence you just quoted from me was pointing out that no one claims to know this.

The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another.

No, it shows a similarity consistent in several ways with modification through mutation and inheritance:

The similarity persists across the entire genome: you will derive the same family tree relationship no matter how much or which parts of the interspecies genomes you compare.
The number of differences are compatible with known mutation rates and times derived from fossils.
Active areas accumulate mutations slower than inactive as you'd expect from selection pressure.You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next.

Are you a computer program stringing phrases together?

The similarity isn't extrapolated, it's measured. We don't need to know how they arose initially to understand what they are doing now. And this is our latest test of our explanation for how the genes transform, not the original inspiration for the idea.

There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.
First half of the sentence is just a bald assertion. Second half is an assertion that's already been refuted. Repeating myself: We don't need to understand where genes come from to understand how they work now, anymore than we need to know where electrons come from to understand how electricity works now.

[kleinman]

Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.I choose insulin, as you brought it up.

What definition and base sequence of insulin were you using in this paragraph?
Feel free to choose any base sequence for the gene you want and then explain the selection mechanism that would evolve that gene from the beginning. If you choose the insulin gene, then let it be the antecedent gene that you propose that gives rise to the insulin gene.
I’m not talking about abiogenesis, I am talking about the evolution of a new gene from the beginning. Here are some examples to consider. The gene that codes for insulin.....What definition of "beginning" are you using?

What defintion of "gene" are you using?
Unless you believe that the gene(s) that code for insulin and all its antecedent are eternal, there was a time when the first gene that coded for the proinsulin gene had to appear. What was the selection process that evolved that first gene beginning from the first base in the sequence?

Let’s keep the definition for “gene” as general as possible and say that it is a sequence of bases that performs some useful function for the creature. It may be coding for a polypeptide but let it include other possible beneficial function for the creature.
Choose whatever original gene or protogene you want. You have no selection mechanism for evolving any gene or protogene from the beginning.Earth to Klenman:The sentence you just quoted from me was pointing out that no one claims to know this.
Nobody know what this selection mechanism is but you know it exists? I think my Random House definition of natural selection said it quite well.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.

The evolution of a gene from the beginning can not be subject to selection until it performs some useful function for the creature. Therefore the additions of bases to a partially completed gene is dependent solely on random additions without the aid of a selection process until the gene performs some useful function for the creature. Did my transmission get though to you RecoveringYuppy?
The evidence being cited only shows there is some similarity between genes across species, it does not show how genes transform from one to another. No, it shows a similarity consistent in several ways with modification through mutation and inheritance:

The similarity persists across the entire genome: you will derive the same family tree relationship no matter how much or which parts of the interspecies genomes you compare.
The number of differences are compatible with known mutation rates and times derived from fossils.
Active areas accumulate mutations slower than inactive as you'd expect from selection pressure.You know all this but you don’t know what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Why don’t you describe for us the selection pressure that is driving these modifications through mutation and inheritance so we can put this into Dr Schneider’s ev model? Then we can do some accurate bookkeeping on the statements you have made above.
You are extrapolating this similarity between genes across species without having a valid explanation how the genes arose initially and how the genes transform from one to the next. Are you a computer program stringing phrases together?

The similarity isn't extrapolated, it's measured. We don't need to know how they arose initially to understand what they are doing now. And this is our latest test of our explanation for how the genes transform, not the original inspiration for the idea.
I don’t question the measured similarities, I question your extrapolation that these similarities are sufficient to prove evolution. Your explanation is that there is a selection process that no one knows what it is. I argue there is no selection process for partially completed genes nor a selection process that takes a gene from some initial function to a new function unless every mutation along the way gives selective benefit to the creature.
There is no selection mechanism that can evolve a gene (any gene) from the beginning and your theory of evolution collapses without this selection mechanism.First half of the sentence is just a bald assertion. Second half is an assertion that's already been refuted. Repeating myself: We don't need to understand where genes come from to understand how they work now, anymore than we need to know where electrons come from to understand how electricity works now.
If the first half of the sentence is a bald assertion it should be easy for you to give us an example of a selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning. Oh, you already said nobody knows what it is. The second half of the sentence, well kjkent1 used string theory and 10^500 alternative universes to explain how random chemical reactions without a selection process would make life probable.

RecoveringYuppy, the days for using “mutation and natural selection” as a slogan to explain your theory of evolution are over. Dr Schneider has attempted to put mathematics into your theory and focused a spotlight on the concept of “natural selection”. Without a selection process that can evolve the myriad of complex genes seen in living things, your theory of evolution is sunk.

[Myriad]

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

Not to worry. I don't think one has to know any of that stuff, in order to be a hired expert witness for workman's compensation lawsuits.

Of course, my impression of what "occupational medicine" primarily consists of could be mistaken. Anyone want to set me straight, in that case?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[articulett]

Not a single one of these were ad hominem arguments, TA. Ad hom arguments link a personal feature about the arguer too why their argument was wrong. These are simply insults.

Oh no....now you will get his inane wrath.... He despises me because I pointed out he made a similar logical fallacy upon Yahzi, and I even went into detail to show him what the fallacy actually entails--but he is the proverbial buffoon in my sig link-- most people have him on ignore.

There are people on this forum who are sure they know more than everybody else and don't seem to have a clue that most people have written them off as dickheads. I don't think Atheist is actually an atheist. Creationists are always doing obfuscating and dishonest smarmy things to try and inject their viewpoints...so he may be one of those kinds of dishonest folk...or he may really be as dumb and unlikeable as he comes across to many.

And yes, they were insults. Atheist has offered nothing worthwhile to attack--and he's not even on the same page as anyone else. Hewitt is too obfuscating to pin down what he means. These are statements I'm willing to back up, but I think most have seen all the evidence they need. These are not ad homs--calling them "creationists" may be ad homs....but being a creationist affects one's ability to understand some basic things about science because such people have come to believe that their salvation depends on them believing the right unbelievable story. Creationists are like Kleinman--pages and pages of nothingness...they are unteachable and cannot engage in basic dialogue because they are so peeved that someone thinks their "intelligent designer" is a delusion.

I think it's nice to give my fellow skeptics a heads up on what they are entering into-- Plus I get a kick out of their blusteriness, self-importance, and basic impenetrable wrongheadedness. Also, I really like the smart people on this forum, and I don't want the buffoons to make such people feel unwelcome. I learn a lot here.

[articulett]

The simple point, in question, is that the primordial oceans, as conceived by most people, will have contained not a single molecule of q-beta replicase and virtually none of the substrates that enzyme requires. It seems to me unreasonable to post links to the kind of work innovated by Spiegelman as if they somehow explain the emergence of genes on the prebiotic earth.
Nobody sensible believes that they do and that point seems quite straightforward to me. I think you should either stop posting such links or explain their relevance.

Actually, no credible peer reviewed scientist takes anything Michael Behe says seriously...even non scientific judges can see the lies and obfuscations for what they are. You, however, subscribe to his basic, but inane idea that cells should be considered replicators--not nucleic acids. That makes you less credible. Moreover, your arguments against abiogenesis and evolution never seem to amount to anything more than an argument from incredulity--and that isn't really very good considering you can not state your hypothesis or competing "theory" in a way anyone else can understand. That makes you the person that no "sensible" person should believe.

[kleinman]

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.Not to worry. I don't think one has to know any of that stuff, in order to be a hired expert witness for workman's compensation lawsuits.

Of course, my impression of what "occupational medicine" primarily consists of could be mistaken. Anyone want to set me straight, in that case?
Myriad, weren’t you going to do some work on the selection process in ev? How is that coming? Perhaps you would be willing to give us a mathematical description of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? It appears your mathematical skills are failing you in this matter so you are falling back on your other skills.

Your impression is wrong and this isn’t the first time in our discussions.

What you evolutionarians need to consider is why RecoveringYuppy has said that nobody knows what the selection process is that would evolve a gene from the beginning. I have given a reason why and I’ll repeat it here again.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

The reason nobody knows what the selection process is that would evolve a gene from the beginning is that there is no selection process that would do this.

Do you see the goal posts Myriad?

[articulett]

I don't know, hamme, I do not deal with abiogenesis.

ETA: How does this relate to the original point, anyway? You asked for the selective pressures which would lead to the formation of the first novel genes. I proved an example of one. Why, then, did you switch to abiogenesis?

Because as scientists actually explain factually the powers which he ascribes to his "intelligent designer" (he only reads outdated creationist texts from what I can tell of his "arguments")--he has to find some other role for his god...So since we can't yet know how the first self replicating DNA came to be, that means his "intelligent designer" could have done it (or at least that means it to him.) Of course, we have fantastic theories and pieces of the puzzle and we are getting a finer tuned understanding all the time--remember, we didn't know how abundant the stuff of life was--because we couldn't see it until we invented microscopes strong enough to get a glimpse of such things. It's all over...not just in the oceans--but in the air too. He has an emotional investment in us not being able to explain it to him.

Creationists are experts at moving the goal posts. However, they tend to be very poor with their dialogue skills and can't be understood very well...not even by each other it seems. It's sort of like the Christians who all think their sect is truly Christian and they'll be glad to tell you who the "pseudo Christians" are (Catholics, Mormons, fundies, anyone who doesn't belong to your sect, etc.) --Oddly enought, their "intelligent designers" all seem to have different rubrics for achieving salvation, but they'll tell you they all believe in the same "god"--for Hammy that appears to be the one in charge of making proto self replicator molecules stick to each other.

Although abiogenesis is not your field, I'm sure you can make more sense out of quote below about it. Compare that bit of understanding you can glean to anything said by Hewitt, Hammy, or Kleinman. These guys have convinced themselves that everyone is too stupid to understand them. But nobody is understanding them. Actual facts are pretty well understood by everybody--although creationists have a much harder time understanding them than those living in the reality based community.

These chains are proposed as the first, primitive forms of life. In an RNA world, different forms of RNA compete with each other for free nucleotides and are subject to natural selection. The most efficient molecules of RNA, the ones able to efficiently catalyze their own reproduction, survived and evolved, forming modern RNA.

Competition between RNA may have favored the emergence of cooperation between different RNA chains, opening the way for the formation of the first proto-cell. Eventually, RNA chains randomly developed with catalytic properties that help amino acids bind together (peptide-bonding). These amino acids could then assist with RNA synthesis, giving those RNA chains that could serve as ribozymes the selective advantage. Eventually DNA, lipids, carbohydrates, and all sorts of other chemicals were recruited into life. This led to the first prokaryotic cells, and eventually to life as we know it.



Cells are sort of like mini communities...and organisms are like communities of cells...it's all built from the bottom up via selection--just like actual communities and forum communities and ecosystems. Nobody needs to intend whatever it is communities become-- Creationists somehow see this selection process that anyone can understand as "chaos magically leading to complexity"--they just can't understand the ratcheting...the selection...no matter how many times or how many people explain it.

[articulett]

No, but the publicly available empirical evidence suggests to me that you're between 50 and 60 years old.

Yeah...I think he's got to be an old creationist--because the longer you seep your head in wrong beliefs, the harder it is to change--and he is absolutely impenetrable and the pedantry implies stodginess.

And I agree that there are a lot of great posters on this forum that are really intelligent. I suspect, they don't necessarily know who they are, while the one's who are sure they are geniuses are the least inspiring and densest of them all. The more incompetent one is in a given area, the more likely they are to vastly over estimate their abilities in that area...and everyone but them seems to see it. Kleinman has got to be the most egregious example of this. In their heads they seem to think of themselves as great geniuses bringing gifts of profound wisdom to us mere skeptics...They seem to have this notion that the masses are following them...or agreeing with them...while the masses have probably stopped listening.

[articulett]

See, this is why Kleinman bothers me. Let me ask him this: suppose that a patient of his had a condition that could only be treated by acknowledging some of this research. Would he use that treatment? Would he even know it exists, since he denies this stuff is real?

We can't have doctors who ignore science. It comes perilously close to ignoring their Hippocratic Oath.

But those who enjoy the benefits of science while praising invisible "intelligent designers" are obeying the "hypocritic oath." :)

Gee Willikers, Scientists know so much...it's so complicated....it must have been designed....a special treasure-gift from god that he forgot to mention for the first 300 million years his favorite creations were on the planet. It's way too complex to have come about through mere chance! All this great knowledge like airplanes, computers, and DNA--from chaos??!!!--it just couldn't be! (That is how creationists sound to me.)

[articulett]

Annual review of Genetics: structure and evolution of the insulin gene (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ge.19.120185.002335)

My favorite recent paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7035/abs/nature03467.html)is on the importance of the non-coding (so-called junk) DNA in the pathogenesis of Hirschsprung's disease; note the application within the paper of evolutionary theory to achieve a clinically relevant result.

So, question to Kleinman in return. What did God evolve from? Or did he just suddenly appear? What is the mathematical probability of that happening?

Geez, you can't expect Kleinman to keep current on science when he's still trying to convince himself that he's worked out the mathematical formula for disproving evolution based on the pieces of knowledge we had more than a decade ago! And surely he can't be figuring the god probability until he convinces at least one other person that his mathematical formula proves that evolution couldn't have happened without an "intelligent" (but oddly slow and wasteful), designer.

[articulett]

What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

You and Kleinman ask inane questions that just reveal your ignorance and lack of understanding further. Moreover, you do not seem to have the basic mental abilities to comprehend the explanations offered. Moreover, you ignore all questions asked of you--while expected masses of data from science to convince you that reality really is true.

Let's see...you need no measurable evidence to convince you that an invisible entity designed the universe to bring forth humans (particularly you), but you need gobs of evidence you can't possibly understand anyhow (due to your lack of basic understandings of evolution) so you can ignore the answers, change the subject, and pretend that your lack of understanding means that your invisible immeasurable intelligent designer is real.

Does your intelligent designer like them dense, pedantic, and dishonest? Because I think you've just earned an extra halo and some heaven bonus points tonight.

[The Atheist]

Not a single one of these were ad hominem arguments, TA. Ad hom arguments link a personal feature about the arguer too why their argument was wrong. These are simply insults.

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

Dictionary.com agrees (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem): 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

So does Webster (http://209.161.37.11/dictionary/ad%20hominem): 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

And the final nail, so does OED (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=ad+hominem&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname): • adverb & adjective (of an argument) personal rather than objective.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘to the person’.

[The Atheist]

Oh no....now you will get his inane wrath.... He despises me because I pointed out he made a similar logical fallacy upon Yahzi, and I even went into detail to show him what the fallacy actually entails--but he is the proverbial buffoon in my sig link-- most people have him on ignore. :dl:

Classic!

No worries, sweetie, Taffer knows all about me.

In terms of logical fallacies - they've all been one way, which is exactly why you and your buddy aren't answering. You been carved up two or three times and you didn't like having your feeble bigotry thrown in your face.

You've tried to find a logical fallacy but you fell flat on your face. Have another go anytime. ;)

Harden up.
I don't think Atheist is actually an atheist.Another classic! As I said to you before, sweetie, I have a million pieces of proof where my money is - how about you?

Remember my good friend Jesus and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Ooops! That brown stuff you're wading in? Hate to tell you but you're resonsible for it all yourself. Man, does it STINK!

I learn a lot here.Just such a pity that you don't bother to apply it. (In fact I'm surprised you have time to read other posts, given your... umm... prolific!.. output.)

Mind you, I bet your pupils LOVE you for your attitude!

:dl:

(You remind me so much of a teacher long ago whom we nicknamed "Crowbar", so humourless and boring was she.)

[Schneibster]

Not to worry. I don't think one has to know any of that stuff, in order to be a hired expert witness for workman's compensation lawsuits.One presumes for the rich defense. Can't have those uppity workers upsetting our profits just because they got caught up in the machine we bribed the OSHA inspector to ignore and lost an arm and a leg, can we?

This sounds just about right for kleinman to me. I'm at least somewhat relieved that there's a good chance it doesn't generally actually have to treat any patients.

[John Hewitt]

Although abiogenesis is not your field, I'm sure you can make more sense out of quote below about it. Compare that bit of understanding you can glean to anything said by Hewitt, Hammy, or Kleinman. These guys have convinced themselves that everyone is too stupid to understand them. But nobody is understanding them. Actual facts are pretty well understood by everybody--although creationists have a much harder time understanding them than those living in the reality based community.

These chains are proposed as the first, primitive forms of life. In an RNA world, different forms of RNA compete with each other for free nucleotides and are subject to natural selection. The most efficient molecules of RNA, the ones able to efficiently catalyze their own reproduction, survived and evolved, forming modern RNA.

Competition between RNA may have favored the emergence of cooperation between different RNA chains, opening the way for the formation of the first proto-cell. Eventually, RNA chains randomly developed with catalytic properties that help amino acids bind together (peptide-bonding). These amino acids could then assist with RNA synthesis, giving those RNA chains that could serve as ribozymes the selective advantage. Eventually DNA, lipids, carbohydrates, and all sorts of other chemicals were recruited into life. This led to the first prokaryotic cells, and eventually to life as we know it.

Cells are sort of like mini communities...and organisms are like communities of cells...it's all built from the bottom up via selection--just like actual communities and forum communities and ecosystems. Nobody needs to intend whatever it is communities become-- Creationists somehow see this selection process that anyone can understand as "chaos magically leading to complexity"--they just can't understand the ratcheting...the selection...no matter how many times or how many people explain it.
I have found no worthwhile evidence that an "RNA world" ever existed and, in my opinion, RNA would not have been a suitable material for a replicator - it is much too labile, the precursor nucleotides would not have formed and selective competition could not have arisen in the absence of bounding to define the evolving system. Robert Shapiro argues against any replicators being involved in the origin of life and I agree with him - excepting that the sun's daily cycle might be construed as a replicator.

Today, you have again presented the group with an extended screed of ad hominem abuse. Those who try to debate alongside you must find your behaviour an embarrassment.

[Mr. Scott]

I provided you [Kleinman] with evidence of the development of the insulin superfamily. You now try to evade this evidence by falling back on... abiogenesis

Oscillating goal posts. Nice!

[BPScooter]

This is a weird thread, people are seemingly calling names and spouting. Whoever said this is striking me as especially weird:

"It is not enough to observe similarities between genetic structures. You must demonstrate how these structures could have arisen initially and how they can transform from one to another. You have done neither"

I say: it is not enough to notice similarities between physics and astronomy. You must demonstrate how these structures could have arisen initially and how they can transform from one to another. You are a loser, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, and you always will be.

[kjkent1]

I have found no worthwhile evidence that an "RNA world" ever existed and, in my opinion, RNA would not have been a suitable material for a replicator - it is much too labile, the precursor nucleotides would not have formed and selective competition could not have arisen in the absence of bounding to define the evolving system. Robert Shapiro argues against any replicators being involved in the origin of life and I agree with him - excepting that the sun's daily cycle might be construed as a replicator.

Today, you have again presented the group with an extended screed of ad hominem abuse. Those who try to debate alongside you must find your behaviour an embarrassment.

It seems to me that this thread has somewhat devolved into an argument without any agreed upon subject matter. So, perhaps a little recap is in order:

1. The original premise was that Kleinman asserted to Paul Anagnostopoulos that ev showed an RMNS selection process which was too profoundly slow for any reasonable model of evolution.

2. After a great deal of fussing around, a poster with a wry enough humor to ID him/herself as "Unnamed," came up with a new selection mechanism which sped up ev to a satisfactory performance.

3. Kleinman's rebuttal was that the new mechanism ignored mutations in the non-binding site region (junk DNA), therefore it was invalid. However, Kleinman never actually explained why such a selection mechanism is invalid, nor did he ever propose a more valid mechanism.

4. Simultaneously, Kleinman asserted, that regardless of the selection mechanism chosen for ev, at some point in the life of every organism, a new gene must be formed, and that until that gene offers some selective benefit to the organism, its formation is subject to only the laws of probability, and is therefore profoundly unlikely.

5. Kleinman also adds to his argument, that the first self-replicating organism would have had to have been created without the benefit of a selection mechanism, and that such a feat is beyond the realm of mathematical possibility.

6. A reasonably objective reading of this thread suggests, that events #4-5 above, although arguably meritorious, are irrelevant, because at the point that event #3 occurred, the original argument of the thread was resolved: ev was made fast enough to evolve a genome from a state of total randomness to a perfect creature within the time available since the likely beginning of life on Earth.

We are now in an entirely different argument, or rather two arguments -- neither of which depend upon Schneider's ev program at all. As above-stated, the questions are:

1. How does a new gene arise?

2. How did the first self-replicating organism arise?

If I may offer a suggestion, I think it is a mistake to attempt to argue both of these questions simultaneously, because of the possibility that the answers may be quite different. And, as the thread is currently in a sea of storms, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates the gravity of the mistake.

So, Dr. Kleinman, do you think we could argue over just one of the above, rather than both? And, if so, then which one would you pick?

[BPScooter]

I guess since the title of this thread is "annoying creationists" it's OK to just say that I'm not as curious about those questions. Not that I wouldn't be interested if someone else followed up, but just that I'm really very comfortable with the metaphysics of the secular. Stuff that we can explain happened (most of modern physics/biology suit) and some things also happened (big bangs, replicators). I still go to work and come home, play on the internet, mow my grass, that sort of thing. If that attitude irritates a creationist, then so be it.

[Kotatsu]

you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.

Greater leniency is "shown" towards changing the base in the third position of the codon than the other two, as this generally does not change the amino acid coded for. However, occasionally the amino acid will be changed, which may or may not force a conformation change on the protein. If this occurs, I'd wager stabilisation of the protein in this new conformation could very well be considered a valid "selection mechanism" for changing one gene into another by using for example only random point mutation.

[Dr Richard]

Feel free to choose any base sequence for the gene you want and then explain the selection mechanism that would evolve that gene from the beginning. If you choose the insulin gene, then let it be the antecedent gene that you propose that gives rise to the insulin gene.

No, Kleinman, you are having some trouble understanding the concept.

You asked how "insulin" could have evolved from the "beginning".

In order to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by "insulin" and "beginning". Why is this so hard for you?


Let’s keep the definition for “gene” as general as possible and say that it is a sequence of bases that performs some useful function for the creature. It may be coding for a polypeptide but let it include other possible beneficial function for the creature.[/SIZE][/FONT]

For someone presumably interested in evolutionary debate, the work of Richard Dawkins seems to have strangely passed you by.

Try again for your definition of gene.



[The evolution of a gene from the beginning can not be subject to selection until it performs some useful function for the creature.

Wrong, see above

[Ivor the Engineer]

I’m currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and have reached the section on morality. One bit that I didn’t find compelling was his description of human sexuality. The man is obsessed with tying all human behavior in with our genes!

As far as I see it, so long as a behavior does not impact a species’ reproductive success in the long term, I see no reason why that behavior could not evolve independently. An analogy would be computer hardware and software. What a particular program does is relatively independent of the hardware it is running on.

Our genes have provided us with brains that have memory and the ability to perform operations on that memory. Along with our language abilities, which allow otherwise lost information to be passed on after our death, the evolution of human behavior is best understood and analyzed as separate to genetic evolution. Sure, genes provide some of the drivers and limits, but to try and directly link all behavior with genes seems clumsy.

John, is this view in line with some of your ideas on how evolution can be analyzed?

[John Hewitt]

I’m currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and have reached the section on morality. One bit that I didn’t find compelling was his description of human sexuality. The man is obsessed with tying all human behavior in with our genes!

As far as I see it, so long as a behavior does not impact a species’ reproductive success in the long term, I see no reason why that behavior could not evolve independently. An analogy would be computer hardware and software. What a particular program does is relatively independent of the hardware it is running on.

Our genes have provided us with brains that have memory and the ability to perform operations on that memory. Along with our language abilities, which allow otherwise lost information to be passed on after our death, the evolution of human behavior is best understood and analyzed as separate to genetic evolution. Sure, genes provide some of the drivers and limits, but to try and directly link all behavior with genes seems clumsy.

John, is this view in line with some of your ideas on how evolution can be analyzed?

Yes Ivor, it is; I believe you are in serious danger of becoming a heretic.

I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet so I cannot say what approach to sexuality Dawkins takes. My approach is to give "sexuality" a biology meaning through the agency of sexual selection. Thus, in general, sexual selection targets a sexual preference at a phenotype. For example, one might, somewhat tongue in cheek, describe a peahen as a tailophile, given that bird's penchant for peacocks with long tails. My approach to sexuality targets human sexuality onto society as a social phenotype and sees human social relations, as in many ways, modified forms of the sexual relationship - with the adaptations serving to further the social relationship.

On this basis, one can understand why humans are so unusual in their heterosexual biology and behaviour and also why they exhibit the sexual behaviours that are often categorized as "deviant" - such things as homosexuality, sadomasochism and fetishism. It very is notable that those quite common sexual deviancies can be mapped onto major aspects of human social organization.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I found the juxtaposition of posts #2362 and #2363 by The Atheist rather amusing.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I’m currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and have reached the section on morality. One bit that I didn’t find compelling was his description of human sexuality. The man is obsessed with tying all human behavior in with our genes!
Are you saying he leaves no room for the co-evolution of social memes? That would seem rather one-sided. Or is he simply saying that our social behavior is ultimately a product of our genes, in that our brains are genetically determined?

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

The simple point, in question, is that the primordial oceans, as conceived by most people, will have contained not a single molecule of q-beta replicase and virtually none of the substrates that enzyme requires.If you have actual knowledge of the composition of the Earth's oceans just before abiogenesis took place, I strongly urge you to publish.

It seems to me unreasonable to post links to the kind of work innovated by Spiegelman as if they somehow explain the emergence of genes on the prebiotic earth. It would seem unreasonable to me too. Please point out the person who has done so, and I'll have a word with him.

Much though I admire Dr Spiegelman, I am in no danger of mistaking him for the Creator.

Nobody sensible believes that they do and that point seems quite straightforward to me.I don't know how you found out what sensible people believe, but for once you're right. Lucky guess?

I think you should either stop posting such links or explain their relevance.I have explained their relevance, but, once more, for the hard of thinking, this is an example of the de novo origin of a genome.

[Dr Adequate]

Certainly I do. You can start with the results from ev computer model, a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection which shows this mechanism of evolution is so profoundly slow when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve by this mechanism. Then you can again consider the concept of natural selection which can only operate if there is a benefit or detriment to the creature. I have shown that natural selection can not evolve a gene from the beginning. I will repeat it again since so many evolutionarians are in denial about this issue.So you haven't thought of any new lies?

You remember how I explained that telling the same lie over and over again won't make it true?

Come back when you've thought of a new lie.

[Dr Adequate]

It occurs to me that my behavior, in telling the same truth over and over to the same drooling lying halfwit is very nearly as pointless as kleinman's behavior in drivelling out his idiotic lies over and over to an audience of educated and truth-loving people who know that he's lying.

So instead, I've just put a link in my sig. Next time he drones out the same old lies, I'll just have to post "..." and he'll have been answered.

[Dr Adequate]

Dear The Atheist,

Would you please get religion. I don't care which one, except not Buddhism, 'cos there are atheist Buddhists. Something theistic.

Your choice, but I recommend fundamentalist Christianity, you appear to have all the the necessary mental equipment for it.

But please stop being an atheist. I feel no need of your company.

Thanking you in advance,

Dr A.

PS: Like other posters here, I too am beginning to wonder whether you can really be an atheist. But if you are, please stop.

[Dr Adequate]

In my opinion, RNA would not have been a suitable material for a replicator ... :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you saying he leaves no room for the co-evolution of social memes? That would seem rather one-sided. Or is he simply saying that our social behavior is ultimately a product of our genes, in that our brains are genetically determined?

~~ Paul

I haven't got the book in front of me now, but he talks about our sexual impulses 'misfiring' when, for example, we (want to) have sex but are using contraception.

I can think of plenty of reasons and ways to have sex that have nothing to do with procreation. While our basic drive and reward systems are genetically determined, what we do to satisfy or activate them evolve separately.

As I understand Dawkins' definition of mimes he gives in the book they are limited to ‘digital’ rather than ‘analogue’ information. The example he provides is a sequence of people teaching the next to fold paper into a certain shape rather than, say, passing on a meaningless message to each other. Perhaps the results of these experiments are more indicative of how our memories ‘work’ than what types of behavior can evolve?

I shall continue reading tonight.

[John Hewitt]

:dl: :dl: :dl:

This is a silly reply to a perfectly sensible point. Repetitive silliness is not humour and is unlikely impress sensible observers.

As I said, RNA is a chemically labile molecule - it degrades very easily, which is what makes it quite suitable as a messenger RNA. The same property would make it unsuitable as the coding molecule for a replicator.

No RNA molecule has ever been detected that is capable of replicating itself and, as has been discussed at some length, one would not expect such a molecule to emerge by chance - not in this universe at least.

Moreover, making RNA requires precursors - these are chemically complex, energetically activated nucleotides that are not to be expected in primordial environments. Even if such precursors did appear, they would diffuse away in ubounded environments.

There are observers who subscribe to the "RNA world" theory, but that theory is entirely inadequate.

[kleinman]

I provided you [Kleinman] with evidence of the development of the insulin superfamily. You now try to evade this evidence by falling back on... abiogenesisOscillating goal posts. Nice!
The difference is I see the point Dr Richard is trying to make, he doesn’t see the point I’m making. I acknowledge that there are similarities in genes between different species but Dr Richard is not explaining how these genes arose originally or how these genes transform from one species to the next.
"It is not enough to observe similarities between genetic structures. You must demonstrate how these structures could have arisen initially and how they can transform from one to another. You have done neither"

I say: it is not enough to notice similarities between physics and astronomy. You must demonstrate how these structures could have arisen initially and how they can transform from one to another. You are a loser, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, and you always will be.
If you are going to hold to the position that the theory of evolution is driven by mutation and natural selection, you must demonstrate how this happens. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation attempts to do this but reveals that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in this model, the process is too slow to support your theory.
you don’t have the selection mechanism to transform one gene to another.Greater leniency is "shown" towards changing the base in the third position of the codon than the other two, as this generally does not change the amino acid coded for. However, occasionally the amino acid will be changed, which may or may not force a conformation change on the protein. If this occurs, I'd wager stabilisation of the protein in this new conformation could very well be considered a valid "selection mechanism" for changing one gene into another by using for example only random point mutation.
Unless the base change is beneficial or detrimental, natural selection can not act upon this mutation.
Feel free to choose any base sequence for the gene you want and then explain the selection mechanism that would evolve that gene from the beginning. If you choose the insulin gene, then let it be the antecedent gene that you propose that gives rise to the insulin gene.No, Kleinman, you are having some trouble understanding the concept.

You asked how "insulin" could have evolved from the "beginning".

In order to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by "insulin" and "beginning". Why is this so hard for you?
Since you are proposing that insulin is part of a family of molecules that goes back to Zebra fish, explain where the gene/molecule that appeared in the Zebra fish originated, then once you explain that explain where the pre-Zebra fish gene/molecule originated and so on until you arrive at the first gene that coded for this insulin type molecule. Then explain how this first gene that coded for this insulin type molecule evolved and what was the selection process that allowed this. In addition, explain the selection process that occurred as this gene evolved from species to species.

When you do this, you have established the accounting rules that allow you to describe step by step how this family of molecules evolved. Without describing the selection process, you are only noting similarities in molecules which is not sufficient to prove you theory.
Let’s keep the definition for “gene” as general as possible and say that it is a sequence of bases that performs some useful function for the creature. It may be coding for a polypeptide but let it include other possible beneficial function for the creature.For someone presumably interested in evolutionary debate, the work of Richard Dawkins seems to have strangely passed you by.

Try again for your definition of gene.
Richard Dawkins’ work has not completely passed me by, I have co-opted one of his sayings for this debate.
Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long term goals.
With respects to a definition for “gene”, would the concept of one gene-one polypeptide satisfy you? I happen to prefer a more general definition that any beneficial sequence of bases be used in the concept of mutation and selection since ev models binding sites which is conceivably beneficial to a creature.
The evolution of a gene from the beginning can not be subject to selection until it performs some useful function for the creature.Wrong, see above
How far above do I have to look? I don’t recall you or any other evolutionarian describing how selection can act unless there is some beneficial or detrimental property to act upon. And that prevents a gene evolving from the beginning with a selection process. Only when the newly evolving gene performs some function can selection act upon that gene. Until then, the frequency of that sequence of bases in the population is not increased.

There is another issue which ev is harbinger of mathematical bad news for evolutionarians. This issue was touched on earlier but now that we are talking about selection processes in more detail, it is worthwhile to address this issue again.

Ev has two error conditions that are being select for. One error is not recognizing a binding site where one should exist (the binding site region) and the other error is recognizing a binding site where one should not exist (the non-binding site region). With short length genomes, errors in the binding site region dominate the selection process and rapid convergence can be obtained. As the genome is lengthened, more potential errors can occur in the non-binding site region and slows the evolution process until finally the genome is lengthened sufficiently that non-binding site region errors dominate the selection process and no convergence can be attained.

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

As an example of this concept, let’s consider Dr Richard’s case of the evolution of the insulin family of proteins. At the same time, the globin family of proteins is evolving in the same creatures. What may be an advantageous selection for the insulin family may
in turn be a disadvantageous selection for the globin family of proteins and visa versa. Consider the complications that would arise if you have multiple different families of proteins evolving simultaneously in the same creatures. Each would be interfering with the evolution of the others.

Ev demonstrates this effect mathematically with its two selection conditions. Introducing more selection conditions would only slow this profoundly slow evolutionary process more so.

Again, I thank Dr Schneider and Paul for their good work on the ev computer model.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As the genome is lengthened, more potential errors can occur in the non-binding site region and slows the evolution process until finally the genome is lengthened sufficiently that non-binding site region errors dominate the selection process and no convergence can be attained.
No convergence? What property causes the information gain to slow down, but then suddenly disappear? (I presume you are not talking about the Rcapacity problem.)


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


Ev demonstrates this effect mathematically with its two selection conditions. Introducing more selection conditions would only slow this profoundly slow evolutionary process more so.
I'd say Unnamed introduced a selection condition and it sped things up. How did you reach this conclusion?

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.

~~ Paul

[Kotatsu]

I acknowledge that there are similarities in genes between different species but Dr Richard is not explaining how these genes arose originally or how these genes transform from one species to the next.

Fortunately for your education, several other people --- including myself --- have already explained this to you. It can occur by random point mutation, insertions, deletions, polyploidization and several other mechanisms, mentionings of which can be found scattered throughout the thread.

Fortunately for your continued mental well-being, you are not required to read and comprehend everything people say, and can easily continue to switch to innocent-ignorance mode whenever a new person enters the thread.

Unless the base change is beneficial or detrimental, natural selection can not act upon this mutation.

Which, while probably true, is beside the point, as your contention was that "we" don't have a selection mechanism with which to transform one gene to another.

I clearly stated that I was talking about a case where a random point mutation in the third codon position caused a change in the amino acid sequence, which in turn caused a conformational change in the resulting protein, which then may have to be stabilised in this new configuration by "allowing" other acids to change. Even if this should prove to be unlikely, it is still a valid selection process with which one gene could be transformed into another.

All cases in which any of the steps which leads to my last point --- that stabilisation of the protein in the new configuration becomes necessary --- are invalid are irrelevant to the point, namely that when all steps are present and stabilisation of the protein does become necessary, a known selective mechanism to transform one gene into another exists.

[Kotatsu]

What this is indicating that if you have more than a single selection condition, one may interfere with the other. If you have multiple genes evolving, each is responding to their selection pressure (whatever that may be), each is interfering with others preventing any from evolving.
As an example of this concept, let’s consider Dr Richard’s case of the evolution of the insulin family of proteins. At the same time, the globin family of proteins is evolving in the same creatures. What may be an advantageous selection for the insulin family may in turn be a disadvantageous selection for the globin family of proteins and visa versa. Consider the complications that would arise if you have multiple different families of proteins evolving simultaneously in the same creatures. Each would be interfering with the evolution of the others.

Dear mother of the Empire! Are you allowed to vote?

[Dr Adequate]

This is a silly reply to a perfectly sensible point. No that was me laughing my ass off at someone who claimed that RNA wasn't "suitable material for a replicator".

No RNA molecule has ever been detected that is capable of replicating itself ... But this is untrue. There are RNA viruses, there is, dammit, Spiegelman's bucket o' chemicals, which we've just been discussing. "Labile" or not, RNA self-replicates given the right environment.

[Dr Adequate]

The difference is I see the point Dr Richard is trying to make, he doesn’t see the point I’m making. I acknowledge that there are similarities in genes between different species but Dr Richard is not explaining how these genes arose originally or how these genes transform from one species to the next.

If you are going to hold to the position that the theory of evolution is driven by mutation and natural selection, you must demonstrate how this happens. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation attempts to do this but reveals that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in this model, the process is too slow to support your theory.

Unless the base change is beneficial or detrimental, natural selection can not act upon this mutation.

Since you are proposing that insulin is part of a family of molecules that goes back to Zebra fish, explain where the gene/molecule that appeared in the Zebra fish originated, then once you explain that explain where the pre-Zebra fish gene/molecule originated and so on until you arrive at the first gene that coded for this insulin type molecule. Then explain how this first gene that coded for this insulin type molecule evolved and what was the selection process that allowed this. In addition, explain the selection process that occurred as this gene evolved from species to species.

When you do this, you have established the accounting rules that allow you to describe step by step how this family of molecules evolved. Without describing the selection process, you are only noting similarities in molecules which is not sufficient to prove you theory.

Richard Dawkins’ work has not completely passed me by, I have co-opted one of his sayings for this debate.

With respects to a definition for “gene”, would the concept of one gene-one polypeptide satisfy you? I happen to prefer a more general definition that any beneficial sequence of bases be used in the concept of mutation and selection since ev models binding sites which is conceivably beneficial to a creature.

How far above do I have to look? I don’t recall you or any other evolutionarian describing how selection can act unless there is some beneficial or detrimental property to act upon. And that prevents a gene evolving from the beginning with a selection process. Only when the newly evolving gene performs some function can selection act upon that gene. Until then, the frequency of that sequence of bases in the population is not increased.

There is another issue which ev is harbinger of mathematical bad news for evolutionarians. This issue was touched on earlier but now that we are talking about selection processes in more detail, it is worthwhile to address this issue again.

Ev has two error conditions that are being select for. One error is not recognizing a binding site where one should exist (the binding site region) and the other error is recognizing a binding site where one should not exist (the non-binding site region). With short length genomes, errors in the binding site region dominate the selection process and rapid convergence can be obtained. As the genome is lengthened, more potential errors can occur in the non-binding site region and slows the evolution process until finally the genome is lengthened sufficiently that non-binding site region errors dominate the selection process and no convergence can be attained.

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

As an example of this concept, let’s consider Dr Richard’s case of the evolution of the insulin family of proteins. At the same time, the globin family of proteins is evolving in the same creatures. What may be an advantageous selection for the insulin family may
in turn be a disadvantageous selection for the globin family of proteins and visa versa. Consider the complications that would arise if you have multiple different families of proteins evolving simultaneously in the same creatures. Each would be interfering with the evolution of the others.

Ev demonstrates this effect mathematically with its two selection conditions. Introducing more selection conditions would only slow this profoundly slow evolutionary process more so.

Again, I thank Dr Schneider and Paul for their good work on the ev computer model. Same old lies. See my sig.

[kleinman]

As the genome is lengthened, more potential errors can occur in the non-binding site region and slows the evolution process until finally the genome is lengthened sufficiently that non-binding site region errors dominate the selection process and no convergence can be attained.No convergence? What property causes the information gain to slow down, but then suddenly disappear? (I presume you are not talking about the Rcapacity problem.)
I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region. Don’t you recall what happens if you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region? I’ll remind you. When you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region and maintain a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases, you uncouple the convergence from the length of the genome. You called this the Rcapacity problem but this is what is happening that slows down and ultimately prevents convergence in ev as you lengthen the genome. Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?
What this is indicating that if you have more than a single selection condition, one may interfere with the other. If you have multiple genes evolving, each is responding to their selection pressure (whatever that may be), each is interfering with others preventing any from evolving.Why would they necessarily prevent each other from evolving?
Two selection conditions can either slow or prevent evolution if the two selection conditions are not working in harmony. One selection condition can cancel out the effect of the other selection condition. This is exactly what you are seeing in ev. The selection condition that requires no binding sites in the non-binding site region interferes with selection condition that requires you have binding sites in the binding site region. As long as the non-binding site region remains small or the errors in this region are ignored as Unnamed did, you have only the one selection condition, that is you require binding sites in the binding site region and you can attain convergence. If you can imagine some selection condition that allows the morphing of one gene to another, you would have all genes on the genome subject to similar selection conditions. Once you explain what these selection processes are, then you have to explain how all these selection conditions can work without interfering with each other as the two conditions in ev interfere.
Ev demonstrates this effect mathematically with its two selection conditions. Introducing more selection conditions would only slow this profoundly slow evolutionary process more so.I'd say Unnamed introduced a selection condition and it sped things up. How did you reach this conclusion?

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.
Unnamed uses the value computed in the weight matrix directly which biased the selection process to the binding site region.

The millions of selection pressures (which you have yet to describe mathematically) can only operate when a creature has something to select for or against. A partially completed gene offers nothing to select for. The transformation of genes from one to another as described by Dr Richard requires that a series of beneficial mutations subject to selection occur without interference from other selection pressures. Even Dr Schneider’s stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection demonstrates why you can’t transform genes because of conflicting selection conditions.

What you can have with mutation and selection are microevolutionary processes such as small changes in genes in microbes that bring about antibiotic resistance or small changes in proteins such as Hemoglobin S which gives benefit to those who live in malaria endemic areas.

Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process? You will have three selection conditions, errors in the non-binding site region, errors in the first binding site region and errors in the second binding site region. It would be interesting to see what happens if you ignore errors in the non-binding site region and see what happens when considering only the errors in the two binding site regions.
Unless the base change is beneficial or detrimental, natural selection can not act upon this mutation.Which, while probably true, is beside the point, as your contention was that "we" don't have a selection mechanism with which to transform one gene to another.
Since your theory of evolution is based on mutation and selection, there is no other point to be made until you describe what the selection mechanism is. A slogan does not constitute a scientific proof.

[Dr Adequate]

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region. Don’t you recall what happens if you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region? I’ll remind you. When you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region and maintain a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases, you uncouple the convergence from the length of the genome. You called this the Rcapacity problem but this is what is happening that slows down and ultimately prevents convergence in ev as you lengthen the genome. Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?

Two selection conditions can either slow or prevent evolution if the two selection conditions are not working in harmony. One selection condition can cancel out the effect of the other selection condition. This is exactly what you are seeing in ev. The selection condition that requires no binding sites in the non-binding site region interferes with selection condition that requires you have binding sites in the binding site region. As long as the non-binding site region remains small or the errors in this region are ignored as Unnamed did, you have only the one selection condition, that is you require binding sites in the binding site region and you can attain convergence. If you can imagine some selection condition that allows the morphing of one gene to another, you would have all genes on the genome subject to similar selection conditions. Once you explain what these selection processes are, then you have to explain how all these selection conditions can work without interfering with each other as the two conditions in ev interfere.

Unnamed uses the value computed in the weight matrix directly which biased the selection process to the binding site region.

The millions of selection pressures (which you have yet to describe mathematically) can only operate when a creature has something to select for or against. A partially completed gene offers nothing to select for. The transformation of genes from one to another as described by Dr Richard requires that a series of beneficial mutations subject to selection occur without interference from other selection pressures. Even Dr Schneider’s stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection demonstrates why you can’t transform genes because of conflicting selection conditions.

What you can have with mutation and selection are microevolutionary processes such as small changes in genes in microbes that bring about antibiotic resistance or small changes in proteins such as Hemoglobin S which gives benefit to those who live in malaria endemic areas.

Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process? You will have three selection conditions, errors in the non-binding site region, errors in the first binding site region and errors in the second binding site region. It would be interesting to see what happens if you ignore errors in the non-binding site region and see what happens when considering only the errors in the two binding site regions.

Since your theory of evolution is based on mutation and selection, there is no other point to be made until you describe what the selection mechanism is. A slogan does not constitute a scientific proof. It must take you hours to write this trash.

And you still can't get round the facts in my sig.

You poor little man.

[The Atheist]

I found the juxtaposition of posts #2362 and #2363 by The Atheist rather amusing.

~~ Paul

Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with ad hominem attacks. I wouldn't, would I?

[Mercutio]

There go those damned goalposts again

A simple kick, an extra point
Is all, and then we may annoint
The victor in this war of words
Twixt idiots and science nerds

In order for the team to win
The gene producing insulin
Must split the uprights, straight and true,
That's all that Kleinman asks of you.

But wait! The crossbar's much too near
A child could make that kick from here
Precursers shown are not enough--
We need to make the task more tough

And so, I send my best regards
And move the goalposts ten more yards.

The protein superfamily
For insulin in you and me
Is found in other mammals, too
(And rats and mice--why, they have two!)

We'll trace it further, if you wish
To proteins found in zebra fish
(What's cool, you'll see upon reflection--
It fits with natural selection!)

Wait! You'll make that kick with ease
And so, if you'll indulge me, please,
To make the kick that has you winning
Trace the gene to its beginning!

With due respect, and beaming smile,
I'll move the goalposts half a mile.

The crossbar now is but a speck
From here--but maybe...what the heck--
I'll try it, under one condition:
Before I kick--your definition?

Could you define your terms, I mean?
Define "beginning", also "gene"
Your definitions seem to change
If you could narrow down the range--

Wait! The start I want is this--
The gene's abiogenesis!
Or if I think I still might hang
Then trace it back to the Big Bang!

And all the time that I've been talking
Those goalposts, they have kept on walking.

To satisfy my little query
Don't attempt to feed me theory
But, from time itself, condense
The binding, legal evidence.

If insulin evolved, why then
You ought to know precisely when.
Before the gene was well-dispersed
There must be someone who was first.

I want his name (and, you've surmised,
I want it duly notarized!)
If you cannot do that, you fail
And by default, I will prevail!

If lunacy you must defend
The moving goalpost is your friend.

[kjkent1]

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region. Don’t you recall what happens if you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region? I’ll remind you. When you ignore the errors in the non-binding site region and maintain a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases, you uncouple the convergence from the length of the genome. You called this the Rcapacity problem but this is what is happening that slows down and ultimately prevents convergence in ev as you lengthen the genome. Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?

Two selection conditions can either slow or prevent evolution if the two selection conditions are not working in harmony. One selection condition can cancel out the effect of the other selection condition. This is exactly what you are seeing in ev. The selection condition that requires no binding sites in the non-binding site region interferes with selection condition that requires you have binding sites in the binding site region. As long as the non-binding site region remains small or the errors in this region are ignored as Unnamed did, you have only the one selection condition, that is you require binding sites in the binding site region and you can attain convergence. If you can imagine some selection condition that allows the morphing of one gene to another, you would have all genes on the genome subject to similar selection conditions. Once you explain what these selection processes are, then you have to explain how all these selection conditions can work without interfering with each other as the two conditions in ev interfere.

Unnamed uses the value computed in the weight matrix directly which biased the selection process to the binding site region.

The millions of selection pressures (which you have yet to describe mathematically) can only operate when a creature has something to select for or against. A partially completed gene offers nothing to select for. The transformation of genes from one to another as described by Dr Richard requires that a series of beneficial mutations subject to selection occur without interference from other selection pressures. Even Dr Schneider’s stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection demonstrates why you can’t transform genes because of conflicting selection conditions.

What you can have with mutation and selection are microevolutionary processes such as small changes in genes in microbes that bring about antibiotic resistance or small changes in proteins such as Hemoglobin S which gives benefit to those who live in malaria endemic areas.

Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process? You will have three selection conditions, errors in the non-binding site region, errors in the first binding site region and errors in the second binding site region. It would be interesting to see what happens if you ignore errors in the non-binding site region and see what happens when considering only the errors in the two binding site regions.

Since your theory of evolution is based on mutation and selection, there is no other point to be made until you describe what the selection mechanism is. A slogan does not constitute a scientific proof.Obviously from the above comments, you've determined not to concede any of the prior points, and instead you want to argue all three issue simultaneously, i.e.: (1) ev's performance, (2) development of any new gene and (3) development of the first organism (abiogenesis).

Concerning ev, I think your logic is incorrect. ev slows down using its original selection process, not because the genome is lengthened, but rather because the selection process treats mutations in the non-binding site region as equally non-beneficial to the organism as are mutations which occur in the binding site region. Thus, ev prematurely kills off organisms which in reality would not be less fit (or unfit) as the result of a mutation occurring in a junk-DNA location.

This isn't to suggest that a mutation in the non-binding site region couldn't activate what was just previously a random string of meaningless information, and damage/kill the organism, but no one here has yet quantified the relative benefit/detriment of mutations in the binding site vs. the non-binding site region.

Unnamed's selection mechanism treats random mutations in the non-binding site region as irrelevant to survival, which clearly speeds up evolution. Schneider's original selection mechanism treats random mutations in the non-binding site region as equally relevant to those in the binding site region, which clearly slows evolution.

Neither selection mechanism is substantially realistic, in my opinion, but, it seems to me that Unnamed's mechanism is more realistic than Schneider's original, because if a portion of the gene is junk, it's irrelevant to the organism before a random mutation occurs, and it's reasonable to view it as more often than not irrelevant to the organism after the mutation. This is probably one of the ways that junk DNA regions are formed: as the result of neutral mutations.

I don't think you've carried your burden of proof here, Alan. You need to either describe a realistic selection mechanism, or concede that ev demonstrates a reasonable model of RMNS.

[kleinman]

In your dreams you see goal posts moving,
while when awake you see your logic losing.

No selection process to save your theory,
only mathematics that makes you teary.

Change the subject, whine and complain,
because ev’s sending your theory down in flames.

[Mercutio]

In your dreams you see goal posts moving,
while when awake you see your logic losing.

No selection process to save your theory,
only mathematics that makes you teary.

Change the subject, whine and complain,
because ev’s sending your theory down in flames.I see you rhyme as well as you argue.

Well, slightly better. You got one out of three, anyway.

[kjkent1]

If here we are by random chance,
then Shakespeare's thoughts are quantum dance.

But, if Bard's words be by design,
then life's a fantasy sublime.

[The Atheist]

Haha, it's the inadequate doctor! I was wondering when you'd join the fray. C'mon in and have a seat.Dear The Atheist,

Would you please get religion. I don't care which one, except not Buddhism, 'cos there are atheist Buddhists. Something theistic.Scientology maybe? Actually, they may suit you better than me - they have some strange ideas about people with excessively high intellect that I think might strike a chord with you.
Your choice, but I recommend fundamentalist Christianity, you appear to have all the the necessary mental equipment for it.As do you, by the looks of your posts. I guess we all have that deep down somewhere. Fortunately, I've past that stage. Have you? I'd certainly class people who spend time writing their own version of the bible to be more than a little suspect. Are you a little bit lost? Lacking something in your life? (Other than a personality and a woman, that is.)
But please stop being an atheist. I feel no need of your company.Fortunately, there is little chance of either of those coming to pass. I don't hang out with overblown intellectuals who suffer from their own inadequacy to the extent that it keeps them awake at night, but I could make an exception. Interesting that despite not needing my company you've chosen to address a post to me. I wonder what you really think. Do you even know yourself?
PS: Like other posters here, I too am beginning to wonder whether you can really be an atheist. But if you are, please stop.No.

Statements like that do please me no end. I really enjoy the fact that I piss off atheists more than christians. I'm loving the fact that I've been classed as a christian apologist and have at least two genuine geniuses doubting my atheism in the past week. I guess you all get PMS at the same time.

Now you can crawl back into your study and write another poem or two to console yourself with the realisation that ignorant, violent scum are just as likely to be atheists as christians.

Disrespectfully.

The Atheist.

P.S. On a lighter note, you clearly don't have any idea what I'm up to here. Maybe next time, you might consider asking what I'm doing rather than jumping in half-cocked.

P.P.S. If you want to go down the abusive track, I need somthing really clever and vitriolic to add to my sig, so see what you can do.

[John Hewitt]

No that was me laughing my ass off at someone who claimed that RNA wasn't "suitable material for a replicator".
No, it was you pretending to a case you cannot make


But this is untrue. There are RNA viruses, there is, dammit, Spiegelman's bucket o' chemicals, which we've just been discussing. "Labile" or not, RNA self-replicates given the right environment.How many times does the same thing need saying.

RNA does not copy itself. Qbeta is an RNA phage that codes for an enzyme - Qbeta replicase. When that phahge infects a cell, the cell, using its own protein synthetic apparatus, makes that enzyme from the phage RNA acting as a messenger. The RNA is then copied by the enzyme, again making use of the cell's metabolism to provide ribonucleotides. Spiegelman, or whoever, can smash open those cells and chemically isolate that enzyme from infected cells. They can also replace the cell's metabolism with activated ribonucleotides and put the mixture into a test tube. The result is not RNA replicating itself, it is RNA being replicated by an enzyme and the whole thing depends on cells that made the enzyme and quite probably many of the ribonucleotides. Nobody has yet found a piece of RNA that, even under laboratory conditions, can replicate itself without a cell's involvement.
The RNA world theory posits that some piece of RNA can do this lot, not in a laboratory but in a primordial ocean. You believe that if you like but at least try to understand the ideas in which you currently have such blind faith.

[fls]

P.S. On a lighter note, you clearly don't have any idea what I'm up to here. Maybe next time, you might consider asking what I'm doing rather than jumping in half-cocked.

Performance art?

Linda

[Dr Richard]

In your dreams you see goal posts moving

Wow, Kleinman, I was, perhaps foolishly, prepared to have a discussion with you.

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simplest of questions.

You asked how "insulin" (amongst other genes) could have evolved; I cited you a paper (which you did not even bother to read) that demonstrated this to a point at which I would consider the gene in question not to be "insulin".

This was not enough for you, and I asked you define "insulin". You have repeatedly declined to do so, and moved goalposts so fast I must admit I've given up trying to keep track of them.

It has I feel been worth it however; you claim to have read Dawkin's work, and yet can come out with howlers such as:

With respects to a definition for “gene”, would the concept of one gene-one polypeptide satisfy you? I happen to prefer a more general definition that any beneficial sequence of bases be used in the concept of mutation and selection

My bolding.

Does anything in Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" give you any clue as to what is wrong in your assertion? Did you catch the bit where he argues that genes are NOT of necessity beneficial to the creature? That they are... erm... selfish?

(Hint - clue is in the title)

I apologise for trying to have a reasoned discussion with you.

As you have yet to give a reasoned response to Dr Adequate's post, I feel that this thread has obviosly moved into Christophera territory and any further discussion is sadly pointless.

[hammegk]

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simplest of questions.

He may not be alone. Try answering this one.

Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Genuine ... medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.

hammegk: What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

[Dr Richard]

He may not be alone. Try answering this one.

Recovering Yuppie got to the answer before I did (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2322257&postcount=2335).

It the post immediately after the one where you asked the question.

[hammegk]

Advice to "read Sci. Am." is not an answer. Can you provide one?

[kleinman]

In your dreams you see goal posts movingWow, Kleinman, I was, perhaps foolishly, prepared to have a discussion with you.

You have repeatedly failed to answer the simplest of questions.
Neither have you responded to my challenge to show how any gene could evolve from the beginning. Here I repost what the challenge you responded to.
The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.
What you responded with is a classification system for insulin and related proteins from Zebra fish to humans. You have not described the selection process that would evolve the original ancestral pro-insulin gene nor have you described the selection process which can transform these so called related genes from one to another. I owe you no answer until you tell us what these selection processes are.
You asked how "insulin" (amongst other genes) could have evolved; I cited you a paper (which you did not even bother to read) that demonstrated this to a point at which I would consider the gene in question not to be "insulin".
You posted numerous quotes from this paper, none of which addressed the original selection process of the antecedent ancestral gene. If this issue is addressed in the paper, either quote it in you post or stop posting unrelated references. If you believe that your reference shows how a non-insulin gene evolved to an insulin gene, describe the selection process that did this so it can be included in the ev computer model. Otherwise, you are not demonstrating a cause and effect relationship for the evolution of these genes. You are simply using “mutation and natural selection” as a slogan.
This was not enough for you, and I asked you define "insulin". You have repeatedly declined to do so, and moved goalposts so fast I must admit I've given up trying to keep track of them.With respects to a definition for “gene”, would the concept of one gene-one polypeptide satisfy you? I happen to prefer a more general definition that any beneficial sequence of bases be used in the concept of mutation and selection
I thought you just said I don’t answer your questions. I guess you are not privy to the RNA world hypothesis. Don’t you know that sequences of these bases is how life started?
Does anything in Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" give you any clue as to what is wrong in your assertion? Did you catch the bit where he argues that genes are NOT of necessity beneficial to the creature? That they are... erm... selfish?
If Dawkin’s explains in his book the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning please quote it.
I apologise for trying to have a reasoned discussion with you.
No need to apologize, you didn’t understand my original challenge and you still don’t. There is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and you have failed to provide the selection process that would evolve insulin from the Zebra fish to the human. Without a description for how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning or transform genes from one form to another, mutation and natural selection is nothing more than a slogan.

There are no moved goal posts here, only a missed attempt at the goal posts on your part.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region.
But that's not what I asked. I asked why you think it reaches a point where suddenly there is no information gain at all.


Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?
What makes you think it disappeared? Did he run some experiments I don't know about?

The Rcapacity problem is not the same problem as the error rate in the junk DNA. We've already run experiments that show this.


Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process?
I suspect it would slow down. But this sort of conflict is already present in Ev, since the gene has to evolve to match the binding sites while also being under pressure not to match itself. In your scenario, two different sequence logos would evolve.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with ad hominem attacks. I wouldn't, would I?
Point taken. :D

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unnamed's selection mechanism treats random mutations in the non-binding site region as irrelevant to survival, which clearly speeds up evolution.
He doesn't treat them as entirely irrelevant, or creatures with zero mistakes would never evolve.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

He doesn't treat them as entirely irrelevant, or creatures with zero mistakes would never evolve.

~~ Paul

That's interesting. I suppose you're correct, because there must be some discriminator which remains after every creature is reproduced perfectly, other than a deleterious mutation, which would kill it off.

So, at what point does a mutation in a non-binding site region obtain greater selective value than of a mutation in a binding-site region?

[articulett]

There are observers who subscribe to the "RNA world" theory, but that theory is entirely inadequate.

And presumably, your "theory" is more adequate. And how would you sum up your theory? The "RNA world" theory can be shortened to 2 words--"RNA World"--it's pretty easy to understand, and seems to fit the data better than anything you have offered. I'm presuming most people on this forum can read it and more or less make sense of it. I haven't seen or heard anyone, including you, really say what your "theory" is. We all understand that it has to do, in part, with abiogenesis--and then you skip a lot of the middle and then you have another theory about humans and how they develop social features--and you believe your explanation is clearer than memes...you mention "free will", sexuality and sexual deviancy, and humor--as well as lying scientists...and your "theory" presumably explains all this better than the notion that human traits are byproducts of natural selection coupled with human selection (genes and memes). Does the latter take into account any of the new information we are discovering in neurology or in the studies of our mammal kin? What about genetics and twin studies in regards to personality traits?

As for the abiogenesis part... Is there anyone in a recent peer reviewed science article that asserts that cells are the replicator or that such a notion is a better way to facilitate understanding of how life evolved? I know it's Michael Behe's contention, but he doesn't publish in peer reviewed papers and he is not someone whom others go to for clarification (except maybe Ann Coulter). Do you feel no need to clarify to any of us why you think this leads to greater understanding? Doesn't it bother you that no one here, including you, can sum up your claims enough to actually argue them. Aren't you aware that people are trying to "get" what you are saying, but no one seems to be able to do so? Although you find the "RNA world" inadequate, I don't think any of us know why--nor do we know what you find to be more adequate (presumably your oscillation theory involving data streams and cells as replicators...that has nothing to do with the "dogma of naturalism" which you claim not to understand because you are approaching it all from an epistemological perspective...)

I have a question for others--do you ever here scientists using the word epistemology in their explanations? And do you find the term useful in enhancing your understanding? Whenever I see that word, I think of Hammegk or Justgeoff and I feel like I'm about to hear a lot of words that clarify absolutely nothing except my conclusion that someone is trying to pass off woo in a pedantic way.

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher...and I understand him just fine...but I don't recall him using such words--What do you think of Daniel Dennett, John? Your doctorate is in philosophy, correct? And your "theory" is a philosophical theory, right? What was your B.A. in? (I'm going from the info. at your website.). What is your experience or education in regards to science, genetics, human development, oscillating data, and solar energy? What have you read or studied about RNA? Why should people who want to understand the evolution of life wade through what you have to say? You've made it clear that you think Dawkins and the "RNA World" and the scientific contention that nucleic acids are considered the replicators are "inadequate" or "wrong"--but what have you offered in their place and how does it fit the data better?

Why is it that after all these pages, no one seems to grasp what you are offering?--

[kleinman]

I’m glad you asked. The property that causes the information gain to slow down in ev are the errors in the non-binding site region.But that's not what I asked. I asked why you think it reaches a point where suddenly there is no information gain at all.
The reason is implicit in my answer. Here is a more explicit explanation. The reason there is no longer information gain once the genome length is long enough that errors in the non-binding site region are controlling selection. Elimination of these non-binding site errors do not add information to the genome. Unless the binding site region errors are controlling selection, you can’t evolve binding sites (where the information is being accumulated). This effect is not sudden, the generations for convergence increases with increasing genome length until you reach a tipping point where the errors in the binding site region dominate the selection process and you can no longer evolve binding sites in the binding site region. I suspect that wider binding sites slow this effect because these wider sites are less likely to be identified by the weight matrix and therefore bias the selection process toward the binding site region. This could be investigated by putting a counter on errors and tracking how many errors are in the binding and non-binding site regions.
Why do you think the Rcapacity problem disappeared with Unnamed’s selection process?What makes you think it disappeared? Did he run some experiments I don't know about?

The Rcapacity problem is not the same problem as the error rate in the junk DNA. We've already run experiments that show this.
Is the Rcapacity problem related to the information content of the binding site or to the selection process?
Here is a little experiment you can try with ev. Instead of evolving a single set of binding sites, evolve two sets of binding sites with different weight matrices for each. Each set of binding sites will have their own regions on the genome. What do you think will happen to the evolutionary process?I suspect it would slow down. But this sort of conflict is already present in Ev, since the gene has to evolve to match the binding sites while also being under pressure not to match itself. In your scenario, two different sequence logos would evolve.
I agree with you, two different selection processes in operation simultaneously would slow down the process down further. A third selection process would slow evolution even more so. Each additional selection process would continue to slow evolution further and as you said “certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world”.

[Dr Adequate]

There go those damned goalposts again I think we may have found a use for kleinman. He may be useless at debate, he may be worthless as a human being, and he may be a disgusting disgrace to his religion --- but as an inspiration for comic poetry he is second only to Kent Hovind.

[Dr Adequate]

No, it was you pretending to a case you cannot make

No that was me laughing my ass off at someone who claimed that RNA wasn't "suitable material for a replicator".

How many times does the same thing need saying.

RNA does not copy itself. Well, for sane people this doesn't "need" saying even once, 'cos it's not true. And for mad people ... you can say it as many times as you like, and it won't change the facts.

There are RNA viruses, there is, dammit, Spiegelman's bucket o' chemicals, which we've just been discussing. "Labile" or not, RNA self-replicates given the right environment.

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

[Dr Adequate]

Haha, it's the inadequate doctor! I was wondering when you'd join the fray. C'mon in and have a seat.Scientology maybe? Actually, they may suit you better than me - they have some strange ideas about people with excessively high intellect that I think might strike a chord with you.
As do you, by the looks of your posts. I guess we all have that deep down somewhere. Fortunately, I've past that stage. Have you? I'd certainly class people who spend time writing their own version of the bible to be more than a little suspect. Are you a little bit lost? Lacking something in your life? (Other than a personality and a woman, that is.)
Fortunately, there is little chance of either of those coming to pass. I don't hang out with overblown intellectuals who suffer from their own inadequacy to the extent that it keeps them awake at night, but I could make an exception. Interesting that despite not needing my company you've chosen to address a post to me. I wonder what you really think. Do you even know yourself?
No.

Statements like that do please me no end. I really enjoy the fact that I piss off atheists more than christians. I'm loving the fact that I've been classed as a christian apologist and have at least two genuine geniuses doubting my atheism in the past week. I guess you all get PMS at the same time.

Now you can crawl back into your study and write another poem or two to console yourself with the realisation that ignorant, violent scum are just as likely to be atheists as christians.

Disrespectfully.

The Atheist.

P.S. On a lighter note, you clearly don't have any idea what I'm up to here. Maybe next time, you might consider asking what I'm doing rather than jumping in half-cocked.

P.P.S. If you want to go down the abusive track, I need somthing really clever and vitriolic to add to my sig, so see what you can do. Well, that was weird.

If you wish to insult me, you'll have to become coherent first.

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Then try to say what, if anything, you mean.

[articulett]

I haven't got the book in front of me now, but he talks about our sexual impulses 'misfiring' when, for example, we (want to) have sex but are using contraception.

I can think of plenty of reasons and ways to have sex that have nothing to do with procreation. While our basic drive and reward systems are genetically determined, what we do to satisfy or activate them evolve separately.



I think your getting this a little backwards. A strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species...genes that encourage a strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species--any time a gene is involved in encouraging sex...that gene has a good chance of seeing copies of itself in future generations. But no entity needs to know or care about that to pass on genes. You don't need to know how offspring are made to make a whole new one from scratch. You just have to have a compelling urge to do whatever it is that facilitates the process. Having a primal urge that needs satisfaction is one such way. Have the reward centers of your brain go crazy when engaging in certain activities is another such way. Feeling in love with another and a desire for nurturing is another way. Over riding the impulse control sections of the brain is another way. A dog doesn't know why he feels the urge to hump things...but we do...he has genes that make him have such urges...why? because the dogs that have those urges have more genes in the gene pool.

Humans have sex because sex is pleasurable and satisfying. Sex is pleasurable because evolution selected that trait--those who avoided sex, didn't have as many genes in the gene pool; while the insatiable did. From my observations, the sex drive tends to be particularly strong in males...but not necessarily specific (maybe the "any port in a storm" strategy)--hence the tendency of males to be the more likely of the sexes to have fetishes and more striking deviancies. The sex drive evolved to, not only be strong, but to over ride the thinking and rational part of the brain. Because, this can have unwanted consequences for the persons pursuing this drive, humans have invented things like contraception to enjoy such pursuits without risk. To genes--the pleasure of sex, is a means to their getting passed on. To humans, passing on genes, is a by product of engaging in a pleasurable activity. Sometimes that is a wanted byproduct...more often, it's a "surprise"...and sometimes it is an unwanted byproduct--a consequence.

Genes don't think...and you don't need to think to pass on genes. (Plants do it, for example)--nor do you need to be aware that you are passing on genes or procreating. You don't need to know a thing about it to succeed. Humans do think. But the tendencies they have in thoughts and feelings and drives are there because of genes. There are genes that mold the brain to make it responsive to and tailored to the environment the vehicle of those genes finds himself/herself in. We can and do love our children and care for others because the genes that give rise to the brain structures involving these feelings have a better chance at having their vectors (us) live and procreate. Most humans love their offspring, because they can't "not" do so. It might feel like a choice or a gift from an "intelligent designer"--but it's also a good way to keep the genes that code for those traits in the gene pool. If a gene could think, then making a brain receptive to oxytocin and serotonin and other hormones involved in nurturing behavior would be a good strategy.

When you look at human behavior and see similar behavior in the animal kingdom, them it strongly suggests an evolutionary (genetic) advantage to the organisms having such a feature. I'd say the sex drive is a good example.
The "will to live" is another. When it comes to more specifically human behaviors, it usually has underlying genetic components coupled with the evolutionary adaptive human brain which has evolved to learn from and be molded by the environment it finds itself in. It is also the organism of thought and damaging it can damage thinking and feelings. Genes code for our ability to understand and develop language. The language we speak is culturally determined. But all languages evolved from a "meme"--the notion that sounds could convey specific meaning...(in brains genetically evolved to be meme utilizers and replicators.)

[RecoveringYuppy]

Advice to "read Sci. Am." is not an answer. Can you provide one?
No, but actually reading it would be. And I did give a one sentence explanation of the procedure before telling you where I'd seen a report of it being used. I've also explained it to Kleinman at least twice.

The technique is simple: Compare two genomes from two different species. The areas with the most accumulated differences will be the ones with no selection pressure and therefore, inactive. The ones with the least will be areas under selection pressure (active). The technique has led to the discovery of active, non-coding, regions we were previously unaware of.

In addition to being useful in finding out new information about genomes, this is powerful evidence that all life on Earth is related and that selection pressures are present.

ETA: While searching for a link I see Dr Richard posted a good one back in reply 2329.

[Dr Adequate]

In your dreams you see goal posts moving,
while when awake you see your logic losing.

No selection process to save your theory,
only mathematics that makes you teary.

Change the subject, whine and complain,
because ev’s sending your theory down in flames.Mathematics, biology, and now poetry ... it there no beginning to your talents?

Seriously, is there anything at all you do well?

It doesn't rhyme, it doesn't scan, it doesn't make sense, it's not true, and it doesn't have a joke in it.

Do you really have to fail at everything?

You poor sod.

[articulett]

There go those damned goalposts again

A simple kick, an extra point
Is all, and then we may annoint
The victor in this war of words
Twixt idiots and science nerds

In order for the team to win
The gene producing insulin
Must split the uprights, straight and true,
That's all that Kleinman asks of you.

But wait! The crossbar's much too near
A child could make that kick from here
Precursers shown are not enough--
We need to make the task more tough

And so, I send my best regards
And move the goalposts ten more yards.

The protein superfamily
For insulin in you and me
Is found in other mammals, too
(And rats and mice--why, they have two!)

We'll trace it further, if you wish
To proteins found in zebra fish
(What's cool, you'll see upon reflection--
It fits with natural selection!)

Wait! You'll make that kick with ease
And so, if you'll indulge me, please,
To make the kick that has you winning
Trace the gene to its beginning!

With due respect, and beaming smile,
I'll move the goalposts half a mile.

The crossbar now is but a speck
From here--but maybe...what the heck--
I'll try it, under one condition:
Before I kick--your definition?

Could you define your terms, I mean?
Define "beginning", also "gene"
Your definitions seem to change
If you could narrow down the range--

Wait! The start I want is this--
The gene's abiogenesis!
Or if I think I still might hang
Then trace it back to the Big Bang!

And all the time that I've been talking
Those goalposts, they have kept on walking.

To satisfy my little query
Don't attempt to feed me theory
But, from time itself, condense
The binding, legal evidence.

If insulin evolved, why then
You ought to know precisely when.
Before the gene was well-dispersed
There must be someone who was first.

I want his name (and, you've surmised,
I want it duly notarized!)
If you cannot do that, you fail
And by default, I will prevail!

If lunacy you must defend
The moving goalpost is your friend.

Wading through creationist muck is worth it for gems such as these. I find it sadly ironic that creationists can miss the brilliance of such eloquence due to their blinding hubris which they mistake for genius.

Nominated!

Both you and Dr. Adequate are gifted in your scientific understanding, eloquence, and ability to communicate complexity with brevity, clarity and wit that I aspire to. (But until I reach that point, I may plagiarize...)

Yes, the creationists can't learn the fantastic things that science has afforded us the privilege of knowing--but they aren't the only people reading these posts.

[Dr Adequate]

Neither have you responded to my challenge to show how any gene could evolve from the beginning. Same old lies. See my sig.

[delphi_ote]

Anyone interested in autocatalytic RNA (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/20/12733) should look into the work of Gerald Joyce (http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/joyce.html).

[articulett]

Performance art?

Linda

Beautiful.

I'm guessing that he's a deranged individual whose community members have encouraged his computer usage as a type of therapy (and to keep him from inflicting himself on others.)

Maybe he has a wife and kids and we are doing them a great favor by keeping him busy online, so they can be free of whatever it is he thinks he is communicating. I wonder if anyone "gets" him...or even cares about what he thinks...or...even likes him.

Maybe he has a brain tumor? (I keep him on ignore, just in case his personality disorder is something he has no control over...fortunately few people respond to him, so I don't see what he's ranting about anymore-- except when he appears in a post that makes me laugh--like yours.)

[kleinman]

Anyone interested in autocatalytic RNA should look into the work of Gerald Joyce.
That’s an interesting ribozyme these scientists developed. Would you care to describe a selective process where a molecule like this could evolve?

[Dr Adequate]

That’s an interesting ribozyme these scientists developed. Would you care to describe a selective process where a molecule like this could evolve? You remember I told you you should look up the word "selection"?

You should really, really look up the word "selection". And the word "evolve".

But perhaps you'd prefer to write some more crappy adolescent poetry.

[delphi_ote]

That’s an interesting ribozyme these scientists developed. Would you care to describe a selective process where a molecule like this could evolve?
I wouldn't care to. Fortunately, Joyce has already done so in simple language on his website:
Just as organisms undergo Darwinian evolution in nature, molecules can be made to evolve in the test tube. This can lead to the production of molecules with interesting properties, including the ability to catalyze a particular chemical reaction. The recipe for Darwinian evolution of molecules is simple:

1) Start with a large population of molecules of varying composition;

2) Select those molecules, however rare, that have the desired chemical properties;

3) Produce many copies of the selected molecules, introducing occasional random changes in their composition;

4) Repeat as desired.

In our laboratory we have harnessed the power of Darwinian evolution as applied to populations of trillions of different RNA or DNA molecules. At their most rapid, our procedures allow us to carry out over 100 "generations" of test-tube evolution in a single day. The resulting molecules have interesting catalytic properties, teach us about evolution itself, and have potential application as therapeutic agents.

ETA Those interested in evolutionary computation (i.e. some of ev's background) should note that this is sort of a GA with real molecules! Joyce is my hero. :D

[JanisChambers]

They say we need a creator, then who made God? I think thats a pretty reasonable question to ask.

[The Atheist]

If you wish to insult me...Not at this stage, but if you want to open the bidding, let me know.

... you'll have to become coherent first.If it isn't clear, I can try another language.

[The Atheist]

Beautiful.

I'm guessing that he's a deranged individual whose community members have encouraged his computer usage as a type of therapy (and to keep him from inflicting himself on others.)

Maybe he has a wife and kids and we are doing them a great favor by keeping him busy online, so they can be free of whatever it is he thinks he is communicating. I wonder if anyone "gets" him...or even cares about what he thinks...or...even likes him.

Maybe he has a brain tumor? (I keep him on ignore, just in case his personality disorder is something he has no control over...fortunately few people respond to him, so I don't see what he's ranting about anymore-- except when he appears in a post that makes me laugh--like yours.)

That is so accurate, I'm nominating it!

Classic!

[The Atheist]

duplicate....

[Dr Adequate]

Not at this stage, but if you want to open the bidding, let me know. So you are now claiming that your post was not intended to insult me?

You lie like kleinman.

If it isn't clear, I can try another language. It was not clear, and please feel free to try another language, I speak several. To take the most baffling example of your drivel, what the heck did you mean by "people who spend time writing their own version of the bible"? I'm sure that you meant that to relate to me in some way, but I am not privy to your fantasy world. You are at liberty to answer this question in French, German, or Arabic, if you choose.

If the wind is blowing north-northeasterly, I might manage Latin, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish. Actually, while I mention Latin, if you're into dead languages I speak a mean Anglo-Saxon. For Old Norse I would need a dictionary.

In your own time.

What the heck were you trying to say?

[Dr Adequate]

They say we need a creator, then who made God? I think thats a pretty reasonable question to ask. It is so superbly and eminently reasonable a question that you are never, ever going to get an answer.

We've all asked that question ... welcome to the forums!

We got fun and games.

[articulett]

Advice to "read Sci. Am." is not an answer. Can you provide one?

Have you ever once shown yourself capable of understanding an answer to a question you ask? To me, your questions sound ignorant from the get go... How could you answer the question for someone simple enough to ask--"how far is it to the end of the earth"?

Your questions imply a sort of ignorance that shows a lack of basic understanding, as well as a declaration that you don't want to understand. They always sound like the above example to me. I don't know why anyone bothers to waste words with you.

[The Atheist]

So you are now claiming that your post was not intended to insult me?No, just a tiny preliminary. You give me a serve, I return service. That's how most games go. Your opening attacks me, I send you a wee brickbat back.

I'm quite happy for people to question any aspect of what I do or say. In what manner that's done, I usually leave to the other bloke at the start.

You lie like kleinman.See, the bad news here is that you've just well and truly outsmarted yourself. Your last post said:
Then try to say what, if anything, you mean.
but now you're telling me that I was insulting you and lying by saying I wasn't. So, you do know what I was saying!.
It was not clear, and please feel free to try another language, I speak several.Clear/Not clear?!?

My French and German aren't up to that level, nor is my written Kiswahili, but I can try Maori anytime you like.

Now doc, we can rev this up or not. I'll leave that entirely to you.

[Dr Adequate]

No, just a tiny preliminary. You give me a serve, I return service. That's how most games go. Your opening attacks me, I send you a wee brickbat back.

I'm quite happy for people to question any aspect of what I do or say. In what manner that's done, I usually leave to the other bloke at the start.

See, the bad news here is that you've just well and truly outsmarted yourself. Your last post said:

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

My French and German aren't up to that level, nor is my written Kiswahili, but I can try Maori anytime you like.

Now doc, we can rev this up or not. I'll leave that entirely to you. Again, I have no idea what you're driving at.

Anyone? Little help here, please.

The most baffling thing in this post is "but now you're telling me that I was insulting you and lying by saying I wasn't. So, you do know what I was saying!." [punctuation in the original]

I mean, what?

As I said, I am not privy to the imaginary fantasy world in your head, but even if I was, this sentence wouldn't make any sense. It can't. You're raving. You remember what I said about the deep breath and counting to ten?

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then try to insult me. Coherently.

[delphi_ote]

It is so superbly and eminently reasonable a question that you are never, ever going to get an answer.
Yes. It's a particularly weak Cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument).

1. To exist, something must be created.
2. Something which is created must have a creator.
3. Therefore, if the the universe exists, it must have a creator.
4. So god exists (PLEASE DON'T LOOK BACK AT POINT 1!!!!!)

[Lonewulf]

Yes. It's a particularly weak Cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument).

1. To exist, something must be created.
2. Something which is created must have a creator.
3. Therefore, if the the universe exists, it must have a creator.
4. So god exists (PLEASE DON'T LOOK BACK AT POINT 1!!!!!)

Heh! That's a good summary.

[articulett]

Again, I have no idea what you're driving at.

Anyone? Little help here, please.

The most baffling thing in this post is "but now you're telling me that I was insulting you and lying by saying I wasn't. So, you do know what I was saying!." [punctuation in the original]

I mean, what?

As I said, I am not privy to the imaginary fantasy world in your head, but even if I was, this sentence wouldn't make any sense. It can't. You're raving. You remember what I said about the deep breath and counting to ten?

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then try to insult me. Coherently.

I don't think there has been a coherent post from the asstheist, has there?...I haven't seen any indication that anyone understands what he is saying. I'm guessing anasognosia. It's very odd...but it's just what cognitive studies are showing. The people who are the least comprehensible seem to see themselves as brilliant communicators in their own minds--winning debates left and right-- But there is not an iota of evidence on this forum that anyone understands them nor do they seem to understand each other. I bet it's like working in an insane asylum where several people think they are god--a few others think that demons are talking to them--and one is Christophera--

It is times like this, that I am thankful for whatever it is that makes my brain work and grateful for the wall of cyberspace that separates me from the the "off" people that post here. I often wonder why they choose to post on a skeptic's forum since they seem to think themselves better than "skeptics", "scientists", etc.

It is a treat, however, for those who enjoy irony.

And some of the responses are priceless...

[The Atheist]

They say we need a creator, then who made God? I think thats a pretty reasonable question to ask.
Hey, I can put on mychristian apologist's hat!

Not quite as simple as that. Any good catholic will tell you that god is eternal. He just is. Plus, the little problem that he's apparently entirely metaphysical in nature and therefore fairly hard to "create".

And welcome in!

[The Atheist]

Again, I have no idea what you're driving at.


Whose sig is it which goes, "A child of five would understand. Someone, quick, fetch a child of five."?

Graucho Marx.

[Dr Adequate]

Whose sig is it which goes, "A child of five would understand. Someone, quick, fetch a child of five."?

Graucho Marx. You may be thinking of kjkent1, who also, I will bet my bottom dollar, thinks that you're an idiot. Since you ask. Oh, and it's spelt "Groucho".

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

I still want to know what you mean, but it appears that you are too frightened to tell me, too ashamed to tell me, or simply incapable of telling me.

Someone please fetch a five year old child to speak for "The Atheist". Apparently he is incapable of speaking for himself.

[The Atheist]

I still want to know what you mean, but it appears that you are too frightened to tell me, too ashamed to tell me, or simply incapable of telling me.

Frightened? I think not.

Falling off my chair laughing at someone unable to read a sentence containing one three-syllable word and the rest comprising two- and one-syllable words. Definitely.

You're digging the hole deeper every post. Pray continue.

[Dr Adequate]

Frightened? I think not. So, I believe "ashamed" and "incapable" were the other two options.

Falling off my chair laughing at someone unable to read a sentence containing one three-syllable word and the rest comprising two- and one-syllable words. Definitely.

You're digging the hole deeper every post. Pray continue.So, you are still either too ashamed or simply incapable of saying what you mean.

Fascinating.

I just looked it up, and it's "A child of five would understand this -- send someone to fetch a child of five!" -- Groucho Marx

Send someone to fetch a child of five.

[The Atheist]

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

Neither.

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

Ring any bells?

[John Hewitt]

Well, for sane people this doesn't "need" saying even once, 'cos it's not true. And for mad people ... you can say it as many times as you like, and it won't change the facts.

EARTH TO HEWITT. YOU CANNOT CHANGE REALITY BY LYING AT IT. HELLO?
Yet again, an empty, unargued claim that ignores serious argument. I can only assume that you have no understanding of this area and are not willing to think about your claims.

[The Atheist]

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

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

[John Hewitt]

How's your French, John? My written French is lousy these days, but if yours is any good, I suggest switching. You couldn't get any less sense than is already the case.
If it were only a matter of language but I fear that Dr. Adequate would not engage with reason in any language. Some people, actually many people, immunize themselves and their ideas against reason and evidence.
Popper, of course, was well aware of such behaviour. He insisted that genuinely scientific ideas should not be so immunized but must be rendered and defended so as to remain falsifiable by evidence.

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

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

[Taffer]

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

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

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

Selection can occur in non-living things.

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

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

A gene is to evolve.

Can you please tell me what this means?

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

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

One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What? Where have I done this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you please provide a definition of "soul"?

[Taffer]

Because it doesn't know the difference.

I suspect this to be the case.

[Dr Adequate]

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

Now you're confusing "understand" and "meaningful". No; and no.

[Taffer]

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

Dictionary.com agrees (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem): 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

So does Webster (http://209.161.37.11/dictionary/ad%20hominem): 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

And the final nail, so does OED (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=ad+hominem&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname): • adverb & adjective (of an argument) personal rather than objective.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘to the person’.

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

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

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

1) "Geoff is a neo-nazi."

Is not an ad hom.

:)

[Dr Adequate]

Neither.

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

Ring any bells? Again, you appear to be speaking gibberish.

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

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

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

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

:chicken:

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

[Taffer]

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


You have no clue about evolutionary theory.

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

It seems a shame that effort is wasted on such stuff when what is really needed is sensible discussion. So, instead of debating any point that I've made, you substitute telling lies about me.

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

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

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

Then what of it?

Where does that get you?

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

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

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

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

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think your getting this a little backwards. A strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species...genes that encourage a strong sex drive ensures the continuation of the species--any time a gene is involved in encouraging sex...that gene has a good chance of seeing copies of itself in future generations. But no entity needs to know or care about that to pass on genes. You don't need to know how offspring are made to make a whole new one from scratch. You just have to have a compelling urge to do whatever it is that facilitates the process. Having a primal urge that needs satisfaction is one such way. Have the reward centers of your brain go crazy when engaging in certain activities is another such way. Feeling in love with another and a desire for nurturing is another way. Over riding the impulse control sections of the brain is another way. A dog doesn't know why he feels the urge to hump things...but we do...he has genes that make him have such urges...why? because the dogs that have those urges have more genes in the gene pool.

Humans have sex because sex is pleasurable and satisfying. Sex is pleasurable because evolution selected that trait--those who avoided sex, didn't have as many genes in the gene pool; while the insatiable did. From my observations, the sex drive tends to be particularly strong in males...but not necessarily specific (maybe the "any port in a storm" strategy)--hence the tendency of males to be the more likely of the sexes to have fetishes and more striking deviancies. The sex drive evolved to, not only be strong, but to over ride the thinking and rational part of the brain. Because, this can have unwanted consequences for the persons pursuing this drive, humans have invented things like contraception to enjoy such pursuits without risk. To genes--the pleasure of sex, is a means to their getting passed on. To humans, passing on genes, is a by product of engaging in a pleasurable activity. Sometimes that is a wanted byproduct...more often, it's a "surprise"...and sometimes it is an unwanted byproduct--a consequence.

Genes don't think...and you don't need to think to pass on genes. (Plants do it, for example)--nor do you need to be aware that you are passing on genes or procreating. You don't need to know a thing about it to succeed. Humans do think. But the tendencies they have in thoughts and feelings and drives are there because of genes. There are genes that mold the brain to make it responsive to and tailored to the environment the vehicle of those genes finds himself/herself in. We can and do love our children and care for others because the genes that give rise to the brain structures involving these feelings have a better chance at having their vectors (us) live and procreate. Most humans love their offspring, because they can't "not" do so. It might feel like a choice or a gift from an "intelligent designer"--but it's also a good way to keep the genes that code for those traits in the gene pool. If a gene could think, then making a brain receptive to oxytocin and serotonin and other hormones involved in nurturing behavior would be a good strategy.

When you look at human behavior and see similar behavior in the animal kingdom, them it strongly suggests an evolutionary (genetic) advantage to the organisms having such a feature. I'd say the sex drive is a good example.
The "will to live" is another. When it comes to more specifically human behaviors, it usually has underlying genetic components coupled with the evolutionary adaptive human brain which has evolved to learn from and be molded by the environment it finds itself in. It is also the organism of thought and damaging it can damage thinking and feelings. Genes code for our ability to understand and develop language. The language we speak is culturally determined. But all languages evolved from a "meme"--the notion that sounds could convey specific meaning...(in brains genetically evolved to be meme utilizers and replicators.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Hewitt]

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

Then what of it? Where does that get you?

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


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

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

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

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

Let's explain it one more time.

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

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

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

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

Then what of it?

Where does that get you?

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

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

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

Don't you see, you freakin' moron, that even if your fantasies about me were true, that would not abolish the facts? You seem to have invented a crazy version of the ad hominem fallacy all of your own. You keep on claiming that I don't understand the facts that I've cited. As it happens, I do, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't magically make the facts go away, would it?

---

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

[John Hewitt]

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

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So, at what point does a mutation in a non-binding site region obtain greater selective value than of a mutation in a binding-site region?
That's way too complicated a question for my poor little brain.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This effect is not sudden, the generations for convergence increases with increasing genome length until you reach a tipping point where the errors in the binding site region dominate the selection process and you can no longer evolve binding sites in the binding site region.
"Not sudden" is incompatible with "tipping point."


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


I agree with you, two different selection processes in operation simultaneously would slow down the process down further. A third selection process would slow evolution even more so. Each additional selection process would continue to slow evolution further and as you said “certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world”.
Yes, but I did not say that all the extant genetic control mechanisms evolved at the same time, did I?

~~ Paul

[Taffer]

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

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

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

[Mr. Scott]

(Subtitle: Mountain of evidence -- meet bronze age manuscript.)

Inspired by Ev and its fans who claim Ev proves macro-evolution is impossible, I've written a simulation (line of logic) to see if god exists and hereby invite godists to critique it:

God, as we are led to understand him, is omnipotent. He created the universe and everything in it, created all the genes of life, watches our every move and knows our every thought (all 6 billion of us at once, and probably the trillions of other living things as well), and is capable of arbitrarily controlling anything, from individual quarks to galaxy clusters, at any time in any way to any extent. The complexity of such a being has to be nearly infinite, and must also be irreducable (if it were reducible, it could not be omnipotent). The probability of something infinitely complex appearing de novo from nothing is, obviously, zero -- it is infinitely improbable. So, given that theogenesis can be shown to be mathematically impossible, why would we choose it as an explanation for the origin of life rather than what is mathematically infinitely more probable: spontaneous generation as suggested by evolutionists?

There is a growing mountain of consistent evidence that evolution, both micro- and macro-, successfully explains the origin of species, but there is not even the smallest speck of evidence that any kind of god exists. All the godists can show is a bronze age manuscript full of inconsistencies, authored by people obviously ignorant of the most basic concepts of physics, astronomy, and biology. And, why any thinking person would follow a book that's foundation is built on circular logic* is astonishing.

Given the choice between an extremely unlikely event that a mountain of evidence supports actually happened, or an impossible event for which not a shred of evidence exists, who in their right mind would choose the latter?

Godists, I await your refutation.

* How do we know the bible is true? It says it is, so it must be.

[Kotatsu]

Since your theory of evolution is based on mutation and selection, there is no other point to be made until you describe what the selection mechanism is.

"My" theory of evolution is based observations of actually occuring evolution, which are described by, among other things, mutations and selection.

The selection mechanism can be the preferance of, or disinclination to mate with, individuals displaying a certain feature or behaviour corresponding to a certain set of alleles or genes.

It can be the increased success, diminished success or complete failure of reproduction between individuals with certain genotypes, including factors influencing the morphological properties of one or both of the mating individuals, chemical or physical limitations, or other factors.

It can be an increased or decreased percentage of any of the following: stillborn, progeny with morphological, physiological, or other properties either inferior or superior to those of their peers, progeny which are unable to reproduce with other members of the parent species, or which can do so only under certain conditions or at a lower rate of success, and other forms of progeny dissimilar from the parents.

It can be any number of factors influencing the behaviour, morphology, physiology and other properties which make the individual more or less likely to survive to reproductive age, to attract a mate (if necessary) and mate or otherwise produce offspring.

In the present case, as I described it above, any of the following could be a valid selection mechanism, as I only sketched a theoretical example without limiting myself to a certain gene. However, let us take a specific example and see what happens:

The region that codes for the FMRFamide precursor in the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis contains more than one copy of the sequence needed to produce one copy of the neuropeptide it codes for (Loi & Tublitz, 1997). This is not unusual; in Lumbriculidae, the same region generally codes for at least three copies (Price, pers. comm.). These coding sequences are 12 base-pairs long, and are separated by non-coding regions of various length.

However, to be entirely truthful, not all copies in this region are identical. The FMRFamide precursor region in S. officinalis codes for one FIRFamide, one ALSGDAFLRFamide (which is naturally longer than 12 bases), one FLRFamide and 11 FMRFamides. Let us for the sake of argument focus on one of these. I shall assume that FMRFamide is the "original" form, as it is most common in this region.

To produce a sequence coding for FIRFamide, only one random point mutation is needed: the AUG of methionine is replaced by any of AUU, AUA and AUC, which all code for isoleucin. This change occurs in the third codon position, which is the change most common in protein-coding sequences. Both FMRFamide and FIRFamide function as neuropeptides, but, Loi & Taublitz suggest, may have different physiological functions in the body.

If we imagine a sequence which only codes for FMRFamide, and allow one of the copies of the FMRFamide-coding sequence to undergo the point mutation described above, what happens? The gene, when translated, now produces one less FMRFamide and one more FIRFamide. It still produces FMRFamide, though, so it may not have a very large influence on the ocuttlefish. However, everytime the animal produces FMRFamide, it also produces FIRFamide. Depending on the specificity of the receptors and the efficiency of this new peptide, this may have no, little, or great effect, negative or positive, on the organism.

If there is an effect, at least locally, then there is your selection mechanism for retaining this new neuropeptide. Loi & Taublitz suggest that FIRFamide --- and the other aberrant FaRPS of the cuttlefish --- are used in the chromatophore system.

A slogan does not constitute a scientific proof

Then I take it that your repeated claim of having disproved the theory of evolution mathematically does not constitute scientific proof, and should not be treated as such? Likewise with, oh, perhaps 80% of the rest of your posts?

---
Loi & Tublitz, 1997. Molecular analysis of FMRFamide- and FMRFamide-related peptides (FaRPS) in the Cuttlefish Sepia officinalis. J. Exp. Biol. 200, 1483-1489.

[Kotatsu]

If lunacy you must defend
The moving goalpost is your friend.

Curiously, I am having exactly the same kind of discussion in another forum over RPGs with a young man whose habit it is to move the goalposts before I even get an attempt to pass the latest one. If the need arise, may I quote parts of your poem in that thread?

[Kotatsu]

Haha, it's the inadequate doctor! I was wondering when you'd join the fray.

I think perversions of DrAdequate's forum name into something suggesting he is, in fact, not, are the most hilarious jokes ever.

[Mercutio]

Curiously, I am having exactly the same kind of discussion in another forum over RPGs with a young man whose habit it is to move the goalposts before I even get an attempt to pass the latest one. If the need arise, may I quote parts of your poem in that thread?
If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.

[Kotatsu]

If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.

This is by far the greatest text-based gift I have ever received.

If the poem wins the language award --- and I do believe someone nominated it previously --- who will get all of the money and the car filled with hot chicks which are traditionally handed out to the victor?

[The Atheist]

No; and no.Hey, now that's really funny.

Your own post proves beyond any doubt that you confused two simple words, but keep denying it.

[The Atheist]

I think perversions of DrAdequate's forum name into something suggesting he is, in fact, not, are the most hilarious jokes ever.

The bad news is that the good doctor made that comment about himself a little while back.

Intellectually, he is comfortable with his adequacy, but there are other areas of life and at least he's honest enough to admit his own inadequacy in them.

Anything outside of maths and poetry.

Let's see if he remembers...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you think you can get away with it, you have my permission to claim it as your own. In fact, I hereby give it to you; it *is* yours now. Anyone else who wishes to quote it must now ask *your* permission.
How can you not love this guy?

~~ Paul

[Ivor the Engineer]

How can you not love this guy?

~~ Paul

He supports plagiarism?

[kjkent1]

This is by far the greatest text-based gift I have ever received.

If the poem wins the language award --- and I do believe someone nominated it previously --- who will get all of the money and the car filled with hot chicks which are traditionally handed out to the victor?

You would own the award.

A public offer of a reward in return for a member of the public satisfying the conditions of the offer, becomes an executory contract between the offeror and any person who begins performance required by the offer, within a reasonable time in reliance on the public offer.

Here, because the poem was nominated under terms of the offer, prior to transfer of the copyright license to you, Mercutio would be entitled to the benefit of the bargain.

However, because Mercutio expressly stated that he has assigned, not just the copyright license, but also the right to "claim" the poem "as your own," Mercutio has impliedly transferred the right to the executory contract to you

Therefore, you are entitled to any award, even though it is well known that you are not the actual author.

And so on and so forth...

[The Atheist]

Again, you appear to be speaking gibberish.Your spade must almost be worn out.

Maybe you're not used to reading such short, simple sentences. No matter to me.

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

Or if that scares you so much, try to explain what you meant by this:Darling. Of all the feelings I have about you - and I'm sorry to say they are limited by the small amount I know about you - fear comes into none of them. I wouldn't even class it as dislike at this stage. Pity; probably. Pity that such a seemingly smart lad has such an unhappy, lonely life that he is kept awake by his own, self-admitted, physical inadequacy.

Puzzlement, perhaps, that someone whose self-described intellect is "immeasurable" is having such difficulty understanding plain English. Still, if you're looking for it to be "meaningful", I don't blame you.

Scared, never. Not mentally, and indisputably not physically, so I'm a little perplexed that you keep bringing fear into it. You must have the wrong bloke. If you can't figure out what I mean about something as simple as those sentences you claim to have trouble with, then I begin to doubt both your intellect and your qualifications. I actually don't think you are that stupid, but hell, feel free to keep surprising me.

In the meantime, I'll take the explanation further when it suits me, not you.
:chicken::dl:

Now that is funny! I'm keeping a screen-shot of that. Classic.
If you are incapable of debating me, I have a great idea: don't.Hey a debate is the one thing you might be able to beat me at, don't knock it.

The only reason you're having trouble so far is because you need remedial English lessons. You must have a young cousin or nephew who can assist you by reading my past posts for you.
However, the more moderate views of "Jon The Geek" struck a chord with me, and so his words are now included in my "sig".

That weak tirade is hardly befitting someone whose giant intellect enabled them to produce a book of poetry. That's the kind of poopie-throwing I expect from my 16 year olds. Your English isn't as flash as you like to believe, is it?

Break it down: - a/hole, full of/eats faeces and has sex with pigs. Just boring.

In fact, now that I do break it down, even my 16 year olds could do better. Crikey doc, Marquis de Carabas and Shemp make a career out of sexual activities with goats, using it as an insult is very lame and not really worthy of what I'd been led to expect.

Even Articulett did a far better job of flaming and she's not only almost illiterate, but also American.

And the final admission?

The one clever line belongs to someone else.

Sorry doc, but you're a joke. I'd been led to expect a decent flame, instead, I get an old Zippo, its flint almost worn away, struggling to pitifully create even a visible flame.

Keep trying, young chap.

[The Atheist]

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

Sensible discussion? In here?

Mate, you really do need to wise up. For sensible discussion, you need to go to Internet Infidels, or somewhere where people are able to have actual debates. At IIDB they have rules and rooms for just that - sensible debates.

This is the Randi Forum, where a small clique of posters rule and the word "sensible" has no place. (Most beautifully described as "The Kool Kids KliqueTM) If you want to start a cheerleading team, this is the right place, but it's clearly not the one for sensible discussion - unless, of course, you wish to agree with every word uttered by a bunch of boring twats*.

*I am NOT applying that term universally, or excepting me from it, but there are - as I'm sure you've noticed - people here worthy of debate. This place is a lot like Stormfront - none of those worthy of debate belong to the KKK. Here, it's just a different KKK.

[The Atheist]

I just went to the chatroom, ...

Surprise level that Dr Adequate visits internet chat rooms/

0.0000000

[articulett]

Then I suggest you demonstrate that understanding by sensible debate.


This would imply that you would understand sensible debate. There is no evidence that you have engaged any. This forum is filled with back and forth discussion of Dr. Adequate--no one but those whom no one else seems to even understand has made accusations about his debating skills or his science.

You have demonstrated no social competence, no debating competence, no scientific competence, no credibility, and not even a comprehensible "hypothesize" that anyone can sum up.

Irony. I see it as evidence of a creationist.

[articulett]

Then I suggest you demonstrate that understanding by sensible debate.


This would imply that you would understand sensible debate. There is no evidence that you have engaged any. This forum is filled with back and forth discussion of Dr. Adequate--no one but those whom no one else seems to even understand has made accusations about his debating skills or his science.

You have demonstrated no social competence, no debating competence, no scientific competence, no credibility, and not even a comprehensible "hypothesize" that anyone can sum up.

Irony. I see it as evidence of a creationist.

[The Atheist]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377455a24061f109.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2607)

Time: 20**/4/15. USA. UT 17-40
Location: Internet chat board/forum

Articulett: Did you enjoy the game on Sunday?
Poster: Nah, I thought the 49ers sucked. Threw backwards all day
Articulett: You're full of crap and therefore a creationist.

Genius.

[kjkent1]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!

[delphi_ote]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!
Yes. Please. Let's get back to the incredibly productive discussion about ev and evolution. We were so close to a breakthrough with our creationist friends. All we need now to show them once and for all they are wrong is a time machine and a notebook big enough to write the complete history of every molecule in the universe in. Don't let personal quibbles get in the way of such reasonable evidentiary standards. We only need to know everything there is to know about everything to prove to them the world wasn't created by a giant imaginary being. That seems perfectly fair to me and has yielded such an interesting discussion so far.

Oops. My sarcasm knob must be stuck on "maximum" again.

[The Atheist]

Please everyone, stop with the flame war, already!

No worries, mate!

If you feel that now, after a mere 54 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2116066#post2116066) pages of it, it's the appropriate time to stop, I'm into that. Maybe a couple of thousand posts late, but better late than never!

Cheers.

[The Atheist]

Yes. Please. Let's get back to the incredibly productive discussion about ev and evolution. We were so close to a breakthrough with our creationist friends. All we need now to show them once and for all they are wrong is a time machine and a notebook big enough to write the complete history of every molecule in the universe in. Don't let personal quibbles get in the way of such reasonable evidentiary standards. We only need to know everything there is to know about everything to prove to them the world wasn't created by a giant imaginary being. That seems perfectly fair to me and has yielded such an interesting discussion so far.

Oops. My sarcasm knob must be stuck on "maximum" again.

:bigclap

Exceedingly well said. Flames are so much more productive. I knew we'd agree on something, one day!

[John Hewitt]

Sensible discussion? In here?

Mate, you really do need to wise up. For sensible discussion, you need to go to Internet Infidels, or somewhere where people are able to have actual debates. At IIDB they have rules and rooms for just that - sensible debates.

This is the Randi Forum, where a small clique of posters rule and the word "sensible" has no place. (Most beautifully described as "The Kool Kids KliqueTM) If you want to start a cheerleading team, this is the right place, but it's clearly not the one for sensible discussion - unless, of course, you wish to agree with every word uttered by a bunch of boring twats*.

*I am NOT applying that term universally, or excepting me from it, but there are - as I'm sure you've noticed - people here worthy of debate. This place is a lot like Stormfront - none of those worthy of debate belong to the KKK. Here, it's just a different KKK.

I take your point and I may look into IIDB. Nonetheless, I support kjkent1's call to stop this flaming. He, at least, has been consistently sensible in his postings.

[The Atheist]

I take your point and I may look into IIDB.Well, I hardly ever post there, so that raises the standard immediately!

[Mercutio]

You would own the award.
[snip]
And so on and so forth...

Should that post win the award (and should I decide I want the prize), I will summon the ghost of my Greek lawyer and her crocodiles. Where there is a will, as they say, there are several lawyers.

M

However, if someone should nominate it at this point, they would be nominating your poem, and I if Tricky included it properly as yours, I would be honor-bound to fight for your right to the prize.

m

[LostAngeles]

Surprise level that Dr Adequate visits internet chat rooms/

0.0000000

Why don't you stop in sometime, get warm. I'm sure all the forumites there would love to have you.

[Jon the Geek]

And the final admission?

The one clever line belongs to someone else.
Please, please, PLEASE don't call things I say "clever." Being both an American and a JREF chatroom addict, I'm afraid that might get me beat up.

[articulett]

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

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

Correct. But the people who are most in need of this information have shown a complete lack of capability for learning such information because they have concluded they already know all there is to know on logical fallacies as well as science. Remember, the least competent are most likely to over estimate their competency. Oddly, these people never actually offer an argument or claim that one can fallaciously invalidate via ad hom--You have to at least be able to understand a claim in order to address it. Those who fling the most ad homs seem to also be the ones who are certain they aren't while bemoaning the fact that others are doing it to them.

But we are actually insulting them as many before have done according to one such member's sig line and the general consensus of many chatroom conversations--and these can be construed as ad homs, but not argument use the fallacy of an ad hominen attack--because no statement of coherency has been offered by "the Atheist", Kleinman, Hewitt, or Hammy--the annoying creationists drawn to this thread. And I'm quite sure "the Atheist" is not an atheist at all--he's the stereotyped version of what a creationist might think an atheist is--and I suspect another dishonest and evasive strategy by those who feel morally superior in lying for their "intelligent designer".

Of course, it is refreshing to find the most intelligent, honest, and engaging forum members on the same page as I am regarding: who is deranged, dishonest, and incapable of actual debate. How many people have engaged in conversations with the above and wondered if it was something about themselves...

It isn't. Nobody understands these guys. They do not engage in actual dialogue with anyone. If you find them impossibly arrogant, dishonest, obfuscating, and incompetent--then you are in the majority. If you think they are actually communicating something--see if you can sum it up for the rest of us-- although they are united in their hatred of "evolutionary fact"--they do not actually seem to understand one another's contentions or arguments. I suspect they all think the other creationists are wacky--but each thinks their own "argument" (that no one seems to understand) is the real key for showing just how wrong evolution is.

[kjkent1]

I take your point and I may look into IIDB. Nonetheless, I support kjkent1's call to stop this flaming. He, at least, has been consistently sensible in his postings.Ditto. -- off to check out IIDB!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Surprise level that Dr Adequate visits internet chat rooms
You say this like it's a bad thing?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, I hardly ever post there, so that raises the standard immediately!
I've only posted there once, so together we've made the place great!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So yeah, I agree this thread has become a bit of an insult fest. Let's calm down a bit and get back to the subject(s) at hand, assuming there are any subjects anyone cares to discuss. It's also become a bit of repeat theatre.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

So yeah, I agree this thread has become a bit of an insult fest. Let's calm down a bit and get back to the subject(s) at hand, assuming there are any subjects anyone cares to discuss. Always the optimist, eh?

It's also become a bit of repeat theatre. Indeed. In fact, if you want to get back to the biology, you could probably make kleinman's next half-dozen posts yourself.

Or if you like I could write a computer program to generate them.

[The Atheist]

Why don't you stop in sometime, get warm. I'm sure all the forumites there would love to have you.

Which one is it? There are 67 million results at Google for chat room and it'll take me a while to get through them.

(And don't bother suggesting it to try and get rid of me, that won't work either!)

Is there a profanity filter? I work much better without them.

[The Atheist]

Please, please, PLEASE don't call things I say "clever." Being both an American and a JREF chatroom addict, I'm afraid that might get me beat up.Hey, there's clever, then there's clever.

One request, though.

We're all agreed that the insult-fest is over, but could you please post it in here as I need to have it in a post to copy it into my sig and it's is easily the best I've seen.

If anyone threatens to beat you up, send 'em to me.

No wuckin' furries!

[hammegk]

OK, trying once again ...

No, but actually reading it would be. ....

The technique is simple: Compare two genomes from two different species. The areas with the most accumulated differences will be the ones with no selection pressure and therefore, inactive.
Damned if that has any bearing on the question I asked, which was
What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years (of evoutionary change)? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

The keywords include medical breakthroughs and depend on millions of years.

I asked in response to the assertion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Richard
Genuine ... medical breakthroughs have been made by comparative genomic studies that are based on the assumption that both coding and non-coding sections of the genome are subject to evolutionary change over millions of years.

I'm requesting clinical (or should I say, useful) medical breakthroughs.

[The Atheist]

I've only posted there once, so together we've made the place great!

~~ Paul

:clap: :clap: :clap:

So yeah, I agree this thread has become a bit of an insult fest. Let's calm down a bit and get back to the subject(s) at hand, assuming there are any subjects anyone cares to discuss. It's also become a bit of repeat theatre.

~~ Paul

ditto.

Done.

[articulett]

OK, trying once again ...


Damned if that has any bearing on the question I asked, which was
What medical breakthroughs depend on millions of years (of evoutionary change)? Is it not really years or decades of evolutionary change for any such breakthroughs you might cite?

The keywords include medical breakthroughs and depend on millions of years.

I asked in response to the assertion:



I'm requesting clinical (or should I say, useful) medical breakthroughs.

The problem is your question. And rest assured, you are not requesting anything. You want to pretend the inability to answer means that your intelligent designer is real. Actually all medical breakthroughs take eons of evolutionary change....because it took eons for humans to evolve to the point where they developed language and math and measurement...and then science and the scientific method--an evolving system in itself which is refined as we learn the ways humans commonly make errors in logic (in case you haven't noticed.) The stuff that works sticks around and grows and is added too--like math. The stuff that doesn't like Zeus and rain dances fade away.

Today, there was a press release showing that we can turn on a particular gene in a mouse and reverse the devastating effects of a terrible neurological disease called Rhett syndrome...But first we had to discover chromosomes and then DNA and then the genes and what they coded for and find animal models that expresses the same protein in the brain... DNA tests, forensic tests, Paternity tests, tissue typing--all dependent on what we've come to understand about evolution...all honed through time. Germ theory? We had to invent microscopes to see them...but we figured out they were there before we ever did...we figured out they reproduced similarly to the cells in our body before we got the evidence which proved it. We later learned that their dna codes for the same amino acids as our own cells.

You ask the most idiotic questions--All medical break throughs involving life forms have to do with years of accumulated evolutionary data. The more we know, the more tools we have for finding out more.

So what great results has your "intelligent design" hypothesis brought to this planet except to make arrogant and ignorant individuals who think they are more moral because they've been able to find credibility in an absolutely unbelievable and rather barbaric and nonsensical myth? Does it have a single breakthrough going for it. Does any creationist "hypothesis"?

Every medical breakthrough involves millions of years of evolution...and eons of accumulated data that no intelligent designer thought to mention. It is the same truth for all humans and whether one believes in it or not it's still true. Just like the earth was a sphere long before humans evolved and way longer before they learned to describe and correctly interpret it's physical properties.

[delphi_ote]

Or if you like I could write a computer program to generate them.
while(true) {
if(skeptic.argument.equals("ev shows information gain works in evolution"))
print "Ev proves evolution can't work fast enough!";
if(skeptic.argument.equals("ev is not a complete model of evolution"))
print "Information gain is impossible in evolution!";
else
print randomLogicalFallacyOrAdHom();
}

Someone will have to write that last subroutine, but I think I've got a decent outline.

[delphi_ote]

The keywords include medical breakthroughs and depend on millions of years.
:eye-poppi
That really just suggest a stunning level of ignorance, Hammy. I'm sorry. I suggest maybe you go outside. We have these things called newspapers. If you pick one up and read it, you can catch up to the rest of civilization. You are at least 30 years behind modern medicine. We're talking about the fundamental forces that formed all of the molecular structures in our bodies. Can you really imagine for a second that studying and understanding those won't help (or hasn't already helped) us make medical breakthroughs?

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the thought someone like you has access to the internet yet somehow remains completely ignorant. You could answer your own question by typing those keywords into Google for Christ's sake! I know it has more letters than Randi, but can't you make the slightest effort to educate yourself?

[John Hewitt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I think I see what you are saying and I think I agree. It is a general thing that data systems can contain subsystems or can be subsystems to higher systems. This is why you can have these levels of abstraction in software and I think similar things happen in evolution.
As I see it, the way this works in evolution is that you start of with "hardware," a mixture of organic chemicals. You also have a data input, which is the sun. (The sun because it is the only data input powerful enough to need no separate power supply or amplifier.) The "program" arises from the properties of organic chemistry and from the selectivity associated with high energy events on the prebiotic earth.

You then let the selection and interpretation processes of evolution run and the chemical oscillations will evolve. In due course this will build a store of accumulated, selected information (which, according to soem approaches to evolutionary epistemology, is "knowledge") and build up higher levels of abstraction as it does so. Rather like a computer beginning with machine code, then assembler, then high level language etc. In biology, this will give you the multilevel selection that Sloan Wilson (and I) talk about.
However, a key thing to notice is that this picture doesn't make genes into replicators; in fact, on this basis, evolution doesn't actually need a physical replicator at all (though they can be present) and genes are just one phenomenon appearing at the biological level of evolution.