Annoying creationists

[articulett]

This was the scientific fraud mentioned in the newsletter:

MORE COLUMBIA SCANDAL

Reader Bruce Flamm, M.D. – see www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html#i10 for one of many mentions – writes:

This may be too much to believe, but the scandal surrounding the "Columbia Miracle Study" aka the "Pray for Pregnancy" study, has yet another amazing new twist. Recall that the study had three authors. However, Dr. Lobo at Columbia now says he had nothing to do with the research and had his name removed from the paper. Daniel Wirth was convicted of fraud and resides in Federal Prison.

That leaves only Dr. Cha, an internationally famous infertility specialist, and he still claims the supernatural study is legitimate. Because Cha refuses to admit that the research is flawed or fraudulent, Dr. Devoe at the JRM [Journal for Reproductive Medicine] steadfastly refuses to retract the absurd publication.

Here's the news: I have just been informed that Dr. Cha now has major problems with another publication in a different medical journal. I can't comment on the details but this scandal will probably be reported in the national media within the next few days.


I don't know if you might wish to add this to your compendium of scientific fraud or if you find this more egregious or less egregious than the failure to mention your hypothesis amongst the competitors.
If you’re not familiar with this scientific farce and the absolute refusal of Columbia University and the JRM to acknowledge the scandal, do a search and learn about it. This is suppression of scientific truth and reality fostered by the “faith-based” bureaucracy.

[Mr. Scott]

Oh, you are looking for the touchy/feely answer to the question for your touchy/feely theory . Well the touchy/feely answer to that question is, I would be amazed since there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and no selection process that can transform an existing gene with a given function to a new gene with a totally different function.

OK, you would be amazed. :rolleyes:

Is that touchy/feely enough for you?

Mmmm.... Nope! Open your heart, Doctor Kleinman. Evolution loves you!

Why do ask this question?

To see if you are intellectually honest. I got my answer. You aren't.

[Schneibster]

there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginningThis absolutely belongs on page 69.

[John Hewitt]

Can you give a quick run down of the three theories--just the 2 or 3 world title they are referred to by...

These theories are referred to in "A Habit of Lies," that is, they do not refer to the evolution work; they concern cell biology and the mechanism of cell motility. The three theories, by which here one really means models, go by the names

The cytoskeletal model.
The membrane flow model.
The wave model.


The latter being my own work.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I thought I'd add this little gem from Chrisitanforums here:

Originally Posted by LovesTruth
NOTE: I believe the average Christian homeschool student understands the facts of the evolutionary debate better than does the average public school student. I am not talking about theories based upon those facts, but the facts themselves. This goes for both religious and secular theories.

(these responses aren't to LovesTruth's post, but appear later in the thread)
Originally Posted by LuvAslan
how can you say that? There's so many wholes in evolution that I don't understand how anyone can believe that crud.

Originally Posted by LuvAslan
Evolution isn't science. it's a silly theory. I believe MINOR changes can occur in a species, but not ape-to-man sorta changes. God made us. END OF STORY!!! so should all christians forsake God as our maker, just because the secular world says God is wrong and random genetic mutaions is right?

In case any of you are wondering, I checked LuvAslan's profile and yep, she's a Christian homeschool student. :D

[articulett]

I thought I'd add this little gem from Chrisitanforums here:

Originally Posted by LovesTruth
NOTE: I believe the average Christian homeschool student understands the facts of the evolutionary debate better than does the average public school student. I am not talking about theories based upon those facts, but the facts themselves. This goes for both religious and secular theories.

(these responses aren't to LovesTruth's post, but appear later in the thread)
Originally Posted by LuvAslan
how can you say that? There's so many wholes in evolution that I don't understand how anyone can believe that crud.

Originally Posted by LuvAslan
Evolution isn't science. it's a silly theory. I believe MINOR changes can occur in a species, but not ape-to-man sorta changes. God made us. END OF STORY!!! so should all christians forsake God as our maker, just because the secular world says God is wrong and random genetic mutaions is right?

In case any of you are wondering, I checked LuvAslan's profile and yep, she's a Christian homeschool student. :D

Maybe they were put on this earth to amuse us?

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/02/running_on_time.html

Stephen: This is a Christian nation. All the Founding Fathers were fundamentalist Christians.

Chris: All the Founding Fathers were Deists.

Stephen: No, they were fundamentalist Christians.

Chris: Well it depends, if you're home schooled that's correct.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't find baning my head on the wall amusing. Here's a recent OP from christianity.com/forums.

This is what tyranosaur meat looks like:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

This turned up about a year and a half ago; scientists had to break a trex leg bone in half to get it out of a remote area by helicopter and the interior of the bone contained meat not much different than you'd find in a grocery store. Yuppie scientists are now having to devise ad-hoc theories as to how soft tissue could survive for 65 million years, i.e. it's the sort of thing Rodney Dangerfield could have had a field day with.

[kjkent1]

So, what ever happened with the T. Rex soft tissue samples? I've searched the web and there seems to be almost no info about any test results.

Anyone?

[kleinman]

A base substitution which is beneficial would give selective benefit for that creature and improve the likelihood that the creature would reproduce, a base substitution which is detrimental would reduce the selective benefit for that creature and reduce the likelihood that the creature would reproduce, a base substitution which is neutral would not alter the likelihood that the creature can reproduce.So yes, you are defining a base substitution as neutral as one not improving the likelihood of the creature to reproduce, rendering your earlier statement a tautology.
Leave it to an evolutionist to call a definition a tautology. If you find my definition for genetic natural selection as a needless repetition, why don’t you present your own definition for genetic natural selection? Don’t forget to include in your definition a description of how the ancestral gene for insulin evolved from the beginning and while you are at it, you can define the selection process that transforms these genes from one to another.
Unless a mutation gives selective benefit, you can not improve the probabilities of evolving a gene. Beneficial mutations increase the frequency of that gene in the gene pool. Neutral mutations have no affect on the frequency of that gene in the gene pool and detrimental mutations reduce the frequency of that gene in the gene pool.Could you please give examples of substitutions you would consider neutral? And why?
There have already been discussed on this thread some examples. Kotatsu mentioned the redundancy for codons. In that case, a base substitution still codes for the same amino acid giving the identical polypeptide before and after the mutation. Consider the hemoglobin gene and molecule. There are hundreds of variants for this gene and protein in humans alone. These variants can be anywhere from silent to fatal. In some cases these variants can be beneficial such as Hemoglobin S in malaria endemic regions. Since you seem to know a lot about insulin, perhaps you could tell us if there are any variations in human insulin and whether these variants are neutral, beneficial or detrimental?
This is why I argue that when evolving a gene from the beginning, that until that gene does some beneficial function for that creature, the partially evolved gene offers no selective benefit and thus does not increase in frequency in the gene pool. Evolution of this gene from the beginning is dependent on mutation without selectionA gene mutation which is truly neutral according to your definition would actually persist within the gene pool, until it was further influenced by a mutation which would make it beneficial or harmful. This allows the accumulation of many alleles of the gene which may then be of benefit to the creature when subjected to a change in selection pressure.
Look at the example of hemoglobin variants. They do persist but because they don’t have a benefit, these particular alleles don’t dominate the gene pool. Again, consider Hemoglobin S, this gene has benefit in a malaria endemic region but is a detriment in a non-malarial area. Natural selection prevents Hemoglobin A and B from diverging too far before detrimental mutations preventing the molecule from performing normally. Of course, feel free to describe the selection pressure that would transform the hemoglobin gene and molecule to some new form. I’m interested in hearing how selection will maintain beneficial and functional genes through the entire process of transformation.
Unnamed’s selection process is so rapid, we should at least have evolved to the level of Vulcans by now.Our lack of pointy ears and Leonard Nemoy-esque features is on par with the rest of your arguments against evolution. You seem to have a habit of mixing fiction and non-fiction. Just like your creation hypothesis, Star Trek is nothing more than a nice story.
It is your slogan “mutation and natural selection” which is the real fiction we are discussing in this thread. Ev is a marvelous tool which shows why evolutionists have extrapolated this term far beyond what it is capable of doing. Mutation and natural selection is a suitable topic for the SciFi channel but fails as a hard mathematical explanation for the theory of evolution. Ev demonstrates this.
Is that touchy/feely enough for you?Mmmm.... Nope! Open your heart, Doctor Kleinman. Evolution loves you!
I need to get my hip boots on when you shovel this stuff.
Why do ask this question?To see if you are intellectually honest. I got my answer. You aren't.
You evolutionists are having trouble with 2 + 2 = 4. How would you know intellectual honesty?
there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginningThis absolutely belongs on page 69.
Not quite, it belongs on page 1, 2, 3, … to the end of this discussion. So you might as well get used to hearing it.

I want to compliment the posters on this thread. You have shown much more decorum this past weekend then last weekend.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So, what ever happened with the T. Rex soft tissue samples? I've searched the web and there seems to be almost no info about any test results.

They weren't actually soft tissue. They were reconstituted fossil remains that resembled vascular structures. I can find the primary material for you in about 14 hours or so, but if you can't wait that long, Google "t-rex blood" and check the links that are not AnswersinGenesis.com and you can see what the real story is.

[kjkent1]

It is your slogan “mutation and natural selection” which is the real fiction we are discussing in this thread. Ev is a marvelous tool which shows why evolutionists have extrapolated this term far beyond what it is capable of doing. Mutation and natural selection is a suitable topic for the SciFi channel but fails as a hard mathematical explanation for the theory of evolution. Ev demonstrates this.Speaking of slogans, if God is all knowing and almighty, then randomness in the universe is entirely illusory, and thus so is the entire substantive study of probability. What follows from this, is that the use of mathematics to explain evolutionary processes, or any process which has probability as a component is a non sequitur.

Gee Alan, that would completely destroy your entire argument, because your explanatory tool is actually unable to explain anything. Otherwise, God is limited.

What a bummer.

[Dr Richard]

Leave it to an evolutionist to call a definition a tautology. If you find my definition for genetic natural selection as a needless repetition, why don’t you present your own definition for genetic natural selection? Don’t forget to include in your definition a description of how the ancestral gene for insulin evolved from the beginning and while you are at it, you can define the selection process that transforms these genes from one to another.

What would you consider an acceptable gene sequence for insulin again Kleinman?


There have already been discussed on this thread some examples. Kotatsu mentioned the redundancy for codons. In that case, a base substitution still codes for the same amino acid giving the identical polypeptide before and after the mutation.

Surely you are not actually saying that mutations within the genome that still code for the same protein are equivalent? And could have nothing to do with transcriptional regulation, DNA tertiary structure, histone binding...

Consider the hemoglobin gene and molecule. There are hundreds of variants for this gene and protein in humans alone.

Interesting assertion. Mutation and natural selection would account for this variety. Why did God do it that way again?

These variants can be anywhere from silent to fatal. In some cases these variants can be beneficial such as Hemoglobin S in malaria endemic regions.

Evolution in action!

Since you seem to know a lot about insulin, perhaps you could tell us if there are any variations in human insulin and whether these variants are neutral, beneficial or detrimental?


Oh yes, back to insulin. What would you accept as a starting definition of insulin again?

Look at the example of hemoglobin variants. They do persist but because they don’t have a benefit, these particular alleles don’t dominate the gene pool. Again, consider Hemoglobin S, this gene has benefit in a malaria endemic region but is a detriment in a non-malarial area. Natural selection prevents Hemoglobin A and B from diverging too far before detrimental mutations preventing the molecule from performing normally. Of course, feel free to describe the selection pressure that would transform the hemoglobin gene and molecule to some new form.

This paper descibes the evolution of a nw Hb variant in Asia: Extended Linkage Disequilibrium Surrounding the Hemoglobin E Variant Due to Malarial Selection (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1182083). The selection pressure is again malaria as documented.

I’m interested in hearing how selection will maintain beneficial and functional genes through the entire process of transformation.


Which is stupid as neutral mutations that persist re also a possibility according to your own definition.


[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]....Mutation and natural selection is a suitable topic for the SciFi channel....

But the super powerful alien designer of life on earth is not???

P.S. could you please stop typing in Times New Roman. I know you are trying to be an annoying creationist, but to use a serif font is beyond the pale...

[kleinman]

It is your slogan “mutation and natural selection” which is the real fiction we are discussing in this thread. Ev is a marvelous tool which shows why evolutionists have extrapolated this term far beyond what it is capable of doing. Mutation and natural selection is a suitable topic for the SciFi channel but fails as a hard mathematical explanation for the theory of evolution. Ev demonstrates this.Speaking of slogans, if God is all knowing and almighty, then randomness in the universe is entirely illusory, and thus so is the entire substantive study of probability. What follows from this, is that the use of mathematics to explain evolutionary processes, or any process which has probability as a component is a non sequitur.
Albert Einstein said something to the effect that God does not roll dice. The use of probability theory has proven to be of some use in the prediction of behaviors of physical systems. I don’t think any scientist would say that probably theory gives an exact solution to these types of problems. If you are trying to argue that my use of Dr Schneider’s ev program has no validity because God is all knowing and almighty, it is you who is arguing by non-sequitur. It is an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model that is showing your own theory to be mathematically impossible.
Gee Alan, that would completely destroy your entire argument, because your explanatory tool is actually unable to explain anything. Otherwise, God is limited.

What a bummer.
It is evolutionist mathematics that is showing the impossibility of the theory of evolution. The bummer for you is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and no selection process that transforms a gene from one form to an entirely new form.
Leave it to an evolutionist to call a definition a tautology. If you find my definition for genetic natural selection as a needless repetition, why don’t you present your own definition for genetic natural selection? Don’t forget to include in your definition a description of how the ancestral gene for insulin evolved from the beginning and while you are at it, you can define the selection process that transforms these genes from one to another.What would you consider an acceptable gene sequence for insulin again Kleinman?
There are numerous acceptable sequences for insulin; you can start with the sequences for human, bovine and porcine insulin. Since you believe all these sequences arouse form an ancestral gene, perhaps you can tell how this ancestral gene arose.
There have already been discussed on this thread some examples. Kotatsu mentioned the redundancy for codons. In that case, a base substitution still codes for the same amino acid giving the identical polypeptide before and after the mutation.Surely you are not actually saying that mutations within the genome that still code for the same protein are equivalent? And could have nothing to do with transcriptional regulation, DNA tertiary structure, histone binding...
I am not saying that the base sequences are identical but the protein sequences are certainly identical for these cases. Perhaps different codons which code for a particular amino acid may affect transcriptional regulation. I haven’t limited genetic sequences to transcription alone. So how does this describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?
Consider the hemoglobin gene and molecule. There are hundreds of variants for this gene and protein in humans alone.Interesting assertion. Mutation and natural selection would account for this variety. Why did God do it that way again?
I am not asserting my creationist beliefs as science; you try to cloak mutation and natural selection as your proof of the theory of evolution. Mutation and natural selection does occur but in much more limited ways than what you try to assert. The problem with your assertion is it has no mathematical basis yet you still want to claim it as being scientific.
These variants can be anywhere from silent to fatal. In some cases these variants can be beneficial such as Hemoglobin S in malaria endemic regions.Evolution in action!
Correction, microevolution in action!
Since you seem to know a lot about insulin, perhaps you could tell us if there are any variations in human insulin and whether these variants are neutral, beneficial or detrimental?Oh yes, back to insulin. What would you accept as a starting definition of insulin again?
Choose whatever sequence you want for the ancestral gene, you don’t have a selection process to evolve the sequence.
Look at the example of hemoglobin variants. They do persist but because they don’t have a benefit, these particular alleles don’t dominate the gene pool. Again, consider Hemoglobin S, this gene has benefit in a malaria endemic region but is a detriment in a non-malarial area. Natural selection prevents Hemoglobin A and B from diverging too far before detrimental mutations preventing the molecule from performing normally. Of course, feel free to describe the selection pressure that would transform the hemoglobin gene and molecule to some new form.This paper descibes the evolution of a nw Hb variant in Asia: Extended Linkage Disequilibrium Surrounding the Hemoglobin E Variant Due to Malarial Selection. The selection pressure is again malaria as documented.
You evolutionists have a habit of extrapolating microevolutionary events to macroevolution. Why don’t you describe to us the selection pressure that would evolve a gene from the beginning? Or is that one of the minor gaps in your theory?
I’m interested in hearing how selection will maintain beneficial and functional genes through the entire process of transformation.Which is stupid as neutral mutations that persist re also a possibility according to your own definition.
It was you who drew the conclusion that neutral mutations persist, if we recall what you said:
A gene mutation which is truly neutral according to your definition would actually persist within the gene pool, until it was further influenced by a mutation which would make it beneficial or harmful. This allows the accumulation of many alleles of the gene which may then be of benefit to the creature when subjected to a change in selection pressure.
Since neutral mutations aren’t selected against, they can persist long enough to be observed but since they a not selected for, there is nothing to press for an increased frequency in the population.

I’m the creationist in this discussion yet I am the only one who has offered a definition for natural selection. When are one of you evolutionists going to offer a definition for natural selection, after all, it’s your theory.
....Mutation and natural selection is a suitable topic for the SciFi channel....But the super powerful alien designer of life on earth is not???
Hey slow poke, you are the one claiming you have the scientific basis for your theory. I guess that science doesn’t include any mathematics.
P.S. could you please stop typing in Times New Roman. I know you are trying to be an annoying creationist, but to use a serif font is beyond the pale...
Is there nothing you evolutionists don’t whine and complain about?

[kjkent1]

Albert Einstein said something to the effect that God does not roll dice. The use of probability theory has proven to be of some use in the prediction of behaviors of physical systems. I don’t think any scientist would say that probably theory gives an exact solution to these types of problems. If you are trying to argue that my use of Dr Schneider’s ev program has no validity because God is all knowing and almighty, it is you who is arguing by non-sequitur. It is an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model that is showing your own theory to be mathematically impossible.I have the perfect quote as a response to the above. "Your logic is impeccable...OOPS! I mean imperceptible." -- Alan, M. Kleinman, Ph.D, M.D.

As I'm sure you're aware, Einstein lost the debate with Bohr over the dice. So, unless you can defeat the uncertainty principle, you must either conclude that (1) God is not almighty, because He is not completely in control of the universe, or (2) God is intentionally illogical. If the former, then God is no longer the default condition which must exist if evolution is false. If the latter, then your precious mathematics are rendered totally worthless as a scientific tool, because God can simply change the rules whenever required.

So, I agree, someone's logic is remarkably faulty: yours, and completely so.

You can argue all day, upside and down, that mathematics proves evolution false, but as demonstrated above, unless you are prepared to accept that your Lord is not actually divine, then your mathematical proof is utterly worthless, no matter how elegant or obvious it may seem.

Because if your proof were valid, then life would not exist. Thus, the existence of life, disproves your theory, no matter how dear you may hold to it.

Highly annoying to be sure, but that's the way the Kleinman crumbles.

[kleinman]

Albert Einstein said something to the effect that God does not roll dice. The use of probability theory has proven to be of some use in the prediction of behaviors of physical systems. I don’t think any scientist would say that probably theory gives an exact solution to these types of problems. If you are trying to argue that my use of Dr Schneider’s ev program has no validity because God is all knowing and almighty, it is you who is arguing by non-sequitur. It is an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model that is showing your own theory to be mathematically impossible.I have the perfect quote as a response to the above. "Your logic is impeccable...OOPS! I mean imperceptible." -- Alan, M. Kleinman, Ph.D, M.D.
Finally you have provided a well thought out response.
As I'm sure you're aware, Einstein lost the debate with Bohr over the dice. So, unless you can defeat the uncertainty principle, you must either conclude that (1) God is not almighty, because He is not completely in control of the universe, or (2) God is intentionally illogical. If the former, then God is no longer the default condition which must exist if evolution is false. If the latter, then your precious mathematics are rendered totally worthless as a scientific tool, because God can simply change the rules whenever required.
Perhaps you missed my point about probability theory. Even though it has some utility in predicting behavior of physical systems, it does not necessarily represent reality exactly. Statistical mechanics give a way of addressing complex physical systems that can not be analyzed using a deterministic approach. In the same way, the mathematics of random mutations and natural selection must be addressed using the tools of probability theory because of the way the theory of evolution is posed.

You and other evolutionist keep trying to attribute the precious mathematics of ev to me but I will not take credit for the mathematics worked out by Dr Schneider nor will I take credit for the excellent computer programming skills demonstrated by Paul Anagnostopoulos. It is this mathematics and computer simulation which shows the flaws in the theory of evolution. Of course, you can correct these flaws by describing to us the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning and the selection process that would evolve a gene from one form to a totally unique form but alas, you evolutionist continue to disappoint. Perhaps Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle will rescue your theory since you seem to have given up on string theory.
So, I agree, someone's logic is remarkably faulty: yours, and completely so.
I am only the messenger.
You can argue all day, upside and down, that mathematics proves evolution false, but as demonstrated above, unless you are prepared to accept that your Lord is not actually divine, then your mathematical proof is utterly worthless, no matter how elegant or obvious it may seem.
Little gator, when God executes judgment, there will be no rock to hide under. I am not the one to determine the divinity of God. What I can do is show using evolutionist mathematics and computer modeling the impossibility of the theory of evolution.
Because if your proof were valid, then life would not exist. Thus, the existence of life, disproves your theory, no matter how dear you may hold to it.
The only thing I have proved is that life could not have arisen by abiogenesis and that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. I have also shown there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from one form to another. In addition the ev computer model shows that the accumulation of information in a genome by random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve by this mechanism. There is no basic science to the theory of evolution. This mansion has a nice roof and landscaping but no foundation.
Highly annoying to be sure, but that's the way the Kleinman crumbles.
My arguments have a mathematical foundation; the theory of evolution does not have this foundation. I didn’t lay this mathematical foundation, Dr Schneider did this. We will see which crumbles. The fact that I have annoyed you, well let’s call that icing on the cake.

[T'ai Chi]

An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence cannot play a role.

Um, O...K..

[kjkent1]

Little gator, when God executes judgment, there will be no rock to hide under. I am not the one to determine the divinity of God. What I can do is show using evolutionist mathematics and computer modeling the impossibility of the theory of evolution.Sometimes form/body language can tell more than substance. Your theological position requiring a judgmental and deterministic universe, your profession as a mechanical engineer, and your prior posts demonstrate that your life is ruled by absolutist black and white thinking.

And, yet, your latest post is a surprisingly disorganized mess. I've push your hot button -- no doubt about it. You can't really counter my logic, and it's bothering you to the point where you will undoubtedly resort to prayer for resolution. Bottom line is that your God is either intentionally deceitful or non-existent, and your own mathematics proves this incontrovertibly.

Why would a God who knows all need to judge his creations for their acts and/or omissions? Answer: He wouldn't, because his creations would have been designed to operate according to God's plan -- even if that plan was that the creations would have free will throughout their lifetime.

Unlike a human game designer, God would know the outcome of His game in advance. He couldn't avoid the knowledge and remain all powerfully involved in the game. Whereas a human designer would not be able to control all of the variables, so he would just have to watch and wait to see how things turned out, and perhaps change the programming from time to time.

Alan, as a theist, your alternatives really suck, but that's not my problem. Your version of God makes you less than irrelevant -- you are merely mouthing the words of a divine puppet master, as am I -- and every moment of your existence -- and ALL existence -- was predetermined before the beginning of time itself.

Judgment? LOL! that's a friggin' riot. If God plans to punish his puppets, then God has a serious mental disorder.

Use your considerable brainpower to advance the knowledge of humanity. If there are holes in evolution, then help fix them.

Sitting around pontificating that evolution is impossible in the face of the existence of life is a waste of valuable life, sir.

Either we are here due to absolutely random chance or we are here due to a completely predetermined plan. If the truth is the former, then at least we have a reason for being. If the latter, we may as well not exist at all.

[kleinman]

Little gator, when God executes judgment, there will be no rock to hide under. I am not the one to determine the divinity of God. What I can do is show using evolutionist mathematics and computer modeling the impossibility of the theory of evolution.Sometimes form/body language can tell more than substance. Your theological position requiring a judgmental and deterministic universe, your profession as a mechanical engineer, and your prior posts demonstrate that your life is ruled by absolutist black and white thinking.
For someone whose motto is “coming to a courtroom near you”, your ability to judge this collection of mush which evolutionists like to call evidence for their theory of evolution is quite weak. Your science is touchy/feely; I prefer science with mathematical precision, 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. You believe that judgment only occurs in the courtroom, I believe that we will stand before God in judgment. You are correct; words do reveal what is our hearts.
And, yet, your latest post is a surprisingly disorganized mess. I've push your hot button -- no doubt about it. You can't really counter my logic, and it's bothering you to the point where you will undoubtedly resort to prayer for resolution. Bottom line is that your God is either intentionally deceitful or non-existent, and your own mathematics proves this incontrovertibly.
I’m not sure what hot button you have pushed. In fact your posts make me laugh. You defend your theory of evolution with string theory and now the uncertainty principle.
Why would a God who knows all need to judge his creations for their acts and/or omissions? Answer: He wouldn't, because his creations would have been designed to operate according to God's plan -- even if that plan was that the creations would have free will throughout their lifetime.
God did not create us for judgment, God created us out of love. We can not approach God on our terms because of God’s holiness and it is God’s holiness that requires judgment for sin. God paid the price for that sin so that we can have forgiveness and mercy by sending his Son to die for our sins but you have to accept it.
Alan, as a theist, your alternatives really suck, but that's not my problem. Your version of God makes you less than irrelevant -- you are merely mouthing the words of a divine puppet master, as am I -- and every moment of your existence -- and ALL existence -- was predetermined before the beginning of time itself.
Kjkent1, what you don’t understand is that we are all slaves to something. I figure it is best to be servant to the God who created us, but I confess that I am not a very good servant.
Judgment? LOL! that's a friggin' riot. If God plans to punish his puppets, then God has a serious mental disorder.
I keep telling you; God did not create us for judgment but for love. Turn to God and seek His purpose and you will find this out. I strongly doubt the creator of our brains has a mental disorder.
Use your considerable brainpower to advance the knowledge of humanity. If there are holes in evolution, then help fix them.
You want to advance humanity, read the Bible; it tells us what we have to do to fix humanity. With respects to the holes in the theory of evolution, the theory is nothing but a hole.
Sitting around pontificating that evolution is impossible in the face of the existence of life is a waste of valuable life, sir.
What now, you are abandoning string theory and the uncertainty principle and using the brute force logic that life exists therefore the theory of evolution is true. What powerful scientific reasoning you demonstrate. Nothing pompous about your logic.
Either we are here due to absolutely random chance or we are here due to a completely predetermined plan. If the truth is the former, then at least we have a reason for being. If the latter, we may as well not exist at all.
Nothing black or white about that! If you go by God’s predetermined plan, you will have a real mansion with a foundation and you will find joy and peace, even in the midst of the storm.

I guess I’ll have to wait at least one more day to have some evolutionist describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

[kjkent1]

For someone whose motto is “coming to a courtroom near you”, your ability to judge this collection of mush which evolutionists like to call evidence for their theory of evolution is quite weak. Your science is touchy/feely; I prefer science with mathematical precision, 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. You believe that judgment only occurs in the courtroom, I believe that we will stand before God in judgment. You are correct; words do reveal what is our hearts.Evolution is based on experimental observation of changes which can be explained by random mutation and natural selection, including all of the other well-established methods by when genes change over time. Your faith is based on pure magic -- something from nothing -- and nothing else. Only one of us is in the business of touchy-feely, and that someone is you.

I’m not sure what hot button you have pushed. In fact your posts make me laugh. You defend your theory of evolution with string theory and now the uncertainty principle.Oh, I've pushed your hot button, and hard. Otherwise, you wouldn't have allowed this discussion to "devolve" into a religious rant -- but now you have, and you are gonna get your ass handed to you, because you cannot scientifically support your faith. It's always just a matter of time before the emotion of the zealot is unleashed and demonstrates the unreasonablness of its proponent. If you were on the stand and you made a response as you have here, you would be disqualified as an expert. Game over, doctor.

The best that you can ever do in an argument against science, even with your scientific knowledge, is to pick at the temporary supports of your opponents. You can never build your own scientific structure, because Christianity has no affirmative scientific support. It cannot -- by definition, because God is beyond measurement, and science is restricted to what is measurable.


Quantum uncertainty is a demonstrable scientific fact. If the many worlds interpretation is accurate, then every quantum event since the beginning of this universe created another universe in which an alternative quantum event occured. Given this, some universe will have inevitably produced life from inorganic chemicals, even if all the other universes failed to do so. And, if we happen to inhabit that one universe where life occurred by random chance, then that is all that is required, There is nothing unreasonable or illogical about this construct (and it doesn't require string theory at all). On the other hand, your position, which is that God simply changes the rules of the universe by application of will alone, to achieve his "plan," is blisteringly absurd, and contains nothing scientific whatsoever. It is the antithesis of science -- something which has been routinely demonstrated throughout history, every time your Church has gained control over a society.


But, I'll offer you the following challenge: mathematically prove God's existence and I will believe.
God did not create us for judgment, God created us out of love. We can not approach God on our terms because of God’s holiness and it is God’s holiness that requires judgment for sin. God paid the price for that sin so that we can have forgiveness and mercy by sending his Son to die for our sins but you have to accept it.And, your scientific proof for this is _______ (fill in the blank)?

Kjkent1, what you don’t understand is that we are all slaves to something. I figure it is best to be servant to the God who created us, but I confess that I am not a very good servant.You are now clearly within my purview of expertise. The definition of slavery is: "the labor on behalf of another by threat or fear of physical force or legal coercion." I am the slave of no one and no thing. If you are, then let me know, and I will be happy to represent you as plaintiff.

I keep telling you; God did not create us for judgment but for love. Turn to God and seek His purpose and you will find this out. I strongly doubt the creator of our brains has a mental disorder.If the creator of our brains judges us for our sins, then he is clearly disordered, because he created our sinful nature. I would go even farther and suggest that if he judges us at all, then he is the personification of the very evil which He supposedly rejects, because he has made us capable of that evil, and then he punishes for doing precisely what he made us capable of accomplishing. In human terms this would be equal to capital punishment as a sentence for behavior which no human could possibly avoid -- after all, we are all sinners, aren't we, Alan?

But wait, we have free will -- only, we can't because God knows all, and if He gives us our heads, then He relinquishes control and is no longer all knowing. What a masterful God you have invented, doctor. Either a sadistic madman, or not God at all -- no other choice, my man -- none at all.

You want to advance humanity, read the Bible; it tells us what we have to do to fix humanity. With respects to the holes in the theory of evolution, the theory is nothing but a hole.By any reasonable observation of history, the Bible has utterly failed to to fix anything during the past 2,000 years -- except to maintain the supremacy of religious zealots over the masses of populations kept ignorant by the teachings of that Bible.

What now, you are abandoning string theory and the uncertainty principle and using the brute force logic that life exists therefore the theory of evolution is true. What powerful scientific reasoning you demonstrate. Nothing pompous about your logic.There is nothing unscientific about recognizing reality and searching for answers. Quantum uncertainty and string theory are both attempts to scientifically explain what is actually observed. You, on the other hand, choose to try to use symbolic logic to refute observed reality in order to maintain your faith in the face of zero supporting evidence.

Nothing black or white about that! If you go by God’s predetermined plan, you will have a real mansion with a foundation and you will find joy and peace, even in the midst of the storm.Funny how as soon as Christendom took hold in Ancient Rome, the Republic started to go completely to pieces. Funny, how many people died during the Crusades. Funny how many Jews were persecuted in the name of your Son throughout history. Funnier still is how God seems to have a personal dislike for amputees -- He heals all sorts of illnesses and sorrows, but never has He grown back a single leg or arm. Why is that, do you think?

I guess I’ll have to wait at least one more day to have some evolutionist describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.Eventually the answer will be obtained, and it will not be that "God did it." But, if it is, I'll buy you a hat.

PS. While we're at it, as a physican, would you mind explaining how the almighty decided on His awe-inspired design of the female human reproductive system? How, come it hurts so friggin' bad, and how come some many women die from ovarian cancer, matastitized into their intestines so that they expire inhaling their own stool in their last breath?

Your duty as a physician, under the Hippocratic Oath is to "First, do no harm." Apparently, God works in very mysterious ways -- very mysterious indeed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence cannot play a role.

Um, O...K..

Wrong. An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence does not need to play a role.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hey Kleinman

Did you OD on faith pills at the weekend?

[John Hewitt]

I guess I’ll have to wait at least one more day to have some evolutionist describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.
No, far longer than that but its not either describe the origin of genes or accept religious faith. One can, with validity, critique current expressions of evolutionary theory. One may even say, with validity, that some of those theoreticians have too much faith in their own ideas but however successfully one can make tose criticisms, one cannot make real progress wthout offering alternatives.
What alternative do you offer? What predictions does that alternative make that differ from plain, old evolutionary theory?

[Dr Richard]

Albert Einstein said something to the effect that God does not roll dice. The use of probability theory has proven to be of some use in the prediction of behaviors of physical systems. I don’t think any scientist would say that probably theory gives an exact solution to these types of problems. If you are trying to argue that my use of Dr Schneider’s ev program has no validity because God is all knowing and almighty, it is you who is arguing by non-sequitur. It is an evolutionist written and peer reviewed computer model that is showing your own theory to be mathematically impossible.

It is evolutionist mathematics that is showing the impossibility of the theory of evolution. The bummer for you is that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and no selection process that transforms a gene from one form to an entirely new form.

There are numerous acceptable sequences for insulin; you can start with the sequences for human, bovine and porcine insulin. Since you believe all these sequences arouse form an ancestral gene, perhaps you can tell how this ancestral gene arose.

I am not saying that the base sequences are identical but the protein sequences are certainly identical for these cases. Perhaps different codons which code for a particular amino acid may affect transcriptional regulation. I haven’t limited genetic sequences to transcription alone. So how does this describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning?

I am not asserting my creationist beliefs as science; you try to cloak mutation and natural selection as your proof of the theory of evolution. Mutation and natural selection does occur but in much more limited ways than what you try to assert. The problem with your assertion is it has no mathematical basis yet you still want to claim it as being scientific.

Correction, microevolution in action!

Choose whatever sequence you want for the ancestral gene, you don’t have a selection process to evolve the sequence.

You evolutionists have a habit of extrapolating microevolutionary events to macroevolution. Why don’t you describe to us the selection pressure that would evolve a gene from the beginning? Or is that one of the minor gaps in your theory?

It was you who drew the conclusion that neutral mutations persist, if we recall what you said:

Since neutral mutations aren’t selected against, they can persist long enough to be observed but since they a not selected for, there is nothing to press for an increased frequency in the population.

I’m the creationist in this discussion yet I am the only one who has offered a definition for natural selection. When are one of you evolutionists going to offer a definition for natural selection, after all, it’s your theory.

Hey slow poke, you are the one claiming you have the scientific basis for your theory. I guess that science doesn’t include any mathematics.

Is there nothing you evolutionists don’t whine and complain about?

wow... so many misconceptions, so little time....

Can I start with one:

You have stated, repeatedly, that "microevolution" works and "macroevolution" does not.

How do differentiate between the two?

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, far longer than that but its not either describe the origin of genes or accept religious faith. One can, with validity, critique current expressions of evolutionary theory. One may even say, with validity, that some of those theoreticians have too much faith in their own ideas but however successfully one can make tose criticisms, one cannot make real progress wthout offering alternatives.
What alternative do you offer? What predictions does that alternative make that differ from plain, old evolutionary theory?

Armageddon?

[kleinman]

For someone whose motto is “coming to a courtroom near you”, your ability to judge this collection of mush which evolutionists like to call evidence for their theory of evolution is quite weak. Your science is touchy/feely; I prefer science with mathematical precision, 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. You believe that judgment only occurs in the courtroom, I believe that we will stand before God in judgment. You are correct; words do reveal what is our hearts.Evolution is based on experimental observation of changes which can be explained by random mutation and natural selection, including all of the other well-established methods by when genes change over time. Your faith is based on pure magic -- something from nothing -- and nothing else. Only one of us is in the business of touchy-feely, and that someone is you.
Why don’t you show us the experiment that shows a gene evolving from the beginning? At least you could explain to us the selection process that would evolve genes from the begininning.
I’m not sure what hot button you have pushed. In fact your posts make me laugh. You defend your theory of evolution with string theory and now the uncertainty principle.Oh, I've pushed your hot button, and hard. Otherwise, you wouldn't have allowed this discussion to "devolve" into a religious rant -- but now you have, and you are gonna get your ass handed to you, because you cannot scientifically support your faith. It's always just a matter of time before the emotion of the zealot is unleashed and demonstrates the unreasonablness of its proponent. If you were on the stand and you made a response as you have here, you would be disqualified as an expert. Game over, doctor.
You are in the wrong alternative universe.
The best that you can ever do in an argument against science, even with your scientific knowledge, is to pick at the temporary supports of your opponents. You can never build your own scientific structure, because Christianity has no affirmative scientific support. It cannot -- by definition, because God is beyond measurement, and science is restricted to what is measurable.
This is so typical of an evolutionist to jump to conclusions.
God did not create us for judgment, God created us out of love. We can not approach God on our terms because of God’s holiness and it is God’s holiness that requires judgment for sin. God paid the price for that sin so that we can have forgiveness and mercy by sending his Son to die for our sins but you have to accept it.And, your scientific proof for this is _______ (fill in the blank)?
Well you got me there. I can’t prove God’s existence mathematically but I can disprove the theory of evolution mathematically.
Kjkent1, what you don’t understand is that we are all slaves to something. I figure it is best to be servant to the God who created us, but I confess that I am not a very good servant.You are now clearly within my purview of expertise. The definition of slavery is: "the labor on behalf of another by threat or fear of physical force or legal coercion." I am the slave of no one and no thing. If you are, then let me know, and I will be happy to represent you as plaintiff.
You are just not aware of your slavery, yet.
I keep telling you; God did not create us for judgment but for love. Turn to God and seek His purpose and you will find this out. I strongly doubt the creator of our brains has a mental disorder.If the creator of our brains judges us for our sins, then he is clearly disordered, because he created our sinful nature. I would go even farther and suggest that if he judges us at all, then he is the personification of the very evil which He supposedly rejects, because he has made us capable of that evil, and then he punishes for doing precisely what he made us capable of accomplishing. In human terms this would be equal to capital punishment as a sentence for behavior which no human could possibly avoid -- after all, we are all sinners, aren't we, Alan?
Your logic about God is no better than your logic about the theory of evolution.
An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence cannot play a role.

Um, O...K..Wrong. An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence does not need to play a role.
Ivor, ev does not demonstrate this. Perhaps you will offer us the explanation of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.
Hey Kleinman

Did you OD on faith pills at the weekend?
Ivor, it doesn’t work that way.
I guess I’ll have to wait at least one more day to have some evolutionist describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.No, far longer than that but its not either describe the origin of genes or accept religious faith. One can, with validity, critique current expressions of evolutionary theory. One may even say, with validity, that some of those theoreticians have too much faith in their own ideas but however successfully one can make tose criticisms, one cannot make real progress wthout offering alternatives.
What alternative do you offer? What predictions does that alternative make that differ from plain, old evolutionary theory?
John, natural selection is not some minor detail of the theory of evolution. It is the core explanation for the theory of evolution. Without a plausible explanation for how selection works, “mutation and natural selection” is no more than a slogan, not a proof or explanation of how the theory works. Just because I am not making scientific claims for creationism does not mean that a scientific case can’t be made for this world view. My job here is to show you why the theory of evolution doesn’t meet hard mathematical scientific standards. Perhaps once you realize this, you will listen more carefully to the arguments made by creationists and IDers.
Is there nothing you evolutionists don’t whine and complain about?wow... so many misconceptions, so little time....

Can I start with one:

You have stated, repeatedly, that "microevolution" works and "macroevolution" does not.

How do differentiate between the two?
There have been extensive discussions on the topic of micro/macroevolution in this thread. Paul holds the position that a series of microevolutionary changes can lead to a macroevolutionary change. This is why I set up the goal post of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to another. What series of microevolutionary steps would lead to the evolution of a gene from the beginning? There is no selection process that would do this.

Dr Richard, I believe you are a physician. Do you want to explain to the readers why Hemoglobin S is a selective benefit to person with this gene in a malaria endemic area?
No, far longer than that but its not either describe the origin of genes or accept religious faith. One can, with validity, critique current expressions of evolutionary theory. One may even say, with validity, that some of those theoreticians have too much faith in their own ideas but however successfully one can make tose criticisms, one cannot make real progress wthout offering alternatives.
What alternative do you offer? What predictions does that alternative make that differ from plain, old evolutionary theory?Armageddon?
Ivor, do you think that a fatally flawed theory of evolution will make any useful predictions?

[Dr Richard]

There have been extensive discussions on the topic of micro/macroevolution in this thread. Paul holds the position that a series of microevolutionary changes can lead to a macroevolutionary change. This is why I set up the goal post of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to another. What series of microevolutionary steps would lead to the evolution of a gene from the beginning? There is no selection process that would do this

Dr Richard, I believe you are a physician. Do you want to explain to the readers why Hemoglobin S is a selective benefit to person with this gene in a malaria endemic area?

We may be starting to get somewhere. If I am correct, you would accept as adefinition of "macroevolution" the transformation of one gene to another?

Second question, did you read the paper?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Wrong. An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence does not need to play a role.

Ivor, ev does not demonstrate this. Perhaps you will offer us the explanation of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

An intelligently designed program e.g. Matlab, can model a non-intelligent phenomena, e.g. the effect of Gravity on a mass.

Ivor, it doesn’t work that way.

I have read that Ecstasy (MDMA) can induce spiritual feelings.

Ivor, do you think that a fatally flawed theory of evolution will make any useful predictions?

Yes. A fatally flawed theory will eventually make a prediction that is shown to be wrong. When this happens the theory will either be modified or discarded and a theory that includes all the previous theories’ correct results and the new one will be developed. It’s called science.

[kleinman]

Dr Richard, I believe you are a physician. Do you want to explain to the readers why Hemoglobin S is a selective benefit to person with this gene in a malaria endemic area?We may be starting to get somewhere. If I am correct, you would accept as adefinition of "macroevolution" the transformation of one gene to another?

Second question, did you read the paper?
The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

Post the quotes from the paper that you believe shows this.

You didn’t explain to us why the Hemoglobin S variant gives selective benefit to those carriers when in a malaria endemic region. This is a good example of how natural selection works. Will you explain this or do I have to do this?

Also could you explain to us what happens to the HIV virus when it mutates to give drug resistant strains?
Wrong. An intelligently designed program can demonstrate that intelligence does not need to play a role.Ivor, ev does not demonstrate this. Perhaps you will offer us the explanation of the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.An intelligently designed program e.g. Matlab, can model a non-intelligent phenomena, e.g. the effect of Gravity on a mass.
Mathematics is very good for simulating cause and effect phenomena. Mutation and natural selection is the proposed cause and effect phenomena for the theory of evolution. Ev is a simulation of this cause and effect phenomena and shows that it can not happen (at least by random point mutations and selection). I guess you are not going to offer us a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Is the explanation for the theory of evolution going to be reduced to random mutations without selection?
Ivor, it doesn’t work that way.I have read that Ecstasy (MDMA) can induce spiritual feelings.
There are many counterfeits for faith.
Ivor, do you think that a fatally flawed theory of evolution will make any useful predictions?Yes. A fatally flawed theory will eventually make a prediction that is shown to be wrong. When this happens the theory will either be modified or discarded and a theory that includes all the previous theories’ correct results and the new one will be developed. It’s called science.
So far, the only thing going for the theory of evolution is speculation and extrapolation, there doesn’t seem to be much mathematics supporting the theory.

[cyborg]

Kleinman, why do you keep on banging on about selection for new genes when the entire point is that it cannot be known when any piece of genetic code is useful until it becomes such? What a 'new gene' is cannot be known until it becomes a 'new gene'. Your 'impossible = improbable' argument is bunk. Are you that retarded? Seriously? Are you going to have to tell me to find a new reason not to believe in your volcano god?

Stupid creationists. You are no longer annoying - I can only pity such a mind trapped in a loop of thought.

[kjkent1]

Why don’t you show us the experiment that shows a gene evolving from the beginning? At least you could explain to us the selection process that would evolve genes from the begininning.Sure thing, Alan. I've already explained it to you several times. But, as you're asking me again, I'll answer you again, just to emphasize that you're intentionally avoiding the reality that your faith prevents you from accepting. It works just like this...

Only one self-replicating molecule needs to arise by random chance. After that natural selection takes over, because all that is necessary for evolution is:

1. An imperfect self-replicator;
2. heritable changes, and;
3. at least one limited resource.

Observed reality demonstrates that the first self-replicating molecule appeared by random chance. How it happened is simple. Starting with the Big Bang, every time a quantum event in the universe occurs, there is a split in reality, and both alternative outcomes of the quantum event occur in different universes. As the universe expands, every possible physical future occurs in some alternative universe, via the binary tree created by the reality splits. Since every possible future is traversed by the binary tree, at least one universe (and probably many more than one) must produce a self-replicating molecule, because our observed reality proves that such a molecule is physically possible.

The low probability of this occurring in any particular universe is rendered irrelevant, because the binary tree of split universes makes the propagation of a self-replicating molecule inevitable.

That's it. The above explanation disposes entirely of your statistical argument against abiogenesis.

If you want to defeat my logic, all you need do is falsify quantum uncertainty. As an aid to your accomplishing this, the "Afshar" modified double-slit experiment claims to have done this already. However, a number of respected high-energy physicists have shown why the experiment is faulty. The argument over this will continue, with or without our input. Hopefully, a resolution will be found -- and if it is demonstrated that quantum uncertainty is an illusion, then I may have to purchase a prayer shawl. Until then, however, I'll stick with my ski jacket.

Well you got me there. I can’t prove God’s existence mathematically but I can disprove the theory of evolution mathematically.Well, that's refreshing -- an express admission that God's existence is not mathematically demonstrable.

As for your disproving evolution mathematically, a lot of bright people have viewed and commented in this thread, and I think it's fair to say that you are the only person who believes that you have disproved evolution. The rest of us are pretty certain that you've only proved that ev's original selection mechanism needs some tweaking. And, it's been tweaked, so for that, we all thank you.

[kleinman]

Kleinman, why do you keep on banging on about selection for new genes when the entire point is that it cannot be known when any piece of genetic code is useful until it becomes such? What a 'new gene' is cannot be known until it becomes a 'new gene'. Your 'impossible = improbable' argument is bunk. Are you that retarded? Seriously? Are you going to have to tell me to find a new reason not to believe in your volcano god?
I keep on banging because you are so slow to get the point. Let’s bang the concept into your head one more time.

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.

So unless you think a single base, or two bases or three bases or five bases or six bases… forms a new gene that would offer some type of selective advantage to that creature, you have no selection process that would increase the frequency of this sequence in the population. You can only have a selective advantage when you have a sequence of bases that performs some beneficial function for that creature. There is no selection process that selects for sequences of bases that do not perform anything beneficial for that creature.

Don’t worry, I will continue to bang this idea until you get this point or you describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. I think I will be doing the former for quite a while.

I haven’t banged this one around for a few pages. Any evolutionist want to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. This sounds like a pretty good example of irreducible complexity. Bang on that for a while.

[cyborg]

Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

No matter how many times you say it improbable is not impossible.

Are you ever going to acknowledge this simple mathematical fact? No, because even you are not loony enough not to recognise that large numbers render small probabilities occurrent - which is why you must ignore this at every turn as if we are too stupid not to realise it.

Who are you trying to fool here? Because it is not us.

So unless you think a single base, or two bases or three bases or five bases or six bases… forms a new gene that would offer some type of selective advantage to that creature, you have no selection process that would increase the frequency of this sequence in the population.

That is why it is neutral you loon.

There is no selection FOR OR AGAINST. That is why this genetic cruft accumulates. WHEN there is a selective pressure the genetic code EITHER rapidly accumulates OR rapidly fades.

There is no gene until it becomes a gene. Before it is a gene is it merely genetic potential. It still accumulates at a geometric rate because of reproduction. Selection is irrelevant - the frequency increases merely because of reproduction. Would you deny this? Of course, you have been pretending this is not the case for 60 odd pages now.

Tell me, by what magic does reproduction NOT increase the frequency of neutral genetic code at a consistent statistical rate?

Don’t worry, I will continue to bang this idea until you get this point or you describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

Then I will have to continue to point out that there is no such selection process and that it is not necessary because genes DO NOT evolve from the beginning. That is what genetic junk data is all about. It is not possible to know what data is or is not a gene until it becomes as such. Why do you continue to ignore the role of the neutral?

I don't know how many times you have been told this. Just how retarded are you?

I haven’t banged this one around for a few pages. Any evolutionist want to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. This sounds like a pretty good example of irreducible complexity. Bang on that for a while.

Sure, as soon as you explain why your volcano god chose to express himself through a set of nomadic people in the fertile crescent. Let's all play the conjecture game shall we? You could at least turn your obvious insider knowledge towards sorting out some theological problems whilst you're here as well.

What is the mathematics of Jesus?

[Dr Adequate]

Good grief.

Do you suppose kleinman's just copying and pasting this drivel?

[kleinman]

Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.No matter how many times you say it improbable is not impossible.
Without a selection process, the theory of evolution is impossible and since you have been so inconsiderate to not have offered the selection process that would redeem your theory, it is your entire fault that the theory of evolution has collapsed. You should feel very bad for what you have done.
There is no selection FOR OR AGAINST. That is why this genetic cruft accumulates. WHEN there is a selective pressure the genetic code EITHER rapidly accumulates OR rapidly fades.
I think you argument is rapidly fading. By the way, what is cruft? Is it similar to Paul’s word “crapola”?
There is no gene until it becomes a gene. Before it is a gene is it merely genetic potential. It still accumulates at a geometric rate because of reproduction. Selection is irrelevant - the frequency increases merely because of reproduction. Would you deny this? Of course, you have been pretending this is not the case for 60 odd pages now.
In case you haven’t noticed, we are now on page 70. So tell us, does a pro-gene have genetic potential? Do these pro-genes accumulate cruft at a geometric rate? What are the units for crufts anyway? I propose that the units for crufts be “Cyborgians”. 1.932 Cyborgians = 1 stringcheesians. Now that we have a conversion factor for these variables, you can discuss kjkent1’s string cheese theory. The rate of evolution is measured in Cyborgians/fortnight which when working in the kjent1 alternative reality is 1/1.932 stringcheesians/mozzarellaballians.
Tell me, by what magic does reproduction NOT increase the frequency of neutral genetic code at a consistent statistical rate?
No magic here, just the accumulation of crufts.
Don’t worry, I will continue to bang this idea until you get this point or you describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning.Then I will have to continue to point out that there is no such selection process and that it is not necessary because genes DO NOT evolve from the beginning. That is what genetic junk data is all about. It is not possible to know what data is or is not a gene until it becomes as such. Why do you continue to ignore the role of the neutral?
Ok, you continue to point that out. While you are at it, could you point out a cruft to us?
What is the mathematics of Jesus?
Here’s a little bit of the mathematics.

RO:14:12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Good grief.

Do you suppose kleinman's just copying and pasting this drivel?
What’s happened, have my posts left you gifless?

[Dr Adequate]

What’s happened, have my posts left you gifless? I believe I have one which fits your present case.

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

[kleinman]

What’s happened, have my posts left you gifless?I believe I have one which fits your present case.
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/broken_record.jpg
You are correct; it fits the theory of evolution precisely. The theory of evolution is as obsolete as an old 45 record album. It is a theory in dire need of debunking. And for any of the readers old enough to have listened to phonographs, when a needle hits a flaw, you hear that track over and over. I hear it now, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection,… Somebody bang the phonograph player so we can hear the end to the song.

[Dr Adequate]

You are correct; it fits the theory of evolution precisely.
Which part of the phrase "your present case" were you to freakin' stupid to understand?


The theory of evolution is as obsolete as an old 45 record album.

You know how I explained to you how talking nonsense won't magically make reality go away?

It is a theory in dire need of debunking. What a shame that no-one is able to do so.

And for any of the readers old enough to have listened to phonographs, when a needle hits a flaw, you hear that track over and over. I hear it now, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection,…. Yeah, that's science for you. The laws of nature, you see, remain constant.

Somebody bang the phonograph player so we can hear the end to the song. Alas, banging an imaginary phonograph will not make the laws of nature go away.

[kjkent1]

Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.Please show us your math for this conclusion. We've all been waiting for 70 pages now.

[kleinman]

You are correct; it fits the theory of evolution precisely.Which part of the phrase "your present case" were you to freakin' stupid to understand?
Poor Adequate, he has been misunderstood once again.
The theory of evolution is as obsolete as an old 45 record album.You know how I explained to you how talking nonsense won't magically make reality go away?
Are you talking about the magic of natural selection? You know that process that you say can evolve a gene from the beginning even though you have no description for this process. Natural selection is nothing short of magical.
It is a theory in dire need of debunking.What a shame that no-one is able to do so.
Wait a minute, Dr Schneider’s peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection does a very nice job of debunking the theory. Of course his model doesn’t include a realistic selection process but you can’t have it all.
And for any of the readers old enough to have listened to phonographs, when a needle hits a flaw, you hear that track over and over. I hear it now, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection,….Yeah, that's science for you. The laws of nature, you see, remain constant.
Correct again! No natural selection process now and no natural selection process in your primordial soup that can evolve a gene from the beginning. Repeat your slogan as much as you want, natural selection is nothing more than a fake magical phrase. Natural selection can not and does not make genes.
Somebody bang the phonograph player so we can hear the end to the song.Alas, banging an imaginary phonograph will not make the laws of nature go away.
Why Adequate, you are the imaginary phonograph. I keep banging on you to try to get you to explain what natural selection is that would evolve a gene from the beginning, but you are stuck in a rut, you keep saying, mutation and natural selection, mutation and natural selection,… Alas, attributing properties to natural selection that do not exist is nothing short of magical thinking.

Hey, you got any other records in your record collection? Have you got Magical Mystery Tour?

[Dr Adequate]

You remember I told you to think of some new lies?

Reciting the old ones over and over again is hardly helping your case.

[kleinman]

You remember I told you to think of some new lies?

Reciting the old ones over and over again is hardly helping your case.
You remember I told you that I don’t lie to you; the truth works much better at annoying you. You need to wake up, an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that your theory is mathematically impossible. In addition, this mathematical model shows the importance of the selection process for convergence and you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

You, Cyborg and kjkent1 may be having trouble understanding this concept but there are others who do understand the logic. So while Paul works on the evolutionary landscape and you post your jpegs and gifs, the core postulate of your theory, “mutation and natural selection” is in a shambles on the floor of the James Randi educational forum. There is no selection process for your theory that would evolve a gene from the beginning.

You got any 8 track tapes?

[Yahzi]

Kjkent1, what you don’t understand is that we are all slaves to something. I figure it is best to be servant to the God who created us, but I confess that I am not a very good servant.
So Klienman is suggesting we choose who we are enslaved by?

"We're all slaves, but I'm exercising my freedom as a slave to choose my master!"

:huh:

[kleinman]

Kjkent1, what you don’t understand is that we are all slaves to something. I figure it is best to be servant to the God who created us, but I confess that I am not a very good servant.So Klienman is suggesting we choose who we are enslaved by?
I realize this is all pretty confusing to you but that is pretty much how it works. It’s like those who are free may really be in prison and those in prison may really be free. This world can be a strange place.

Hey, you wouldn’t want to offer an explanation to how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning, would you? Perhaps you could tell us what the components for the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. If you can’t do either of those, at least tell me what a cruft is? It appears that is the latest explanation for the theory of evolution.

[Dr Adequate]

You remember I told you that I don’t lie to you; the truth works much better at annoying you. Yes, I remember you telling that lie. Like all your lies, you've recited it so many times that I am in no danger of forgetting it.

You need to wake up, an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that your theory is mathematically impossible. In addition, this mathematical model shows the importance of the selection process for convergence and you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

You, Cyborg and kjkent1 may be having trouble understanding this concept but there are others who do understand the logic. So while Paul works on the evolutionary landscape and you post your jpegs and gifs, the core postulate of your theory, “mutation and natural selection” is in a shambles on the floor of the James Randi educational forum. There is no selection process for your theory that would evolve a gene from the beginning. I remember you telling all these lies too. I also remember debunking them.

You need some new lies.

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, you wouldn’t want to offer an explanation to how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning, would you? Hey, you remember I told you to look up what "selection" means? It's a pretty important concept in evolution.

If you actually want to know how new genes arise, you could always follow the link in my sig.

Or you could keep on drooling out halfwitted trash in a futile attempt to change reality.

[kjkent1]

I realize this is all pretty confusing to you but that is pretty much how it works. It’s like those who are free may really be in prison and those in prison may really be free. This world can be a strange place.It's certainly an interesting view for a supposedly perfect entity to be mentally disordered by its creations' standards. The Inmate truly is running the asylum.

[Schneibster]

It's certainly an interesting view for a supposedly perfect entity to be mentally disordered by its creations' standards. The Inmate truly is running the asylum.What do you think I call them "cretinists" for?

[Dr Richard]

The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

Excellent, and thank you for this. Before we proceed, I just want to make this absolutely clear.

As well as the above definition for "macroevolution", I will also give you "the evolution of a new gene from the beginning" as you have claimed this many times before.

Are there ANY other defintions of macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution) you would like to consider before we proceed further?

[cyborg]

Without a selection process,

One cannot select for that which has no effect. That which has an effect can be selected for.

You are going to persist in demanding 'goal based' evolution that wants to create new genes because you are too stuck on the idea that your existence is wanted. The event of a new gene appearing is entirely unpredictable because it is unknown what a gene is until it is a gene.

I think you argument is rapidly fading.

Talking to yourself again are you?

In case you haven’t noticed, we are now on page 70.

In case you are entirely retarded - about 60 pages is around 70.

I LOVE JESUS. WHY WON'T YOU?

So in other words you cannot actually provide a cogent argument against this.

Ok, you continue to point that out. While you are at it, could you point out a cruft to us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft

What DO you have against learning exactly?

Idiot.

RO:14:12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.

So you're going to have to spend a lot of time explaining why you're a lying sack of crap then.

[kleinman]

Hey, you wouldn’t want to offer an explanation to how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning, would you?Hey, you remember I told you to look up what "selection" means? It's a pretty important concept in evolution.

If you actually want to know how new genes arise, you could always follow the link in my sig.

Or you could keep on drooling out halfwitted trash in a futile attempt to change reality.
Tell Dr Schneider what selection is and to follow your link then he can correct the deficiency in his computer simulation which up to now shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. You do know what mathematics is?
I realize this is all pretty confusing to you but that is pretty much how it works. It’s like those who are free may really be in prison and those in prison may really be free. This world can be a strange place.It's certainly an interesting view for a supposedly perfect entity to be mentally disordered by its creations' standards. The Inmate truly is running the asylum.What do you think I call them "cretinists" for?
Are you sure it’s not the inmate only thinks he’s running the asylum?

Still no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, but lots of attempts at changing the subject. Any of you evolutionary geniuses want to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. How did those components evolve from the beginning? Just what was the selection process that evolved those molecules? Ah, the gap theory!
The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.Excellent, and thank you for this. Before we proceed, I just want to make this absolutely clear.

As well as the above definition for "macroevolution", I will also give you "the evolution of a new gene from the beginning" as you have claimed this many times before.
I’m glad you can see the goal posts. So many of the evolutionists posting on this thread don’t even know where the ball park is.
Are there ANY other defintions of macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution) you would like to consider before we proceed further?
Feel free to present any definition(s) you wish and we can discuss the validity of the concept(s). Since Paul and many other evolutionists have argued that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a series of microevolutionary steps, I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution. I have argued why there is no selection process that can drive such evolutionary events. I’m waiting for any counter argument. The best arguments offered so far is Cyborg’s crufts and kjkent1s’s string cheese theory. Hopefully you will offer something more rational.

You still haven’t told us why Hemoglobin S gives selective benefit for a carrier in an malaria endemic region and what happens to the HIV virus when it mutates to drug resistant forms.
Without a selection process,One cannot select for that which has no effect. That which has an effect can be selected for.

You are going to persist in demanding 'goal based' evolution that wants to create new genes because you are too stuck on the idea that your existence is wanted. The event of a new gene appearing is entirely unpredictable because it is unknown what a gene is until it is a gene.
Ask Adequate to help you with the mathematics of the theory of evolution if you reduce the theory to mutation without selection. It is not a pretty sight for your theory.
I think you argument is rapidly fading.Talking to yourself again are you?
Nope, your argument is fading from “mutation and natural selection” to “mutation without selection”. People out there are hearing this and some understand the implications for the theory of evolution, even if you are not.
In case you haven’t noticed, we are now on page 70.In case you are entirely retarded - about 60 pages is around 70.
I guess that fits with evolutionary concept of mathematical accuracy. No wonder you have no idea what the ev computer program is all about.
Ok, you continue to point that out. While you are at it, could you point out a cruft to us?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruft

What DO you have against learning exactly?

Idiot.
Here’s the first two sentence out of that link.
In hacker jargon, cruft describes areas of something which are badly designed, poorly implemented or redundant. The term is typically applied to computer programming code and computer programs, but can be applied more generally to any device or situation where the observer feels it applies.
So we can take your theory of evolution as cruft, your mathematics as cruft and your posts as cruft. You are one crufty fellow. What are you going to do when your own definition for evolution has the word design in it? Should we rename the theory of evolution to the theory of “unintelligent design”? I think I’m going to start calling evolutionists UDers (pronounced udders). You are full of UDer cruft.

[Dr Richard]

I’m glad you can see the goal posts. So many of the evolutionists posting on this thread don’t even know where the ball park is.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Feel free to present any definition(s) you wish and we can discuss the validity of the concept(s). Since Paul and many other evolutionists have argued that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a series of microevolutionary steps, I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution. I have argued why there is no selection process that can drive such evolutionary events. I’m waiting for any counter argument. The best arguments offered so far is Cyborg’s crufts and kjkent1s’s string cheese theory. Hopefully you will offer something more rational

For the purposes of this debate, I am very happy with the definition of "macroevolution" as you have defined it.

I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...

[kjkent1]

Are you sure it’s not the inmate only thinks he’s running the asylum?

Still no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, but lots of attempts at changing the subject. Any of you evolutionary geniuses want to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. How did those components evolve from the beginning? Just what was the selection process that evolved those molecules? Ah, the gap theory!I've explained my position in detail. At every point it is supported by some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, and the mathematical certainty of my conclusion is unavoidable.

You, on the other hand, have yet to refute my theory in any meaningful way. Furthermore, you have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible, in any meaningful way. You merely proclaim it to be so. As you proclaim the existence of your Lord.

Finally, if I may surmise, you state that we are "all slaves," so we may as well choose our master. If you were to say that to a psychiatrist, right now, I think that he/she would raise his/her eyebrows at the comment and wonder why you feel disposed to view every person as a slave. Because you are a licensed physician, this frankly worries me, because you are providing medical care to the public.

Do you feel oppressed by the evil in the world? Maybe you should consider talking to a professional about this issue.

[kleinman]

Feel free to present any definition(s) you wish and we can discuss the validity of the concept(s). Since Paul and many other evolutionists have argued that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a series of microevolutionary steps, I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution. I have argued why there is no selection process that can drive such evolutionary events. I’m waiting for any counter argument. The best arguments offered so far is Cyborg’s crufts and kjkent1s’s string cheese theory. Hopefully you will offer something more rationalFor the purposes of this debate, I am very happy with the definition of "macroevolution" as you have defined it.

I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...
What are you worried about? If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.

When Professor Kenneth Miller published the Flagellum Unspun argument to counter the Professor Behe’s Irreducible Complexity hypothesis by postulating that the components of the flagellum had other uses before they assembled into the flagellum, I asked Professor Miller, how you can apply this argument to the DNA replicase system?

A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.

You evolutionists complain that I move the goal posts, but if you go back to my first post on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum, you will see that my arguments are still the same.

My argument is that the ev computer program shows that the process random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used in the model that macroevolution by this mechanism is mathematically impossible. In addition, Dr Schneider in his publications on ev concludes that ev demonstrates evolution by punctuated equilibrium as described by Stephen Gould. Dr Schneider’s conclusions are likewise impossible since Gould’s thesis of punctuated equilibrium states the evolution occurs over short time spans in small sub-populations. The mathematical results from the ev model directly contradict these two conditions.

When Unnamed modified the selection process and introduced the selection mechanism into the debate, it revealed there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency. The theory of evolution is modern mythology, not hard mathematical science.

If you can produce any plausible counter-arguments to what ev shows, go for it and stop whining about what I might say in response.
I've explained my position in detail. At every point it is supported by some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, and the mathematical certainty of my conclusion is unavoidable.
Your string cheese theory is almost without peer, only cyborg’s cruft theory represents any challenge. Perhaps you two can get together and you can melt some string cheese on his cruft. You evolutionists would be fondue that.

[cyborg]

Ask Adequate to help you with the mathematics of the theory of evolution if you reduce the theory to mutation without selection. It is not a pretty sight for your theory.

4^G right?

Idiot. You don't even understand your own argument.

Nope, your argument is fading from “mutation and natural selection” to “mutation without selection”. People out there are hearing this and some understand the implications for the theory of evolution, even if you are not.

There is no selection for genes that do not exist. No one has ever argued overwise.

That is why the whole, 'de novo' argument is bunk - until a gene is a gene there is no way of saying what mutations will end up being part of a gene.

So again I ask - either YOU define the what a de novo event is in ev or you cannot say it is impossible. IMPROBABLE EVENTS WILL OCCUR WITH ENOUGH TRIALS. IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS CANNOT OCCUR INSPITE OF THE NUMBER OF TRIALS. By Zeus!

If you cannot say what the event is you cannot prove that it does not occur.

Or perhaps the basic concept of proof by contradiction is one of those other pieces of mathematics that you seem to have been untouched by.

I guess that fits with evolutionary concept of mathematical accuracy.

I would have thought you'd appreciate it.

It is after all only a shadow of a magnitude of the mathematical inaccuracy of 'improbable = impossible' that you are so fond of.

Should we rename the theory of evolution to the theory of “unintelligent design”?

It is unfortunate that you do not see how appropriate that is.

The designer is indeed without intelligence. It is the blind application of physical law. Of course intelligence is as well, in a way. Of course I doubt you could possibly start to comprehend the implications here. You continue believing computation can occur by magic.

Mathematicians. Pfft.

[kjkent1]

Mathematicians. Pfft.Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer. The difference seems fairly obvious. He demands Newtonian certainty in everything -- even in places where such certainty is known not to exist.

[cyborg]

Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer.

Ugh. Even worse.

[kleinman]

Ask Adequate to help you with the mathematics of the theory of evolution if you reduce the theory to mutation without selection. It is not a pretty sight for your theory.4^G right?
Hey cruftborg, that’s what you get without selection.
Nope, your argument is fading from “mutation and natural selection” to “mutation without selection”. People out there are hearing this and some understand the implications for the theory of evolution, even if you are not.There is no selection for genes that do not exist. No one has ever argued overwise.
Hey cruftborg, without selection you get 4^G, right?
I guess that fits with evolutionary concept of mathematical accuracy.I would have thought you'd appreciate it.

It is after all only a shadow of a magnitude of the mathematical inaccuracy of 'improbable = impossible' that you are so fond of.
We are now on page 71 of this thread, not page 60, not page 61. Without a selection process, the chance of forming any particular sequence of 100 bases is 1 in 4^100 or 1 in 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+60. That’s if you don’t have any other molecules in your primordial soup interfering with the linkage of these bases, that is if you could somehow get a soup of these bases, that is if you could get these bases to link up non-enzymatically, that is if you can keep these chemicals stable long enough to complete the linkage. To get an idea how small that probability is, the number of atoms in the earth is about 1e+52. You better go back to the drawing board and design yourself a selection process. Better yet, go buy a lottery ticket; you have 50 orders of magnitude better chance of winning a lottery than forming a single gene 100 bases long without a selection process.
Should we rename the theory of evolution to the theory of “unintelligent design”?It is unfortunate that you do not see how appropriate that is.
UD is a totally appropriate description of the theory of evolution. You got no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, only cruft. Melt some string cheese on that cruft, perhaps it will make it go down a little easier.
The designer is indeed without intelligence. It is the blind application of physical law. Of course intelligence is as well, in a way. Of course I doubt you could possibly start to comprehend the implications here. You continue believing computation can occur by magic.
Blind application of what physical law are you talking about? There is no physical law for the theory of evolution; there is only a slogan “mutation and natural selection”. When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic.
Mathematicians. Pfft.
Don’t you mean, Mathematicians, crufft. Hey Adequate, cruftborg is Pfftrespecting mathematics. Are you going to take that or are you going to launch some smart gifs and jpegs.
Mathematicians. Pfft.Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer. The difference seems fairly obvious. He demands Newtonian certainty in everything -- even in places where such certainty is known not to exist.
I am certain if you melt some of your string cheese theory over cyborg’s cruft theory, you get a tasty if rather irrational theory. We can call it the cruft cheese on toast theory, best served when half baked.

Hey, anybody know what’s happened to Paul?

[Dr Adequate]

Mathematicians. Pfft. I think what you meant to say was "Non-mathematicians who mess with stuff they're too innumerate to understand. Pfft."

Despite our best efforts, we have not yet managed to teach kleinman the probability theory that most people learn in high school, or what convergence means, or why using figures which are inaccurate by a factor of quintillions will give him the wrong answer.

The first time in my life I get to use the word "quintillions", and it's to describe the scale of a mistake made by a creationist, what a surprise.

[Dr Adequate]

Tell Dr Schneider what selection is and to follow your link then he can correct the deficiency in his computer simulation which up to now shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible. You need some new lies.

Reciting this lie over and over will not make it any truer.

You sad little man.

[cyborg]

I AM AN IDIOT. I LIKE TO SAY SILLY THINGS. JESUS LOVES ME.

Cannot agree more. Glad you're coming around.

you have 50 orders of magnitude better chance of winning a lottery than forming a single gene 100 bases long without a selection process.

There is only one valid lottery result.

Tell us kleinman, since you seem to know everything, just how many valid genes are there?

Do you even begin to have a singular clue? Or do you think you can just pretend there is only one possibility for any given value G?

Let's assume one mutation per generation. 100 generations. One new gene. Is the gene good or bad? Selection decides.

100 generations. 2^100 different 4^100 genes. That's a hell of a lot of different 4^100 combinations right? In fact haven't we just tried out 1267650600228229401496703205376 different genes?

DAMN. That's a big number. I bet if I buyed that many lottery tickets my odds would be pretty good!

But ignoring this for a moment the basic point does not seem to have gotten through.

A new gene is pretty much GARUNTEED to appear. What is unknown whether this gene is GOOD or BAD. That is where selection kicks in. This is what you cannot seemingly grasp. Selection is not required to create a new gene - it is only required to determine the WORTH of this gene.

Blind application of what physical law are you talking about? There is no physical law for the theory of evolution; there is only a slogan “mutation and natural selection”. When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic.

If you apply all the wrong numbers in all the wrong places and throw Jesus in the mix then you get kleinman - and evolution disappears only in his mind.

Idiot.

[Dr Adequate]

When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic. Actually, when you recite the halfwitted nonsense that you pretend is "mathematics", this does not magically make the laws of nature disappear.

This seems to be the essential thing that you are too dumb to understand. Well, that and mathematics and genetics and the theory of evolution and punctuated equilibrium and what "selection" means; but your apparent belief that you can change the world by drooling rubbish at it goes beyond mere ignorance and into downright lunacy.

I know that religious nutjobs such as yourself believe that you can suspend the laws of nature by mumbling nonsense at the Universe, but even Jesus warned you against employing "vain repetitions"; a phrase which perfectly characterizes your posts.

Hey, anybody know what’s happened to Paul? I expect he's waiting for you to think of a new lie.

[kleinman]

Mathematicians. Pfft.I think what you meant to say was "Non-mathematicians who mess with stuff they're too innumerate to understand. Pfft."
You’ve shown some real mathematical skills, they can be summed up as posting a few gifs and jpegs (probably none of which were your creation) and listing irrelevant URLs. You are a real master of your profession.
Tell Dr Schneider what selection is and to follow your link then he can correct the deficiency in his computer simulation which up to now shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.You need some new lies.

Reciting this lie over and over will not make it any truer.

You sad little man.
You only wish it were a lie but the reality is that you don’t have the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning and neither does Dr Schneider. Stick with posting other peoples gifs and jpegs, that’s the only skill you have demonstrated in this debate. Is this the best that the James Randi forum bloggers can do, crufts cheese on toast with a side order of Adequate’s posting other peoples gifs and jpegs? No wonder evolutionists want to teach their slop to grade schoolers. Only the naïve and devout evolutionists can believe these type of arguments.

You better get used to hearing that you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments further as if explaining the evolution of genes from the beginning with crufts could be made any weaker.

Have some crufts cheese on toast, half baked.

[cyborg]

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments further

Well, if it weakens my arguments then I guess acting like an ass weakens yours.

If you cared you wouldn't behave like a child.

[kleinman]

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments furtherWell, if it weakens my arguments then I guess acting like an ass weakens yours.

If you cared you wouldn't behave like a child.
Cruftborg, your cruft argument makes kjkent1’s string cheese theory sound intelligent. Cruftborg, teach us all you know about crufts and how they evolve genes from the beginning. You could write an autobiography, title it My Life as a Cruft and How it Made Me What I am Today. Maybe Adequate will give you some gifs and jpegs to put in your story.

Crufts cheese on toast, half baked, a hearty intellectual meal for any evolutionist.

[kjkent1]

Tell us kleinman, since you seem to know everything, just how many valid genes are there?

Do you even begin to have a singular clue? Or do you think you can just pretend there is only one possibility for any given value G?

Let's assume one mutation per generation. 100 generations. One new gene. Is the gene good or bad? Selection decides.

100 generations. 2^100 different 4^100 genes. That's a hell of a lot of different 4^100 combinations right? In fact haven't we just tried out 1267650600228229401496703205376 different genes?

DAMN. That's a big number. I bet if I buyed that many lottery tickets my odds would be pretty good!

But ignoring this for a moment the basic point does not seem to have gotten through.

A new gene is pretty much GARUNTEED to appear. What is unknown whether this gene is GOOD or BAD. That is where selection kicks in. This is what you cannot seemingly grasp. Selection is not required to create a new gene - it is only required to determine the WORTH of this gene.



If you apply all the wrong numbers in all the wrong places and throw Jesus in the mix then you get kleinman - and evolution disappears only in his mind.

Idiot.Not idiotic. Mere Christianity. Dr. Kleinman does in fact believe that only one combination of any genetic code is valid, because, under his belief system, that one code was absolutely programmed to be what it is in advance, by a divine and almighty creator.

So, asking Kleinman to consider the possibility that some larger percentage of genetic combinations might produce some viable life form is a complete non sequitur, because, for him, there is ONLY ONE possible viable life form: the one which God designed in advance.

Very simple to understand -- albeit contrary to observed reality.

[kleinman]

So, asking Kleinman to consider the possibility that some larger percentage of genetic combinations might produce some viable life form is a complete non sequitur, because there is ONLY ONE possible viable life form: the one which God designed in advance.
Now you are doing some thinking. Ok, how many genetic combinations do you estimate could produce some viable life form?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, there's be at least a duodecillion life forms on Earth so the idea that one combination is possible is certainly refuted.

[kjkent1]

Cruftborg, your cruft argument makes kjkent1’s string cheese theory sound intelligent. Cruftborg, teach us all you know about crufts and how they evolve genes from the beginning. You could write an autobiography, title it My Life as a Cruft and How it Made Me What I am Today. Maybe Adequate will give you some gifs and jpegs to put in your story.

Crufts cheese on toast, half baked, a hearty intellectual meal for any evolutionist.It's not my theory, Alan. Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/people/faculty/susskind_leonard.html) of Standford University, developed the theory, and many high-energy and theoretical physicists generally subscribe. So, if you really want to get into an argument, then write Susskind and try out your mathematical talents against him. Who knows, maybe you'll show him that he's wrong and you're right.

However, I think that is "mathematically impossible."

[cyborg]

JESUS JESUS JESUS! YES I AM AN IDIOT CHILD.

Well, that's confirmation for you.

[kleinman]

Well, there's be at least a duodecillion life forms on Earth so the idea that one combination is possible is certainly refuted.
Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.

[cyborg]

4^100 .... JESUS... STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT...CRUFTBORG....CHEESE...JESUS

You aren't even making any sense anymore kleinman.

[kjkent1]

Now you are doing some thinking. Ok, how many genetic combinations do you estimate could produce some viable life form?One percent.

Now let's see you run the numbers.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.
So you think we've run out of available life forms?

[kleinman]

Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.So you think we've run out of available life forms?
Probably if you are trying to explain the origin and evolution of life forms by purely random processes without selection, and I’m sure you never had a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. “Mutation and natural selection” is only a slogan not a scientific explanation of how life evolves.

[kjkent1]

I think that the majority of DNA combinations will produce viable living oganisms. Most of observed life is not junk DNA, so, it's entirely reasonable that most of the combinations of DNA are actually viable. Otherwise there would me a lot more junk and a lot less life.

Dr. Kleinman needs to do a little less calculating and use a little more logic in his analyses.

[kleinman]

I think that the majority of DNA combinations will produce viable living oganisms. Most of observed life is not junk DNA, so, it's entirely reasonable that most of the combinations of DNA are actually viable. Otherwise there would me a lot more junk and a lot less life.
You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.
Dr. Kleinman needs to do a little less calculating and use a little more logic in his analyses.
You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

[kjkent1]

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.You have yet to even come close to refuting any of my logic -- whereas I routinely destroy yours. As for your use of logic, your belief system speaks volumes.

[cyborg]

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

I think I get it people.

kleinman is trying to tell us there's only a few 'kinds' - you know, no more than would sensibly fit on the ark.

Everything else is 'microevolution'.

:)

PRAISE JESUS!

[kleinman]

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.You have yet to even come close to refuting any of my logic -- whereas I routinely destroy yours. As for your use of logic, your belief system speaks volumes.
I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.
You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.I think I get it people.
We know you get it, you got cruft.

[cyborg]

JESUS JESUS JESUS. CHEESE CRUFT. CRUFT JESUS. GOD.

kleinman can you not even attempt to make full sentences any more?

[kjkent1]

I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.Your post is entirely devoid of useful information. This makes you a troll, from which the only escape is to terminate further interaction.

Bye.

[Lonewulf]

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

I always figured you for the type to get all your facts from fiction... oh wait! You're mocking us!

Failed. :D

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

This reminds me of a story that Dawkins told in "The God Delusion". Two men were discussing God's existance. One suddenly spouted out a complicated mathematical formulae, and then responded, "Therefore, God exists. Refute!" The other man got flustered and left.

The reason why? Was he wrong? Of course not. Or rather, he had no reason to assume that the other argument was "correct" on the basis of the formulae itself. The logical basis for the equation did not make sense. If I say to you, "2+2=4; therefore, God does not exist!", you wouldn't buy that at all, would you? Yet someone that suddenly spouts out formulas sounds all mystical and knowledgable, even if the equation itself doesn't actually prove anything, if it is used illogically.

However, you're throwing out random equations without considered the differing factors with logical reason. So you sound like the guy earlier in the example. Refute!

[Dr Richard]

What are you worried about?

I am trying to discuss the possibility of "macroevolution" - which you assert is impossible - as opposed to "microevolution" - which you assert is possible.

Trying to agree on a definition of these terms seems very reasonable to me before the debate can progress.

Why evade the question?

If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.

To have a sensible debate, we need defined terms of reference.

Can we agree to a definition of macroevolution as you have proposed above and elsewhere? Why is this difficult for you to agree to? Are you unhappy with your own definitions?

A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.

I am not trying to restrict any counter agruments you may make - how could I. I am merely trying to define the terms of reference for the debate, and asking you to do so.

[Schneibster]

I would have said page 69 was where this thread jumped the shark.

[kleinman]

I don’t want to refute your string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.Your post is entirely devoid of useful information. This makes you a troll, from which the only escape is to terminate further interaction.
As usual, you missed the one part of the post that has useful information, which is the goal post. There is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.
Bye.
What’s the matter, no opportunity to make money on this discussion?
You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.I always figured you for the type to get all your facts from fiction... oh wait! You're mocking us!

Failed.
Well, here is another new name on this thread. Are you going to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning or will you give us another string cheese or cruft hypothesis?
You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.This reminds me of a story that Dawkins told in "The God Delusion". Two men were discussing God's existance. One suddenly spouted out a complicated mathematical formulae, and then responded, "Therefore, God exists. Refute!" The other man got flustered and left.
You’ve got your analogy backwards. It is Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula and I’m not shouting out “God exists”. I’m shouting out that Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula shows that evolution by random point mutation and natural selection does not exist. You are correct, kjkent1 got flustered and left.
The reason why? Was he wrong? Of course not. Or rather, he had no reason to assume that the other argument was "correct" on the basis of the formulae itself. The logical basis for the equation did not make sense. If I say to you, "2+2=4; therefore, God does not exist!", you wouldn't buy that at all, would you? Yet someone that suddenly spouts out formulas sounds all mystical and knowledgable, even if the equation itself doesn't actually prove anything, if it is used illogically.
You keep missing the key point. Ev is a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection which shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible. This is not my mathematics; this is the mathematics of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute here in the United States. The only thing that I did was use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model. Paul has written an online version of the model. You can easily duplicate the results that I obtained using the model. Too bad if you can’t understand this logic. Also, if you study this model, you will learn the importance of the selection process in achieving convergence and you will see that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.
However, you're throwing out random equations without considered the differing factors with logical reason. So you sound like the guy earlier in the example. Refute!
Easily refuted, I am not throwing out random equations. I am applying the peer reviewed and published equations of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computation molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. The result from this model was published in Nucleic Acids Research, an Oxford University Press scientific journal. I did what Dr Schneider suggested to me personally and what he suggested in his publication which was to see how varying parameters in the model affect the results. What I found was that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model, it takes huge numbers of generations to accumulate information in the genome by random point mutations and natural selection. The process is far too slow to support the theory of evolution in fact, this model shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible; it takes far too many generations. Understand rubberband?
What are you worried about?I am trying to discuss the possibility of "macroevolution" - which you assert is impossible - as opposed to "microevolution" - which you assert is possible.

Trying to agree on a definition of these terms seems very reasonable to me before the debate can progress.

Why evade the question?
You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution. In discussions on this thread, it appears that evolutionists don’t draw a distinction between micro and macroevolution. So I am working with the evolutionist definition, which is there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. If there is no difference, show how selection can evolve a gene from the beginning and how selection can transform a gene from one form to another. I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution concept.
If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.To have a sensible debate, we need defined terms of reference.

Can we agree to a definition of macroevolution as you have proposed above and elsewhere? Why is this difficult for you to agree to? Are you unhappy with your own definitions?
I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution and that evolutionists suggest that a series of microevolutionary steps can lead to a macroevolutionary change. I have not presented this definition. What I have presented are examples which contradict this evolutionist hypothesis. I am happy with the examples I have presented and if others come to mind, I will present those as well.
A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.I am not trying to restrict any counter agruments you may make - how could I. I am merely trying to define the terms of reference for the debate, and asking you to do so.
I felt you were trying to restrict my counter arguments when you said:
I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...
I have not presented the definition for macroevolution. What I have presented is examples that contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events. You are trying to restrict my counter arguments if I can’t give examples which contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events.

Actually, I really don’t think I need other examples that contradict this evolutionist hypothesis concerning micro and macroevolution but I also don’t think I need to yield up the right to give further examples.
I would have said page 69 was where this thread jumped the shark.
Whatever that means.

Did I mention on this page that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning?

You all have a good weekend!

[cyborg]

1267650600228229401496703205376

[Lonewulf]

1267650600228229401496703205376

Therefore, God does not exist.

[Schneibster]

Therefore, God does not exist.And the number of eggs in a dozen is twelve.

[Dr Richard]

You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution.

I cannot present a scientific definition of macroevolution as I not not believe it exists as a genuine entity.

You are the one who believes that there is a real, scientific distinction between "microevolution" (which you assert occurs) and "macroevolution" (which you assert cannot occur).

What I am trying to understand is why you believe this is that case.

For you to believe this, you must have some very strict defitions which rigidly seperate the two, otherwise a microevolutionary event may be labelled as a macroevolutionary event and your theory would collapse.


I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution concept

Of course, I understand that you are obviously well used to such debates on internet forums. As a creationist, you must have to be careful never to get too closely pinned down to a scientific defintion. I am not trying to trap you into some kind of error however (how could I if you are correct?). I have to say I am howver disappointed in your inabillity to define "insulin" (this, for a doctor?) and your very own concept of "macroevolution".


I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution and that evolutionists suggest that a series of microevolutionary steps can lead to a macroevolutionary change. I have not presented this definition. What I have presented are examples which contradict this evolutionist hypothesis. I am happy with the examples I have presented and if others come to mind, I will present those as well

I have not presented the definition for macroevolution.

Post #2778 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2363503&postcount=2778)

The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning.

Ok then, I will work with this quotable set of goalposts.

So far Kleinman, you have been trying a bottom up approach to achieve a workable set of conditions for your macroevolutionary event.

After 70 pages, this has not got you very far.

I'd like to try a top down approach instead.

Was the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor a macroevolutionary event according to your goalposts above?

If you believe it was, would you please state which genes supposedly evolved de novo and/or transformed from some initial function into a new and completely different function?

[Dr Adequate]

I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

We know you get it, you got cruft. The only part of this which is written in English (highlighted) is known to be a lie (see my sig for further details).

The rest of it appears to be the word-salad of a man suffering from hebephrenic schizophrenia.

[Dr Adequate]

You’ve shown some real mathematical skills, they can be summed up as posting a few gifs and jpegs (probably none of which were your creation) and listing irrelevant URLs. Oh, and I also showed up your pitiful and childish errors in mathematics. No wonder you need to lie about the contents of my posts.


Stick with posting other peoples gifs and jpegs, that’s the only skill you have demonstrated in this debate. Apart, that is, from showing you up as a drooling halfwitted liar, you mean? No wonder you need to lie about the contents of my posts.

But remember, kleinman, lying doesn't make reality go away; and anyone who wants to read my expose of your clumsy, stupid mistakes and idiotic lies can still follow the link in my sig.

[Dr Adequate]

As usual, you missed the one part of the post that has useful information, which is the goal post. There is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

What’s the matter, no opportunity to make money on this discussion?

Well, here is another new name on this thread. Are you going to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning or will you give us another string cheese or cruft hypothesis?

You’ve got your analogy backwards. It is Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula and I’m not shouting out “God exists”. I’m shouting out that Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula shows that evolution by random point mutation and natural selection does not exist. You are correct, kjkent1 got flustered and left.

You keep missing the key point. Ev is a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection which shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible. This is not my mathematics; this is the mathematics of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute here in the United States. The only thing that I did was use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model. Paul has written an online version of the model. You can easily duplicate the results that I obtained using the model. Too bad if you can’t understand this logic. Also, if you study this model, you will learn the importance of the selection process in achieving convergence and you will see that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

Easily refuted, I am not throwing out random equations. I am applying the peer reviewed and published equations of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computation molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. The result from this model was published in Nucleic Acids Research, an Oxford University Press scientific journal. I did what Dr Schneider suggested to me personally and what he suggested in his publication which was to see how varying parameters in the model affect the results. What I found was that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model, it takes huge numbers of generations to accumulate information in the genome by random point mutations and natural selection. The process is far too slow to support the theory of evolution in fact, this model shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible; it takes far too many generations. Understand rubberband?

You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution. In discussions on this thread, it appears that evolutionists don’t draw a distinction between micro and macroevolution. So I am working with the evolutionist definition, which is there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. If there is no difference, show how selection can evolve a gene from the beginning and how selection can transform a gene from one form to another. I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution concept.

I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution and that evolutionists suggest that a series of microevolutionary steps can lead to a macroevolutionary change. I have not presented this definition. What I have presented are examples which contradict this evolutionist hypothesis. I am happy with the examples I have presented and if others come to mind, I will present those as well.

I felt you were trying to restrict my counter arguments when you said:

I have not presented the definition for macroevolution. What I have presented is examples that contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events. You are trying to restrict my counter arguments if I can’t give examples which contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events.

Actually, I really don’t think I need other examples that contradict this evolutionist hypothesis concerning micro and macroevolution but I also don’t think I need to yield up the right to give further examples.

Whatever that means.

Did I mention on this page that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning?

You all have a good weekend!
Same old lies.

Follow the link in my sig for a rebuttal.

Can't you think of any new lies?

Your only new tactic as such seems to be babbling in your degenerate private language, but this is not a new lie as such; merely new nonsense.

You need some new lies.

[Dr Adequate]

Only the naïve and devout evolutionists can believe these type of arguments. Let's hear from some of them, shall we?

"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

---

And kleinman thinks the world's leading scientists "naïve", when he himself can't understand basic, simple concepts in maths and biology; has substituted baby-talk, babble, abuse and denial for argument; and apparently believes that he can change reality by screaming lies at it and reciting the magic words "string cheese".

I would not describe kleinman as "naïve" when the phrase "completely of his frickin' head" is available.

[Lonewulf]

And the number of eggs in a dozen is twelve.

The sky is blue.

Except when it is not.

[cyborg]

Blue is blue.

Except when it is not.

Make of that what you will.

[Lonewulf]

Blue is blue.

Except when it is not.

Make of that what you will.

But blue has to blue. It can't be blue-green. Unless it's blue-green.

Ooo... blue mushrooms.

[cyborg]

GREEN. PURPLE.

Damn you Babylon 5!

[articulett]

The only part of this which is written in English (highlighted) is known to be a lie (see my sig for further details).

The rest of it appears to be the word-salad of a man suffering from hebephrenic schizophrenia.

But it's interesting how he talks as if others agree or think he's funny--when I don't see any evidence that anyone even "gets" him. Maybe he envisions a chorus of cherubs, jesus, god, and the like nodding approvingly at his verbiage...

Religion not only exacerbates stupidity and arrogance, but clearly it acts as a catalyst towards mental illness as well.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I cannot present a scientific definition of macroevolution as I not not believe it exists as a genuine entity.

You are the one who believes that there is a real, scientific distinction between "microevolution" (which you assert occurs) and "macroevolution" (which you assert cannot occur).

What I am trying to understand is why you believe this is that case.

For you to believe this, you must have some very strict defitions which rigidly seperate the two, otherwise a microevolutionary event may be labelled as a macroevolutionary event and your theory would collapse.

I don't believe there is a difference either (there is "evolution" period), though I will use the terms in the context of this debate (as Theobald does in his 29 Evidences essays) but I have seen macroevolution used in some scientific literature. From what I gathered reading a few abstracts the term is just used in describing speciation within higher taxa. I asked a geneticist I know on another forum if he could check PubMed himself and see if he could get a better handle on how it was being used.

Here's what he sent me:
Based on a quick look at PubMed, I don't see anything that would fit well into a creationist framework. Publications that are representative of how most scientists use the terms would include
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11258393&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11838760&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Just reading the abstracts gives a reasonable feel for the kinds of issues under discussion.

Let's hear from some of them, shall we?

Don't forget Project Steve.

[Schneibster]

Kleinman learnt a NOO WERD!!!11!!one!!!1oneone!

He's teh l33t... well, errrmmmm, I guess there's no way to be l33t and be him. But anyway, he learnt cruft!

Now, if only he wasn't so obviously crufty himself, perhaps it might even be funny.

[cyborg]

I actually like cruftborg. I'll have to use it sometime in honour of kleinman and remember that even people like him can contribute to society - if in a limited way.

[Dr Richard]

I don't believe there is a difference either (there is "evolution" period), though I will use the terms in the context of this debate (as Theobald does in his 29 Evidences essays) but I have seen macroevolution used in some scientific literature. From what I gathered reading a few abstracts the term is just used in describing speciation within higher taxa. I asked a geneticist I know on another forum if he could check PubMed himself and see if he could get a better handle on how it was being used.

Thank you for the links. Of course Iappreciate that some scientists DO use the term macroevolution - but Kleinman has his own special usage of the term, because he asserts that "microevolution" can occur but "macroevolution" does not.

This is why I was so interested inheaing how he had come by this definition - he argues that genes can be altered by al of the accepted meansof genetic variation, but that they cannot arise "de novo" or change into a gene with a different function "because there is no selection process which will allow this".

What I am interested in seeing now is how far back in evolutionary history we can go using his version of "microevolution". It should be quite interesting.

[Schneibster]

I actually like cruftborg. I'll have to use it sometime in honour of kleinman and remember that even people like him can contribute to society - if in a limited way.Now if there was actually any chance that he actually knew what it meant...

[cyborg]

It is ironic that he gets closer to the truth when he is trying to be insulting is it not?

[Schneibster]

:id:

[kleinman]

You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution.I cannot present a scientific definition of macroevolution as I not not believe it exists as a genuine entity.

You are the one who believes that there is a real, scientific distinction between "microevolution" (which you assert occurs) and "macroevolution" (which you assert cannot occur).

What I am trying to understand is why you believe this is that case.

For you to believe this, you must have some very strict defitions which rigidly seperate the two, otherwise a microevolutionary event may be labelled as a macroevolutionary event and your theory would collapse.
That’s ok that you can not present a definition of macroevolution so let’s work from the assumption that macroevolution is simply the sum of a series of microevolutionary steps.

With respects to what I call microevolution and assert that occurs such as what is seen commonly with recombination events which can lead to large anatomical and structural changes in creatures and the rare mutational events which can lead to small changes such as drug resistant bacteria or Sickle cell for malaria resistance events, don’t you agree that these events occur? What is the selection process that leads these types of events to create a new gene from the beginning or transform an existing gene to a totally new function which I label as a macroevolutionary process? Here’s an analogy. You are start accelerating an object. Little by little you increase its velocity. We know we can increase the velocity of an object by imparting momentum. Why can’t you make that object go faster than the speed of light? The barrier that prevents small mutations from accumulating the huge changes required to achieve a gene from the beginning or a totally new creature is the lack of a selection process. Dr Schneider’s computer simulation shows that random point mutations and natural selection is a profoundly slow process when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used and this is with a contrived selection process. Without a realistic selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning or transform a gene from one form to another, mutation and selection becomes a mathematically impossible explanation for the theory of evolution.
I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution conceptOf course, I understand that you are obviously well used to such debates on internet forums. As a creationist, you must have to be careful never to get too closely pinned down to a scientific defintion. I am not trying to trap you into some kind of error however (how could I if you are correct?). I have to say I am howver disappointed in your inabillity to define "insulin" (this, for a doctor?) and your very own concept of "macroevolution".
I have only debated this issue for about a year on the internet and this is the only issue I have ever debated like this on the internet or anywhere else.

With respects to a definition for insulin, you can look for that definition in any introductory text on biochemistry and find the amino acid sequence for this hormone and its function to stimulate cells to take up glucose. With respects to macroevolution, we can work with your definition that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution, so now you can explain to us how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning.

With respects to you trying to trick me, that is not something I am worrying about. What I think you do is cherry pick data to try and support your theory. You have attempted to map out the similarities between different forms of insulin genes and molecules in different life forms but won’t explain how these transformations occur. You also don’t explain how the DNA replicase system could do this.
I have not presented the definition for macroevolution.Post #2778 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2363503&postcount=2778)
The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.
We can dance around this definition for macro and microevolution for a while but since you have already indicated this is something you are not interested for this discussion, let me modify my statement in post 2778.

The goal post for microevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

Or better yet:

The goal post for evolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

If it makes you more comfortable not to use the terms micro and macroevolution, we can just use the term evolution. I happen to like the terms micro and macroevolution to distinguish between evolutionary events which occur and those which don’t occur. Since you believe that all life occurred by evolution, for the sake of this discussion leave off the prefix of macro and micro and explain to us the selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.
Was the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor a macroevolutionary event according to your goalposts above?

If you believe it was, would you please state which genes supposedly evolved de novo and/or transformed from some initial function into a new and completely different function?
Humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor represent an impossible evolutionary event. I know of no genes that evolved from the beginning in this example. But let’s consider something which you know about. What is the difference between the insulin gene in these two creatures and what is the selection process that would evolve these two different forms of insulin gene? Why are human and chimp insulin gene so different when human and chimp insulin are identical? What was the selection process that would evolve these two different genes yet give identical amino acid sequences?
Albanian Academy of Sciences …
This is Adequate’s idea of a mathematical proof of the theory of evolution. In the future, sociologists will be studying the history of evolution trying to figure out how so many scientific institutions could be duped into believing the theory of evolution. Adequate, for somebody with a PhD in mathematics, you present very little in the form of a mathematical argument. You are so boring Adequate. Keep it up; you may win this debate by boring me to death.

[kleinman]

Dr Richard has asked:
Was the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor a macroevolutionary event according to your goalposts above?

If you believe it was, would you please state which genes supposedly evolved de novo and/or transformed from some initial function into a new and completely different function?
I will respond to his questions more explicitly. Divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor would be a macroevolutionary event and therefore be impossible.

As an example of a gene which transformed but not to a completely new function consider the insulin gene for humans and chimps. My information comes from the paper
”Sequences of Primate Insulin Genes Support the Hypothesis of a Slower Rate of Molecular Evolution in Humans and Apes than in Monkeys” by Susumu Seino, Graeme I. Bell, and Wen-Hsiung Li. The first quote I take from this article concerns the insulin hormone itself:
The amino acid sequence of human, chimpanzee, and African green monkey insulin is identical.
The second quote concerns the gene sequences for human and chimpanzee insulin.
The human insulin gene hybridizes to a single EcoRI fragment in many primate species whose size is about 12- 13 kb ( S. Seino and G. I. Bell, unpublished observations).
The third quote again concerns the gene sequences for human and chimpanzee insulin.
In addition, there are several other notable differences between the human, chimpanzee, and African green monkey insulin gene sequences. The first is a deletion of 48 bp in the chimpanzee insulin gene at a site just after the TAG which specifies termination of translation.
The fourth quote again concerns the gene sequences for human and chimpanzee insulin.
The second notable difference was in the 5’ flanking region of these genes. The chimpanzee insulin gene has a region of 206 bp that begins -365 bp from the start of transcription and that comprises 20 tandem repeats of sequences related to the 15-bp sequence ACAGGGGTCCTGGGG (fig. 1). A region of similar tandem repeats is present in the human gene (Bell et al. 1982)) the most common sequence of which, ACAGGGGTGTGGGG, does not occur in the chimpanzee gene. However, the next two most common repeats in the human are ACAGGGTCCTGGGG and ACAGGGGTCTGGGG, which constitute most of the repeats in the chimpanzee.
Dr Richard, can you tell us what type of mutation events can lead to these differences in the insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees yet still produce the same insulin hormone? What was the selection process that would allow these types of genetic changes? Which gene do you believe is more similar to the gene that would have been found in the common ancestor for these genes, the human or chimpanzee gene?

[RecoveringYuppy]

LOL. Do you actually think about what you are posting? Or read what you are quoting?

[kleinman]

LOL. Do you actually think about what you are posting? Or read what you are quoting?
Well, let’s see.
We have Dr Richard who says he can trace evolution through the insulin gene and molecule. Dr Richard asks me if the evolution of humans and chimps represents a macroevolutionary change and if so what genes evolved from the beginning or transformed. I say yes, this represents a macroevolutionary change and decided to look at his example of the insulin gene and molecule. So what shows up? A paper written by evolutionists who have sequenced the DNA for the insulin gene in chimpanzees and document the genetic differences between the human and chimpanzee insulin gene yet these different genes still produce identical polypeptides.

Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule? This is particularly peculiar in the face of the results from ev which show how slow random point mutations and natural selection is, especially with these huge genomes, the small number of generations and the small populations to accomplish these changes. If you start from the premise that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a single insulin gene, how do you explain the hundreds of base differences between the present day insulin genes of these creatures yet these genes produce identical polypeptides? Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?

[sphenisc]

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


at a site just after the TAG which specifies termination


and


5’ flanking region

[kleinman]

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

[cyborg]

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

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

I find that interesting.

Don't you?

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

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

[kjkent1]

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

I find that interesting.

Don't you?Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?

[delphi_ote]

Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

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

[kleinman]

Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule?Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?
Oh I forgot, those hundreds of bases these authors are talking about, that must be cruft.
Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?It is if you insist that the mutation model of ev is complete.
Ev is complete enough to illustrate how slow random point mutation and natural selection is with a contrived selection process. Without a selection process, ev does not converge. So unless you want to explain all the base differences in the insulin gene between humans and chimps with worldwide populations, interspecies gene transfers, sexual recombination, insertions and deletions, or any other mechanism other than random point mutations, it can’t happen by mutation and natural selection.
Hmm, two different 4^G combinations with the same effect.

I find that interesting.

Don't you?Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?
I don’t think evolutionist will ever admit that their own data falsifies their theory.

Hey, I thought you said good bye?
Seems as though someone has just falsified his own theory.

Do you think someone will admit this?No. He won't even admit it was his theory. He'll smoke and mirrors disappear and pretend this never happend. Instead, he'll bring up another argument. Probably one he already made earlier in this thread.
It is easy to understand how lotteries stay in business with this type of thinking. So you kids think that two different species evolving from a common ancestor can have hundreds of base differences in their genes for insulin and still have the exact same amino acid sequence. It is interesting that the preproinsulin between the two species are not identical yet the insulins are identical. Where’s Dr Richard, what does he have to say? Is this an example of Paul’s evolutionary beachscape?

[sphenisc]

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

Yes and quite.

[cyborg]

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

Um, yes - that is the point.

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

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

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

Any new lies?

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

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

[kjkent1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kleinman]

So you kids think that two different species evolving from a common ancestor can have hundreds of base differences in their genes for insulin and still have the exact same amino acid sequence. It is interesting that the preproinsulin between the two species are not identical yet the insulins are identical.Yes and quite.
The only thing this explains is why you want to indoctrinate naïve school children with your irrational theory.
Oh I forgot, those hundreds of bases these authors are talking about, that must be cruft.Um, yes - that is the point.

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

Saying 4^G is really big doesn't mean **** unless you know how many of those combinations are viable - and you don't have a clue.
Has cruftborg come up with a valid point? Does the theory of evolution depend on percent of the 4^G combinations are viable? Does the fact that a selection process to evolve a gene not matter? Does the theory of evolution now become random mutation and viable combinations? We do have clues, most mutations are harmful, ask anyone with a genetic disease.
Ev is complete enough to illustrate how slow random point mutation and natural selection is with a contrived selection process. Without a selection process, ev does not converge.Any new lies?
Try ev with selection turned off, you only get cruft.
So unless you want to explain all the base differences in the insulin gene between humans and chimps with worldwide populations, interspecies gene transfers, sexual recombination, insertions and deletions, or any other mechanism other than random point mutations, it can’t happen by mutation and natural selection.Why are you such an idiot? No I mean that seriously - how can you continually refute yourself and not realise it?
Oh, I see, the theory of evolution is true and this is an example of it. Too bad there is no mathematics to support your irrational belief system.
Hey, I thought you said good bye?I did, but this event provided such a great opportunity to demonstrate that despite your considerable education, you are unwilling to consider any evidence which reasonably argues against your position.
Which evidence are you talking about, your string cheese theory or cyborg’s cruft theory?
Your hypothesis for the impossibility of evolution is that there is no selective method for a gene which can act to overcome the extraordinary mathematical unlikelihood of any functional DNA sequence appearing by random chance. In order for your hypothesis to hold, the possible sequences of DNA must all be substantially independent outcomes, which leads to your mathematical statement of the probability of any one sequence as: 4^G.
Not quite, there is no selective method at all which can evolve a gene from the beginning. That lack of a selective method reduces the likelihood of obtaining any functional DNA sequence appearing an infinitesimal mathematical probability. If you and cruftborg believe that you can overcome these infinitesimal mathematical probabilities by proving that there are huge numbers of viable combinations DNA that are consistent with life, why don’t you explain why so many people die when exposed to radiation or other mutagens?
Here, your own evidence demonstrates that two different sequences produce substantially the same organic outcome. Thus there are absolutely less than 4^G possible sequences. Which falsifies your hypothesis.
So your argument is that there many paths to the most fit creature? Do you think that the precursor to humans and chimps produced insulin?
Until you can show precisely how many of the 4^G sequences produce viable life processes, vis-a-vis how many do not, you do not have a working theory which matches observed reality.
If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?
It could just as easily be that a large percentage of DNA sequences produce viable life functions. The human genome is roughly 72" long, uncoiled. 1.3% of that coil is considered functional. Suppose that 1.3% of all DNA sequences produce viable organic outcomes, and that this is the reason why 1.3% of the human genome is functional? This would mean that the random chance of a gene from the beginning is only 1 in 72.
Huh?
I can't prove that this is the case, and you can't prove that it isn't But you have provided evidence that two very different DNA sequences produce the identical organic outcome. Until you can explain this discrepancy in your theory, your hypothesis has just run around on the rocks of reality.
Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.
So, Alan, what proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, vs. some far lesser number?
Kjkent1, why are mutagens dangerous?

[sphenisc]

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

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

[kleinman]

If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.What makes you think that the difference in insulin genes is the result of selection?
Either it drifted or it was selected for in order to fit your theory. Maybe Dr Richard can tell us whether the same enzymes cleave the preproinsulin for both humans and chimpanzees to insulin. If they aren’t identical enzymes then not only would the insulin gene had to drift but the cleaving enzymes would have drifted identically. For some reason, I think that the differences in genes will have a cascading effect on other related enzymes and you are going to have a hard time explaining the required changes in other related enzymes on drift. Of course, there is no selection process so these differences in genes will have to be explained by drift, if you get my drift.

[kjkent1]

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

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

Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.How do you know that the common ancestor was already producing insulin, and not something different? A: you don't. You just jumped to that conclusion, because you need it to advance your false premise.

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

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

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

[delphi_ote]

So do I win the million?

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

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

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

In the future, sociologists will be studying the history of evolution trying to figure out how so many scientific institutions could be duped into believing the theory of evolution.. Do you realize that you guys have been reciting that mantra for the last 150 years? (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm) Longer, in fact, since you people were frightened and ignorant of geology before you were frightened and ignorant of biology.

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

Adequate, for somebody with a PhD in mathematics, you present very little in the form of a mathematical argument.Why no, of course not: it was only necessary to expose your mistakes once.

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

You are so boring Adequate. Keep it up; you may win this debate by boring me to death. If you find that contact with reality bores you, I suggest that you spend less time on these forums and more time reading the Bible.

[Dr Adequate]

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

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

Kleinman, please learn something about

(1) Genetics.

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

(2) Logic.

Consider why this is not a good piece of rhetoric:

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

Why would this not prove the point? Discuss.

(3) The theory of evolution.

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

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous? In sufficient doses, they are dangerous because they cause many somatic mutations, and only one of them needs to become cancerous for you to have cancer.

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

[articulett]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kleinman]

If you think that there are huge numbers of genetic sequences compatible with life, why are mutagens so dangerous?False premise. Why are bullets dangerous?
Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.
I won't allow you to control the discussion by playing Socrates.
Why not?
If you think you can outargue me, then take your shot, and prepare to get your ass handed to you over and over again. Just like as has been the case throughout this thread. Example:Once again you stray off the logic trail. If humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and that common ancestor produced insulin, how do you explain the selection process that would produce markedly different insulin genes that produce identical insulin molecules when the common ancestor already was producing insulin? There is no selection process that would do this.How do you know that the common ancestor was already producing insulin, and not something different? A: you don't. You just jumped to that conclusion, because you need it to advance your false premise.
The exon-intron organization of the insulin genes of these two primates is the same as those previously reported for the human and owl monkey insulin genes (Bell et al. 1980; Ullrich et al. 1980; Seino et al. 1987) and corresponds to what is termed the “ancestral” insulin gene structure (Steiner et al. 1985 ) , i.e., the coding region of the gene being interrupted by two introns.
I added the bold facing to the words “ancestral” insulin.Kjkent1, perhaps you know of a primate that doesn’t use some form of insulin?
Maybe the common ancestor was producing something like insulin, but not the same molecular structure we know today. Maybe the two successor organisms diverged, but the requirements of their environment were similar, so they both evolved to use insulin because it was the best fit for the environment. Maybe the common ancestor produced insulin with one DNA sequence, and all those AWFUL mutations you claim are so dangerous caused a divergence that had a negligible effect.
Maybe…? Maybe…? Maybe…? Maybe…?
Damn, there are all sorts of possible answers to your question other than that mutations cause cancer and kill the host. But, then you know that cancerous mutations are mostly the result of damage caused to somatic rather than germ cells, so your entire line of reasoning here is just religious zealotry gone awry.
The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?
Now, I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that the number of unviable DNA sequences approaches 4^G, rather than some much smaller number?
There are far more harmful mutations documented than beneficial mutations. This is your theory, if you think that there is large proportion of the 4^G possible sequences in a gene are viable, start listing your beneficial mutations and prove your argument. There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?
So do I win the million?
Sober up!
This is Adequate’s idea of a mathematical proof of the theory of evolution..Now, here's what I don't understand about you people.
I’m starting to understand evolutionists. If you quote them they say you are a liar. Adequate, not only are you boring, you are long winded.
Kleinman, whether a gene is beneficial, harmful, or neutral only refers for the capacity for that piece of DNA to get passed on. It has nothing to do with how long humans live or who is happiest or which life forms we find the most endearing or "worthy"--
So are you going to tell us the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning? Without that selection process, how does a gene evolve from the beginning? Or are you going to repeat the argument that I made previously when describing what selection can do?

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

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

The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

[kjkent1]

Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.I did -- just yesterday, I had a CT-Scan. But, damn, I'm still here writing to you. Next time, I'll make sure that they turn up the power. So, I've done the mutagen experiment. I'll leave the bullet experiment to you.The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't allow you to play Socrates with me, because it allows you to control the conversation. So make your affirmative case, if you have the nuts.

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

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

Ain't that right, bubba?

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

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

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

There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?This is a perfect demonstration of how you don't get it. Every single web page, the underlying networking/computing technology, the boolean algebra, your fingers that type, the blood in your veins and arteries, your neurons -- EVERYTHING that you, Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D., ARE, is a tribute to BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I think this is a good time to review what the peer reviewed and published stylized computer model of random point mutations and natural selection ev shows us. First, when the genome is lengthened, the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow.This conclusion has been soundly refuted by imposing a better selection method. Second, if the mutation rate becomes too high, the model fails to converge.Wow, this is a really impressive conclusion. I'll bet that if you stab an organism with an ice pick, that will damage the organism, too.Third, increasing population increases the convergence rate but only to a limited degree.Yawn Fourth and most importantly, when the genome is increase beyond a certain length, the model fails to converge.This failure in convergence is due to conflicting selection criteria.************. The failure is due to to the selection method killing off organisms with neutral mutations, which would have otherwise survived with a more realistic selection method -- as demonstrated by Unnamed's more realistic selection method.Selection to reduce errors in the nonbinding site region dominates selection to increase beneficial mutations in the binding site region. This fourth finding has important implications to the theory of evolution. It indicates that multiple selection criteria can conflict preventing evolution.************. It indicates that you don't understand the fact that a neutral mutation has no effect, so it shouldn't kill off its host.This fourth finding also indicates the importance of defining a selection process that would allow genes to evolve from the beginning and transform genes from one form to another.Imagine my surprise that you would suddenly announce this conclusion without any supporting evidence. "Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! ... Whoops, wrong hat!" -- Bullwinkle

The example of human and chimpanzee insulin gene and molecule point to one of the many gaps in the theory of evolution. If differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin are due to drift, these changes are still subject to natural selection. Every step of the drift had to be either beneficial or neutral otherwise any of these mutations would cause selection out.False. There's no reason why a mutations can't drift between harmful, neutral and beneficial, because the environment of the host changes, and a harmful mutation doesn't necessarily guarantee extinction of an entire lineage. If these changes are neutral, why don’t we see large varieties of insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees since these mutations do not get selected out? The reason is there is no selection process that would allow for these hundreds of base changes. If humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor and this common ancestor produce some form of insulin, there is no way to account for the hundreds of base differences between human and chimpanzee insulin gene.Really? I just did, so I guess that pretty much blow this conclusion completely out of the water. If you try to account for this by drift, there should be a wide variety of insulin genes with numerous neutral mutations.Really? Let's see your supporting evidence. Perhaps evolutionists should postulate the theory of punctuated drifting.Perhaps they should.If you try to account for these differences by mutation and natural selection, what was the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin?Why Alan, you should know by know that the answer is that there must be far less than 4^G possible inviable DNA sequences.


The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.OK, once again, I've disposed of all your ridiculous propositions. Got anything else?

[cyborg]

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

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

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

No it does not.

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

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

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

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

Exactly. You are self-refuting again.

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

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

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

[kleinman]

Get in the line of a bullet or a mutagen and find out why.I did -- just yesterday, I had a CT-Scan. But, damn, I'm still here writing to you. Next time, I'll make sure that they turn up the power. So, I've done the mutagen experiment. I'll leave the bullet experiment to you.
Your probability of surviving the mutagenic effect of the level of x-ray exposure from a CT scan is much better than the probability that the theory of evolution is true. Madam Currie found out otherwise for her radiation exposure. I hope the findings from your CT scan show you well.
The sickle cell mutation shows benefit in malarial endemic areas. I asked Dr Richard why this mutation is of selective benefit under these circumstances. He has not answered. Kjkent1, perhaps you would explain to us why this mutation is of benefit?You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't allow you to play Socrates with me, because it allows you to control the conversation. So make your affirmative case, if you have the nuts.
You evolutionists are the ones who say mutation and natural selection proves your theory. I am interested if you can explain why a beneficial mutation can be selected for. If you can’t do this you will have trouble mathematically describing and explaining your theory. I have already made an affirmative case with ev, the only thing that evolutionists have done is discredit Dr Schneider’s model which was a predictable response. Now we are working on describing the selection component of the “mutation and selection” slogan. You evolutionists aren’t doing so well with this concept either.
There are far more harmful mutations documented than beneficial mutations.False. If every base in a genome is the product of mutation (something which you have consistently maintained), then the entire genome sequence of every living organism consists of beneficial mutations.
It’s not me that says that every base in a genome in the product of mutations, remember, I’m the annoying creationist.
This is your theory, if you think that there is large proportion of the 4^G possible sequences in a gene are viable, start listing your beneficial mutations and prove your argument.False. the 4^G impossibility argument is YOUR theory, and it has been your theory since page one of the evolutionisdead.com thread. Your entire argument rests on the conclusion that the number of viable combinations of DNA sequences approaches 4^G -- only you have never actually offered any proof to support this conclusion. You take it as self evident, because your theology demands this as the only possibility. God is in control, therefore the observed viable DNA sequences must be the ONLY possible sequences, because they were designed that way.
Again, you attribute something to me that I have not done. 4^G is the number of combinations of bases possible for a genome of length G. It is evolutionist who propose that out of these 4^G combinations that natural selection evolves the sequences that are beneficial for life. But wait a minute, there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning and there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from one form to another form.
Of course, this position is laughably absurd, because you are attempting to scientifically prove that randomness cannot account for the organization of life. But, if God is behind the entire operation of the universe, then randomness MUST BE ILLUSORY. God cannot possibly know and control all and simultaneously allow randomness to operate, because randomness is unpredictable. That is, UNLESS God operates in a non-logical manner. And, if God does, then damn, that means any attempt to logically determine God's behavior is doomed, because God's not logical.
I think most serious evolutionists believe that “randomness cannot account for the organization of life”. They believe that random mutation controlled by natural selection is the explanation. The problem for you evolutionist is that the mathematics of this concept doesn’t work to prove your theory. In fact the opposite occurs as shown by ev.
I wonder if you realize just how friggin stupid and unsupportable your argument actually is, no matter how much scientific methodology you attempt to use? The real irony is that the Greeks sat around and did nothing but think through all of these logical constructs for several thousand years, and they concluded that theology and science are irrevocably discrete disciplines.
Hey, I’m using the peer reviewed and published ev computer model to support my argument. What do you have against this model? It was written by a devout evolutionist, published in a devoutly evolutionist journal and only until recently was accepted by devout evolutionists as proof of your theory. Only when you are shown what this mathematics of ev shows do you discredit this model.
Unfortunately, you don't have several thousand years, so I'm just gonna have to keep pounding it into you until you realize that your argument is impossible, no matter how logical you may perceive it to be.
Is your string cheese theory of evolution part of that pounding?
There are numerous web pages dedicated to harmful mutations. Where are all the web pages dedicated to beneficial mutations? So have you given up on the string cheese theory of evolution and now take up the new slogan “mutation and viable combinations”?This is a perfect demonstration of how you don't get it. Every single web page, the underlying networking/computing technology, the boolean algebra, your fingers that type, the blood in your veins and arteries, your neurons -- EVERYTHING that you, Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D., ARE, is a tribute to BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.
You got this backwards; we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
In short, there are a LOT MORE BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS than there are harmful ones, because if HARMFUL MUTATIONS were DOMINANT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LIFE!!!
IF GOD DID NOT CREATE US THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY LIFE!!! AND THE MATHEMATICS OF MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION SHOWS THIS PROCESS IMPOSSIBLE.

Could you stop typing so loud?
What I wonder, is why you bother to discuss this subject at all. You sit in your chair proclaiming that there are more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations, when in fact, your belief system utterly prevents the existence of any beneficial mutations.
Hey, I said the sickle cell mutation is beneficial mutation but you won’t tell us why.
Thus, your entire argument is based on a completely false premise. No matter how much science you apply, you cannot possibly pass the following barrier:
My argument is based on the results from the ev computer model.
Evolution is impossible only if God is responsible. Otherwise Evolution must be true, because there is no alternative.
I haven’t made this argument. What I have said is there are only two possibilities. Either we evolved or we have been created. If you disprove the theory of evolution, you support the alternative that we have been created. The mathematics of ev shows that the theory of evolution is impossible. Not only that, ev shows the importance of a selection process for the theory of evolution. There is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and no selection process to evolve a gene from one form to another.
I think this is a good time to review what the peer reviewed and published stylized computer model of random point mutations and natural selection ev shows us. First, when the genome is lengthened, the rate of information gain becomes profoundly slow.This conclusion has been soundly refuted by imposing a better selection method.
Are you talking about Unnamed’s selection process? Let’s see whether Dr Schneider or Paul will embrace this selection process as having any relationship to reality. Anyone who has any understanding of ev and the mathematical modeling of a selection process won’t touch Unnamed’s selection process with a ten foot pole (at least not calling it realistic). What Unnamed has done is focus a spotlight on the difficulty of formulating a realistic selection process.
Second, if the mutation rate becomes too high, the model fails to converge.Wow, this is a really impressive conclusion. I'll bet that if you stab an organism with an ice pick, that will damage the organism, too.
I thought you said all mutations are beneficial.
Third, increasing population increases the convergence rate but only to a limited degree.Yawn
Again, your difficulty in maintaining your attention leads you off the logic trail. When talking about the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a primate ancestor, the population levels would have been very small. There are few factors that help the mathematics of mutation and natural selection in support of the theory of evolution. You don’t have huge populations to accomplish this with humans and chimpanzees. So pay attention.
Fourth and most importantly, when the genome is increase beyond a certain length, the model fails to converge.This failure in convergence is due to conflicting selection criteria.************. The failure is due to to the selection method killing off organisms with neutral mutations, which would have otherwise survived with a more realistic selection method -- as demonstrated by Unnamed's more realistic selection method.
If Unnamed’s selection process is realistic, it must be in one of the 10^500 alternative realities from your string cheese theory. His selection process isn’t realistic in the reality we live in.
Selection to reduce errors in the nonbinding site region dominates selection to increase beneficial mutations in the binding site region. This fourth finding has important implications to the theory of evolution. It indicates that multiple selection criteria can conflict preventing evolution.************. It indicates that you don't understand the fact that a neutral mutation has no effect, so it shouldn't kill off its host.
Can you hit the asterisk key without looking at the keyboard?
This fourth finding also indicates the importance of defining a selection process that would allow genes to evolve from the beginning and transform genes from one form to another.Imagine my surprise that you would suddenly announce this conclusion without any supporting evidence. "Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! ... Whoops, wrong hat!" -- Bullwinkle
I know you are having a hard time understanding ev, but I’ll be patient with you.
The example of human and chimpanzee insulin gene and molecule point to one of the many gaps in the theory of evolution. If differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin are due to drift, these changes are still subject to natural selection. Every step of the drift had to be either beneficial or neutral otherwise any of these mutations would cause selection out.False. There's no reason why a mutations can't drift between harmful, neutral and beneficial, because the environment of the host changes, and a harmful mutation doesn't necessarily guarantee extinction of an entire lineage.
So tell us, what kind of environmental changes lead to the evolution of different preproinsulins for humans and chimpanzees?
If you try to account for this by drift, there should be a wide variety of insulin genes with numerous neutral mutations.Really? Let's see your supporting evidence.
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if there are a few variants of insulin genes identified. After all, there are a couple of hundred variants of human hemoglobin that are compatible with life. That’s not very many variants for the total possible number of variants. You remember 4^G don’t you?
Perhaps evolutionists should postulate the theory of punctuated drifting.Perhaps they should.
The whole theory of evolution is drifting from one speculation to the next.
If you try to account for these differences by mutation and natural selection, what was the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin?Why Alan, you should know by know that the answer is that there must be far less than 4^G possible inviable DNA sequences.
For your theory to work there must be.
The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.OK, once again, I've disposed of all your ridiculous propositions. Got anything else?
Hey, I’m just trying to keep up the interest in calculations so your computer company can stay in business. You know what I’m talking about.
Has cruftborg come up with a valid point? Does the theory of evolution depend on percent of the 4^G combinations are viable?No, but you argument that evolution is mathematically improbable does.
Well, start posting your URLs that show your point is true.
Does the fact that a selection process to evolve a gene not matter?No it does not.
The mutation without selection theory of evolution takes shape.
The construction of genes is not a 'goal'. Evolution is not goal based. New genes are mathematically guarunteed to happen. The question only becomes whether they are good or bad. This determination *REQUIRES* selection. The question is meaningless without selection.
What don’t you lay out your mathematics for us of how these good and bad genes appear?
Does the theory of evolution now become random mutation and viable combinations?No. Your assertion that evolution is improbable depends on knowing the number of viable combinations as a proportion of 4^G.
Just how many viable combinations are there since you are now saying this is how your theory works?
Try ev with selection turned off, you only get cruft.Exactly. You are self-refuting again.
Refuting what? When you turn selection off in ev binding sites do not evolve, in fact, any information you have in the binding sites is lost.
Without selection all genes are equal - neither good nor bad. All 4^G possibilities are valid.
That is not what ev shows, without selection, random mutations cause the loss of information in evolved binding sites. Selection must be maintained in order that binding sites be maintained.

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

[kjkent1]

So Kent and cruftborg joins the crowd in discrediting ev, what a surprise. They can’t describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning; their argument is that there are huge numbers of combinations of bases that are compatible with life. Well, that and their string cheese melted on cruft theory of evolution.Your response have produced so many logical flaws that it pretty much speaks for itself (or as it's called in the biz: res ipsa loquitur). So, it's pointless to address it. I'll try a different experiment...

Let's talk about insulin and the evidence of two different genetic sequences which produce the same organic outcome.

Premise1: God is a perfect designer.
Premise2: God created chimps.
Premise3: God created humans.

Hypothesis: A perfect designer wouldn't use two different designs to produce the same organic outcome, in two creatures which were substantially similar.

Experiment1: Compare human and chimp genomes.

Result1: Both genomes are substantially similar.

Experiment2: Compare the insulin-producing genes for both humans and chimps to confirm that they are both the product of a perfect designer.

Result2: The genes are substantially different.

Conclusion: God is an imperfect designer, i.e., not God.

Alternate conclusion: God did not design humans and/or chimps.

Alan, you keep saying that evolution is mathematically impossible. That statement is inflammatory and hyperbole, because no matter how infinitesimally small the mathematical probability, if life exists, and God cannot be proved to have created it, then the alternative, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, must be true.

EV demonstrates information gain from a random start and without the introduction of external information. This makes evolution possible, no matter how unlikely.

So, unless you can affirmatively prove God as a mathematical possibility (and you have admitted in this thread that you cannot do this), then evolution must have occurred.

You think Unnamed's selection process is unrealistic. This is irrelevant, because no matter how unrealistic it may be, it is still a selection process which evolves a perfect creature from a random start within a sufficiently small number of generations to make evolution possible.

There is no alternative selection process with which you can demonstrate God. Therefore Unnamed's process and ev is a better solution. It may not be a perfect solution, but until you can prove up God mathematically, ANY mathematical solution, no matter how implausible, is mathematically better than God.

Example: Suppose you have a choice between one possiblity which is 1 in 10^50,000 (abiogenesis), and another which is 1 in 10^infinity (God). Given that life exists, and that it is either the result of the former and latter choice, which is the higher likelihood?

You know the answer. You may not like it, but you know it.

[kleinman]

So kjkent1 and cruftborg joins the crowd in discrediting ev, what a surprise. They can’t describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning; their argument is that there are huge numbers of combinations of bases that are compatible with life. Well, that and their string cheese melted on cruft theory of evolution.Your response have produced so many logical flaws that it pretty much speaks for itself (or as it's called in the biz: res ipsa loquitur). So, it's pointless to address it. I'll try a different experiment...
I understand why you want to change the subject from the mathematics of mutation and selection; it is a losing approach for the theory of evolution. Of course the theory of evolution can at best be a mushy soft science without a mathematical foundation.

I noticed another thread that has sprung out of this discussion. It is located at:
http://groups.google.to/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8e14c956367fbd14 (http://groups.google.to/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8e14c956367fbd14)
Part of this thread discusses the role of the peer review given to Dr Schneider’s publication on ev. You get a sense from these discussants that Dr Schneider’s publication received a poor peer review. I am not so harsh. On the surface, Dr Schneider’s model looks like a reasonable simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. When I first saw what he had modeled, my impression was that it was a plausible model of this phenomenon. After running hundreds of cases with ev, my initial impression was confirmed, that is ev is a plausible simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing the peer reviewers should have called for was more than a single computed data point. This would have revealed more of the behavior of this model and probably prevented the unrealistic extrapolations that Dr Schneider made in his publication.

That said, I believe that ev is a useful simulation. Good science requires the kind of accounting that Dr Schneider has done with ev. What I wonder is whether the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research would have published the results of ev if they included longer genomes and more realistic mutation rates and had shown the theory of evolution not to be possible by this simulation.

[kjkent1]

I understand why you want to change the subject from the mathematics of mutation and selection; it is a losing approach for the theory of evolution. Of course the theory of evolution can at best be a mushy soft science without a mathematical foundation.

I noticed another thread that has sprung out of this discussion. It is located at:
http://groups.google.to/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8e14c956367fbd14 (http://groups.google.to/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8e14c956367fbd14)
Part of this thread discusses the role of the peer review given to Dr Schneider’s publication on ev. You get a sense from these discussants that Dr Schneider’s publication received a poor peer review. I am not so harsh. On the surface, Dr Schneider’s model looks like a reasonable simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. When I first saw what he had modeled, my impression was that it was a plausible model of this phenomenon. After running hundreds of cases with ev, my initial impression was confirmed, that is ev is a plausible simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing the peer reviewers should have called for was more than a single computed data point. This would have revealed more of the behavior of this model and probably prevented the unrealistic extrapolations that Dr Schneider made in his publication.

That said, I believe that ev is a useful simulation. Good science requires the kind of accounting that Dr Schneider has done with ev. What I wonder is whether the peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research would have published the results of ev if they included longer genomes and more realistic mutation rates and had shown the theory of evolution not to be possible by this simulation.You have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible. All you have shown is that ev's original selection method unrealistically gives equal weight to a mutation in a non-binding site region of ev's hypothetical genome.

In order to show evolution mathematically impossible, you will have to at least provide one mathematically possible alternative. Failing this, evolution wins.

And, you have admitted to being unable to prove the alternative mathematically possible. Therefore, God loses.

The logic is trivial.

PS. I have never asserted that ev is the be all and end all of evolutionary algorithms. My position from page one is that ev demonstrates information gain from a random system using mutation and natural selection, and that's all it needs to show. Once accomplished, refinements may be necessary, but the ultimate goal is still achieved: evolution is proved mathematically possible, however unlikely. And, absent prove of an alternative (i.e., God), evolution must prevail, despite any gaps in the details, because there is no alternative.

[cyborg]

]The mutation without selection theory of evolution takes shape.

Um, mutation is not something that selects itself. It just happens.

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

Time + mutation = new genetic sequences.

By Zeus you are a slow one.

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

>> 1.

Now, you show that it isn't since your disprove of evolution relies on mathematical improbability.

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

Indeed. The whole system is information free.

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

If all 4^G possibilities are equally good compared with the 'perfect' creature then selection would become irrelevant and you'd see the same thing.

What this would imply is that 4^G has no information content. There is no information in the system.

That doesn't stop the system from producing a wide variety of combinations of 4^G.

This is what you do not seem to get when you set up the strawman of, "give me a selection process that will want to make a new gene in the far future,". Genetic change will give you it whether or not you wanted it. It is only selection that can tell you if that was a good thing or not.

They can’t describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning;

No we can't because such a selection process cannot exist. That doesn't prevent genes from arising. The construction of a gene doesn't need to be selected for.

their argument is that there are huge numbers of combinations of bases that are compatible with life.

Your argument is that there is not.

You already showed one case where there is 100 base pairs different between two genes that produce the same chemical. I would say you are not doing so well in showing that there are very few valid combinations.

[kleinman]

You have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible. All you have shown is that ev's original selection method unrealistically gives equal weight to a mutation in a non-binding site region of ev's hypothetical genome.
You are still having trouble understanding that the only realistic replacement for Dr Schneider’s selection process that I can suggest would be to start with a realistic genome with a portion of the genome set aside to evolve binding sites and then determining on a case by case basis which random mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful and making selection based on those conditions. The problem you have is how do you extend this concept to evolving a gene from the beginning? Dr Schneider has designed a weight matrix for the match of binding sites. How do you do this for evolving a gene from the beginning? There is no selection process that I know of that could do this and no evolutionist has offered a suggestion on how to do this.
In order to show evolution mathematically impossible, you will have to at least provide one mathematically possible alternative. Failing this, evolution wins.
I have no idea where you came up with this condition. For someone “coming to a courtroom near you”, would you expect a defense lawyer to prove his client innocent also be required to prove who is actually guilty? I am under no obligation to provide a mathematically possible alternative just because mutation and natural selection is a mathematically impossible explanation for the theory of evolution. You are the plaintiff’s lawyer for the theory of evolution, prove your own case.
They can’t describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning;No we can't because such a selection process cannot exist. That doesn't prevent genes from arising. The construction of a gene doesn't need to be selected for.
By Jove cyborg, I believe you’ve unraveled this mystery.

[cyborg]

By Jove cyborg, I believe you’ve unraveled this mystery.

Yes, the mystery of why you refused to give me a definition of the 'de novo' gene event.

You cannot do it. Such a thing does not happen. It is therefore vacuously impossible for it to occur. Your 'macroevolutionary' event has nothing to do with evolution, let alone macroevolution. The creation of a new gene cannot be selected for.

That is not all. It is also vacuously possible for it to occur - since the 'de novo' event does not change the state of the system it may occur as many times as it likes. I will posit that the 'de novo' event always occurs. The creation of a new gene cannot be selected against.

A paradox, not surprising really because you cannot define the computation of an uncomputable problem.

New genes can not be selected for or against. But genes exist! There is therefore nothing to stop them occurring whenever they do.

In order to be selected against a selection process would have to know about the future. As such a series of events is required to frame the problem. 'de novo' cannot be a process - it can only be a description of a collection of events. It is a noun, not a verb.

[kleinman]

By Jove cyborg, I believe you’ve unraveled this mystery.Yes, the mystery of why you refused to give me a definition of the 'de novo' gene event.
This is no mystery, I have given this definition by example several times already but because I like you, I will repeat it once 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.

I’ll even repeat why the transformation of a functioning gene to an entirely new function by mutation and selection is impossible.

A gene is to transform from one function to a new function. A base substitution occurs. If that base substitution is detrimental that mutation is selected against. If the base substitution is beneficial, the mutation is selected for. If neutral, the mutation does not affect the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool. The next base substitution occurs. Again if the substitution is detrimental, the mutation is selected against. If the base substitution is beneficial the mutation is selected for. If neutral, the mutation does not affect the frequency in the gene pool. This process of beneficial/neutral mutation and selection must continue without any detrimental mutation to stop the process until the gene is transformed to the new function. Any detrimental mutation anywhere in the sequence will stop the evolutionary process.

[cyborg]

This is no mystery, I have given this definition by example several times already but because I like you, I will repeat it once again.

Then I will have to explain one more time why your definition is internally inconsistent.

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.

So you want a selection mechanism that acts on a single event to select for a property that is defined by a set of events. It cannot be done. 'de novo' is not an event, it is a property of a series of events.

You cannot select for the creation of new genes. You cannot select against. They are going to occur whether or not you want them to. When you get them then you get a chance to find out if that genetic code you accumulated is any good.

You seem to be arguing that not being able to select for will select against the 'de novo' event.

Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

No, it garuntees you will get a new gene eventually since the time for a new gene to occur is only a function of the number of generations of organisms.

Despite there being a lot of different possible card hands I can still actually deal the pack. I have to wait until I pick up to see how good my hand is. As such it comes back down to this - you do not know how many good/bad hands there are. You are not arguing that the 'de novo' event cannot occur - you are arguing that 1 / 4^G would be a really small probability because it's a small number when G is large. But the number has nothing to do with the event! You're spouting a nonsense.

If neutral, the mutation does not affect the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool.

No, but *REPRODUCTION* does. Reproduction affects the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool of *EVERYTHING*, not just the good stuff.

Any detrimental mutation anywhere in the sequence will stop the evolutionary process.

Except we are not dealing with a chain, we are dealing with a tree. After t generations we have 2^(t-1) * k 'de novo' chains in construction, where k is the average number of replications any organism engages in.

ETA: Also we have to remember we do not just have one tree in construction at any point - we can associate multiple trees to the same organism with the whole population of organisms. At any point there is a whole multitude of possible 'de novo' chains - they only become interesting when a point in the chain leads to a selective event.

We've bought a lot of lottery tickets, not just one, and there's more than one prize available.

Now, are you going to fill in the missing variables to your 'proof'?

[kjkent1]

I have no idea where you came up with this condition. For someone “coming to a courtroom near you”, would you expect a defense lawyer to prove his client innocent also be required to prove who is actually guilty? I am under no obligation to provide a mathematically possible alternative just because mutation and natural selection is a mathematically impossible explanation for the theory of evolution. You are the plaintiff’s lawyer for the theory of evolution, prove your own case.You're out of your scope of expertise. Your position is that ev is impossible. That makes you the plaintiff, so it's up to you to make an affirmative case by a preponderance of evidence (>50%). Evolutionists are defending.

Your argument is that evolution is mathematically impossible, because the larger the genome the less likely evolution can occur within the amount of generational time available. Your evidence is a mathematical algorithm called "ev" which you admit does not accurately represent real-world evolutionary processes. Your evidence would be instantly deemed inadmissible to prove your position, because it's not authentic -- and you would lose your case for failing to carry your burden of production, i.e., no evidence.

However, if your argument were that ev does not demonstrate information gain is possible via random mutation and natural selection, then your evidence would be admissible, because ev doesn't need to be realistic in order to demonstrate a purely mathematical construct. Ev merely needs to be internally consistent. And, as you admit that ev does demonstrate information gain, you would lose your case on a summary judgment because you would have admitted the very proposition you allege is false, before trial.

I hope I've explained this issue sufficiently.

You are still having trouble understanding that the only realistic replacement for Dr Schneider’s selection process that I can suggest would be to start with a realistic genome with a portion of the genome set aside to evolve binding sites and then determining on a case by case basis which random mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful and making selection based on those conditions. The problem you have is how do you extend this concept to evolving a gene from the beginning? Dr Schneider has designed a weight matrix for the match of binding sites. How do you do this for evolving a gene from the beginning? There is no selection process that I know of that could do this and no evolutionist has offered a suggestion on how to do this.I'm having no trouble understanding your position.

The issue of evolving a gene from the beginning and what ev demonstrates are entirely different issues. Others may agree to combine the two, however I am not within that group. Ev demonstrates that evolution is possible using selection, and it clearly assumes that any change in a binding site region, no matter how minute, can be selected for or against.

Your argument is that given a random binding site region, that region doesn't do anything which can be selected for or against until something functional is produced, and that in order functional to be produced, it must be selected against. You see this paradox as insurmountable. I don't.

ev starts with random material. I submit that a real genetic region builds up random material over time and remains non functional, until a mutation causes some sudden substantial functionality to a large portion of what was previously non-functional. In order for this to be true, a large percentage of possible genetic sequences must produce organic functionality. You see this as absurd, because your theology negates this as a consideration. I see it as obviously true, and it explains why what you describe as macro-evolutionary events, suddenly appear, rather than evolve slowly from the incremental changes which are associated with what you refer to as micro-evolutionary events.

This theory also nullifies any requirement of large populations, and it comports well with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Are a large percentage of genetic sequences functional? Yes, once we dispense with the possibility of divine intervention, because there is simply no other alternative.

Now, the ball is in your court. Prove that a large percentage of genetic sequences are not functional. If you can't, then I win...again.

[kleinman]

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.So you want a selection mechanism that acts on a single event to select for a property that is defined by a set of events. It cannot be done. 'de novo' is not an event, it is a property of a series of events.
The creation of a gene has to start someplace. If you can describe a sequence of event(s) that will evolve a gene “de novo” go for it. That’s what your theory of evolution needs. Once you can describe that sequence, it can be programmed into the ev model and you can demonstrate how a gene can evolve from the beginning. Until you or some other evolutionist can do this, mutation and natural selection is no more than a slogan.
You cannot select for the creation of new genes. You cannot select against. They are going to occur whether or not you want them to. When you get them then you get a chance to find out if that genetic code you accumulated is any good.
Really? How are these new genes going to occur?
You seem to be arguing that not being able to select for will select against the 'de novo' event.
It’s not “seem to be arguing”, this is the point of this argument. You can not select for something that does not exist. Until a functional molecule is produced, there is nothing to select for. You are dependent on random additions of mers to create your polymer until it becomes functional. Then there is something for natural selection to act upon.
Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.No, it garuntees you will get a new gene eventually since the time for a new gene to occur is only a function of the number of generations of organisms.
Ev which uses mutation and selection takes billions of generations to evolve 100 loci on a 100k genome. The insulin gene is about 12,000 bases long and you want it to assemble randomly without selection? Ask Myriad or Adequate for a lesson in probability theory. If you take selection out of the evolutionary process, the probabilities of assembling a polymer like the insulin gene by random additions of bases is about 1 in 4^12,000. The theory of evolution is kaput without a selection process.
Despite there being a lot of different possible card hands I can still actually deal the pack. I have to wait until I pick up to see how good my hand is. As such it comes back down to this - you do not know how many good/bad hands there are. You are not arguing that the 'de novo' event cannot occur - you are arguing that 1 / 4^G would be a really small probability because it's a small number when G is large. But the number has nothing to do with the event! You're spouting a nonsense.
Both you and kjkent1 think there are large numbers of combinations of bases that are conducive of life. Take the example of hemoglobin. There are only a couple hundred of variants of the human hemoglobin molecule that give viable hemoglobin. Many of the amino acid positions on the hemoglobin are invariant. Any substitutions at these positions are not conducive to life. Do you think 200 in 4^1000 is very good odds? How about 10^6 in 4^1000? How many viable combinations do you think you need to explain your theory?
If neutral, the mutation does not affect the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool.No, but *REPRODUCTION* does. Reproduction affects the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool of *EVERYTHING*, not just the good stuff.
Why would a neutral mutation increase the likelihood of reproduction? That’s the point of selection, if a gene is beneficial, it increases the likelihood of reproduction and therefore the frequency of that gene in the gene pool.
Any detrimental mutation anywhere in the sequence will stop the evolutionary process.Except we are not dealing with a chain, we are dealing with a tree. After t generations we have 2^(t-1) * k 'de novo' chains in construction, where k is the average number of replications any organism engages in.
The accumulation of mutations has to occur from descendent to descendent. Every step of the transformation of a gene from one form to a new form must have a sequence of mutations that are either beneficial or neutral otherwise the gene will be selected out because that step requires a detrimental mutation in the sequence and the transformation can not be completed.
We've bought a lot of lottery tickets, not just one, and there's more than one prize available.
The problem with your analogy is that if you don’t win the lottery, you die. And without a selection process, everything in your theory of evolution dies (if you ever get something to live in the first place).

You should study the ev model. Even though it is a stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection, once you understand this model, you will get some understanding of the mathematical problem you are dealing with.

[kjkent1]

Both you and kjkent1 think there are large numbers of combinations of bases that are conducive of life. Take the example of hemoglobin. There are only a couple hundred of variants of the human hemoglobin molecule that give viable hemoglobin. Many of the amino acid positions on the hemoglobin are invariant. Any substitutions at these positions are not conducive to life.Another false premise. You are suggesting that viable genetic sequences are not randomly distributed. If anything, your evidence re hemoglobin suggests the opposite. Furthermore, you have no scientific alternative. You have only your bare unsupported belief in God.

Absent God, the existence of a large number of viable genetic sequences completely solves the probability dilemma.

You apparently have no contrary evidence, so you lose -- again.

[Dr Richard]

Hello Kleinman, I have been teaching for several days and have only got to your comments just now.


I was interested to see the goalposts moving so fast after my question to you:


That’s ok that you can not present a definition of macroevolution so let’s work from the assumption that macroevolution is simply the sum of a series of microevolutionary steps.


Wow! I am impressed at this sudden about-face - well done! Note that I would agree with you, but this is not what you said a moment ago.



[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]With respects to what I call microevolution and assert that occurs such as what is seen commonly with recombination events which can lead to large anatomical and structural changes in creatures and the rare mutational events which can lead to small changes such as drug resistant bacteria or Sickle cell for malaria resistance events, don’t you agree that these events occur?

So, as before, we can agree that "microevolutionary" events occur. Excellent.


What is the selection process ....

I will ignore the papently false analogy and refer you to Dr Adequates sig as to whe your comments are wrong on ev.

With respects to a definition for insulin, you can look for that definition in any introductory text on biochemistry and find the amino acid sequence for this hormone and its function to stimulate cells to take up glucose. With respects to macroevolution, we can work with your definition that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution, so now you can explain to us how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning.

There go those goalposts! I take it that you now agree your previous attempts at defining "micro" and "macro" evolution were utterly wrong?

And then you run into your biggest problem: that once you accept evolution occurs, you have... erm... accepted evolution occurs.

I rest my case. But it continues....

The goal post for microevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

Another new goalpost!

But a few lines up, you agree that "microevolution" DOES occur! Is the evolution of antibacterial resistance a new function? Is the fact that Hb subtypes confer resistance to severe malaria forms a new function?

Of course they are, so not only do you concede that evolution exists, you even give examples of new functions arising due to evolution.

I have never won an argument so easily!

The goal post for evolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

Ahem....

what is seen commonly with recombination events which can lead to large anatomical and structural changes in creatures and the rare mutational events which can lead to small changes such as drug resistant bacteria or Sickle cell for malaria resistance events, don’t you agree that these events occur?


If it makes you more comfortable not to use the terms micro and macroevolution, we can just use the term evolution. I happen to like the terms micro and macroevolution to distinguish between evolutionary events which occur and those which don’t occur.

Is it just me, or is this getting incoherent?

Humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor represent an impossible evolutionary event. I know of no genes that evolved from the beginning in this example. But let’s consider something which you know about. What is the difference between the insulin gene in these two creatures and what is the selection process that would evolve these two different forms of insulin gene? Why are human and chimp insulin gene so different when human and chimp insulin are identical? What was the selection process that would evolve these two different genes yet give identical amino acid sequences?

You have now redefined your terms so much, and contradicted yourself so many times, it hardly seems fair to address this point.

It does however perfectly demonstrate that according to evolutionary theory, coding (and now non-coding) portions of important regulatory genes will be more highly conserved than non-critical portions of the genome.

This is a prediction that is a direct consequence of evolutionary theory, and I pointed out several pages back, it is being used to identify new and medically important gene functions. If you had bothered to read it at the time, I also gave a link to a paper that showed that although regulators of human RET expression are totally different in terms of base sequence to those in very "primitive" life, they actually perform exactly the same regulatory function when transplanted into those lifeforms. Again, evolutionary theory predicts that such function would be highly conserved but that base mutations would occur, and would persist as long as function was improved or maintained.

Thank you for your later post on the insulin paper which proves my point.

Of course, this will not prevent further bleating about "no selection process could account for this" and I will of course expect the "evolve a gene from the beginning argument" to come up again.

Should you want to try these argments, then

(1) What selection process do YOU belive is operating when you state that new gene functions arise in bacterial antibiotic resistance?

(2) I do indeed have perfectly mapped out transition from a RNA self-replicating molecule to human insulin, complete with base changes and exact timings of the mutations that occurred and what "selection pressures" were operating at the time.

Unfortunately, it is a rather big file. I would of course be happy to deliver it to you, but I will need to know where you are.

Could you please send me the complete quantum wavefunctions describing your current spatio-temporal position? Unless you can do this, I must conlude that you do not actually exist.

[cyborg]

The creation of a gene has to start someplace.

Yes.

If you can describe a sequence of event(s) that will evolve a gene “de novo” go for it.

You described one possibility - a naive forward chaining concept, one base after another is added. But a new gene doesn't have to be formed solely from the added bases from some arbitrary point in the past. The order matters as well - adding a new base adds a whole set of new combinations, not just one bit of information.

Really? How are these new genes going to occur?

How are they not going to occur? How are they going to be stopped from occurring as long as the total amount of genetic material increases with time?

It’s not “seem to be arguing”, this is the point of this argument. You can not select for something that does not exist. Until a functional molecule is produced, there is nothing to select for. You are dependent on random additions of mers to create your polymer until it becomes functional. Then there is something for natural selection to act upon.

Yes. You are finally getting it.

Selection cannot work on the future. Genes are not worked towards. They arise because new genetic information is added.

Ev which uses mutation and selection takes billions of generations to evolve 100 loci on a 100k genome.

If you choke the population and mutations rates. Hardly giving the simulation a fair crack.

The insulin gene is about 12,000 bases long and you want it to assemble randomly without selection?

No. YOU want it to assemble randomly without selection. Nature doesn't give a crap if it occurs or not. This is not a goal based process.

the probabilities of assembling a polymer like the insulin gene by random additions of bases is about 1 in 4^12,000.

Wrong. There is at least > 1 combination of genetic material that will produce insulin.

The theory of evolution is kaput without a selection process.

Wrong. You failed to take combinations into account for one thing. At any one time there are a multitude of potential 'de novo' processes occurring.

Both you and kjkent1 think there are large numbers of combinations of bases that are conducive of life.

Yes, and the fact that there is a huge amount of genetic diversity in life helps our argument and not yours.

Take the example of hemoglobin. There are only a couple hundred of variants of the human hemoglobin molecule that give viable hemoglobin. Many of the amino acid positions on the hemoglobin are invariant. Any substitutions at these positions are not conducive to [human] life.

Fixed the subtle lie.

Do you think 200 in 4^1000 is very good odds?

No.

But again, 2^P is not programming and your odds are flawed. Not in the very least because dealing with the human end of the scale is dealing with an organism which has already accumulated a huge amount of potential genetic sequences.

Do you think 200! in 4^1000 is very good odds? Because I do.

Why would a neutral mutation increase the likelihood of reproduction?

Where did I say it would?

That’s the point of selection, if a gene is beneficial, it increases the likelihood of reproduction and therefore the frequency of that gene in the gene pool.

And if a gene is neutral the likelihood of reproduction is unaffected. As such the frequency of that gene ALSO increases.

Tell me kleinman - how does a organism with good genes X and neutral genes Y when reproducing not produce two organisms with good genes X and neutral genes Y?

The neutral genes Y have in fact increased in frequency at the same rate as the good genes it's hanging around with.

I find that interesting.

The accumulation of mutations has to occur from descendent to descendent.

*Sigh*

kleinman the descendants are DOUBLING.

That means we have a tree.

Every step of the transformation of a gene from one form to a new form must have a sequence of mutations that are either beneficial or neutral otherwise the gene will be selected out because that step requires a detrimental mutation in the sequence and the transformation can not be completed.

Wrong. Because we have a tree of organisms what will happen is that only the branches with possible solutions will continue and those that are fruitless will be terminated.

Let me give you a really simple example.

Organism O1 has a mutation m1.

Organism O1 doubles into organisms O2 and O3.

Organisms O2 and O3 have mutations m1m2 and m1m3.

m1m2 is fatal. m1m3 is not.

Organism O2 died. Organism O3 doubles into organisms O4 and O5.

Organisms O4 and O5 have mutations m1m3m4 m1m3m5.

Neither are fatal.

Organisms double.

O6, O7, have m1m3m4m6m7, m1m3m4m6m8, O8, O9 have m1m3m4m5m8, m1m3m4m5m9

Organisms double.

O10, O11, O12, O13 have m1m3m4m6m7m10, m1m3m4m6m7m11, m1m3m4m6m7m12, m1m3m4m6m7m13, O14, O15, O16, O17 have m1m3m4m6m8m14, m1m3m4m6m8m15, m1m3m4m6m8m16, m1m3m4m6m8m17

At this point in the tree cutting off O11, O13, O16, O17 as fatal mutations still leaves us with four organisms with mutations chains of length 5.

At each stage only the viable solutions continue.

There was no single 'de novo' chain from organism On in the future and organism O1 in the past - there's a whole family of them.

The problem with your analogy is that if you don’t win the lottery, you die.

That's your analogy.

The correct analogy would be that some tickets will kill you. Most won't do anything. Some give you a prize.

And without a selection process, everything in your theory of evolution dies (if you ever get something to live in the first place).

No kleinman, that's YOUR theory. ev sure as hell doesn't model the 'if it ain't good, die' model.

You should study the ev model. Even though it is a stylized model of random point mutations and natural selection, once you understand this model, you will get some understanding of the mathematical problem you are dealing with.

You should study mathematics. Once you understand it you will have some understanding of the fact you don't know mathematics.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible. All you have shown is that ev's original selection method unrealistically gives equal weight to a mutation in a non-binding site region of ev's hypothetical genome.
I just want to point out that Ev has parameters that allow you to assign different mistake points to a missed binding site, a spurious binding within the gene, and a spurious binding outside the gene. Playing with Ev's standard model:

662 generations: 1 mistake point for each of those three cases (default)

465 generations: 5 mistake points for a missed binding site

1034 generations: 5 mistake points for a spurious binding within the gene

889 generations: 5 mistake points for a spurious binding outside the gene

228 generations: 5 mistake points for a missed binding, 2 for a spurious binding in the gene, 0 for a spurious binding outside the gene

615 generations: 2 mistakes for a missed binding, 5 for a spurious binding in the gene, 0 for a spurious binding outside the gene

660 generations: 3 mistakes for a missed binding, 5 for a spurious binding in the gene, 1 for a spurious binding outside the gene

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Both you and kjkent1 think there are large numbers of combinations of bases that are conducive of life. Take the example of hemoglobin. There are only a couple hundred of variants of the human hemoglobin molecule that give viable hemoglobin. Many of the amino acid positions on the hemoglobin are invariant. Any substitutions at these positions are not conducive to life.Another false premise. You are suggesting that viable genetic sequences are not randomly distributed. If anything, your evidence re hemoglobin suggests the opposite. Furthermore, you have no scientific alternative. You have only your bare unsupported belief in God.

Absent God, the existence of a large number of viable genetic sequences completely solves the probability dilemma.

You apparently have no contrary evidence, so you lose -- again.
The glove doesn’t fit either so you win.
I was interested to see the goalposts moving so fast after my question to you:
Only in your dreams do you see the goalposts moving.
That’s ok that you can not present a definition of macroevolution so let’s work from the assumption that macroevolution is simply the sum of a series of microevolutionary steps.Wow! I am impressed at this sudden about-face - well done! Note that I would agree with you, but this is not what you said a moment ago.
You evolutionists whine so much that you need a definition for macroevolution for this discussion that I finally succumbed to using your definition. So let’s see if you can prove your definition correct.
What is the selection process ....I will ignore the papently false analogy and refer you to Dr Adequates sig as to whe your comments are wrong on ev.
You are using Adequate as your expert reference on ev? Let’s see, total number of cases Adequate has posted from ev = 0. That is only one less than the number of cases Dr Schneider used to publish ev so Adequate must be an expert on this computer simulation. Then what other expert commentary has Adequate offered, jpegs and gifs posted (all drawn by someone else) = unending, irrelevant URLs = continuous, boring and obnoxious comments = the only thing he can think of. Dr Richard, you have chosen your expert reference wisely, he fits the theory of evolution perfectly.
With respects to a definition for insulin, you can look for that definition in any introductory text on biochemistry and find the amino acid sequence for this hormone and its function to stimulate cells to take up glucose. With respects to macroevolution, we can work with your definition that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution, so now you can explain to us how natural selection can evolve a gene from the beginning.There go those goalposts! I take it that you now agree your previous attempts at defining "micro" and "macro" evolution were utterly wrong?
Let’s see you prove many micro -> macro.
And then you run into your biggest problem: that once you accept evolution occurs, you have... erm... accepted evolution occurs.
What do you say to your students when they haven’t prepared before coming to class. If you had read this thread you would already have known that I accept that microevolutionary processes occur. I have always acknowledged this. Now if you think these microevolutionary processes can accumulate to produce a macroevolutionary change, prove it. Ev shows that the accumulation of information by random point mutation is so profoundly slow, you don’t have the time to achieve a macroevolutionary change by this mechanism. Of course, I’m sure your expert reference Adequate has a devastating jpeg or gif that proves me wrong.
I rest my case. But it continues....
…
Humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor represent an impossible evolutionary event. I know of no genes that evolved from the beginning in this example. But let’s consider something which you know about. What is the difference between the insulin gene in these two creatures and what is the selection process that would evolve these two different forms of insulin gene? Why are human and chimp insulin gene so different when human and chimp insulin are identical? What was the selection process that would evolve these two different genes yet give identical amino acid sequences?You have now redefined your terms so much, and contradicted yourself so many times, it hardly seems fair to address this point.
So, the resident James Randi Educational Forum expert on the evolution of insulin from one species to the next does not think it is fair to explain how and why humans and chimpanzees who you propose descended from a common ancestor would have different genes for insulin, produce different preproinsulin molecules and yet still have identical insulin molecules. I can understand why you don’t want to describe the selection process that would do such a thing. Well you said:
I choose insulin, as you brought it up.
Then you asked:
Was the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor a macroevolutionary event according to your goalposts above?

If you believe it was, would you please state which genes supposedly evolved de novo and/or transformed from some initial function into a new and completely different function?
So you wanted to talk about insulin as proof of evolution, then you asked if the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor was a macroevolutionary event and if so, you asked which genes supposedly transformed into a new and completely different function. Why not talk about the insulin gene?

I see how I have been so unfair and moved the goalposts. The human and chimp insulin gene have not transformed into some completely different function. These genes still perform the same function; however they do it with different preproinsulin. How unfair.
It does however perfectly demonstrate that according to evolutionary theory, coding (and now non-coding) portions of important regulatory genes will be more highly conserved than non-critical portions of the genome.
Do you care to describe the selection process that would do this? You have about 500,000 generations to accomplish this transformation to these two different preproinsulins. Ev is about hard mathematical accounting for the mutation and selection process. What is the selection process that would transform a gene which produces insulin to a gene which produces insulin where you have two different preproinsulins? Let’s make this a mathematically perfect demonstration of the theory of evolution.
Should you want to try these argments, then

(1) What selection process do YOU belive is operating when you state that new gene functions arise in bacterial antibiotic resistance?

(2) I do indeed have perfectly mapped out transition from a RNA self-replicating molecule to human insulin, complete with base changes and exact timings of the mutations that occurred and what "selection pressures" were operating at the time.
(1) Bacterial (or viral for that matter) antibiotic (antiviral) resistance do not arise out of de novo generation of genes. Resistance comes about by small mutations in crucial bacterial (viral) proteins that affect binding of the antibiotic (antiviral) to the protein. In some cases alternative metabolic pathways are used by microbes to counter the toxic effects of the antimicrobials. It is interesting that these mutations usually produce microbial forms that do not reproduce as well as those without the mutations.

Since you have not described to us why the Hemoglobin S gene confers selective advantage in malarial endemic areas, I will offer an explanation. Hemoglobin S gives rise to red blood cells with shorter lives than with Hemoglobin A and B. Part of the life cycle of the malaria parasite occurs in the red blood cell. The shorter life span of the Hemoglobin S red blood cells does not allow the malaria parasite to complete its life cycle. This type of mutation and selection process is totally consistent with the mutation and selection process for antimicrobial resistance. To extrapolate these types of mutation and selection events to the evolution of new genes let alone completely new life forms is nothing short of irrational and unscientific.
(2) Why keep us waiting? Tell us your story. Describe the selection process so that it can be programmed into ev and put this debate to sleep.
Unfortunately, it is a rather big file. I would of course be happy to deliver it to you, but I will need to know where you are.
Just describe the selection process to us. I’ll make it easier than that, just describe the selection process that would evolve two different insulin genes which produce two different preproinsulins for humans and chimps yet produce identical insulin molecules when you say we came from a common ancestor. Maybe you could answer this question as well. Is the enzyme which cleaves preproinsulin to insulin identical in both humans and chimpanzees?
Could you please send me the complete quantum wavefunctions describing your current spatio-temporal position? Unless you can do this, I must conlude that you do not actually exist.
Ask Paul if I exist, I have been annoying him for months.
If you can describe a sequence of event(s) that will evolve a gene “de novo” go for it.You described one possibility - a naive forward chaining concept, one base after another is added. But a new gene doesn't have to be formed solely from the added bases from some arbitrary point in the past. The order matters as well - adding a new base adds a whole set of new combinations, not just one bit of information.
Really? Do you want to explain how a new gene can be formed if it is not by adding bases? Perhaps shuffling the deck will make new genes.
Really? How are these new genes going to occur?How are they not going to occur? How are they going to be stopped from occurring as long as the total amount of genetic material increases with time?
Using that logic, we should turn on all the computers and printers in the world to print random sequences of letters and we will sooner or later obtain classic literature. Oh, wait, the theory of evolution has a selection process which you say we don’t need. Just crank out more genetic material.
Ev which uses mutation and selection takes billions of generations to evolve 100 loci on a 100k genome.If you choke the population and mutations rates. Hardly giving the simulation a fair crack.
How unfair of me to use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates. With respects to population, I have done the largest populations (1 meg) that can be done on my computer with a 1k genome length. What do you think the population for our supposed primate ancestor was when humans and chimps descended?
The insulin gene is about 12,000 bases long and you want it to assemble randomly without selection?No. YOU want it to assemble randomly without selection. Nature doesn't give a crap if it occurs or not. This is not a goal based process.
Ok, describe the selection process that would evolve this gene from the beginning.
the probabilities of assembling a polymer like the insulin gene by random additions of bases is about 1 in 4^12,000.Wrong. There is at least > 1 combination of genetic material that will produce insulin.
Well there are a couple of hundred variants of human hemoglobin, anybody want to guess how many variants there for all hemoglobin molecules? So how many variants do you think exist for the insulin gene?
The theory of evolution is kaput without a selection process.Wrong. You failed to take combinations into account for one thing. At any one time there are a multitude of potential 'de novo' processes occurring.
Ok, take into account variants for genes and describe us the selection process that would evolve any variant of a gene de novo.
Both you and kjkent1 think there are large numbers of combinations of bases that are conducive of life.Yes, and the fact that there is a huge amount of genetic diversity in life helps our argument and not yours.
That doesn’t seem to be the case for the hemoglobin molecule. There are only about a couple of hundred variants. Include these variants in your selection process and describe how a gene evolves de novo.
Why would a neutral mutation increase the likelihood of reproduction?Where did I say it would?
I asked this question in response to this exchange:
If neutral, the mutation does not affect the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool.No, but *REPRODUCTION* does. Reproduction affects the frequency of occurrence in the gene pool of *EVERYTHING*, not just the good stuff.
According to your theory, the creatures with beneficial mutations will be better reproducers. Those creatures with neutral mutations will not reproduce as well. Reproduction does not increase the frequency of all genetic sequences, only those with the most beneficial genes.
You have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible. All you have shown is that ev's original selection method unrealistically gives equal weight to a mutation in a non-binding site region of ev's hypothetical genome.I just want to point out that Ev has parameters that allow you to assign different mistake points to a missed binding site, a spurious binding within the gene, and a spurious binding outside the gene. Playing with Ev's standard model:

662 generations: 1 mistake point for each of those three cases (default)

465 generations: 5 mistake points for a missed binding site

1034 generations: 5 mistake points for a spurious binding within the gene

889 generations: 5 mistake points for a spurious binding outside the gene

228 generations: 5 mistake points for a missed binding, 2 for a spurious binding in the gene, 0 for a spurious binding outside the gene

615 generations: 2 mistakes for a missed binding, 5 for a spurious binding in the gene, 0 for a spurious binding outside the gene

660 generations: 3 mistakes for a missed binding, 5 for a spurious binding in the gene, 1 for a spurious binding outside the gene.
Welcome back, how was the beach? When you saw the sun shining on the water did you think of the primordial soup?

That’s some interesting data. Notice how the generations drop when you weight the selection process to missed binding sites and neglect spurious binding outside the gene. Conflicting selection conditions affect the rate of convergence. As you said previously:
You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, because certainly there are millions of selection pressures in the real world.
It certainly seems that’s what the mathematics of ev is saying.

[cyborg]

Really? Do you want to explain how a new gene can be formed if it is not by adding bases? Perhaps shuffling the deck will make new genes.

Um, firstly yes, shuffling the deck is valid - you are trying out a different genetic permutation that may yeild selectable material.

Secondly again you fail to grasp the point that adding a base is not adding merely to a single potential gene - it is adding to a whole set of potential genes.

Using that logic, we should turn on all the computers and printers in the world to print random sequences of letters and we will sooner or later obtain classic literature.

No kleinman. Yet again you fail to produce an accurate analogy.

If genes are words then it is only when words are produced by the printers that we can consider them part of the literary organism - the rest of the material is just potential, it is working in the margins. We know words will appear, we just need to have a function that will select them.

How will you stop words appearing in the random morass of symbols?

How unfair of me to use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates. With respects to population, I have done the largest populations (1 meg) that can be done on my computer with a 1k genome length.

I.e. it is unfair of you because you use realistic genome and mutation rates for a strangled population.

You cannot increase just some of the variables and claim the model is more true to life.

What do you think the population for our supposed primate ancestor was when humans and chimps descended?

No idea. Not that it really matters since ev is totally inadequate for mapping to complex sexual creatures with a huge mass of aquired genetic data.

Again you want to mix and match everything until it comes out to a ludicrous conclusion.

Ok, describe the selection process that would evolve this gene from the beginning.

First give me a number greater than Z.

Well there are a couple of hundred variants of human hemoglobin, anybody want to guess how many variants there for all hemoglobin molecules? So how many variants do you think exist for the insulin gene?

No idea. How many do you think there are?

Ok, take into account variants for genes and describe us the selection process that would evolve any variant of a gene de novo.

First give me a number greater than Z.

No kleinman, I cannot construct your function. I have already explained why it is impossible to do so. Stop asking for it.

Try to comprehend the point - for any gene I can construct a FAMILY of potential 'de novo' paths. There is no selection involved. The gene was not selected for. When the gene occured there was no way for this to be selected for or against. The occurrence was inevitable.

Time + increase in genetic material = new genes. They are neither wanted nor unwanted. They are neither selected for nor against. They simply must arise.

That doesn’t seem to be the case for the [human] hemoglobin molecule. There are only about a couple of hundred variants.

Lie fixed again.

Now explain to me how it is the case that a couple of hudred variants of hemoglobin for a gene of size G rules out all other possible gene functions for that G that do not produce hemoglobin.

According to your theory, the creatures with beneficial mutations will be better reproducers. Those creatures with neutral mutations will not reproduce as well. Reproduction does not increase the frequency of all genetic sequences, only those with the most beneficial genes.

*Sigh*

Organism O1 has beneficial mutation m1.
Organisms O2 and O3 have beneficial mutation m1 and neutral mutation m2.
Organisms O4, O5, O6, O7 have beneficial mutation m1 and neutral mutation m2m3.
Organisms O8, O9, O10, O11, O12, O13, O14, O15 have beneficial mutation m1 and neutral mutation m2m3m4.

Are we getting the point yet kleinman?

Unless you're going to posit that every generation will have a beneficial mutation the neutral genetic material is just going to accumulate over time at an exponential rate along with the genes that allow the organism to thrive.

And no 'beneficial' mutations does not mean 'better' reproducers - it means there is a better chance that the organism will survive and hence reproduce. Not having a new beneficial mutation as an organism doesn't instantly mean you're going to fail to reproduce. It doesn't even mean that the other organism is going to reproduce more. It is a statistical variation that means that over long periods of time the beneficial mutation will eventually become more prevalent.

Of course your lack of understanding of the nunances of the statistical implications here is what allows you to make such nonsense statements such as '4^G is a really big number' as if they were applicable to the problem domain.

[kleinman]

How unfair of me to use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates. With respects to population, I have done the largest populations (1 meg) that can be done on my computer with a 1k genome length.I.e. it is unfair of you because you use realistic genome and mutation rates for a strangled population.
If you think I’ve done something unfair, ev is online, put in your parameters which will unstrangle the data and prove the conclusions I have drawn from ev wrong.
What do you think the population for our supposed primate ancestor was when humans and chimps descended?No idea. Not that it really matters since ev is totally inadequate for mapping to complex sexual creatures with a huge mass of aquired genetic data.
Nobody is stopping you from improving ev. The code is online. The data we get from the existing form of this peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is impossible by this mechanism. Introduce whatever mechanism of mutation and realistic selection process to the model you want and prove me wrong. The theory of evolution continues to be without a mathematical foundation.

[cyborg]

If you think I’ve done something unfair, ev is online, put in your parameters which will unstrangle the data and prove the conclusions I have drawn from ev wrong.

As you well know the exponential increase in resources and time make such simulations infeasible.

You are hence lying when you say your data is realistic. You cannot vary two variables and not the third and say you are scaling to real life.

Nobody is stopping you from improving ev. The code is online.

Indeed - but I have no need to improve it to prove anything to you. You are the one claiming impossibility. That is an incredibly strong claim. If you actually knew the first thing about mathematics you would comprehend this.

The data we get from the existing form of this peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is impossible by this mechanism.

No, it shows that information gain is possible with selection. It is not even close to being a complete biological simulation. It is goal based - evolution is not. You are continually pretending it is something it is not.

Introduce whatever mechanism of mutation and realistic selection process to the model you want and prove me wrong.

*Sigh* Mutation and selection are irrelevant here. The question is about the genome space, not the construction of a gene within that space.

You do not understand the difference however. This is because you do not understand that 4^G is not genetics.

The theory of evolution continues to be without a mathematical foundation.

'Neutral mutations don't increase in frequency' continues to be without a mathematical foundation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Conflicting selection conditions affect the rate of convergence.
...

You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, ...
...
It certainly seems that’s what the mathematics of ev is saying.

[emphasis mine]

:rolleyes:

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

That’s some interesting data. Notice how the generations drop when you weight the selection process to missed binding sites and neglect spurious binding outside the gene. Conflicting selection conditions affect the rate of convergence.Make up your mind. If you believe that mutations in the non-binding site region have an effect on the host organism, then you are supporting my theory that ordinarily inert material may suddenly become substantially functional due to a random mutation. And, if you don't then you must accept the data which demonstrates that convergence improves when only mutations in the binding site region are considered.

You could argue that if the non-binding site region were another gene, with a different function, that mutations in that gene would have a potentially conflicting effect, but, even you must admit that ev does not attempt to model the effect of two different genes mutating simultaneously. So, it wouldn't be fair to try to extrapolate anything from ev using this argument.

Regardless of any of the above, ev really shows nothing more nor less than that information gain is possible in a random genome using only point mutation and a rather simplistic version of natural selection, which kills off one half of every generation. I don't think that ev was ever intended to demonstrate the entire landscape of evolutionary possibilities, which is what you consistently attempt to use it for.

After all, while ev may generate proper chemical combinations, it doesn't necessarily generate genetic code which causes any particular organic function, nor is any evolved organic function ever tested against an environmental stress, other than a constant mortality rate.

It's simply ridiculous to try to do what you are continually attempting to accomplish with ev. I really have to wonder why you dislike Dr. Schneider so much, that you feel the need to spend your disposable time trying to show his little program to be something less than a perfect example of biological evolution.

You'd be far better off developing a program that really modeled real-world evolution and showing the scientific community that it doesn't work.

Regardless of the outcome, if your program were creative enough, you'd win the Nobel Prize.

[kleinman]

If you think I’ve done something unfair, ev is online, put in your parameters which will unstrangle the data and prove the conclusions I have drawn from ev wrong.As you well know the exponential increase in resources and time make such simulations infeasible.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the number of generations for convergence increases much more rapidly as you increase genome length than the decrease in generations for convergence with increasing populations. The generations for convergence increase proportional to the second power as you increase the genome length. While the generation for convergence appears to approaching an asymptote with increasing population. Even if the generations for convergence is not approaching an asymptote, the slope of the generations for convergence with respects to the population size becomes very small. Plot the data for yourself and see.
Nobody is stopping you from improving ev. The code is online.Indeed - but I have no need to improve it to prove anything to you. You are the one claiming impossibility. That is an incredibly strong claim. If you actually knew the first thing about mathematics you would comprehend this.
If you look carefully at my claim, you will see that ev substantiates what I am saying. Why do you think that so many evolutionists are now discrediting or devaluing the model? This is unfortunate because I believe this model represents an important part in the evolution/creation debate.

This type of analysis puts much more precision in the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. Each of the components of the model can be examined and parameters varied to study the behavior of this complex mathematical problem which would be virtually impossible to do in the laboratory. The concept of a selection process can be studied and mathematically modeled. Paul’s recent post on the effects of weighting selection conditions on the rate of convergence tells us something about the effects of multiple selection conditions. If you are interested in the science and mathematics of mutation and natural selection, you should study ev.
The data we get from the existing form of this peer reviewed and published computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection shows that the theory of evolution is impossible by this mechanism.No, it shows that information gain is possible with selection. It is not even close to being a complete biological simulation. It is goal based - evolution is not. You are continually pretending it is something it is not.
Cyborg, if you had read Dr Schneider’s publication you would see that I did exactly what Dr Schneider recommended. The following quote is taken from his paper:
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.
So a parametric study of ev shows that information gain can occur by random point mutations and natural selection but this process is profoundly slow when using realistic length genomes. Add what you will to ev to make it a complete biological simulation and see if you can increase the rate of information gain. However, without a valid selection process to evolve a gene de novo, you get zero information gain for that situation.
Conflicting selection conditions affect the rate of convergence.
...You do realize you're saying that evolution simply never occurs, ......
It certainly seems that’s what the mathematics of ev is saying.[emphasis mine]
When the genome length exceeds a certain length, errors in the nonbinding site region dominate selection and ev never converges. This occurs with only two selection conditions. What do you think will occur when you have “millions of selection conditions”, each trying to evolve their genes de novo (that’s from the beginning for you) and transforming genes from one to another? Maybe that’s what cyborg means when he talks about a complete biological simulation.

Ev seems to reveal one problem after another for the theory of evolution.
You'd be far better off developing a program that really modeled real-world evolution and showing the scientific community that it doesn't work.
How do you model a selection process that doesn’t exist? Natural selection can work with a single mutation that gives antibiotic resistance or transforms Hemoglobin to Hemoglobin S and gives malarial resistance but there is no selection process that can evolve a gene de novo or transform genes from one form to another. Maybe one of you evolutionists can describe the selection process that would do these things; the rest of the programming has already been done by Dr Schneider and Paul.

[cyborg]

Add what you will to ev to make it a complete biological simulation and see if you can increase the rate of information gain.

I cannot possibly hope to achieve that. It is a completely intractable problem. But then I doubt you'd understand what that means.

But please, do keep on hiding 'impossible' within simulation goals that are not possible and pretending that maps to the real world.

...this process is profoundly slow when using realistic length genomes.

And unrealistic population sizes. For which such an experiment with ev cannot be run.

Why do you think that so many evolutionists are now discrediting or devaluing the model?

Because, as I pointed out some time ago with an analogy to modelling mechanics, when one constructs a model one must be aware of what it DOES NOT model as well as what it does. We are not 'discrediting' the model - we are pointing out what it actually goddamn models!

But then I doubt you'd understand what that means either.

This is unfortunate because I believe this model represents an important part in the evolution/creation debate.

Yes it is important because it totally debunks the creationist canard that natural selection and random mutation cannot lead to an increase of information.

However, without a valid selection process to evolve a gene de novo, you get zero information gain for that situation.

*Sigh* How many times must I explain this to you?

Wrong. Because we have a tree of organisms what will happen is that only the branches with possible solutions will continue and those that are fruitless will be terminated.

Let me give you a really simple example.

Organism O1 has a mutation m1.

Organism O1 doubles into organisms O2 and O3.

Organisms O2 and O3 have mutations m1m2 and m1m3.

m1m2 is fatal. m1m3 is not.

Organism O2 died. Organism O3 doubles into organisms O4 and O5.

Organisms O4 and O5 have mutations m1m3m4 m1m3m5.

Neither are fatal.

Organisms double.

O6, O7, have m1m3m4m6m7, m1m3m4m6m8, O8, O9 have m1m3m4m5m8, m1m3m4m5m9

Organisms double.

O10, O11, O12, O13 have m1m3m4m6m7m10, m1m3m4m6m7m11, m1m3m4m6m7m12, m1m3m4m6m7m13, O14, O15, O16, O17 have m1m3m4m6m8m14, m1m3m4m6m8m15, m1m3m4m6m8m16, m1m3m4m6m8m17

At this point in the tree cutting off O11, O13, O16, O17 as fatal mutations still leaves us with four organisms with mutations chains of length 5.

At each stage only the viable solutions continue.

There was no single 'de novo' chain from organism On in the future and organism O1 in the past - there's a whole family of them.

Natural selection can work with a single mutation that gives antibiotic resistance or transforms Hemoglobin to Hemoglobin S and gives malarial resistance but there is no selection process that can evolve a gene de novo or transform genes from one form to another.

Maybe you should get on the clue train and realise that selection DOES NOT mean 'trying to get something'.

Evolution IS NOT goal based. It cannot select for or against the occurrence of new genes. They will occur regardless of whether or not they eventually benefit the creature or not.

Maybe that’s what cyborg means when he talks about a complete biological simulation.

Asking ev about the programming space of biology is fruitless effort when it doesn't model it. That is what I mean.

But then I doubt you'd understand what that means either.

[kjkent1]

How do you model a selection process that doesn’t exist? Natural selection can work with a single mutation that gives antibiotic resistance or transforms Hemoglobin to Hemoglobin S and gives malarial resistance but there is no selection process that can evolve a gene de novo or transform genes from one form to another. Maybe one of you evolutionists can describe the selection process that would do these things; the rest of the programming has already been done by Dr Schneider and Paul.Well, I'll give you this: you have learned to avoid engaging on any point which directly challenges your position. You just keep repeating the same crap, and if you don't have an anwer to a response, you ignore it and return to your mantra. Pretty cowardly, if ya ask me.

I'm gonna try one more time, and ask you one direct question at a time. Let's see if you can handle the heat:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?

[kleinman]

Add what you will to ev to make it a complete biological simulation and see if you can increase the rate of information gain.I cannot possibly hope to achieve that. It is a completely intractable problem. But then I doubt you'd understand what that means.
The reason this is an intractable problem for you evolutionists is that you propose that natural selection can do something which it can not do. Darwin inappropriately extrapolated his observations of recombination and natural selection and applied the concept to mutation and natural selection. This is why you have an intractable problem. Recombination and natural selection can cause striking changes to a species. Mutation and natural selection can cause small changes such as antibiotic resistance and Hemoglobin S but the sweeping changes in gene pools such as evolution of reptiles to birds, or humans from a primate ancestor can’t occur. You don’t have the selection mechanism and you don’t have the time.
...this process is profoundly slow when using realistic length genomes.And unrealistic population sizes. For which such an experiment with ev cannot be run.
You don’t find a population of 1 meg realistic. That’s a population size greater than that proposed for our primate ancestor when humans were supposed to have evolved.
Why do you think that so many evolutionists are now discrediting or devaluing the model?Because, as I pointed out some time ago with an analogy to modelling mechanics, when one constructs a model one must be aware of what it DOES NOT model as well as what it does. We are not 'discrediting' the model - we are pointing out what it actually goddamn models!
Where were all you great evolutionary scientific minds when ev was published? You only whine about ev now because it refutes your theory. Stop being a crybaby.
This is unfortunate because I believe this model represents an important part in the evolution/creation debate.Yes it is important because it totally debunks the creationist canard that natural selection and random mutation cannot lead to an increase of information.
That’s Dr Schneider’s argument that he published in his paper in the year 2000, that’s a pre-parametric study argument. You need to come up to date. I wonder if Dr Schneider still believes ev models reality? Cyborg, do you want me to repost some of Dr Schneider’s quotes where he states ev models reality? Why not?
The following quotes were taken from Dr Schneider’s blog web page: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html)

The following are Dr Schneider’s responses to a critique of his paper Evolution of biological information by Dr Stephen E Jones.

"Schneider's paper is misleadingly titled: "Evolution of biological information". But it is just a *computer* simulation. No actual *biological* materials (e.g. genomes of nucleic acids, proteins, etc) were used, nor does Schneider propose that his simulation be tested with *real* genomes or proteins Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986 (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986)

It only becomes *real* biological information and random mutation and natural selection, when the simulation is tested in the *real* world, using *real* DNA, proteins, with *real* mutations and a *real* environment does the selecting. It is significant that Schneider does not propose this, presumably because he knows it wouldn't work.You are very bad at reading my mind, I have considered doing this experiment. Given the right conditions, it WILL WORK. Do you have th gumption to do the experiment yourself? That's the way real science works! FURTHERMORE, if you read the literature, you will recognize that related experiments have been repeatedly done for 20 years. Look up SELEX.

In the rest of the paper he uses the single word "selection". I take this as a tacit admission that his model is not a simulation of *real* biological natural selection. No. A rose is a rose by any other name. Selection is selection whether it be natural (generally meaning the environment of earth), breeding (by humans usually, though perhaps some ants select their fungi), SELEX or in a computer simulation. Of COURSE it is a simulation of natural selection! The paper would not be relevant to biology and would not have been published in a major scientific journal if it were not!

Schneider lets slip that there is another unrealistic element in his (and indeed all) computer simulations in that it (they) "does not correlate with time": So? Run the program slower if you want. Make one generation per 20 minutes to match rapid bacterial growth. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FINIAL RESULT!

Well, when Schneider's simulation is actually tested with *real* "life" (e.g. a bacterium), and under *real* mutation and natural selection it gains information, then, and only then, would "creationists" be favourably impressed. But if they are like me, they would already be impressed (but unfavourably) that Schneider does not mention in his paper that his simulation should now be so tested in the *real* "biological" world. 1. The simulation was of phenomena in the "real" world.
2. Dr. Jones is invited yet again to do an experiment.

The following is a response Dr Schneider made to a statement made by David Berlinski (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true).

Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful. The ev program disproves this statement since it uses classical Darwinian principles and was successful.

The previous statements are clear that Dr Schneider believes that ev simulates the real world. Cyborg, the author of this computer simulation is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. It was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research, an Oxford University Press journal. Only now that the model reveals that it does not support the theory of evolution do you criticize it.
How do you model a selection process that doesn’t exist? Natural selection can work with a single mutation that gives antibiotic resistance or transforms Hemoglobin to Hemoglobin S and gives malarial resistance but there is no selection process that can evolve a gene de novo or transform genes from one form to another. Maybe one of you evolutionists can describe the selection process that would do these things; the rest of the programming has already been done by Dr Schneider and Paul.Well, I'll give you this: you have learned to avoid engaging on any point which directly challenges your position. You just keep repeating the same crap, and if you don't have an anwer to a response, you ignore it and return to your mantra. Pretty cowardly, if ya ask me.
I’m waiting for you to make a point. Do you want to debate your string cheese theory of evolution? If you do, start a thread on the topic and if you say anything sensible, I’ll try to respond. Considering there are only a couple of people on this thread who have revealed their identities, I wouldn’t be so loose with the word coward. Why don’t you reveal your real name?
Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?
A: Why it has evolved little gator, I thought you already knew that.

[kjkent1]

A: Why it has evolved little gator, I thought you already knew that.Objection: non-responsive. Evolution is not a function. Evolution is a process by which a function arises.

I'll repeat the question, in case your reading comprehension was temporarily compromised by some unknown agent.

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?

[kleinman]

A: Why it has evolved little gator, I thought you already knew that.Objection: non-responsive. Evolution is not a function. Evolution is a process by which a function arises.

I'll repeat the question, in case your reading comprehension was temporarily compromised by some unknown agent.

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?
A2: Why its function is to annoy evolutionists little gator, I thought you already knew that. Don’t you think it’s perfect at doing that?

You all have a good weekend.

[cyborg]

The reason this is an intractable problem for you evolutionists is that you propose that natural selection can do something which it can not do.

:rolleyes:

Darwin inappropriately extrapolated his observations of recombination and natural selection and applied the concept to mutation and natural selection.

Um. No. What the hell has Darwin got to do with this? He didn't know anything about genetics.

This is why you have an intractable problem.

No it is not. But then I said you wouldn't understand because you do not understand the most basic issues of mathematics or computation.

You don’t find a population of 1 meg realistic. That’s a population size greater than that proposed for our primate ancestor when humans were supposed to have evolved.

*Sigh* You do not understand the difference here between what ev is modelling and the evolution of homonids.

This is not surprising. You show little ability to cognate anything.

Where were all you great evolutionary scientific minds when ev was published? You only whine about ev now because it refutes your theory. Stop being a crybaby.

:rolleyes:

You're the one acting like a child kleinman.

Cyborg, do you want me to repost some of Dr Schneider’s quotes where he states ev models reality?

Do you want me to explain the concept of a model? Because you clearly don't understand what modelling is.

Because you seem to be making the leap that 'model = reality'.

The previous statements are clear that Dr Schneider believes that ev simulates the real world.

Simulates. Models. Is a facsimile of. There are clearly many compromises made in the name of tractability - something you simply do not understand.

Put simply if Dr Schneider were to argue any other way I would name him an idiot since I have no compunction to be loyal to him or his software. However nothing you have quoted indicates otherwise - he has attempted to provide modeling for as many factors as he could and demonstrate what he set out to demonstrate.

What you are asking from ev is beyond the capability of the model.

But then you cannot possibly comprehend this.

Only now that the model reveals that it does not support the theory of evolution do you criticize it.

At what point was I ever in rapture with ev? I at no point would have expected any computer program to be able to give a truly complete model of something that has so many biological factors that are not fully understood. You want a mini-universe within a computer program.

I am criticising your abuses of logic.

[kjkent1]

A2: Why its function is to annoy evolutionists little gator, I thought you already knew that. Don’t you think it’s perfect at doing that?

You all have a good weekend.Must be tough to be so intimidated by an anonymous person in an internet discussion forum that you can't answer a direct question.

Apparently you have a lot less confidence in your argument than you are willing to admit.

[Yahzi]

Because you seem to be making the leap that 'model = reality'.
We established that, like, 50 pages ago...

You people's ability to keep responding to Klienman is just... just... I can't even think of the word. Something between "Herculean" and "Sisphyean."

:D

[BPScooter]

Kleinman, why do you talk like this? This is from about 2 posts back.

'A2: Why its function is to annoy evolutionists little gator, I thought you already knew that. Don’t you think it’s perfect at doing that?

You all have a good weekend.'

I never call anyone "little gator" for any reason. You must admit that it sounds a bit patronizing. And then you seem to imply that your weekend is already in the bag, and others can only hope to have a good one.

In my opinion, and despite the long record of detailed information you have supplied here, the tone of your contributions is detrimental to your argument. In my opinion, I have an impression of your overall intent based on your style of speech. I tend to avoid people that use the sorts of techniques of rhetoric you use.

And I will never call you or anyone a "little (chicken, weasel, stoat, wildebeest, snake...)" or anything else.

Yours in all sincerity,

Scooter

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't mind if y'all call me "little otter." I like otters a lot.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

We established that, like, 50 pages ago...

Yes, but kleinman has to find another way to save the heathens.

It gets him godpoints, and godpoints means godprizes.

[Dr Richard]

Really? Do you want to explain how a new gene can be formed if it is not by adding bases?


Kleinman's basic biology lession no. 1,268

Deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_deletion)

including Frameshift mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation)

and also

Point mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)

and

Translocations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation)

All spring to mind and do not involve "adding bases". Outright gene duplications leading to paralogous genes would also seem to lie outside of the scope of your simplistic view of gene "creation".

If you genuinely do not know this, how on earth can you sensibly debate molecular genetics?

If you do know this, why are you asking the question?

[cyborg]

If you do know this, why are you asking the question?

It is a lot easier for him to create a universe where evolution does not exist than show it doesn't happen in this universe.

[Dr Richard]

Only in your dreams do you see the goalposts moving.

Some goalposts I dreamt of last night:

If you had read this thread you would already have known that I accept that microevolutionary processes occur. I have always acknowledged this.

I am working with the evolutionist definition, which is there is no difference between micro and macroevolution

With respects to macroevolution, we can work with your definition that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution

I happen to like the terms micro and macroevolution to distinguish between evolutionary events which occur and those which don’t occur

let’s work from the assumption that macroevolution is simply the sum of a series of microevolutionary steps

The goal post for microevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

The goal post for evolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this.

I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution

I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution

I have not presented the definition for macroevolution

Paul holds the position that a series of microevolutionary changes can lead to a macroevolutionary change. This is why I set up the goal post of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to another

And last but by no means least...

The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning. There is/are no selection process(es) that can accomplish this

Only in my dreams?

[delphi_ote]

Some goalposts I dreamt of last night:
:clap:
We have a winner. Thread over.

[Dr Adequate]

I am interested if you can explain why a beneficial mutation can be selected for. BWAHAHAHAHA!

That one's going in my sig too.

Damn, don't you know anything?

[Dr Adequate]

I’m starting to understand evolutionists. If you quote them they say you are a liar.

This is, of course, not true. It would, however, be accurate to say that if you lie about me I call you a liar.

Adequate, not only are you boring, you are long winded.If you are bored by having your mistakes in genetics, evolution, logic and mathematics corrected, then there are three courses open to you: you can learn something about the subjects you're discussing; you can stop discussing them; or you can frickin' well be bored. It's up to you.

[Dr Adequate]

You are using Adequate as your expert reference on ev? Let’s see, total number of cases Adequate has posted from ev = 0. That is only one less than the number of cases Dr Schneider used to publish ev so Adequate must be an expert on this computer simulation. Then what other expert commentary has Adequate offered, jpegs and gifs posted (all drawn by someone else) = unending, irrelevant URLs = continuous, boring and obnoxious comments = the only thing he can think of. Actually, there is one other thing I can think of.

And that would be the math I did to show how you'd screwed up so badly when you were playing your silly little games with ev; which you can see by following the link in my sig, and which you are unable to refute.

Denying its existence won't make it go away, because that is not how reality works.

[articulett]

If these changes are neutral, why don’t we see large varieties of insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees since these mutations do not get selected out?

Because only those that work preferentially survived. The others were selected out. If a bunch of mutations along the way were equally as reproductively fit--we'd see them. Other genes are highly conserved throughout evolution because they are essential. Where you see variation--lots of different stuff can work. Where you don't--you see the best "answer" in gene form that evolution has come up with through the eons of experimentation. Do you get it yet? I thought not. There's an odd mental illness in the religious which makes this very simple logic impenetrable. That's why it's important to catch the kiddies and teach them before their brain is impervious like the brains of rusty old coots.

[articulett]

Because only those that work preferentially survived. The others were selected out. If a bunch of mutations along the way were equally as reproductively fit--we'd see them. Other genes are highly conserved throughout evolution because they are essential. Where you see variation--lots of different stuff can work. Where you don't--you see the best "answer" in gene form that evolution has come up with through the eons of experimentation. Do you get it yet? I thought not. There's an odd mental illness in the religious which makes this very simple logic impenetrable. That's why it's important to catch the kiddies and teach them before their brain is impervious like the brains of rusty old coots.

Oh...and it doesn't have to happen one mutation at a time. And things don't need to be added...they can be deleted or rearranged. Moreover, some base pairs can chance without changing the amino acid it produces at all...though it may change the folding...which could, in turn, be something that influences the selection process. Let's review...base pairs come in threes which code for amino acids which form genes and the structure of chromosomes. All of these things can be acted upon by the environment. Beneficial mutations accrue...the detrimental are weeded out...and it's a crapshoot for the neutral--they may or may not later play a role in selection.

[articulett]

I don't mind if y'all call me "little otter." I like otters a lot.

~~ Paul

I hadn't thought of little wildebeast before; I think I like that one.
Winnie the gnu?

[articulett]

Kleinman's basic biology lession no. 1,268

Deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_deletion)

including Frameshift mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation)

and also

Point mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation)

and

Translocations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation)

All spring to mind and do not involve "adding bases". Outright gene duplications leading to paralogous genes would also seem to lie outside of the scope of your simplistic view of gene "creation".

If you genuinely do not know this, how on earth can you sensibly debate molecular genetics?

If you do know this, why are you asking the question?

Yep. And a single deletion, duplication, or substitution is an event that can have huge consequences to be selected for or against--especially if it involves a frameshift mutation or a promoter region or just causes the protein to fold differently.

Example for Kleinman. You have such an event occur in an oncogene which doesn't allow apoptosis to stop division in a wayward cell--a tumor grows--Say, it's benign...and can become a tool or weaponry like a rhino's horn and kill of competitors--or it grows which is great for the mutation and it's decendents...as long as it keeps it's host alive...greater still if the host reproduces whatever genetic susceptibility he may have to that cancer...and ultimately selected against for that particular mutation in the tumor cell and the owner of that tumor--but a lucky event for bacteria, maggots, vultures, or whomever can benefit from that particular selection process. Get it? Oh that's right--you CAN'T get it. Your all-loving intelligent designer will punish you (or whats left of you) for eternity if you do. Tsk.

Too bad you didn't get lucky enough to be born into a less stultifying belief system and that you weren't intelligent enough to think your way out. But it's a good for the religion meme. And I guess it's better than being born Amish--because then you'd risk eternal damnation for using electricity and a computer. And it's good you didn't stumble into Scientology--because, although members can be extremely wealthy and successful...they are also really, really wacky. But wait... so are you.

Got any proof for anything yet? Or is it all still in the "you gotta have faith" stage?

[Mr. Scott]

I hadn't thought of little wildebeast before; I think I like that one.
Winnie the gnu?

Oh! Kleinman! Can you call me Little HeLa? That's the single-cell life form that mutated in 1951 from one of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cells and its descendents became perfectly adapted to live on petri dishes. Pleeze!

Thanks in advance...

linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)


Due to their ability to replicate indefinitely, and their non-human chromosome number, Leigh Van Valen controversially described HeLa as an example of the contemporary creation of a new species, Helacyton gartleri (Van Valen & Maiorana 1991).

HeLa cells dividing.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/673645e9383fba5a3.jpg

[Dr Richard]

Let’s see you prove many micro -> macro.

You seem to be confused over your definitions of evolutionary terms (see above). How do you define micro and macroevolution again? (and again, and again....)

So, the resident James Randi Educational Forum expert on the evolution of insulin from one species to the next does not think it is fair to explain how and why humans and chimpanzees who you propose descended from a common ancestor would have different genes for insulin,


"Different" genes with 98% identity, from your reference

produce different preproinsulin molecules

Again from that lovely reference you supplied:

The identity between the sequences of human (chimpanzee) and African green monkey preproinsulin is 98% (97%); at the nucleotide level the corresponding identity between these protein-coding regions is 98% (95%).

and yet still have identical insulin molecules. I can understand why you don’t want to describe the selection process that would do such a thing.

Why? Please explain why a divergence of 2% is incompatable with the theory of evolution. Show your maths...


So you wanted to talk about insulin as proof of evolution, then you asked if the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor was a macroevolutionary event and if so, you asked which genes supposedly transformed into a new and completely different function. Why not talk about the insulin gene?

Because you have accepted (see above) that "microevolutionary" events occur. Indels and point mutaions are "microevolutionary" by your own defintion. There is no change of function or de novo evolution of the insulin gene between the human/chimp MRCA and humans and chimps.

I will talk about insulin further if you demonstrate to me how the 2% change in base sequence is mathmatically impossible in 1.5MY. Not using ev of course, as it was not designed to model this change and does not produce the indels that have ocurred in the insulin gene.

I see how I have been so unfair and moved the goalposts. The human and chimp insulin gene have not transformed into some completely different function. These genes still perform the same function; however they do it with different preproinsulin. How unfair.[/

98% the same "different" preproinsulin - wow. See point above about demonstrating how such a small difference is impossible.

Especially as your own reference refers to a 48bp deletion event which could easily happen in one generation, leaving us 1.5MY to achieve the other differences, which as you note comprise differences in REPEAT sequences in flanking regions - again easily achieved by insertions (which you appear to have never heard of before).

Hemoglobin S gives rise to red blood cells with shorter lives than with Hemoglobin A and B. Part of the life cycle of the malaria parasite occurs in the red blood cell. The shorter life span of the Hemoglobin S red blood cells does not allow the malaria parasite to complete its life cycle.

Why does it not suprise me that you managed to get this wrong. Could you provide us with your references?

To extrapolate these types of mutation and selection events to the evolution of new genes let alone completely new life forms is nothing short of irrational and unscientific

Why?

And why are you so slow with tha quantum wavefunction description of your current state? This is a valid, accepted theory with sound mathmatics behind it - surely sucha description is not beyond you?

[Myriad]

A2: Why its function is to annoy evolutionists little gator, I thought you already knew that. Don’t you think it’s perfect at doing that?

Sigh. The troll's ability to sense an important question that would defeat its case, and evade it with a lame joke answer, has become boring.

I suspect this serves it well in its profession. though. I imagine it goes something like this:

DEFENDANT COUNSEL: Do you regard the plaintiff's workman's compensation claim as medically justified?

EXPERT WITNESS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Definitely, yes.

DEFENDANT COUNSEL: And that claim is as a result of a work injury, he is unable to stand up, correct?

EWFTP: That's right. He's confined to a wheelchair for the foreseeable future.

DEFENDANT COUNSEL: Yet this court has seen the evidence that the plaintiff was observed, and filmed by a private investigator, walking unassisted around a shopping mall for many hours at a time in the weeks after he filed his claim, the most recent occasion being just three days ago.

EWFTP: When the investigator went to that shopping mall, he should have bought a clue!

CALIFORNIA JURY: Oooooh, this guy's sharp!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mr. Scott]

I see how I have been so unfair and moved the goalposts.

I think each time Dr. Kleinman moves the goalposts we should have another round of beer.

Dr. Kleinman has said that macroevolution (eg resulting in a new species) is impossible. The HeLa cell has been declared a new species. It macroevolved in 1951.

Move them, Kleinman! Move them!

[kleinman]

I am criticising your abuses of logic.
Don’t you know? I am also accused of abusing and evolutionist computer model.
A2: Why its function is to annoy evolutionists little gator, I thought you already knew that. Don’t you think it’s perfect at doing that?Must be tough to be so intimidated by an anonymous person in an internet discussion forum that you can't answer a direct question.

Apparently you have a lot less confidence in your argument than you are willing to admit.
Why should I be intimidated by a little gator? Since you don’t like my answer to your direct question, why don’t I answer your follow up question? Ev is a stylized computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. How much of this stylized computer model correlates with reality? For example, you think Unnamed’s selection process that almost completely neglects mutations in the nonbinding site region is more realistic than Dr Schneider’s selection process that takes into account these mutations. I suggest that Dr Schneider’s selection process is more realistic and his competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine on a daily basis. Perhaps you know how this competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine?
In my opinion, and despite the long record of detailed information you have supplied here, the tone of your contributions is detrimental to your argument. In my opinion, I have an impression of your overall intent based on your style of speech. I tend to avoid people that use the sorts of techniques of rhetoric you use.
My, my, what a surprise, a crybaby evolutionist has decided to complain on this thread.
Really? Do you want to explain how a new gene can be formed if it is not by adding bases?Deletions …
You evolutionist love to list mutation mechanisms but never do this mathematically. Why don’t you add these features to ev and prove your case, don’t forget the selection mechanism that would evolve a gene from the beginning, and don’t forget that competing selection processes interfere with the evolution process. We do want the mathematical model to be realistic.
If these changes are neutral, why don’t we see large varieties of insulin genes between humans and chimpanzees since these mutations do not get selected out?Because only those that work preferentially survived.
Is that why chimps and humans produce different preproinsulin yet still produce identical insulin?
I see how I have been so unfair and moved the goalposts.I think each time Dr. Kleinman moves the goalposts we should have another round of beer.
You don’t need a designated driver for this group.

So you evolutionists have no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and ev shows competitive selection process interfere with evolution, and competitive selection processes are used daily in the practice of medicine.

[kjkent1]

Why should I be intimidated by a little gator?It's out of my scope of expertise. Seek out a mental health professional for help if this bothers you.Since you don’t like my answer to your direct question, why don’t I answer your follow up question?Mainly because your answer would be non-responsive -- however predictable because you're obviously afraid of having your belief system meaningfully challenged.Ev is a stylized computer simulation of random point mutation and natural selection. How much of this stylized computer model correlates with reality?You're supposed to be answering a question, not asking one.For example, you think Unnamed’s selection process that almost completely neglects mutations in the nonbinding site region is more realistic than Dr Schneider’s selection process that takes into account these mutations.This is another question, although you forgot to use a question mark. Hopefully, you'll get to your point soonI suggest that Dr Schneider’s selection process is more realistic and his competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine on a daily basis. Perhaps you know how this competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine?Another question. Imagine my surprise.

Whatever floats yer boat, doc. If you don't want to engage in a debate with me, just say so. No big deal.

[Mr. Scott]

You don’t need a designated driver for this group

Yes, we do. Although now instead of moving the goalposts, you're just denying goals are scored. How clever. I say we also have a beer each time Dr. Kleinman denies a goal scored everyone else observes.

So, was the appearance of the HeLa cell in 1951 macroevelotion, little mudskipper?

[kleinman]

I suggest that Dr Schneider’s selection process is more realistic and his competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine on a daily basis. Perhaps you know how this competitive selection process is used in the practice of medicine?Of course I do. If a person fails to get admitted into any credible medical school in the USA, he pays to attend in the Bahamas, right?
Our little gator has uses the old lawyer strategy-if you have the law on you side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, you attack your opponent. Well little gator, you have neither science nor facts to support your theory of evolution. You have only proved yourself to be a bigot.

Do you know what gets taught in medical schools in Bahamas little gator? I’ll tell you. Double and triple antimicrobials reduce the appearance of resistant strains of microbes. The standard of treatment for HIV now calls for triple antiviral drugs. Multiple selective processes prevent evolution. Unnamed’s selection process ignores this affect and any realistic mathematical model of the theory of evolution must take into account competitive selective processes. Dr Schneider’s selection process takes this into account and the use of multiple antimicrobials is an example of this selection process. If you want to stop evolution, use multiple selection pressures.

Perhaps you would give us a real example of Unnamed’s selection process?

So you have no realistic selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and competitive selection processes interfere with evolution as ev shows. Dr Schneider’s selection process which does take into account competitive selection takes huge numbers of generations to converge when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates. Humans and chimpanzees have different preproinsulin yet produce identical insulin despite evolutionists’ lack of a selection process that would yield such differences in the genes. The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible little gator.

This is what you have denialophila, hyperextraplopia, speculitis and amathematica sciencea.

[kleinman]

So, was the appearance of the HeLa cell in 1951 macroevelotion, little mudskipper?
You think a human cancer cell line maintained in the laboratory is an example macroevolution? Evolutionist thinking becomes more and more bizarre all the time.

[cyborg]

Humans and chimpanzees have different preproinsulin yet produce identical insulin despite evolutionists’ lack of a selection process that would yield such differences in the genes.

LOL.

I mean seriously, it can only be explained to you so many times before one just has to give up and laugh at your stupidity.

It is PRECISELY the lack of selection that allows such differences to accumulate - there is no functional difference, hence no selection.

Seriously, seriously retarded.

[wwitzke]

Is there still a spot for flame wars on the JREF Forum? It looks like this discussion has devolved into a series of hurled insults. . .

Wayne

[kleinman]

Humans and chimpanzees have different preproinsulin yet produce identical insulin despite evolutionists’ lack of a selection process that would yield such differences in the genes.I mean seriously, it can only be explained to you so many times before one just has to give up and laugh at your stupidity.

It is PRECISELY the lack of selection that allows such differences to accumulate - there is no functional difference, hence no selection.
Oh yes, we have heard your cruft explanation of your theory.

So it’s cruft without selection to evolve two different preproinsulins. The fewer the selection processes the better your theory works!

[Mr. Scott]

You think a human cancer cell line maintained in the laboratory is an example macroevolution? Evolutionist thinking becomes more and more bizarre all the time.

Little Lungfish, you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you don't know that much about HeLa. It reproduces in the lab like a weed, infecting petri dishes that were intended for other cultures. It's an independent life form now.

If HeLa is not macroevolution, why isn't it? Surely it isn't microevolution. BIG change equals macro -- that's your definition. It happened before our eyes, and now there are several strains of HeLa. Why isn't this macroevolution by your definition?

Acting like a partial simulation of evolution is a complete simulation of evolution is bizarre, but saying something is bizarre doesn't answer any scientific questions, does it?

[kleinman]

Is there still a spot for flame wars on the JREF Forum? It looks like this discussion has devolved into a series of hurled insults. . .
For some the heat is a refining fire, for others the heat is a consuming fire.

[kleinman]

If HeLa is not macroevolution, why isn't it?
What gene evolved de novo?

[cyborg]

Oh yes, we have heard your cruft explanation of your theory.

Yes, and as of yet you've been unable to demonstrate in your theory why it would not accumulate.

You are still too immature to understand. Please tell me I need to find a different reason not to believe in your god - that one always gives me a good laugh. Why not tell me I'm going to regret this when I'm dead as well? Or that you've placed a lead curse at Aqua Sulis - whoops, wrong delusion!

Please, try something original for once.

So it’s cruft without selection to evolve two different preproinsulins. The fewer the selection processes the better your theory works!

Tell me kleinman:

f(G) == g(G)

Does the organism care if f and g are different genes if the result is the same?

How does this make the theory work 'better'? Why *are* you so unable to comprehend the simplest of notions?

[wwitzke]

For some the heat is a refining fire, for others the heat is a consuming fire.

Riiiiiiiight. . . Well, for you the incessant insults are apparently a way of directing attention away from actual argument, so that you don't have to answer questions or address issues, while still attempting to make the opposition look bad. For others, the insults appear to be reactionary, in fact derivative of your originals. Nothing refining about this, unless you consider ad hominem attacks and insults to be refined somehow, but I'll grant the consuming part, since the actual issues contained in this discussion are becoming less and less intelligible as time goes on.

So, I'll resubmit my question to those that actually might have a clue and won't answer with pointless rhetoric: Is this discussion just devolving into a flame war?

Wayne

[kleinman]

For some the heat is a refining fire, for others the heat is a consuming fire.Riiiiiiiight. . . Well, for you the incessant insults are apparently a way of directing attention away from actual argument, so that you don't have to answer questions or address issues, while still attempting to make the opposition look bad. For others, the insults appear to be reactionary, in fact derivative of your originals. Nothing refining about this, unless you consider ad hominem attacks and insults to be refined somehow, but I'll grant the consuming part, since the actual issues contained in this discussion are becoming less and less intelligible as time goes on.

So, I'll resubmit my question to those that actually might have a clue and won't answer with pointless rhetoric: Is this discussion just devolving into a flame war?
Another crybaby evolutionist posts on this thread. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t complaining crybabies?

The reason why it becomes more difficult to distinguish the issues in this discussion is that evolutionists want to change the subject from the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. I really don’t blame you evolutionists for doing this because this is a losing subject for your theory.

One of the many problems the evolutionist who post on this thread have is they produce heat but no light. At least Dr Schneider’s work sheds some light on the theory of evolution. His ev computer model shows that competing selection processes slow if not completely stop evolution. This effect is observed and used in the practice of medicine when multiple antimicrobials are used to treat infections in order to prevent the evolution of drug resistant strains. If your theory is explained by mutation and selection, shed some light on the selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning. Shed some light on how multiple selection process can allow evolution to proceed. These issues are crucial for evolutionists to describe in order the theory of evolution be proved mathematically. Without explanations for these issues, your theory is supported only by a slogan.

[cyborg]

If your theory is explained by mutation and selection, shed some light on the selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning.

There are none. None are required. New genes are not required.

Idiot.

[kleinman]

If your theory is explained by mutation and selection, shed some light on the selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning.There are none. None are required. New genes are not required.
Oh, now I understand. I repost the following for you cyborg.

EVO:1:1 In the beginning Random Mutations created all living things.
EVO:1:2 And the earth was without free oxygen, and void; and light was upon the face of the primordial soup. And Natural Selection moved upon the face of the primordial soup.
EVO:1:3 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection said, Let there be life: and there was life.
EVO:1:4 And Natural Selection saw the life, that it was good: and Natural Selection divided the good mutations from the harmful mutations.
EVO:1:5 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection called the RNA ribozymes, and the proteins he called prions. And the mutation and the natural selection were the first generation.
EVO:1:6 And the Environment said, Let there be a niche in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the niches from the niches.
EVO:1:7 And the Environment made the niche, and divided the niches which were under the waters from those which were above the water: and it was so.
EVO:1:8 And the Environment called these niches. And the mutation and the natural selection were the second generation.
EVO:1:9 And the Environment said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
EVO:1:10 And the Environment called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the primordial soup called he Seas: and Random Mutations and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:11 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let the primordial soup bring forth green algae and it was so.
EVO:1:12 And the primordial soup brought forth green algae: but Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was not good because the earth was no longer void of free oxygen.
EVO:1:13 And the mutation and the natural selection were the third generation.
EVO:1:14 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let there be hemoglobin because all this free oxygen was not good:
EVO:1:15 And there was hemoglobin because of all of this free oxygen: and it was so.
EVO:1:16 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection made two great molecules; the greater molecule to rule the nucleus, and the lesser molecule to rule the cytoplasm: he made other molecules also.
EVO:1:17 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection set them in the cell to give life upon the primordial soup,
EVO:1:18 And to respond to the environment, and to divide by mitosis or meiosis: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:19 And the mutation and the natural selection were the fourth generation.
EVO:1:20 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection said, Let the primordial soup evolve forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
EVO:1:21 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection evolved great whales from a cow like creature, and every living creature that moveth, which the primordial soup brought forth abundantly, after their kind evolved other kinds, and every winged fowl evolved after his creeping kind: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:22 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection blessed them, saying, It is the survival of the fittest, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
EVO:1:23 And the mutation and the natural selection were the fifth generation.
EVO:1:24 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let the environment evolve forth the living creature after other kinds, cattle from shrew like creatures, and creeping thing from swimming things, and beast of the earth from other kinds: and it was so.
EVO:1:25 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved the beast of the earth after other kinds, and cattle after shrew like creatures, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth evolved from swimming kinds: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:26 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let us evolve man in the image of a primate precursor: and let them pollute the sea, and eat the fowl of the air, and eat the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth let him eat and pollute.
EVO:1:27 So Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved man in the image of a primate precursor, in the image of the primate precursor Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved he him; male and female evolved he them.
EVO:1:28 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection blessed them, and Random Mutation and Natural Selection said unto them, It is the survival of the fittest, Be fruitful, and multiply and evolve, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and eat the fish of the sea, and eat the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, you shall eat. But watch your cholesterol.
EVO:1:29 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Behold, I have evolved you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
EVO:1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, Random Mutation and Natural Selection has given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
EVO:1:31 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw every thing that he had evolved, and, behold, it was very good. And the mutation and the natural selection were the sixth generation.
EVO:1:32 Thus the heavens and the earth evolve, and all the host of them.
EVO:1:33 And on the seventh generation Random Mutation and Natural Selection paused his work which he had made; and he reached punctuated equilibrium on the seventh generation from all his work which he had made.

[cyborg]

Oh, now I understand.

If you were capable of understanding you wouldn't attempt to lampoon evolutionary theory by implying it is as dogmatic and inflexible as your Bible - that makes you look doubly stupid.

[kleinman]

Oh, now I understand.If you were capable of understanding you wouldn't attempt to lampoon evolutionary theory by implying it is as dogmatic and inflexible as your Bible - that makes you look doubly stupid.
What????? Are you telling us that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a set of moving goalposts?

[cyborg]

What????? Are you telling us that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a set of moving goalposts?

Yes kleinman.

If one is incapable of understanding English that is, otherwise no.

[Myriad]

Genesis 6: 5-7
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.

Another crybaby god destroys the world. Are there any gods who aren't complaining crybabies?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[wwitzke]

Another crybaby evolutionist posts on this thread. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t complaining crybabies?

The reason why it becomes more difficult to distinguish the issues in this discussion is that evolutionists want to change the subject from the mathematics of mutation and natural selection. I really don’t blame you evolutionists for doing this because this is a losing subject for your theory.

One of the many problems the evolutionist who post on this thread have is they produce heat but no light. At least Dr Schneider’s work sheds some light on the theory of evolution. His ev computer model shows that competing selection processes slow if not completely stop evolution. This effect is observed and used in the practice of medicine when multiple antimicrobials are used to treat infections in order to prevent the evolution of drug resistant strains. If your theory is explained by mutation and selection, shed some light on the selection process that evolves a gene from the beginning. Shed some light on how multiple selection process can allow evolution to proceed. These issues are crucial for evolutionists to describe in order the theory of evolution be proved mathematically. Without explanations for these issues, your theory is supported only by a slogan.

I would like to thank you for lending support to my statements and for demonstrating that you are using insults so that you don't have to answer questions or address issues.

Watch, I can even show how you did this.

You lent support for my statements, that this discussion was turning into a flame war, by including insulting language at the beginning of your post, clearly intended to inflame me.

You demonstrated that you are using insults to avoid questions and issues by insulting me and then not answering my question. My question, if you remember, was whether the discussion was devolving into a flame war, not why the discussion was becoming less intelligible. Indeed, it should be obvious from my post that I have already come to a conclusion as to why the discussion was becoming less intelligible. I can lend support for that point, as well: Most of your recent posts have included blatant, pointless insults, many other posts have had insulting language of one form or another. As insults have certainly distracted me from the points of the various posts in this discussion, and indeed seem to have become the focus of this discussion, especially in your case where you often have led your arguments with an insult of some type, it is reasonable for me to conclude that the insults are detracting from the actual points of the discussion, thereby degrading the intelligibility of the discussion.

Now, you'll note in my previous post that I asked for someone who "had a clue" to answer. "Having a clue" is a rather loose way for me to say something to the effect of, "having an understanding of my original post, my point, and my reason for having posted in the first place." This excluded you because you demonstrated in your original reply that you did not understand my post, my point, or my reason for posting it. I can spell those out for you here:

My original post asked a simple question: Is this discussion degenerating into a flame war? This question could have, on face value, been answered in several ways that would actually have addressed the question. Possible answers were: "Yes, and it should probably be moved," "No, you're definition of 'flame war' doesn't give enough leeway to people," or perhaps "Yes, but we'll try to do better." Your answer, "For some the heat is a refining fire, for others the heat is a consuming fire," can be paraphrased as "Flame wars are good for people who thrive on them, and bad for people who don't thrive on them." This completely fails to answer my question, since it doesn't address whether or not this thread is actually turning into a flame war. Also, please note that if there are other possible interpretations for your original response, they don't matter, since it then becomes a response that can be interpreted in multiple ways (my way is a very reasonable way to interpret the response), which makes it unclear and not responsive at all.

The point of my original post was to suggest that perhaps this thread is no longer really scientifically focused, and perhaps could use a new home. People who understood that point could have addressed it, either sticking with the responses above (which do address this point), or perhaps adding something like "You don't adequately understand the point of the Flame Wars board," or "You should read up on our rules 'here'", where 'here' would be replaced with a link, or, (my preference) "You're absolutely right, we shall move it now." You must not have understood the point, because as somebody that is so involved in this discussion as you must be, since you insult every possible poster that is in opposition to any aspect of your arguments, you would almost certainly be interested in preventing this discussion from being relegated to the back-alley/trash pit of the JREF Forums. Now, I could be wrong here. Perhaps you're not so invested in the discussion, and so don't really care where it goes. But, if that's the case, then why are you being so insulting? It certainly doesn't help your arguments. Is it because you're just being cruel? You do realize that there are real people who are posting on here, right?

Finally, let's get to my actual reason for posting in the first place. This, I concede, could be rather tricky to discover completely. My actual original reasons for posting were twofold. First, I wanted to point out that the discussion was getting a bit out of hand and that this was degrading the discussion. This wasn't my primary reason for posting, but it was still a pretty good reason in and of itself. Most people would probably understand that reasoning, and would have had restraint in responding to my posts, addressing them in clam, reasonable ways. You didn't, first posting something that was non-responsive, fanciful and also a blatant attempt to justify your previously insulting posts, and then actually posted an inflammatory post afterwards, thereby justifying my reason for posting!

My secondary reason, I'm afraid I must admit, was so that I had an excuse to post everything I've said in my last two posts, pointing out how you were being insulting and driving the discussion into the ground. You've admirably aided me in that regard by demonstrating this so effectively.

In any case, the matter of whether or not this discussion is getting out of hand and should, perhaps be moved, still remains unanswered. Anybody? Am I way off base here?

Wayne

[kjkent1]

Our little gator has uses the old lawyer strategy-if you have the law on you side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, you attack your opponent. Well little gator, you have neither science nor facts to support your theory of evolution. You have only proved yourself to be a bigot.If you examine my prior post, you will discover that my last edit was made many hours prior to the time of your most recent response, and that nowhere in that post is the statement you allege I've made.

Do you know what gets taught in medical schools in Bahamas little gator? I’ll tell you. Double and triple antimicrobials reduce the appearance of resistant strains of microbes. The standard of treatment for HIV now calls for triple antiviral drugs. Multiple selective processes prevent evolution. Unnamed’s selection process ignores this affect and any realistic mathematical model of the theory of evolution must take into account competitive selective processes. Dr Schneider’s selection process takes this into account and the use of multiple antimicrobials is an example of this selection process. If you want to stop evolution, use multiple selection pressures.You cannot imagine how little I care, Alan.

Perhaps you would give us a real example of Unnamed’s selection process?Another question, but never an answer to any of mine. This is not a debate. It's a lecture. You can lecture to others. I'm bored, as your logic is deluded.

So you have no realistic selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning and competitive selection processes interfere with evolution as ev shows. Dr Schneider’s selection process which does take into account competitive selection takes huge numbers of generations to converge when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates. Humans and chimpanzees have different preproinsulin yet produce identical insulin despite evolutionists’ lack of a selection process that would yield such differences in the genes. The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible little gator.

This is what you have denialophila, hyperextraplopia, speculitis and amathematica sciencea.Any time you want to actually answer some of my questions, I will be happy to tear your arguments to shreds. You just let me know if you decide to do so. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss, because you're not saying anything except that you're an arrogant fool who can't take the heat from anyone who might be able to undermine your argument.

That "anyone" would be me -- which is why you won't answer my questions.

[kleinman]

Another crybaby god destroys the world. Are there any gods who aren't complaining crybabies?
I guess this post means you have given up in giggling, whoops jiggling the selection process in ev.

[kleinman]

Our little gator has uses the old lawyer strategy-if you have the law on you side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, if you have neither, you attack your opponent. Well little gator, you have neither science nor facts to support your theory of evolution. You have only proved yourself to be a bigot.If you examine my prior post, you will discover that my last edit was made many hours prior to the time of your most recent response, and that nowhere in that post is the statement you allege I've made.
So you are saying you never posted this?
Of course I do. If a person fails to get admitted into any credible medical school in the USA, he pays to attend in the Bahamas, right?
I wonder if this forum keeps track of edits of posts?

[cyborg]

kleinman, tell us the one about having to find another reason to disbelieve in god. Come on, your classic material is the best.

[kleinman]

kleinman, tell us the one about having to find another reason to disbelieve in god. Come on, your classic material is the best.
You don’t believe your own evolutionist mathematics, why would you believe anything I say?

[Dr Richard]

Do you know what gets taught in medical schools in Bahamas little gator? I’ll tell you. Double and triple antimicrobials reduce the appearance of resistant strains of microbes. The standard of treatment for HIV now calls for triple antiviral drugs. Multiple selective processes prevent evolution. Unnamed’s selection process ignores this affect and any realistic mathematical model of the theory of evolution must take into account competitive selective processes. Dr Schneider’s selection process takes this into account and the use of multiple antimicrobials is an example of this selection process. If you want to stop evolution, use multiple selection pressures.

Yes folks, the absence of evolution, where it would normally occur, is proof of intelligent design!

Tell the Design Institute - they have it all backwards...

[kjkent1]

So you are saying you never posted this?

I wonder if this forum keeps track of edits of posts?More questions from Alan, but never an answer to my direct question. I'll just repeat it again, since it appears to be sufficiently annoying to the creationist that he refuses to answer it.

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?

[kleinman]

Do you know what gets taught in medical schools in Bahamas little gator? I’ll tell you. Double and triple antimicrobials reduce the appearance of resistant strains of microbes. The standard of treatment for HIV now calls for triple antiviral drugs. Multiple selective processes prevent evolution. Unnamed’s selection process ignores this affect and any realistic mathematical model of the theory of evolution must take into account competitive selective processes. Dr Schneider’s selection process takes this into account and the use of multiple antimicrobials is an example of this selection process. If you want to stop evolution, use multiple selection pressures.Yes folks, the absence of evolution, where it would normally occur, is proof of intelligent design!
Why doesn’t the evolution occur? Evolution does not occur because of selection pressure. The very slogan for your theory of evolution, “mutation and natural selection” prevents evolution! This is what the ev computer model shows and this is what is observed clinically and in the laboratory. This is one of many features of the ev computer simulation that models reality accurately. One of the other features of the model that models reality accurately is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Dr Richard since you are the expert on insulin and evolution, perhaps you want to add random transpositions and natural selection to the ev model and show how different preproinsulins can evolve in humans and chimpanzees yet still produce identical insulin molecules.

[cyborg]

You don’t believe your own evolutionist mathematics, why would you believe anything I say?

http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gifhttp://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gifhttp://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gifhttp://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gifhttp://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gif

[kleinman]

You don’t believe your own evolutionist mathematics, why would you believe anything I say?
Cyborg posts a devastating gif:
http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gif
Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory. No selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, competing selection processes stop evolution and all I have for my flimsy argument is the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection. Will you evolutionists hurry up and add random transposition and natural selection to ev so I can co-opt that data as well.

[kjkent1]

Cyborg posts a devastating gif:
http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN/images/gifs/nopityA.gif
Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory. No selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, competing selection processes stop evolution and all I have for my flimsy argument is the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection. Will you evolutionists hurry up and add random transposition and natural selection to ev so I can co-opt that data as well.On the other hand, you've pretty much failed to prove anything at all, other than your own unwillingness of answering a simple and direct question, for fear of being conclusively proved in error. Here let me repeat it for you again:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?

[kleinman]

Cyborg posts a devastating gif:
http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~heider/FUN...fs/nopityA.gif
Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory. No selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, competing selection processes stop evolution and all I have for my flimsy argument is the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection. Will you evolutionists hurry up and add random transposition and natural selection to ev so I can co-opt that data as well.On the other hand, you've pretty much failed to prove anything at all, other than your own unwillingness of answering a simple and direct question, for fear of being conclusively proved in error. Here let me repeat it for you again:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that perfect creature possess?
I’ll tell you what little gator, I’ll give you a direct answer this question if you give me direct answer to a question I have.
Did you post the following?
Of course I do. If a person fails to get admitted into any credible medical school in the USA, he pays to attend in the Bahamas, right?

[cyborg]

Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory.

Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory.

No selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning,

What part of 'evolution is not a goal based process' do you not understand?

competing selection processes stop evolution

Where the hell do you get that from?

and all I have for my flimsy argument is the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection.

Which uses unrealistic population sizes - despite your contention that it's sensible because, "that's reasonable for chimps -> humans and ev is exactly modelling that".

Will you evolutionists hurry up and add random transposition and natural selection to ev so I can co-opt that data as well.

Impossible. You proved it remember?

Oh no, wait... that's right. You only know the words, their meaning is arbitrary.

Face it kleinman, you suck at mathematics.

[kjkent1]

I’ll tell you what little gator, I’ll give you a direct answer this question if you give me direct answer to a question I have.
Did you post the following?
OK, you go first, since I asked first.

[kleinman]

Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory.Now if you only had some devastating mathematics for your failed theory.
What failed theory have I proposed? I recall only showing that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible based on data from Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection.
No selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning,What part of 'evolution is not a goal based process' do you not understand?
I understand now, the theory of evolution is cruft based.
competing selection processes stop evolutionWhere the hell do you get that from?
That what happens with ev when you make the genome too long. Errors in the non-binding site region dominate the selection process and prevent binding sites from evolving. This competing selection process prevents evolution. An analogous situation is seen in clinical medicine, for example in the treatment of HIV. Triple antiviral agents are used to stop the evolutionary process of the virus to resistant strains. The three evolutionary stresses interfere with evolution. Multiple selection pressures compete with each other and prevent evolution.
and all I have for my flimsy argument is the data from a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection.Which uses unrealistic population sizes - despite your contention that it's sensible because, "that's reasonable for chimps -> humans and ev is exactly modelling that".
I know, ev does not include random transpositions and natural selection so you can’t model the evolution of the insulin gene to the insulin gene. Will you evolutionists hurry up and include this so I can co-opt this work. Don’t forget to include multiple different selection pressures in the model; we want the model to be realistic.
Will you evolutionists hurry up and add random transposition and natural selection to ev so I can co-opt that data as well.Impossible. You proved it remember?
But I need the extra proof so I can overcome your cruft theory of evolution and your gifs.
Oh no, wait... that's right. You only know the words, their meaning is arbitrary.
Kind of like cruft, isn’t it?
Face it kleinman, you suck at mathematics.
That’s ok, I have Dr Schneider’s mathematics to work with.
I’ll tell you what little gator, I’ll give you a direct answer this question if you give me direct answer to a question I have.
Did you post the following?OK, you go first, since I asked first.
Sorry, little gator bigot, it doesn’t work that way. Why don’t you take me to court for calling you a bigot, little gator?

[kjkent1]

Sorry, little gator bigot, it doesn’t work that way. Why don’t you take me to court for calling you a bigot, little gator?At this point there's not enough damages in it to make it worth my while.

Is this calling me a bigot another demonstration of your high Christan ethics? I'm certain Jesus would be highly impressed with your style.

By-the-way, the definition of Bigot is: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. -- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Given the above definition, I don't think that "Bigot" is a particularly accurate usage for this circumstance. But, I don't really want to argue the point, either.

Anyway, I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. But, if I answer first, then I'll have no leverage to get you to answer, and I'm practically certain that you won't answer, regardless of what I do, so I won't.

But, I will continue to repeat the simple question which you seem unable to answer, as you seem to find it so annoying:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that creature possess?

[kleinman]

Sorry, little gator bigot, it doesn’t work that way. Why don’t you take me to court for calling you a bigot, little gator?At this point there's not enough damages in it to make it worth my while.
If you have any damage, it’s not because I called you a bigot.
Is this calling me a bigot another demonstration of your high Christan ethics? I'm certain Jesus would be highly impressed with your style.
You seem to know a lot about Jesus, do you want to tell us about Him?
By-the-way, the definition of Bigot is: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. -- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
That’s a good definition.
Given the above definition, I don't think that "Bigot" is a particularly accurate usage for this circumstance. But, I don't really want to argue the point, either.
You’re wise not to argue this point. You have already lost one debate on the theory of evolution. No need to lose two debates in a single thread.
Anyway, I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. But, if I answer first, then I'll have no leverage to get you to answer, and I'm practically certain that you won't answer, regardless of what I do, so I won't.
You already know my answer to your follow-up question and we already know you are a bigot, so neither of us needs answers to these questions.
But, I will continue to repeat the simple question which you seem unable to answer, as you seem to find it so annoying:
Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that creature possess?
This question doesn’t annoy me at all; in fact if you studied Dr Schneider’s writings, you could easily obtain the answer to this question yourself. So not only are you a bigot, you are lazy, but we already knew that.

[kjkent1]

You have already lost one debate on the theory of evolution.No, I've soundly defeated you on each and every substantive issue, throughout this thread. The record speaks for itself, despite your assertion to the contrary.

This question doesn’t annoy me at all; in fact if you studied Dr Schneider’s writings, you could easily obtain the answer to this question yourself. So not only are you a bigot, you are lazy, but we already knew that.More casting stones, by the estemed Dr. Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D, M.D. He can't outargue some anonymous poster in an online thread, so he resorts to name calling as an alternative.

I'll just keep reminding you of the question you seem so unable to answer:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does it display?

Come on Alan, answer the question. Don't be afraid. I won't laugh at you. You can do it. I know you can...

[kleinman]

You have already lost one debate on the theory of evolution.No, I've soundly defeated you on each and every substantive issue, throughout this thread. The record speaks for itself, despite your assertion to the contrary.
Which substantive issue are you talking about? Is it your string cheese theory of evolution or your claim that Unnamed’s selection process is realistic? Until you realize that there are multiple stresses on living things, you will have a hard time understanding that there a multiple selection process acting simultaneously. This is demonstrated by Dr Schneider’s selection process. This is also demonstrated in the real situation of treatment of infectious diseases. So not only does the theory of evolution lack a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, multiple selection processes interfere with any evolution that might occur. Real living creatures with hundreds or thousands of genes would be subject to these many competing selection processes. Any realistic simulation of mutation and selection would have to take into account these many selection processes and as ev shows, even two selection conditions can be sufficient to stop evolution.
This question doesn’t annoy me at all; in fact if you studied Dr Schneider’s writings, you could easily obtain the answer to this question yourself. So not only are you a bigot, you are lazy, but we already knew that.More casting stones, by the estemed Dr. Alan M. Kleinman, Ph.D, M.D. He can't outargue some anonymous poster in an online thread, so he resorts to name calling as an alternative.
You failed to withdraw a bigoted statement quickly enough and I saw it. Rather than apologizing, you make immature statements as if someone injured you.
I'll just keep reminding you of the question you seem so unable to answer:
It’s not that I am unable to answer this question, I just see no need to answer this question, but it is good for you to learn perseverance.
Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does it display?
What functionality do you display?
Come on Alan, answer the question. Don't be afraid. I won't laugh at you. You can do it. I know you can...
I know you can answer this question as well. You can do it. It will help you to answer this question, it will give you a better understanding of the mathematics of mutation and natural selection.

[Mercutio]

It’s not that I am unable to answer this question...[snip]

Well, I am perfectly willing to admit that I cannot answer that question. I fear that one of the two of us is missing something big. If it is me, I would very much like to know it. Please enlighten me; I have no qualms admitting ignorance, and will gladly thank you for setting me straight. If, however, you are not actually able to answer the question, I would appreciate an honest admission of this.

[kjkent1]

You failed to withdraw a bigoted statement quickly enough and I saw it. Rather than apologizing, you make immature statements as if someone injured you.You need credible evidence to support your theories, Alan. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Reminder:

Q: When ev produces a perfect creature, what observed functionality does that creature display?

[Taffer]

I apologize if this has already been gone over. I was several pages behind the thread, and can't really be bothered to read the rest of it. If someone else has already commented on the following, please ignore this. :)


Well, let’s see.
We have Dr Richard who says he can trace evolution through the insulin gene and molecule. Dr Richard asks me if the evolution of humans and chimps represents a macroevolutionary change and if so what genes evolved from the beginning or transformed. I say yes, this represents a macroevolutionary change and decided to look at his example of the insulin gene and molecule. So what shows up? A paper written by evolutionists who have sequenced the DNA for the insulin gene in chimpanzees and document the genetic differences between the human and chimpanzee insulin gene yet these different genes still produce identical polypeptides.

Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule? This is particularly peculiar in the face of the results from ev which show how slow random point mutations and natural selection is, especially with these huge genomes, the small number of generations and the small populations to accomplish these changes. If you start from the premise that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a single insulin gene, how do you explain the hundreds of base differences between the present day insulin genes of these creatures yet these genes produce identical polypeptides? Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?

No, it is not parculiar at all. I forgive you for not understanding the genetic notation in the paper you quoted, so allow me to go over two simple points which show that the differences between the human and chimp genes do not "still code for the same protein".

In addition, there are several other notable differences between the human, chimpanzee, and African green monkey insulin gene sequences. The first is a deletion of 48 bp in the chimpanzee insulin gene at a site just after the TAG which specifies termination of translation.

TAG is a codon which indicates the termination of transcription. It is the final codon which is transcribed into mRNA (which is then spliced, transported to ribosomes, and translated into a protein). The 48 basepair (bp) deletion occurs after this 'stop' codon. Therefore, the deletion does not occur in a region of the gene which codes for a protein.

The second notable difference was in the 5’ flanking region of these genes. The chimpanzee insulin gene has a region of 206 bp that begins -365 bp from the start of transcription and that comprises 20 tandem repeats of sequences related to the 15-bp sequence ACAGGGGTCCTGGGG (fig. 1). A region of similar tandem repeats is present in the human gene (Bell et al. 1982)) the most common sequence of which, ACAGGGGTGTGGGG, does not occur in the chimpanzee gene. However, the next two most common repeats in the human are ACAGGGTCCTGGGG and ACAGGGGTCTGGGG, which constitute most of the repeats in the chimpanzee.

While this is quite a large difference, it is both very common between related species, and between members of the same species. Tandem repeats are found throughout the genome, and can vary vastly between individuals, sometimes with adverse effects, and sometimes without. As an example of this, Fragile X Syndrome appears to be caused by a lengthening of an in-frame 3bp repeat being repeated over a certain threshold. There can be between 7 and over 1000 repeats of this sequence.

Secondly, lets take a look at exactly what is said. The paper states that the variation is a 206 bp region which begins at -365 from transcription iniation. Note the minus symbol. This means that it occurs 365 bp before transcription is initated. This means that this difference is not translated into a protein. It is untranslated.

What does this mean? It means that, according to the quotes you have provided, there are no differences in the sequences which actually encode the protein. This supports the hypothesis of common descent between humans and chimps.

Please note, however, that there will be variation in the coding regions. This is because variation is very common. There are high levels of allelic variation at particular loci. What this means is that there are often present in a population many variations at a specific locus on the genome. You must remember that a single amino acid is encoded by a codon of three basepairs. You must also remember that, more often the not, a change in the last basepair of a codon does not change which amino acid it encodes.

ETA: By the way, do you think you could stop using a different font for your posts? It simply makes it annoying to quote, as your posts are full of vB tags.

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by kleinman
Well, let’s see. We have Dr Richard who says he can trace evolution through the insulin gene and molecule. Dr Richard asks me if the evolution of humans and chimps represents a macroevolutionary change and if so what genes evolved from the beginning or transformed. I say yes, this represents a macroevolutionary change

Define macroevolutionary for us again Kleinman?


and decided to look at his example of the insulin gene and molecule. So what shows up? A paper written by evolutionists who have sequenced the DNA for the insulin gene in chimpanzees and document the genetic differences between the human and chimpanzee insulin gene yet these different genes still produce identical polypeptides.

Which given the recent divergence of humans/chimps is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict: the coding regions tend to be more higly conserved than non-coding, non-regulatory regions of the genome.


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

No, see above


This is particularly peculiar in the face of the results from ev which show how slow random point mutations and natural selection is, especially with these huge genomes, the small number of generations and the small populations to accomplish these changes.

Still ignorant of insertions and deletions, Kleinman? Despite the data in the very paper youy cited stating how the differences in genomes resulted from insertions and deletions??

If you start from the premise that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a single insulin gene, how do you explain the hundreds of base differences between the present day insulin genes of these creatures yet these genes produce identical polypeptides? Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution?

No, see above.

Now, please answer, as you seem to have forgotten: why do mice and rats have two copies of the insulin gene but no other mammals do?

[Dr Richard]

Why doesn’t the evolution occur? Evolution does not occur because of selection pressure. The very slogan for your theory of evolution, “mutation and natural selection” prevents evolution! This is what the ev computer model shows and this is what is observed clinically and in the laboratory. This is one of many features of the ev computer simulation that models reality accurately. One of the other features of the model that models reality accurately is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Oh dear Kleinman, you are wrong. The examples you yourself have cited over the past 70 pages prove you are wrong.

However, lets try a different tack. As you habitually ignore posts that pose questions you do not like (mechanism of sickle cell interaction in malaria anyone?), I'll take this slowly.

Try these three questions first:

1. What is a single nucleotide polymorphism?
2. Why do they arise?
3. How many are they within the human genome?




Dr Richard since you are the expert on insulin and evolution, perhaps you want to add random transpositions and natural selection to the ev model and show how different preproinsulins can evolve in humans and chimpanzees yet still produce identical insulin molecules.

As YOU are the one who claims that ev disproves the theory of evolution, the burden of proof is on YOU, Kleinman. Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by kleinman: Dr Richard since you are the expert on insulin and evolution, perhaps you want to add random transpositions and natural selection to the ev model and show how different preproinsulins cannotevolve in humans and chimpanzees yet still produce identical insulin molecules.


As YOU are the one who claims that ev disproves the theory of evolution, the burden of proof is on YOU, Kleinman. Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.


I have edited your statement in bold. The burden of proof is on you Kleinman. I will repost this statement every time you attempt to claim that ev has disproved the theory of evolution.


Have a nice week!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.
Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?

~~ Paul

[Mr. Scott]

When I asked "If HeLa is not macroevolution, why isn't it?"


What gene evolved de novo?

Well, little tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik), you originally said macro-evolution was big change. Now you imply it's de novo evolution of a gene. We all get a round of beer. It was too easy.

[kleinman]

It’s not that I am unable to answer this question...[snip]Well, I am perfectly willing to admit that I cannot answer that question. I fear that one of the two of us is missing something big. If it is me, I would very much like to know it. Please enlighten me; I have no qualms admitting ignorance, and will gladly thank you for setting me straight. If, however, you are not actually able to answer the question, I would appreciate an honest admission of this.
With respects to kjkent1’s question, there is nothing big here. I’ll give you a quote from Dr Schneider to show why his question pertains to nothing big.

="Dr Schneider"[/SIZE]]A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.

If you are missing something big it is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.
You failed to withdraw a bigoted statement quickly enough and I saw it. Rather than apologizing, you make immature statements as if someone injured you.You need credible evidence to support your theories, Alan. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Reminder:
Why don’t you take me to court for slander you bigot?
In addition, there are several other notable differences between the human, chimpanzee, and African green monkey insulin gene sequences. The first is a deletion of 48 bp in the chimpanzee insulin gene at a site just after the TAG which specifies termination of translation.TAG is a codon which indicates the termination of transcription. It is the final codon which is transcribed into mRNA (which is then spliced, transported to ribosomes, and translated into a protein). The 48 basepair (bp) deletion occurs after this 'stop' codon. Therefore, the deletion does not occur in a region of the gene which codes for a protein.
You need to explain why there are different preproinsulins yet identical insulins for humans and chimps. The differences between the human and chimp gene is producing a different protein. Perhaps you know if the enzyme which cleaves the preproinsulin to insulin is identical for humans and chimps.
ETA: By the way, do you think you could stop using a different font for your posts? It simply makes it annoying to quote, as your posts are full of vB tags.
I’m not putting the tags in. Perhaps MS Word® is putting in the tags without me knowing.
Well, let’s see. We have Dr Richard who says he can trace evolution through the insulin gene and molecule. Dr Richard asks me if the evolution of humans and chimps represents a macroevolutionary change and if so what genes evolved from the beginning or transformed. I say yes, this represents a macroevolutionary changeDefine macroevolutionary for us again Kleinman?
I’ve given examples for you such as the de novo evolution of a gene and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form. Now we have insulin genes transforming to make different preproinsulins yet giving identical insulins in what you call closely related species coming from a common ancestor. So what is the selection process that would evolve an insulin gene to an insulin gene? You still have not answered the question whether the enzyme that cleaves the preproinsulins for humans and chimps is identical. If they are not, you will have to explain the selection process that would evolve two different genes simultaneously in only 500,000 generations.
and decided to look at his example of the insulin gene and molecule. So what shows up? A paper written by evolutionists who have sequenced the DNA for the insulin gene in chimpanzees and document the genetic differences between the human and chimpanzee insulin gene yet these different genes still produce identical polypeptides.Which given the recent divergence of humans/chimps is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict: the coding regions tend to be more higly conserved than non-coding, non-regulatory regions of the genome.
The coding regions are not being conserved. You are getting two different preproinsulins coded for which then are cleaved to identical proteins. You better hope that the enzyme which cleaves these two preproinsulins are identical because if they are not, you will look like a pretzel trying to explain this.
Don’t you find it peculiar that our supposed closest evolutionary relative has an insulin gene that differs by hundreds of bases yet still produces an identical insulin molecule?No, see above
Two different preproinsulins being cleaved to identical insulins doesn’t seem peculiar to you?
This is particularly peculiar in the face of the results from ev which show how slow random point mutations and natural selection is, especially with these huge genomes, the small number of generations and the small populations to accomplish these changes.Still ignorant of insertions and deletions, Kleinman? Despite the data in the very paper youy cited stating how the differences in genomes resulted from insertions and deletions??
Why don’t you give us a description of random insertions and deletion and natural selection that can be used in ev to model this phenomena? I’m particularly interested in hearing your description of the selection process that would make two different preproinsulins yet produce identical insulin molecules.
If you start from the premise that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a single insulin gene, how do you explain the hundreds of base differences between the present day insulin genes of these creatures yet these genes produce identical polypeptides? Is this just another gap in the giant of all gap theories, the theory of evolution? No, see above.
When you say no, are you saying that when humans and chimps first diverged they didn’t have identical insulin genes at that time?
Now, please answer, as you seem to have forgotten: why do mice and rats have two copies of the insulin gene but no other mammals do?
That’s an interesting bit of information. Are you trying to use this as an argument for evolution? You still haven’t told us whether the enzyme which cleaves human and chimp preproinsulin are identical.
Why doesn’t the evolution occur? Evolution does not occur because of selection pressure. The very slogan for your theory of evolution, “mutation and natural selection” prevents evolution! This is what the ev computer model shows and this is what is observed clinically and in the laboratory. This is one of many features of the ev computer simulation that models reality accurately. One of the other features of the model that models reality accurately is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.Oh dear Kleinman, you are wrong. The examples you yourself have cited over the past 70 pages prove you are wrong.
The difference between your arguments and my arguments is that I base my arguments on a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Certainly there are other mechanisms of mutations but there are no selection processes which can do what you are proposing. If there were selection processes, you would be describing them and Paul and Dr Schneider would be putting these mechanisms into their computer model. You think a slogan constitutes a scientific proof. This mushy story that you have contrived about the evolution of the insulin gene and molecule has no mathematical basis. You extrapolate your observations beyond what the data allows.
Dr Richard since you are the expert on insulin and evolution, perhaps you want to add random transpositions and natural selection to the ev model and show how different preproinsulins can evolve in humans and chimpanzees yet still produce identical insulin molecules.As YOU are the one who claims that ev disproves the theory of evolution, the burden of proof is on YOU, Kleinman. Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.
I can understand why you want to shift the burden to produce this mathematical model. There is no selection process so there is no mathematical model. “Mutation and selection” as an explanation for the theory of evolution is nothing more than a slogan. As soon as you try to apply mathematical precision to the concept as Dr Schneider has done, the hypothesis collapses because of a lack of a selection process that would accomplish what you claim. You should see this with the different preproinsulins in humans and chimps. What type of selection process would do this?
Originally Posted by kleinman: Dr Richard since you are the expert on insulin and evolution, perhaps you want to add random transpositions and natural selection to the ev model and show how different preproinsulins cannot evolve in humans and chimpanzees yet still produce identical insulin molecules.As YOU are the one who claims that ev disproves the theory of evolution, the burden of proof is on YOU, Kleinman. Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.
Again, there is no selection process that would do this. If there was, you would describe this, Dr Schneider would put it in the ev model and we could model the formation of these two preproinsulins.
I have edited your statement in bold. The burden of proof is on you Kleinman. I will repost this statement every time you attempt to claim that ev has disproved the theory of evolution.
And I will continue to repost that there are no selection processes that you claim explains your theory of evolution. It is you who claims that natural selection accomplishes all in your theory but there is no natural selection that accomplishes what you claim. If there was, we would see it modeled in ev.
Unless you can do this, your whole argument, and the basis of this entire thread, is utter nonesense.Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?
Certainly!

[Dr Richard]

Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?

~~ Paul


Many apologies Paul! Of course I agree that creationists are still annoying, but the original reason Kleinman was annoying was, I thought, his "proof" that evolution is mathmatically impossible.

Which he has still to demonstrate...

Although I thought the object of the thread was to annoy creationists, not the other way round?

[Dr Richard]

Dear Kleinman, please detail what you believe to be the differences between the chimp and human preproinsulin sequences?


[QUOTE]I’ve given examples for you such as the de novo evolution of a gene and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form. Now we have insulin genes transforming to make different preproinsulins

careful now...


yet giving identical insulins in what you call closely related species coming from a common ancestor. So what is the selection process that would evolve an insulin gene to an insulin gene?

??


You still have not answered the question whether the enzyme that cleaves the preproinsulins for humans and chimps is identical. If they are not, you will have to explain the selection process that would evolve two different genes simultaneously in only 500,000 generations.

We can return to this once you have detailed what you think the differences between human and chimp preproinsulin are...




The coding regions are not being conserved. You are getting two different preproinsulins coded for which then are cleaved to identical proteins. You better hope that the enzyme which cleaves these two preproinsulins are identical because if they are not, you will look like a pretzel trying to explain this.

Your argument actually sounds better if you stick to non-coding versus coding segments of the insulin gene, as the variations are higher. But if you want to play it this way, fine.



Two different preproinsulins being cleaved to identical insulins doesn’t seem peculiar to you?

Quoted mainly for emphasis and to preserve the evidence. No, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all.

And what about the SNP's? I'll return to this in a sec, but I'm having too much fun with different preproinsulins...

[Taffer]

Keinman, I would like to know your thoughts on my post above.

ETA: Unless this has been covered before...?

[Dr Richard]

Keinman, I would like to know your thoughts on my post above.

ETA: Unless this has been covered before...?


No, he just ignores points he can't answer...

[Mercutio]

With respects to kjkent1’s question, there is nothing big here. I’ll give you a quote from Dr Schneider to show why his question pertains to nothing big.Perhaps you need to use smaller words; I still do not see an answer there. Certainly, the program does not simulate everything, but as I see it that is irrelevant to the question. Unless you are suggesting that one of the things that exists in the real world but not in the simulation is a predefined functionality of a perfect creature.

I still see no answer to the question; do you still actually see one? What is the observed functionality of a perfect creature, as constrained by this program? (Or outside of it--I'm not picky!)

I assure you, I am genuinely trying to understand.

[cyborg]

Well I'm getting tired of repeating myself. If kleinman ever gets the point about functional equivalence of two different genetic sequences making his 4^G strawman significantly more involved wake me up.

You are quite boring now kleinman.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Although I thought the object of the thread was to annoy creationists, not the other way round?
No, by "annoying creationists" I meant that they were annoying me. I never expected Kleinman to show up!

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?Many apologies Paul! Of course I agree that creationists are still annoying, but the original reason Kleinman was annoying was, I thought, his "proof" that evolution is mathmatically impossible.
Obviously Dr Richard has not read this thread and has no understanding of Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, this computer simulation shows that the rate of information gain by random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by this mechanism in the time available (the age of the universe). Numerous evolutionists have argued that other mechanisms of mutations (including you) would somehow accelerate this process but without a selection mechanism, none of these mechanisms would work. So read through the thread but you have to wade through a lot of whimpering and crying on the part of evolutionists.
Which he has still to demonstrate...
Read this thread and the related thread on the Evolutionisdead forum. The URL is listed at the beginning of this thread.
Although I thought the object of the thread was to annoy creationists, not the other way round?
You’ve got a lot of things backwards.
You need to explain why there are different preproinsulins yet identical insulins for humans and chimps.Dear Kleinman, please detail what you believe to be the differences between the chimp and human preproinsulin sequences?
Get the following reference: Sequences of Primate Insulin Genes Support the Hypothesis of a Slower Rate of Molecular Evolution in Humans and Apes than in Monkeys
This reference lists the amino acid sequence for the preproinsulin for Chimpanzees and the text lists the differences between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin.
I’ve given examples for you such as the de novo evolution of a gene and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form. Now we have insulin genes transforming to make different preproinsulinscareful now...
How many different ways do you have for transforming a gene? What is the selection process that would do this? Dr Schneider’s ev computer model is an attempt to do the actual accounting of random point mutations and natural selection. What is the mechanism you propose that gives different genes for insulin in humans and chimpanzees and what is the selection process that brings this about yet still produces identical insulin proteins? Consider this an introduction to genetic bookkeeping. No more slogans. You now have to do the arithmetic and in order to do the arithmetic, you need to describe the selection process.
So what is the selection process that would evolve an insulin gene to an insulin gene???
If you propose that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, then humans and chimps started with the same insulin gene as the common ancestor. What selection process would lead to different insulin genes in humans than in chimps that produce different preproinsulins yet still produce the same insulin molecule?
You still have not answered the question whether the enzyme that cleaves the preproinsulins for humans and chimps is identical. If they are not, you will have to explain the selection process that would evolve two different genes simultaneously in only 500,000 generations.We can return to this once you have detailed what you think the differences between human and chimp preproinsulin are...
If you understood the mathematics of ev, you would realize that 500,000 generations is a miniscule number of generations to accomplish anything by random point mutations and natural selection. Then you would have to describe the selection process that could accomplish such a transformation of the gene. Paul and I have done series of computations on genomes only 100k bases long and to evolve about 100 loci takes hundreds of millions to billions of generations to accomplish the task. You are now talking about evolution on genomes 3 gigabases long. Because of the results from ev with longer genomes take huge numbers of generations to evolve, Paul’s description of ev has changed from it models “reality” to it is a “stylized” model of random point mutations and natural selection. Dr Schneider has extensively published that ev models reality. Paul’s latest description is probably his most accurate assessment of ev, but it does point to the need of selection processes that could evolve anything in order for you to prove your theory. I don’t believe such selection processes exist and so far, no evolutionist has been able to describe such processes.
The coding regions are not being conserved. You are getting two different preproinsulins coded for which then are cleaved to identical proteins. You better hope that the enzyme which cleaves these two preproinsulins are identical because if they are not, you will look like a pretzel trying to explain this. Your argument actually sounds better if you stick to non-coding versus coding segments of the insulin gene, as the variations are higher. But if you want to play it this way, fine.
I don’t know what the structures are for the enzymes that cleave the preproinsulin for humans and chimps but if there are differences between the two cleaving enzymes, you would have to explain how two different genes transformed simultaneously (the insulin gene and the gene which codes for the cleaving enzyme). Perhaps the same cleaving enzyme works for both human and chimpanzee preproinsulin.
Two different preproinsulins being cleaved to identical insulins doesn’t seem peculiar to you?Quoted mainly for emphasis and to preserve the evidence. No, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all.
Hey, I posted the name of the paper which lists these data. It will seem strange as you learn more about the mathematics of mutation and selection, especially when you don’t have selection processes that can accomplish these transformations.
Keinman, I would like to know your thoughts on my post above.

ETA: Unless this has been covered before...?No, he just ignores points he can't answer...
If you would read the thread carefully you would see that I addressed part of Taffer’s post. There are numerous differences between the human and chimpanzee gene, many in the non-coding regions but there are differences in the coding region for preproinsulin. Read the reference that I have given above. So why don’t you explain the selection process that would lead to these differences when at some time in the past, humans and chimpanzees had to have identical insulin genes.

Dr Richard why do you ignore my question about the cleaving enzyme for the preproinsulins in humans and chimps?
With respects to kjkent1’s question, there is nothing big here. I’ll give you a quote from Dr Schneider to show why his question pertains to nothing big.Perhaps you need to use smaller words; I still do not see an answer there. Certainly, the program does not simulate everything, but as I see it that is irrelevant to the question. Unless you are suggesting that one of the things that exists in the real world but not in the simulation is a predefined functionality of a perfect creature.
There is a predefined functionality to the evolution of binding sites in ev. That predefined functionality is that an evolved binding site is beneficial to the creature (at least in the binding site region of the genome), however, a binding site in the nonbinding site region is detrimental. Now if one of you evolutionists would describe the selection process that would evolve the ancestral insulin gene from the beginning, that would show some functionality.
You are quite boring now kleinman.
I know. Thank you for keeping up interest in this thread with your cruft theory of evolution.
Although I thought the object of the thread was to annoy creationists, not the other way round?No, by "annoying creationists" I meant that they were annoying me. I never expected Kleinman to show up!
How could I pass up the opportunity to annoy evolutionists? This is going to be fun teaching Dr Richard about Dr Schneider’s mathematics of ev. I wonder how long it will take before he starts chanting “recombination, recombination”. He’s already chanted “insertions, deletions”. Dr Richard, you need to learn how to chant “selection process, selection process” because without a selection process, no mechanism for evolving or transforming a gene or genome can work.

[Taffer]

If you would read the thread carefully you would see that I addressed part of Taffer’s post. There are numerous differences between the human and chimpanzee gene, many in the non-coding regions but there are differences in the coding region for preproinsulin. Read the reference that I have given above. So why don’t you explain the selection process that would lead to these differences when at some time in the past, humans and chimpanzees had to have identical insulin genes.

I apologize, I cannot find where you responded to my post, can you point it out to me? :o

[kjkent1]

Why don’t you take me to court for slander you bigot?Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation. If you're intent on casting dispersions, you may as well know the correct legal jargon. The direct answer to your question is that I don't sue unless I'm sure I can win a substantial sum of money, and, at this moment, there simply aren't sufficient damages to make it worth my while. If and when the situation changes, then I'll let you know via a summons and complaint. Until then, you may continue your juvenile blather, unimpeded.

With respects to kjkent1’s question, there is nothing big here. I’ll give you a quote from Dr Schneider to show why his question pertains to nothing big.

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that. -- Schneider, Evolution of Biological Information, Nucleic Acids Res, 28(14): 2794-2799, 2000This is pretty funny. It's pretty clear to me that ev does not model all the essential components of evolution.

One in particular is that there is no model for that rare but important positive mutation, which sends a species off in an unexpected new direction. Without this feature in ev, it's little wonder that the software takes as long as it does to evolve.

On the other hand, exactly what does ev evolve? What is a perfect creature once it is perfect? What functionality does it display? How does it fit with its environment? Or more to the point, to what environment does the creature fit, since ev models no environment.

Yet for all of these things not modeled by ev, kleinman is certain that evolution is mathematically impossible, because ev works like real world evolution.

Not a very scientific conclusion.

[Mercutio]

On the other hand, exactly what does ev evolve? What is a perfect creature once it is perfect? What functionality does it display? How does it fit with its environment? Or more to the point, to what environment does the creature fit, since ev models no environment.

I know I asked Kleinman, not you, but this clears up a huge chunk of my misunderstanding....I think. I will wait to see if Kleinman has a different answer, but this implies that his previous "it's not that I am unable to answer this question" is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Ball is in your court, Kleinman; do you have a different explanation? I am, of course, willing to hear it.

[CapelDodger]

Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?

~~ Paul
I, amongst others, first dropped in expecting hints on strategy. Hey ho. Creationists cannot be stopped, and they do not evolve - which makes them doubly annoying.

[kleinman]

If you would read the thread carefully you would see that I addressed part of Taffer’s post. There are numerous differences between the human and chimpanzee gene, many in the non-coding regions but there are differences in the coding region for preproinsulin. Read the reference that I have given above. So why don’t you explain the selection process that would lead to these differences when at some time in the past, humans and chimpanzees had to have identical insulin genes.I apologize, I cannot find where you responded to my post, can you point it out to me?
It’s in the middle of the following post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2402063&postcount=2976
Why don’t you take me to court for slander you bigot?Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation. If you're intent on casting dispersions, you may as well know the correct legal jargon. The direct answer to your question is that I don't sue unless I'm sure I can win a substantial sum of money, and, at this moment, there simply aren't sufficient damages to make it worth my while. If and when the situation changes, then I'll let you know via a summons and complaint. Until then, you may continue your juvenile blather, unimpeded.
Since it is true that you posted that bigoted statement, it is neither slander nor libel. And once again you confirm your greed.
A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that. -- Schneider, Evolution of Biological Information, Nucleic Acids Res, 28(14): 2794-2799, 2000This is pretty funny. It's pretty clear to me that ev does not model all the essential components of evolution.

One in particular is that there is no model for that rare but important positive mutation, which sends a species off in an unexpected new direction. Without this feature in ev, it's little wonder that the software takes as long as it does to evolve.
You should tell Dr Schneider of your discovery.
On the other hand, exactly what does ev evolve? What is a perfect creature once it is perfect? What functionality does it display? How does it fit with its environment? Or more to the point, to what environment does the creature fit, since ev models no environment.
Look back to my answer your follow-up question. What does ev evolve? It evolves binding sites on one portion of a genome and prevents binding sites from appearing on the other portion of the genome. What is a perfect creature? It is a genome where all binding sites have been identified where they should be and there are no binding sites where they shouldn’t be. How does it fit with its environment? It fits with the two selection processes; that is the most fit creatures have binding sites where they should be and no binding sites where they shouldn’t be. What environment does the creature fit, since ev models no environment? Wrong, ev models the environment where the occurrence and location of binding sites determine the benefit or detriment to the reproduction of these creatures. Now why don’t you describe the environment and selection process that would evolve an insulin gene from the beginning? I think you will find the convergence of ev to be infinitely faster for the evolution of binding sites than the evolution of the insulin gene from the beginning since there is no selection process to do this.
Yet for all of these things not modeled by ev, kleinman is certain that evolution is mathematically impossible, because ev works like real world evolution.
Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process shows how slow the accumulation of information is when evolving binding sites. Consider the evolution of a real gene where there is no selection process to do this from the beginning, do you think such a simulation will converge more quickly than the evolution of binding sites? The lack of credible selection processes to evolve genes from the beginning and the effects of competing selection processes that would be seen in the real world would only slow the convergence of any more realistic version of ev. The simplest free living organisms have at least hundreds of genes. You would need hundreds of selection process acting simultaneously (none of which can be described) all competing to have their particular gene evolve, each interfering with the next selection process. As I suggested earlier in this thread to Paul, modify ev to evolve two different sets of binding sites at the same time on two different portions of the genome. The competition of evolving two different sets of binding sites as well as the errors in the non-binding site portion of the genome will require more generations for convergence than the present form of ev. Apply this concept to Unnamed’s selection process. Evolve two different sets of binding sites on the genome and ignore the non-binding site errors. Convergence will slow when compared with the present version of ev with Unnamed’s selection process. The theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. If there are evolutionists out there who think that other mutation mechanisms will overcome this mathematical impossibility, show us.
Not a very scientific conclusion.
Don’t confuse your lack of understanding of the mathematics of ev as my drawing an unscientific conclusion.
Ball is in your court, Kleinman; do you have a different explanation? I am, of course, willing to hear it.
You evolutionists haven’t figured out where the ball park is.
Hey, I resemble that remark! The basis of this entire thread is that creationists are annoying. That's still true, isn't it?I, amongst others, first dropped in expecting hints on strategy. Hey ho. Creationists cannot be stopped, and they do not evolve - which makes them doubly annoying.
Why should I evolve to embrace your mathematically impossible theory? It goes against the years of scientific training I’ve gone through. I would find that very annoying and after all, this thread is about annoying evolutionists.

[Taffer]

It’s in the middle of the following post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2402063&postcount=2976

Thank you.

The coding regions are not being conserved. You are getting two different preproinsulins coded for which then are cleaved to identical proteins. You better hope that the enzyme which cleaves these two preproinsulins are identical because if they are not, you will look like a pretzel trying to explain this.

Two different preproinsulins being cleaved to identical insulins doesn’t seem peculiar to you?

But, as I explained, from the information you have provided, the coding regions are conserved. Did you not read my post? All the variation you quoted is in non-coding regions of the gene! It is never transcribed into mRNA, it is never a protein, and those sequences are not cleaved by any enzymes. Simply put, you haven't provided evidence for any variation in any coding region of the insulin gene.

ETA: If you write your posts in Word, I suggest when you paste the post into the web interface you do not use the 'what you see is what you get' editor, because it uses the font from word (Times New Roman) and results in a lot of extra vB tags in your posts. If you use the other type of editor (which I forget the name of at the moment), then you should have the tags in your posts, and it will make them a lot easier to reply to. :)

[kjkent1]

Since it is true that you posted that bigoted statement, it is neither slander nor libel. And once again you confirm your greed.More juvenile blather devoid of credible evidence.

You should tell Dr Schneider of your discovery.Maybe I will.Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process shows how slow the accumulation of information is when evolving binding sites. Consider the evolution of a real gene where there is no selection process to do this from the beginning, do you think such a simulation will converge more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?In a word, “yes.” Ev provides detrimental selective weight to binding sites absent genetic control, and to binding sites with genetic control located outside the target binding site region. Ev fails to provide any substantial weight for the rare beneficial mutation, which in the real world provides a creature with an enormous advantage over its competitors, and which would allow that creature to pass its genes to a future generation, regardless of any other accumulated mistakes. The result is that the ev simulation never produces the sort of optimized creature which would be created by real-world evolution.The lack of credible selection processes to evolve genes from the beginning and the effects of competing selection processes that would be seen in the real world would only slow the convergence of any more realistic version of ev.You’ve just stated in this post that ev is realistic to the point of evolving something as simplistic as binding sites without benefit any external environmental stresses. Now you say that the selection process is incredible. Make up your mind. Either ev’s selection process works or it doesn’t. Which is it?The simplest free living organisms have at least hundreds of genes. You would need hundreds of selection process acting simultaneously (none of which can be described) all competing to have their particular gene evolve, each interfering with the next selection process.You keep talking like it’s self evident to conclude that genes in the real world would compete and ruin any possible evolutionary process. Based on your hypothesis: if you have a person with a mutation that causes his/her left pinky finger to have no nail, then that mutation will compete to the detriment of a mutation which causes the same person to have an extra pair of molars. Conclusion falsified. As I suggested earlier in this thread to Paul, modify ev to evolve two different sets of binding sites at the same time on two different portions of the genome. The competition of evolving two different sets of binding sites as well as the errors in the non-binding site portion of the genome will require more generations for convergence than the present form of ev.Depends on how you weight the mistakes. If you presume that both binding site regions are equally valuable to the creature’s survival, then maybe so. If you don’t, then, as I’ve pointed out in this post, in the real world, it could easily be the case that one very beneficial mutation may carry the creature’s genetic material to a future generation despite the existence of mistakes.Apply this concept to Unnamed’s selection process. Evolve two different sets of binding sites on the genome and ignore the non-binding site errors. Convergence will slow when compared with the present version of ev with Unnamed’s selection process.Same response -- depends on how you weight the errors. The theory of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible.Ah, more juvenile blather.If there are evolutionists out there who think that other mutation mechanisms will overcome this mathematical impossibility, show us.I just did.

Don’t confuse your lack of understanding of the mathematics of ev as my drawing an unscientific conclusion.Don’t confuse your religious zealotry with science.

The scientific probability of God is 10-infinity. Any naturalistic probability, no matter how minute, overwhelms the scientific likelihood that God "did it."

[kleinman]

The coding regions are not being conserved. You are getting two different preproinsulins coded for which then are cleaved to identical proteins. You better hope that the enzyme which cleaves these two preproinsulins are identical because if they are not, you will look like a pretzel trying to explain this.

Two different preproinsulins being cleaved to identical insulins doesn’t seem peculiar to you?But, as I explained, from the information you have provided, the coding regions are conserved. Did you not read my post? All the variation you quoted is in non-coding regions of the gene! It is never transcribed into mRNA, it is never a protein, and those sequences are not cleaved by any enzymes. Simply put, you haven't provided evidence for any variation in any coding region of the insulin gene.
The insulin molecule is derived from the A and B chain from the preproinsulin molecule. The A and B chain and the C-peptide may be identical in humans and chimpanzees but the signal sequence differs. The following quote is taken from the Sequences of Primate Insulin Genes Support the Hypothesis of a Slower Rate of Molecular Evolution in Humans and Apes than in Monkeys paper.
Chimpanzee preproinsulin (fig. 1A) differs from the human protein at two sites in the signal peptide: amino acids - 13 and -2 are Ala in the human protein.
The signal and C-peptide are cleaved from the preproinsulin to make the insulin molecule. If the differences in the signal sequence between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin causes differences in the conformation of the molecules of the two preproinsulins, different cleaving enzymes would be needed.
Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process shows how slow the accumulation of information is when evolving binding sites. Consider the evolution of a real gene where there is no selection process to do this from the beginning, do you think such a simulation will converge more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?In a word, “yes.” Ev provides detrimental selective weight to binding sites absent genetic control, and to binding sites with genetic control located outside the target binding site region. Ev fails to provide any substantial weight for the rare beneficial mutation, which in the real world provides a creature with an enormous advantage over its competitors, and which would allow that creature to pass its genes to a future generation, regardless of any other accumulated mistakes. The result is that the ev simulation never produces the sort of optimized creature which would be created by real-world evolution.
Why don’t you give us some examples of rare beneficial mutation which in the real world provides a creature with enormous advantage over its competitors?
The lack of credible selection processes to evolve genes from the beginning and the effects of competing selection processes that would be seen in the real world would only slow the convergence of any more realistic version of ev.You’ve just stated in this post that ev is realistic to the point of evolving something as simplistic as binding sites without benefit any external environmental stresses. Now you say that the selection process is incredible. Make up your mind. Either ev’s selection process works or it doesn’t. Which is it?
You are confused about the model. Dr Schneider’s selection process specifies that recognition of binding sites in the binding site region gives that creature selective advantage while recognition of binding sites in the non-binding site region is detrimental to the creature. This is a contrived concept but it shows how difficult it is to define any type of selection process to evolve anything in this model. Perhaps you can come up with a realistic selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning but I doubt it.
The simplest free living organisms have at least hundreds of genes. You would need hundreds of selection process acting simultaneously (none of which can be described) all competing to have their particular gene evolve, each interfering with the next selection process.You keep talking like it’s self evident to conclude that genes in the real world would compete and ruin any possible evolutionary process. Based on your hypothesis: if you have a person with a mutation that causes his/her left pinky finger to have no nail, then that mutation will compete to the detriment of a mutation which causes the same person to have an extra pair of molars. Conclusion falsified.
This analogy is as effective as your string cheese theory of evolution. If you don’t think that multiple selective processes will interfere with each other, put your concept in ev and show how multiple different binding sites will evolve simultaneously. But wait, with just two selection processes in ev (minimizing binding sites in the non-binding site region and maximizing binding sites in the binding site region) fails to converge when the genome is lengthened so the non-binding site errors dominate the selection process.
As I suggested earlier in this thread to Paul, modify ev to evolve two different sets of binding sites at the same time on two different portions of the genome. The competition of evolving two different sets of binding sites as well as the errors in the non-binding site portion of the genome will require more generations for convergence than the present form of ev.Depends on how you weight the mistakes. If you presume that both binding site regions are equally valuable to the creature’s survival, then maybe so. If you don’t, then, as I’ve pointed out in this post, in the real world, it could easily be the case that one very beneficial mutation may carry the creature’s genetic material to a future generation despite the existence of mistakes.
I can give you many examples of a single detrimental mutation that will kill a creature; would you give us some examples of very beneficial mutation, especially those mutations which carry the creature’s genetic material to future generations despite the existence of mistakes?

[Taffer]

The insulin molecule is derived from the A and B chain from the preproinsulin molecule. The A and B chain and the C-peptide may be identical in humans and chimpanzees but the signal sequence differs. The following quote is taken from the Sequences of Primate Insulin Genes Support the Hypothesis of a Slower Rate of Molecular Evolution in Humans and Apes than in Monkeys paper.

The signal and C-peptide are cleaved from the preproinsulin to make the insulin molecule. If the differences in the signal sequence between human and chimpanzee preproinsulin causes differences in the conformation of the molecules of the two preproinsulins, different cleaving enzymes would be needed.

I'm sorry, but you have not provided enough information for me to make a desicision. Could you provide a citation?

[Dr Adequate]

So, kleinman hasn't thought of any new lies. Or any new straw men. Or any new magic words: I notice that he's still apparently trying to abolish reality by reciting the words "string cheese".

This is dull.

Someone poke him with a stick and see if he does anything interesting.

[kjkent1]

Why don’t you give us some examples of rare beneficial mutation which in the real world provides a creature with enormous advantage over its competitors?Sure. A certain portion of the human population has inherited a tolerance to lactose which bears a remarkable relationship to that same population's ability to control the most livable areas of the planet. Human populations without the mutation have largely been relegated to third world status -- with the notable exception of the Chinese, who seem to have spent a great deal of the last 4000 years since the mutation appeared, trying to survive in their preexisting environment, but never venturing very far from it.

The ability to digest milk products gave the Western Europeans a ready source of transportable protein, not available to their competitors, and this huge advantage made them more formidable warriors.

You are confused about the model. Dr Schneider’s selection process specifies that recognition of binding sites in the binding site region gives that creature selective advantage while recognition of binding sites in the non-binding site region is detrimental to the creature.Sorry, but you're the one who's confused. The program has two types of mistakes: absence of genetic control within the binding site region, and spurious bindings outside the binding site region. Both mistakes are detrimental (Paul's Java program shows an additional variable for a "spurious binding site" inside the binding site region -- something which is not described in the ev paper, at all, so I don't really know what this does). And, my point is still valid: the program evaluates mistakes to determine if they help satisfy the requirement for an L base length to be recognized (beneficial), whether the mistake represents an absence of control (detrimental), or a binding outside the binding site region (detrimental). Thus, the program in its default mode is weighted 2 to 1 in favor of detrimental mistakes -- nothing in the program provides the sort of positive weight which is exhibited by a mutation which grants its host a significant advantage over its competitors. So it is no surprise that the program does not evolve as fast you allege is necessary.This is a contrived concept but it shows how difficult it is to define any type of selection process to evolve anything in this model. Perhaps you can come up with a realistic selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning but I doubt it.The answer to this is obvious. Given a binding site region which is capable of accumulating a random genetic sequence of indeterminate length, and given a reasonable percentage of organically viable sequences, a gene with some functionality will arise ab initio by random chance. Your problem is that you can't accept the reality that there are a much larger number of potentially viable genetic sequences than your scientifically unsupported 1 in 4G calculation provides. But, that's your problem.This analogy is as effective as your string cheese theory of evolution. If you don’t think that multiple selective processes will interfere with each other, put your concept in ev and show how multiple different binding sites will evolve simultaneously.The only thing wrong with my analogy is that it demonstrates your inability to admit that your logic is flawed. Explain to me how a mutation for no nail in a pinky finger would slow evolution by competing with a mutation for an extra pair of molars. If you can't, then I've falsified your hypothesis. Period. But wait, with just two selection processes in ev (minimizing binding sites in the non-binding site region and maximizing binding sites in the binding site region) fails to converge when the genome is lengthened so the non-binding site errors dominate the selection process.There aren't two selection processes going on in ev. The program unreasonably weights spurious bindings occurring in a non-binding site region as detrimental to the binding site region, and this fact causes a two to one weight in favor of detrimental mutations. There is no basis for this behavior in reality. Moreover, in a model with two binding site regions, with beneficial, neutral and detrimental effects given equal weight, the number of different outcomes would increase, but the ratio of good to bad outcomes would be unchanged.I can give you many examples of a single detrimental mutation that will kill a creature; would you give us some examples of very beneficial mutation, especially those mutations which carry the creature’s genetic material to future generations despite the existence of mistakes?The entire genome of every living creature is a record of the success of its beneficial mutations. After all, you yourself have said that the only way for this genetic material to form is via point mutation. I don't happen to share this view, but as you do, I'll freely use your own argument against you. So, while a creature may carry some bad mutations, as long as it continues to increase its population in its environment, then the benefits outweigh the detriments.

[Dr Richard]

Obviously Dr Richard has not read this thread and has no understanding of Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, this computer simulation shows that the rate of information gain by random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that nothing can evolve by this mechanism in the time available (the age of the universe). Numerous evolutionists have argued that other mechanisms of mutations (including you) would somehow accelerate this process but without a selection mechanism, none of these mechanisms would work. So read through the thread but you have to wade through a lot of whimpering and crying on the part of evolutionists.

Too many misconceptions to even attempt to correct, I will stick with the ones you have displayed already.


Get the following reference: Sequences of Primate Insulin Genes Support the Hypothesis of a Slower Rate of Molecular Evolution in Humans and Apes than in Monkeys[/FONT][/SIZE]

I have this reference.

I also have http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=299308&pageindex=3#page

which gives the amino acid sequences of human and chimp insulin.

Care to read it?

Then come back and tell us what the difference in aa sequence between human and chimp preproinsulin is.


I don’t know what the structures are for the enzymes that cleave the preproinsulin for humans and chimps but if there are differences between the two cleaving enzymes, you would have to explain how two different genes transformed simultaneously (the insulin gene and the gene which codes for the cleaving enzyme). Perhaps the same cleaving enzyme works for both human and chimpanzee preproinsulin.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I suggest you research matters somewhat more thoroughly before spouting mindless speculation.

Dr Richard why do you ignore my question about the cleaving enzyme for the preproinsulins in humans and chimps?

I was trying to avoid you further embarrassment. Deal with the aa difference between human and chimp preproinsulin first.


How could I pass up the opportunity to annoy evolutionists? This is going to be fun teaching Dr Richard about Dr Schneider’s mathematics of ev. I wonder how long it will take before he starts chanting “recombination, recombination”. He’s already chanted “insertions, deletions”. Dr Richard, you need to learn how to chant “selection process, selection process” because without a selection process, no mechanism for evolving or transforming a gene or genome can work.

Your depth of ignorance when it comes to molecular biology is stunning. Is it really true that you are medicaly qualified?

Insertions/deletions are so common that researchers in the field have started refering to "indels" and lumping the two together. The fact that you were unaware of these mechanisms of genetic mutation until they were pointed out to you is stunning for someone attempting to conduct a debate on this matter.

The fact that you still ignore them when attempting to claim that ev disproves evolution is equally stunning.

[Taffer]

I have this reference.

I also have http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=299308&pageindex=3#page

Thank you, Dr R.

Now, kleinman, I have read this page. Have you? There are two amino acid differences between chimp and human sequences. To claim that a second protease is required for cleavage, you have to demonstrate a number of things:

1) That the 'signal peptide' is, in fact, translated into a protein to begin with. It is quite a common practice to compare protein sequences even if the proteins are never made. It is popular with biochemists because it shortens the sequence you are looking at.

2) If the protein is produced, you have to show that the enzyme which cleaves the protein is site-specific, how site-specific it is, and what sequence it is specific to.

3) If the enzyme is site specific, and you have produced its specific sequence, you then have to show that the alternative amino acids disrupt the binding of the enzyme. Remember, some amino acids are similar in form, and are occasionally interchangable with little ill effect to the overall protein.

If you can show any of these things, with your citations, then we have something to discuss. Until then, you are just making blind assertions.

[Dr Richard]

Thank you, Dr R.

Now, kleinman, I have read this page. Have you? There are two amino acid differences between chimp and human sequences. To claim that a second protease is required for cleavage, you have to demonstrate a number of things:

1) That the 'signal peptide' is, in fact, translated into a protein to begin with. It is quite a common practice to compare protein sequences even if the proteins are never made. It is popular with biochemists because it shortens the sequence you are looking at.

2) If the protein is produced, you have to show that the enzyme which cleaves the protein is site-specific, how site-specific it is, and what sequence it is specific to.

3) If the enzyme is site specific, and you have produced its specific sequence, you then have to show that the alternative amino acids disrupt the binding of the enzyme. Remember, some amino acids are similar in form, and are occasionally interchangable with little ill effect to the overall protein.

If you can show any of these things, with your citations, then we have something to discuss. Until then, you are just making blind assertions.


Awww, Taffer, you spoiled my fun. I wanted to see if Kleinman could actually read a scientific paper.

IIRC the signal peptide is transplated but cleaved almost immediately to make proinsulin from preproinsulin. The wikipaedia entry on signal peptides may help our friend to understand what it means.

I will let him find out for himself how "specific" the endosome mediated cleavage of the insulin peptide is. (Hint: dog microsomes can cleave fish preproinsulin and the aa sequences are more divergent than human/chimp)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

On the other hand, exactly what does ev evolve? What is a perfect creature once it is perfect? What functionality does it display? How does it fit with its environment? Or more to the point, to what environment does the creature fit, since ev models no environment.
Well, sure it does. It models an environment that prefers better binding site matching over worse binding site matching. What is the "environment" other than an external mechanism that applies pressures to the organisms?

Evolution is a process of transmuting information in the environment into information in the genome.

~~ Paul

[Taffer]

Awww, Taffer, you spoiled my fun. I wanted to see if Kleinman could actually read a scientific paper.

Oops, my bad. :o

IIRC the signal peptide is transplated but cleaved almost immediately to make proinsulin from preproinsulin. The wikipaedia entry on signal peptides may help our friend to understand what it means.

We can live in hope. ;)

I will let him find out for himself how "specific" the endosome mediated cleavage of the insulin peptide is. (Hint: dog microsomes can cleave fish preproinsulin and the aa sequences are more divergent than human/chimp)

I confess I haven't dealt with the insulin proteins before (I'm in Genetics, rather then Biochemistry). You don't have a good source off hand that I could learn a bit more about preproinsulin protein splicing?